If You Were Wrong, Would You Want To Know It?

[Deborah]

I do not believe for a moment the Lord is not going to tell someone that the Book of Mormon is false. If someone comes to that conclusion, they either have not received the confirmation or they have it in their own mind it is false already (confirmation bias, or "a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one's beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one's beliefs.")

Most of us who have accepted the Book of Mormon for what it is purported to be do not come at it with a preconceived bias. Certainly not as converts. The early members of the LDS church certainly had no pre-conceived bias to accept it. In fact they were being told that God no longer speaks to man.

I agree with what has already been expressed that those outside the church do not comprehend the depth of what goes into building a testiomony or the types of experiences LDS have. I seriously question the depth of those experiences ex-LDS claim to have once have. If they could be so easily deceived once why not now when they have left it all behind.

[Deborah]

To clarify further, the Holy Ghost is he who testifies to the truth of all things. By definition the Holy Ghost is a testfier of truth and is such will not testify to that which is false. As D&C 9: 8,9 says

But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong....

Having had this stupor of thought I know exactly what it is talking about. It is not a testimony of a negative but rather an absence of testimony of truth or right.

Many people have spiritual experiences which testify of Christ. I do not question that these are sincere and true spiritual experiences, whether by the Holy Ghost or the Light of Christ. The Book of Mormon likewise testifies of Christ. Whether one receives the confirmation of its source or not, how can a book which does nothing but testify of Christ be bad?

[merlin0152]

I would never expect anyone to rely on feelings.

The witnesses I have had were ones that went straight to my soul. It would be impossible for me to describe what it was like to anyone; itâ??s like trying to explain salt to someone whoâ??s never tasted salt before. All I know is there can not be two truths which conflict with each other, else I could stand before God at judgment day and ask why he lied to me.

What is in question here is whether or not what you are describing is an appropriate "test" for whether or not a Faith is True or not.

I. I doubt any of us would agree that God is capable of lying to you. Have you considered if there is anyone else that might?? Revelation 12:9 says that the Devil will "lead the world astray". Is it possible the Devil could tempt your "heart" in order to lead you astray? Jeremiah 17:9 says the "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Consider the plausibility of this....if it's plausible, how confident are you about a feeling within your heart?

II. Is this how we are instructed to test? The Bereans in Acts 17:11 were held in very high regard & considered "of Noble Character" by the Apostle writer himself, and were shown here qualifying Truth by "examining the scriptures", not praying to God about it. Why do you suppose this is the case? Is this an example for everyone to imitate?

III. Have you prayed in order to qualify or disqualify:

Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Juche, Judaism, Shinto, Cao Dai, Neo-Paganism, or Scientology (as you know the list could go on and on)?

Or can we simply disqualify these Faiths and others that sprout up periodically based on our Faith and trust in the Bible?

Paul rebukes the church in Galatia for not doing that very same thing. Galatians 1:6~:

"6I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

7Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

It is interesting here that Paul finds this point so important that he emphasizes by repeating his warning again in verse 9. Is the BOM another Gospel/Testament? It seems almost to convenient that Paul mentions that an Angel may attempt to deliver this other message.

-THE TESTIMONY OF THREE WITNESSES:

"...And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought...the plates, and the engravings thereon;..."

-INTRODUCTION TO THE BOM:

"The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible."

"The record is now published in many languages as a NEW and ADDITINAL witness..."

"Moroni, then a glorified, resurrected being, appeared to the Prophet Joseph Smith and instructed him relative to the ancient record..."

Summary:

I broke this up into 3 sections (I), (II), & (III) each I think with it's own questions to answer.

I. Is it plausible, according to scripture, that Satan could manipulate us by our 'hearts'?

II. What is our test according to scriptural example? Is it safe to say that the example shown would alleviate the potential of a subjective heart/emotions being manipulated?

III. Are we not forewarned by Paul himself that 'New Testaments' would crop up and try to lead us astray? What does he say is the Gospel that we are to obey? In the most simplest of answers, what other instructions or gospels are we instructed not to obey? From whom might 'any other gospel' be presented to us?

I hope I have kept my thoughts organized enough to be fruitful and these points might peak your curiosity to ponder them if not just for a moment.

I look forward to hearing from you guys again soon. Please be patient with my responses.

