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

[BookofMormonLuvr]

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.

Boy, there is a gaggle of you on here that sure needs to lighten up.

[Pahoran]

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?

What an astonishing question. Have you ever read any part of the JST? Which of Joseph's revisions to the JST would change anything regarding "the historical authenticity of the Bible?"

Do you have any idea what is in the JST at all?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Lareliw]

I have not read the entire thing, no. It was a speculative question based on my rudimentary knowledge, which is based off of conversations on this forum overall. I'm weary of anything that alters the Bible. Sorry if I offended you it was not meant to.

What an astonishing question. Have you ever read any part of the JST? Which of Joseph's revisions to the JST would change anything regarding "the historical authenticity of the Bible?"

Do you have any idea what is in the JST at all?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Hamba Tuhan]

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.

I'm open to correction, but I'm reasonably confident that, even in the 80s and 90s, missionaries taught unbaptised investigators that they could expect to receive revelation from the Holy Ghost in answer to prayer.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I'm weary of anything that alters the Bible.

Such as translation?

Sorry if I offended you it was not meant to.

No offence taken, mate; hopefully none given.

[rockslider]

I'm open to correction, but I'm reasonably confident that, even in the 80s and 90s, missionaries taught unbaptised investigators that they could expect to receive revelation from the Holy Ghost in answer to prayer.

Actually at the time, it was understood/taught that it was only the "light of Christ" or the "Spirit of Christ" that could work on them.

Because once again, there used to be a lot of emphases on the fact that the Keys of Baptism (for the baptism of water), and Keys for bestowing the Gift of the Holy Ghost (for the baptism of fire) where passed from Prophet to Prophet, and only via these keys, and from the laying on of hands by a Melchizedek Priesthood holder, could one actually have a chance at having the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

You seem to be confirming that this is no longer empathized, which much surprises me.

[Hamba Tuhan]

You seem to be confirming that this is no longer empathized, which much surprises me.

Actually, I'm surprised by what you think you remember. From chapter 21 of Gospel Principles:

There is a difference between the Holy Ghost and the gift of the Holy Ghost. In this chapter we will learn what the gift of the Holy Ghost is and how we can receive this great gift from God.

Discussion

* Have class members tell what they know about the Holy Ghost (see chapter 7, "The Holy Ghost").

What Is the Gift of the Holy Ghost?

The gift of the Holy Ghost is the privilege, given to people who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ, been baptized, and been confirmed as members of the Church, to receive guidance and inspiration from the Holy Ghost.

Joseph Smith said we believe in the gift of the Holy Ghost being enjoyed now as much as it was enjoyed in the days of the first Apostles. We believe in this gift in all its fullness, power, greatness, and glory. (See Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 243.)

A person may be temporarily guided by the Holy Ghost without receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. However, this guidance will not be continuous unless the person is baptized and receives the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. We read in Acts 10 that the Roman soldier Cornelius received inspiration from the Holy Ghost so that he knew the gospel of Jesus Christ was true. But Cornelius did not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost until after he was baptized. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that if Cornelius had not received baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost, the Holy Ghost would have left him (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 199).

Today many nonmembers of the Church learn by the power of the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon is true (see Moroni 10:4-5). But that flash of testimony leaves them if they do not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. They do not receive the continuing assurance that can come to those who have the gift of the Holy Ghost.

[LeSellers]

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?

Huh?!?

The JST Bible says absolutely nothing about the historicity of the Bible. It addresses the text of the AV, but there is nothing in the JST that anyone could possibly construe as undermining the Bible as a whole.

Lehi

[Vance]

I'm open to correction, but I'm reasonably confident that, even in the 80s and 90s, missionaries taught unbaptised investigators that they could expect to receive revelation from the Holy Ghost in answer to prayer.

From my personal experience, it is safe to say that, even in the 70s, missionaries taught unbaptised investigators that they could expect to receive revelation from the Holy Ghost in answer to prayer.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

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?

The LDS Church actually does not use the "Inspired Version of the Holy Scriptures", they use carefully selected verses from it. They use the regular old KJV as their default Bible.

[Anakin7]

From my personal experience, it is safe to say that, even in the 70s, missionaries taught unbaptised investigators that they could expect to receive revelation from the Holy Ghost in answer to prayer.

