For those who felt deceived

[Ray Agostini]

All the thousands of books out in the world for or against the LDS Church will never have the power to convert people to the gospel as the Book of Mormon will. My fellow Saints, we can debate and argue all day long but the time eventually comes where we realize the ultimate responsibility for the former LDS posters on this thread resides in them. They must come to their own understanding of their place in this universe and in God's plan. They have all the information needed to make a righteous decision. It's time we left them to it. Adieu

I have not made my decisions lightly, but I'm quite confident that I've adequately studied both sides.

As for our place in the universe, it's rather insignificant when you consider the size of the universe.

[Mortal Man]

I make the assessment of what I think based on the fact that I'm the one who thinks what I think. That gives me unique access to what I think.

Circular reasoning!

(Hey, this is fun.)

[Daniel Peterson]

Circular reasoning! (Hey, this is fun.)

It's not circular reasoning at all. (Look up "circular reasoning.")

I have unique access to my own beliefs and attitudes because I have unique and privileged access to my own consciousness. It's what is known as subjectivity.

To have someone attempt to argue with me about whether or not I think x is, I think it obvious, supremely ridiculous. On the whole face of the planet there is absolutely nobody better qualified to know what I think than I am. Not even Amor-L.

I realize that he's expressing a view that is held by more than a few in certain apostate circles -- most of whom haven't so much as met me -- but the mere fact that a falsehood is widespread doesn't render it any the less false.

[Daniel Peterson]

Well as noted there are a few things at work with the biblical account. One, it was an extraordinary situation

Not in any way that's relevant to the matter at hand.

and two, we really don't have a lot of the detail.

We have enough to form an opinion on the matter at hand.

And three, we do not know how accurate the accounts we have in the NT really are.

LOL. If the historical source undercuts one's position, question its accuracy!

[Deborah]

This type of bias which I had at one time does not allow one to evaluate either side in a fair manner. I again do not think one can know anything with absolute certainty.

What is fair? Where the gospel is concerned the most important verification is that of the spirit. Once you really have that everything else can fall into place.

[Ray Agostini]

What is fair? Where the gospel is concerned the most important verification is that of the spirit. Once you really have that everything else can fall into place.

Would you say that this Muslim woman (who was apparently a Mormon) has the Spirit?

.

[Deborah]

Would you say that this Muslim woman (who was apparently a Mormon) has the Spirit?].

That's between her and God.

[Ray Agostini]

That's between her and God.

But you obviously reject Islam.

[Bender]

What is fair? Where the gospel is concerned the most important verification is that of the spirit. Once you really have that everything else can fall into place.

More confirmation of making your choice such that any conflicting information is irrelevant. Until I realized that my spiritual experiences may not be from a spirit sent from God I was way to biased to be able to look at any conflicting information to what I believed. The spiritual experience is also not reliable for discovering objective truths.

[Mortal Man]

It's not circular reasoning at all. (Look up "circular reasoning.")

circular reasoning

Part of Speech: n

Definition: a use of reason in which the premise depends on or is equivalent to the conclusion, a method of false logic by which "this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this"; also called circular logic

Now let's analyze the statement.

I make the assessment of what I think based on the fact that I'm the one who thinks what I think. That gives me unique access to what I think.

A novice may be confused by the subtle misdirection in your premise; i.e., that the fact that you're the one who thinks what you think is selfexistent. In reality, you think this fact exists; hence your premise (you think) equals your conclusion (that you think). The hapless reader thus enters a death spiral; i.e., you think that you think that you think that you think....

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm getting dizzy.

[Daniel Peterson]

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm getting dizzy.

You clearly already were.

There's absolutely nothing circular about what I said.

You don't appear to have understood it, though.

You're plainly a confused novice.

[Deborah]

More confirmation of making your choice such that any conflicting information is irrelevant. Until I realized that my spiritual experiences may not be from a spirit sent from God I was way to biased to be able to look at any conflicting information to what I believed. The spiritual experience is also not reliable for discovering objective truths.

