What Distinguishes The Evangelical Witness Vs. Lds Testimony

[jo1952]

i would definitely agree there is a boundary that those who reject the LDS faith will put around their spiritual search which effectively creates an area they will not seek out God within. I would also say this is a habit that LDS are often prone to as well, sad to say, no matter how often our church leaders promote the concept of looking for truth everywhere.Agreed.

Well said.

(yes, I have discovered a new smiley board...people will just have to be patient until I tire of it)

I would like to offer some thoughts which, at first blush, may seem a little out there. However, you guys are always surprising me....and at least two of you and I share such similar thoughts sometimes it's almost as if.....well....as if we were being led by someone who is sharing the same truth with us! Go figure!!!

Anyway, my thought is this, I feel strongly that in these latter days that many people will leave the LDS Church - not due to being excomunicated or any type of negative light. I think they will leave because God will call them elsewhere for His purposes to be accomplished. Their LDS beliefs will remain strong with them, however, they will be impressed to go into other denominational territories to help reap those who are now being prepared to assist God in gathering those who are not only ready to receive more, but who are also valiant and already understand more spiritually than their peers.

This is not to be confused with the factions I think will also take place not only within the LDS Church, but in all denominations as the end times become more and more difficult and people become more polarized as people fall away and become fooled by the adversary.

Best regards,

jo

[Ahab]

Cal, I agree that those outside the LDS faith are influenced by the Holy Spirit. I also agree that many pursue truth. Just as some Mormons pursue truth in their own faith so it is with others; they search for more truth within the confines of their respective churches.

What makes you think their search is limited to the confines of their respective churches? A church is a group of people, and staying confined to a specific group of people without some contact with other people would be pretty hard to do, I think, unless maybe you're a monk.

I believe that their search for truth will be stunted because there is limitations on the truth available to them.

God can reach us anywhere we are, though. Do you really know anyone who has some limitation placed upon him/her for how much he/she can know? I've never met anyone who wasn't able to know what I know.

I would also say that though LDS state they have a fulness of truth, the Church does not contain all there is of truth. LDS can learn a great deal by studying the teachings from other churches and other faiths.

The Church we are in does not "contain" truth, period. The Church we are in goes out and shares the truth we have with others, and then whether or not others accept what we share is all up to them.

Our purpose is to hunger for all truth. None of us should be so contented with what we have that we are unwilling to rejoice in the truths, examplary lives, spiritual cultures found elsewhere in the world.

I agree.

Spiritual contentedness is the realm of the weak; they that are found there are not valiant in their search for truth in mortality and their cup is not as full as it could be with God's teachings.

You can be "content" and still be searching for more. Heck, I've been filled a few times by the Holy Ghost, and when I was I was very content with not much room for more at that particular time.

The "problem" is that I keep getting hungry, but it's really no problem since I know how I can be filled, again.

[mfbukowski]

1. Craig explains that the believer is within his epistemic rights to believe that God exists on the basis of his experience of being in a relationship with God through faith in Christ as witnessed by the Holy Spirit in his heart. In short, Craig gives exactly the same explanation of the witness of the Spirit that I did. It is a witness to the reality of the genuine believer's relationship with God in Christ, not a private revelation about specific issues like what books are inspired by God or which religious institution if any is the true church.

1. I am therefore within my "epistemic rights" (whatever that is supposed to mean) to believe that God exists on the basis of my experience of being in a relationship with God through faith in Chirst as witnessed by the Holy Spirit in my heart.

And apparently then, since you believe you cannot receive private revelations about specific issues like what books are inspired by God, or which religious institutions if any is the true church,--

Then you cannot know that the Bible is true or that Christianity is true.

Of course the problem as always is that there is a circular argument here because:

Craig explains that the believer is within his epistemic rights to believe that God exists on the basis of his experience of being in a relationship with God through faith in Christ as witnessed by the Holy Spirit in his heart.

According to this, ONE MUST FIRST HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH CHRIST TO BELIEVE IN GOD.

It is circular. I have been saying that now for many posts.

2. Craig explicitly says that the believer is warranted in accepting his belief in God as properly basic in the absence of some defeater that would call the veridicality of his experience into question. That is, Craig allows that some people's religious experiences might have external, evidential defeaters.

2. In other words, my Moroni experience is "properly basic".

There are no "defeaters" which would not apply just as effectively to your claim that the Bible is "true" and that Jesus is the Christ.