In Christian Love ,

-Merlin0152

[merlin0152]

I was born into the church, my mother was l.d.s we never were able to be active. Now that i am 54 years

old and have searched and searched for many years, not only my own religon but others as well, i can

say with all honesty that i do now know the truth, i have heard and investigated every possible critics

and naysayers negative comments and beleifs about this church, And i have heard it all. I have proved to

myself beyond any doubt, this is the true work that Jesus Christ wants us to do in its fullness. the

covenants,ordinances,sacrament,baptism,preisthood authority, are all true And nessacery work for

the fullness of times as phrophecied in ancient biblical cannon. My only wish is that if i could only

be able to speak face to face with every doubter in the world, That would be good.

I admire the journey of Truth you say you've traveled through the years. Kudos to you for putting forth the effort, because I think most don't, for whatever reason: lazy, afraid of what they may find, etc.

If I might add one point of caution though. You mentioned you have 'heard it all', and as I know that is somewhat of a figure of speech, never leave out the possibility that God wants you to hear more. There are many amazing people out there and after sorting through the garbage and selfish agendas, some actually have something of worth to point out or teach. As Romans 10:14 points out, one can not begin calling on Jesus without first Hearing.

Let me be very plain in saying this though, scripture is where real Truth is found. Man can be the source which leads one to scripture and sometimes even bring some enlightenment on what a scripture means, but NEVER underestimate the responsibility for finding out yourself. Don't take my word for it, or any one else's. Take God's word for it. We will each be held accountable to God (Rom. 3:19).

I would be interested to hear how you have proved to yourself beyond a doubt about your Faith. Let's talk.

I look forward to hearing from you.

In Christian Love,

Merlin0152

[merlin0152]

My parents and grandparents had no religion that they ever thought important enough to share with me. When I became a Protestant Christian in 1977 at age 21, my parents, two brothers and a sister followed almost immediately. My grandfather prayed a prayer for forgiveness that at the time I thought would save him. It still makes me have hope that in his darkness God had mercy on him. He was very good to me and I miss him very much. I wish I had more to give to him. I thought that when I became a Catholic in 1995 my parents would follow as they did before. My sis came in with my wife and kids in '95 after busting up with a Baptist guy, but there was at first vehement resistance from Dad in particular against the idea of becoming Catholic, until 2005. My elderly parents are now both Catholic. I want to know if I am wrong, and have led them and other loved ones astray. So long as we live, it is time to make wrongs right.

Thanks for asking,

3DOP

Does the Catholic church mimic the practices and beliefs established by Jesus in His 1st century church?

Do you know who founded/established the Catholic church? Do you think that any man is within his right and capable of establishing a Church or is this Jesus' exclusive right?

Check out what the Apostle Paul says about divisions in the One Church that Jesus established while writing to the Church in Corinth: ICor. 1:10~11, ICor. 11:17~19

I pray you find the peace and knowledge that you are looking for?

In Christian Love,

Merlin0152

[structurecop]

III. Have you prayed in order to qualify or disqualify:

Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Juche, Judaism, Shinto, Cao Dai, Neo-Paganism, or Scientology (as you know the list could go on and on)?

Or can we simply disqualify these Faiths and others that sprout up periodically based on our Faith and trust in the Bible?

I prayed and I believe Judaism and Neo-Paganism as well.

It is interesting here that Paul finds this point so important that he emphasizes by repeating his warning again in verse 9. Is the BOM another Gospel/Testament? It seems almost to convenient that Paul mentions that an Angel may attempt to deliver this other message.

It does seem almost too convenient... logically, that must mean that every angel of light is the devil!

Does the Catholic church mimic the practices and beliefs established by Jesus in His 1st century church?

Do you know who founded/established the Catholic church? Do you think that any man is within his right and capable of establishing a Church or is this Jesus' exclusive right?

Check out what the Apostle Paul says about divisions in the One Church that Jesus established while writing to the Church in Corinth: ICor. 1:10~11, ICor. 11:17~19

I pray you find the peace and knowledge that you are looking for?

In Christian Love,

Merlin0152

Please forgive me if I get a little sarcastic here but exactly who do you think established the Church you attend?

[Zoidberg]

I do not believe for a moment the Lord is not going to tell someone that the Book of Mormon is false.

Double negatives are tricky... You probably meant: "I do not believe for a moment the Lord is going to tell someone that the Book of Mormon is false." But a lot of people would probably agree with what you said.

