Answer an ".. and I'm an EX-mormon" video.

[maupayman]

I challenge anyone to find a single example of a Muslim or any Christian who received the testimony of his faith being true through searching, praying and receiving a witness of the Holy Ghost.

I have no doubt that people of many faiths have had strong spiritual experiences, there is no reason that they shouldn't. A Muslim or a Lutheran having a spiritual experience, even if it is real, does not falsify the claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Having spiritual experiences and receiving a witness of the Holy Ghost following a pattern taught by the Church are different things. No other Church, of which I am aware, encourages people to study, pray and ask God for a witness of it's truthfulness before becoming one of it's members. In fact, most Christian Churches teach specifically against such a thing, claiming that it is un-Biblical and a bad way to know truth.

Best,

T-Shirt

How about fundamentalist mormons? They claim to follow the same pattern and get vastly different results. Almost like the results are self-serving.

[maupayman]

I have two words for the youtube video...

RIP OFF!

Word of advice to those ex-mormons that want to share their message- you ought to use better creativity and imagination in how you present yourself instead of this and mimicking the way the Church advertises.

The whole point is to mimic the LDS ads.

[elguanteloko]

Let's see.

Other people have spiritual experiences. I keep pointing out the D&C 1 expressly describes the LDS as imperfect, incomplete, and non-exclusive relative to truth and virtue. And Ive done a couple of comparative studies, which, to my way of thinking, enhance my faith. See my JBMS 2/1 essay on NDE research and the Book of Mormon, and my Meridian essay, which since their links broke in their redesign, I've added a dropbox link in my MDDB profile, under About Me.

I don't get the point of this. "LDS relative to truth and imperfect"??? What the heck does that mean?

Cognitive disonance and confirmation bias..., evidently a one way street that only affects believers, and has no effect on disbelief. The FAIR essay on the topic is actually one of the best I've read. How does this fellow go about countering the confirmation bias of skeptism? He doesn't. He uses the idea as a tool to destroy, never to examine and remove motes in his own eye/

Well, he went with what seems to be the most likely explanation. His point is not that one can get rid of confirmation bias but that one can use it as a means to examining one's current position. The final idea is to adopt the most likely position to be the case. Is an angel delivering information about a book of lost civilizations in ancient times through the power of a God the most likely explanation? Doesn't seem to me.

And a reference to the 1923 Roberts Study of the Book of Mormon, which I read in 1985 and thought badly dated then. Any appeal to that as an explanation of the Book of Mormon is, I think, a rather obvious display of appeal to authority without bothering to to consider what actually constitutes authority. Confirmation bias? Oh yes. Rather than sit at Roberts' feet, I think it more profitable to stand on his shoulders. From there, I have seen a great many things that he did not. Welch's 1985 paper, for instance. And the further refinements on some issues in his Legal Cases in the Book of Mormon. The Roberts study comes far far short of defining the problem that the Book of Mormon represents. Therefore, the argument based on Roberts as an AUTHORITY has no authority. It's a scarecrow. Not a real argument.

You are right. However, I thought that was the weakest of his points. You haven't really addressed the stronger ones.

And that's it. Just sad.

That's it, really? Watch the video again carefully and place particular attention to the first half.

He says he could think of no way to test his testimony. I've done a lot testimony testing in my time. Thirteen essays for FARMS, a dozen for the Meridian, two for FAIR, one in Dialogue, a few more in Sunstone, and lots of looking at the writings and thoughts of others, pro and con. I look back at all the things I've learned since my first and only crisis of faith, which resolved in my 1991 Dialogue essay. If I had caved back then, I think of all the stuff that I would have missed, and never would have known what I was missing.

So, how do you test your testimony, again?

My testimony gets stronger all the time. It consists of multiple threads, no single one holding all the weight, which together make a very strong rope. It's durable, flexible, tolerant, and robust. And still a work in progress.

"Confirmation" of a spiritual testimony isn't a good way of convincing people. Can you think of any risky predictions or findings that would falsify the LDS claims of faith?

Again, I think you missed the most important points.... sadly.

[elguanteloko]

The whole point is to mimic the LDS ads.

