"i've Come To The Conclusion That The Church Is Not True!"

[Deborah]

But then, maybe that's another "assumption" that requires a "paradigm shift." Speaking of which, it seems to me that in the context of this conversation, paradigm shift is just another word for ad hoc rationalization. Whenever a negative conclusion can be drawn, it isn't the facts that make the church look bad, it's your assumptions.

The whole point of the OP seems to be saying that when we see what appears to conflict with our beliefs we have a choice. We can realize that we may not have full knowledge and hold on to our faith, which has already been through the refiner's fire and borne by the spirit, or we can dismiss all that to follow a very shaky trail of assumptions, mostly by critics, which conclude that the "evidence" is in favor of non-belief. All the things you cite have been discussed and refuted and explained, which just goes to show you are doing exactly what you accuse us of doing: rationalizing.

[Tchild2]

The whole point of the OP seems to be saying that when we see what appears to conflict with our beliefs we have a choice. We can realize that we may not have full knowledge and hold on to our faith, which has already been through the refiner's fire and borne by the spirit, or we can dismiss all that to follow a very shaky trail of assumptions, mostly by critics, which conclude that the "evidence" is in favor of non-belief. All the things you cite have been discussed and refuted and explained, which just goes to show you are doing exactly what you accuse us of doing: rationalizing.

Those "shaky trail of assumptions" have been presented over and over and over again by once-members. They must be significant, and in every way inclusive and material to whether Mormonism is what it claims to be, or else would we be seeing the same themed criticisms of Mormonism from so many voices?

I do agree with what you reconfirmed and what the OP stated. There is a choice, and keeping with faith or discarding that faith in the face of doubts is what the paradigm change necessitates.

As for "refuting and explained", well, perhaps from an apologetic viewpoint they have been. But what matters here anyway? Is it important that apologists feel vindicated, or that the outside world, for whom the gospel is intended, comes away with a sense of logic and order from the claims of Mormonism? From my viewpoint and from the viewpoint of the many criticisms leveled against Mormonism, it appears that the outside world is not swayed or convinced by those refutations that apologists are proclaiming.

[David Bokovoy]

Hello MC,

Long time no chat. Hope all is well. I miss the Mastodon avatar.

That's too bad, considering the Church "as an institution" has only existed for the last century and a half, and for most of that time membership numbers were even more minuscule than they are today. Which means nobody in the history of the human race has achieved "complete happiness" outside a numerically insignificant group of recent invention.

Iâ??ll take it even one step further and state that no one has ever obtained complete, unending happiness in this world. That complete happiness involves a fullness of joy, which is only accessible to those who reside continually in the presence of God.

That's a pretty dim view of humanity, if you ask me. A God whose plan includes sending virtually every one of his children into the world without even the hope of "complete happiness" sounds like a rather nasty individual.

Well, who assumes that all of Godâ??s children wonâ??t have an opportunity to achieve complete happiness. Your perspective is certainly incongruent with LDS theology.

But then, maybe that's another "assumption" that requires a "paradigm shift."

Indeed, poor assumptions on your part, it appears though that youâ??re catching the vision.

Speaking of which, it seems to me that in the context of this conversation, paradigm shift is just another word for ad hoc rationalization. Whenever a negative conclusion can be drawn, it isn't the facts that make the church look bad, it's your assumptions.

Thatâ??s correct, from my perspective, itâ??s never the facts that make the Church look bad; itâ??s a faulty paradigm.

Joseph changed his first vision story? Not a problem. The assumption that people don't change essential elements of life-changing events when relating them is the real problem.

Works for me. But Iâ??d also add Matthew Brownâ??s observations to your paradigm.

Joseph tricked people into paying him to find treasure with a magic rock (unsuccessfully)? Not a problem. The real problem is the assumption that future prophets don't dabble in the occult, and dupe the credulous into paying for spurious services

.

Well, of course a spiritual man has a propensity towards mysticism. And of course as a 19th century farmboy, Joseph was steeped in folk religious practices.

What evidence do you have though to convince us that Joseph did not truly believe that he could provide these services and locate buried treasure? I happen to believe that Joseph believed quite strongly that he could locate buried treasure through folk rituals and that he wasnâ??t out to dupe anyone.

The interesting thing is, nobody has to be indoctrinated into these "problematic assumptions."

Thatâ??s right. No one has to pick up an anti-Mormon track that analyzes this information in order to come to a negative conclusion concerning Joseph Smith and the Church. In fact, given the evidence, I donâ??t know why these organizations even bother trying to argue against the Church. What a waste of time!