Most of us who have accepted the Book of Mormon for what it is purported to be do not come at it with a preconceived bias. Certainly not as converts.

I have talked about the assumptions and preconceived biases that must be made/had in order to take advantage of Moroni's promise in the "onus" thread. Would I be wrong to say that converts, especially, but probably "most of us" accept the BoM after following the procedure outlined in Moroni's promise? Let me quote myself:

There are several claims made in this passage [Moroni 10:3-5]; a method for knowing the truth of all things is given, and you are offered to test it on the BoM. Of course, this is a classic example of circular reasoning. Why should I follow the procedure outlined in this passage? Because Moroni said so. How do I know there was a guy named Moroni? Because BoM says so, etc.

Evidently, one must already be not only a theist, but also a Christian to meet the conditions required for receiving knowledge of the truthfulness of the BoM.

I agree with what has already been expressed that those outside the church do not comprehend the depth of what goes into building a testiomony or the types of experiences LDS have. I seriously question the depth of those experiences ex-LDS claim to have once have. If they could be so easily deceived once why not now when they have left it all behind.

Well, I don't know if I should call myself ex-LDS yet, but here's my two cents: I do not feel bad about having joined the Church. I feel that I received a lot more benefits in every way (spirituality, opportunity for service, friends, fun activities; probably wouldn't have married my husband if I weren't LDS, that's the biggest thing for me) from being a member than I otherwise would have. I had a strong testimony of some of the doctrines (theosis, salvation for most, etc.) and still do. I've never had a strong testimony of the BoM and still don't, except now I don't feel bad about not having one. Before I just accepted it as true because it was such a fundmamental part of the religion. I tried to convince myself that a miniscule amount of warm fuzzies (infinetely less than after reading the Gospels or even watching the movie "Jesus of Montreal" which is totally fictional) I felt after praying about it was the HG telling me it's true. I had a strong testimony of some of the doctrines being wrong (especially blood atonement, even in the seemingly innocent way portrayed by the Encyclopedia of Mormonism) and still do. The only difference between now and before is that I feel that if I continue as an active member, I would be deceiving myself. I am unable to excercise the level of obedience preferred by the current prophet so I'll never be as good a member as the others, according to GBH.

So, joining the LDS Church was a good and beneficial experience in my spiritual journey, but there is further progress that I feel I should now seek. For other people, the LDS church might be their ultimate destination (which is good for them), but I'm not one of those people.

[Avatar4321]

What honest seeker of truth wouldnt want to know if he/she was wrong about something?

I know I sure as heck dont want to be wrong. That is of course why I asked God if the the Church was telling me the truth. I told Him if the truth was elsewhere I would go wherever He wanted.

His answer was very clear. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true. Joseph Smith is a prophet. The Book of Mormon is true. And most important of all Jesus is the Christ.

I may be wrong about alot of other things. But those four things I know.

[Avatar4321]

What is in question here is whether or not what you are describing is an appropriate "test" for whether or not a Faith is True or not.

I. I doubt any of us would agree that God is capable of lying to you. Have you considered if there is anyone else that might?? Revelation 12:9 says that the Devil will "lead the world astray". Is it possible the Devil could tempt your "heart" in order to lead you astray? Jeremiah 17:9 says the "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Consider the plausibility of this....if it's plausible, how confident are you about a feeling within your heart?

II. Is this how we are instructed to test? The Bereans in Acts 17:11 were held in very high regard & considered "of Noble Character" by the Apostle writer himself, and were shown here qualifying Truth by "examining the scriptures", not praying to God about it. Why do you suppose this is the case? Is this an example for everyone to imitate?

III. Have you prayed in order to qualify or disqualify:

Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Juche, Judaism, Shinto, Cao Dai, Neo-Paganism, or Scientology (as you know the list could go on and on)?

Or can we simply disqualify these Faiths and others that sprout up periodically based on our Faith and trust in the Bible?

Paul rebukes the church in Galatia for not doing that very same thing. Galatians 1:6~:

"6I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

7Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

It is interesting here that Paul finds this point so important that he emphasizes by repeating his warning again in verse 9. Is the BOM another Gospel/Testament? It seems almost to convenient that Paul mentions that an Angel may attempt to deliver this other message.

