If you were not LDS....

[MistahStokes]

But I see we're discussing relativism.

what

[ERayR]

A witness of what, exactly? Because I'm not seeing that it is Jesus Christ, and that is WHO we are called be witnesses of. It isn't much of witness to say "I'd cease to be a witness." now is it?

You are seeing what you want to see. My witness is of Jesus Christ. The other posters mentioned have said their witness is of Jesus Christ. What more do you want? Are we required to submit ourselves to you for approval?

[LeSellers]

I guess that is another thing to consider about Mormons, Salvation History for Mormons is missing 1800 years.

It depends entirely on what you mean by "Salvation History" (a term I have never seen before). But if it means that those who lived during the Great Apostasy are irremediably lost, this is not at all what we believe. Nor does it mean that those who lived during this period were evil. It means that men rejected the true Priesthood of God for an apostate priesthood, hewing themselves out broken cisterns that can hold not water.

I don't see that Jesus ever left us orphans, as He promised, and it is not possible for me to see that He ever would.

CFR that He ever promised He'd not leave us orphans, or that we Saints believe He did.

I guess it is possible for Mormons to imagine a world where God does not exist.

Hyperbole. It is possible that some Saints can imagine such a world, but that's not the case with all of us. Generalizations are facile, but not always useful.

However, were there no Church of Jesus Christ on the earth, then it would be quite easy to imagine a world without God because the Gods (and there is not just One

[bluebell]

Ah well, I see the ad hominems have come out, so that means I've outstayed my welcome.

I thought we were discussing what it means to be disciple of Christ, and what it means to be a witness to that. But I see we're discussing relativism.

Have a good day.

It would be a mistake to assume that because i feel your preceptions are guided by an arrogant world view such is an ad hominem attack. Ad Hominem is an attempt to undermine the speaker by attacking the speaking instead of addressing the arguement they are using. I'm not saying that you are arrogant and therefore, your words can be dismissed. I'm stating that your arguement, itself, is based on arrogance.

I freely admit that my feelings maybe completely false. I just can't imagine any other way to interpret what you have said here. You have implied that if someone does not believe they will react how you did in leaving the LDS church, they show that their faith is not based upon Jesus Christ. You are using yourself as the example of what real faith looks like and how it behaves. I don't see anyway to interpret that other than as a self-centered view of faith.

Your whole arguement is 'you won't keep your faith like i did? Then it's not real faith.' It's that arguement that i'm calling arrogant.

We have been discussing what it means to be a disciple of Christ. I'm stating that your definition of what it means to be a disciple of Christ is based on yourself. I take issue with your definition and find it arrogant (your definition, not you personally).

I know it's easiest to dismiss with by claiming i'm attacking you personally, but I'm not. I'm addressing your arguements for why other posters here are 'disturbing and sad'.

[saemo]

what

In this sense, a believing that is at odds with experience, and has a deep suspicion of one's own beliefs. Doubt, that is passed off as faith. This is a reduction of faith, one that leads to a reduction of Christ Himself, to nothing more than a myth, maybe a cultural application that is pragmatically good, but could be reached by other means, and therefore is not necessary.

In short, doubt is normal, and many go through it. But persistent doubt, of the type caused by belief being at odds with experience, leads to religious relativism.

Religious relativism manifests itself in many ways.

[saemo]

You are seeing what you want to see. My witness is of Jesus Christ. The other posters mentioned have said their witness is of Jesus Christ. What more do you want? Are we required to submit ourselves to you for approval?

Now you are expressing your own prejudices. I see in LDS the same as I see in all people, that is the singular destiny, Who is a Person. That of Jesus Christ. Submit yourself to Him, and there will be no need to go anywhere else.

John 6

⁶⁴But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

⁶⁵And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

⁶⁶From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

⁶⁷Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

⁶⁸Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

⁶⁹And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

[3DOP]

Hi saemo. I've read the last two pages, and was involved for a little while in the beginning of this thread.

