What Distinguishes The Evangelical Witness Vs. Lds Testimony

[Vance]

Mormons here are not Evangelical in their belief.

Thank GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Whether you as individuals agree with us or not, you do not speak officially for the Church as we try to relate what we believe in light of what the Mormon Church teaches officially.

Are we to then blindly accept your (mis)representation of official teachings or should we use our own experience as members?

I would point out (as I do often), as a Protestant/Evangelical Christian, that Mormons (and others) arrive at a different understanding of Biblical truths (original understanding) than Christians do.

Yes, our understanding is much closer to the original than yours. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Vance]

Lehi,

You make an important distinction between having the companionship of the Holy Ghost and having the right to it. You are correct, what LDS doctrine says is the gift of the Holy Ghost (GOHG) gives Mormons the right to that constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. I accept this qualification. Thank you.

FINALLY! 46 posts later.

Now, this still means that without the GOHG one cannot have the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost.

No, it doesn't.

You could say that the GOHG is a necessary but not sufficient condition for experiencing the companionship of the Holy Ghost.

But saying it doesn't make it true.

But this doesn't change the fact that without the GOHG that comes by the laying on of hands by a Mormon male priesthood holder, an individual cannot have that constant companionship.

Still having trouble with your logic I see.

[wenglund]

Lehi,

You make an important distinction between having the companionship of the Holy Ghost and having the right to it. You are correct, what LDS doctrine says is the gift of the Holy Ghost (GOHG) gives Mormons the right to that constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. I accept this qualification. Thank you.

Now, this still means that without the GOHG one cannot have the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. You could say that the GOHG is a necessary but not sufficient condition for experiencing the companionship of the Holy Ghost. But this doesn't change the fact that without the GOHG that comes by the laying on of hands by a Mormon male priesthood holder, an individual cannot have that constant companionship.

In order for YOUR conclusion to make sense for US, WE would have to accept YOUR inferred premise that the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost comes ONLY by way of conferred right, or to those who have the conferred right. WE don't. WE accept the prospect that others may have the constant companionship by some other right (such as worthiness) or apart from having the right (they have it for some other reason like it being the will of God).

Try as you might, YOU are not going to successfully put YOUR words into OUR mouths. YOUR attempt at a "gotcha", is not going to work. Give it up.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

I found this quote from an Evangelical site quite interesting:

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/715-what-is-the-gift-of-the-holy-spirit-in-acts-2-38

The Indwelling Spirit

It is my conviction, as well as that of numerous highly esteemed brethren, that the Holy Spirit, as a “gift,” is bestowed upon the obedient believer (Acts 2:38; 5:32; 1 Cor. 6:19), and is an abiding presence in his life.

Let us consider several facets of this matter.

According to Acts 2:38, the baptized believer is promised “the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Is this a gift consisting of the Spirit, or a gift given by the Spirit?

Actually, from a strictly grammatical viewpoint, it could be either. Some, though, have suggested that grammatically the phrase cannot refer to the Spirit as a gift. That simply is not correct.

The expression tou hagiou pneumatos in Greek is in the genitive case. Greek grammar books list more than a dozen uses for the genitive1. It is context, either in its narrower or broader sense, that will determine the thrust of the genitive case in a given circumstance.

The fact of the matter is, almost every Greek authority known to this writer contends that the genitive of Acts 2:38 is epexegetical (appositional), i.e., the Holy Spirit is the gift2. These sources are not cited as theological experts, but as language authorities; the authors obviously did not feel that it is grammatically impossible for the gift to consist of the Spirit himself, as some have alleged.

That “the gift of the Holy Spirit” can be the Spirit himself is demonstrated by a comparison of Acts 10:45 with 10:47, even though the respective contexts reveal that different endowments of the Spirit are under consideration in Acts 2 and 10.