Given your assumption that no one needs to be indoctrinated into a paradigm that leads to a negative perception of the Church, I really donâ??t know why these organizations even exist. Maybe since they do, and they clearly put forth considerable effort to indoctrinate people into their paradigms concerning Mormonism, perhaps your assumption is incorrect?!

One needn't even be reminded of them for their impact to be significant.

Again, then why bother. What a waste of time!

When a critic points out that Joseph neglected to mention God and Jesus in his earliest account of the first vision, the critic doesn't have to explicitly inform the reader of the implications.

He doesnâ??t?! What if the critic emphasizes that Joseph was writing about his experience to a Christian audience, using stock biblical phrases in order to help readers sense the legitimacy of his spiritual encounter. Would that information impact the views of the reader when they see that Joseph simply wrote "I saw the Lord"?

Our life experiences have taught us, universally, the signs of deception. Our life experiences have taught us that if a man would con his neighbors into paying him to use a magic rock to find buried treasure, that man cannot be trusted when he claims to use the same magic rock to produce scripture.

And from my view, this is merely a poor assumption.

[cksalmon]

That's too bad, considering the Church "as an institution" has only existed for the last century and a half, and for most of that time membership numbers were even more minuscule than they are today. Which means nobody in the history of the human race has achieved "complete happiness" outside a numerically insignificant group of recent invention. That's a pretty dim view of humanity, if you ask me. A God whose plan includes sending virtually every one of his children into the world without even the hope of "complete happiness" sounds like a rather nasty individual.

But then, maybe that's another "assumption" that requires a "paradigm shift." Speaking of which, it seems to me that in the context of this conversation, paradigm shift is just another word for ad hoc rationalization.

I suggested this on the other board--that David's point was that his underlying paradigm would not and could not ever change. David's foundational paradigm is that his spiritual testimony is true. All secondary issues are negotiable, he responded.

With an unfalsifiable, unequivocally-true paradigm that upholds that Mormonism is true--no matter what--there is no possibility of a truly-radical paradigm shift, such that Mormonism is considered to be possibly untrue.

David, like many folks of faith, myself possibly included, is a presuppositionalist. The unwavering presupposition is that the Church is True. No evidence against that claim is allowed more than revisionistic weight.

ME: It seems that what David is saying, fundamentally, is that his underlying paradigm will never change. Given his spiritual witness, it will always be the case that BoM is true, etc. When he speaks of "paradigm shift," he seems to mean a reimagining of secondary issues such that the primary paradigm is never allowed to be contradicted.

This is far from a thorough-going embracing of the possibilty of true "paradigm shift." This is paradigm maintenance.

This is clear when David suggests that "pardigm shift" is a much better option than denying one's spiritual witness.

Paradigm maintenance.

CKS

DAVID: That's correct. That is the one view I'm unwilling to change. Everything else is negotiable.

Absolutely non-negotiable foundational claims--irrespective of evidence against them--is indicative of paradigm maintenance. There is no possibility at all, per this worldview, that one might actually be wrong in one's foundational belief structure. That possibility is written off, a priori.

As someone said Schryver put it, this is indicative of "working backwards from a testimony." David is not, it would seem, open to even the remote possibility that he is wrong.

DAVID: That's correct. That is the one view I'm unwilling to change. Everything else is negotiable.

Per this worldview, as I understand David's comment, it is simply not even (logically?) possible that Mormonism is wrong. No evidence (preponderant or not) can touch that sort of worldview commitment. It's unassailable by even whatever evidence one might deem "objective."

This constitutes an insight into LDS belief claims, with utterly no offense meant, of which I was not completely aware until now.

CKS

[Deborah]

Those "shaky trail of assumptions" have been presented over and over and over again by once-members. They must be significant, and in every way inclusive and material to whether Mormonism is what it claims to be, or else would we be seeing the same themed criticisms of Mormonism from so many voices?

Or they keep coming up because they can't come up with anything new. Besides they are all rehashes that have been around since I can remember and all come from basically the same sources.

[David Bokovoy]

David, like many folks of faith, myself possibly included, is a presuppositionalist. The unwavering presupposition is that the Church is True. No evidence against that claim is allowed more than revisionist weight.

Thatâ??s not completely accurate. When all is said and done, we're simply not dealing with scientific observations that sustain or negate a presupposition.

