For those who felt deceived

[LifeOnaPlate]

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.

That's not a problem between religions any more than it is a problem within individual religions as well. Things that seem to contradict don't necessarily contradict when viewed from a different perspective. For example, one of my college math teachers explained a principle to us as a set rule, and then said offhand "well, this changes later, but we'll get to that." In context, the rule was set at a given time, but there were different contexts when the rule could be different.

(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.

My question would involve what the individual learned more than what the individual experienced per se, and I mean that on a pragmatic, not just educational level. So again, I am not troubled by that. I haven't had that experience, either.

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.

When in doubt, I think each person needs to go with what they honestly believe God tells them. There may be something that individual needs to learn or do there that they couldn't learn elsewhere. So again, on my view, it doesn't affect me as I explained above in that lengthy tome.

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.

Where did your understanding come from? I'm not familiar with how the FLDS groups determine truth. At the same time, if they employ a scripture like Moroni 10:3-5 I wouldn't be surprised.

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

The error you make is in thinking that the mutual exclusiveness of A and B are eternally fixed. I don't. You also use words like "objective means" and things like that, so even from that point you and I are arguing from very different positions.

[Uncertain]

That's not a problem between religions any more than it is a problem within individual religions as well. Things that seem to contradict don't necessarily contradict when viewed from a different perspective. For example, one of my college math teachers explained a principle to us as a set rule, and then said offhand "well, this changes later, but we'll get to that." In context, the rule was set at a given time, but there were different contexts when the rule could be different.

Hi LifeOnaPlate,

Well, if church A (the LDS church) claims to be the only church on the earth with Gods authority and church B (the RLDS church) claimed to be the only church on the earth with Gods authority. Then by definition of "only" they expressively contradict one another that is only one of the claims can be true. I would be interested in how you would reconcile the two statements such that both are correct. If church A says we came from a disembodied preexistence and we will obtain a glorified immortal body after which we can't die again. And church B states we are engaged in an endless cycle of reincarnation in which multiple bodies are obtained and we die many times. Those claims expressly contradict each other both cannot be correct. I do understand things that appear to contradict may from another perspective not be directly contradictory. But that does not mean mutually exclusive and contradictory positions do not exist and it is difficult to see the above two examples as anything but mutually exclusive.

When in doubt, I think each person needs to go with what they honestly believe God tells them. There may be something that individual needs to learn or do there that they couldn't learn elsewhere. So again, on my view, it doesn't affect me as I explained above in that lengthy tome.

I actually completely agree go with what they believe is right. I am just not convinced a personal spiritual experience is sufficient grounds to believe a given doctrine is universal truth. For reasons already given.

Where did your understanding come from? I'm not familiar with how the FLDS groups determine truth. At the same time, if they employ a scripture like Moroni 10:3-5 I wouldn't be surprised.

Primarily from hearing FLDS testimonies being born in which they seem to express the idea that they believe the way they do in part because of spiritual experiences. But as mentioned I do not know for sure the official FLDS means of obtaining truth they are somewhat of an insular group and difficult to obtain accurate information on.

The error you make is in thinking that the mutual exclusiveness of A and B are eternally fixed. I don't. You also use words like "objective means" and things like that, so even from that point you and I are arguing from very different positions.

See my response above. If church A claims to be the only church on the earth with Gods authority and church B claims the same those statements are directly contradictory as given both cannot be true. Unless you start tinkering with the plain meaning of "only" and "authority" in which case making the claim that my church is the only church with Gods authority starts becoming a meaningless statement. Also I understand true objectivity is impossible but that does not mean we should simply accept any biases a method may have. It is possible to recognize bias and try your best to eliminate it in a given analysis even if complete perfection is unattainable.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Deborah]

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

Because I have read more of the positive and prefer it doesn't mean I haven't read or am not familiar with the arguments of the other side. I an well aware of the criticisms of the prophet and the seeming contradictions in character. However, I doubt that you have seen all the sources I've used to come to a different conclusion.

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.

There is little that is objective about relgious conviction; you should know that. Look at the discussions on NT interpretation on this board. There is no way to use even the most accepted scriptural source as an objective source for what one believes. And history like anything else is likewise subject to interpretation.