It is probably safe to say that most of the scholars within the restoration heritage have also argued this interpretation of “the gift of the Holy Spirit” in Acts 2:38, even when differing on the nature of receiving the Spirit.

J.W. McGarvey3 wrote:

“The expression means the Holy Spirit as a gift, and the reference is to that indwelling of the Holy Spirit by which we bring forth the fruits of the Spirit, and without which we are not of Christ.”

Moses Lard4 commented: “Certainly the gift of the Spirit is the Spirit itself given.”

For further reference we would suggest consulting Goebel Music’s massive work, A Resource and Reference Volume on the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit5. This is a study that no serious New Testament student can afford to ignore on this topic.

So we have Craig's "self authenticating" witness of the Holy Ghost on one hand and then we have the indwelling of the spirit after one becomes a Christian, which is described as an "abiding presence".

I find it very difficult to see much difference here between this view and ours, despite Rob's vociferous protestations to the contrary!

So as far as I am concerned, the answer to the OP is "not much".

Except of course, we have the wrong Christ and the wrong Spirit. I forgot that part.

[Vance]

This is what I have tried to explain to Bowman before. Both here and on passed threads.

The phrase (in English) "the gift of the Holy Ghost" is only found twice in the New Testament (Acts 2 and Acts 10). I have argued that they have different meanings in the two incidents. (Not only is the Greek slightly different but the context is also different.)

Bowman has consistently maintained that they are the same.

And now we have this,

That “the gift of the Holy Spirit” can be the Spirit himself is demonstrated by a comparison of Acts 10:45 with 10:47, even though the respective contexts reveal that different endowments of the Spirit are under consideration in Acts 2 and 10.

From a NON-Mormon source no less.

[mfbukowski]

This is what I have tried to explain to Bowman before. Both here and on passed threads.

The phrase (in English) "the gift of the Holy Ghost" is only found twice in the New Testament (Acts 2 and Acts 10). I have argued that they have different meanings in the two incidents. (Not only is the Greek slightly different but the context is also different.)

Bowman has consistently maintained that they are the same.

And now we have this,

That “the gift of the Holy Spirit” can be the Spirit himself is demonstrated by a comparison of Acts 10:45 with 10:47, even though the respective contexts reveal that different endowments of the Spirit are under consideration in Acts 2 and 10.

From a NON-Mormon source no less.

I thought you might like that!

Edited August 31, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

I once had a conversation with a Catholic priest who told me that God could not possibly have a body because that would limit his ability to be "perfect" and of course according to Platonic theory he was right.

But then I asked him if Jesus still had his body and if it limited his perfection, and he literally feel silent and would not speak to me any more.

True story.

I believe it, because this is what my acquaintances gave as their reasons for believing that sometime in the future Christ will dispense with his body.

But I do believe Catholics believe that Christ will always retain his body.

[Calm]

I don't know whether this will help or not, but I have thought a lot about this over the years as one of my first discussions on message boards was specifically relating to this (and I had an individual denying that I actually believed that the Holy Ghost could be more present in the life of a nonLDS than an LDS....it was quite a shock to have someone tell me I was lying about my own beliefs, not so much any more sad to say).

I choose to use the term "Presence of the Holy Ghost" instead of an informal usage of the phrase "gift of the Holy Ghost". This is because even among LDS leadership there is an inconsistency with writing the formal, laying on of hands version with a capital "G" though they are pretty consistent in my experience in using the phrase for the formal ordinance and instead often describe the Presence as a "visit". It is taught that the purpose of the Holy Ghost is to bring people to the gospel so they can receive truth and participate in ordinances, but all that we experience that is good may serve that purpose so I don't see this as limiting the Presence of the Holy Ghost to only telling people whether or not they should join the LDS faith (especially since the Holy Ghost did plenty of "visiting" before the Restoration) but rather that he is involved in preparing people for that moment whether it comes in this life or the next as well as the culmination of that preparation. Also I know a few (stick in the mud in my view) LDS who insist on using the term "Gift of the Holy Ghost" (capitalized or not) for nothing but the formal laying on of hands LDS ordinance (leadership have to be careful because they are trying to avoid confusing doctrine so it makes sense to use terms uniquely, but when in dialoguing with others of different beliefs as long as we are clear on what we are speaking of, of which scriptural usage of the "gift of the Holy Ghost" is being used, I think we should be more accommodating.)