Shhh! Don't say it! It's a secret.

[elguanteloko]

No, he's suffering in pain. What I'm not going to say is how extreme the pain is... I can't tell that specifically... is it a level 9, or a level 10, in other words. In addition, sometimes, I can't tell the method that cause him pain... for example... you may be able to tell someone is emotionally sad, but you can't always tell exactly how deeply they feel it, and which part of the issue is the most painful... and to what ratios... you can just experiment.

So, the more intense the feeling the closer to truth it is? You missed the point of the analogy. The point was that watching someone in the case I posed and then see someone who just says "Ouch!" when touching a hot stove can be described as differences in degrees of pain. I don't see why we couldn't say something similar with religious experiences. You can substitute "intensity" with "kind" and you will have the same problem. Which kind or which intensity is the correct one to indicate something is true?

You've heard of the uncertainty principle, right?

It applies to emotions - only the variable is bigger.

Because my brain works somewhat with patterns and mathematics, I see how big of a 'communicatino gap' I have with other people - how much of a gap of possibility there is. This gap of possibility is almost impossible to cross, which is what I am talking about.

Same as above.

Same as I used here. I don't know you as you know yourself, so I can't really tell you why things happen the way they do for you. I can say they have happened for me though. If you want to try them out for yourself, you should do that. But you can only know for yourself, and not for anybody else.

Been there, done that. What are you going to conclude, now? I wasn't feeling what I should have felt? I wasn't honest enough?

Can we move on, now?

[elguanteloko]

Just so everyone knows, many people like these I have known their stories and understand their frustrations as I have gone through myself, but I cannot buy that they are happier just because they are more relieved because they ran away from something instead of trying to deal with it through prayer.

The thing is that the origins of the possible results of prayer are what are in dispute here (according to the guy in the video), NOT that "spiritual experiences" can happen at all. About saying they aren't happier... give me a break, man.

I have gone on the side of trying to just not believe in God at all to see if it would make me happier and it was one of the darkest moments I've had.

So, you felt bad and, therefore, everyone must feel bad in similar circumstances. Right?

I was angry, upset, felt like I had wasted my life, thought I should just try out more things that I didn't do when I was religious, and frequently lost sleep because of emotional nightmares.

Too many mistakes here; think about them for yourself.

I think maybe that is what many of these people go through, but instead of trying to face the problem, they start these social network communities where they can all get together to feel less guilty about themselves.

Yeah... these communities like going to church with similarly-minded individuals. Looking for people similar to yourself is no more wrong for the religious as it is for the non-religious. We all want support, bro, haven't you noticed that? It's called "being human".

They claim they don't want to waste anymore time on religion when they don't need it to love and help others, but then why are they online talking about religion which they want no part of instead of going out and helping others?

They are not wasting time in religion but some think it is good to try to convince others of what they see as erroneous ways from outside religion. Not much different in intention from the religious although different in practice.

[Deborah]

My testimony gets stronger all the time. It consists of multiple threads, no single one holding all the weight, which together make a very strong rope. It's durable, flexible, tolerant, and robust. And still a work in progress.

This to me is the key. I once had a problem with polygamy, but because there were so many other things that I knew were true and only taught by the church I got over that hump. I once had a problem with the Priesthood ban, but the same thing.

I couldn't dismiss Pre-existence, the stance on infant baptism, the Godhead, temple work and the different degrees of glory. These were things that made such perfect sense, just from a logical standpoint, and no one else was teaching them, that I knew there had to be more that I wasn't understanding about the things I questioned. So the other threads held me together when one or two were unraveling (and which with later study and thought were repaired).

I'm astounded that the more I learn about church history, about Joseph Smith and about all the prophets, the stronger my testimony grows. You'd think based on some of these negative testimonies that the more I learn the more I should question and doubt. Not so. Which makes me wonder what sources they are learning from.

[elguanteloko]

This to me is the key. I once had a problem with polygamy, but because there were so many other things that I knew were true and only taught by the church I got over that hump. I once had a problem with the Priesthood ban, but the same thing.

