What Distinguishes The Evangelical Witness Vs. Lds Testimony

[jo1952]

Now you know what Vance and I and others have been saying for months.

Yes, unfortunately. We can only plant the seeds and hope that they will take root someday. Your patience is a good example for me.

Thank you,

jo

[mfbukowski]

Jo had claimed that Craig said that if we have unanswered questions we should pray for God to reveal the answers to those questions. I pointed out that he did not say any such thing. What I said was neither gibberish nor absurd.

You have still not addressed the apparent conflict between you and Craig regarding seeking the spirit to confirm Christianity's truth.

If I have to post the video yet again, I will.

It is clear that what Craig says and what you say about this are not in harmony. It is also clear that you have not yet addressed this point.

This is the central point which I think you have avoided for months, on more than one thread.

Though I have not made an exact transcription of Craig's words, they approximate something very close to " "The way I know Christianity is true is first and foremost by the witness of the Holy Spirit- it is self authenticating apart from the evidence"

This is also the Mormon position, as the whole first part of this thread manifests. There were many many posts confirming and agreeing with that.

It is also clear that that is NOT your position.

Please address the apparent conflict.

Edited August 24, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Storm Rider]

We were talking about the way the Holy Spirit works within believers with respect to an individual's "testimony." This doesn't mean that the Holy Spirit doesn't work in other important ways. Specifically, the Holy Spirit inspired Scripture. We are responsible to learn what Scripture is, to learn what Scripture teaches, and to conform our lives to that teaching. When we engage in that pursuit with faith and integrity, the Holy Spirit illuminates our minds to receive and accept what he has revealed in Scripture. This is a different function than the "witness of the Holy Spirit," but it is a vital function. When a religion purports to represent God but denies or distorts the teachings of the Holy Spirit-inspired Scriptures, believers have a responsibility to take a stand against such false teachings.

So you believe that the Holy Ghost will only bear witness to the truth of the Bible. Conversely then you must believe that the Holy Spirit is limited in some way; that he cannot bear witness to the truth as Moroni has promised. In fact, you gave a whole ist of limitations to what the Holy Spirit can and cannot do according to Evangelical teachings.

This position is full of holes:

1) The Bible did not come as the Bible, it came in seperate letters or books. Evangelicals played no role in identifying of all the letters written which were scripture and which were not. This means your willingness to put your faith (and the HG's work) only into verifying what the Bible says at a huge disadvantage. God's word becomes yoked to what man in the 5th century says was God's word.

2) God does not reveal truth today or any other day except for that which was discussed in what is recognized as scripture.

3) Revelation tells us that knowing Christ is the spirit of prophecy, but somehow you deny that prophecy can exist unless it states specific things; everything else must be ignored.

I apologize, but all I can see is that you have created a doctrine about the Holy Spirit that is made from whole cloth and you impose specific limits to what God can and cannot do. This is not a tenable position for me.

[jo1952]

You have still not addressed the apparent conflict between you and Craig regarding seeking the spirit to confirm Christianity's truth.

If I have to post the video yet again, I will.

It is clear that what Craig says and what you say about this are not in harmony. It is also clear that you have not yet addressed this point.

This is the central point which I think you have avoided for months, on more than one thread.

Though I have not made an exact transcription of Craig's words, they approximate something very close to " "The way I know Christianity is true is first and foremost by the witness of the Holy Spirit- it is self authenticating apart from the evidence"

This is also the Mormon position, as the whole first part of this thread manifests. There were many many posts confirming and agreeing with that.

It is also clear that that is NOT your position.

Please address the apparent conflict.

I would like to point out (since Rob keeps harping on this),

View PostRob Bowman, on 23 August 2011 - 05:49 AM, said:

Jo had claimed that Craig said that if we have unanswered questions we should pray for God to reveal the answers to those questions. I pointed out that he did not say any such thing. What I said was neither gibberish nor absurd.

that I apologized for misinterpeting what the process through which I automatically assumed prayer would be a part of here, from post #145 (emphasis added):

Behind all of the explanations you have given as to why you personally will not pray about questions you have, I cannot help but wonder what would really cause you not to go to the Big Guy Himself even after you run your question into the ground (which, btw, I had understood would automatically include prayer; so I apologize if I inadvertantly added prayer to the prescription presented in the video. I just cannot personally imagine NOT going to God in prayer when the questions involve Him or His Son, or His teachings, or His Kingdom.) Is this in the same category as what other anti-LDS believers have described to me is due to the fact they are fearful any response they get might not be from the Holy Ghost? Why do you depend so heavily upon your own thoughts instead of praying about them? After all, these questions concern and effect your relationship with God.

I notice Bob conveniently leaves this part out of his accusations against me, and he has ignored answering more of my questions (again).

