How Many People Are Currently Leaving The Church Over Historical Issues?

[charity]

This is part of the problem. Too many base their decisions on what they are given. Why don't they take some initiative a seek things out on their own? This is, after all, something the Church highly recommends.

T-Shirt

I have been given a witness of the Spirit. What is better than that?

[jerryp48]

How many members are leaving The Board over the history of this thread?

[BishopRic]

Welcome. Your thoughts are exactly mine in your 2 posts so far, however, you are much more eloquent. I think one of the best ways to bridge that gap, which will take time, is open, honest, respectful communica-tion. It is very hard for LDS to not point their fingers. I was guilty of it so much, and yet now being on the other side, I feel my world has opened up to include all the people before I may not have included because I wasn't comfortable with them. And that's me, I'm not saying LDS as a rule can't handle a BBQ with a beer drinker, but for many, it is just weird and awkward, and thats too bad. They may be missing out on some beautiful friendships.

Free Agent

Yes, there are some amazing, spiritual people in the world that I thumbed my nose at while in the church. Today, I see them in and out of the church.

One thing I've noticed is that at least in Utah (I know that things are different in "the mission field"), there is a tendency for members to judge others (and their words) according to their faith. I know I did it, and I feel it being done every day today...but it is not as common in non-members -- particularly never-mos. I think it is simply a result of the relatively closed culture here, and I see it getting better as the percentage of LDS members decreases, but that's my experience.

[LifeOnaPlate]

It's an example many of us heterosexuals can relate to, I think. I, as a heterosexual male have no attraction to another male...but that doesn't mean a gay man does not. Similarly, what constitutes a spiritual experience to an active Mormon may be different than a spiritual experience of a Buddhist.

Oh, I see. I thought you were saying "it's not like I left the Church because I'm gay or something."

I personally think it IS quite arrogant and naive to believe that "my experience is more spiritual than yours!"

I would tend to agree; it's really not my place to judge whether you or a Buddhist has felt the spirit; but I can think about what I have personally felt.

Tell that to the Muslim extremists that are strapping bombs to themselves to perform an act that they have confidence (and their own spiritual confirmation) the event will send them straight to God.

I've never heard that they do this on a basis of a "spiritual confirmation."

I may have come to a different conclusion than you, but Joseph either had the vision or he didn't. He either translated the plates by the gift and power of God, or he didn't. And so on. Admittedly, there is a lot of fluff out there clouding the historical truth, but we're talking history, and with intensive study and research, we can come to a conclusion with confidence, I believe.

Agreed. We reached different conclusions.

It did for a while. I was particularly offended by the Ed Deckers and Tanners for many years. I lumped everybody in that "anti-Mormon" category for a while. But then I learned that just as there are different styles of debate and approach here, there are the same degree on the "anti" side too. Then I tried to only look at the evidence of the issues.

But it still depends on what the evidence is, who is presenting it, how well it is presented, etc.

I was actually quite stunned at the flawed methodology of Hugh Nibley in much of his work (certainly another topic), so yes...cuts both ways.

I invite you to start a topic on Nibley's apparent problematic methodology. The man made mistakes, but he also had great insights. Would you like to discuss this further?

[Calm]

One thing I've noticed is that at least in Utah (I know that things are different in "the mission field"), there is a tendency for members to judge others (and their words) according to their faith. I know I did it, and I feel it being done every day today...but it is not as common in non-members -- particularly never-mos. I think it is simply a result of the relatively closed culture here, and I see it getting better as the percentage of LDS members decreases, but that's my experience.

Since people find plenty of other things more easily discovered to judge others by outside of Utah, I don't see the judging as a result of the culture, though the measure that judgment is using may be.

[BishopRic]

I have been given a witness of the Spirit. What is better than that?

So when a Seventh Day Adventist, a Southern Baptist, or even a radical Muslim makes the same claim, what differentiates your experiences? Seriously, I know you will claim yours is more "right" than theirs, but how can you really know?

[LifeOnaPlate]

One thing I've noticed is that at least in Utah (I know that things are different in "the mission field"), there is a tendency for members to judge others (and their words) according to their faith. I know I did it, and I feel it being done every day today...but it is not as common in non-members -- particularly never-mos.

I believe this is relatively cliche. I usually know 2 or 3 families in each ward I have been in who may fit the description. Perhaps the contracted view of spirituality in the world was a part of your loss of faith. Seeing spirituality elsewhere can rattle some people, "hey, we're supposed to be the only true church!" The prophets, apostles, and Jesus Christ have never advocated such close mindedness.