I've got an idea. In your reply, address only the argument, ok? So instead of telling me how much I misunderstand you, tell me what is wrong with the argument. I am tired of arguing about who misunderstood whom and who said what.

The only issue here is the argument itself.

Edited August 29, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

I'm still waiting for a response to post #417. Ignore it if you wish, but we cannot move forward, if we are to do so at all, until you address it squarely.

[mfbukowski]

Mr. Bukowski,

I'm still waiting for a response to post #417. Ignore it if you wish, but we cannot move forward, if we are to do so at all, until you address it squarely.

Are you serious? See this kind of thing shows the lack of depth of your "arguments"- you quote me as saying

"Of course I do not agree or find your answer satisfactory, but you certainly did clarify your position.

If I never hear another word from you on this topic, that will be fine with me.

Of course I stand by that remark- which is what it was.

That post DID clarify your position- it clarified it as circular, and as just said above, I still see your position as very clearly circular. I didn't fully realize how circular it was before that post.

Your alleged "answers" are STILL not satisfactory, and if you don't want to clarify them, I still don't care if I never hear from you again. In fact, I would prefer to never hear from you again- it would prove further your lack of willingness to think seriously about these issues, and rely on your anti-mormon rhetoric instead of dealing with the issues, as you have always done.

It is growing clearer and clearer to me that my concerns about you being a "big bad wolf" among the sheep here on this forum, when you first arrived, were totally unfounded. There is not a person here who does not see through your smoke and mirrors- you are a non-issue as far as your "message to Mormons".

So do you want to get on with a substantive discussion of what issues I have raised, and probably more articulately, what Walker W has raised, or do you want to continue with the "he said - she said"?

I really don't care. I think it is abundantly clear your position doesn't have much to offer but confusion and contradiction

Edited August 29, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

It is growing clearer and clearer to me that my concerns about you being a "big bad wolf" among the sheep here on this forum, when you first arrived, were totally unfounded. There is not a person here who does not see through your smoke and mirrors- you are a non-issue as far as your "message to Mormons".

I'm not convinced it is smoke and mirrors. I think he simply can't see what we can see in regards to the truth so instead he sees something different while thinking that what he thinks is true.

Many people who are wrong just can't see that they're wrong, but that doesn't mean they're using smoke and mirrors to try to keep others from seeing the truth.

[mfbukowski]

Well I have to admit that I just messed up big time!

I went back to capture post 324 and refer to it here, but I mistakenly hit "edit" instead of "reply" and so the original post 324 got edited instead of re-quoted here. So the original post 324 is now actually what I wanted my reply here- that is, this post- to say! OOOPS!

But I will re-post the copy of what is now 324 here to make the point that Rob quoted me out of context

I actually said:

You've got it big time. You have made it clear that you disagree with Craig, and do not believe in the witness of the spirit at all. Of course I do not agree or find your answer satisfactory, but you certainly did clarify your position.

If I never hear another word from you on this topic, that will be fine with me.

Yet of course you can bet that I will remind you of this post as needed.

THAT is what the exchange quoted above actually was. The post got 3 rep points, which it clearly doesn't deserve now.

I don't care if Rob disputes this or not- this is what it said.

Mods- if there is a way to restore the original post 324, please do so!

Edited August 29, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

In fact, I would prefer to never hear from you again- it would prove further your lack of willingness to think seriously about these issues, and rely on your anti-mormon rhetoric instead of dealing with the issues, as you have always done.

Of course, it would prove no such thing. I will go on engaging others in discussion here as long as they show a modicum of decency in the way they treat me, just as they should rightly expect from me. But I am under no obligation to continue submitting myself as a rhetorical punching bag to you or anyone else. I am happy especially to engage known Mormon scholars and apologists like Kevin Christiansen, Brant Gardner, and Dan Peterson--men who use their full names, know how to reason, and have earned respect in the Mormon community outside the blogosphere and chat forums. I also am happy to engage others in discussion who, though they vigorously disagree with me, are respectful and considerate in the way they do so (Mola is a good example, and there are others). The fact that I am willing to engage Mormonism's best and brightest apologists puts the lie to your claim that if I'm not willing to engage you in discussion this proves my lack of willingness to think about the issues seriously.

So, you may have what you prefer, though it does not prove what you would like others to think about me.

Edited August 29, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[Vance]

It is growing clearer and clearer to me that my concerns about you being a "big bad wolf" among the sheep here on this forum, when you first arrived, were totally unfounded. There is not a person here who does not see through your smoke and mirrors- you are a non-issue as far as your "message to Mormons".