For instance, notwithstanding the fact that I was raised in the Church, I havenâ??t always held to the supposition that the Church is in fact true. Prior to my missionary service, I spent several years convinced that the Church wasnâ??t true.

After obtaining a spiritual witnesses, however, to the contrary, I now carry the conviction that God has defined the Church as true.

Therefore, based upon my spiritual experiences, any bit of evidence that would appear to work against that supposition simply requires a paradigm shift. Not because I carry the presupposition that the Church is true, but because via revelation, God has defined it as such.

[cksalmon]

Therefore, based upon my spiritual experiences, any bit of evidence that would appear to work against that supposition simply requires a paradigm shift. Not because I carry the presupposition that the Church is true, but because via revelation, God has defined it as such.

That's a distinction without a difference, to my mind. You suggest that God has defined that the LDS Church is true, per your spiritual testimony. Thus, it is impossible that the LDS Church is not true, per your spiritual testimony. Suggesting that God has defined the Church in this way, according to your personal, unassailable, spiritual testimony such that it is impossible that the LDS cannot be true was my point.

God has not so defined the LDS Church to me. You're referencing a personal, spiritual experience, it would seem, and absolutizing it. No evidence can count against your personal experience. I reject your absolutization of your personal experience. You don't, obviously. Again, no evidence can count even possibly count against your experience. Stating that your own personal and subjective experience is definitionally identical to God's view of LDS truth claims is a manifestly subjective claim. One that you are unwilling to question, it would seem.

I think my point stands. Your fundamental paradigm is impossible to falsify. Evidence enters the arena only in a very secondary manner--a manner amenable to revisioning and capitulation insofar as it doesn't undermine your primary paradigm--that the LDS Church is true. Evidence cannot possibly count against your fundamental belief, in this regard.

This is paradigm maintenance. There is no, and cannot be any, ultimate investigation into foundational truth claims for you. They're off-limits. They are non-negotiable, as you've stated.

Best.

CKS

PS. Okay, so we're not dealing with scientific evidence. We're dealing with spiritual evidence. That was my point. No non-spiritual evidence is allowed ultimately to count against your spiritual evidence. Is that right?

[juliann]

As someone said Schryver put it, this is indicative of "working backwards from a testimony." David is not, it would seem, open to even the remote possibility that he is wrong.

Per this worldview, as I understand David's comment, it is simply not even (logically?) possible that Mormonism is wrong. No evidence (preponderant or not) can touch that sort of worldview commitment. It's unassailable by even whatever evidence one might deem "objective."

This constitutes an insight into LDS belief claims, with utterly no offense meant, of which I was not completely aware until now.

You are describing your own position.

We have had discussions on this board about having the BOM proven a fraud, etc. and it has consistently been said it would matter. Certain things are necessary to maintain our theology. That is why there is such a battle for the BOM. Your insight is demonstrably incorrect.

[cksalmon]

You are describing your own position.

We have had discussions on this board about having the BOM proven a fraud, etc. and it has consistently been said it would matter. Certain things are necessary to maintain our theology. That is why there is such a battle for the BOM. Your insight is demonstrably incorrect.

Meh.

I'm responding to someone else's comments in the present. I care little, in this instance, for past discussions.

I won't take your comments here as indicative of David's position. They may be representative of his position, but I'll let him suss that out for himself--if he's interested in doing so.

And, no, actually, contrary to whatever might be going on inside your head, I am manifestly not describing my own position. I'd prefer you not to attempt to intuit my own mental states, frankly--especially when you're apt to get it so demonstrably wrong, as in this case.

And, if he chooses to do so, David can answer for himself, Juliann. He doesn't need your preemptive, sidelining, strikes.

CKS

PS. But, as BCSpace said on the other board, there actually is no evidence against BoM's historicity, so I guess there's really no battle there at all. All the currently-available evidence, at least according to him, points towards BoM's historicity, with no dissenting votes. David didn't say that, BTW.

[wenglund]

This seems to be a familiar, if not always vocally stated position of active LDS members. That is probaby why continued activity in the church continues for those believers. I don't know if there is much that someone could say to you to convince you otherwise, as it is such a subjectively intrepreted worldview.

But, I would hope that you could keep your mind open, at least to the possibility that for non LDS, even ex-LDS persons, such happiness is attainable and possible.