The culture in Utah could improve. Anywhere.

So when a Seventh Day Adventist,

a Southern Baptist, or even a radical Muslim makes the same claim, what differentiates your experiences? Seriously, I know you will claim yours is more "right" than theirs, but how can you really know?

Just to be clear I have spoken with many 7th Day Adventists and never once had them talk about a prayerful spiritual confirmation of their faith. Undoubtedly they feel the influence of Christ, it keeps them going in their faith. Why should the spiritual experiences of "non-Mormons" negate my spiritual experience as a Mormon?

[Anijen]

How about this for an agenda, sometimes books will sell better if there is more controversy. An example of this would be the sensationalizing of the church by John C. Bennett, John D Lee's biography (mostly written by his lawyer who had the rights to it and wanted it to sell). I'm not saying many of these historians have left the church to make such a scandal to generate sells to make lots of money but its out there. The Tanners and Decker's of the apostate world make a lot of money from inventing garbage, misquoting, and lying., hmmm

[LifeOnaPlate]

How many members are leaving The Board over the history of this thread?

[BishopRic]

You say that ad hominem attacks by the critics were offensive and pushed you toward belief, but then you decided that this happens on both sides so it would be better to "only look at the evidence of the issues". But then you claim that ad hominem attacks by the apologists pushed you towards disbelief. Does anyone else see a serious contradiction here?

T-Shirt

I suspect if you are trying to find fault in my approach, you will find it. I'm not here to argue. My experience is that there were more personal attacks by the Mormon apologists towards the historians I studied than vice versa. It was simply my experience. After getting past the emotion of it, I studied the issues and evidence and came to my conclusion.

This is part of the problem. Too many base their decisions on what they are given. Why don't they take some initiative a seek things out on their own? This is, after all, something the Church highly recommends.

If that is true, I commend the church for the change. As I studied, I got nothing but "you shouldn't read that anti-Mormon material....!" I agree, to make a potentially life-altering decision, much self initiated research is necessary.

[Pahoran]

You've never met me, spoken with me, you have no clue about my experience other than a few short sentences on a message board, and you're ready to diagnose why I made such an important decision as whether to adhere to Mormonism. Wonderful.

No, I am commenting on what you wrote in your post. Remember your post?

I didn't read anti-Mormon hate propoganda (although I've learned in subsequent years that much of it simply reports the unvarnished truth).

No, it does not. You must be reading it with an extraordinarily uncritical eye if you think that.

I read parts of the Journal of Discourses.

Really? Which parts?

The parts regularly cited as anti-Mormon prooftexts?

I read D&C 132 and really thought about what was written.

Did you really? That's fantastic. Then you know what powerful and exalting doctrine it contains.

I read the Pearl of Great Price and really thought about what was written.

Did you really? That's fantastic. Then you know what an amazing window into the ancient world it contains.

The doctrinal racism (as I perceived it to be) was sickening to me.

Hang on a minute--I thought you said you "really thought about what was written." Now you tell us you merely had a presentist knee-jerk reaction.

So which was it?

Is there really any more "doctrinal racism" (whatever that may be) in the Pearl of Great Price than in comparable sections of the Old Testament? Please don't respond by saying that you reject that as well, because that is nothing but a dodge, and is entirely irrelevant. If Abraham and Moses are what they say they are, then they are restored portions of lost OT scripture, and have to fit into that milieu. The so-called "doctrinal racism" which you find so "sickening" is merely your rather highly uninformed and culturally conditioned reaction to a text from another time and another culture.

Joseph Smith's unabashed threats to Emma's eternal soul if she didn't abide his philandering was sickening to me.

I'm sorry, what "unabashed threats" are those?

And what "philandering" was that?

You claim to be describing what you read, but it turns out upon inspection that you are entirely responsible for all your own "sickening." D&C Section 132 contains none of "Joseph Smith's unabashed threats" and absolutely no "philandering." What was and remains so downright "sickening" to you is not what that section contains, but what you chose to read into it. Since those elements are not in the text, they were clearly provided by the reader--that is, by you. They can come from nowhere else. Only by reading Section 132 with the predetermined assumption that Joseph was "philandering" and trying to coerce Emma into going along with it can you arrive at all that holier-than-thou righteous indignation towards a man who was worse than you are in no respect.

