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

[ruski_canuk]

Good grief. What part of denomination don't you understand?

T-Shirt

Sorry, so let me get this straight. It only counts if I can find a religion which is:

a) a denomination of Christianity (is that what you mean by the good grief signal ?)

is mainstream (I'm still not sure what qualifies here)

c) and teaches to-be-converts that they must first pray and then if they feel good inside when thinking about the things they studied, it is God telling them through the "holy ghost" that the LDS church is the most true of all

If those are the rules, then indeed, I bet only a few LDS-offshoots use that methodology.

Anijen: I am an "anti-Christ" because I don't believe you know that the LDS Church is what it claims ? You effectively have labeled everyone who is not LDS an anti-Christ with that reasoning. I still have deep affection for Christ's teachings and consider myself Christian.

[Calm]

my salvation depends upon whether or not I am able to reach the Lord and gain HIS OPINION on the matter.

But is that possible from the Mormon perspective? Can a Mormon believe that a SDA missionary can be led by God to a searching, praying investigator...and the connection is the answer to his prayer?

Why not? If God teaches people in the manner best suited to their particular needs--line upon line, etc, why would he not lead someone to the SDA denomination if that would suit them best at that particular time in their lives?

[Anijen]

edited because i was h rash in judgment

[ruski_canuk]

no I have not labeled everyone who is not LDS antichrist, just you.

Because you tell us that we what know, that we cant know, and then tell us how and what the "appropriate" way is, and then call us arrogant if we don't follow your advice and for some reason you really bash those who dis agree with you. I testify that I know Christ and his church and you say I don't know that to me is the spirit of antichrist.

I never said you were arrogant for not following my advice.

Doesn't matter. I'll have to respectfully decline from further discussion here as you are resorting to calling, and maintaining, the 'anti-Christ' label. A label completely unrelated to the discussion and manufactured for one purpose only. So long.

[moriancamur]

While on my mish, I had an experience that I felt was a miracle. We hadn't had much success for a while, and diligently prayed for guidance. A man's face came to me that I had seen a few weeks earlier while riding my bike to a meeting. I felt inspired to go see him...he had that golden response "I've been praying and waiting for you...." He was baptized a week later. It became the powerful homecoming story that confirmed to everybody the church was true.

Fast forward a few years. I enter grad school where I am the only LDS member in my class. There was one SDA classmate that I became good friends with. We talked religion occasionally, but mostly to compare and contrast. One day at lunch, he "bore his testimony: to me about his conviction. I told him I was quite certain Mormonism was true because of this miraculous event I'd had on my mission. He then told me of his (hadn't heard the details of mine yet), with an almost identical process. He had served his SDA mission to Brazil, and had his "golden" investigator experience that confirmed his "testimony."

Of course mine was more right....LOL!

Years later it became one of the "issues" that sparked my questioning of "spirit," and "God's inspiration." Today, I don't consider myself any particular religious "label." I am a bit of a Universist, and I am comfortable with the possibility that we were both inspired in our "miracles." Whatever "God" or "Spirit" is, I think it's possible for any of us to have these kinds of events. We may misinterpret what is really happening, but I think it is possible...and I certainly don't see any one religion having a corner on the God market.

[BishopRic]

Hello BishopRic, and a bit for you, Ruski, too,

I have gone over most of your recent posts to find this one of particular interest.

Both you and the SDA (whatever SDA is) member had a similar experience of divine intervention. You have in other posts also postulated that much of the feeling people experience is a group feeling that they learn to recognize. I can see this has merit because there are different "feels" about different groups which could result in association in a persons mind with the feeling of "truth". Of course history has seen examples of group feelings carrying nations to war etc.

However, whilst group feeling explains the majority of some peoples behaviour and in part, I would venture everyones, it is not the only thing going on here. Taking your experience and analysing it in more detail. You pray and this mans' face comes to you. In your prayer you hypothetically make a connection with your subconcious which knows more than you are conciously aware of. Your subconcious detected a look perhaps in the mans face that clearly said he was interested and even desirous to talk to you. In your prayer you connect your conciousness with what you already know and hey presto...a miracle.