[Bender]

Deborah Posted Today, 11:38 AM

Because I have read more of the positive and prefer it doesn't mean I haven't read or am not familiar with the arguments of the other side. I an well aware of the criticisms of the prophet and the seeming contradictions in character.

Maybe but your posts seemed to me that you have not read much of the critical material and are only familiar with some of the arguments through the filter of LDS apologetics.

However, I doubt that you have seen all the sources I've used to come to a different conclusion.

Possibly I have not, neither us us really knows what the other has read or experienced. For myself I think I tried to be fair and look up information from both sides and from their perspectives so I could get a more whole picture. I recognize I could be wrong and If I find out that I am wrong I will change accordingly.

There is little that is objective about relgious conviction; you should know that.

Sure there are many things in religion that are subjective. The issue though is how do we know whether some of the objective claims are true. Examples of objective claims would be , Does God exist. IS the BOM the word of God , and does it represent a real history of a real people. Is Jesus a real person and literal son of God. I could go on and also include claims from the non christian religions as well.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Hi LifeOnaPlate,

Well, if church A (the LDS church) claims to be the only church on the earth with Gods authority and church B (the RLDS church) claimed to be the only church on the earth with Gods authority. Then by definition of "only" they expressively contradict one another that is only one of the claims can be true.

Already answered this.

I would be interested in how you would reconcile the two statements such that both are correct.

See my former post.

If church A says we came from a disembodied preexistence and we will obtain a glorified immortal body after which we can't die again. And church B states we are engaged in an endless cycle of reincarnation in which multiple bodies are obtained and we die many times. Those claims expressly contradict each other both cannot be correct.

See my above post again.

I do understand things that appear to contradict may from another perspective not be directly contradictory. But that does not mean mutually exclusive and contradictory positions do not exist and it is difficult to see the above two examples as anything but mutually exclusive.

Weightier matters vs. more trivial matters, sheep and goats, judgment of God, etc. see above, etc.

I actually completely agree go with what they believe is right. I am just not convinced a personal spiritual experience is sufficient grounds to believe a given doctrine is universal truth. For reasons already given.

Given the way I believe we understand reality, I don't see many other places to appeal than a higher court combined with our best reasoning. It's not easy, but it's the way I see it.

Primarily from hearing FLDS testimonies being born in which they seem to express the idea that they believe the way they do in part because of spiritual experiences. But as mentioned I do not know for sure the official FLDS means of obtaining truth they are somewhat of an insular group and difficult to obtain accurate information on.

Where were these testimonies?

If church A claims to be the only church on the earth with Gods authority and church B claims the same those statements are directly contradictory as given both cannot be true.

But in the end, all can still be set right. That's my point.

Unless you start tinkering with the plain meaning of "only" and "authority" in which case making the claim that my church is the only church with Gods authority starts becoming a meaningless statement.

Not if one really is the ultimate authority which everyone will have an honest opportunity to receive.

Also I understand true objectivity is impossible but that does not mean we should simply accept any biases a method may have. It is possible to recognize bias and try your best to eliminate it in a given analysis even if complete perfection is unattainable.

All the Best,

Uncertain

I don't favor walking around biased and blind about everything, if that's what you are wondering.

[Teancum]

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

I think Jesus calling his apostles, THE 12 mind you, the ones that would judge the world, are much more extraordinary than what we are discussing and very different. On other words most of is are not the original 12. Thus the expectation may be different.

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

How do you know for sure?

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

Why not? Apologists do that all the time, or relegate things that seemed official when some Church leader uttered it as "his opinion only."

[Daniel Peterson]

Why not? Apologists do that all the time, or relegate things that seemed official when some Church leader uttered it as "his opinion only."

Assuming that to be true, you've just forfeited any status to complain about it.

[Uncertain]

Already answered this.

Hi LifeOnaPlate

Is this to what you are referring?

Things that seem to contradict don't necessarily contradict when viewed from a different perspective. For example, one of my college math teachers explained a principle to us as a set rule, and then said offhand "well, this changes later, but we'll get to that." In context, the rule was set at a given time, but there were different contexts when the rule could be different.