I couldn't dismiss Pre-existence, the stance on infant baptism, the Godhead, temple work and the different degrees of glory. These were things that made such perfect sense, just from a logical standpoint, and no one else was teaching them, that I knew there had to be more that I wasn't understanding about the things I questioned. So the other threads held me together when one or two were unraveling (and which with later study and thought were repaired).

I'm astounded that the more I learn about church history, about Joseph Smith and about all the prophets, the stronger my testimony grows. You'd think based on some of these negative testimonies that the more I learn the more I should question and doubt. Not so. Which makes me wonder what sources they are learning from.

Nor from the T.R.U.E. sources, obviously.

[Deborah]

I think maybe that is what many of these people go through, but instead of trying to face the problem, they start these social network communities where they can all get together to feel less guilty about themselves.

This is the problem I have with many of these people who leave. These "network communities" are usually so negative they have to affect a person. I don't like to hang around negative people; it isn't healthy. Perhaps that's why so many become so bitter toward the church when before they got involved they probably didn't think much about it at all.

[Kevin Christensen]

I don't get the point of this. "LDS relative to truth and imperfect"??? What the heck does that mean?

Garbling the quote doesn't clarify the meaning or the questions. It's quite simple. Kuhn pointed out that anomaly emerges, with resistance, against a background of expectation. Those who expect, or insist that LDS culture, doctrine, leadership, personal experience meet their expectation of perfection will inevitably focus their attention on where it seems to them to fall short. The Tanner's approach exemplifies this sort of thing. My own background expectations of LDS culture, leadership, doctrine, and so forth. are quite different, far more tolerant and robust. I don't expect exclusive truth, exclusive spiritual experience, lockstep, perfect thinking and behavior of leaders, unchanging understanding, perfect dictation of revelation, or a community that always lives up not only to their own ideals, but also to the ideals of surrounding, and changing cultures. I'm interested in what is real.

Is that clearer?

Well, he went with what seems to be the most likely explanation.

Apparent likelyhood is inextricably entwined with how one goes about defining the problem in the first place. If you compare what he says about his own spiritual experiences compared to non-LDS experiences, and what I have written in various places, you ought to see that we define the problem in very different ways. If you compare his authority on the Book of Mormon (B. H. Roberts and... nothing whatsoever), with mine, you ought to see that my understanding is far more complex. Hence, I require a far more detailed explanation than, say McMurrin's "You don't get books from angels and translate them by revelation." That does not explain the text at all. If McMurrin was correct, we should either have a no such thing as the Book of Mormon, or a comprehensive and coherent explanation for it. And "he did it somehow," accompanied by a wave of the hand towards the Roberts Study does not satisfy me in the slightest. Building an argument on an untested assumption (in this case, that angels do not exist) does not explain the Book of Mormon. Rather, it does away with the need to explain it. And never defines the problem carefully enough to realize that here is a phenomena deserving a comprehensive and coherent explanation.

His point is not that one can get rid of confirmation bias but that one can use it as a means to examining one's current position.

But he doesn't use it to examine his current position. He uses it as a means to uncritically justify it.

In my case for example, my essay on Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets attempt to define (1) what matters, pro and con, from a Biblical perspective (2) the actions and attitudes an investigator should and should not take, (3) mistakes to avoid (4) a tentative valuing of Joseph Smith in that light. I've also checked the Book of Mormon against information to which neither Joseph Smith, nor Roberts, nor McMurrin had any access.

The final idea is to adopt the most likely position to be the case. Is an angel delivering information about a book of lost civilizations in ancient times through the power of a God the most likely explanation? Doesn't seem to me.

And we clearly define the problem, and hence, likelyhood, in very different ways. Plus, having experienced in some measure, the power of God, I have an inkling of what might be possible in light of its very real existence in my life.

You are right. However, I thought that was the weakest of his points. You haven't really addressed the stronger ones.

That's it, really? Watch the video again carefully and place particular attention to the first half.

A few rhetorical questions about his own lack of firm grounding does not measure up to what I have done over the years.

So, how do you test your testimony, again?