Ok. thats been rationalized quite well even though I say so myself! Now you don't know what would have happened if you had developed this power of connection a bit more. One experience does not prove much, and this one involved someone you had seen. What if it could be used to detect someone you have never seen? Then what would be the explanation? The further removed you are from the target, the more difficult to intellectually rationalize. To be unpredictable (LOL) I will use some of my mission experiences too!

Tracting, and being in tune with myself through desire and obedience, I quickly recognized the feeling of emptiness associated with days no one was found. Retrospectively I had felt a particular assurance on days we had success. After prayerful thought I developed my own "spiritual harvesting" technique. At the time I was training someone who had no testimony, would not pray, read the scriptures, was there for his girlfriend and trailed after me only because I promised to wrestle him for an hour every night when we were done! Overall he was a great companion. Never had one arguement.

My technique was simply to pour over the map of the area and feel for the whereabouts of anyone interested in our message. a varying number of areas might feel quite positive. If there were none I would trust my feelings and visit a member or something. I would ponder the feelings I had for the various areas and gradually find the one that felt the best. Then we would drive over. Sometimes I would feel out the house, usually I liked to talk to a couple of people on the way. A little practice tracting for my protege! Without fail we would teach off the door (this was in Canada). I would do this as often as the feelings led me, often many times a day. I could describe far more dramatic conversion events, however I will refrain for now! The point is that there was no connection between me and the people we taught. They were streets I had never seen except on a map. No one I could ever have known, yet because I exercised faith in the feelings most rationalize away I was able to accomplish an extraordinary number of "miraculous" meetings. I was able to develop this gift as I see it further, but those experiences are a little too personal and miraculous to be given here.

There may be people who are deceived into following group feeling, but there are many who by rationalizing away the feelings of the Spirit fail to develop a gift we are truly given and can have. Only by taking the first step do we take the second and so on. We may make many mistakes. Our logic may conclude things follow in truth when they don't, but there are spiritual things we can nevertherless know and feel. Only by trusting those feelings can we know whether they are true or not. If they are true they will bear fruit. If they bear fruit we know they are true. There is a distinct feeling of the Spirit which is perfect in thought and feeling. It takes practice and faith to develop the ability to recognise Him in our lives. Through these experiences we can know what logic says cannot be known, including a knowledge of the existence of God.

regards

Mori

Thank you for the story. There is nothing (much -- perhaps some of the interpretation) in it that I disagree with. And I will say that I don't question your experience at all.

I do have a question for you. If you talk to a friend of yours, of another faith who had exactly the same experience...how would you interpret that? Like my SDA (Seventh-Day Adventist) friend, who was intesely confident that his experience "proved" to him that his church was true, else why would "God" have led him to the investigator? I am hearing from some here that the other experiences are real, and God may actually work that way...what are your thoughts?

[Anijen]

apology to Ruski Canuk,

I was rash and rushed to judgement. Please forgive me for the Antichrist label.

[moriancamur]

I do have a question for you. If you talk to a friend of yours, of another faith who had exactly the same experience...how would you interpret that? Like my SDA (Seventh-Day Adventist) friend, who was intesely confident that his experience "proved" to him that his church was true, else why would "God" have led him to the investigator? I am hearing from some here that the other experiences are real, and God may actually work that way...what are your thoughts?

[Abulafia]

But Jesus is the Lord and Savior. Why wouldn't the Spirit testify to that?

Okay. I take Bsix's point. I have not known a member of the church of England to pray to God to find out if the 'church of england is true' and Henry VIII was inspired to divide it from the Catholic Church (in terms of the good it did, I would probably argue that he was..).

To ask if the 'church' is true in my opinion is rather off track. All churches have faults in their culture, history and theology. (in my opinion)

In that sense, I am expecting that a christian on the Alpha Course who recieves confirmation that Jesus is his/her personal saviour, would say that actually that is the crux of the point and the foundation of their religion.

Peter's witness was that Jesus was the Christ, the son of the living God...if we are to take the NT as accurate in this instance. For most christians that is the foundation of their belief.