If I understand you correctly. You make the correct statement that propositions that appear contradictory from another perspective may not in fact be contradictory. I assume you do accept that propositions sometimes really are contradictory? So it appears you are making an unsupported jump from sometimes things are really not contradictory to whenever spiritual experiences contradict they really don't. On what basis can you make this leap? Especially since according to the plain meaning of the terms involved many religious propositions directly contradict each other. Do you believe God has a body of flesh and bone as tangible as man while at the very same time he is a disembodied spirit without parts and passions? Suppose I have a person A who gets a spiritual experience confirming that the LDS church is the only church with Gods authority and person B who gets the same for the RLDS church. On the basis of evidence gained by a personal spiritual experience who is right?

Where were these testimonies?

Well it so happens I am distantly related to some FLDS members. A father and son came to my house one day to perform some around the home repairs. And in the course of their work they discussed religion in a cordial manner with myself and other family members. And the impression was given they believed the way they do in part because of personal spiritual experiences. But frankly I am not sure why it matters I have already given several documented cases of personal spiritual experiences that appear to directly contradict one or more LDS doctrines. It would not surprise me if the FLDS use a similar means to obtain truth as do the LDS since they are a breakaway group and use many of the same scriptures. But I do not know if this is definitely the case.

(edited to change with to without)

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Teancum]

Assuming that to be true, you've just forfeited any status to complain about it.

Sorry. I know I am much slower than some of the keener minds here. Could you clarify this?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Hi LifeOnaPlate

Is this to what you are referring?

If I understand you correctly. You make the correct statement that propositions that appear contradictory from another perspective may not in fact be contradictory. I assume you do accept that propositions sometimes really are contradictory? So it appears you are making an unsupported jump from sometimes things are really not contradictory to whenever spiritual experiences contradict they really don't. On what basis can you make this leap? Especially since according to the plain meaning of the terms involved many religious propositions directly contradict each other. Do you believe God has a body of flesh and bone as tangible as man while at the very same time he is a disembodied spirit without parts and passions? Suppose I have a person A who gets a spiritual experience confirming that the LDS church is the only church with Gods authority and person B who gets the same for the RLDS church. On the basis of evidence gained by a personal spiritual experience who is right?

Well it so happens I am distantly related to some FLDS members. A father and son came to my house one day to perform some around the home repairs. And in the course of their work they discussed religion in a cordial manner with myself and other family members. And the impression was given they believed the way they do in part because of personal spiritual experiences. But frankly I am not sure why it matters I have already given several documented cases of personal spiritual experiences that appear to directly contradict one or more LDS doctrines. It would not surprise me if the FLDS use a similar means to obtain truth as do the LDS since they are a breakaway group and use many of the same scriptures. But I do not know if this is definitely the case.

(edited to change with to without)

All the Best,

Uncertain

It matters only because I am interested.

I think this will clear some things up: There is a difference between 'approving absolutely' and 'approving as a lesser good under certain conditions.'

[Daniel Peterson]

Sorry. I know I am much slower than some of the keener minds here. Could you clarify this?

You believe that the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ are morally culpable because they don't tell investigators everything you think they ought to tell investigators before asking those investigators to commit.

The New Testament says that Jesus didn't tell his converts much of anything about his doctrines before expecting them to commit, and that he didn't tell them everything he knew -- actually, he told them virtually nothing -- about the sacrifices, sufferings, and violent deaths that their conversions would entail.

I suggested that, if the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ are morally culpable for failure to fully disclose, Jesus himself is culpable on similar grounds. (For most Christians, including myself, that would give pause, since they regard Jesus as morally perfect.)

You responded that the New Testament may not be reliable on this score.

I noted that you were dismissing the New Testament because its narrative causes problems for your position.

You replied that, in your judgment, apologists routinely dismiss evidence that causes problems for their positions.

I answered that, if this is indeed so, by doing precisely the same thing you have lost the standing to criticize them for that alleged maneuver.

[Uncertain]

It matters only because I am interested.

Hi LifeOnaPlate,

Well on rereading I did not like my tone. Hopefully no offense was taken.