I think it makes sense that there may be some resistence on the part of members to believing what others may say about their happiness (since what they may say would also be, as you say, from "a subjectively interpreted worldview"), though I am not sure that a change in perception isn't possible, particularly were what may be said might be rationally compelling, or more significantly, were the happiness to be sufficiently evident in non-members faces and actions. Otherwise, no one who has ever held this belief would left the Church--which I find hihghly unlikely. In fact, didn't you once hold that view, even if for a time?

The real challenge, though, is that for faithful LDS the notion of happiness is tied to the eternities, and while we may think it possible, and even perhaps evident, that some non-members have achieved as much happiness as some members in this life, that is less likely, if not unlikely, in the eternities, though well just have to wait and see. ;-)

Is that acceptible to you?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[David Bokovoy]

It goes without saying that I hold Juliann in high esteem. She's one of my good friends.

I appreciate where she's coming from, but as I suggested in one of my earlier posts, an historical Book of Mormon is not necessary for my own beliefs.

If the Book of Mormon could be proven a fraud, I would still believe.

It would make it no different than the way I see the book of Deuteronomy, i.e. inspired pseudopigraphy.

[juliann]

I won't take your comments here as indicative of David's position. They may be representative of his position, but I'll let him suss that out for himself--if he's interested in doing so.

You made a blanket statement about LDS beliefs not David. Don't tell me when or what I should respond to on a message board. You are incorrect and the postings on this very board demonstrate that quite well. That might be uncomfortable for you but it is true. Multiple LDS have said that certain things must remain in place for them to believe. There is little credibility in blithely assigning your presumptions to "LDS belief" and then objecting when it is pointed out that you are describing yourself.

PS. But, as BCSpace said on the other board, there actually is no evidence against BoM's historicity, so I guess there's really no battle there at all. All the currently-available evidence, at least according to him, points towards BoM's historicity, with no dissenting votes. David didn't say that, BTW

You tell me I can't bring up past message board interactions that show you to be incorrect and then talk about what someone else said on another board. Okkaayyy....however, we really aren't all connected to SLC Central. I am sure you can find many here who would readily agree there is evidence against just about anything in any religion...including ours. That is why we have to make choices and hopefully the choice we make reflects what we think is thebest of all possible choices.

[juliann]

It goes without saying that I hold Juliann in high esteem. She's one of my good friends.

I appreciate where she's coming from, but as I suggested in one of my earlier posts, an historical Book of Mormon is not necessary for my own beliefs.

If the Book of Mormon could be proven a fraud, I would still believe.

It would make it no different than the way I see the book of Deuteronomy, i.e. inspired pseudopigraphy.

But if it was merely inspired what do you do with JS's stories about plates and such?

[Mighty Curelom]

Therefore, based upon my spiritual experiences, any bit of evidence that would appear to work against that supposition simply requires a paradigm shift. Not because I carry the presupposition that the Church is true, but because via revelation, God has defined it as such.

You're holding up a spiritual witness as a trump card, relegating all other information to mere curiosity. This is an unjustifiable position for the reason that there is no way to distinguish a genuine spiritual witness from an experience that seems like a genuine spiritual witness. The witness itself can't confirm its authenticity; that would be circular reasoning in the manner of "the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true."

Whereas there are millions, perhaps billions of people who believe they've received a spiritual witness concerning the validity of a religion or belief that contradicts Mormonism (and other religions and beliefs), you must admit that one can be mistaken regarding spiritual witnesses. That's simply a logical truism. Two people cannot both experience spiritual confirmation of two opposing beliefs. Either one or both are mistaken. Since there's no way to know if you're the mistaken one, the only rational position is to assume that you could be mistaken. And if you could be mistaken, you can't hold up a spiritual witness as an absolute truth to which all other information must conform. In fact, since there's no way to tell a real witness from a seemingly real witness, information gleaned from revelation is epistemically worthless. Not only is a spiritual witness a poor method of determining absolute truth, it's probably the worst method.

[David Bokovoy]

You made a blanket statement about LDS beliefs not David... Multiple LDS have said that certain things must remain in place for them to believe. There is little credibility in blithely assigning your presumptions to "LDS belief" and then objecting when it is pointed out that you are describing yourself.

Juliann's perspective is no doubt much more congruent with basic LDS beliefs than my position. My views cannot be taken as reflective of LDS/CES/ or anyone else's position. It's just the way I see the world and I've posted my thoughts in the hope that they might prove of some assistance to those who struggle.

[grego]

There have been several occasions where I have received what I believe to be divine directives, and after acting on the directives, was deeply disappointed to learn that the outcome that I had thought was supposed to happen, never came close to materializing.