-THE TESTIMONY OF THREE WITNESSES:

"...And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought...the plates, and the engravings thereon;..."

-INTRODUCTION TO THE BOM:

"The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible."

"The record is now published in many languages as a NEW and ADDITINAL witness..."

"Moroni, then a glorified, resurrected being, appeared to the Prophet Joseph Smith and instructed him relative to the ancient record..."

Summary:

I broke this up into 3 sections (I), (II), & (III) each I think with it's own questions to answer.

I. Is it plausible, according to scripture, that Satan could manipulate us by our 'hearts'?

II. What is our test according to scriptural example? Is it safe to say that the example shown would alleviate the potential of a subjective heart/emotions being manipulated?

III. Are we not forewarned by Paul himself that 'New Testaments' would crop up and try to lead us astray? What does he say is the Gospel that we are to obey? In the most simplest of answers, what other instructions or gospels are we instructed not to obey? From whom might 'any other gospel' be presented to us?

I hope I have kept my thoughts organized enough to be fruitful and these points might peak your curiosity to ponder them if not just for a moment.

I look forward to hearing from you guys again soon. Please be patient with my responses.

In Christian Love ,

-Merlin0152

Did you ever stop to consider that maybe you were the only Paul was worried would accept this "other gospel"?

Let's look at the Bible. What does it say about how we know the truth of Christ?

13

[nana]

I agree with what has already been expressed that those outside the church do not comprehend the depth of what goes into building a testiomony or the types of experiences LDS have. I seriously question the depth of those experiences ex-LDS claim to have once have. If they could be so easily deceived once why not now when they have left it all behind.

There are many who have left the church behind, not God.

I have had many experiences that tell me God is with me. Don't tell me I have been decieved by my experiences. I will fight to the end knowing what has happened between God and me are real and he has been a part of my life in or out of the church.

I have a testimony of God, I learned a lot of good things in church, but it has proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is man made.

To say that those outside of the church do not comprehend that depth of what goes into building a testimony or types of experiences LDS have, is unfortunately a "close minded" mentality. To think that LDS are the only ones who have what it takes to have experiences with God somehow lessens others relationship to God is ridiculous.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

There are many who have left the church behind, not God.

I have had many experiences that tell me God is with me. Don't tell me I have been decieved by my experiences. I will fight to the end knowing what has happened between God and me are real and he has been a part of my life in or out of the church.

I wouldnt dare tell your experiances are decieving, however others on this board might?

[Lightbearer]

There are many who have left the church behind, not God.

I have had many experiences that tell me God is with me. Don't tell me I have been decieved by my experiences. I will fight to the end knowing what has happened between God and me are real and he has been a part of my life in or out of the church.

I have a testimony of God, I learned a lot of good things in church, but it has proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is man made.

To say that those outside of the church do not comprehend that depth of what goes into building a testimony or types of experiences LDS have, is unfortunately a "close minded" mentality. To think that LDS are the only ones who have what it takes to have experiences with God somehow lessens others relationship to God is ridiculous.

I do not doubt that all people have had experiences with God to a greater or lesser degree both in and out of the Church. However no experience that tells a person to leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is of God. And nobody can leave the Church without leaving God, it is His Church. That does not mean that God doesn't love someone that leaves and that He will try to bring His sheep home.

[BishopRic]

I do not doubt that all people have had experiences with God to a greater or lesser degree both in and out of the Church. However no experience that tells a person to leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is of God. And nobody can leave the Church without leaving God, it is His Church. That does not mean that God doesn't love someone that leaves and that He will try to bring His sheep home.

This is typical Mormon arrogance in action. "If you don't get the same answer I did, well, you're just wrong!" You can certainly believe the church all you want, but when you start your "we're the only one with all the truth" arrogance, you will be called on it.

[John Williams]

This is typical Mormon arrogance in action. "If you don't get the same answer I did, well, you're just wrong!" You can certainly believe the church all you want, but when you start your "we're the only one with all the truth arrogance, you will be called on it.

It's not arrogant if it's true.

Seriously, that statement presumes to know what God has said to everyone who ever asked for guidance.

[3DOP]

How refreshing! A response in the form of questions.

Hi Merlin,

I hope you will not mind if I explain my answers.

Q: Does the Catholic church mimic the practices and beliefs established by Jesus in His 1st century church?