And just BTW, on what rationale would any "threats to Emma's eternal soul" carry any weight at all? Emma was intimately involved in some of the key events of the Restoration, including the coming forth of The Book of Mormon. If the whole thing was a scam, Emma certainly knew it. Yet such "threats" as are contained in Section 132 can have absolutely no force unless Emma actually believed Joseph to have been a true prophet.

As, indeed, she did.

What I later learned of institutional racism of LDS leaders was sickening to me.

Take some dramamine.

When I realized Joseph Smith was a devoted freemason (and so as not to offend people here, I'll just say I'm sure you know what I mean), I was sickened.

Again? What a weak stomach you have.

BTW, the above is probably the most factually accurate item you've stated here. Joseph joined the lodge in Nauvoo, was made a mason "at sight" over two days, and never attended another lodge meeting. IOW, he was not a "devoted freemason" at all. I truly hope you aren't going to be even more "sickened" by that.

But I fail entirely to see what is so "sickening" about Joseph joining a lodge, myself.

I made the conscious choice not to devote my life to a church with such a history, after much hard work, and prayer, and an affirmative desire to believe.

Did you really have "an affirmative desire to believe?"

In that case (litmus test alert) you will be absolutely delighted with what I have written above.

That was on my mission, and I left the church "in spirit" before I returned from England, never having broken the Work of Wisdom, never having broken the law of chastity, but merely being shocked into realizing early Mormon leaders were what they were,

What, prophets?

and that the early doctrine was what it was.

What, true?

Everything I've learned since,

Here comes the laundry list of random accusations...

Kinderhook, money-digging, different versions of the "first vision," etc... has just affirmed what I felt about 15 years ago, which is that the Mormon church and its leaders are not inspired.

What, everything you've learned in the last 15 years confirms your apostasy?

Everything?

Then you seem to have been doing some highly selective "learning." If the Church were to put forward material that supports only one side of the argument as assiduously as your "learning" has done, the routine accusations of "cover-up" and "suppression" and the like would be even louder than they now are.

For the record: the Kinderhook Plates are entirely irrelevant to the Church's truth claims. If you disagree, feel free to demonstrate their relevance.

Joseph having worked for Stowell--his one and only connection to the money-digging industry--is entirely irrelevant to the Church's truth claims. If you disagree, feel free to demonstrate its relevance.

The different versions of the First Vision are entirely consistent with the Church's truth claims. If you disagree, feel free to demonstrate where they conflict.

So Pahoran, feel free to discount, call me a liar, doubt my motivation, doubt my "worthiness," etc... Surely what I've reported above cannot be true.

Of course it can be true. You have described yourself as leaping to a hasty, ill-considered and ultimately wrong decision, and of having worked to justify that decision to yourself ever since.

I find that entirely plausible.

Regards,

Pahoran

[T-Shirt]

Yes, there are some amazing, spiritual people in the world that I thumbed my nose at while in the church. Today, I see them in and out of the church.

Why did you thumb your nose at these people? I t is certainly not something the Church teaches it's members to do.

One thing I've noticed is that at least in Utah (I know that things are different in "the mission field"), there is a tendency for members to judge others (and their words) according to their faith. I know I did it, and I feel it being done every day today...but it is not as common in non-members -- particularly never-mos. I think it is simply a result of the relatively closed culture here, and I see it getting better as the percentage of LDS members decreases, but that's my experience.

That's quite a broad brush you're using there. I lived in Utah for several years and now live outside of Utah. I just don't see the picture you are painting.

So when a Seventh Day Adventist, a Southern Baptist, or even a radical Muslim makes the same claim, what differentiates your experiences?

I challenge you to find an example of a Seventh Day Adventist, a Southern Baptist or a radical Muslim who has made the same claim. In fact, much of mainstream Christianity specifically discourages praying to ask if a Church is true. They believe that the heart is too easily fooled and a spiritual witness is a bad way of determining truth.

Seriously, I know you will claim yours is more "right" than theirs, but how can you really know?

I would never make such a claim. In fact, I believe that if a person believes, sincerely, that the Lord has revealed to them that their Church is true, then they should be true to that witness.

I suspect if you are trying to find fault in my approach, you will find it. I'm not here to argue.

I am not trying to find fault. You have made some pretty bold claims and I am asking to back them up with examples.

My experience is that there were more personal attacks by the Mormon apologists towards the historians I studied than vice versa. It was simply my experience.

Then you should be able to show examples of this.

If that is true, I commend the church for the change.