However, rather than doubting the directive as divine (I have reasons of my own for unwavering confidence to this day that they were from God), I have come to realize that I had inadvertantly embued the directive with my own personal interpretations and wishes, whereas the directives were meant by God to be understood somewhat differently. In this way I experienced a paradigm shift which enabled me to retain faith in personal revelation, while increasing my ability to more accurately understand the personal revelations, or at least be patient and let the meaning or intended outcome of the revelation unfold to my mind in due time.

Having come back from my mission for a while, I prayed one night to get into the dating scene and get married. It was revealed to me that I was to call Tony M., a certain brother in the ward and go to the temple with him (Hey! It's not what you're thinking, keep reading, eh?) I did so; he felt the Spirit move him strongly to do so; we went. It was a little freaky, wondering what sister was going to be coming in... Just when I had stopped thinking about it, a sister came and sat behind us, and started talking to the guy--they knew each other. I looked at her, and remembered immediately what I had been thinking about--wow, here she is! Tony introduced us further in the celestial room, and I got her number from him later.

We dated. Well... maybe not really. We talked. I found out she had received a mortal emotional/ spiritual marriage blow and had self-destined to celibacy for life. We talked a little more. Things didn't go well with us, and shortly after, she said she was interested in dating my friend, who wasn't interested in her, but the point--she was ready to date again--in a certain way, a blow to me; in a certain way, a happy release. I kept thinking, "What about that prayer and the clear answer"? That was in July.

Reflecting back on my prayer and "what went wrong/ what I did wrong", the answer to my prayer had been clear. The reason, however, wasn't, and I had misinterpreted it--though it was hard to find fault with myself for doing so. See, after saying I was ready and serious to start dating, etc., I had ended with "and if I can do something for someone, let me do that to". God just welded them together and absolutely had His hand in it all--dating and doing something for someone--just not that "getting married" part. And, thinking about it, He had never said that, either. I had just assumed...

Well, much later I found out that she had gotten married in October, in the temple, and was doing fine. God's ways *aren't* always our ways, eh?

-=-=-=

You're holding up a spiritual witness as a trump card, relegating all other information to mere curiosity. This is an unjustifiable position for the reason that there is no way to distinguish a genuine spiritual witness from an experience that seems like a genuine spiritual witness. The witness itself can't confirm its authenticity; that would be circular reasoning in the manner of "the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true."

Absolutely, I am. And I believe it fully justifiable. (But you probably already knew that.) I disagree with your reasoning behind it.

[wenglund]

That's a distinction without a difference, to my mind. You suggest that God has defined that the LDS Church is true, per your spiritual testimony. Thus, it is impossible that the LDS Church is not true, per your spiritual testimony. Suggesting that God has defined the Church in this way, according to your personal, unassailable, spiritual testimony such that it is impossible that the LDS cannot be true was my point.

God has not so defined the LDS Church to me. You're referencing a personal, spiritual experience, it would seem, and absolutizing it. No evidence can count against your personal experience. I reject your absolutization of your personal experience. You don't, obviously. Again, no evidence can count even possibly count against your experience. Stating that your own personal and subjective experience is definitionally identical to God's view of LDS truth claims is a manifestly subjective claim. One that you are unwilling to question, it would seem.

I think my point stands. Your fundamental paradigm is impossible to falsify. Evidence enters the arena only in a very secondary manner--a manner amenable to revisioning and capitulation insofar as it doesn't undermine your primary paradigm--that the LDS Church is true. Evidence cannot possibly count against your fundamental belief, in this regard.

This is paradigm maintenance. There is no, and cannot be any, ultimate investigation into foundational truth claims for you. They're off-limits. They are non-negotiable, as you've stated.

Best.

CKS

PS. Okay, so we're not dealing with scientific evidence. We're dealing with spiritual evidence. That was my point. No non-spiritual evidence is allowed ultimately to count against your spiritual evidence. Is that right?

Is there a paradigm/epistemologies in existence, including of a secular nature (like science and philosophy and mathematics), that doesn't have certain foundational precepts that aren't ultimately testable, and thus not falsifiable?

To some degree, don't we privilege our human sense in that way? And, if so, then why not our spiritual senses as well?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[David Bokovoy]

But if it was merely inspired what do you do with JS's stories about plates and such?

What would I do? (Let us not forget that I still believe that there exists enough evidence to support an ancient authentic Book of Mormon)

I suppose that I would assume that God simply used Joseph's propensity towards mysticism and the possiblity that Joseph was as Dan Vogel suggests a "pious fraud" to bring further light and knowledge to the world.

