The question was put:
"Does God Answer Prayers of a non-spiritual nature?"
To which I responded:
From my standpoint, God certainly has answered many of my prayers which were not "spiritual" in the traditional sense of the word. So I answer "Yes".
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Reaction To Disagreements Over The Bible's Alleged Condemnation Of Homosexuality
The comment was made:
"An interesting response to Newsweek's recent attempt to justify homosexuality and homosexual behavior from the Bible, interestingly co-written, it would seem, by Joseph Bottum of First Things, John Mark Reynolds of the evangelical Biola University, and Elder Bruce D. Porter of the First Quorum of the Seventy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith...ality_in_b.html"
To which one person responded by citing approvingly to a quote from the article, as follows:
"Jesus loves us enough not to let us do whatever we want. Every generation attacks biblical ethics in some new way, but the Bible endures. Hypocrites pretend they have no sin. Hedonists pretend their sins are good. Honest people repent."
To which I responded:
Zealots pretend there is no reasonable dispute concerning their interpretation of scripture. Puritans think just about anything pleasurable is sin.
It is a good thing to be willing to repent of wrongdoing. But first it must be established that something is wrong. Those who subscribe to divine command theory think that the rightness and wrongness of things are determined by whatever God happens to pronounce. I do not subscribe to that theory. I believe that God's commandments to us are generally only given to codify what independently exists as right and wrong. Therefore, I believe that right and wrong can generally be deduced by logic and reason. The scriptures function to clue us in to the issues; they are not inerrant pronouncements of God's commandments. I claim the privilege to reject any scripture which in my good faith view does not hold up to logic and reason. The scriptures were written by people who had their own prejudices and misunderstandings and circumstances, and those prejudices in my view often tainted the revelations from God.
Honest people repent. But does that mean that every perceived sin that we "repent" of is actually a sin? What of the LDS investigator who "repents" and confesses to his minister that he has been talking with the missionaries, and commits to no longer talk with them or read the BoM ever again? Do we applaud that person for "repenting?" What about a catholic priest who breaks his vow and gets married because he can't stand the loneliness of being single, and is then later convinced, after his wife dies, that he should "repent" of having married and re-join the ministry?
The point of all this is that the starting point for morality is that everything is permitted, unless there exists a justification for prohibitting it. We need not reject a practice as sinful just because someone wishes to do it because it makes them feel good. Granted, there are a great many things which are legitimately regarded as sinful: murder, sexual assault, harmful drugs used without medical justification, slavery, spousal abuse, white collar crime, etc. But in each of those instances, there is an identifiable objective harm.
In the case of gay people, no one has demonstrated to me any inherrent, objective harm associated with responsibly-conducted, consensual gay activity. As such, I have an extremely difficult time concluding that God would outlaw homosexual behavior or declare it sinful in and of itself.
"An interesting response to Newsweek's recent attempt to justify homosexuality and homosexual behavior from the Bible, interestingly co-written, it would seem, by Joseph Bottum of First Things, John Mark Reynolds of the evangelical Biola University, and Elder Bruce D. Porter of the First Quorum of the Seventy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith...ality_in_b.html"
To which one person responded by citing approvingly to a quote from the article, as follows:
"Jesus loves us enough not to let us do whatever we want. Every generation attacks biblical ethics in some new way, but the Bible endures. Hypocrites pretend they have no sin. Hedonists pretend their sins are good. Honest people repent."
To which I responded:
Zealots pretend there is no reasonable dispute concerning their interpretation of scripture. Puritans think just about anything pleasurable is sin.
It is a good thing to be willing to repent of wrongdoing. But first it must be established that something is wrong. Those who subscribe to divine command theory think that the rightness and wrongness of things are determined by whatever God happens to pronounce. I do not subscribe to that theory. I believe that God's commandments to us are generally only given to codify what independently exists as right and wrong. Therefore, I believe that right and wrong can generally be deduced by logic and reason. The scriptures function to clue us in to the issues; they are not inerrant pronouncements of God's commandments. I claim the privilege to reject any scripture which in my good faith view does not hold up to logic and reason. The scriptures were written by people who had their own prejudices and misunderstandings and circumstances, and those prejudices in my view often tainted the revelations from God.