What change? There has been no change. The Church has always encouraged it's members to seek learning by study and by faith.

As I studied, I got nothing but "you shouldn't read that anti-Mormon material....!"

This, to me, is a worn out excuse. I have not experienced this in my 49 years as a member.

I agree, to make a potentially life-altering decision, much self initiated research is necessary.

Then why would you make such a decision based on what you are "given"?

After getting past the emotion of it, I studied the issues and evidence and came to my conclusion.

But that is not what you originally stated.

T-Shirt

[ruski_canuk]

I think the church is doing a good thing to open it's history more up by encouraging books like RSR. I also think that individuals are responsible for learning the history and coming to their own conclusions. Naively accepting admonitions to not study anything "anti" is no excuse, the real reason many Mormons do not go after the history is because they see no need to (they already "know") or fear what they may find. This position is arrogant, IMO, and unethical to pass on to impressionable children and is essentially the philosophy I used for 10 years during my teenage years and early 20s. I am not proud that I did, but I am glad to have learned some very useful lessons.

While many aspects of Mormonism discourage dissent, it isn't nearly as bad as some communities (JW, Omish, much of Islam etc).

[ruski_canuk]

I challenge you to find an example of a Seventh Day Adventist, a Southern Baptist or a radical Muslim who has made the same claim. In fact, much of mainstream Christianity specifically discourages praying to ask if a Church is true. They believe that the heart is too easily fooled and a spiritual witness is a bad way of determining truth.

This is a really bad case of denial. Be it communion with mother mary, mohammed, euphoria, spiritual enlightenment, meditation, God's voice, the spirit, etc, the divine communion experience is extremely common among religions. The classic position of course is to diminish the other experiences as less sincere or deep or whatever than your own. More spiritual arrogance.

[Pahoran]

I think the church is doing a good thing to open it's history more up by encouraging books like RSR. I also think that individuals are responsible for learning the history and coming to their own conclusions. Naively accepting admonitions to not study anything "anti" is no excuse, the real reason many Mormons do not go after the history is because they see no need to (they already "know") or fear what they may find. This position is arrogant, IMO, and unethical to pass on to impressionable children and is essentially the philosophy I used for 10 years during my teenage years and early 20s. I am not proud that I did, but I am glad to have learned some very useful lessons.

Yes, yes, we genuflect before your vast superiority.

However, next time you decide to parade it before us--say in the next ten minutes or so--you might want to tighten up a little on a certain perception that looks to be the product of a rather un-superior bit of mere prejudice. Before you opine that "many Mormons" are igorant of history for some particular reason (unflattering to the Church) or other, you need to demonstrate that Latter-day Saints are any more ignorant of history than anyone else is.

Let me save you some time: they are not.

Joe Average Latter-day Saint is no more ignorant of history than Joe Average Six-Pack. We by and large know little about history because we live at a time when history is largely ignored by most people. In reality, I strongly suspect that active Latter-day Saints are far better informed about LDS history than Catholics are of Catholic history, or Lutherans of Lutheran history, or any other comparable group is of their history.

While many aspects of Mormonism discourage dissent, it isn't nearly as bad as some communities (JW, Omish, much of Islam etc).

I have yet to see any actual substantiation of the claim that it is any worse than any less exotic faith communities, either.

Regards,

Pahoran

[charity]

So when a Seventh Day Adventist, a Southern Baptist, or even a radical Muslim makes the same claim, what differentiates your experiences? Seriously, I know you will claim yours is more "right" than theirs, but how can you really know?

I would like to hear Seventh Day Adventist, Southern Baptist and Muslims tell me if they have the same kind of experience. I have been hearing from evangelicals that they don't go on "emotions." They use reasoning and Bible study, and archeological evidence of the Bible to make their decisions.

These sound to me like relying on the arm of flesh, not spiritual confirmations.

[T-Shirt]

This is a really bad case of denial. Be it communion with mother mary, mohammed, euphoria, spiritual enlightenment, meditation, God's voice, the spirit, etc, the divine communion experience is extremely common among religions. The classic position of course is to diminish the other experiences as less sincere or deep or whatever than your own. More spiritual arrogance.

I have not attempted to diminish anyone's spiritual experiences. I am quite confident that many people of faith, regardless of denomination have had spiritual experiences and powerful ones at that. That is not what I was challenging. I know of no other mainstream Church that encourages it's members to pray and ask God for a spiritual witness that their Church is true. This is not denial nor is it arrogance. Can you prove me wrong by showing examples of this type of witness in other faiths?