Regards,

jo

[Rob Bowman]

jo,

You wrote:

I would like to point out (since Rob keeps harping on this),

View PostRob Bowman, on 23 August 2011 - 05:49 AM, said:

Jo had claimed that Craig said that if we have unanswered questions we should pray for God to reveal the answers to those questions. I pointed out that he did not say any such thing. What I said was neither gibberish nor absurd.

that I apologized for misinterpeting what the process through which I automatically assumed prayer would be a part of here, from post #145 (emphasis added):

Behind all of the explanations you have given as to why you personally will not pray about questions you have, I cannot help but wonder what would really cause you not to go to the Big Guy Himself even after you run your question into the ground (which, btw, I had understood would automatically include prayer; so I apologize if I inadvertantly added prayer to the prescription presented in the video. I just cannot personally imagine NOT going to God in prayer when the questions involve Him or His Son, or His teachings, or His Kingdom.) Is this in the same category as what other anti-LDS believers have described to me is due to the fact they are fearful any response they get might not be from the Holy Ghost? Why do you depend so heavily upon your own thoughts instead of praying about them? After all, these questions concern and effect your relationship with God.

I notice Bob conveniently leaves this part out of his accusations against me, and he has ignored answering more of my questions (again).

First, it's Rob, not Bob.

Second, my comment in the post you quoted above was not directed at you. It was not criticizing you at all. My comment was a response to Mr. Bukowski, who had claimed that what I had said to you was absurd gibberish. I was simply explaining to him what I had said to you.

Third, I told you in post #146, the post immediately following your post #145 that you quote above, why I did not respond to any questions in your post. In that post, you had written:

...why do your rabbit trails mean so much to you that you would try to derail this thread?

To which I replied:

"I did nothing to 'derail' this thread. You made statements and I asked questions about some of them and responded to others. Since you chose to ignore my questions, I guess we've come to an impasse."

Now, in post #248 you point out that you had claimed that DaddyG had already answered my questions:

Rob,

You must have missed the part where I told you DaddyG had already answered your questions pretty much the same as I would have. So why is it necessary to repeat what he already said?

This appears to be an excuse to avoid addressing the questions I have now asked you in two different threads. So be it. Silence can speak volumes.

However, what you missed is my reply to DaddyG in post #147:

"DaddyG, Your comments on salvation did not address my question, which had to do specifically with Jo's statement that Christians who convert to the LDS faith are already 'saved.'"

Although DaddyG replied in post #148, his reply did not address the specific problem I was raising in my question to you. Here, I will review it for you. You had written:

I would agree that both EV's and LDS come from a position of faith; without exercising faith there can be no witness received from the Holy Ghost. I think the difference which the EV do not recognize, is that most converts to the LDS Church (not to be confused with the person's conversion who is already LDS), have already been saved. IOW, they have already exercised faith and believe in Jesus Christ.

I responded to the above comments as follows in post #141:

Perhaps you can clarify exactly what you mean here. You surely do not mean that they have been "saved" in the general, unconditional, near-universal sense that they are assured of immortality in one of the three heavenly kingdoms, because one does not need to have exercised faith or believed in Christ to have salvation in that sense. On the other hand, it would seem that you cannot mean that they have already been saved in the particular, individual, conditional sense of being granted entrance into the celestial kingdom, because in LDS theology this requires far more than faith or belief in Jesus Christ: it also requires baptism in the LDS Church, the priesthood, the temple rituals, the faithful keeping of covenants made in the LDS Church, and so forth. So what do you mean when you say that Christian converts to the LDS Church are already saved?

Neither of DaddyG's replies to me addressed the problem here. In his first reply, DaddyG affirmed that Mormons believe in salvation by grace, which wasn't the question I asked. In his second reply, DaddyG stated that (1) he believed that faith in Christ was valid for people of all denominations, that (2) Mormons believe in exaltation as well as a more general salvation, and that (3) he was offended by evangelicals suggesting that Mormons might not be saved at all. However, none of these statements addressed my question in the slightest. In what sense are non-Mormon Christians "saved"? DaddyG didn't say. It can't be in the sense of attaining entrance to the celestial kingdom or attaining exaltation. That leaves the general salvation. However, as I pointed out, in Mormon theology everyone gets that, including non-Christians who don't believe in Christ. That means, as far as I can tell, that the fact that non-Mormons who "convert to the LDS Church" were not "already saved" because of their faith in Christ. To put it another way: In LDS doctrine, faith in Christ is more than is needed for general salvation (resurrection, immortality) but less than is needed for individual salvation (celestial kingdom, exaltation).