What distinguishes us Catholics, is that we believe in God first, Christ second, and the Church third, but these are not all faith propositions for us. According to Vatican I, and Romans 1, we are accountable to know that there is a Creator God from the evidence of His Creation. We begin in the natural order (reason), not the supernatural order (faith) when we arrive at our first belief, in God.

For Mormons, it is all faith. They have the liberty to believe that there is no evidence or inadequate natural evidence of God's existence and many do so believe that way. I think these are usually the ones who have been duped by modern philosophy. This is "the lay of the land". Given the way that LDS testify to their belief in God, by faith alone, it follows that they probably should disbelieve in God upon learning that their faith alone was wrong about the church. It is all or nothing.

Mormons sometimes scoff at the notion that Joseph Smith was under occult influence when he wrote the Book of Mormon. Why would the devil be inclined to start a religion that helps men be faithful and sober, women to be loving and nurturing, and children to be obedient? I would answer that it might be because the presuppositions of the LDS testimony make them atheists when it comes to the natural order anyway. Many of them are saying so. If the devil can divide the soul asunder to where it believes one way by faith and its opposite by reason, he has succeeded in subverting that faculty in man (the intellect) which is most particularly the reflection of God's image in us.

I believe that faith is a superior form of knowledge in the sense that it usually occupies itself with truths that are beyond reason. But a good God wouldn't have placed us in a position that requires us to deny by faith what we know by reason. It is such a cosmos in which the Latter-day Saints believe. St. Hilary says of all creation, that it is best defined as "declarative being". The sensitive naturalist perceives in the inanimate and animate world the revelation of the Almighty. If a God has made us in such a way as to perceive with our brains that there is no God, while at the same time telling our hearts there is a God, I think we live in a nightmare. A good God would not be the author of that. Maybe Satan?

Rory

[bluebell]

It is such a cosmos in which the Latter-day Saints believe.

Given all the LDS who have claimed that they wouldn't lose their faith in God, do you believe this is a fair or accurate statement?

[saemo]

Hi saemo. I've read the last two pages, and was involved for a little while in the beginning of this thread.

What distinguishes us Catholics, is that we believe in God first, Christ second, and the Church third, but these are not all faith propositions for us. According to Vatican I, and Romans 1, we are accountable to know that there is a Creator God from the evidence of His Creation. We begin in the natural order (reason), not the supernatural order (faith) when we arrive at our first belief, in God.

For Mormons, it is all faith. They have the liberty to believe that there is no evidence or inadequate natural evidence of God's existence and many do so believe that way. I think these are usually the ones who have been duped by modern philosophy. This is "the lay of the land". Given the way that LDS testify to their belief in God, by faith alone, it follows that they probably should disbelieve in God upon learning that their faith alone was wrong about the church. It is all or nothing.

Mormons sometimes scoff at the notion that Joseph Smith was under occult influence when he wrote the Book of Mormon. Why would the devil be inclined to start a religion that helps men be faithful and sober, women to be loving and nurturing, and children to be obedient? I would answer that it might be because the presuppositions of the LDS testimony make them atheists when it comes to the natural order anyway. Many of them are saying so. If the devil can divide the soul asunder to where it believes one way by faith and its opposite by reason, he has succeeded in subverting that faculty in man (the intellect) which is most particularly the reflection of God's image in us.

I believe that faith is a superior form of knowledge in the sense that it usually occupies itself with truths that are beyond reason. But a good God wouldn't have placed us in a position that requires us to deny by faith what we know by reason. It is such a cosmos in which the Latter-day Saints believe. St. Hilary says of all creation, that it is best defined as "declarative being". The sensitive naturalist perceives in the inanimate and animate world the revelation of the Almighty. If a God has made us in such a way as to perceive with our brains that there is no God, while at the same time telling our hearts there is a God, I think we live in a nightmare. A good God would not be the author of that. Maybe Satan?

Rory

Yes, I see this.