I see the Presence of the Holy Ghost promised to all who seek the Lord sincerely, plus it is given to some that possibly didn't want it until it hit them on the head and woke them up to the Lord (think Saul/Paul for one). In these cases it is the choice of God the Spirit carrying out the Will of the Father that brings man and God together, often in answer to the appeals of those who believe in him and desire to know his Will and draw closer to him...and God the Spirit, the Holy Ghost fulfills this desire of their hearts. As stated above, this means constant access to the witness and the power of the Holy Ghost, for the Lord has promised that all who ask of him will receive an answer, not just those participating in the ordinance.

In the case of the Gift of the Holy Ghost, instead what has been established is a ritualized (through the ordinance), covenantal relationship created by instruction from the Lord for his Church, established through the ordinance of the laying on of hands to receive the Holy Ghost. This does not preclude God creating other covenants involving the Holy Ghost with nonLDS, this simply limits this particular ordinance, this particular covenantal relationship to faithful LDS who have participated in it and are worthy to receive him. As pointed out, though those participating in this ordinance have the right to constant companionship, rarely does any make full use of the right...unfortunately.

What is exactly involved in that covenantal relationship is something that in my opinion must be experienced to be fully understood just as the Presence of the Holy Ghost must be experienced to be understood. Both may involved many different specific gifts of the spirit as described in the Bible (such as the gift of healing). There may be some gifts that are always present in one or the other, there may be some that are very unusual in the first, but common in the second, there may be some that are uncommon for both and I will be happy to admit that I believe there are some---most likely few or even perhaps only one---that may be present in one with the Gift of the Holy Ghost that no one, not even the most righteous and worthy individual who has ever existed, can have without that Gift, not even those who enjoy the consistent companionship of the Holy Ghost through his Presence almost every minute of the day and night....I see that particular aspect of the Gift as similar to having keys of authority (which are limited in who God gives them to), but at this point have not found a way to describe the specific blessing I am thinking of in any intelligible way (and honestly I have not tried that hard, perhaps I should though if I keep getting involved in these types of conversations). I do believe this blessing is something all must experience as part of their climbing the ladder to God, but it is not essential in my opinion to experience it in this lifetime. No one is suffering solely for the lack of this blessing anymore than someone must suffer because they lack the blessing of understanding complicated mathematics or engineering or lack the gift of easily connecting with others so that they trust and open up simply by being in one's company (yes, I have known people like that, it is a great gift and a great responsibility because it becomes so easy to hurt another) though it adds qualities to life's experience that may not be able to be experienced in any other way (I am not sure about this yet, though I do believe that there is a uniqueness in the experience whether or not there is a uniqueness in the blessings that may result).

I use the analogy of the first relationship, the Presence of the Holy Ghost in my terminology, being akin to having a friend who is always there if you call on him, maybe even a roommate living with you and sometimes there for you even if you don't ask while the second, the Gift, is a relationship of family, like someone given this ordinance has been adopted into a family where one member takes on the role of being the very wise and experienced brother that is always there in the background, aware of what is going on, stepping forward to advise and comfort when asked, stepping back when we think we know better than he does what we should be doing, etc.

The first relationship is based on love and trust and seeking out companionship and even familiarity; the second has a 'legal' bond on top of the potential of the Presence which places an 'official' role on God the Spirit through the covenant relationship. One could call it an obligation, but that term never sounds right when one is speaking of God to me, it seems more like a dedication of self much like I would prefer to have with a spouse (I don't want my mate to be with me out of a sense of duty because of the marriage contract or fear of legal consequence, but out of love, devotion and a commitment to furthering our relationship along a certain structure/pattern which we have both agreed upon and committed ourselves to). The Holy Ghost has willingly taken on the mission of being our conduit of communication with Christ and the Father, made himself into a dedicated line, so to speak.