I perform experiments on the words, and see what happens over time. In several instances, I've shared my findings with the general public. I also pay close attention to the experiments performed by others, and see what happens over time. I've seen accuracy in the Book of Mormon that strikes me as best explained by eye-witness, experienced the expansion of my mind and soul, seen things I'd never have imagined if I hadn't made the effort, tasted the goodness of it, and remain impressed by the future promise.

"Confirmation" of a spiritual testimony isn't a good way of convincing people. Can you think of any risky predictions or findings that would falsify the LDS claims of faith?

Ah... good old Popper and falsification. I've published in this several times. Here from my RBBM 7/2 essay, Paradigms Crossed:

In practice, as Ian Barbour observes, paradigms resist falsification because "a network of theories and observations is always tested together. Any particular hypothesis can be maintained by rejecting or adjusting other auxiliary hypotheses."23 Some adjustments to such auxiliary hypotheses strengthen the overall paradigm. For example, Kepler adjusted the assumptions of the Copernican theory of planetary motion by arguing for elliptical orbits rather than circular orbits. The rival Ptolemaic theory explained otherwise anomalous planetary motions by surmising epicycles. While the assumption of epicycles preserved the usefulness of the Ptolemaic theory for several generations, comparison with Kepler's assumptions makes it plain that not all adjustments are created equal. Whereas Kepler's adjustments led to his generally applicable laws of motion, the ad hoc notion of epicycles applied only to particular problems and had little justification other than necessity. The course of the Copernican Revolution shows that the "accumulation of anomalies" or of "ad hoc modifications having no independent theoretical basis cannot be tolerated indefinitely. An accepted theory is overthrown not primarily by discordant data but by an alternative theory."24

I've often cited Barbour's notion of critical realism:

1. Theory influences observation with the result that all data are to some degree theory-laden. Although proponents of rival theories inevitably talk through each other to a degree, adherents "of rival theories can seek a common core of overlap . . . to which both can retreat."

2. Comprehensive theories are highly resistant to falsification, but observation does exert some control over theories.

3. There are no rules for choice between paradigms but there are criteria of assessment independent of particular paradigms. Barbour, Myths, Models and Paradigms, 113

Again, I think you missed the most important points.... sadly.

I didn't see any of his points as important, original, or personally challenging. I'm sorry that the testimony that provides me with so much personal joy, and is such a potent resource in dealing with pain and trouble makes you sad. But as it is my own, I shall live with it.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[semlogo]

Just so everyone knows, many people like these I have known their stories and understand their frustrations as I have gone through myself, but I cannot buy that they are happier just because they are more relieved because they ran away from something instead of trying to deal with it through prayer.

I have gone on the side of trying to just not believe in God at all to see if it would make me happier and it was one of the darkest moments I've had. I was angry, upset, felt like I had wasted my life, thought I should just try out more things that I didn't do when I was religious, and frequently lost sleep because of emotional nightmares.

I think maybe that is what many of these people go through, but instead of trying to face the problem, they start these social network communities where they can all get together to feel less guilty about themselves.

They claim they don't want to waste anymore time on religion when they don't need it to love and help others, but then why are they online talking about religion which they want no part of instead of going out and helping others?

For some people it's just impossible to reconcile these issues. I understand that. It's hard to deal with cognitive dissonance, and if you can't rectify it, it does make you miserable. If he's rid himself of cog dis, he probably IS happier. Personally, despite similar doubts I've had, I find it more helpful to work through them as you have. But we all reason differently.

[maupayman]

I couldn't dismiss Pre-existence, the stance on infant baptism, the Godhead, temple work and the different degrees of glory. These were things that made such perfect sense, just from a logical standpoint, and no one else was teaching them, that I knew there had to be more that I wasn't understanding about the things I questioned.

You couldn't dismiss things, for which there is no physical evidence, because it made logical sense? Wow. I seem to recall that folks like Palmer have shown that most of these ideas were not unique to mormonism either.

I'm astounded that the more I learn about church history, about Joseph Smith and about all the prophets, the stronger my testimony grows. You'd think based on some of these negative testimonies that the more I learn the more I should question and doubt. Not so. Which makes me wonder what sources they are learning from.

So, how exactly did learning more about polygamy and the priesthood ban, which you yourself said bothered you, strengthen your testimony in Joseph Smith and the church?