I think this will clear some things up: There is a difference between 'approving absolutely' and 'approving as a lesser good under certain conditions.'

The problem is this assumes your particular beliefs are the 'approving absolutely' while beliefs that appear to contradict yours are the 'approving as a lesser good under certain conditions'. Why must this be the case? Maybe your beliefs that are supported by a spiritual experience are the 'approving under certain conditions'. While it is the RLDS member's beliefs also supported by a spiritual experience that are the 'approving absolutely' set of beliefs.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Teancum]

You believe that the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ are morally culpable because they don't tell investigators everything you think they ought to tell investigators before asking those investigators to commit.

The New Testament says that Jesus didn't tell his converts much of anything about his doctrines before expecting them to commit, and that he didn't tell them everything he knew -- actually, he told them virtually nothing -- about the sacrifices, sufferings, and violent deaths that their conversions would entail.

I suggested that, if the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ are morally culpable for failure to fully disclose, Jesus himself is culpable on similar grounds. (For most Christians, including myself, that would give pause, since they regard Jesus as morally perfect.)

You responded that the New Testament may not be reliable on this score.

I noted that you were dismissing the New Testament because its narrative causes problems for your position.

You replied that, in your judgment, apologists routinely dismiss evidence that causes problems for their positions.

I answered that, if this is indeed so, by doing precisely the same thing you have lost the standing to criticize them for that alleged maneuver.

Ok I see. Like I said, my mind is not as keen as others here.

You are correct. Ok, so my argument fails at least if I am ok with Jesus doing this. You position is if I am not ok with the LDS Church doing this that I should be unhappy about Jesus doing it as well. Fair enough especially if I believe Jesus is who the NT claims he is.

Let me mull it over a bit.

But Dr. Peterson may I ask you this?

As noted, you have said you would like to see better history presented from the LDS Church itself I presume. You have said that a level C history would be a good thing. Something more than the level A that mostly we get from the Church. and certainly not the level B we get from hostile critics.

Do you think this would really be a bad thing? Do you really think that figuring out a way for investigators and members to learn some of the more complex and potentially testimony shattering issues would be bad? You know that many will find it on their own and you can see many feel betrayed or angry when they do. The Church will continue to lose people more and more like this. Perhaps inoculation (which perhaps is a peculiar thing to call it) will still cause some not to join or others to leave. But I think it would be fewer than we lost now.

What say you about this?

Thanks

[Daniel Peterson]

I've recommended Massacre at Mountain Meadows and Rough Stone Rolling and books like that to everybody I can. I'm enormously excited about the Joseph Smith Papers project. I have been a major supporter of Royal Skousen's Book of Mormon Critical Text Project.

I'm strongly in favor of more information at all levels; I think, too, that we do well under such circumstances.

But I think the standard litany of anti-Mormon and ex-Mormon character assassination against Joseph Smith is far, far worse -- very distorted and deeply misleading -- than the limited but true history that shows up in our Sunday School curriculum and missionary lessons.

[Teancum]

But I think the standard litany of anti-Mormon and ex-Mormon character assassination against Joseph Smith is far, far worse -- very distorted and deeply misleading -- than the limited but true history that shows up in our Sunday School curriculum and missionary lessons.

I agree with you on this. I do not think I at least, have ever supported an idea any different than this.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Hi LifeOnaPlate,

Well on rereading I did not like my tone. Hopefully no offense was taken.

None was taken. In conversations like this it is easy to sound harder than intended. I just read a letter by C.S. Lewis wherein he said :

"When I ask to be reassured about matters of fact, this does not mean that I know your statements to be false but only that I don't know them to be true."

That's where I was coming from too.

The problem is this assumes your particular beliefs are the 'approving absolutely' while beliefs that appear to contradict yours are the 'approving as a lesser good under certain conditions'. Why must this be the case?

I don't see it as a problem that invalidates my own experiences, that's the point I have been making. I can't speak for your (or their) experiences, only mine.

Maybe your beliefs that are supported by a spiritual experience are the 'approving under certain conditions'.

If that's so I will happily jettison the false and grab the true. If we're all wrong, then too bad!