Mormons are asked to pray specifically whether the Book of Mormon is true. Does that mean ...spiritually true or historically true...or both...?

Mainstream christians would certainly be tied in a similar way to the truth claims of their own scriptures. The more fundamental, the more the literal interpretation I would assume. But there is a firm belief based on the spiritual witness which begins with knowing Jesus is Christ, that would then include at least some belief that the Bible is the word of God and inspired.

Mormons are asked to pray if Joseph is a prophet? Perhaps this is the area in which they differ most markedly with mainstream christianity. Of those that have prayed and considered the issue, I am betting that many feel that God has told them he wasn't a prophet and infact was inspired of the devil.. This is what I was told by a presbyterian minister.

The Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, are all elected to office after years of service and loyalty to their belief system. I don't doubt that most Catholics feel that the Pope is there because God has called him. Same for the Archbishop of Canterbury with the C of E. The prophet of the LDS church is called in a similar way actually.

As for the foundation of apostles, it seems to me that most mainstream would interpret this to be specific to the ancient church. The apostles truly were special witnesses of Jesus and walked and talked with him. Even Paul didn't hold this living witness, though he claimed to it through revelation. (I'm not a particular fan of Paul) I'm not sure he was regarded as Apostle in quite the same way as those who walked and talked with the man himself.

I'm almost 100% certain that none of the apostles of the LDS church has walked and talked with Jesus. Their belief in him would come the same way as Pauls, through revelation through prayer.....which brings back to the original point of the centrality of the importance to christians of a spiritual witness that Jesus is Saviour. Joseph Smith claimed to have walked with Jesus and a host of other heavenly messengers, but the exact nature of those experiences is of course debatable even from his own memory of events.

Mary

[moriancamur]

To ask if the 'church' is true in my opinion is rather off track. All churches have faults in their culture, history and theology. (in my opinion)

Mary

[Calm]

You need to include the first [ quote ] coding thing to get it working correctly.

[Bsix]

The reason that a Mormon praying to God for a revelation that the LDS Church is 'true' is so unique is that the truth of Mormonism goes to a core difference between Mormonism and other churches.

Mormonism doesn't simply claim to be a Christian church...we claim to be the Christian Church.

In our belief system, Joseph Smith prayed to God to know which church to join. Thus the concept of praying for personal revelation started from the very beginning of our faith. It is one of the things that makes our restorationist Christian Church different.

As to the Apostles seeing Jesus Christ? I don't know, they do not openly declare what they have seen. Also of interest...Mormons generally interpret the New Testament to understand that Paul DID see Jesus Christ. I believe that most other Christians do as well.

Regards,

Six

[BishopRic]

The issue becomes more complex when we consider that there can be only one truth when it comes to doctrine. There are many doctrines, and most are inconsequential to salvation. The question is which church, if any, has a monopoly on all the essential ones. To be honest I don't know the answer definitively. I do know the lds church believes in following the Spirit and that I have experienced the Spirit and found being in the Church the best way of living my life as a spiritual being and expressing my need to serve God. I don't believe its perfect. I don't believe detail is absolute and I believe mistakes have been made. It neverthess does the job for me and I feel the Spirit testify it is the true church. If I am mistaken and it is a true church, well what difference will it make to me. I can only speak the truth I feel and know for myself.

regards

Mori

Thank you again for a heartfelt and honest reply. I think your attitude is an asset to the LDS Church.

In my observations, I find members that are staunchly opposed to the possibility of non-LDS receiving God's inspiration and/or power in their lives. Others, such as I perceive yourself to be, are more open to that possibility.

While on my mission to Japan, I witnessed a healing by a group of Buddhist Monks. It was confusing to me and I contacted my Mission President. He asked me into his office and proceeded to quote Matthew Cowley about healing power. In the end he told me that the healing I observed was from the power of Satan...and it wouldn't last. That didn't click to me, as the "spirit" in the healing meeting was that of love and compassion -- not unlike a good LDS testimony meeting or blessing. It left me with a conflict that has been a question about spiritual gifts ever since.