In the first relationship you can trust in the Holy Ghost because of past experiences along with inspiration or revelation that he is there for you. In the second, it is the covenant that establishes the conditions of the relationship and the permanency or lack of it (depending on whether or not the individual fills his role, the Holy Ghost and God always filling their part of the covenant).

It may turn out in specific cases of comparison that the differences of the interaction of the Holy Ghost and ourselves may appear inconsequential when we look on the results of either type of relationship while the same type relationships may look dramatically different. This is why insisting that "constant companionship" is a unique experience of LDS is ridiculous for me because practically speaking it is only speaking of a potential that is never filled, but only approached and the "from time to time" label (can one get a more vague qualifier than that?) often attached to the Presence may amount to much more time than any so-called "constant companionship" experienced by an less worthy LDS. An individual blessed with the Presence of Holy Ghost in his life may be so open and dedicated himself to seeking out the Lord that he has the companionship of the Holy Ghost in every facet of his life all the time, just like a friend who you hang out with and do everything with while a person who was ordained (not sure this is the right term, just using it as a verb form of "ordinance") with the Gift of the Holy Ghost has no such level of contact, if any contact at all because she chooses to live an unworthy life and preoccupies herself with things not of the spirit, thus not cultivating the internal environment that allow her to be aware and understand the Spirit as he 'walks' with her (or indwells if you prefer). Such a person is not taking any advantage of the great blessing of the Gift and will be called to account for her carelessness of that gift. It may turn out to be something like the Parable of the Talents with the modification that the person given 10 Talents has chosen to just leave them sitting on the shelf unused, susceptible to being tarnished and even corrupted while the person given 5 Talents ends up with an unlimited company credit line. Surely it must be better to enjoy the consistent, though not constant companionship of the Holy Ghost than have the right to the constant companionship of Him and then neglect or even refuse to invite him back.

PS: sorry for the sloppy first post and the frequent editing, running low on power and didn't want to lose my work.

PPS: some references for those interested in reading more official stuff...

For overall context, an article about the Light of Christ which is NOT the Holy Ghost but is sometimes confused with him: http://lds.org/liaho...ry=light+christ

Also contains an important point, imo:

Then the shadow of apostasy settled over the earth. The line of priesthood authority was broken. But mankind was not left in total darkness or completely without revelation or inspiration. The idea that with the Crucifixion of Christ the heavens were closed and that they opened in the First Vision is not true. The Light of Christ would be everywhere present to attend the children of God; the Holy Ghost would visit seeking souls. The prayers of the righteous would not go unanswered. The conferring of the gift of the Holy Ghost must await the restoration of the priesthood and the dispensation of the fulness of times, when all things would be revealed. Temple work—ordinance work—would then be revealed. Then those who lived during the many generations when essential ordinances were unavailable, when baptism was not available, would be redeemed. God never abandons His children. He never has abandoned this earth.

Holy Ghost: http://lds.org/study...uery=holy+ghost

Edited August 31, 2011 by calmoriah

[Storm Rider]

I appreciate the even handedness your statements portray.

This thread was started by me to explore the differences and similartities of the Evangelical and LDS experience of the Holy Spirit or Testimony. Unfortunately the primary Evangelical participant continues to insist here that the LDS are in error about their own doctrines. This wouldn't be such a grace concern to me (I've met lots of Evangelicals who deny me my own belief in the living Jesus Christ my Savior, or continue to insist I am going to h*** for being a Mormon by placing additional requirements on me that they don't place upon themselves for salvation beyond faith in Christ) however Rob insists on perpetuating a ministry that misrepresents and creates fear about the Mormons.