Good grief. You are still not getting it. The conflicting information is only so if you don't understand the big picture and have everything in context. The spiritual experience is the only reliable source for finding gospel truths. The fact that someone later denies that spiritual experience doesn't change what it was. I have no idea what other people who find other faiths experience, but I believe people find what they want as well as what they are ready to receive.

[dblagent007]

Now let's analyze the statement.

A novice may be confused by the subtle misdirection in your premise; i.e., that the fact that you're the one who thinks what you think is selfexistent. In reality, you think this fact exists; hence your premise (you think) equals your conclusion (that you think). The hapless reader thus enters a death spiral; i.e., you think that you think that you think that you think....

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm getting dizzy.

Careful, you are approaching signature territory with the absurdity of this.

[Daniel Peterson]

Actually, this comment is interesting in that is it right and wrong for everyone as well.

We all have unique access to what we are thinking, yes.

Precisely.

Which is why I would never presume to know better than somebody else what his opinions were.

But we are all incapable, by definition, of viewing how this information is being influenced by our own biases objectively.

That's a distinct issue.

You have to rely on other people to assess how what you are saying/doing conforms with how you think it is being conveyed. And also if it is accurate to how others are sensing the world around them as well.

Again, distinct issues.

AmorLibertas may not know what it would take for you to leave the church

Exactamente!

but neither do you really.

The odds of my knowing what I think are rather better than the odds of his knowing what I think. And that would be true even if he knew me, which he apparently doesn't.

Biology, geology, archeology, psychology, physics (the mormon god defies current physics)

We disagree.

Don't be so quick to squawk and then slip one below the belt yourself, Dr. P. It's ungentlemanly.

Forgive me for assuming that you had a sense of humor.

P = not disclosing everything that is to come or offering all of the doctrines that will be binding on the individual that they will have to practice, or beliefs that they may even die for.

Q = not disclosing things that happened in the past that may reflect poorly on the church that a member does not need to know for their salvation, evidenced by the fact it is not deemed necessary for standard church manuals to included them.

P is not equal to Q.

This has little if any relevance to what I wrote.

I agree that you have unique access to what you think, but it is hardly singular access.

On this matter, it is singular access. You don't know, and cannot know -- because, even if I told you, you would still not know whether what I told you was the truth -- but I can and do know as well as it is possible for such a thing to be known.

What you think is evidenced by your responses to questions put to you as well as the articles and other works you've written.

And what percentage of the following materials would you estimate you've read?

http://farms.byu.edu/authors/?authorID=1

What percentage of the "responses to questions put to [me]" -- many of them oral, many of them in private conversations, many of them in private e-mails -- would you estimate you've been privy to?

You may protest one way, but when the preponderance of the evidence [!] suggests something different, I don't consider it foul to state I am skeptical and don't believe you.

In other words, you violate the first rule of civil conversation and declare your conversation partner to be acting in bad faith.

Why should anybody be interested in conversing with such a person as you?

On the contrary, you have responded to numerous examples of what I and many who have left the Church, and even some who have not left and still believe, consider to be examples of the whitewashing of Church History or less than candid or honest depictions of Mormon history and doctrine by the Church and/or its leaders. In every instance, you take the position that the Church is not in the wrong, hasn't lied, deceived, or dissembled.

And the fact that I disagree with you on these matters demonstrates to you that I lack intellectual integrity and/or suffer from some sort of psychological incapacity that you lack.

In other words, you offend against civil conversation by an ad hominem dismissal. Disagreement with you cannot be principled or rational.

Although you frankly admit that in many instances you would have handled things differently, you maintain that the Church does not and has not whitewashed anything, and even declare a rejection or aversion towards the word, at least with respect to the Church. It was upon this basis that I made my highly relevant comment suggesting my belief based on my observations in this thread in particular, but others as well and your writings that I have read taken as a whole that nothing in the way of secular evidence could cause you to lose your belief or faith in the claims of the LDS Church, that no matter what the secular evidence that might arise, you would find some plausible explanation for it that would preserve or maintain your belief in the Church and its claims.

In other words, that I lack intellectual honesty.