[maupayman]

This is the problem I have with many of these people who leave. These "network communities" are usually so negative they have to affect a person. I don't like to hang around negative people; it isn't healthy. Perhaps that's why so many become so bitter toward the church when before they got involved they probably didn't think much about it at all.

Though I agree with you that many of these network communities are negative, I had to laugh at your point about being around negative people. I actually had almost the exact same feelings towards the end of my membership in the church. The tone and discussions of "non-members" in lessons and common discussions at parties etc. drove me even further away from the membership. Maybe I was just in a bad area, but I really started to get tired of being around negative LDS members who were constantly talking about non-members as if they were the scum of the earth. Perspective is an amazing thing.

[maupayman]

Garbling the quote doesn't clarify the meaning or the questions. It's quite simple. Kuhn pointed out that anomaly emerges, with resistance, against a background of expectation. Those who expect, or insist that LDS culture, doctrine, leadership, personal experience meet their expectation of perfection will inevitably focus their attention on where it seems to them to fall short. The Tanner's approach exemplifies this sort of thing. My own background expectations of LDS culture, leadership, doctrine, and so forth. are quite different, far more tolerant and robust. I don't expect exclusive truth, exclusive spiritual experience, lockstep, perfect thinking and behavior of leaders, unchanging understanding, perfect dictation of revelation, or a community that always lives up not only to their own ideals, but also to the ideals of surrounding, and changing cultures. I'm interested in what is real.

Is that clearer?

So you don't expect the church to be what it, and God, claimed it to be. Very clear. This has been my experience with more moderate LDS, especially apologists. I find your beliefs to be impressive, inclusive, and respectable. They are just a complete disconnect from the church I was taught to promote in the MTC, to cite just one example. Exclusivity of full truth is one of the most basic claims of the church.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

This to me is the key. I once had a problem with polygamy, but because there were so many other things that I knew were true and only taught by the church I got over that hump. I once had a problem with the Priesthood ban, but the same thing.

I couldn't dismiss Pre-existence, the stance on infant baptism, the Godhead, temple work and the different degrees of glory. These were things that made such perfect sense, just from a logical standpoint, and no one else was teaching them, that I knew there had to be more that I wasn't understanding about the things I questioned. So the other threads held me together when one or two were unraveling (and which with later study and thought were repaired).

I'm astounded that the more I learn about church history, about Joseph Smith and about all the prophets, the stronger my testimony grows. You'd think based on some of these negative testimonies that the more I learn the more I should question and doubt. Not so. Which makes me wonder what sources they are learning from.

How do you figure?

ALL the Fundamentalist churches teach them, as does the Church of Jesus Christ (Alpheus Cutler).

I guess it's a good thing you didn't run into a member of the Apostolic United Brethren first, or you might be someone's third wife right now.

[Deborah]

How do you figure?

ALL the Fundamentalist churches teach them, as does the Church of Jesus Christ (Alpheus Cutler).

I guess it's a good thing you didn't run into a member of the Apostolic United Brethren first, or you might be someone's third wife right now.

I figure because none of the many churches I was studying at the time taught such things. The fact that fundamentalists teach such things is irrelevant; they are not mainstream churches.

I actually knew and had the most affirmative acknowledgment that this is what I had been looking for the moment I walked into a church building, and note I had been doing a lot of reading of the Bible and studying other churches. Therefore your last point is also irrelevant. God would not have led me to any other church.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The only burning question on my mind after seeing this vidio is "Why can't Ex mo's come up with an orignial idea"? Why does everything need to be a copy or a mockery of the LDS church?

Any way carry on.

[elguanteloko]

Garbling the quote doesn't clarify the meaning or the questions. It's quite simple. Kuhn pointed out that anomaly emerges, with resistance, against a background of expectation. Those who expect, or insist that LDS culture, doctrine, leadership, personal experience meet their expectation of perfection will inevitably focus their attention on where it seems to them to fall short.

1) the guy in the video doesn

[Obiwan]

Well, watched the video, and here are my basic thoughts....