Finally, I will point out again (I don't know how many times I have already done so) that I have not said that it is wrong to pray about our questions. It is the way that we pray about them that is of concern. If we pray in a way that presupposes that only one type of answer is acceptable, we are likely engaged in self-deception. For example, if we pray, "Please give me a witness of the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon is true," such a prayer assumes that the Book of Mormon is true. It would be better to pray something like this: "God, if the Book of Mormon is true, I want to know it; and if it's false, I want to know that, too. Please help me to understand the issues and to see the Book of Mormon for what it really is. If you do want to give me a revelation that the Book of Mormon is true, I'm open to that, but if that isn't your will I'm open to learning in any way that honors you." Then we should study the issues, test the Book of Mormon according to the biblical standards for testing anything that purports to be revelation from God, and stay determined to put knowing God's truth above personal comfort, human relationships, or anything else.

[altersteve]

The fact that the Holy Spirit is not leading you to question about the truth claims of the BoM would stand in greater evidence that it is untrue.

How do you know the Holy Spirit has not led me to question the Book of Mormon?

However I don't think God answers prayers that are not in accordance with His will.

This seems to contradict what Jesus taught about God giving knowledge to those who sincerely seek it:

"And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you" (Luke 11:9).

"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you" (Matthew 7:7).

"And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive" (Matthew 21:22).

"If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you" (John 15:7).

"And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you" (John 16:3).

Prayer is obviously an important subject; you are free to believe what you will, but Latter-day Saints believe in the power of prayer, and we believe the scriptures that teach us about how God reveals the truth of all things to those who believe and who are willing to learn.

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

You have still not addressed the apparent conflict between you and Craig regarding seeking the spirit to confirm Christianity's truth.

If I have to post the video yet again, I will.

It is clear that what Craig says and what you say about this are not in harmony. It is also clear that you have not yet addressed this point.

This is the central point which I think you have avoided for months, on more than one thread.

Though I have not made an exact transcription of Craig's words, they approximate something very close to " "The way I know Christianity is true is first and foremost by the witness of the Holy Spirit- it is self authenticating apart from the evidence"

This is also the Mormon position, as the whole first part of this thread manifests. There were many many posts confirming and agreeing with that.

It is also clear that that is NOT your position.

Please address the apparent conflict.

Craig does not teach that we should "seek" the self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit. Nowhere does Craig suggest that what people need to do is to pray for God to give them a self-authenticating witness that evangelical Christianity is true. What he says is that the way he knows that Christianity is true is by that self-authenticating witness. By that, Craig means that his confidence in the truth of Christianity is not dependent on the contingent circumstances of how much information he happens to have at any given time with regard to the truth of Christianity or on his ability to answer all of the questions in his "question bag." But this doesn't mean that evidence plays no role in Craig's view in the process of coming to know that Christianity is true, because he also teaches that we use reason to show others that Christianity is true. In other words, having come to repent of my sins and put my faith in Christ, Craig is saying, I have received the Holy Spirit, who has regenerated me (caused me to become born again) and now permanently dwells within me. His indwelling produces an inner assurance of the truth of Christianity that is not dependent on argument or evidence, even though such argument or evidence may have been useful in showing me that Christianity is true. So now, as a believer, my confidence in the gospel is grounded in the reality that I am an adopted child of God with the Holy Spirit dwelling in me. That, according to Craig, is a self-authenticating experience and is known independent of the believer's ability to answer any and every apologetic question that comes along. The important point here is that Craig does not in any way suggest that a person should try to acquire this witness of the Holy Spirit; it is something he experiences when he repents and puts his faith in Christ alone for salvation. This means that if someone is already a Christian and then goes looking for "the witness of the Holy Spirit," he is making a mistake. If a person really is a Christian who trusts in Christ alone for salvation and has the Holy Spirit dwelling in him, he already has that "witness" and cannot still be in need of it. On the other hand, if he doesn't have that "witness," then he isn't yet a Christian. (It is also possible to be a Christian, have that "witness," but for it to be obscured or misunderstood due to sin, bad teaching, ignorance, etc.) In any case, it makes no sense, in Craig's view (or in mine), for someone who considers himself a Christian to seek the witness of the Holy Spirit to true Christianity.

I am not denying the reality of the witness of the Holy Spirit. I am simply arguing that it is not what Mormons think it is, and it is not something a person needs to seek or that a person should seek. It is not a private revelation that some specific book, prophet, doctrine, or religious organization is true. It is the inner realization that God loves and accepts me as his adopted child solely on the basis of Christ's redemptive death and resurrection, and that I am secure in that standing solely by God's grace and mercy and not by my performance. That is the heart of the evangelical gospel, and so the witness of the Holy Spirit is implicitly confirmation that Christianity, particularly as evangelicals understand it, is true. I think this is what Bill Craig is affirming and I see no conflict between his view and mine. You will notice in the video that when he talks about seeking answers to the questions in his "question bag" the witness of the Spirit plays no active role in acquiring or confirming those answers. Bill never says anything like "I know that this is the answer to this apparent discrepancy in the Gospels because I have a witness of the Spirit to the truth of this answer." The witness of the Spirit, for Craig, tells him that Christianity is true, but it doesn't answer the questions in his unanswered question bag.