I find your denial particularly interesting, not to mention rather dubious, that you would actually lose your faith in the LDS Church and its claims in light of the preeminence that believing members place on the witness of the Holy Ghost over any and all secular evidence or witnesses.

In other words, you accuse me of writing disingenuously and, thus, you violate one of the basic principles of civil conversation.

I wouldn't have guessed that you, Mr. Peterson, would place greater weight on such a hypothetical document were it to exist than you would on the "spiritual witness" most Mormons claim is the basis of their testimony. I must say, I am actually somewhat, but not entirely, surprised by your previous assertion that such an affidavit would destroy your faith, so you'll forgive me I hope if I am rather skeptical of your claim.

I don't forgive you. You continue to suggest that I'm a liar.

I apologize to you and the other members of this forum if this observation of mine is regarded as a personal attack against you and I will not bring it up again in this forum.

I regard it as a gratuitous and arrogant personal attack, but expect that you will bring it up in other forums with great gusto.

I see the point you wish to make.

Thank you!

UCLA don't give doctorates to no fools.

[Tarski]

Thank you!

UCLA don't give doctorates to no fools.

Your welcome. Of course, I must amplify. The point is strongest under the assumption that the divine Christ story is true. If its not true (contrary to faith) we are led back to wondering who was acting ethically when.

In either case, your point may have a matching counterpoint perhaps to expressed by someone a little less tired of this topic than I.

To understand the point and it virtues, is not necessarily to agree with it fully in the end.

[AmorLibertas]

And what percentage of the following materials would you estimate you've read?

http://farms.byu.edu/authors/?authorID=1

What percentage of the "responses to questions put to [me]" -- many of them oral, many of them in private conversations, many of them in private e-mails -- would you estimate you've been privy to?

Irrelevant unless the small sampling I have read from you (well over 100 posts on this forum as well as about a dozen or so articles in Meridian Magazine and a dozen or less posts on other forums) is not well representative of your actual thoughts.

You may protest one way, but when the preponderance of the evidence [!] suggests something different, I don't consider it foul to state I am skeptical and don't believe you.

In other words, you violate the first rule of civil conversation and declare your conversation partner to be acting in bad faith.

Why should anybody be interested in conversing with such a person as you?

No. I am not suggesting that you are acting in bad faith. As to why anyone should be interested in conversing with a person such as myself, I believe the most satisfying answer to you to your question will be found by answering that question yourself, since you are in fact conversing with me.

In other words, you offend against civil conversation by an ad hominem dismissal. Disagreement with you cannot be principled or rational.

On the contrary, disagreement with me can be both principled and rational. You have already evidenced this fact on numerous occasions.

In other words, you accuse me of writing disingenuously and, thus, you violate one of the basic principles of civil conversation.

Not at all. Disingenuousness requires intent, and I have never accused you of intentional deception.

I don't forgive you. You continue to suggest that I'm a liar.

On the contrary, I have never accused you of being a liar. Lying requires willful intent to deceive.

As to not forgiving me, as you are one who believes Joseph Smith to be a prophet of God, that does not bode well for you in light of D&C 64:9-10 if your beliefs are correct.

I apologize to you and the other members of this forum if this observation of mine is regarded as a personal attack against you and I will not bring it up again in this forum.

I regard it as a gratuitous and arrogant personal attack, but expect that you will bring it up in other forums with great gusto.

If that's what you expect, then I will enjoy disappointing your expectations (if only briefly before it passes out of my mind).

[MichaelW]

Oh, a confession (in what is unquestionably Joseph's own handwriting) in a letter or court affidavit that is unquestionably dated to the 1830s or early 1840s, that the Book of Mormon is not ancient scripture, or that he didn't see God the Father, Jesus Christ, or any angels would be sufficient. For example.

This is very difficult to understand. Such a document, if it were discovered tomorrow, would be far from the most persuasive evidence in existence that Joseph Smith was not what he claimed to be. I can imagine explanations for Joseph Smith the prophet writing such a letter that are far less tortured than some of the defenses on this board to other problems in LDS scripture and history.