. . .

I think it is abundantly clear your position doesn't have much to offer but confusion and contradiction

Other than a few sycophants, he isn't convincing anybody. For now, I have decided to ignore him until he can show a modicum of decency in the way he treats me. The unrepentant dishonest misrepresentation of my statements was and is indecent.

[wenglund]

So, you may have what you prefer, though it does not prove what you would like others to think about me.

Just so you know, MFB is not alone in his perception of you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

I'm very aware of this. As I wrote on my old blog last year,

Dr. Craig distinguishes between knowing Christianity is true and showing that it is true. For clarification, Craig is of the view that Mormonism is false (he contributed to The New Mormon Challenge: Responding to the Latest Defenses of a Fast-Growing Movement) and that arguments can be provided to demonstrate this. Although I disagree with him on this matter, I nonetheless find his philosophy regarding the Holy Ghost quite sound.

I never said anything about trusting all experiences, whether personal or that others. However, I was pretty agnostic on the validity of spiritual experiences for a while. These philosophers are the reason I am no longer.

Nonetheless, Mormons are often asked why they believe in Mormonism. They appeal to their personal experience. I think this is perfectly fine. And if one trusts the individual as one of honest and sound mind, then that could provide an incentive to investigate his/her claims. I see nothing wrong with that.

But I am very, very careful to distinguish mere emotionalism from spiritual experiences (Howard Hunter was as well).

Thanks for the excellent and highly relevant post. I wish I could give you 87 rep points!

I think it is time to pretty much end this discussion and I think it is clear that we can end it will Craig himself as an erstwhile proxy for the distinguished Mr. Bowman, and see what Criag has to say about it in that link you posted:

http://www.reasonabl...Article&id=8237

After discussing non-spiritual evidence, Craig says:

Notice my wording: the argument and evidence you present may (not will) crack his false assurance of Mormonism’s truth.

You ask how this position is consistent with my “allowing a witness of the Spirit to trump objective evidence.” It’s right in line with it, when you realize that you’re reverting back to the question of how I know Christianity is true. My knowledge of Christianity’s truth, while supported by strong arguments, is not ultimately based on those arguments but on the witness of God Himself. If, therefore, I find myself confronted with a well-prepared and articulate Mormon who blows away my arguments and presents a case for Mormonism that I can’t answer, I should not apostatize, since I have the witness of the Holy Spirit to Christianity’s truth and so realize that although I’ve lost the argument, Christianity is nonetheless the truth (and I need to be better prepared next time!).

You respond, “while this allows the Christian to remain Christian in light of ‘available evidence’ to the contrary, doesn’t it, in turn, allow Mormons to honestly remain Mormons by citing the same philosophy?” The right word here is “justifiably” (or more accurately, “warrantedly”), not “honestly,” since we’re not impugning the Mormon’s sincerity. And the answer is, No, he can’t justifiably remain Mormon by appealing to his experience, since he doesn’t really have a genuine witness of the Holy Spirit, but only a counterfeit experience. Of course, he may not realize that and so appeal to his experience as a grounds for resisting your evidence (indeed, this is, in fact, what typically does happen with Mormons!), but your hope and prayer should be that the evidence will cause him to doubt and so be open to the genuine witness of the Holy Spirit.

So “how,” you ask, “can a Christian and a Mormon gain any ground one way or another? Both would believe their Spiritual Witness to be authentic, and both would claim that since we only see in part, Evidence cannot possibly rule their experience out.” Yes, they both make those claims; but the Mormon’s claims are false, he has no self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit in favor of Mormonism’s truth, and therefore, under the force of the evidence he may begin to doubt and to seek. Thereby, progress will be made.

(underlining added, here and below)

Uh, I don't think so. This is of course highly problematic.

Even he acknowledges the stalemate.

He also says:

Even if I myself know personally on the basis of the Spirit’s witness that Christianity is true, how can I demonstrate to somebody else that what I believe is true?

Consider again the case of the Christian confronted with an adherent of some other world religion who also claims to have a self-authenticating experience of God. William Alston points out that this situation taken in isolation results in an epistemic standoff.i For neither person knows how to convince the other that he alone has a veridical, rather than delusory, experience. This standoff does not undermine the rationality of the Christian’s belief, for even if his process of forming his belief is as reliable as can be, there’s no way he can give a noncircular proof of this fact. Thus his inability to provide such a proof does not nullify the rationality of his belief. But although he is rational in retaining his Christian belief, the Christian in such circumstances is at a complete loss as to how to show his non-Christian friend that he is correct and that his friend is wrong in his respective beliefs.