Now, I respectfully ask you to acknowledge, without hedging, that I have addressed your criticism that what I have said disagrees with Craig. I'm not asking you to agree with my answer or to find my answer satisfactory in any way; I'm simply asking you to acknowledge that I did address your criticism.

[Rob Bowman]

DaddyG,

I'm sorry I didn't reply to you sooner, but there is quite a lot going on just in this thread! You wrote:

I note that your use of Spirit in "Spirit illuminated mind" (itself an extra biblical term) is capitalized. Is that an intentional referral to the Holy Ghost? If so what distinguishes the idea of LDS gaining a knowledge of all things through the gifts of the Spirit distinct from the Evangelical idea of receiving knowledge through a Spirit illuminated mind?

Yes, by "Spirit-illuminated mind" I mean a believer's mind illuminated by the Holy Spirit. According to evangelical theology, the gifts of the Spirit are a distinct phenomenon from the illumination of the Spirit. All true Christians are illuminated by the Spirit, but they have different spiritual gifts, not all of which are knowledge-oriented. (For example, a believer could have a spiritual gift of leadership or of mercy or of giving.) Illumination enables believers to see and recognize and accept what God says in Scripture; it is not additional knowledge beyond what is given in Scripture.

[Zakuska]

DaddyG,

I'm sorry I didn't reply to you sooner, but there is quite a lot going on just in this thread! You wrote:

Yes, by "Spirit-illuminated mind" I mean a believer's mind illuminated by the Holy Spirit. According to evangelical theology, the gifts of the Spirit are a distinct phenomenon from the illumination of the Spirit. All true Christians are illuminated by the Spirit, but they have different spiritual gifts, not all of which are knowledge-oriented. (For example, a believer could have a spiritual gift of leadership or of mercy or of giving.) Illumination enables believers to see and recognize and accept what God says in Scripture; it is not additional knowledge beyond what is given in Scripture.

FYI Rob, You have just more or less preached Mormon Doctrine here.

Light of Christ

The Light of Christ is the divine energy, power, or influence that proceeds from God through Christ and gives life and light to all things. The Light of Christ influences people for good and prepares them to receive the

Holy Ghost

. One manifestation of the Light of Christ is what we call a conscience.

http://lds.org/ldsor...M1000004d82620a____

The only real difference is... Mormons don't think this is Limited to just "Christians/Mormons"

John 1:9

9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Zakuska

[Rob Bowman]

Storm Rider,

I had written:

We were talking about the way the Holy Spirit works within believers with respect to an individual's "testimony." This doesn't mean that the Holy Spirit doesn't work in other important ways. Specifically, the Holy Spirit inspired Scripture. We are responsible to learn what Scripture is, to learn what Scripture teaches, and to conform our lives to that teaching. When we engage in that pursuit with faith and integrity, the Holy Spirit illuminates our minds to receive and accept what he has revealed in Scripture. This is a different function than the "witness of the Holy Spirit," but it is a vital function. When a religion purports to represent God but denies or distorts the teachings of the Holy Spirit-inspired Scriptures, believers have a responsibility to take a stand against such false teachings.

You replied:

So you believe that the Holy Ghost will only bear witness to the truth of the Bible. Conversely then you must believe that the Holy Spirit is limited in some way; that he cannot bear witness to the truth as Moroni has promised. In fact, you gave a whole ist of limitations to what the Holy Spirit can and cannot do according to Evangelical teachings.

This is a misrepresentation. I am not limiting what the Holy Spirit can and cannot do. I am stating what I understand from the Bible that the Holy Spirit does and does not (normally) do. There is a difference between saying that God cannot do something and saying that he does not do something. If I say that the Holy Spirit normally does not directly reveal to individuals who wrote the Book of Esther or whether David Koresh was a true or false prophet, this does not mean that I "must believe that the Holy Spirit is limited in some way." It means rather that I understand that there are some things that the Holy Spirit chooses not to do, or that he chooses for us to learn some things in a different way than by direct revelations to individuals.

Please tell me that you understand this distinction and that you now recognize that your statement about my belief was inaccurate before we try to move forward.

[Ahab]

This question is inescapable for everyone who thinks he knows what God knows. For example, I could ask you, how do you know that God truly gave you the testimony of the Holy Ghost rather than you just thinking that you have it?

Side-stepping? I asked you a question which you did not answer and instead you asked me a different, but related, question.

Will you answer my question if I tell you my answer to your question? We'll see.

I know God is truly giving me the testmony of the Holy Ghost... or, rather, I know God our Father has sent the Holy Ghost to testify to me... by knowing the difference between my own thoughts and something the Holy Ghost is telling me.

Now will you please answer my question.

How do you know you are receiving wisdom from God, when you believe he is giving you wisdom, rather than it simply being that you think your own thoughts are wise and attributing your own thoughts to something God has told you?

Ultimately, from God, of course. Mediately, it comes from various sources.