[Bender]

Good grief. You are still not getting it. The conflicting information is only so if you don't understand the big picture and have everything in context.

Maybe, but maybe it's your extreme bias that I see that is not allowing you to get it. I guess when one thinks they are certain they know, anyone who disagrees must not be seeing the big picture.

The spiritual experience is the only reliable source for finding gospel truths.

Yes so reliable that we have so many conflicting gospel truths all over the world based on them.

The fact that someone later denies that spiritual experience doesn't change what it was.

I and most others I know are not denying the spiritual experiences. Only that our interpretations may be wrong.

I have no idea what other people who find other faiths experience, but I believe people find what they want as well as what they are ready to receive.

I can,t be sure what others are experiencing either, which is why I try I realize my experiences are probably not any better than anyone else's, or that the meaning I assign them is any more correct then theirs.

[why me]

Would you say that this Muslim woman (who was apparently a Mormon) has the Spirit?

.

Here is my two cents on the issue. If this woman comes closer to god as a muslim, then I do believe that god would rather have her be muslim. Likewise, if a catholic can become closer to god as a mormon, then god would like that person to be mormon. And of course it works in the other direction: if a mormon can become closer to god as a catholic or protestant, then god would be in favor of that person converting. However, when it comes to truth, well, that is a different ballgame.

Not everyone can be a great or good mormon, whatever that may mean. But I do believe that god likes people to be close to him.

[why me]

Maybe, but maybe it's your extreme bias that I see that is not allowing you to get it. I guess when one thinks they are certain they know, anyone who disagrees must not be seeing the big picture.

Yes so reliable that we have so many conflicting gospel truths all over the world based on them.

I and most others I know are not denying the spiritual experiences. Only that our interpretations may be wrong.

I can,t be sure what others are experiencing either, which is why I try I realize my experiences are probably not any better than anyone else's, or that the meaning I assign them is any more correct then theirs.

The big picture is really quite simple: the book of mormon has not been proven to be a fraud. And no one has proven that the witnesses lied. And no one has proven that Emma was duped into being a scribe for a phoney book of plates that she claimed to have felt under a linen cover. And no one has proven a Rigdon connection. But there are a lot of wouldas, shoulda, and couldas that are used to cast doubt in people's minds.

[Daniel Peterson]

This is very difficult to understand. Such a document, if it were discovered tomorrow, would be far from the most persuasive evidence in existence that Joseph Smith was not what he claimed to be.

We evidently disagree on the state of the evidence.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Would you say that this Muslim woman (who was apparently a Mormon) has the Spirit?

.

I don't feel threatened by the possibility of similarity and agreement with religious faiths that are different from my own. I've seen a lot of people on the board here imply that different religious convictions cancel each other out, but I simply don't see it that way. Let me share some thought on why I feel this way.

In an effort to proselyte strictly by contrast and disagreement (avoiding similarities of faith), some Christians may claim that other religions disobey the first great commandment by loving a "false" God with all their heart, and as a result merit eternal damnation. A "different Jesus" standard is constructed on mostly ontological foundations.

But there can be little doubt about the devotional direction of the second great commandment. We all have the same neighbor. Almost all religions that worship a deity have some form of the second commandment in common; to do unto our neighbors as we would want our neighbors to do unto us--an idealistic standard, to be sure.

According to biblical verse, obedience to the second commandment necessarily reflects back on the first ("inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of these the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me"), thus it may not matter what one's current traditions or ontological theories are concerning God, because all can show reverence and love to God by showing love to others regardless of academics. In arguing over the specifics on God's ultimate nature, one easily breaks both of the two great commandments.

Somewhere and sometime, in this life or the next, these traditions and differences in belief can be straightened out as the Lord's sheep will hear his voice, follow Him, creating one fold and one Shepherd. All must be humble enough to hear that voice when called in order to respond. The parable of the sheep and goats in Matthew shows that we all have some interesting surprises coming.

Again, I don't feel threatened by the possibility of similarity and agreement with religious faiths that are different from my own. I welcome any similarities I can find and believe any productive dialog should emphasize them for the sake of creating an environment where the Spirit can teach all and bring all closer to a unity of the faith- being one, just as Jesus is one with the Father.