[saemo]

It would be a mistake to assume that because i feel your preceptions are guided by an arrogant world view such is an ad hominem attack. Ad Hominem is an attempt to undermine the speaker by attacking the speaking instead of addressing the arguement they are using. I'm not saying that you are arrogant and therefore, your words can be dismissed. I'm stating that your arguement, itself, is based on arrogance.

I freely admit that my feelings maybe completely false. I just can't imagine any other way to interpret what you have said here. You have implied that if someone does not believe they will react how you did in leaving the LDS church, they show that their faith is not based upon Jesus Christ. You are using yourself as the example of what real faith looks like and how it behaves. I don't see anyway to interpret that other than as a self-centered view of faith.

Your whole arguement is 'you won't keep your faith like i did? Then it's not real faith.' It's that arguement that i'm calling arrogant.

We have been discussing what it means to be a disciple of Christ. I'm stating that your definition of what it means to be a disciple of Christ is based on yourself. I take issue with your definition and find it arrogant (your definition, not you personally).

I know it's easiest to dismiss with by claiming i'm attacking you personally, but I'm not. I'm addressing your arguements for why other posters here are 'disturbing and sad'.

Fair enough, but what I find disturbing and sad are people who claim to be Christians reply so readily that they would cease to be Christian. Being Christian means being a follower of Christ. If all it takes is a lack of faith in a book to sway a person from His Path, I find that disturbing and the circumstances to be sad.

The remedy seems to be for LDS to keep saying "I have a testimony of Jesus Christ". While simultaneously saying it is valid to say if I weren't LDS I would not follow Jesus Christ. I can't see how anyone who knows Jesus Christ, as the Son of the Living God, would say this.

Rory articulates well why, perhaps. It is that Mormons are more sola fide than I thought. Only, usually sola fide indicates a faith in Christ alone, Mormons seem to have a sola fide that rests of the Book of Mormon.

[ERayR]

Rory articulates well why, perhaps. It is that Mormons are more sola fide than I thought. Only, usually sola fide indicates a faith in Christ alone, Mormons seem to have a sola fide that rests of the Book of Mormon.

Without the doctrines/precepts/teachings of your chosen denomination how would you define what the attributes of Christ are that causes you to believe in him. Don't tell me you believe in him outside of these teaching. That is not true or else you could/would believe in Christ in an LDS setting or any other setting. Your current church affiliation does define how you believe in him.

[bluebell]

Fair enough, but what I find disturbing and sad are people who claim to be Christians reply so readily that they would cease to be Christian. Being Christian means being a follower of Christ. If all it takes is a lack of faith in a book to sway a person from His Path, I find that disturbing and the circumstances to be sad.

The remedy seems to be for LDS to keep saying "I have a testimony of Jesus Christ". While simultaneously saying it is valid to say if I weren't LDS I would not follow Jesus Christ. I can't see how anyone who knows Jesus Christ, as the Son of the Living God, would say this.

Rory articulates well why, perhaps. It is that Mormons are more sola fide than I thought. Only, usually sola fide indicates a faith in Christ alone, Mormons seem to have a sola fide that rests of the Book of Mormon.

I'm not sure if this is what you meant to imply, so i'm going to ask outright:

This post above seems to be saying 'the reactions of some LDS in this thread shows that the LDS faith is fundamentally flawed and that Catholisicm, as explained by Rory, is superior to it because Catholics would react differently'.

Is this what you are saying?

[saemo]

No, it is not what I said. Maybe it is what you wanted me to say?

LDS are saying contradicting things, is what I'm saying.

1) I have a testimony of Jesus Christ

2) I'd be something other than a Christian

[TAO]

I prayed for God to lead me to Him, and He did. I prayed after that for Him to keep me with Him. He has. That is why I am a Christian. He used His Church, no doubt that, to do it. But if there ever came a day He led me from it, I would go.