A: The true faith, if it currently exists, which would claim Jesus as one of their own will have retained those practices and beliefs (Catholic/Orthodox), reestablished those practices and beliefs (Protestant/Restorationist), or moved on to another dispensation (Islamic based Restoration). Mimicry would seem to imply a vain and powerless effort to copy that which God once established. Being Catholic, I do not believe that my church mimics the apostolic church but has handed on those beliefs and practices from generation to generation. I am not asking you to believe it yourself, but I hope you can see that it wouldn't make sense to be Catholic if you thought otherwise.

Q: Do you know who founded/established the Catholic church?

A: Yes I do. Catholics believe that the bishops ordained by the apostles are their successors, as are those who have received the episcopacy from the hands of the bishops for nearly 2,000 years. Of course, we hold that Christ gave the apostles the authority and obligation to establish the Church in this fashion. There are different ways of being Christian and not believing this happened historically. In my opinion, all problems considered, the Catholic position is by far the easiest to defend. If one is Christian but not Catholic, it follows as a matter of course that they must think it was Constantine, another secular leader, or maybe another religious figure who founded what we now identify as the Catholic Church.

Q: Do you think that any man is within his right and capable of establishing a Church or is this Jesus' exclusive right?

A: Now that's a good question, and one which I have pondered over long and hard. The answer seems so obvious to me now. No. No. And no. However, having established a church of my own, coming from a tradition which did not consider the question, it was not without some difficulty that I arrived at my current position. On the other hand, the question was always lingering with me. I was never ordained you see. I asked another prominent pastor in the area who was supporting me what he thought of that. He didn't seem concerned, and so I went ahead with it, thinking that God was calling me.

People get burned out on the genealogies in the Bible, but they have a purpose. They show continuity. Ordination implies continuity too. A succession of ordinations always lead back to a spiritual founder. If that founder is some guy that isn't at least an apostle, I think you are better off doing without ordination, as that pastor advised me. Still, I saw how the laying on of hands seemed to be a function used in the New Testament for passing on God's authority, and with that always lingering in the back of my mind, I was probably more susceptible to Catholic claims than I would have been otherwise.

Now, if God appears to Joseph Smith, Mohammed, Martin Luther, or anyone else and instructs them on why a past line of ordinations is now invalid, that would give someone the "right and capability" as you called it if establishing a new Church. In effect, such a person would be the new prophet and apostle. This would follow the pattern which Jesus Himself established when through His apostles, He declared the Mosaic institutions to have been only shadows of better things, and upon the establishment of the Church null and void, fulfilled in the New Testament Church.

There are two big differences between the establishment of a church by Christ and that theorized by a Luther or Smith. First, is that with the latter there are significant chronological gaps when there was no true faith on earth for men to embrace. The second difference, is that with the latter they are merely trying to return to a primitive form. Christ never explained to his disciples that they were returning to the primitive teachings and practices of Moses. No. Christ's kingdom was something which embraced what was already present (Christ called Herod's Temple "My Father's house"), and went beyond it. Even as Our Lord was quick to criticize the Pharisees and scribes for their pride, it was never because they were part of what had become a false religion. Only days before His Passion, Christ reminded his disciples to obey the scribes and Pharisees because they "sit in Moses' seat" (Mt. 23:2).

Everything about the New Testament confirms the enduring continuity of the religion established through Moses beginning at the time of the birth of Christ when His herald, John, was the son of a priest who "executed the priest's office before God in the order of his course" (Lk. 1:. The religion established through Moses was maintained even as the high priest was given the charism to prophesy (Jn. 11:51).

Through evils of every kind, the most hideous abominations were practiced for well over a thousand years by God's priests, kings, and people, yet that institution established by Moses was never interrupted though God often punished by banishment, sword, or pestilence. If Christ had said that the religion founded by Moses had gone sour at some point, I would be more open to the arguments of restorationists whether they be Mormon, Bahai, or Protestant. Catholic history knows nothing of the corruption of the Old Testament religion. Moses' religion lasts though two Temples be destroyed because of unfaithfulness and his priests sent away. Why would I think Christ's religion is less durable? What does the Old Testament teach us, if not that we don't have authority to declare an institution null merely because of alleged bad behavior of its members?

So no, a Catholic cannot imagine that anybody has authority from God to start another church.

