For those who felt deceived

[Jeff K.]

I am amazed how the groups deny any personal responsibility. I have yet to hear anyone say

"well yes, I should have been more thoughtful in my position when I joined the church".

One would presume with the freedom of choice that there exists an understanding that individual choice entails a certain individual responsibility. No one was forced. Instead there is the requirement that any archane opinion should be both expelled and vetted by 19 year old men/boys. Such people are more concerned with being part of a "mindhive" where they abrogate their responsibility, rather than understanding the responsibility of their own choice and freedom.

Such is the ridiculous nature of their position.

[beastie]

I still stand by the statement I made to you - I am not presumptuous enough to assume I know better than you what your personal experiences were. Perhaps some will label me "naive"...oh well.

I do appreciate that, ttribe.

JeffK:

I am amazed how the groups deny any personal responsibility. I have yet to hear anyone say

"well yes, I should have been more thoughtful in my position when I joined the church".

One would presume with the freedom of choice that there exists an understanding that individual choice entails a certain individual responsibility. No one was forced. Instead there is the requirement that any archane opinion should be both expelled and vetted by 19 year old men/boys. Such people are more concerned with being part of a "mindhive" where they abrogate their responsibility, rather than understanding the responsibility of their own choice and freedom.

Such is the ridiculous nature of their position.

Yes, I should have been more thoughtful in my position when I joined the church. I should have realized that the idea that God would 'tell' me if this was the right belief, or right decision, through the type of mechanism taught to me by the missionaries was naive and unrealistic. I should have realized that thoughtful people have grappled with religion for millenia, and if these issues could be resolved as simply and as clearly as the missionaries were teaching me, then the topic wouldn't be such a challenge. In my defense, I was a 19 year old kid without a lot of background information about the greater religious questions in general. But that is a different topic than what was being asked on this thread.

In regards to the specific topic of this thread, I did the best I knew how to find out information about the LDS church. In that way, I was thoughtful about my decision and did try to arm myself with information.

[Jeff K.]

I appreciate the fact that you thought what you did was best. I would also extend to you the courtesy of continued exploration for that kingdom or philosophical stance that works best for you. In the end its not about assigning to any organization the blame for where we are but in finding what works.

[Teancum]

I would beg to disagree.

Germany was not some backward closed environment when Nazism came to power. Hitler was elected to his position, he was chosen. The "kids" did most of the fighting, the older soldeirs and college educated men, they were the one's who ran rather efficient deathcamps. These were simply thugs, but well educated individuals.

.

Technically Hitler was not elected:

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0403a.asp

[Teancum]

I suppose that prior to me gaining a more mature understanding of the nature and purpose of the restored gospel, there may have been a chance that my learning certain "negative" points of LDS history or certain quibbles over the historicity of LDS scripture, may have caused me to loose faith.

However, since I have realized that the gospel is a means designed by God for gaining a fulness of joy and love and Christ-like character--i.e. the gospel is the means for becoming like God, it is clear to me that the supposed "negative" points of LDS history and the quibbles over historicity, are irrelevancies and distractions, and thus of no significance to my faith.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Are you implying that your alleged mature understanding of the gospel is or was beyond another's viewpoint and understanding when perhaps "quibbles" caused them to lose or abandon their testimony. Would that not be rather presumptuous of you?

[Teancum]

It was well explained in that time. My original post certainly hasn't been countered by anything you have stated beyond the somewhat lame "my feelings are hurt".

The Church taught basic doctrines. You seemed to have been so overcome in your own emotional whirlwind that you have this deep seated need to blame others for your failure to do what is plainly your responsibilty. The intellect in the 1970's is not significantly less than today. You somewhat shallow error is to presume that because others who have converted to the church down the same path obligates the church somehow to prevail upon you any presumed slight in history. Something that is your responsibility without a doubt. Sadly it appears you still run form that responsibility and look for the flimsiest of excuses.

I do not accept the abrogation of such responsibility, either by myself or others that claim deception by others when it was their own willful blindness.

Ii am highly skeptical you would be so cavalier and haughty about this had you lost say a million dollars investing with Bernie Madoff. I have a suspicion you would be calling for his head.