Today, I think there are many LDS who would be okay with the event...and accept it as a good thing, rather than of the devil. I am pleased to see that evolution. My personal belief today is that God IS love, and we all have access to "his" power if accessed with sincerity and conviction.

Thank you again for your civil and thought-provoking response.

[Bsix]

As a Latter Day Saint that believes in the truth claims of our religion, I have to withhold judgement on the authenticity of miracles, and their sources, that are claimed by in other churches.

There are many wonderful and sincere people of faith. I believe that God blesses all of his children to the extent of their knowledge and faith -- and their worthiness to some extent. God's will for a person receiving a miracle also plays a role. As such, I can easily believe that sincere prayers and faith result in miracles for those who do not believe in the LDS Church. I can stretch that to assume that sincere ecclesiastical leaders can invoke God's blessing in the form of a miracle through their prayerful faith.

However, I see limits to such miracles should they occur. For starters, those blessings do not occur by virtue of priesthood authority...they occur by faith. Those who do see miracles by virtue of their faith cannot give blessing or perform ordinances by the power of the priesthood. They cannot baptise by authority, they cannot confer the Holy Ghost, they cannot perform temple blessings.

Being the recipient of a Godly miracle is one thing. Performing a miracle or ordinance by the power and authority of the priesthood is another thing.

Regards,

Six

[California]

Anijen: I am an "anti-Christ" because I don't believe you know that the LDS Church is what it claims ? You effectively have labeled everyone who is not LDS an anti-Christ with that reasoning. I still have deep affection for Christ's teachings and consider myself Christian.

So are you an Agnostic Deist like your Facebook account says, or are you a Christian like you are telling us on this forum, or both? Is there something I'm not getting here because I don't think that you can BE both.

[BishopRic]

So are you a Christian or an agnostic Deist, or both? Is there something I'm not getting here?

I cannot answer for Ruski (obviously!), but I have a few thoughts about the question -- a normal and frequent one I hear. I think we all like labels...definitions that set a foundation for us to discuss and debate. I have personally come to hate labels. I've even come to love the phrase in the temple script about the "other" definition of God. I mostly agree with that today.

When I am asked if I am a Christian, I answer with "I love the pure teachings of Jesus, as I understand them; if that makes me a Christian then so be it." If asked "are you saved in Jesus?," I answer "I don't believe I need to be saved, and I don't believe Jesus taught "salvation" the way most traditional Christians teach it today. The Gnostic gospels clarify it a bit...if you believe them as much or more than the NT gospels.

Anyway, just my rambling thoughts for the moment.

[Abulafia]

Mormonism doesn't simply claim to be a Christian church...we claim to be the Christian Church.

Regards,

Six

BSix, are you saying that other churches are not 'christian'? Perhaps you could clarify exactly what you mean?

I have had similar experiences with members attitudes towards miracles performed outside the church btw. I was also told by leaders that any miracle performed outside of the church was of the devil (at a stake rather than ward level). A nice story was told of how someone had received a healing, for the bone to break again because it was healed by the power of the devil and so was temporary. I was also told that when a group was speaking in tongues, that someone could translate (apparantly a group were speaking in some foreign language) and all they were doing was cursing God and praising the devil (that was the SP's wife).

I think you will find this attitude among many members at grass roots level, and perhaps comes directly from the implications of your statement above.

I dunno, didn't Jesus say something like, where 2 or 3 are gathered in my name....he didn't add an addendum saying....oh...but you have to have been ordained by the power of the priesthood....

I can see how the church gradually became formalised, even in ancient times. But I wonder how much it had already changed even by the time Paul got his hands on the church...such simple steps from the simple dynamic and inclusive (certainly within the culture) theology to an exlusive and elitist one.

If the heart of the gospel is to know Jesus as perfect example of his father, and to look after the poor and the widows then surely everything else is fluff. Which is why Jesus didn't stop any who were performing miracles in his name. Authority didn't seem important, but honest intention did...

Mary

[Bsix]

BSix, are you saying that other churches are not 'christian'? Perhaps you could clarify exactly what you mean?