This circularity is of course what I have been pointing out to our distinguished Mr Bowman.

Frankly, this is why I have never given Craig much credibility, because he holds that some experiences can be absolutely "true" without citing any possible way to know that they are "true" except that they are "properly basic"- and then contradicts himself - imo-

The entire problem with that conception in my opinion is that either they are "properly basic" and THAT is their own "evidence" for truth or they are not.

Saying that one person's personal experience is "true" because it is "properly basic" and then saying that a similar experience from someone else is NOT "properly basic"- or even though it might be "properly basic it still "false" is highly contradictory and provides no useful answers at all.

So I look at that and just want to throw the baby out with the bathwater- the whole thing is just a misrepresentation of Plantinga

Did I get something he is saying wrong?

Edited August 29, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I would like to offer some thoughts which, at first blush, may seem a little out there. However, you guys are always surprising me....and at least two of you and I share such similar thoughts sometimes it's almost as if.....well....as if we were being led by someone who is sharing the same truth with us! Go figure!!!

Anyway, my thought is this, I feel strongly that in these latter days that many people will leave the LDS Church - not due to being excomunicated or any type of negative light. I think they will leave because God will call them elsewhere for His purposes to be accomplished. Their LDS beliefs will remain strong with them, however, they will be impressed to go into other denominational territories to help reap those who are now being prepared to assist God in gathering those who are not only ready to receive more, but who are also valiant and already understand more spiritually than their peers.

This is not to be confused with the factions I think will also take place not only within the LDS Church, but in all denominations as the end times become more and more difficult and people become more polarized as people fall away and become fooled by the adversary.

Best regards,

jo

I know at least one other member who also believes this- and posts here occasionally.

I am personally undecided on this point- I am not the person to whom I am referring.

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

Just so you know, MFB is not alone in his perception of you.

I never thought otherwise. Prejudice usually has company.

[Vance]

Did I get something he is saying wrong?

You used his own words as he gave them and in context (unlike Bowman did).

Bowman isn't alone in his prejudice.

[wenglund]

But although he is rational in retaining his Christian belief, the Christian in such circumstances is at a complete loss as to how to show his non-Christian friend that he is correct and that his friend is wrong in his respective beliefs.

To me, this strikes at the heart of the matter, and is as it should be. It is not our role, but the Spirit's, to show Christian and non-Christian friends which beliefs are "correct" or "wrong". Our role is simply to trust in God and perhaps give cause or provide occasion for the Spirit to function in that role.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 29, 2011 by wenglund

[Vance]

To me, this strikes at the heart of the matter, and is as it should be. It is not our role, but the Spirit's, to show Christian and non-Christian friends which beliefs are "correct" or "wrong". Our role is simply to trust in GOd and perhaps give cause or provide occasion for the Spirit to function in that role.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I find it very instructive that one side mocks the description given in scripture of what the witness of the Spirit is like and the other side does not.

Edited August 29, 2011 by Vance

[wenglund]

I never thought otherwise. Prejudice usually has company.

That is a telling projection that underscores my perception of you.

Rather than over-reacting defensively, might it not be better to introspect about your posting style, and perhaps consider using a more functional interactive approach?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 29, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

I find it very instructive that one side mocks the description given in scripture of what the witness of the Spirit is like and the other side does not.

Overly defensiveness, born of dogmatism, is oft rife with unintended instructions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 29, 2011 by wenglund

[Calm]

What makes you think their search is limited to the confines of their respective churches? A church is a group of people, and staying confined to a specific group of people without some contact with other people would be pretty hard to do, I think, unless maybe you're a monk.

Storm can answer for himself, but how I read his comment is that they are confined not by the group of people they associate with at church, but rather the creeds they accept in their association with the Church...creeds having the attribute of drawing boundaries and placing limitations.

[mfbukowski]

To me, this strikes at the heart of the matter, and is as it should be. It is not our role, but the Spirit's, to show Christian and non-Christian friends which beliefs are "correct" or "wrong". Our role is simply to trust in God and perhaps give cause or provide occasion for the Spirit to function in that role.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Agreed

Assuming that Craig is one of the best informed Evangelicals out there on this stuff, I would assume there is no better argument available.

That is what I was really looking for- to see if there is a single GOOD argument against our position they could muster, and it seems clear there is not

Edited August 29, 2011 by mfbukowski

[KevinG]

I find it very instructive that one side mocks the description given in scripture of what the witness of the Spirit is like and the other side does not.