[Teancum]

And yet it was still your choice to listen to the spiritual witness. You also had a choice when you learned things that disturbed you to remember the power of the witness and realize that maybe you didn't have all the facts (and I assure you, you didn't as no one does because the records were very sparse at that time) or to deny the spiritual witness and call it something else. It appears you made the latter choice and traded your birthright for a mess of pottage. And how happy you've been with that choice is questionable because you are still here trying to justify it.

Or the witness was false or inaccurate because it lacked information on which to pray about or make a valid decision on.

Witnesses like this are totally subjective and varying outcomes can occur based on input.

[Deborah]

Or the witness was false or inaccurate because it lacked information on which to pray about or make a valid decision on.

That's the thing about a true witness of the spirit. One doesn't need all the information and in fact it would be impossible to always have all the bits and pieces the critics think we need before making a decision. People however lose the spirit and begin to make choices based solely on their intellect and the knowlege they think they have and once that happens they become as we read in 2 Timothy 3:7 "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."

[Teancum]

That's the thing about a true witness of the spirit. One doesn't need all the information and in fact it would be impossible to always have all the bits and pieces the critics think we need before making a decision. People however lose the spirit and begin to make choices based solely on their intellect and the knowlege they think they have and once that happens they become as we read in 2 Timothy 3:7 "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."

I am sorry but you have no empirical evidence to prove this. This is simply conjecture and opinion and indeed it is what you are taught to believe. People of other faiths believe their witnesses are just as powerful as yours and their leads them to conclude yours it wrong and theirs is correct. So who is right in such a case? You? Why?

[Daniel Peterson]

I am sorry but you have no empirical evidence to prove this. This is simply conjecture and opinion and indeed it is what you are taught to believe. People of other faiths believe their witnesses are just as powerful as yours and their leads them to conclude yours it wrong and theirs is correct. So who is right in such a case? You? Why?

Can you point me to a Mormon-style "witness" in, say, Islam?

I encounter the assertion, fairly frequently, that everybody in every faith claims to have a testimony of their faith in the sense that Latter-day Saints do. Now admittedly, I don't know much about non-Mormon religions, but I'm a bit skeptical of that assertion.

[Deborah]

I am sorry but you have no empirical evidence to prove this.

The Spirit testifies of truth. What degree of truth a person gets depends on what he is ready and willing to receive. And I have never met anyone, and I've known many people of great faith, who has claimed the kind of testimony of truthfulness that we claim (except on this board where critics want to show they are as enlightened as we are).

[Teancum]

Can you point me to a Mormon-style "witness" in, say, Islam?

I encounter the assertion, fairly frequently, that everybody in every faith claims to have a testimony of their faith in the sense that Latter-day Saints do. Now admittedly, I don't know much about non-Mormon religions, but I'm a bit skeptical of that assertion.

I know of no group that stand once a month in a testimony meeting and says I know x, y and z. However I do know of those in other faiths, and indeed have read accounts of varying religious leaders and Christians, who have described what one could consider a testimony or witness of the spirit. Indeed I have chatted with LDS critics at various LDS events and asked them who they know X Y or Z or listened to their conversion story. The words are different than LDS may use but the message is the same. When asked why they do what they do, whether it be a "palmistry" to Mormons, a youth ministry, etc. they speak of being called by the spirit same as you are I might say the spirit led us to do one thing or another. Just because they may not stand up and say I know the Methodists are the only true church or something like that does not mean they have not had experience s that convince them they are right and we are wrong.

[Teancum]

The Spirit testifies of truth. What degree of truth a person gets depends on what he is ready and willing to receive. And I have never met anyone, and I've known many people of great faith, who has claimed the kind of testimony of truthfulness that we claim (except on this board where critics want to show they are as enlightened as we are).

So you don't think Billy Graham would claim that what he preaches is the truth and the only true way to God. You think he would think your testimony of JS valid? Does your faith trump his? Really is that not what this is about? LDS believe that their testimony and the way they say and claim it, which seems more cultural and a thing of tradition than it does doctrinally mandated, is superior and others is inferior. When a person goes to an baptist meeting and the preacher preaches repentance and that person answers an alter call they typically do so because they believe they feel the holy ghost calling them to confess Christ, and this Christ is one of the reformation doctrine, not the LDS view. And they think it was God telling them to do this as much as someone who commits to be baptized after listening to the LDS missionaries.