Six: I certainly recognize traditional Christian churches as 'Christian' churches. However, they are not true Christian churches. They are perfectly sincere, but teach doctrines that are at odds with the fullness of the Gospel as taught in the restored Church. They do not have God's authority.

Regards,

Six

[moriancamur]

BishopRic

In my observations, I find members that are staunchly opposed to the possibility of non-LDS receiving God's inspiration and/or power in their lives. Others, such as I perceive yourself to be, are more open to that possibility.

That didn't click to me, as the "spirit" in the healing meeting was that of love and compassion -- not unlike a good LDS testimony meeting or blessing. It left me with a conflict that has been a question about spiritual gifts ever since

Today, I think there are many LDS who would be okay with the event...and accept it as a good thing, rather than of the devil. I am pleased to see that evolution. My personal belief today is that God IS love, and we all have access to "his" power if accessed with sincerity and conviction.

Bsix

However, I see limits to such miracles should they occur. For starters, those blessings do not occur by virtue of priesthood authority...they occur by faith. Those who do see miracles by virtue of their faith cannot give blessing or perform ordinances by the power of the priesthood. They cannot baptise by authority, they cannot confer the Holy Ghost, they cannot perform temple blessings.

Being the recipient of a Godly miracle is one thing. Performing a miracle or ordinance by the power and authority of the priesthood is another thing.

Mary

I have had similar experiences with members attitudes towards miracles performed outside the church btw. I was also told by leaders that any miracle performed outside of the church was of the devil

I dunno, didn't Jesus say something like, where 2 or 3 are gathered in my name....he didn't add an addendum saying....oh...but you have to have been ordained by the power of the priesthood....

If the heart of the gospel is to know Jesus as perfect example of his father, and to look after the poor and the widows then surely everything else is fluff. Which is why Jesus didn't stop any who were performing miracles in his name. Authority didn't seem important, but honest intention did...

Some great points. I hope I can add something to this discussion.

To help my point I must state a doctrinal dilema I have with both sides of the Christian divide.

Without extensive background, succinctly stated, I prayed to know if there was a God at 10. I had a life changing experience. At 13 an incident caused me to recognize how sin seperated me from God. I could feel it and based on my previous knowledge I was deeply troubled. Although not guilty of any serious sin this spiritual cloud hung over me for days. During a silent prayer as I walked I realized Jesus had suffered to pay the price. The instant I looked to His atonement I felt a remarkable cleansing of my soul and an unspeakable joy. Other experiences followed.

I was not a member of any church at the time. I became a mormon when 18.

The dilema is that mainstream Christianity as taught in evangelical churches say that becoming a mormon proves this experience to not be of God. If it were true I would have the Spirit which would mean I could not last long worshipping the false mormon God. Well I do have the Spirit and I am a Mormon!

The other dilema is that some Mormons as you say believe such experiences are associated only with priesthood ordinances. Thus some would say the experience invalid. What I have to add is that I felt forgiven ahead of some future event I took to be the judgement. In process of time I felt my baptism was a completion when 18. Either way I did not require at the time any association with the priesthood to experience what in my view was being born of the Spirit. I required faith. How many times did Jesus announce by your faith you are healed?

Furthermore it is a modern misconception that healing must be performed by the priesthood. It is the modern protocol in the church but it was not always so. Healing is clearly a gift of the Spirit in all standard works of the church. In the 19th century it was general for men to bless men and women to bless women, not entirely alien to experienced members. Men also blessed women and rarely women men. Either way there are records of women healing by the gift of the Spirit. In the end it was faith as always that was the key. It is one of those assumptions members make that the priesthood is required for everything, including being born again, receiving the Spirit etc. Assumptions that if one thing is true any and every development ever made was true. Rather like the assumptions evans make that the bible was divinely controlled to contain everything sanctioned by God and written correctly in every detail. All assumptions that result in many follies. Just so you know, I am quite happy to follow protocol. I am not seeking to rebel against these changes. Nevertheless if the Spirit directs us to do something, we should get on and do it. After all Christ is the head of the church and I have heard it said many times by prophets of our church to always follow the Spirit. This Attitude is the one to cultivate. We should ignore those who seek to be overly legalistic in the application of protocols etc. at the expense of the Spirit. I suspect they are like that because of their own Spiritual inadequacies, and sometimes because they seek for power themselves and not to only seek the will of God.