I think it sad to have a book as the foundation of belief. It is a disaster waiting to happen. If there ever comes a day that disaster occurs, I pray you rely on HIM, and you will then be able to see that the Holy Spirity being in error, is not even an option to be whispered.

Peace be with you.

Na, it is more of the fact that if I had lived my life without a Book of Mormon existing, I would have, as Bluebell said, never have had the stimulus to ask the questions necessary to gain Faith. I would have never asked God "Are you there?". It would have never happened without the BoM.

Na, it be not sad, it be the truth, that it is. I don't put my faith in the book - merely the book led me to God - who asked me to show faith. I have recieved a confirmation of the Spirit that the book is true, and it would be rather pointless to go ask the Spirit if it did not tell me the truth in the beginning. Bluebell explained it well - since I base everything that I know about religion on the promptings of the Spirit, if one column of the structure collapses, the entire structure falls. I don't base my belief in things on mundane evidence or foolish reason, I base it simply on the guidance of the Spirit, and there is no other foundation that I lay it upon. Nor should there be.

[TAO]

Most Christians I know, their foundational belief of Jesus Christ is Jesus Christ Himself. There is also the fact that TAO, and numerous LDS here say they would be agnostic/atheist/non-Christian. If Jesus Christ is the foundation, this is not possible.

I am not trying to misrepresent. I am reading what people write.

Let me explain.

I was lost for a while in my life. No belief at all. Nothing. I was not rescuable. I was in the pit of ignorance.

Then something drew me out - the Book of Mormon - it caused me to ask questions, questions that led me to ask God whether he was there. And my belief in God is based solely on that answer.

Without the Book of Mormon, I would still be in that pit of ignorance. If he confirmed the BoM being true, when it was not, the Spirit was wrong. Thus, why the true Church is tied with my belief in God. Because without it's existence, I would not have belief.

[TAO]

A witness of what, exactly? Because I'm not seeing that it is Jesus Christ, and that is WHO we are called be witnesses of. It isn't much of witness to say "I'd cease to be a witness." now is it?

If you receive a witness of the Spirit to follow a church's teachings, and that church is proven wrong, what would that mean saemo? You received a witness of the truth, and it was proven wrong. That's why we cannot 'switch allegiance'.

[TAO]

I believe that faith is a superior form of knowledge in the sense that it usually occupies itself with truths that are beyond reason. But a good God wouldn't have placed us in a position that requires us to deny by faith what we know by reason.

I would disagree.

Proverbs 3:5-6

5

[bluebell]

No, it is not what I said. Maybe it is what you wanted me to say?

I'd really like to be able to have this discussion without snarkiness or being flippant. Can that be our mutual goal? It won't be possible if the point becomes to see how often we can underhandedly insult one another.

My last question was sincere. I was sincere in wanting clarification before i addressed what you said.

LDS are saying contradicting things, is what I'm saying.

1) I have a testimony of Jesus Christ

2) I'd be something other than a Christian

Yes, i understand that, but it seemed that you (and rory) were saying that is a fundamental flaw in mormonism that leads LDS to say 'contradictory things'.

In other words it appeared to me that you were saying that it's not the inner-workings of the person, or the person's personality or life experiences that would lead them to say things you view as 'contradictory' but it's the LDS church itself that leads them to express such things.

Can you see where my confusion comes from?

[TAO]

No, it is not what I said. Maybe it is what you wanted me to say?

LDS are saying contradicting things, is what I'm saying.

1) I have a testimony of Jesus Christ

2) I'd be something other than a Christian

No, this is what we are saying.

1) We have a testimony in Jesus Christ due to the promptings of the Spirit.

2) We have a testimony in the Church of Jesus Christ due to the promptings of the Spirit.

3) If the promptings are incorrect, why trust the Spirit?

[bridget_night]

I have a friend who after leaving the LDS Church found Christ through a Seventh-Day Adventist Church. He later was told by the Spirit that the Book of Mormon was true and began the process of returning to the LDS Church. Through another amazing experience with the Spirit he was led away from the LDS Church and eventually found the Church of Christ (Temple Lot)- where he has been for 20+ years.