Here's a juxtaposition of the verses/concepts I just explained:

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

(Mark 12:30-31)

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

(Matthew 25:40)

I also recommend reading Jacob 5 with these ideas in view.

The scriptures are unequivocal in teaching that the atonement of Jesus Christ wasn't a local incident; it was for everyone:

"He suffereth the pains of all . . . , both men, women, and children. . . . And he suffereth this that the resurrection might pass upon all men" (2 Nephi 9:21â??22).

"The atonement . . . was prepared from the foundation of the world for all mankind, which ever were since the fall of Adam, . . . or who ever shall be" (Mosiah 4:7).

"And because of the redemption of man, which came by Jesus Christ, . . . all men are redeemed" (Mormon 9:13).

"Hath he commanded any that they should not partake of his salvation? . . . Nay; but he hath given it free for all men; and . . . all men are privileged the one like unto the other, and none are forbidden" (2 Nephi 26:27â??28).

It would follow that God's concern for everyone would include, well, everyone. I've spoken with people who tell me there isn't "one true Church" because people of many different religions believe they have spiritual experiences. Again, this mentality made me wonder: why do people think the spiritual experiences of those of different faiths somehow negate my own spiritual experiences?

LDS believe "the Spirit of Christ is given to every man [person]" who enters mortality (see Moroni 7:16). Christ's atonement extends over everyone, so also does His influence to do right. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recognizes the ability of Christ's atonement to cover all, as well as the Spirit of Christ to influence all.

Brigham Young spoke about the light of Christ, expressing the belief that, even during the great apostasy, God maintained some influence over His children:

Many people believe that the Spirit of the Lord has not been upon the earth when the Gospel was not among men in its purity; they believe the Spirit of the Lord has been entirely taken from the earth since the apostasy of the Church. I do not believe for one moment that there has been a man or woman upon the face of the earth, from the days of Adam to this day, who has not been enlightened, instructed, and taught by the revelations of Jesus Christ.

"What! the ignorant heathen?"

Yes, every human being who has possessed a sane mind. I am far from believing that the children of men have been deprived of the privilege of receiving the Spirit of the Lord to teach them right from wrong. No matter what the traditions of their fathers were, those who were honest before the Lord, and acted uprightly, according to the best knowledge they had, will have an opportunity to go into the kingdom of God. I believe this privilege belonged to the sons and daughters of Adam, and descended from him, and his children who were contemporary with him, throughout all generations.

The Book of Mormon expresses the same sentiment:

[Christ's] blood atoneth for the sins of those . . . who have died not knowing the will of God concerning them, or who have ignorantly sinned (Mosiah 3:11).

As this scripture implies and Brigham explains, people won't be damned for following their honest beliefs. Honesty of heart is one of the most important factors here. With this in mind, allowing men the privilege of "worshiping God according to the dictates of their own conscience," (Article of Faith 11) tolerance, is easier. Brigham:

No matter whether we are Jew or Gentile, as the two classes of people are called; though Gentile signifies disobedient people; no matter whether we believe in the Koran as firmly as we now believe in the Bible; no matter whether we have been educated by the Jews, the Gentiles, or the Hottentots; whether we serve the true and the living God, or a lifeless image, if we are honest before the God we serveâ?¦

People who fall down beneath the wheels of Juggernaut, and are crushed to death; who sacrifice their children in the worship of idols; if they act according to the best of their knowledge, there is a chance for their salvation, as much as there is for the salvation of any other person...It is what we have been taught, and what we verily believe; they have been taught the same idea, and believe it with all their hearts; then don't cast them down to hell for their honest belief

Some missionaries or members tend to think once they've mentioned the gospel to someone who subsequently rejects it, such a person is going off to damnation. Brigham Young corrects this view:

I will tell you a practice of the Latter-day Saint Elders generally. For instance, I get up here, and preach the fulness of the Gospel, perhaps to individuals who never heard it before in their lives, and I close by saying, you that believe this which I have told you, shall be saved; and if you do not, you shall be damned. I leave the subject there.