Have you ever attended a meeting where the preacher gives an alter call? It is an interesting event. I can tell you that the spirit can be there as much as in an LDS meeting where I believe I have felt the spirit.

[Daniel Peterson]

I know of no group that stand once a month in a testimony meeting and says I know x, y and z.

That, of course, wasn't my point.

I'll be very clear: I have never encountered a Muslim, whether in person or in Islamic writing, who claimed to have a testimony via personal revelation. I've seen several ex-Mormons and anti-Mormons assert that Muslims do this (and that Mormon testimonies are therefore worthless), but I've never seen it.

[Teancum]

That, of course, wasn't my point.

I'll be very clear: I have never encountered a Muslim, whether in person or in Islamic writing, who claimed to have a testimony via personal revelation. I've seen several ex-Mormons and anti-Mormons assert that Muslims do this (and that Mormon testimonies are therefore worthless), but I've never seen it.

I don't know about Islam but I have met plenty of Christians that say the spirit led them to Christ, accept Christ, be a minister, etc. They may not say personal revelation but thy mean the same thing. I think I noted that more than the differences in the way LDS say things in my previous response.

But do you believe they are any less convinced of their truth than we are?

[Daniel Peterson]

I don't know about Islam but I have met plenty of Christians that say the spirit led them to Christ, accept Christ, be a minister, etc.

All of which I'm perfectly fine with.

But do you believe they are any less convinced of their truth than we are?

That wasn't my point, either.

[Ray Agostini]

I don't know about Islam but I have met plenty of Christians that say the spirit led them to Christ, accept Christ, be a minister, etc. They may not say personal revelation but thy mean the same thing. I think I noted that more than the differences in the way LDS say things in my previous response.

But do you believe they are any less convinced of their truth than we are?

I don't think Muslims are any less convinced, and in many cases I've personally seen, more convinced (in appearance anyway). When Muslims lapse they also tend to still strongly identify as Muslim, and many of them, though unbelievers, still observe Ramadan. Even among the unbelievers, you have to be careful what you say about Islam in their presence.

[beastie]

One of the incidents I remember most vividly from my mission in France is a discussion I had with a Catholic (of course) woman. She told me that one day she was sitting in Mass and suddenly a light kind of like the sun, only spiritual, filled the church and her soul, and she â??knewâ? she was on the right path.

Now, admittedly this isnâ??t using the words â??I know the Catholic church is the one true churchâ?, but as Teancum has already pointed out, for all intents and purposes this is what it meant to this woman. In addition, many LDS not only view equivalent experiences as â??testimoniesâ?, theyâ??re actually taught to view such experiences as testimonies. IOW, even if you canâ??t get God to directly answer your prayer â??is the LDS church the one true churchâ?, if you have an experience like the Catholic lady did in the LDS chapel, youâ??re taught to view that as a â??testimonyâ?. So it seems only fair to give that same allowance to Catholics.

From an article I remember reading years ago:

I Wanted a Burning Bush

I thought back to the week before we had decided to be baptized. We had once again arrived late to church. To dispel the awkwardness of the situation, a very young man, Eddie Markle, had welcomed us with a simple handshake. At that moment I sensed in him a faith so strong that I was deeply impressed. It was the kind of faith spoken of by Jesus to Thomas: â??Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.â? (John 20:29.) I decided I wanted that kind of faith.

I realized my previous experiences had impressed me in a similar way, but, because of my desire for a miraculous conversion, I had failed to recognize the promptings of the Spirit. My encounters with members of the Church had not been spectacular, but yet they had been very significant.

Each person hadâ??in his own wayâ??displayed a strong yet simple faith: **** Reisner had planted the seed; Dennis Hill had sent the book; the missionaries had knocked on my door; President Pressler had waited for us that first Sunday; Elder Richards had delivered an inspiring message; Eddie Markle had eased an awkward moment with a handshake. Each personâ??through his exampleâ??had let the powerful light of his testimony shine forth. And to me, having been in darkness, each example was as â??the bright shining of a candleâ? (Luke 11:36), bringing me to a testimony of the truth.

The Mormons love their families and I love them for that. As a religious group they are, in fact, a family themselvesâ??with all the love and learning that implies. Yet through it all one fact never changes: they have the gospel of Jesus Christ. A burning bush is not the answer. We have free choiceâ??we can choose a darkness devoid of faith or we can light it brilliantly and forever with our belief. The Mormons believe! And so do I.