Honest people repent. But does that mean that every perceived sin that we "repent" of is actually a sin? What of the LDS investigator who "repents" and confesses to his minister that he has been talking with the missionaries, and commits to no longer talk with them or read the BoM ever again? Do we applaud that person for "repenting?" What about a catholic priest who breaks his vow and gets married because he can't stand the loneliness of being single, and is then later convinced, after his wife dies, that he should "repent" of having married and re-join the ministry?
The point of all this is that the starting point for morality is that everything is permitted, unless there exists a justification for prohibitting it. We need not reject a practice as sinful just because someone wishes to do it because it makes them feel good. Granted, there are a great many things which are legitimately regarded as sinful: murder, sexual assault, harmful drugs used without medical justification, slavery, spousal abuse, white collar crime, etc. But in each of those instances, there is an identifiable objective harm.
In the case of gay people, no one has demonstrated to me any inherrent, objective harm associated with responsibly-conducted, consensual gay activity. As such, I have an extremely difficult time concluding that God would outlaw homosexual behavior or declare it sinful in and of itself.
Claims Of Knowledge In LDS Testimony Meetings
The question was put:
"In testimony meetings, we often say, "I know that such and such is true." But do we really?
Ether 3
19 And because of the knowledge of this man he could not be kept from beholding within the veil; and he saw the finger of Jesus, which, when he saw, he fell with fear; for he knew that it was the finger of the Lord; and he had faith no longer, for he knew, nothing doubting.
I've never seen Christ. Wouldn't it be more accurate to use the word "believe" rather than "know"?"
To which I responded:
Common definitions of "know" include:
verb (used with object) 1. to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty: I know the situation fully.
2. to have established or fixed in the mind or memory: to know a poem by heart; Do you know the way to the park from here?
3. to be cognizant or aware of: I know it.
4. be acquainted with (a thing, place, person, etc.), as by sight, experience, or report: to know the mayor.
5. to understand from experience or attainment (usually fol. by how before an infinitive): to know how to make gingerbread.
6. to be able to distinguish, as one from another: to know right from wrong.
7. Archaic. to have sexual intercourse with.
â??verb (used without object) 8. to have knowledge or clear and certain perception, as of fact or truth.
9. to be cognizant or aware, as of some fact, circumstance, or occurrence; have information, as about something.
â??noun 10. the fact or state of knowing; knowledge.
â??Idioms11. in the know, possessing inside, secret, or special information.
12. know the ropes, Informal. to understand or be familiar with the particulars of a subject or business: He knew the ropes better than anyone else in politics.
I suppose you could break down the word "know" into two basic elements. One element consists of the criteria an individual uses to decide whether to accept something as being certain. The second element is a sort of declaration that the world at large must accept that thing as certain because of the individual's criteria being satisfied. The weight to be given to any claim of knowledge must be based upon the strength of the criteria used by the declarant in arriving at his or her conclusion.
In the LDS faith, as well as in many others, subjective spiritual experience is typically the primary criterium which people rely upon. There is often a deep mistrust of logic and science which are often dismissed as "the philosophies of men." One need only listen to the varying testimonies of people claiming to have revealed truth to see that it is extremely unlikely that spiritual experience is a reliable method for learning the truth. Recently, I was watching a special on National Geographic about Jerusalem's holy sites and the religions which consider them holy and significant. I was struck by the testimony of a muslim woman who stated that when she entered a particular mosk, she felt the presence of God all around her, implying that such an experience was confirmation that Islam was true. It sounded almost identical to LDS accounts of entering an LDS temple.
If we are ever to get past the "well only my spiritual experiences are genuine" stage of argument, it seems to me we have little choice but to engage in real debate and philosophy based upon science and empirical data. "I know the church is true," while it may be a comforting statement to some, offers little help in a critical analysis.
Faith still must play a role. But we must not become so obsessed with having the absolute answer to all things of a spiritual nature that we start to ignore the things which tend to contradict or undermine the beliefs we have.
My personal opinion (which I have admitting that I do not actually know myself) is that most or all of the people who say in church that they "know" such and such really don't know it, but rather have faith in it, combined with subjective spiritual experience which they have interpreted to be a confirming witness.
"In testimony meetings, we often say, "I know that such and such is true." But do we really?
Ether 3
19 And because of the knowledge of this man he could not be kept from beholding within the veil; and he saw the finger of Jesus, which, when he saw, he fell with fear; for he knew that it was the finger of the Lord; and he had faith no longer, for he knew, nothing doubting.
I've never seen Christ. Wouldn't it be more accurate to use the word "believe" rather than "know"?"