I was told that in 1975 when I recieved Baptism by one of The Lord of Life's authorized sevants into His Church.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[Lareliw]

From what I was told about the JST it isn't so much about direct translation as inspired additions/verifications to the original text, that was "corrupted." If I am mistaken I would love more information on it

Such as translation?

No offence taken, mate; hopefully none given.

[Lareliw]

What determines which verses from the inspired version are used vs. the regular old KJV?

The LDS Church actually does not use the "Inspired Version of the Holy Scriptures", they use carefully selected verses from it. They use the regular old KJV as their default Bible.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

From what I was told about the JST it isn't so much about direct translation as inspired additions/verifications to the original text, that was "corrupted." If I am mistaken I would love more information on it

You are absolutely correct. To call it a "translation" is a misnomer. He was inspired to add things to clarify the verses or delete things to correct the teaching in the verses.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

What determines which verses from the inspired version are used vs. the regular old KJV?

They generally tend to highlight verses from the Inspired Version that support a particular teaching unique to them.

[rockslider]

Seems we are splitting hairs. The point I was trying to make is that, as clearly shown in the quoted manual, the "temporary" gifts of the Holy Ghost are only available for a very short time to those that are investigating the true gospel. In their own spiritual pursuits, outside of the LDS Church, they must have something else, something lesser.

[Hamba Tuhan]

From what I was told about the JST it isn't so much about direct translation as inspired additions/verifications to the original text, that was "corrupted." If I am mistaken I would love more information on it

I didn't mean the JST but translation in general, which of necessity 'alters' the Bible (speaking as someone who has published critical translations of historical texts and is familiar with translation theory).

[Hamba Tuhan]

Seems we are splitting hairs. The point I was trying to make is that, as clearly shown in the quoted manual, the "temporary" gifts of the Holy Ghost are only available for a very short time to those that are investigating the true gospel. In their own spiritual pursuits, outside of the LDS Church, they must have something else, something lesser.

Not something else at all, but definitely something less permanent, less present. After all, we have a First Presidency statement dating to the 1970s which claims that even non-Christian religious leaders have received inspiration from God to teach truth, a claim echoed in Alma.

[Cherubbish]

I didn't take the time to read all the replies, but browsed most of them, so I may be redundant, and if so I apologize. But this is my opinion:

I actually watched this video and read his website a couple of weeks ago, which also included a detailed account, as far as he could remember correctly, of his disciplinary council in which he was excommunicated. In the video he gives a compelling, well thought-out argument for the reasons why he left the Church. But there was one fact that was brushed over that I didn't see anyone else responding to. He mentions something in his recollection about his disciplinary council that suggests that it wasn't his budding anti-Mormon views that were paving the way for his exit, but that he had and was already being disciplined for serious sexual transgressions. He had been having sexual relations with his girlfriend and had had problems with masturbation and pornography. That's why he was being disciplined, originally. To me it sounds like, instead of truly repenting, he instead opted to disassociate himself from the Church to assuage his feelings of guilt. I believe all his arguments are really just excuses. He admits he had a testimony at one time, having had powerful spiritual experiences, but now has disregarded those experiences and trying to explain them away through psychological analysis.

It seems to me more often that not, once everything is brushed away, the root of the problem always comes to sin and transgression when people leave the Church. And one can either repent and agree to live by the commandments/rules of the Church, or leave. He does prove a principle that Joseph Smith taught, that one can leave the Church, but they can never leave it alone. I think it's sad. But he claims he's happy now, so he can do all those things without feeling guilty I guess. But I suspect, deep down, that he truly isn't.

[maupayman]

No offence, mate, but I don't think you're very familiar with what the Church, beginning with Joseph Smith, has claimed to be.

Like when God claimed that the church was the "only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth"?

or when God told Joseph that the other religions were "all wrong" and that their "creeds were an abomination in his sight".

Or when Packer said "It is our firm conviction that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is, as the revelations state, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth.