Great answer, but I'm not sure if I correctly understand what you mean.

How is it exactly that you know it has come from God? Do you simply think that if you are having thoughts of widsom then what you think is wise must necessarliy come from God, or do you have some other way to know it truly is from God?

For example, when God speaks to me through scripture, including through the Book of Mormon, God himself assures me that what is written was truly inspired by him so that I'm not only hearing from that prophet but also from God at the same time.

It's the difference between receiving the testimony of 2 witnesses, rather than only the 1 who is speaking as a prophet/messenger of God.

If it is not already clear to you that I agree we need God's help to know truth, then probably nothing I say can make that clear to you.

Sometimes repetition helps, Rob. I'm still trying to get to know you.

[Vance]

Illumination enables believers to see and recognize and accept what God says in Scripture; it is not additional knowledge beyond what is given in Scripture.

Ok, since you believe that only the Bible is scripture then we could rewrite this statement this way.

Illumination enables believers to see and recognize and accept what God says in Scripturethe Bible; it is not additional knowledge beyond what is given in Scripturethe Bible.

And then you berate Storm Rider who said,

So you believe that the Holy Ghost will only bear witness to the truth of the Bible. Conversely then you must believe that the Holy Spirit is limited in some way; that he cannot bear witness to the truth as Moroni has promised. In fact, you gave a whole ist of limitations to what the Holy Spirit can and cannot do according to Evangelical teachings.

With this,

This is a misrepresentation. I am not limiting what the Holy Spirit can and cannot do. I am stating what I understand from the Bible that the Holy Spirit does and does not (normally) do. There is a difference between saying that God cannot do something and saying that he does not do something.

Well, which is it?

[Rob Bowman]

Ahab,

You wrote:

Side-stepping? I asked you a question which you did not answer and instead you asked me a different, but related, question.

I took your question as rhetorical. That is, I took you to be making a point -- that my way of knowing is inadequate to assure that I really know it is from God -- and not asking a question.

You wrote:

Will you answer my question if I tell you my answer to your question? We'll see.

I know God is truly giving me the testmony of the Holy Ghost... or, rather, I know God our Father has sent the Holy Ghost to testify to me... by knowing the difference between my own thoughts and something the Holy Ghost is telling me.

You mean, you have thoughts that differ from what the Holy Ghost tells you? Does this mean that you have thoughts that the Book of Mormon is not true but the Holy Ghost tells you otherwise? I doubt this is what you mean. What, then, do you mean? How do "your own thoughts" differ from "something the Holy Ghost is telling you"?

You wrote:

Now will you please answer my question.

How do you know you are receiving wisdom from God, when you believe he is giving you wisdom, rather than it simply being that you think your own thoughts are wise and attributing your own thoughts to something God has told you?

By testing what I believe to make sure it isn't just my opinion. I can test my beliefs with various means. (1) Compare them with the Bible. (2) Discuss my beliefs with other Christians and see what they say. (Perhaps they will point me to biblical texts I have overlooked or to other considerations I missed.) This includes reading Christian books (from a variety of theological perspectives), talking to Christians, listening to lectures, and the like. (3) Consider the logical implications of my beliefs with the intent of making sure that I am thinking coherently and consistently. (4) Listen to what Christian and non-Christian critics of my beliefs say and think through their objections as honestly as I can. (4) If a particular belief calls for some action on my part, pursue that action and see what happens, assuming neither that it will prove true nor that it will prove false. And I do all these things in an attitude of seeking God's illuminating, clarifying help; thus, prayer is relevant to all of these means of testing my beliefs.

You wrote:

Great answer, but I'm not sure if I correctly understand what you mean.

How is it exactly that you know it has come from God? Do you simply think that if you are having thoughts of widsom then what you think is wise must necessarliy come from God, or do you have some other way to know it truly is from God?

For example, when God speaks to me through scripture, including through the Book of Mormon, God himself assures me that what is written was truly inspired by him so that I'm not only hearing from that prophet but also from God at the same time.

It's the difference between receiving the testimony of 2 witnesses, rather than only the 1 who is speaking as a prophet/messenger of God.

Hopefully what I have said above already answers your question here. I do not assume that if I think myself to be wise then what I believe must come from God. That would be rather arrogant and presumptuous. I test my beliefs in every legitimate way I can, trusting in God to light the way.

[altersteve]

Of course. And the answer was no.

Interesting. How, if you don't mind me asking, did God answer no when you asked Him about the Book of Mormon? That is, how did this revelation come? Was it in the form of a thought, a feeling, an inspiration to do something?

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I did not "berate" Storm Rider, and there is no conflict between the two statements you quoted from my post. The witness of the Holy Spirit is not additional information beyond what is in Scripture (the Bible), and I am not dictating what the Holy Spirit can and cannot do.