You will find it near impossible to find the equivelent "ministry" or other efforts created by a Mormon to discourage others from following their own beliefs. Our missionary efforts are about teaching our doctrines and beliefs not "debunking" others belief systems. I say nearly because there may be an individual member out there on a personal crusade in opposition to our church practices. I would condemn those efforts if they exist. In fact it is my practice to correct even mildly intolerant statements and misconceptions in LDS classes.

This distinction is important to me and speaks to the heart of respect and a spirit of Christ between those who profess Christianity.

I agree. I find it a constant problem of LDS critics and the intellecutually challenged anti-Mormons; they create a standard that even when applied to their own beliefs, they would fail utterly. They create such sillness that even the early apostles could not be identified as being Christian or members of the Christian church. Yet, they are as blind and deaf as rocks; the Spirit is not in them. They draw nigh to Jesus with their lips, but their hearts are far from him.

[Messenger]

The Gift of the Holy Ghost (formal) does not mean what you construe the words "constant companionship of the Holy Ghost". It means the right to the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. I don't know anyone who actually has the constant companionship of this Person.

I would say that anybody that says there is no constant companionship of the Holy Ghost after recieving the Gift of the Holy Ghost, simply does not understand the Gift of the Holy Ghost. While there are varying degrees of intensity, there is always influence from him while having the gift, whether members of the church realize it or not. Thats my personal doctrine and I believe anybody who does not agree simply does not fully understand it in my opinion. Bring out whatever scripture you want, whatever reference you will, I have a sure knowlege of this concept. But, nonetheless, I am not authorized to speak on behalf of the church, so my knowlege is my own opinion.

[altersteve]

The following quote (in context dealing with constitutional jurisprudence) explains how I think the Mormon Church fits that belief:

We prefer that you use the proper name, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There is no such thing as "the Mormon Church."

[Ahab]

We prefer that you use the proper name, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There is no such thing as "the Mormon Church."

Eh. Let's not be so picky. The term "Mormon Church" refers to the Chuch which us "Mormons" are members of, and while it is true that we "Mormons" are technically latter-day saints, we still follow Mormon as Mormon followed Christ just as we follow Paul as he recommended while we follow how he follows Christ and the Church we are members of is the true Church of Jesus Christ which in these latter days is referred to as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints... and please remember to capitalize the t in The...

[jo1952]

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.

Who is this mystery poster? Do you remember his/her name?

Thanks,

jo

[jo1952]

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.

I agree. In fact, this passage appears to confirm that we are doing something right. We offer our message of love in a loving manner, and certainly without the threat of damning them. OTOH, anti-LDS mock us, attack our intelligence, and tell us we are damned. Then they tell us they are only doing it for our own good; i.e., it is their "way" of showing us that they love us.

Luke 6:22-28

22 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.

23 Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.

24 But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation.

25 Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep.

26 Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.

27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,

28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.

Regards,

jo

[LeSellers]

We prefer that you use the proper name, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There is no such thing as "the Mormon Church."

Technically, this is not true.

I have an internet acquaintance who established the "Mormon Church" precisely so, and only because, no one could make the statement you did here.

It is not "Mormon" in any sense.

He also established "The Church of the Hemp Goddess" and several others for various unfathomable reasons. (Okeh, the hemp goddess thing was for a very obvious reason.)

His little brother tells me that this all happened after my acquaintance "lost his mind". Whether he is literally insane or not, I cannot determine. I've met him personally, and he seemed fairly normal. But he is an oddball.

Eh. Let's not be so picky. The term "Mormon Church" refers to the Church which us "Mormons" are members of

As explained above, this is not exactly accurate.

Remember, the Church could not trademark "Mormon". If we have no control over it, we should be very careful in how we use the name, or how we react to others when they do.

Lehi

[jo1952]

I keep going back to I Corinthians 2 in this regard, over and over, in this thread, and find it quite edifying.