To which I responded:
Common definitions of "know" include:
verb (used with object) 1. to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty: I know the situation fully.
2. to have established or fixed in the mind or memory: to know a poem by heart; Do you know the way to the park from here?
3. to be cognizant or aware of: I know it.
4. be acquainted with (a thing, place, person, etc.), as by sight, experience, or report: to know the mayor.
5. to understand from experience or attainment (usually fol. by how before an infinitive): to know how to make gingerbread.
6. to be able to distinguish, as one from another: to know right from wrong.
7. Archaic. to have sexual intercourse with.
â??verb (used without object) 8. to have knowledge or clear and certain perception, as of fact or truth.
9. to be cognizant or aware, as of some fact, circumstance, or occurrence; have information, as about something.
â??noun 10. the fact or state of knowing; knowledge.
â??Idioms11. in the know, possessing inside, secret, or special information.
12. know the ropes, Informal. to understand or be familiar with the particulars of a subject or business: He knew the ropes better than anyone else in politics.
I suppose you could break down the word "know" into two basic elements. One element consists of the criteria an individual uses to decide whether to accept something as being certain. The second element is a sort of declaration that the world at large must accept that thing as certain because of the individual's criteria being satisfied. The weight to be given to any claim of knowledge must be based upon the strength of the criteria used by the declarant in arriving at his or her conclusion.
In the LDS faith, as well as in many others, subjective spiritual experience is typically the primary criterium which people rely upon. There is often a deep mistrust of logic and science which are often dismissed as "the philosophies of men." One need only listen to the varying testimonies of people claiming to have revealed truth to see that it is extremely unlikely that spiritual experience is a reliable method for learning the truth. Recently, I was watching a special on National Geographic about Jerusalem's holy sites and the religions which consider them holy and significant. I was struck by the testimony of a muslim woman who stated that when she entered a particular mosk, she felt the presence of God all around her, implying that such an experience was confirmation that Islam was true. It sounded almost identical to LDS accounts of entering an LDS temple.
If we are ever to get past the "well only my spiritual experiences are genuine" stage of argument, it seems to me we have little choice but to engage in real debate and philosophy based upon science and empirical data. "I know the church is true," while it may be a comforting statement to some, offers little help in a critical analysis.
Faith still must play a role. But we must not become so obsessed with having the absolute answer to all things of a spiritual nature that we start to ignore the things which tend to contradict or undermine the beliefs we have.
My personal opinion (which I have admitting that I do not actually know myself) is that most or all of the people who say in church that they "know" such and such really don't know it, but rather have faith in it, combined with subjective spiritual experience which they have interpreted to be a confirming witness.
How To Pass A Prophet Even If You Weren't Really One
The question was put:
"We all know there are false religions, fake or self decieved prophets, gurus etc.
Suppose we ask "what is the best method that a would-be guru or prophet should use for getting people to believe in them or their religion?".
I have a very strong suspicion that telling people to ask God and wait for a confirmation from God is the best approach assuming you can present this option to enough people. Tell them they may need to try more than once and that a special faithful state of mind needs to be sought out.
Some percent, maybe a small percent, will think they have gotten a positive answer and then they will be in it for life. Once they are in, they will teach their children and from there, with a little luck and a couple generations, a new religion.
I predict, more will try it in the future either dishonestly and deceptively or sincerely but self-deceptively. A similar tactic is to ask the person to follow their heart or to look within for something beyond ordinary words etc, or give faith a chance, take a leap (anything but employ normal skeptical thinking).
Your take?"
To which I responded:
I can think of four main ingredients one would need: Charisma, credibility, cleverness, and uniqueness. You should be likeable as a person, have a credible story (i.e., asking people to pray about it themselves helps to come across as credible), be smart at concealing or making up the truth, and have something that sets you apart from all the other truth-claimers.
"We all know there are false religions, fake or self decieved prophets, gurus etc.
Suppose we ask "what is the best method that a would-be guru or prophet should use for getting people to believe in them or their religion?".
I have a very strong suspicion that telling people to ask God and wait for a confirmation from God is the best approach assuming you can present this option to enough people. Tell them they may need to try more than once and that a special faithful state of mind needs to be sought out.
Some percent, maybe a small percent, will think they have gotten a positive answer and then they will be in it for life. Once they are in, they will teach their children and from there, with a little luck and a couple generations, a new religion.