[cksalmon]

I really like chocolate fudge ice cream. Not that other flavors are completely out of the picture, mind you. I just prefer the chocolate fudge. Cookie dough is nice, too.

Let's have a reality check. the poster you are flogging said nothing out of line but you jumped on her with both feet. You are the one who made this personal by dissecting a poster's spiritual position. The mods are getting tired of the knee jerk reactions to certain posters and the thread derailments and lecturing. Your comments are rude to mods as well and it's not appreciated or appropriate when you are a guest here. ~ Chaos

Man, the red ink really came out of left field on this one.

[David Bokovoy]

You're holding up a spiritual witness as a trump card, relegating all other information to mere curiosity. This is an unjustifiable position for the reason that there is no way to distinguish a genuine spiritual witness from an experience that seems like a genuine spiritual witness. The witness itself can't confirm its authenticity; that would be circular reasoning in the manner of "the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true."

Whereas there are millions, perhaps billions of people who believe they've received a spiritual witness concerning the validity of a religion or belief that contradicts Mormonism (and other religions and beliefs), you must admit that one can be mistaken regarding spiritual witnesses. That's simply a logical truism. Two people cannot both experience spiritual confirmation of two opposing beliefs. Either one or both are mistaken. Since there's no way to know if you're the mistaken one, the only rational position is to assume that you could be mistaken. And if you could be mistaken, you can't hold up a spiritual witness as an absolute truth to which all other information must conform. In fact, since there's no way to tell a real witness from a seemingly real witness, information gleaned from revelation is epistemically worthless. Not only is a spiritual witness a poor method of determining absolute truth, it's probably the worst method.

I'm going to simply repost a comment I made to Chris on the sister thread:

I certainly wouldnâ??t describe the revealed truths received via the Restoration as â??completely mangled.â? Though as you know, I do allow for human error.

I donâ??t pretend to have all the answers Chris. I simply know what I feel when I apply the doctrines and principles of the Restored Church into my life. Joseph's theology tastes right to me. Itâ??s possible that my views are self-deception, but given the intensity of this spiritual harmony, I have a hard time accepting this position as likely.

Though Iâ??m not preachy about my position, in truth, however, Iâ??m actually a pretty staunch universalist, with a belief that all human beings will eventually progress to the exaltation envisioned within Mormonism.

Which means that my view actually allows for people of other faiths to receive revelatory experiences leading them along a different course, dependent entirely upon how much truth and light they are currently prepared to receive.

[juliann]

What would I do? (Let us not forget that I still believe that there exists enough evidence to support an ancient authentic Book of Mormon)

Ah, OK. I think that would be a majority opinion. I thought you meant that it was all fiction...a figment of JS's imagination. It is the countermos who expect an error free history book more than LDS.

[juliann]

Though Iâ??m not preachy about my position, in truth, however, Iâ??m actually a pretty staunch universalist, with a belief that all human beings will eventually progress to the exaltation envisioned within Mormonism.

Which means that my view actually allows for people of other faiths to receive revelatory experiences leading them along a different course, dependent entirely upon how much truth and light they are currently prepared to receive.

I think there is ample support for this position and I share it. I don't think exaltation was ever supposed to be a race. You are just supposed to get there, thus parables such as the workers in the vineyard.

[wenglund]

You're holding up a spiritual witness as a trump card.

In spiritual matters, what do you suppose should trump spiritual sensory witnesses?

The flip side to this question is: what do you suppose should trump physical sensory witnesses?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[David Bokovoy]

I think there is ample support for this position and I share it. I don't think exaltation was ever supposed to be a race. You are just supposed to get there, thus parables such as the workers in the vineyard.

I'm so glad! I actually really love discussing my conviction on this issue, but don't get many opportunities since it's a bit unorthodox. If you really start to think about the implications of the Plan of Salvation, it's the only way the details make sense. I believe that we're all going to get there through Christ, just some of us faster than others and the faster we get on track the less suffering we endure and the more happiness we enjoy.

[Drewm777]

I'm so glad! I actually really love discussing my conviction on this issue, but don't get many opportunities since it's a bit unorthodox. If you really start to think about the implications of the Plan of Salvation, it's the only way the details make sense. I believe that we're all going to get there through Christ, just some of us faster than others and the faster we get on track the less suffering we endure and the more happiness we enjoy.

You're such a dang heretic. Geeze.

I agree.