Q: Check out what the Apostle Paul says about divisions in the One Church that Jesus established while writing to the Church in Corinth: ICor. 1:10~11, ICor. 11:17~19

A: I read the passages just now. I have probably tested your patience with my long replies and will refrain from comment unless you solicit a response. I have a tendency to be thorough whenever anyone asks me a question and am always disappointed that others so often ignore my direct questions in these kinds of discussion.

After I quit the ministry I naturally started looking for jobs. I can now look back fifteen years later and realize why I never got one. I always answered that question about why you left your last job in detail! It was probably unnecessary that I get into theology with a prospective employer, but that was the reason I left. Heh. Just imagine this nincompoop trying to get a job driving a bus or garbage truck explaining his theological problems in the small space provided. What a knucklehead. No wonder they always rejected me. I think I would find a different way of answering the question now. But may it please God to deliver me from ever needing to fill out a job application again!!!

I pray you find the peace and knowledge that you are looking for?

In Christian Love,

Merlin0152

Thank you very much Merlin, God bless you for your generosity. I need nothing more than prayers and I offer mine for you.

Sincerely,

3DOP

[BishopRic]

It's not arrogant if it's true.

Seriously, that statement presumes to know what God has said to everyone who ever asked for guidance.

Yes, and I guess I get a little short when a person claims to know the mind of God....

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes, and I guess I get a little short when a person claims to know the mind of God....

Is it impossible to know Gods will? Or is it impossible to know GOds mind? Just curious.

[jwhitlock]

This is typical Mormon arrogance in action.

I find this generalization condescending and arrogant in itself.

Or can you justify your assertion that Mormons are typically arrogant?

[Zoidberg]

Or can you justify your assertion that Mormons are typically arrogant?

Do a poll? Just a suggestion.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I find this generalization condescending and arrogant in itself.

Or can you justify your assertion that Mormons are typically arrogant?

Man, what has been going on here the past couple of days. Feels like people have short fuses. I think nobody wants winter to come. I ve seen quite a bit of hints that people are "this and that". It hard to have a conversation here.

[jwhitlock]

Do a poll? Just a suggestion.

Sorry, but that would be trying to find justification for a generalization after the fact.

[BishopRic]

I find this generalization condescending and arrogant in itself.

Or can you justify your assertion that Mormons are typically arrogant?

In my 40 years of attending LDS meetings, I heard this sort of remark all the time. I even said it myself! And yes, I see it as extremely arrogant today.

Fortunately, some of the more intelligent people here don't make that sort of statement (at least here)...but I would assume it is still the norm in "typical" LDS meetings. If I'm wrong, let me know.

[jwhitlock]

Man, what has been going on here the past couple of days. Feels like people have short fuses. I think nobody wants winter to come. I ve seen quite a bit of hints that people are "this and that". It hard to have a conversation here.

Well, I always like to give someone a chance to clarify or retract a statement as needed.

[jwhitlock]

In my 40 years of attending LDS meetings, I heard this sort of remark all the time. I even said it myself! And yes, I see it as extremely arrogant today.

Fortunately, some of the more intelligent people here don't make that sort of statement (at least here)...but I would assume it is still the norm in "typical" LDS meetings. If I'm wrong, let me know.

You're wrong.

It's an indefensible generalization. And you didn't apply your generalization to just this statement; you said it was typical Mormon arrogance.

Now, instead of backpedaling on something so obviously indefensible (I've been in the Church longer than you and I don't hear that kind of remark all the time), you compound it by another generalization inferring that only some of the more intelligent people don't make that statement. Just digging yourself in deeper.

Would you like to reconsider? If not, please provide concrete justification for your generalization.

[nana]

I do not doubt that all people have had experiences with God to a greater or lesser degree both in and out of the Church. However no experience that tells a person to leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is of God. And nobody can leave the Church without leaving God, it is His Church. That does not mean that God doesn't love someone that leaves and that He will try to bring His sheep home.

Well, I am sorry to burst your bubble. I did in fact leave the church. I did not leave God. I did not leave some of the valuable things that I was taught in the church.

I am still the same good person that I was before. And before you question the fact that no experience that tells a person to leave the LDS church comes from God, I would say, that you don't know what experience cause a person to leave and if it was "approved" by God or not.

Until you have walked in their shoes and prayed with their heart, there is no way a blanket statement such as the one quoted above can be made.