T-Shirt

[Pahoran]

This is a really bad case of denial. Be it communion with mother mary, mohammed, euphoria, spiritual enlightenment, meditation, God's voice, the spirit, etc, the divine communion experience is extremely common among religions. The classic position of course is to diminish the other experiences as less sincere or deep or whatever than your own. More spiritual arrogance.

You seem to know a great deal about "spiritual arrogance," which is fine, since you project so much of it.

It was not at all a "bad case of denial." You are clearly shifting the goal posts, and you clearly know you are doing it. The question was whether anyone could find a Seventh Day Adventist, a Southern Baptist or a radical Muslim who actually claimed to receive direct spiritual confirmation for the truth claims of their religion. Your waffling about "divine communion experience" is a blatant bit of equivocation, and you know perfectly well that it is.

So I suggest you avoid doing it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[ruski_canuk]

I have not attempted to diminish anyone's spiritual experiences. I am quite confident that many people of faith, regardless of denomination have had spiritual experiences and powerful ones at that. That is not what I was challenging. I know of no other mainstream Church that encourages it's members to pray and ask God for a spiritual witness that their Church is true. This is not denial nor is it arrogance. Can you prove me wrong by showing examples of this type of witness in other faiths?

T-Shirt

I've talked to many who claim exactly that. Every time I meet a religious person, I ask them why that religion and not another and the reason is almost always based on some spiritual experience that they had combined with the logic of the doctrine. Next time you run into a very devout catholic, ask them why catholicism.

You seem to know a great deal about "spiritual arrogance," which is fine, since you project so much of it.

It was not at all a "bad case of denial." You are clearly shifting the goal posts, and you clearly know you are doing it. The question was whether anyone could find a Seventh Day Adventist, a Southern Baptist or a radical Muslim who actually claimed to receive direct spiritual confirmation for the truth claims of their religion. Your waffling about "divine communion experience" is a blatant bit of equivocation, and you know perfectly well that it is.

So I suggest you avoid doing it.

Regards,

Pahoran

Yes, one week ago I joined two muslims in their study of the Koran and received precisely that reason for why Islam and not others.

[moriancamur]

You sound a lot like Ruski. You're making more sense this time around, however.

Do you know what Deism is at all? Deism is where God does not care about people at all, because he does not talk to them. He leaves them to their own devices and hopes for the best.

[/quote

Sounds like a thinly disguised insult, thanks.

What has Deism got to do with anything I have ever said? Nothing. So why do you raise the question?

[RDL]

No, I am commenting on what you wrote in your post. Remember your post?

No, it does not. You must be reading it with an extraordinarily uncritical eye if you think that.

Really? Which parts?

The parts regularly cited as anti-Mormon prooftexts?

Did you really? That's fantastic. Then you know what powerful and exalting doctrine it contains.

Did you really? That's fantastic. Then you know what an amazing window into the ancient world it contains.

Hang on a minute--I thought you said you "really thought about what was written." Now you tell us you merely had a presentist knee-jerk reaction.

So which was it?

Is there really any more "doctrinal racism" (whatever that may be) in the Pearl of Great Price than in comparable sections of the Old Testament? Please don't respond by saying that you reject that as well, because that is nothing but a dodge, and is entirely irrelevant. If Abraham and Moses are what they say they are, then they are restored portions of lost OT scripture, and have to fit into that milieu. The so-called "doctrinal racism" which you find so "sickening" is merely your rather highly uninformed and culturally conditioned reaction to a text from another time and another culture.

I'm sorry, what "unabashed threats" are those?

And what "philandering" was that?

You claim to be describing what you read, but it turns out upon inspection that you are entirely responsible for all your own "sickening." D&C Section 132 contains none of "Joseph Smith's unabashed threats" and absolutely no "philandering." What was and remains so downright "sickening" to you is not what that section contains, but what you chose to read into it. Since those elements are not in the text, they were clearly provided by the reader--that is, by you. They can come from nowhere else. Only by reading Section 132 with the predetermined assumption that Joseph was "philandering" and trying to coerce Emma into going along with it can you arrive at all that holier-than-thou righteous indignation towards a man who was worse than you are in no respect.

And just BTW, on what rationale would any "threats to Emma's eternal soul" carry any weight at all? Emma was intimately involved in some of the key events of the Restoration, including the coming forth of The Book of Mormon. If the whole thing was a scam, Emma certainly knew it. Yet such "threats" as are contained in Section 132 can have absolutely no force unless Emma actually believed Joseph to have been a true prophet.