"But," says one, "don't the Bible say so? You ought to explain yourself."

"I only said what the Savior taught-he says, go into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature; he that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; and he that believeth not, shall be damned. Don't I say the same?"

"You leave it there, don't you? "

"Yes; the Apostle left it there, and so do I."

I wish to explain it a little more, according to the plain, simple, English language. The sum of this practice is this: when I preach a gospel sermon, and they don't believe what I say, I straightway seal their damnation.

Brethren, do you believe in such a thing as that? I do not; yet there are many of the Elders just so absurd...

I recollect, in England, sending an Elder to Bristol, to open a door there, and see if anybody would believe. He had a little more than thirty miles to walk; he starts off one morning, and arrives at Bristol; he preached the Gospel to them, and sealed them all up to damnation, and was back next morning. He was just as good a man, too, as we had. It was want of knowledge caused him to do so.

I go and preach to the people, and tell them at the end of every sermon, "he that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; and he that believeth not, shall be damned." I continue preaching there day after day, week after week, and month after month, and yet nobody believes my testimony, that I know of, and I don't see any signs of it.

"What shall I do in this case, if I am sent to preach there?" you may inquire.

You must continue to preach there, until those who sent you shall tell you to leave that field of labour; and if the people don't manifest by their works, that they believe, as long as they come to hear me, I will continue to plead with them, until they bend their dispositions to the Gospel. Why?

Because I must be patient with them, as the Lord is patient with me; as the Lord is merciful to me, I will be merciful to others; as He continues to be merciful to me, consequently I must continue in long-suffering to be merciful to others-patiently waiting, with all diligence, until the people will believe, and until they are prepared to become heirs to a celestial kingdom, or angels to the devil.

[Deborah]

Maybe, but maybe it's your extreme bias that I see that is not allowing you to get it. I guess when one thinks they are certain they know, anyone who disagrees must not be seeing the big picture.

I don't know why you assume that because someone is certain of something they have not explored the issues. Just because I didn't come to the same conclusion you did doesn't mean I don't know the arguments. Why Me described the big picture, but it also includes looking at everything and realizing that when everything is taken as a whole and in context of the times and in the totality of scripture there is room for accepting truth while not knowing all the details.

Yes so reliable that we have so many conflicting gospel truths all over the world based on them.

Are you talking abou conflicts between LDS and other churches. There is no conflict in LDS doctrine, though some may not understand certain principles as well as others.

I realize my experiences are probably not any better than anyone else's, or that the meaning I assign them is any more correct then theirs.

I know that the COJCOLDS is the restored church of Jesus Christ. That doesn't mean that others do not receive spiritual enlightenment or experiences to suit their desires and searching.

[Uncertain]

It would follow that God's concern for everyone would include, well, everyone. I've spoken with people who tell me there isn't "one true Church" because people of many different religions believe they have spiritual experiences. Again, this mentality made me wonder: why do people think the spiritual experiences of those of different faiths somehow negate my own spiritual experiences?

LDS believe "the Spirit of Christ is given to every man [person]" who enters mortality (see Moroni 7:16). Christ's atonement extends over everyone, so also does His influence to do right. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recognizes the ability of Christ's atonement to cover all, as well as the Spirit of Christ to influence all.

Hi LifeOnaPlate,

The problem is not necessarily that people of other faiths have spiritual experiences. It is that people of other faiths have spiritual experiences that directly contradict each other. Why should your spiritual experience be viewed as accurately representing ultimate truth? While contradictory spiritual experiences from others just as spiritual, intelligent and righteous as you are dismissed as being in some fashion fundamentally flawed.

(Below section was copied from an earlier post of mine given on this link)

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...37528&st=20

There are I think many examples of spiritual events that contradict one or more LDS doctrines. For example consider the near death experience in which the participant sees his/her past lives and is taught that reincarnation is a true principle.

http://www.near-death.com/reincarnation.html

Whether or not the person prays for this experience is immaterial.