[semlogo]

I didn't take the time to read all the replies, but browsed most of them, so I may be redundant, and if so I apologize. But this is my opinion:

I actually watched this video and read his website a couple of weeks ago, which also included a detailed account, as far as he could remember correctly, of his disciplinary council in which he was excommunicated. In the video he gives a compelling, well thought-out argument for the reasons why he left the Church. But there was one fact that was brushed over that I didn't see anyone else responding to. He mentions something in his recollection about his disciplinary council that suggests that it wasn't his budding anti-Mormon views that were paving the way for his exit, but that he had and was already being disciplined for serious sexual transgressions. He had been having sexual relations with his girlfriend and had had problems with masturbation and pornography. That's why he was being disciplined, originally. To me it sounds like, instead of truly repenting, he instead opted to disassociate himself from the Church to assuage his feelings of guilt. I believe all his arguments are really just excuses. He admits he had a testimony at one time, having had powerful spiritual experiences, but now has disregarded those experiences and trying to explain them away through psychological analysis.

It seems to me more often that not, once everything is brushed away, the root of the problem always comes to sin and transgression when people leave the Church. And one can either repent and agree to live by the commandments/rules of the Church, or leave. He does prove a principle that Joseph Smith taught, that one can leave the Church, but they can never leave it alone. I think it's sad. But he claims he's happy now, so he can do all those things without feeling guilty I guess. But I suspect, deep down, that he truly isn't.

I think that's a stereotype that is unhelpful. Everyone in and out of the church sins.

[Cherubbish]

I think that's a stereotype that is unhelpful. Everyone in and out of the church sins.

How is that a stereotype? It's just been my observation that there is usually an underlying serious transgression that inevitably leads one to be excommunicated, not that someone decides they don't have a testimony anymore. Of course we all sin. It's how we deal with that transgression that's the difference - repentance or disassociation. I think there is a direct link with this young man's promiscuous behavior and his suddenly questioning his testimony, just as one of the members of the disciplinary council suggested, but he obviously isn't going to admit that.

[semlogo]

How is that a stereotype? It's just been my observation that there is usually an underlying serious transgression that inevitably leads one to be excommunicated, not that someone decides they don't have a testimony anymore. Of course we all sin. It's how we deal with that transgression that's the difference - repentance or disassociation. I think there is a direct link with this young man's promiscuous behavior and his suddenly questioning his testimony, just as one of the members of the disciplinary council suggested, but he obviously isn't going to admit that.

That's totally a stereotype. Lots of people leave the church for lots of reason. We have no statistical data as to how many leave for what reason. Many stop attending because they passively lose faith. Others leave for intellectual reasons. Others leave because they're uncomfortable with our moral standards. There is no way to say that "most" leave for any specific reason - not if you're interested in being honest or respectful.

Of those who leave for intellectual reasons, some are converted to other religions that may be just as morally stringent as ours. Some become atheists, not because they want to sin but because they can't reconcile cognitive dissonance. I was almost the latter, but it had nothing to do with sinning. I find that sinning has the opposite effect on me - it makes me want to be CLOSER to God.

[blueadept]

How is that a stereotype? It's just been my observation that there is usually an underlying serious transgression that inevitably leads one to be excommunicated, not that someone decides they don't have a testimony anymore. Of course we all sin. It's how we deal with that transgression that's the difference - repentance or disassociation. I think there is a direct link with this young man's promiscuous behavior and his suddenly questioning his testimony, just as one of the members of the disciplinary council suggested, but he obviously isn't going to admit that.

I appreciate your input and will have to admit to not reading all the posts in this thread as well....

The only problem I have with your observation is that it comes across as which came first, the chicken or the egg? I will admit that in many cases that if one commits the transgressions this individual has apparently done, falling away from the church teachings may be pretty easy.

IMO though, it's just as easy to find some major issue you have with the church that can lead you to doing something that most would consider as a major sin that separates us from HF.

IMO, we all have a fallen nature and the route to our unbelief can be done either way.

My 2 cents

[Cherubbish]

That's totally a stereotype. Lots of people leave the church for lots of reason. We have no statistical data as to how many leave for what reason. Many stop attending because they passively lose faith. Others leave for intellectual reasons. Others leave because they're uncomfortable with our moral standards. There is no way to say that "most" leave for any specific reason - not if you're interested in being honest or respectful.

Of those who leave for intellectual reasons, some are converted to other religions that may be just as morally stringent as ours. Some become atheists, not because they want to sin but because they can't reconcile cognitive dissonance. I was almost the latter, but it had nothing to do with sinning. I find that sinning has the opposite effect on me - it makes me want to be CLOSER to God.

I never said "most" people. All I said in my previous posts that "more often than not" it's been my "personal observations" that there is usually an underlying transgression that is not reconciled. I'm not trying to stereotype anyone or anything.