As, indeed, she did.

Take some dramamine.

Again? What a weak stomach you have.

BTW, the above is probably the most factually accurate item you've stated here. Joseph joined the lodge in Nauvoo, was made a mason "at sight" over two days, and never attended another lodge meeting. IOW, he was not a "devoted freemason" at all. I truly hope you aren't going to be even more "sickened" by that.

But I fail entirely to see what is so "sickening" about Joseph joining a lodge, myself.

Did you really have "an affirmative desire to believe?"

In that case (litmus test alert) you will be absolutely delighted with what I have written above.

What, prophets?

What, true?

Here comes the laundry list of random accusations...

What, everything you've learned in the last 15 years confirms your apostasy?

Everything?

Then you seem to have been doing some highly selective "learning." If the Church were to put forward material that supports only one side of the argument as assiduously as your "learning" has done, the routine accusations of "cover-up" and "suppression" and the like would be even louder than they now are.

For the record: the Kinderhook Plates are entirely irrelevant to the Church's truth claims. If you disagree, feel free to demonstrate their relevance.

Joseph having worked for Stowell--his one and only connection to the money-digging industry--is entirely irrelevant to the Church's truth claims. If you disagree, feel free to demonstrate its relevance.

The different versions of the First Vision are entirely consistent with the Church's truth claims. If you disagree, feel free to demonstrate where they conflict.

Of course it can be true. You have described yourself as leaping to a hasty, ill-considered and ultimately wrong decision, and of having worked to justify that decision to yourself ever since.

I find that entirely plausible.

Regards,

Pahoran

So now I'm an apostate; studied with an uncritical eye; form knee-jerk reactions; I'm holier than thou; highly uninformed; merely have culturally conditioned reactions; etc...

I won't bother responding to your post point by point, because obviously it would do no good. I'm sure you've been through this routine with other "apostates," and I can't imagine it does anybody any good. I would only suggest that you consider whether the insults you lobbed my way--completely unprovoked, as I didn't make a single accusation toward you for your beliefs or opinions--are in the best interest of whatever purpose you're trying to serve by posting here. Unless, of course, your purpose is to ridicule and have fun at the expense of people like me, who have different beliefs and opinions and life experiences--in which case, if it makes you happy, feel free to paste and parse and insult me for these two paragraphs as well.

[T-Shirt]

I've talked to many who claim exactly that. Every time I meet a religious person, I ask them why that religion and not another and the reason is almost always based on some spiritual experience that they had combined with the logic of the doctrine.

You have moved the goal posts again. If you are so sure of yourself you should be able to easily provide examples of this from various religious sites on the internet. Can you link to any sites that encourage people to pray, specifically, to know if a specific church is true?

Here is a sampling of some that I found (and there were hundreds more just like these):

Concerned Christians

When a Mormon says that, he will generally pat his chest and say he received a burning of the bosom to know that it is true. It would be agreed that the bosom contains the heart. Jeremiah 17:9 says, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" In other words, we are not to rely on feelings because they are notoriously unreliable. Feelings change about as often as the direction of the winds.

Challenge Ministries

Nowhere in the Bible are we told to pray for a feeling if a book is from God, if a prophet is a true prophet, or if a teaching is a true teaching. THE BIBLE WARNS:

â?¦ believe not every spirit, but TRY the spirits whether they are of God: Because many FALSE PROPHETS are gone out into the world." (I John 4:1)

The Bible also commands: "PROVE ALL THINGS; hold fast that which is good." (I Thessalon. 5:21)

The faithful Bereans," . . . SEARCHED THE SCRIPTURES daily, whether those things were so." (Acts 17:11)

No amount of prayer, despite the degree of sincerity, will ever convince God to change his mind concerning matters about which he has already clearly spoken.

The zealous Mormon will probably insist the true test for truth is found in James 1:5:

''If any of you lack WISDOM, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

Nowhere in the context is there an indication that a prayer for wisdom is to be equated with receiving an "inner testimony" that something is true

Life After Ministries

The first thing a Mormon missionary is going to ask you is if you would like to pray about the Book of Mormon. Theyâ??ll tell you that if you pray with a sincere heart to find out if the Book of Mormon is true then God will manifest it to you by causing a burning in the bosom.