1. His "spiritual" process was flawed. We know truth by Study and by Faith, NOT Faith Alone. Thus his issue with every religion having their "own" process and occurances of spiritual experiences is flawed. Everyone no matter the religion bases their Faith on both intellect and the spirit. This is how every religion can be "spiritually" based but intellectually flawed in one way or another. Our job thus is to match the spirit and intellect as accurately as possible. For example, those of us who have been on all sides of the fence, can clearly see that there is a "difference" between the spirit and it's relational aspects from one ideology to another. Liberals and Conservatives have "feelings" for their respective ideology's, but they are clearly not intellectually compatible, and in fact have "different" spirits about them. The actual truth is that the spirit is PART of the process of gaining and recognizing truth, not the sole part. We are only able to gain truth and light according to OUR OWN ability to do so. God is not going to withhold all truth and light simply because some of the things we know and feel may be "flawed" and imperfect as human beings. And that is another flaw in his judgment, he is placing "limits" on God that don't actually exist. God is much more "charitable" than he thinks.

Essentially, what I saw as a flaw in his judgment process was to not realize that ALL MEN have the "light of Christ" within them, thus they are all able to have spiritual feelings from God, as well as feelings from themselves and the devil. Where he needed to go next was to "intellectually" discover what was actually true and what wasn't true, instead of simply judging the "spirit" as being flawed. But, anti-mormons do this all the time, take one aspect of the Gospel and then create an entire strawman from it so as to tear it down. Knowing truth has NEVER been about "spirit alone", thus his condemnation of it has the process of gaining truth within mormonism if bearing false witness and foolish fantasy of his own mind. Truth in mormonism on any subject is found through the Scriptures, Prophets, and the Holy Ghost (i.e. the spirit), not any one thing alone. God is there to nurture us no matter how "human" we may be. He made clear his views as to "others" in Romans 14 and Mark/Luke 9.

2. His judgments of B.H. Roberts also were false, and clearly shows that he's simply someone who read anti-mormonism and believed it, rather than knowing anything for himself. B.H. Roberts one writing tomb, the one anti-mormons like to portray was him playing "devils advocate". He was specifically asked to figure out the "best" anti-mormon arguments there were and write on them as if he was on the other side. What the anti-mormons don't tell people, is that it was "fantasy", not at all HIS actual views and opinions on the BOM. If anti-mormons actually knew the rest of his writings and views, and knew his history and the issues thereof, they would know very well that he was always a faithful mormon.

Plus, that is such a straw man excuse anyway.... Anti-mormons and members who become anti-mormon have ALWAYS had these same views, so what makes B.H. Roberts so special if their judgment of him was actually accurate? Just cause he was a little higher in the Church? Hey, why then don't they follow that Indian Pedophile who was a 70 and was excommunicated? Does that mean his pedophilia was representative of mormonism, or that he was intellectually superior because he had a sin like other perverts out there? Likewise, just because someone in the Church, no matter how high they are "may" sometimes fall and become an enemy of the Church, doesn't mean their views are truthful and accurate. Nevertheless, B.H. Roberts was only playing Devils Advocate, not actually "believing" the anti-mormon views he wrote about. I can do the same thing. Of course, I've actually been an anti-mormon, so I understand the mentality even more, but people who are objective don't have to sin in order to understand it. Likewise, B.H. Roberts didn't have to believe the anti-mormon malarkey he wrote in order to understand their arguments and attempts at attacking the Church. Or another example, a lawyer doesn't have to actually believe his client is innocent or otherwise in order to defend him in court. B.H. was acting like a lawyer, not that he believed what he was writing or thought what he was writing was actually "good" arguments.

Anyway, the guy in the video was simply another anti-mormon idiot who learned a little more, enough to put doubt in his heart and head, but not enough to get at the actual truth, thus he makes false judgments about the Church or the subjects in question on incomplete information. Nothing new....

[krose]

The only burning question on my mind after seeing this vidio is "Why can't Ex mo's come up with an orignial idea"? Why does everything need to be a copy or a mockery of the LDS church?

Any way carry on.

I assume you voice the same opinion about Microsoft's "I'm a PC" ads, and T-Mobile's "I'm a 4G" something or other? Mimicking a competitor's ads is a long-standing practice, especially when it's a direct response or comparison.