[altersteve]

Also, I think in order for this discussion to go a little more smoothly, it must be remembered that Latter-day Saints and evangelicals do not view the scriptures the same way. We both believe that scripture is inspired by God and is there to guide us, but as I understand it, evangelicals believe that the Bible is infallible and that everything God needs to say is contained in its pages; it is a comprehensive compilation of everything we need to know. Mormons reject this; we view the scriptures as inspired and authoritative, but not perfect or comprehensive by any means. Like evangelicals, we do not believe in infallibility when it comes to human beings, but to us that includes things that are written by human beings, whether they are inspired by God or not. That is one reason why we are so comfortable with approaching God directly, because we understand that God still has more things to say. That's why our doctrine of divine revelation is so important.

I think that needs to be kept in mind.

[Zakuska]

Vance,

I did not "berate" Storm Rider, and there is no conflict between the two statements you quoted from my post. The witness of the Holy Spirit is not additional information beyond what is in Scripture (the Bible), and I am not dictating what the Holy Spirit can and cannot do.

When John gave his Revelation, by the holy Ghost... it went WAY beyound what was then in scripture.

[Zakuska]

dbl

Edited August 24, 2011 by Zakuska

[Vance]

I did not "berate" Storm Rider, . . .

It is there for all to see.

. . . and there is no conflict between the two statements you quoted from my post.

Yeah, right.

The witness of the Holy Spirit is not additional information beyond what is in Scripture (the Bible), and I am not dictating what the Holy Spirit can and cannot do.

:rofl:

Oh the irony!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited to add,

It is very interesting that the statement,

The witness of the Holy Spirit is not additional information beyond what is in Scripture (the Bible), . . .

Is actually "additional information beyond what is in Scripture (the Bible)".

:rofl:

More irony!!

Edited August 24, 2011 by Vance

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I see you crack yourself up. However, I think I've explained my position adequately, and I do not appreciate your derision.

[jo1952]

jo,

First, it's Rob, not Bob.

Rob, sorry about the typo.

Second, my comment in the post you quoted above was not directed at you. It was not criticizing you at all. My comment was a response to Mr. Bukowski, who had claimed that what I had said to you was absurd gibberish. I was simply explaining to him what I had said to you.

Third, I told you in post #146, the post immediately following your post #145 that you quote above, why I did not respond to any questions in your post. In that post, you had written:

To which I replied:

"I did nothing to 'derail' this thread. You made statements and I asked questions about some of them and responded to others. Since you chose to ignore my questions, I guess we've come to an impasse."

Perhaps you don't think rabbit trails are a form of derailing. You very well know what our beliefs are. What you did was take advantage of what you saw as an opportunity to negatively drag in additional revelation and clarification of the Glories we can be saved to. You know darn well what I was talking about; and so did DaddyG. Converts to the LDS Church have already been saved because they already believe in and have faith in Jesus Christ. In fact, that was my original response (emphasis added):

I would agree that both EV's and LDS come from a position of faith; without exercising faith there can be no witness received from the Holy Ghost. I think the difference which the EV do not recognize, is that most converts to the LDS Church (not to be confused with the person's conversion who is already LDS), have already been saved. IOW, they have already exercised faith and believe in Jesus Christ.

That is in direct response to the actual OP. Your negative agenda-driven questions which followed were deliberately used for your soap box and obviously expanded beyond the OP. We can all see that. In fact, my original comment sufficiently matches the EV and orthodox belief of being saved BEFORE the orthodox start qualifying an additional belief in the Trinity. Since you have already claimed that you do not believe it is necessary to accept the Trinity, my original response matched your condition for being saved.

Now, in post #248 you point out that you had claimed that DaddyG had already answered my questions:

However, what you missed is my reply to DaddyG in post #147:

"DaddyG, Your comments on salvation did not address my question, which had to do specifically with Jo's statement that Christians who convert to the LDS faith are already 'saved.'"

Although DaddyG replied in post #148, his reply did not address the specific problem I was raising in my question to you. Here, I will review it for you. You had written:

I responded to the above comments as follows in post #141:

Neither of DaddyG's replies to me addressed the problem here. In his first reply, DaddyG affirmed that Mormons believe in salvation by grace, which wasn't the question I asked. In his second reply, DaddyG stated that (1) he believed that faith in Christ was valid for people of all denominations, that (2) Mormons believe in exaltation as well as a more general salvation, and that (3) he was offended by evangelicals suggesting that Mormons might not be saved at all. However, none of these statements addressed my question in the slightest. In what sense are non-Mormon Christians "saved"? DaddyG didn't say. It can't be in the sense of attaining entrance to the celestial kingdom or attaining exaltation. That leaves the general salvation. However, as I pointed out, in Mormon theology everyone gets that, including non-Christians who don't believe in Christ. That means, as far as I can tell, that the fact that non-Mormons who "convert to the LDS Church" were not "already saved" because of their faith in Christ. To put it another way: In LDS doctrine, faith in Christ is more than is needed for general salvation (resurrection, immortality) but less than is needed for individual salvation (celestial kingdom, exaltation).