I agree. In fact I really do love Paul's writings. His teachings about the Holy Ghost are amazing to me.

Regards,

jo

[wenglund]

To recap the slight tangent,

We LDS will say for ourselves, as opposed to what the non-LDS Rob wishes to put into our mouths, that receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost, with all this entails (which is more than just the constant companionship of the Spirit), or in other words receiving the right to the Holy Ghost, is reserved for those upon whom it is bestowed by those having authority.

Does this mean that we believe members of other faiths do not ever have the companionship of the Holy Spirit? No. The companionship and witness of the Spirit is needed to affect conversion to the restored gospel of Christ, and thus must be available to those outside our faith.

Does this also mean that we believe members of other faiths do not have the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost? No, not necessarily. They may. We just don't know nor are we in a position to judge. That is between God and those individuals.

Our concern or judgement isn't with what other Christian faiths may believe and say and even experience. We respect their right to worship how, where, and what they may, and to speak for themselves, and to let God be the judge. Our concern is with what we believe, ourselves, and what is available to us through the restored gospel of Christ.

As for what may distinguish the Evangelical witness vs. LDS testimony, it is impossible to say for sure because spiritual experiences are personal and subjective. We can only speak authoritatively about our own respective spiritual experiences.

However, given what Craig and others have said about their "indwelling" and spiritual witness, I and other LDS seem hard pressed to find a difference between what they say and our own spiritual experiences--not that it matters to us one way or the other since our own spiritual experience is what is pertinent to us.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

To recap the slight tangent,

We LDS will say for ourselves, as opposed to what the non-LDS Rob wishes to put into our mouths, that receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost, with all this entails (which is more than just the constant companionship of the Spirit), or in other words receiving the right to the Holy Ghost, is reserved for those upon whom it is bestowed by those having authority.

Does this mean that we believe members of other faiths do not ever have the companionship of the Holy Spirit? No. The companionship and witness of the Spirit is needed to affect conversion to the restored gospel of Christ, and thus must be available to those outside our faith.

Does this also mean that we believe members of other faiths do not have the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost? No, not necessarily. They may. We just don't know nor are we in a position to judge. That is between God and those individuals.

Our concern or judgement isn't with what other Christian faiths may believe and say and even experience. We respect their right to worship how, where, and what they may, and to speak for themselves, and to let God be the judge. Our concern is with what we believe, ourselves, and what is available to us through the restored gospel of Christ.

As for what may distinguish the Evangelical witness vs. LDS testimony, it is impossible to say for sure because spiritual experiences are personal and subjective. We can only speak authoritatively about our own respective spiritual experiences.

However, given what Craig and others have said about their "indwelling" and spiritual witness, I and other LDS seem hard pressed to find a difference between what they say and our own spiritual experiences--not that it matters to us one way or the other since our own spiritual experience is what is pertinent to us.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think Rob should post something like this on his website.

[Vance]

I think Rob should post something like this on his website.

But that wouldn't move the anti-Mormon agenda forward.

[Rob Bowman]

All,

I don't claim to be able to speak for the LDS religion. However, I do claim to be able to read. And if the LDS Church says that the right to the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost comes after one has received the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by a Mormon male priesthood holder, well, I accept this as the LDS position. And if someone else comes along and tells me that this is not the LDS position, I have every right to ask why that person's opinion trumps what the LDS Church itself says.