You really need to question this rationale. The Bible says in Jeremiah 17:9; â??The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked, who can know it?â?? This explicitly says not to trust the heart and what our wants are for the moment. We are to judge truth on what the Word of God says, not what our heart tells us. My young daughter says that she wants the convertible â??Beamerâ?? that just drove by us at the speed of sound; logically this isnâ??t what would be good to give her. Our hearts are forever looking for what is pretty, what is fluffy and anything that looks as if itâ??s too good to be true.

Department of Christian Defense

In their effort to proselytize, Mormon missionaries will bring out the BOM first, rather than the Bible. The Mormons are absolutely, without qualification, convinced that the BOM is the Word of God. Mormons will tell us that they know beyond doubt that the BOM is true because God confirmed its truthfulness to them by way of a "burning in the bosom." Commonly Mormons share the usual testimony, concerning the validity of their belief: "I know that Joseph Smith is a true prophet and that the church is true and the BOM is true. . . ." Not surprising is that they cannot provide any factual, objective evidence but rather they will say that, "I prayed about it and God confirmed it by a burning in my bosom." Mormons will quote Moroni 10:3-5 and Doctrine and Covenants, 9:8, 9, which tells them to pray about the BOM and God, will manifest a "burning in the bosom." This, of course, is not the biblical method of testing, nor is it good God told us to test all things using Scripture as the standard (cf. Acts 17:11; 1 Thess. 5:21; 2 Tim. 3:15, 16).

Feelings can be deceptive:

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it (Jer. 17:9)

There is a way which seems right to a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death (Pr. 14:12)

He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool. . . . (Prov. 28:26)

Christian Research Institute

Mormon truth, then, is in one sense the domain of the heart and its perceptions. This is in distinct contrast to biblical teachings (which nowhere invite the reader to subjectively "test" them) and in direct opposition to the Bible's repeated warnings that the heart is deceitful and unreliable (e.g., Jer. 17:9; Prov. 19:21).

Yes, one week ago I joined two muslims in their study of the Koran and received precisely that reason for why Islam and not others.

Then you should be able to link to a Muslim site that shows an encouragement to pray to know if Islam is true or if the Koran is true. Can you do it?

T-Shirt

[Pahoran]

I've talked to many who claim exactly that. Every time I meet a religious person, I ask them why that religion and not another and the reason is almost always based on some spiritual experience that they had combined with the logic of the doctrine. Next time you run into a very devout catholic, ask them why catholicism.

Yes, one week ago I joined two muslims in their study of the Koran and received precisely that reason for why Islam and not others.

That's rather strange.

This is a standard--and well-refuted--anti-Mormon claim, about Islam in particular. But it is never documented.

Never.

Rather, we find upon actual investigation that the notion of spiritual confirmation, as Latter-day Saints understand it, is quite foreign to Muslim understanding, belief or folkways. Dan Peterson, who just might know almost as much about Islam as you do--never mind trying to know as much as you imagine you do--has written on this topic a number of times. Personal spiritual confirmation is just not a Muslim construct, period.

So instead of demanding that we accept your unverifiable personal experience as dispositive of the matter, how about you document your claim, please?

And it will need to be documented from actual Muslim authorities. A while back someone thought they had pulled off a slam-dunk by finding a Muslim convert who claimed to have received just such a spiritual confirmation. It turned out, however, that said convert was in fact an apostate from The Church of Jesus Christ, who was deliberately crafting her conversion narrative in such a way as to make it appealing to adherents of her former faith.

So can you document it?

And are you willing to admit that your judgemental pronouncement about "spiritual arrogance" was at least hasty?

Regards,

Pahoran

[moriancamur]

I would like to hear Seventh Day Adventist, Southern Baptist and Muslims tell me if they have the same kind of experience. I have been hearing from evangelicals that they don't go on "emotions." They use reasoning and Bible study, and archeological evidence of the Bible to make their decisions.

These sound to me like relying on the arm of flesh, not spiritual confirmations.

They claim to use reasoning from the bible. However their reasoning is not applied equally to their own and "non Christian" beliefs. If it were they could not support their claims.

nevertheless their main gripe is that we base our knowledge and testimony on a spiritual witness of a prophet/BOM/a church, whereas they claim the only spiritual witness that counts is one where you come to know the Saviour and are born again, saved by His grace. Of course this is the most important experience any of us can have. Without reconcilliation with God its all a waste of time anyway. Its not a spiritual experience they don't comprehend (in theory) its one which sustains the mormon church as the only true church. Once saved they believe in yielding to the indwelling Spirit.