[Uncertain]

I don't see it as a problem that invalidates my own experiences, that's the point I have been making. I can't speak for your (or their) experiences, only mine.

Hi LifeOnaPlate,

Well it doesn't necessarily invalidate the fact you had an experience. But I do believe it should be cause for reflection. Because it means a person can have a spiritual experience they strongly feel comes from God and is teaching universal truth yet does not teach universal truth. Or to put it another way. Suppose a LDS member and a RLDS member both receive a spiritual experience affirming the truth of contradictory positions. On the basis of a spiritual experience each position is equally supported that is on the basis of the evidence provided by a spiritual experience each person has at best a 50% chance of holding the "correct" belief. Now this does not mean either one did not have a real experience it just means since both of them had a spiritual experience both positions are equally supported by the same evidence. And at least on the basis provided by a spiritual experience there is no reason to prefer one set of beliefs over another. Now add say a person who has a near death experience in which they have a spiritual experience that teaches doctrine contrary to the other two. Now on the basis of the evidence provided by spiritual experiences each person as a 33.33% chance at best of holding the correct belief. Now suppose you are the LDS person involved you have at best on the basis of a personal spiritual experience a 33.33% chance of holding the correct belief that is you are more likely to be wrong than right. If there is no way to tell when an experience is 'approving absolutely' or 'approving under certain conditions' this fact would be completely devastating to LDS claims of obtaining universal truth by using personal spiritual experiences.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[LifeOnaPlate]

What if God needs that person to be in the RLDS church for a reason, Uncertain? God isn't a fortune cookie and he isn't a monument of rules set in stone. He's a loving Father doing the best for His children. So I feel like nothing I've been saying has really reached you yet, but I don't have a lot of time to keep going over it. Go through my posts, read the parable of the sheep and goats, read Jacob 5, and see if you can get a better feeling for what I am talking about.

[Danna]

How something may sound to you does not prove it false. As you know, on the other board, there have been battles about authorship between Dale and Dan. Both did not defeat the other with evidence or logic. Next, there has been a battle over book of mormon authorship with Dale still claiming that Sidney wrote the book. Again, page after page did not prove Dale correct. The book has not been proven false by facts or evidence because no one has contructed a viable alternative to authorship with conclusive proof. Because no conclusive proof exists as of this day.

I think you misrepresent Dale. My understanding is that he sees the BoM as more of a collaboration between Rigdon and JSjr using Spalding's work as the base text. The issue is that evidence of one author is not evidence that the other had nothing to do with it

[LifeOnaPlate]

Dale's "evidence" is rather weak, imo. I see it greatly interests you, though.

[Danna]

Dale's "evidence" is rather weak, imo. I see it greatly interests you, though.

I take it the COB evidence locker contains rubbings from the gold plates, Moroni's fingerprints lifted off the Smith cabin roof, and the original 'bow' which held the U&T.

[Honorentheos]

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.

I have clipped a lot out, but wish to make the point a little more clear.

Your statement above is correct - you are the only one who could actually know what you are thinking at any given moment with any exactness. But the answer you gave above was to this statement -

AmorLibertas may not know what it would take for you to leave the church but neither do you really.

It isn't a question of what you are thinking, which only you can know since actual thoughts are only knowable from a subjective stance from within ones own mind.

It's about taking evidence about who a person is, really, and assessing how they will act under a given circumstance. And you are both unlikely to know the answer to the question above, just for different reasons.

AmorLibertas knows the you given on the internet, which judging by your avatar picture was after the bald but before the fat. Figuratively, anyway.

The you as you perceive yourself to be is part fact and part fiction. Again, see avatar.

Not knowing you myself, I have to rely on an analogy of sorts -

Most people tend to underestimate how much they lie, yet studies confirm that everybody lies, frequently. It is so pervasive that test questions that ask how frequently a person tells the truth rate the answer, "most of the time" as being better than "always". The person who answers always can't even be honest with themselves.

The only information that you have unique access to regarding yourself deals with your current identity - what you think, what it feels like to be Dr. P., and possibly what you had for dinner.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter.

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

Forgiven. It's an easy mistake to make.

This has little if any relevance to what I wrote.