I predict, more will try it in the future either dishonestly and deceptively or sincerely but self-deceptively. A similar tactic is to ask the person to follow their heart or to look within for something beyond ordinary words etc, or give faith a chance, take a leap (anything but employ normal skeptical thinking).
Your take?"
To which I responded:
I can think of four main ingredients one would need: Charisma, credibility, cleverness, and uniqueness. You should be likeable as a person, have a credible story (i.e., asking people to pray about it themselves helps to come across as credible), be smart at concealing or making up the truth, and have something that sets you apart from all the other truth-claimers.
Marital Issues Between An LDS Spouse And A Spouse Who No Longer Believes
The question was put:
"I'd be interested in seeing everyone's thoughts on some questions about the possibility of making a marriage work when one of the spouses leaves the Church:
1. If the exmo intends to be honest about his/her opinions about the Church with the couple's children (but won't oppose the children attending Church, etc) would/should the Mormon accept that?
2. What if any compromises should the Mormon make (tithing, Sunday activities, etc)?
3. What compromises should the Exmo be willing to make about his/her beliefs or actions?
4. Does the exmo's expressions of disbelief qualify the Mormon as affiliating with apostate individuals? and/or along those lines:
5. Should a Mormon stay with an exmo spouse who openly expresses his/her opinions about the Church to others?
6. Do any of you know about any official Church material on this topic? It would seem a subject that comes up often enough but I am not aware of any talk or article that has dealt with this issue."
To which I responded:
My general philosophy is that each spouse (apart from kid-related and alimony/child-support-related issues) is free to pursue the course of action which he or she believes is most likely to maximize their long-term happiness. If what prompts the desire to break off the relationship is infidelity, or a change in beliefs, or a change of character, or abuse, or lack of fulfillment, a spouse (with the caveats above) has every right to leave and pursue his or her own happiness. Sometimes this will even happen where there is no "fault". For my own self, I try to hold myself to a higher standard and endure somewhat more (than I would expect of someone else) when it comes to dealing with difficulties.
In the particular context you have, the complicating factor is of course the children. My own bias favors having the kids go to church without much opposition from the non-believing parent until they are old enough to digest the point of view of the non-believer. Kids are fragile, especially when they are young. I believe they are better off starting from a general position of faith and willingness to believe than demanding that everything be proven up front. That being said, a non-believing parent should not be pressured to go along pretending to have a belief to which they do not subscribe. Rather than just telling a 7-year-old, "I don't believe any of this and it's all a bunch of crap!", the better approach for a non-believing parent is to explain the different approaches of faith and empirical science, and to explain the reasons why people choose each approach. The non-believing parent should not try to interfere with the child's faith in diety, but as the child grows older, the non-believing parent has every right to tell the child the reasons why they are a non-believer and make sure the child understands that you will love them no less regardless of how they come out.
Just some off-the-top-of-my-head thoughts.
"I'd be interested in seeing everyone's thoughts on some questions about the possibility of making a marriage work when one of the spouses leaves the Church:
1. If the exmo intends to be honest about his/her opinions about the Church with the couple's children (but won't oppose the children attending Church, etc) would/should the Mormon accept that?
2. What if any compromises should the Mormon make (tithing, Sunday activities, etc)?
3. What compromises should the Exmo be willing to make about his/her beliefs or actions?
4. Does the exmo's expressions of disbelief qualify the Mormon as affiliating with apostate individuals? and/or along those lines:
5. Should a Mormon stay with an exmo spouse who openly expresses his/her opinions about the Church to others?
6. Do any of you know about any official Church material on this topic? It would seem a subject that comes up often enough but I am not aware of any talk or article that has dealt with this issue."
To which I responded:
My general philosophy is that each spouse (apart from kid-related and alimony/child-support-related issues) is free to pursue the course of action which he or she believes is most likely to maximize their long-term happiness. If what prompts the desire to break off the relationship is infidelity, or a change in beliefs, or a change of character, or abuse, or lack of fulfillment, a spouse (with the caveats above) has every right to leave and pursue his or her own happiness. Sometimes this will even happen where there is no "fault". For my own self, I try to hold myself to a higher standard and endure somewhat more (than I would expect of someone else) when it comes to dealing with difficulties.