This is all part of your rabbit trail, Rob.

Finally, I will point out again (I don't know how many times I have already done so) that I have not said that it is wrong to pray about our questions. It is the way that we pray about them that is of concern. If we pray in a way that presupposes that only one type of answer is acceptable, we are likely engaged in self-deception. For example, if we pray, "Please give me a witness of the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon is true," such a prayer assumes that the Book of Mormon is true. It would be better to pray something like this: "God, if the Book of Mormon is true, I want to know it; and if it's false, I want to know that, too. Please help me to understand the issues and to see the Book of Mormon for what it really is. If you do want to give me a revelation that the Book of Mormon is true, I'm open to that, but if that isn't your will I'm open to learning in any way that honors you." Then we should study the issues, test the Book of Mormon according to the biblical standards for testing anything that purports to be revelation from God, and stay determined to put knowing God's truth above personal comfort, human relationships, or anything else.

In light of the above paragraph, now I have more questions; though I don't know why I bother to ask them. You have still managed to avoid answering both the questions from the other thread which I re-iterated on this one; plus the additional questions I asked. This, btw, is a classic symptom of a rabbit derail...the avoidance of answering questions. You are very good at it. I give you an 8 on a scale of 1 to 10. Here goes anyway. Can you explain how it is that converts join the Church from all different denominations because they see that the Book of Mormon does NOT contradict the Bible? For instance, Franktalk had become a Christian about 2 1/2 years prior to being introduced to the Book of Mormon. He took the time to study it in great detail - in fact he took 2 1/2 years to investigate the Church which involved almost daily study, attending Sunday meetings, etc. He studied the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He could find no contradictions to what was taught in the Bible. Thousands convert every year from other Christian denominations. They have already accepted Jesus as their Savior. They do NOT find contradictions between the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Where do you suppose the disconnect is between your claim that the Book of Mormon does contradict the Bible, and their claim that it does not?

Regards,

jo

Edited August 24, 2011 by jo1952

[altersteve]

The witness of the Holy Spirit is not additional information beyond what is in Scripture (the Bible), and I am not dictating what the Holy Spirit can and cannot do.

Forgive me if I sound derisive, but Vance's point still stands. When you say that the witness of the Holy Spirit is not (or in other words, cannot be) an addition to the Bible, then you are in fact doing just that.

[Rob Bowman]

Jo,

You wrote:

Rob, sorry about the typo.

No problem.

You wrote:

Perhaps you don't think rabbit trails are a form of derailing. You very well know what our beliefs are.

Yes, I do, but you still have not answered my question, and you are still claiming that a question I asked about something you said in this thread is somehow derailing the thread.

You wrote:

In light of the above paragraph, now I have more questions; though I don't know why I bother to ask them. You have still managed to avoid answering both the questions from the other thread which I re-iterated on this one; plus the additional questions I asked. This, btw, is a classic symptom of a rabbit derail...the avoidance of answering questions. You are very good at it. I give you an 8 on a scale of 1 to 10.

Let me get this straight. If you say something in this thread and I ask you a question about it, that is a "rabbit trail" and an attempt to "derail" the thread. But if you bring up issues from another thread, that is not derailing this thread. Is that what you are claiming?

You don't say here which questions I supposedly am managing to avoid. I am guessing these are either questions I answered for which you found my answers unsatisfactory, or questions that were put in an obnoxious or offensive way that I didn't deem deserving of an answer. I see both kinds in your post #145 in this thread:

Also, I do not recall receiving a response to a question I had asked you - though it was on another thread. However, the answer to that question there can also be applied to this thread as well; and can even now be expanded upon since it dealt with the Trinity, and we are now discussing receiving direct communication from the Holy Ghost, i.e., Spirit to spirit - which certainly involves a member of the Godhead whether it is the EV who holds to a Trinitarian dogma, or the LDS who do not. Inasmuch as you don't think we are damned due to our non-acceptance of the Trinity, then why do your rabbit trails mean so much to you that you would try to derail this thread? Why should our beliefs even matter to you for any other purpose than to learn about what it is we do believe; without needing to then try to destroy them? Why do you insist on fighting against our beliefs if you don't ultimately think it will make any difference to our salvation?

As I asked before, wouldn't your time be better spent trying to get the anti-LDS denominational institutions to change their doctrine which judges and damns the souls of those who disagree with and will not accept the Trinity? Isn't there more danger to them through their act of judgement, than our beliefs are to us?