I agree that it differs from your intended use of P and Q, but not regarding your intentions.

Your example has created a hypothetical, mathematics-like set in which one seems to suggest any type of non-disclosure by any person with any authority is a part. In this set, you then chose to compare what you seem to be the most challenging for many people on this board to accept - that Christ may have been guilty of non-disclosure.

Assigning P to the Christ scenario and Q to the church scenario, you suggest that a person should not object to Q but not P if they both belong to the same set.

The problem is that ethics (which the question of non-disclosure would fall under) is not mathematics. It's a false construct used to create a proof using a pure science out of a social science which does not apply to the real world.

But to satisfy your logic, I have suggested that you are playing with peoples gullibility - social science aside, the set you created and drew from is too large.

In your argument, F = {all forms of non-disclosure}, in which case P ∈ F and Q ∈ F.

But my complaint is that all forms of non-disclosure are not ethically equal.

Again, P does not equal Q when it comes to ethics, which is not the argument you are making. One is drawing from a set where there is foreknowledge that is not disclosed (Christ may have had foreknowledge of the trials and deaths of the 12 but did not share it immediately at the point when he called the apostles). The other is drawing from a set where there is a knowledge of the past that is selectively not being shared. Both are forms of non-disclosure and belong in set F, but not being ethically equal, they are drawn from different subsets of F.

[Daniel Peterson]

you are both unlikely to know the answer to the question above, just for different reasons.

And -- by far most relevantly -- to different degrees.

AmorLibertas knows the you given on the internet

Which is a severely truncated version of me -- as of everybody.

The you as you perceive yourself to be is part fact and part fiction.

Possibly so. But, again, it seems extraordinarily unlikely (unless I'm mentally defective) that a person who knows me only from a few posts on the internet would be able to achieve the same ratio of truth to fiction about me that I, from my privileged vantage point, am able to achieve.

The only information that you have unique access to regarding yourself deals with your current identity - what you think, what it feels like to be Dr. P., and possibly what you had for dinner.

Absolute rubbish.

I also have unique access to my memories, to my thinking on innumerable subjects, to my tastes in literature and music and art, to my preferences and aversions, and so on and so forth.

As for your revelation that ethics isn't mathematics, this is both trivially obvious and irrelevant to anything I've said.

Both Tarski and Teancum appear to understand my argument correctly. You evidently don't.

[beastie]

What if God needs that person to be in the RLDS church for a reason, Uncertain? God isn't a fortune cookie and he isn't a monument of rules set in stone. He's a loving Father doing the best for His children. So I feel like nothing I've been saying has really reached you yet, but I don't have a lot of time to keep going over it. Go through my posts, read the parable of the sheep and goats, read Jacob 5, and see if you can get a better feeling for what I am talking about.

Maybe God just needs you to be in the LDS church, and all the spiritual witnesses are just designed to get you in the LDS church, and don't really mean the church is "true" in terms of the only church with the real authority if the priesthood of JC.

One of the most striking examples of a "testimony" was of a fundamentalist mormon woman bearing her testimony of the practice of "the principle". IIRC, it was on mormonstories. I guess God just needed her to be a polygamist, and wasn't really telling her that her fundamentalist beliefs were "true".

[why me]

Hi LifeOnaPlate,

Well on rereading I did not like my tone. Hopefully no offense was taken.

The problem is this assumes your particular beliefs are the 'approving absolutely' while beliefs that appear to contradict yours are the 'approving as a lesser good under certain conditions'. Why must this be the case? Maybe your beliefs that are supported by a spiritual experience are the 'approving under certain conditions'. While it is the RLDS member's beliefs also supported by a spiritual experience that are the 'approving absolutely' set of beliefs.

All the Best,

Uncertain

I think that many people in different faiths can have wonderful spiritual experiences. But there can only be one true church. For the lds it is the lds church and for catholics it is the catholic church. For Rlds and other faiths, I do believe that god has not forsaken them. They will have their spiritual experiences if these experiences are the will of god. However, not many faiths that claim to be the true church.

But since these spiritual experiences are so private it is difficult to say just what they are and just how these people are feeling when having them.