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoi..._&hideNav=1

When I first began struggling with doubts, I talked to various people in my ward about it â?? mostly sisters. I would often ask them how they â??knowâ? the church is true, or JS is a prophet. I was surprised by how often they gave the vague sort of stories contained in this Ensign article. Yes, there are some Mormons who have a singular â??testimonial eventâ? like I did â?? but I think there are probably just as many who have not, and yet still believe they have a testimony due to nonburning bush experiences â?? just like Catholics and so many others.

[Daniel Peterson]

I don't doubt that there are spiritual experiences out there. I know that there are, and I'm very grateful for it.

I simply resist the suggestion that every religious believer claims a revealed testimony in the way Latter-day Saints commonly claim them. It's not true.

[beastie]

I simply resist the suggestion that every religious believer claims a revealed testimony in the way Latter-day Saints commonly claim them. It's not true.

Maybe I just missed it as I was catching up after work, but where did anyone claim that EVERY religious believer claims a revealed testimony in the way that LDS commonly claim them?

[Daniel Peterson]

Maybe I just missed it as I was catching up after work, but where did anyone claim that EVERY religious believer claims a revealed testimony in the way that LDS commonly claim them?

Good grief you're a literalist.

Anyway, my reaction isn't only to Teancum's comment here -- did he mention Islam? no, and that should have been a clue to you -- but to similar posts and comments that I've been seeing for the past decade or more.

[Deborah]

You think he would think your testimony of JS valid? Does your faith trump his? Really is that not what this is about? LDS believe that their testimony and the way they say and claim it, which seems more cultural and a thing of tradition than it does doctrinally mandated, is superior and others is inferior.

Why would I care what Billy Graham thinks about my testimony of Joseph Smith? I know what I know and of course I believe it is the way that I claim it to be. If not why would I be where I am. And my testimony is not a cultural thing since I did not grow up in the church and had no idea of the cultural background before I received the spiritual confirmation I did. If I didn't believe what I believe is right I'd be somewhere else. Duh!

Others are free to believe what they want and I don't question that many people have spiritual experiences which answer their search at the time they have their experience. I had spiritual experiences before I joined the church. Why wouldn't other people?

[ERayR]

I am sorry but you have no empirical evidence to prove this. This is simply conjecture and opinion and indeed it is what you are taught to believe. People of other faiths believe their witnesses are just as powerful as yours and their leads them to conclude yours it wrong and theirs is correct. So who is right in such a case? You? Why?

I am sorry but the way my life has turned out is all the empirical evidence that I need to show that it works. I am sure that I am not alone.

[sethpayne]

Can you point me to a Mormon-style "witness" in, say, Islam?

I encounter the assertion, fairly frequently, that everybody in every faith claims to have a testimony of their faith in the sense that Latter-day Saints do. Now admittedly, I don't know much about non-Mormon religions, but I'm a bit skeptical of that assertion.

Well, I was impressed once by a documentary I watched on some American Muslims and their experience in traveling to Mecca and participating in the Haj. I don't remember all the details but the spiritual experience the described standing on the hillside, dressed in white, was quite remarkable. Also, it reminded me of our own expressions of spiritual experience. I don't think these Muslims were saying that this experience was proof of Islam, but what they described as having their sins forgiven was similar to how I would describe my spiritual experiences in the Church.

I should add, IMO, Mormonism is unique amongst Christian religions in that it does ask individuals to step outside Mormonism for a confirmation of truth. The Book of Mormon doesn't prove the Book of Mormon. The Bible doesn't prove the Bible. What proves the scriptures is an external spiritual experience.

[Scottie]

Why would I care what Billy Graham thinks about my testimony of Joseph Smith? I know what I know and of course I believe it is the way that I claim it to be. If not why would I be where I am. And my testimony is not a cultural thing since I did not grow up in the church and had no idea of the cultural background before I received the spiritual confirmation I did. If I didn't believe what I believe is right I'd be somewhere else. Duh!

Others are free to believe what they want and I don't question that many people have spiritual experiences which answer their search at the time they have their experience. I had spiritual experiences before I joined the church. Why wouldn't other people?

If I may ask, what was it about your Mormonism experience that was so much more than your other spiritual experiences?