That is sooo interesting. Thanks for sharing that because it really helps me realize God cares about our individual growth the most. Bridget

[bridget_night]

I find it very disheartening the so many LDS members idolize their organization so much that being agnostic or atheist appeals to them more then being with another Christian organization. It is Jesus Christ that should reign in our hearts, not a church organization. Is Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior nothing without the LDS organization, does His atonement not count if their is no LDS Church? Very Sad.

I so agree and like suff you post. You are someone I could be good friends with. Bridget

[3DOP]

Given all the LDS who have claimed that they wouldn't lose their faith in God, do you believe this is a fair or accurate statement?

Point taken. There is no consensus. I can certainly back away from saying that this is the way all Mormons think and I retract my sweeping statement. The question is regarding what is most consistent with LDS principles. It is about where clear thinking tends to lead.

Mormons are free to reject the notion that one can arrive at a knowledge of the Creator God from the light of natural reason apart from faith. I know that many LDS believe that if God exists, His creation does NOT reveal Him. Their belief in God is gained through their testimony. Clearly, many LDS would believe anyway. Of course I applaud this. What remains to be seen is which side is correct. Are you telling me that the CoJCoLDS teaches that you should know of the existence of God apart from faith? If so, my theory would be mistaken, and I would be happy to discover it to be the case.

bluebell, I am just theorizing. I don't know about Spalding or occult allegations or anything else about Book of Mormon origins. I do not take issue with Mormons who propose that Joseph Smith could never have written the Book of Mormon alone. I take those LDS claims at face value without compromising my own faith. How do I explain the Catholic Church with a Book of Mormon that Joseph could never have written unaided? I don't have any doubts about what I believe. I could never believe what Restorationists believe about the Catholic Church. This makes me immune to apostasy theories. So what could explain the LDS phenomenon?

On rare occasions over the years, I have tendered my notions about a preternatural theory (demonic) for the Book of Mormon. IF, as some have said, this religion teaches a God whose existence is incompatible with right reason apart from faith, it is in my opinion, a nightmarish evil worthy of Satan. As a Catholic, I have been taught that by God's gift, we may trust the input that comes through our senses as giving true information that we may learn to interpret as real and accurate. To understand that the senses are rather unreliable, even to the point where we are unable to detect whether creation is created would be a dream from which I couldn't awaken fast enough!

I am not ready to believe that a sunset is just some electromagnetic junk that my species evolved into perceving as beautiful. God gave us delights such as this so that we would know not just His power, but His tender care to make us happy. When sunsets, the scent of a rose, the song of a bird, and a newborn baby can all be explained without God, it is the greatest deception that Satan has ever accomplished. This is why Catholics insist on the importance of the ability to believe in God even without any religion, without any faith, as St. Paul says in Romans 1, "so that they (who deny God) are without excuse."

You also asked saemo:

I'm not sure if this is what you meant to imply, so i'm going to ask outright:

This post above seems to be saying 'the reactions of some LDS in this thread shows that the LDS faith is fundamentally flawed and that Catholisicm, as explained by Rory, is superior to it because Catholics would react differently'.

Is this what you are saying?

It isn't about what Catholics or Mormons would do. Some of us Catholics would, inconsistently with our fundamental principles, become atheists. Do you think the LDS who would be atheistic are being similarly inconsistent with your principles? The reason I said such a cosmos would be a nightmare is because it would be a world which is deceptive, where right reason leads us away from God. It is to deny that the "heavens declare the glory of God", and "the firmament showeth forth His handiwork."

Rory

[TAO]

On rare occasions over the years, I have tendered my notions about a preternatural theory (demonic) for the Book of Mormon. IF, as some have said, this religion teaches a God whose existence is incompatible with right reason apart from faith, it is in my opinion, a nightmarish evil worthy of Satan.

