How much difference would there be between Satan's plan, and the insular Mormon experience?
The "stay in the boat" mindset seems to be what is described in the parable of the talents where the foolish servant sought to avoid risk at all costs, thereby failing to increase what they had been given.
To add to the above, if I had any reason to believe the LDS version of God actually exists and created this universe, and they indeed were in the business of human exaltation with mortality being a trial, I would say the odds were greater that staying with the church would be failing the test. If the purpose of mortality is to learn to come to know god, to feel what God feels and think as God thinks, being able to take moral stands based on individual judgement in the face of orthodoxy and pressure to conform seem like the sorts of tests an omniscient being with interest in individual growth might actually present to the so called "elect". Trouble being, there's all that other evidence such a being doesn't exist so that leaves it more of a test of personal ethical judgement in an uncertain and indifferent universe where passing or failing it is important enough here and now, but has zero meaning in the grand scheme of things. in my opinion, of course.
You could argue that insular Mormons must deal with "temptations of flesh" but aside from that, everything is a repeat of the pre-existence. You're born into the absolute truth and the only goal is to do exactly as you are told by authority. Some big test eh?
"if you can't admire Joe Biden as a person then it's probably, you got a problem." -- Lindsey Graham
You could argue that insular Mormons must deal with "temptations of flesh" but aside from that, everything is a repeat of the pre-existence. You're born into the absolute truth and the only goal is to do exactly as you are told by authority. Some big test eh?
Add to that:
the assumption that the authorities ("the very elect") are a worthy guide, so it's OK to do as they say
knowing the scriptural warning that the very elect will be led astray
having no reliable way to determine if the current ones have gone astray - some members are told 'no', and some 'yes' when they ask god
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
That’s a gotcha question. Jesus himself commanded/asked those that were witnesses to miracles and gifts of the Spirit to ‘tell no man’ and go on their way. Gifts of the Spirit are, as I’ve said, promised to the pure in heart that have broken hearts and contrite spirits.
The Savior also said that we should not seek for signs.
President Kimball is rather well known for emphasizing that ‘faith precedes the miracle’. Matthew 7:6-12 should also be kept in mind.
That’s all I have to say on that.
Except to say that Gifts of the Spirit are not unique to members of the LDS Church. God loves ALL His children.
Regards,
MG
It’s not at all a gotcha. My concern is only about your charge of arrogance. If there’s no evidence of the possession of spiritual gifts, then it can’t be borderline arrogance for me to question their existence.
And drumdude’s suggestion that ex-Mormons might possess a gift of expanded reason isn’t any more arrogant than you claiming a whole host of hidden spiritual gifts (healing, knowledge, wisdom, prophecy, miracle working, gift of tongues) for those aligned with your beliefs.
What do you think?
The late Pat Holland apparently had it.
Sister Holland told her husband that she felt she needed to speak about tithing. Elder Holland replied: “We don’t know the vocabulary for tithing. I don’t know how you can do that.” To which Sister Holland replied, “Well, I don’t know how I can do it either. But that’s what I think I’m supposed to do.” And for the next 20 minutes, she gave a sermon on the law of tithing in flawless Spanish. “I’ve never seen that before in my life, where she did not know the language and didn’t know the vocabulary and didn’t know the verb tense — but stood up and gave that sermon,” Elder Holland said.
“Adam Ford” wrote: To say that David Whitmer "always reaffirmed [his] testimony of the plates, the angel, and the affirming voice of God" as Prof. Petersen does here is bearing false witness. I felt betrayed when I read for myself Whitmer's "Address to All Believers in Christ", from which his testimony is deceptively taken by LDS writers out of context. David Whitmer also plainly said, in the same address:
“If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to ‘separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so should it be done unto them.’ In the spring of 1838, the heads of the church and many of the members had gone deep into error and blindness.” Whitmer goes on and on in the Address about all of Joseph's deceptions and failures and departures from the righteous path.
The LDS church/Prof. Petersen (and so many others) ask people to trust and believe David Whitmer’s testimony that an angel showed him the Book of Mormon gold plates, and that God’s voice told him the translation of the book was true. At the same time, the LDS church/Petersen (and so many others) deny David Whitmer’s subsequent angelic visitations as well as his eyewitness, evidence-laden testimony regarding Joseph Smith and the false revelations, altered revelations, and pretended revelations that led the Latter-day Saints “deep into error and blindness.”
This kind of deception by omission, pretending that Whitmer supported and believed in Joseph Smith ("never denying" his testimony), really bothered me when I learned the truth. If actual scholars tried to mislead their readers by selectively quoting a source like orthodox LDS do so often with Whitmer, they would be rightfully called out in peer review and forced to clean up the deception. This is a good example of why you can't trust anything true believers say--the ends justify the means for them. A little deception about Whitmer is fine if it bolsters the testimony of the current generation. So they deceive and deceive and deceive. And get all indignant when called out on the deception. "We aren't outright LYING!" they say with technical accuracy. But they are certainly bearing a false witness by knowingly deceiving their readers about Whitmer's testimony and his remaining "faithful".
“Dan P” wrote: It's been a long time since I've heard from you, Mr. Ford, but your bitter and accusatory tone hasn't changed. Disagreement with you cannot be honest or sincere; it must be the result of poor character and moral corruption.
AF:. "To say that David Whitmer "always reaffirmed [his] testimony of the plates, the angel, and the affirming voice of God" as Prof. Petersen [sic] does here is bearing false witness."
It is completely accurate.
AF:. "you can't trust anything true believers say . . . they deceive and deceive and deceive."
What a peach of a fellow you've become!
AF:. "But they are certainly bearing a false witness by knowingly deceiving their readers about Whitmer's testimony and his remaining "faithful"."
I've never tried to hide the fact that David Whitmer left the Church and rejected Joseph Smith's prophetic status beyond a certain very early point. (Quite the contrary.) Moreover, here and elsewhere I've recommended Richard Lloyd Anderson's Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses more times than I can begin to count, and it includes a discussion of David Whitmer's departure from and continued rejection of the Church.
“Please stop bothering me, you sad pathetic critic, and read the rationalization that handwaves this very difficult problem away.”