But if you are interested in accounts that closely parallel LDS accounts. I suggest you examine the epistemology of breakaway groups. For example I did a quick search and found a number of early RLDS accounts that advocate a read, ponder and pray approach to gaining truth. And who obtained a spiritual witness of doctrines directly contradictory to LDS doctrines. Indeed my first example J. W. Nanny received a spiritual witness that the RLDS church was the one true church (i.e. the church with Gods authority) and not the LDS church.

â??The same argument that convinced me that the sects were wrong was evidence that but one of these factions could be right, so I decided to put James 1:5 to the test. I sought the Lord in prayer and continued to read everything they sent me and compare it with the Scriptures, knowing that God alone could give me lightâ??till one day in the latter part of February I was chopping wood out of dead trees in a cotton field; being alone I was in silent prayer. I had felled a tree and sat down beside it to rest, leaning back against the log as it lay across the cotton rows. As I sat there in silent meditation I was impressed to look up, and to the northwest I saw a personage approaching me clothed in a white flowing robe. He stopped directly in front of me, and about ten feet away, and beckoning me said, "Come hither." â?? (Bold added by me)

http://restorationbookstore.org/articles/t...dsauthority.htm

â??The saints are familiar with the accounts of the heavenly visions which were experienced by Joseph Smith, Jr., in Palmyraâ??s Grove, which caused him to become the founder of the Restoration Movement. However, little is known about the important visions and revelations which led his son, Joseph Smith III, to take his place as prophet-president of the Church.

There are similar patterns in the lives of both Josephs. Both were farmers. Both sought God as a result of reading James 1:5 which says, â??If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God.â? Both were led by visions and revelations. Both were young when the manifestations came to them, and both were led to become the prophet-president of the Church.â?

http://restorationbookstore.org/prints/joseph3.htm

It is also my understanding that the FLDS believe in an epistemology similar to the LDS version and claim the HG will testify to the prophet hood of Warren Jeffs. But I do not know for sure. It is not surprising that groups with a more recent â??common-ancestorâ? will believe in similar ways of obtaining truth.

If a method X says both A and B are correct but A and B are mutually exclusive. Then if there does not exist some objective non-circular means to determine why method X got it wrong. Method X is not a reliable means to determine which of A and B are right or if either of them are right. If LDS epistemology does indeed state that mutually exclusive propositions are both correct (i.e. LDS church is the one true church versus say the RLDS church is the one true church). Then if there does not exist some objective non-circular means to determine why LDS epistemology got it wrong then LDS epistemology is not a reliable means to determine which church is the one true church.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Bender]

Deborah Posted Today, 10:00 AM

I don't know why you assume that because someone is certain of something they have not explored the issues. Just because I didn't come to the same conclusion you did doesn't mean I don't know the arguments. Why Me described the big picture, but it also includes looking at everything and realizing that when everything is taken as a whole and in context of the times and in the totality of scripture there is room for accepting truth while not knowing all the details.

Your post #886 seemed to indicate you have not really explored the issues from both sides but have made your choice.

I think our choice of what we read and accept reflects the bias we already have and the direction we have already chosen to go and we are just looking for support for either choice.

The only way the minimize this bias is to be more open minded and want to learn the issues from both sides view point. Your post to me indicate that you are only interested in material to support your choice which I think is unwise, but not the end of the world.

Are you talking abou conflicts between LDS and other churches. There is no conflict in LDS doctrine, though some may not understand certain principles as well as others.

Gospel truths differ not just between religions, but also between individuals within those religions. This board should be a good indication of that. What gospel truths we accept are usually confirmed by peoples spiritual experiences and usually confirm what they already want to believe as being true. Not very reliable when we have so many conflicting gospel truths based on the spiritual. This does not mean that the spiritual does not have value or meaning, just that it is not a reliable means of discovering objective claims.

I know that the COJCOLDS is the restored church of Jesus Christ. That doesn't mean that others do not receive spiritual enlightenment or experiences to suit their desires and searching.

Most spiritual experiences do suit their desires or at least how they want to interpret them. People do this as much in other religions as they do in the LDS.