So BishopRic I would trust your instincts on this one. If those monks healed by faith in the power of God limited in understanding as they may be.....indeed as we all are, their faith in the divine power is as valid as anyones. IMO. Just as I experienced a cleansing at 10 before I truly began to understand the purpose of the atonement at 13 when I would say I was fully born again in the Spirit, so I believe those monks exercising faith in God to the limit of their understanding can receive blessings according to their faith. Again just an opinion.

cheers all

Mori

[Glenn101]

To those in the Church I concerning miracles, healings etc. by those not of the church I would point them to the attitude that Jesus had when the John the apostle saw another healing the sick, etc.

Like 9:49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.

50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

Likewise Jesus also said of those who followed not with him but walked separately:

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

I am content to let the Lord do the judging in these and all other cases. It does not hurt me in one way or the other. I hold the priesthood. I know of its power (but not fully, i.e. I'm a long way from perfect). And I know that the Church is true. It is the way I need to go.

Of course a little (lot) of missionary work might help to bring those others into the fold.

Glenn

[Garden Girl]

If any of my LDS brothers and sisters want to see me start foaming at the mouth, just start with the "that healing was of the devil" in regard to those faithful Christians outside the Church receiving a "healing." It makes me cringe when I hear our people, regardless of what level, say such a thing.

I agree with those who say these healings are a matter of faith... The Lord will heal whom he will according to their "faith" and it is not for us to judge. There are many deeply faithful people who love the Lord and live an exemplary life. They have faith that their prayers will be heard, and they are. They can and do receive inspiration according to their faithful prayers when they call upon the Lord.

That said, however, make no mistake... I firmly believe in the Priesthood, and the necessity of priesthood authority for performing ordinances, i.e., baptism, the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, the temple ordinances...

But I would not presume to take it upon myself to limit God by condeming blessings received by a non-LDS through faith, as being of the devil.

The Garden Girl

[Abulafia]

Thanks Mori, Glenn and Garden Girl,

What (and I know I have said this before) I learn from speaking to active mormons on this site, is that there is room for a variety of viewpoints on matters LDS, and that variety, as Lamanite pointed out goes all the way to the top.

Vive la difference!!

Mary

[California]

I cannot answer for Ruski (obviously!), but I have a few thoughts about the question -- a normal and frequent one I hear. I think we all like labels...definitions that set a foundation for us to discuss and debate. I have personally come to hate labels. I've even come to love the phrase in the temple script about the "other" definition of God. I mostly agree with that today.

When I am asked if I am a Christian, I answer with "I love the pure teachings of Jesus, as I understand them; if that makes me a Christian then so be it." If asked "are you saved in Jesus?," I answer "I don't believe I need to be saved, and I don't believe Jesus taught "salvation" the way most traditional Christians teach it today. The Gnostic gospels clarify it a bit...if you believe them as much or more than the NT gospels.

Anyway, just my rambling thoughts for the moment.

The problem here is Ruski labelling HIMSELF two incompatible things... not anybody else labelling him.... credibility... credibility... credibility

you can't be both at the same time. That is called contradiction. So is this whatever suits the moment/argument or is this that he is both?

[caudicus]

He is a human being, of whom all hold differing ideas and opinions concurrently within the same mind. His opinion is no less valid than anyone else's. His credibilty stained no more or less than your own.

[ruski_canuk]

The problem here is Ruski labelling HIMSELF two incompatible things... not anybody else labelling him.... credibility... credibility... credibility

you can't be both at the same time. That is called contradiction. So is this whatever suits the moment/argument or is this that he is both?

Are you suggesting that Christian and Deist are incompatible ? Sounds like those EVs who label Mormons as not being Christian. Cmon Eva.