This is at the heart of my disappointment the deceptive and elaborate answers to some simple questions. My life is dedicated to the building of the Kingdom of God upon this earth. That has never included a negative portrayal of someone elses faith. I cannot say the same for some who profess to be Christian but who make better pharasees than disciples.

Rob has got so much wrong about the Saints it is hardly clear where one could begin to clear up the misconceptions. He works hard to keep the propaganda plausable enough to discourage others from finding out for themselves. Discouraging people from receiving revelation from God is perhaps the most pernicious activity of all.

I won't waste his time any more. I certainly won't knowingly help him refine his arguments more.

This discussion has run its course and has shown the participants for what they are. It is up to the moderators to close it if they agree.

[mfbukowski]

This is at the heart of my disappointment the deceptive and elaborate answers to some simple questions. My life is dedicated to the building of the Kingdom of God upon this earth. That has never included a negative portrayal of someone elses faith. I cannot say the same for some who profess to be Christian but who make better pharasees than disciples.

Rob has got so much wrong about the Saints it is hardly clear where one could begin to clear up the misconceptions. He works hard to keep the propaganda plausable enough to discourage others from finding out for themselves. Discouraging people from receiving revelation from God is perhaps the most pernicious activity of all.

I won't waste his time any more. I certainly won't knowingly help him refine his arguments more.

This discussion has run its course and has shown the participants for what they are. It is up to the moderators to close it if they agree.

For what it's worth,

I heartily second the idea of not helping him refine his arguments- as I have said in the past. Leave them as ineffectual as they are so he can harm no one.

Edited August 29, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

Saying that one person's personal experience is "true" because it is "properly basic" and then saying that a similar experience from someone else is NOT "properly basic"- or even though it might be "properly basic it still "false" is highly contradictory and provides no useful answers at all.

So I look at that and just want to throw the baby out with the bathwater- the whole thing is just a misrepresentation of Plantinga

Did I get something he is saying wrong?

Yes, they both make those claims; but the Mormon’s claims are false, he has no self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit in favor of Mormonism’s truth, and therefore, under the force of the evidence he may begin to doubt and to seek. Thereby, progress will be made.

Both have experiences that appear to them as "self-authenticating"....but the Christian actually had one and the Mormon only thinks he did....and that is demonstrated how?

Translation of Craig's words: Nuh uh, you're wrong, I'm right....yep, that's great evidence, sure to convince or at least raise doubts so progress will be made.

At least that's how I'm reading it.

[Ahab]

Rob has got so much wrong about the Saints it is hardly clear where one could begin to clear up the misconceptions.

Anywhere you can shed additional light. Our mission is to share the gospel with people while pointing the way to he who is the Light of the World.

It's not our job to convince him or anyone else about what the truth is. We're just supposed to put it out there and let others absorb as much of it as they want to.

He works hard to keep the propaganda plausable enough to discourage others from finding out for themselves.

I think he's a victim just as much as anyone else out there who gets lost in the dark while trying to find his way into the Light.

He's thinks he has things right when in fact he is wrong. Whose help do you think he really needs?

Discouraging people from receiving revelation from God is perhaps the most pernicious activity of all.

So point Rob to the one who can reveal things to him rather than criticizing him for not knowing as much about things as we do.

We have the light and we should let our light shine rather than criticizing people who are still in the darkness.

I won't waste his time any more. I certainly won't knowingly help him refine his arguments more.

This discussion has run its course and has shown the participants for what they are. It is up to the moderators to close it if they agree.

I think we all need to show more charity to others, and maybe even more especially to those who criticize us.

Edited August 29, 2011 by Ahab

[wenglund]

That is what I was really looking for- to see if there is a single GOOD argument against our position they could muster, and it seems clear there is not.

That is because, as Craig, himself, intimates, the verity of one's spiritual beliefs isn't essentially a function of arguments, but rather the Spirit. Essentially, it is about letting God tell mankind through his Spirit what is of him or not, rather than man, through human reasoning, telling God what is his.

Unfortunately, Craig forgets this wise and important point when he, as a man, decided to usurp the role of the Spirit in arguing which Spiritual experiences had by others are authentic or artificial. He evidently lacked sufficient trust in God, and more trust in himself, to leave that determination between God and each individual.

The good news is, at least Craig and other Evangelicals are looking more and more to the Spirit, and that, I believe, is a step in the right direction.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 29, 2011 by wenglund