In the particular context you have, the complicating factor is of course the children. My own bias favors having the kids go to church without much opposition from the non-believing parent until they are old enough to digest the point of view of the non-believer. Kids are fragile, especially when they are young. I believe they are better off starting from a general position of faith and willingness to believe than demanding that everything be proven up front. That being said, a non-believing parent should not be pressured to go along pretending to have a belief to which they do not subscribe. Rather than just telling a 7-year-old, "I don't believe any of this and it's all a bunch of crap!", the better approach for a non-believing parent is to explain the different approaches of faith and empirical science, and to explain the reasons why people choose each approach. The non-believing parent should not try to interfere with the child's faith in diety, but as the child grows older, the non-believing parent has every right to tell the child the reasons why they are a non-believer and make sure the child understands that you will love them no less regardless of how they come out.
Just some off-the-top-of-my-head thoughts.
Our Duty To Question Church Leadership
In response to someone's comment:
"it is our duty to question the leadership. We have a guideline for doing so. We are taught to "search, ponder and pray." We must question our leaders. We must not "trust" them. We must see possible error and research the subject ourselves, then we must consider the implications of the matter from an educated perspective then finally we approach God on the subject and obtain confirmation one way or the other regarding the subject.
Church leadership throughout the Bible shows the need to question their actions. The sons of Eli, Abraham and Hagar, Moses screwed up and made the Israelites wander longer than was needed, etc. etc.
To maintain a strong and "true" Church of God all memebrs must exercise their ability to verify the correctness of the application and practice of the Gospel as well as statements by its leadership."
The comment was made:
"God himself has promised through the Prophet Joseph Smith that this would be the last time the gospel would be restored until the Savior returns for his millennial reign. So the is no more apostasy to occur at an organizational level ie the church will remain in tact until the Lord returns. IF you believe in that God reveals his words through His servants the prophets and the aforesaid is true, they will not lead us astray therefore no need to question. There is also no harm in asking for confirmation on any true and correct event or principle. But to question because of possible error/falling away or ill conceived doctrine of our leadership, that is totally and unequivocally incorrect, in fact we are commanded not to do it, there is no need."
To which I responded:
Suppose one of those church leaders in the old testament claimed receiving a similar revelation from God (such as the one made by Wilford Woodruff). What then would have happened to the church? Bottom line: the validity of the statement depends upon the assumption that the one making it truly received that revelation from God. Mustn't we also verify that before we follow every subsequent instruction without question? If we do not question, we will fall into the category of members criticized by Brigham Young when he said something along the lines of that he was concerned that members would so unquestioningly follow the prophet that they might stop thinking for themselves and be led astray.
"it is our duty to question the leadership. We have a guideline for doing so. We are taught to "search, ponder and pray." We must question our leaders. We must not "trust" them. We must see possible error and research the subject ourselves, then we must consider the implications of the matter from an educated perspective then finally we approach God on the subject and obtain confirmation one way or the other regarding the subject.
Church leadership throughout the Bible shows the need to question their actions. The sons of Eli, Abraham and Hagar, Moses screwed up and made the Israelites wander longer than was needed, etc. etc.
To maintain a strong and "true" Church of God all memebrs must exercise their ability to verify the correctness of the application and practice of the Gospel as well as statements by its leadership."
The comment was made:
"God himself has promised through the Prophet Joseph Smith that this would be the last time the gospel would be restored until the Savior returns for his millennial reign. So the is no more apostasy to occur at an organizational level ie the church will remain in tact until the Lord returns. IF you believe in that God reveals his words through His servants the prophets and the aforesaid is true, they will not lead us astray therefore no need to question. There is also no harm in asking for confirmation on any true and correct event or principle. But to question because of possible error/falling away or ill conceived doctrine of our leadership, that is totally and unequivocally incorrect, in fact we are commanded not to do it, there is no need."
To which I responded:
Suppose one of those church leaders in the old testament claimed receiving a similar revelation from God (such as the one made by Wilford Woodruff). What then would have happened to the church? Bottom line: the validity of the statement depends upon the assumption that the one making it truly received that revelation from God. Mustn't we also verify that before we follow every subsequent instruction without question? If we do not question, we will fall into the category of members criticized by Brigham Young when he said something along the lines of that he was concerned that members would so unquestioningly follow the prophet that they might stop thinking for themselves and be led astray.
Is The Testimony Of An LDS Member More Valid Than The Conflicting Testimony Of Someone Else?
On this question, the comment was made:
"A few thoughts:
First, let's make sure we are comparing apples to apples. The nature of an LDS testimony (ostensibly based on receiving a spiritual witness from God) is, in my view, necessarily superior to subscribing to a belief system for lesser reasons (cultural/familial expectations, tradition, prooftexting, bibliolatry, etc.).