Whatever your experience of these people, and I have to admit to meeting many obnoxious born again Christians, there are those with genuine spiritual experience and desire to follow the Spirit in their lives.

[ruski_canuk]

You have moved the goal posts again. If you are so sure of yourself you should be able to easily provide examples of this from various religious sites on the internet. Can you link to any sites that encourage people to pray, specifically, to know if a specific church is true?

Here is a sampling of some that I found (and there were hundreds more just like these):

Concerned Christians

When a Mormon says that, he will generally pat his chest and say he received a burning of the bosom to know that it is true. It would be agreed that the bosom contains the heart. Jeremiah 17:9 says, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" In other words, we are not to rely on feelings because they are notoriously unreliable. Feelings change about as often as the direction of the winds.

Challenge Ministries

Nowhere in the Bible are we told to pray for a feeling if a book is from God, if a prophet is a true prophet, or if a teaching is a true teaching. THE BIBLE WARNS:

â?¦ believe not every spirit, but TRY the spirits whether they are of God: Because many FALSE PROPHETS are gone out into the world." (I John 4:1)

The Bible also commands: "PROVE ALL THINGS; hold fast that which is good." (I Thessalon. 5:21)

The faithful Bereans," . . . SEARCHED THE SCRIPTURES daily, whether those things were so." (Acts 17:11)

No amount of prayer, despite the degree of sincerity, will ever convince God to change his mind concerning matters about which he has already clearly spoken.

The zealous Mormon will probably insist the true test for truth is found in James 1:5:

''If any of you lack WISDOM, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

Nowhere in the context is there an indication that a prayer for wisdom is to be equated with receiving an "inner testimony" that something is true

Life After Ministries

The first thing a Mormon missionary is going to ask you is if you would like to pray about the Book of Mormon. Theyâ??ll tell you that if you pray with a sincere heart to find out if the Book of Mormon is true then God will manifest it to you by causing a burning in the bosom.

You really need to question this rationale. The Bible says in Jeremiah 17:9; â??The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked, who can know it?â?? This explicitly says not to trust the heart and what our wants are for the moment. We are to judge truth on what the Word of God says, not what our heart tells us. My young daughter says that she wants the convertible â??Beamerâ?? that just drove by us at the speed of sound; logically this isnâ??t what would be good to give her. Our hearts are forever looking for what is pretty, what is fluffy and anything that looks as if itâ??s too good to be true.

Department of Christian Defense

In their effort to proselytize, Mormon missionaries will bring out the BOM first, rather than the Bible. The Mormons are absolutely, without qualification, convinced that the BOM is the Word of God. Mormons will tell us that they know beyond doubt that the BOM is true because God confirmed its truthfulness to them by way of a "burning in the bosom." Commonly Mormons share the usual testimony, concerning the validity of their belief: "I know that Joseph Smith is a true prophet and that the church is true and the BOM is true. . . ." Not surprising is that they cannot provide any factual, objective evidence but rather they will say that, "I prayed about it and God confirmed it by a burning in my bosom." Mormons will quote Moroni 10:3-5 and Doctrine and Covenants, 9:8, 9, which tells them to pray about the BOM and God, will manifest a "burning in the bosom." This, of course, is not the biblical method of testing, nor is it good God told us to test all things using Scripture as the standard (cf. Acts 17:11; 1 Thess. 5:21; 2 Tim. 3:15, 16).

Feelings can be deceptive:

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it (Jer. 17:9)

There is a way which seems right to a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death (Pr. 14:12)

He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool. . . . (Prov. 28:26)

Christian Research Institute

Mormon truth, then, is in one sense the domain of the heart and its perceptions. This is in distinct contrast to biblical teachings (which nowhere invite the reader to subjectively "test" them) and in direct opposition to the Bible's repeated warnings that the heart is deceitful and unreliable (e.g., Jer. 17:9; Prov. 19:21).

Then you should be able to link to a Muslim site that shows an encouragement to pray to know if Islam is true or if the Koran is true. Can you do it?

T-Shirt

http://100777.com/spiritual/prayerwarriors

http://www.all-of-grace.org/pub/pribble/bornagain.html

A couple links that come up on a quick internet search. Just because one religion packages that truth affirming experience as "a testimony from the spirit" and another as "enlightenment" or "born again" or whatever doesn't mean they are essentially the same thing. The divine sanctioning your religion as the most correct.