Na, he isn't, but the point is, science doesn't point in any direction. Some theorize against it. Some theorize for it. As far as I have seen, neither have the advantage. Thus we rely solely on faith simply because it is the only way to achieve a true answer. If you don't trust the spirit, you will be tossed in one direction and then another following reason and science - and ultimately you won't get anywhere.

When I was younger, before I had my testimony, I theorized about the beginning of the universe alot. I will tell you though - it is possible without a creator. As said, science tears back and forth leading to no conclusion.

Thus why the approach with faith alone. We will trust him with all of our heart, might, mind, and soul. And no less. If we achieve a wrong answer that way, then we know that all trust in the Spirit is wrong.

God isn't incompatible with reason - merely the physical evidences that he is shown in have an alternative explanation. However, there is no alternative for the Spirit of Truth. It is a guarantee. Thus, why we trust it.

As a Catholic, I have been taught that by God's gift, we may trust the input that comes through our senses as giving true information that we may learn to interpret as real and accurate. To understand that the senses are rather unreliable, even to the point where we are unable to detect whether creation is created would be a dream from which I couldn't awaken fast enough!

I am having a discussion on a certain board about why the physical evidences are no more reliable than the spiritual at this time. And you know what - I consider the Spirit a sense. Why do you not?

The senses aren't unreliable - merely, we will never be able to prove they work accurately. We trust them on total faith. No different than trusting the Spirit in total faith.

[TAO]

The reason I said such a cosmos would be a nightmare is because it would be a world which is deceptive, where right reason leads us away from God. It is to deny that the "heavens declare the glory of God", and "the firmament showeth forth His handiwork."

A cosmos where your senses do not work would be a nightmare. True. But a cosmos where your sense of the Holy Ghost did not work properly would be a life of eternal torment. That is what you are suggesting, and if that is the case, there isn't a point in me seeking to find God. For there would be no way to find him.

[3DOP]

Na, he isn't, but the point is, science doesn't point in any direction. Some theorize against it. Some theorize for it. As far as I have seen, neither have the advantage. Thus we rely solely on faith simply because it is the only way to achieve a true answer. If you don't trust the spirit, you will be tossed in one direction and then another following reason and science - and ultimately you won't get anywhere.

When I was younger, before I had my testimony, I theorized about the beginning of the universe alot. I will tell you though - it is possible without a creator. As said, science tears back and forth leading to no conclusion.

Thus why the approach with faith alone. We will trust him with all of our heart, might, mind, and soul. And no less. If we achieve a wrong answer that way, then we know that all trust in the Spirit is wrong.

God isn't incompatible with reason - merely the physical evidences that he is shown in have an alternative explanation. However, there is no alternative for the Spirit of Truth. It is a guarantee. Thus, why we trust it.

I am having a discussion on a certain board about why the physical evidences are no more reliable than the spiritual at this time. And you know what - I consider the Spirit a sense. Why do you not?

The senses aren't unreliable - merely, we will never be able to prove they work accurately. We trust them on total faith. No different than trusting the Spirit in total faith.

Very quickly TAO, and thanks for your thoughtful reply. I'll give it all more attention tomorrow if football games or a nap don't get in the way. Its past midnight here now and I need to go.

But I can briefly respond to your question about the Holy Spirit. When you suggest that the Spirit is a sense, it is not in the sense (pun necessarily intended) that the word is defined. The word is precise and refers to the five different ways we can naturally experience physical reality. An experience of the Holy Spirit is beyond nature, supernatural. When St. Paul says that "eye hath not seen and ear hath not heard" he is making direct reference to the two most perfect of the five senses, sight and sound. I can see how one might consider the Holy Spirit to be analagous to the senses but it would violate, I think, the usual understanding of our "sensual" faculties which involve an ability to detect physical realities within a certain proximity, to also include spiritual knowledge which is mostly or entirely non-physical, or spiritual.

I have never considered the question before. But since you ask why I don't consider the Spirit "a sense", that is why I never could.

Regards,

3DOP