Second, I think LDSers are fairly unique in that they strive to base their testimony on personal revelation.
Third, I think LDSers are also fairly unique in that their testimonies include a belief in divine authority vested in a specific, visible, quantifiable earthly organization: The LDS Church.
I don't think we do. Not wholesale, anyway.
Please give some examples of Muslims professing faith in Islam because they have received a spiritual witness from God about the matter. IIRC, Daniel Peterson (a professor of Islamic Studies and occasional participant on this board) has said that the LDS paradigm of receiving a testimony is pretty much foreign to Islam and its adherents.
In other words, I think you are creating parallels where none exist. In the main, other religions don't exhort their members to read, ponder and pray about scripture, and then seek out confirmation from God. (In fact, we are regularly taken to task by some of our Protestant critics for doing this.
Kinda loosey-goosey here. Are you going to dismiss any answer you like as not rational?
No, we should not leave such important matters to chance.
Your handle ("LDS1973") suggests you are LDS. Is that right? If so, please explain your preferred method of developing faith."
To which I responded:
You raise some good points. But here's where I think the reliability of the LDS spiritual confirmation of LDS-ism falls apart: It appears to me that a great many people have taken the Moroni challenge, and sincerely studied and pondered and prayed to ask God about the truth of the BoM and the LDS church. And very often, they do not get the promised confirmation. We can try to explain this away by saying they were not truly sincere, or that they were unworthy at the time they asked, or whatever other excuses there might be. But ultimately, we will find ourselves having to make judgments about the good faith of others' attempts at seeking the truth in order to defend the correctness and soundness of our own LDS testimony. Protestants will say that we are deluded or wicked or deceived, and explain our "testimony" that way. While good faith is a necessary ingredient in our quest for truth, it is not in itself a gaurantee that we will find it easily or in this lifetime. What it boils down to is that we have to do the best we know how, based upon imperfect information, and while we may have convictions, we must also recognize that those convictions will sometimes require modification where the evidence justifies.
"A few thoughts:
First, let's make sure we are comparing apples to apples. The nature of an LDS testimony (ostensibly based on receiving a spiritual witness from God) is, in my view, necessarily superior to subscribing to a belief system for lesser reasons (cultural/familial expectations, tradition, prooftexting, bibliolatry, etc.).
Second, I think LDSers are fairly unique in that they strive to base their testimony on personal revelation.
Third, I think LDSers are also fairly unique in that their testimonies include a belief in divine authority vested in a specific, visible, quantifiable earthly organization: The LDS Church.
I don't think we do. Not wholesale, anyway.
Please give some examples of Muslims professing faith in Islam because they have received a spiritual witness from God about the matter. IIRC, Daniel Peterson (a professor of Islamic Studies and occasional participant on this board) has said that the LDS paradigm of receiving a testimony is pretty much foreign to Islam and its adherents.
In other words, I think you are creating parallels where none exist. In the main, other religions don't exhort their members to read, ponder and pray about scripture, and then seek out confirmation from God. (In fact, we are regularly taken to task by some of our Protestant critics for doing this.
Kinda loosey-goosey here. Are you going to dismiss any answer you like as not rational?
No, we should not leave such important matters to chance.
Your handle ("LDS1973") suggests you are LDS. Is that right? If so, please explain your preferred method of developing faith."
To which I responded:
You raise some good points. But here's where I think the reliability of the LDS spiritual confirmation of LDS-ism falls apart: It appears to me that a great many people have taken the Moroni challenge, and sincerely studied and pondered and prayed to ask God about the truth of the BoM and the LDS church. And very often, they do not get the promised confirmation. We can try to explain this away by saying they were not truly sincere, or that they were unworthy at the time they asked, or whatever other excuses there might be. But ultimately, we will find ourselves having to make judgments about the good faith of others' attempts at seeking the truth in order to defend the correctness and soundness of our own LDS testimony. Protestants will say that we are deluded or wicked or deceived, and explain our "testimony" that way. While good faith is a necessary ingredient in our quest for truth, it is not in itself a gaurantee that we will find it easily or in this lifetime. What it boils down to is that we have to do the best we know how, based upon imperfect information, and while we may have convictions, we must also recognize that those convictions will sometimes require modification where the evidence justifies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
