Another Anti-Mormon Who Just Doesn't Get It

[_Scottie]

The Holy Ghost works in various ways...

The crux of the argument here.

Any way that even slightly resembles a good feeling, or clarity of thought or [insert buzzword here] could be from one of the numerous variety of ways the HG communicates with us.

[_wenglund]

So a thought clearly forms in my mind while I am praying, and you assert that means I shifted from relying on God to relying on myself.

That comes as news to me. Here I thought I reasonably derived that conclusion in part from your saying " you already know the answer. And I did" and also in part from the fact that you no longer believe in God.

Was I wrong? Do you believe your answer came from God and not from yourself?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

Understandably, in your state of significantly diminished faith, you are confusing the "Holy Ghost" (the means by which we may know the truth of ALL THINGS) with "asking God in prayer". The Holy Ghost works in various ways, whether ostensively through direct answers to prayers (Moroni 10), or experiencially when people comply with the principles and ordinaces and commandments of the gospel (Alma 32).

For heaven’s sake, Wade. Moroni’s promise is clearly about asking God directly in prayer. That is the context in which the HG conveys the truth of all things.

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

I’m not contesting that Alma gives another path to know truth. I am contesting your unnatural insistence to limit the process described in Moroni to the BEGINNING.

In fact, the talk I quoted from Elder Cook directly contradicts this assertion of yours.

Thus, while a first-time reader and ponderer may receive the needed confirmation of the book’s divine origin, members who long ago passed that milestone may have other new truths added to their spiritual store as they search the scriptures and follow the process described in Moroni 10:3–5 [Moro. 10:3–5]. The promise is extended to confirming “the truth of all things” (emphasis added); there is no restriction on the amount of truth we may receive through this process.

This fallaciously assumes that people will invariably draw the same rational conclusion and not change their minds about the conclusion. Your own personal story negates that fallacious assumption.

Then clearly there is not irrefutable tactic connection between the two.

I don't doubt in the least your sincerity. What I question is whether you correctly understood the process of growth, and correctly used the process of growth. I believe you were mistaken on both accounts, and as such failed to recognize the Alma 32 confirmations from God. Again, it isn't revelation that is unreliable, but people unreliably using it. Those who actually correctly get the nature of revelation, and who have properly used it in their growth in faith, find it to be quite reliable.

It doesn’t matter on which side the unreliability occurs. If human beings are too flawed to use revelation in a reliable manner, than revelation is an unreliable method of communication.

[_Scottie]

Wade, being certain does not equate to being right.

Just because you believe you are using it correctly doesn't make it so.

[_beastie]

That comes as news to me. Here I thought I reasonably derived that conclusion in part from your saying " you already know the answer. And I did" and also in part from the fact that you no longer believe in God.

Was I wrong? Do you believe your answer came from God and not from yourself?

At the time, I believed the answer came from God.

I'm an atheist now, so I don't believe any of it comes from God.

My comments about revelation on this thread, however, are placed in the context of a God existing. If a God exists, the thought came from God. It came in clear and direct response to a prayer. That's how Mormons and others usually think prayer works.

So, if you are correct, and there is a God who answers our prayers, the thought came from God.

[_wenglund]

The crux of the argument here.

Any way that even slightly resembles a good feeling, or clarity of thought or [insert buzzword here] could be from one of the numerous variety of ways the HG communicates with us.

i won't quibble over the word "any", but isn't the real crux of the argument the point that apparently, for the most part, the people who deem revelation to be unreliable, are those who are greatly struggling with faith or who have lost faith? And, if so, is that just a coincidence?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Wade, being certain does not equate to being right.

Just because you believe you are using it correctly doesn't make it so.

Were I to have suggested otherwise, then you may have a point. I didn't, and so you don't. Sorry.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

i won't quibble over the word "any", but isn't the real crux of the argument the point that apparently, for the most part, the people who deem revelation to be unreliable, are those who are greatly struggling with faith or who have lost faith? And, if so, is that just a coincidence?

Obviously it's not a coincidence. But I suspect you're confusing cause and effect.

The foundation of the LDS church is reliable revelation.

If people begin to conclude that revelation is not reliable, then that conclusion can cause a loss of faith in the LDS church.

[_harmony]

i won't quibble over the word "any", but isn't the real crux of the argument the point that apparently, for the most part, the people who deem revelation to be unreliable, are those who are greatly struggling with faith or who have lost faith? And, if so, is that just a coincidence?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Or perhaps those who trust only their own revelations.

[_beastie]

I kind of feel this conversation is over. Wade has admitted revelation is unreliable - he just faults the human side of the equation. When evaluating the reliability of revelation - or any other process - it's irrelevant on which side the breakdown occurs. To deem that it is an unreliable method, one must only determine that a breakdown occurs.