[krose]

Anyway, the guy in the video was simply another anti-mormon idiot who learned a little more...

What a refreshing contribution! Thank you.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Then why mention specific signs that occurred to Joseph Smith? We know the story already.

I was, as I hoped the use of the phrase itself would indicate, 'speaking metaphorically.' This is not a great venue for discussing in details one's own personal experiences.

Sure you can... or you can not. So? What's your point here?

My point is that there was a very effective mechanism available to Joseph Smith to test whether or not his 'Moroni experience' really had a divine origin or was just a product of his mind. If he had not believed it enough to test it by going to the hill, finding the rock, and lifting it up, it would have been easy for him to claim that his night vision had been nothing more than a dream no different to the crazy, recurring dreams experienced by many people.

Christianity is a hands-on experience? Lots of things are hands-on so I don't think that's getting you anywhere.

My point is that the bloke in the video seems to have missed this element. Entirely. To him, all he had to go on was a vague impression. That doesn't sound very hands on to me. Did he ever experiment upon what he thought God was telling him? What was the outcome? He mentions none of this, so I have to conclude he never did. Speaking metaphorically, he dismissed the vision without ever bothering to go to the hill.

So, how do you test your testimony, again?

Well, according to the Saviour, you act on it. Like that of the man born blind, my 'testimony' of the restored gospel is in no way any different to a testimony I might share in a courtroom. It's simply a statement of what I have personally, seen, heard, and experienced. In my case, again speaking metaphorically, I've found repeatedly that there are ancient plates under the stone in the exact location the angel has shown me.

[Hamba Tuhan]

So you don't expect the church to be what it, and God, claimed it to be.

No offence, mate, but I don't think you're very familiar with what the Church, beginning with Joseph Smith, has claimed to be. Kevin's description matches the teachings of the prophets from the Restoration to the present day. We claim exclusive authority; we've never claimed exclusive truth, exclusive access to God's blessings or inspiration, perfection or completeness in prophetic teachings, or any other facet of your mischaracterisation.

My fear, however, is that, if someone were to compile a list of prophets' statements on this issue, you still wouldn't accept them.

[rockslider]

Religious Experience

If you want to redefine "Relgious Experience" to mean something that involves the Holy Ghost, then you are going to have to explain how you KNOW that your particular experience involves the Holy Ghost while everyone else's does not.

I always understood that ONLY the LDS priesthood had the authority to bestow the gift of the Holy Ghost. And hence unless one was baptized, confirmed a member and by the laying on of hands, of those with authority, and the if the recipient was worthy - then and only then could one receive this gift.

Of course any drifting from, say the Temple recommend requirements was pretty much the equivalent to a leaking tire that is soon to leave on darkened, even as dark as outer darkness can get, because of the loss.

So it seems all other religions spiritual experiences must be something other than the Holy Ghost (i.e. I believe the church used to teach they were limited to the "Spirit of Christ" or some such .)

Is this still taught? It was everyday stuff in the 80's/90's - oath and covenant and all.

[Lareliw]

The BoM is based off the historical authenticity of the Bible in a way, but since LDS use the JST inspired "version" (for lack of a better term) of the KJV, doesn't that sort of affect the credibility based off of historical authenticity of the Bible? What I mean is that if the Bible is not accurate as is (i.e. it needs revision as the JST does), then how can you take the archaeological evidence proving the original KJV as proof of the LDS KJV?

Nothing new. He presents "The Problem of Inconsistent Revelation," which, to my knowledge, no Mormon has ever been able to address properly. The best you will get from an individual is that they have experienced the holy ghost, and that is enough for them. Never mind that other people from other religions have had more powerful religious experiences, and are just as faithful and more.

He then brings up some interesting psychological principles, but, to their detriment, most LDS just wave away as "pop psychology." Confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance apply to everyone at all times, but the official stance from the church (an incorrect one) is that not everyone is always experiencing these psychological phenomena.

The origin of the Book of Mormon, to me, is an irrelevant argument, since it relies upon the historical authenticity if the Bible.