Behind all of the explanations you have given as to why you personally will not pray about questions you have, I cannot help but wonder what would really cause you not to go to the Big Guy Himself even after you run your question into the ground (which, btw, I had understood would automatically include prayer; so I apologize if I inadvertantly added prayer to the prescription presented in the video. I just cannot personally imagine NOT going to God in prayer when the questions involve Him or His Son, or His teachings, or His Kingdom.) Is this in the same category as what other anti-LDS believers have described to me is due to the fact they are fearful any response they get might not be from the Holy Ghost? Why do you depend so heavily upon your own thoughts instead of praying about them? After all, these questions concern and effect your relationship with God.

When you ask a question like "why do your rabbit trails mean so much to you that you would try to derail this thread?" the question assumes claims I dispute. Asking you a question about your statement in this thread is not derailing the thread, nor is it a rabbit trail. When you ask "what would really cause you not to go to the Big Guy Himself" you show that you're not really listening to me because I have never discouraged prayer in any context, and I've pointed that out repeatedly. Do you really need me to point it out again?

Although I have said that I don't think you need to accept the doctrine of the Trinity per se to be saved, this doesn't mean that this or other doctrinal issues are completely irrelevant to salvation. It is not what Mormons don't believe, in terms of formal systematic theological doctrines, that is the real problem; it is what they do believe and the way these false beliefs at least threaten to undermine a genuine acceptance of the gospel. I fully expect that you will not understand or accept this distinction, but there it is.

You wrote:

Here goes anyway. Can you explain how it is that converts join the Church from all different denominations because they see that the Book of Mormon does NOT contradict the Bible? For instance, Franktalk had become a Christian about 2 1/2 years prior to being introduced to the Book of Mormon. He took the time to study it in great detail - in fact he took 2 1/2 years to investigate the Church which involved almost daily study, attending Sunday meetings, etc. He studied the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He could find no contradictions to what was taught in the Bible. Thousands convert every year from other Christian denominations. They have already accepted Jesus as their Savior. They do NOT find contradictions between the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Where do you suppose the disconnect is between your claim that the Book of Mormon does contradict the Bible, and their claim that it does not?

This question is not pertinent to this thread. It is annoying that you would harangue me for supposedly trying to derail the thread and then bring up an issue entirely distinct from the issue of this thread. If Franktalk has difficulty finding contradictions between the teachings of Joseph Smith and those of the Bible, I can help him. But that would be a topic for a different thread.

[Rob Bowman]

altersteve,

You wrote:

Forgive me if I sound derisive, but Vance's point still stands. When you say that the witness of the Holy Spirit is not (or in other words, cannot be) an addition to the Bible, then you are in fact doing just that.

Assuming for the sake of argument that I was adding to the Bible, that would only imply that the witness of the Holy Spirit was knowledge additional to the Bible if I claimed that what I said came from that witness of the Holy Spirit. Since I didn't say that, my claim is not contradictory, as Vance implied.

Here is the way I approach this subject. We want to know what the witness of the Holy Spirit is. I turn to Scripture (the Bible) and see what it says on the subject. What I find there is that the witness of the Holy Spirit is his witness to Jesus Christ as God's Son and our only Savior from sin and way to reconciliation with the Father. I find nothing in the Bible to suggest that the witness of the Holy Spirit is a general religious epistemological principle (i.e., a cover-all way of knowing that anything in religion is true). I also find nothing in what the Bible says about the witness of the Holy Spirit to indicate that the purpose of his witness is to convey additional information not found in the Bible. So, knowing what Scripture does say about the witness of the Holy Spirit, and what it does not say, I conclude that it is a mistake to interpret the witness of the Holy Spirit as a means to gaining information not given to us in Scripture. That conclusion is not adding to Scripture but simply connecting the dots of what Scripture says.

[Mudcat]

I was just trying to understand how your statement of: "The fact that the Holy Spirit is not leading you to question about the truth claims of the BoM would stand in greater evidence that it is untrue", applied to non-Christians who don't feel led to question the truth claims of Christianity.

I wasn't trying to propose anything, but was wanting you to explain something that it seemed you had proposed.

Oh sorry, Bluebell. I wasn't very clear at all when I said that. I'd better start over.

I was speaking in the general context of my previous post, in that I had already read and prayed about the BoM and not received an answer from the Holy Spirit. So I had already questioned the truth claims of the BoM. I suppose my thoughts are, that since I didn't receive an answer nor do I feel led by the Spirit to reinvestigate it's claims at this time, then the Holy Spirits silence on the matter would stand in greater evidence for it not being true.

It would have been a lot more intelligible if I had put all that in.

My apologies. I was a bit distracted last night and was bouncing in between trying to manage a post and help my son with his science homework.

Silly stuff... It was a big Q&A sheet. The first one was, "What is the definition of a scientific question?" It had the whole family stumped... since when do questions need definitions, I thought.

Anyways, no one liked my answer.. of "A question that seeks explanation through naturalistic means." We finally settled on my sons flip around of "A question that is scientific?" but I know it won't pass muster if it's checked.

The questions got more difficult after that. They seem to be hammering the scientific method into 6th graders in a much more robust fashion than in my old school days.