Those of you who are running with this objection to my line of argument are taking a very strange position. You claim to agree with the LDS Church's teaching that the gift of the Holy Ghost is reserved for those baptized and confirmed in the LDS Church, and that the gift gives those persons the right to the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost if they remain obedient, and yet you then turn around and claim that this doesn't mean that non-Mormons can't have that constant companionship. Wade writes: "They may. We just don't know nor are we in a position to judge. That is between God and those individuals." Well, fine! But you could say that about anything. Can evangelicals who hear but never accept the LDS gospel get to the celestial kingdom? "They may. We just don't know nor are we in a position to judge. That is between God and those individuals." Can a person never believe in Jesus, never be baptized, reject the gospel in the afterlife, and still become a god? "They may. We just don't know nor are we in a position to judge. That is between God and those individuals." You see, such statements are merely confusing when your religion clearly teaches that certain things are necessary for entrance to the celestial kingdom or for becoming a god. And likewise such statements are confusing when your religion clearly teaches that certain things are necessary to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost and enjoy the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost.

I'm done arguing this point. You can all believe whatever you want. It's up to you. I'm also free to believe whatever I want, right? And I sincerely believe that what I have stated is the LDS Church's position. And why are you even arguing with it? Because for some reason you think I am trying to spring a "gotcha" on you. Frankly, that's silly. All I am trying to show is that Mormons should be just as skeptical of an evangelical's testimony when it deviates from what Mormons think is true as evangelicals are skeptical of a Mormon's testimony when it deviates from what evangelicals think is true. What is so hard about that idea to accept?

If you can't see any differences between evangelical and Mormon testimonies, this ought to be as much a concern to you as it is to me. If we both claim to be led by the Holy Spirit, and we both believe in Christ, why do our testimonies clash in their fundamental truth-claims? I have an answer to this question, and apparently some of you do not. If you don't feel any need to have an answer, that's your business. I happen to think it is a valid and important question.

[Rob Bowman]

By the way, those of you who are outraged when an evangelical presents his understanding of LDS doctrine, where were you when Mormons here were offering their obviously false spins on what evangelicals believe? Why didn't some of you object when Mormons tried to argue in this forum that Trinitarians believe in four persons--and continued to insist on this claim even after being refuted? That's just one recent example that comes to mind.

[Vance]

All,

I don't claim to be able to speak for the LDS religion.

That is good to know.

However, I do claim to be able to read.

Being able to read isn't the same as being able to comprehend.

And if the LDS Church says that the right to the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost comes after one has received the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by a Mormon male priesthood holder, well, I accept this as the LDS position.

Good. But do you understand it?

And if someone else comes along and tells me that this is not the LDS position, I have every right to ask why that person's opinion trumps what the LDS Church itself says.

Although that can and does happen, I haven't seen that going on here.

Those of you who are running with this objection to my line of argument are taking a very strange position.

Your seeing conflict where none exists is your problem not ours.

You claim to agree with the LDS Church's teaching that the gift of the Holy Ghost is reserved for those baptized and confirmed in the LDS Church, and that the gift gives those persons the right to the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost if they remain obedient,

Yup, we agree with that.

. . . and yet you then turn around and claim that this doesn't mean that non-Mormons can't have that constant companionship.

Yup!

Wade writes: "They may. We just don't know nor are we in a position to judge. That is between God and those individuals."

Yes, he said that. And I agree.

Well, fine! But you could say that about anything.

Not quite, we can't say that about Priesthood authority. EVs don't have it. Period!!

[Vance]

Can evangelicals who hear but never accept the LDS gospel get to the celestial kingdom?

Nah. They have to accept the Gospel some time to get to the Celestial Kingdom. And probably will.

"They may. We just don't know nor are we in a position to judge. That is between God and those individuals."

This is another "anything" that doesn't fit.

Can a person never believe in Jesus, never be baptized, reject the gospel in the afterlife, and still become a god?

Nah. They have to accept Jesus, and His Gospel sometime to become a "god".

"They may. We just don't know nor are we in a position to judge. That is between God and those individuals."

This is another "anything" that doesn't fit.

You see, such statements are merely confusing when your religion clearly teaches that certain things are necessary for entrance to the celestial kingdom or for becoming a god.

Well, if you would take off your anti-Mormon blinders you might have a better chance at grasping certain concepts.

And likewise such statements are confusing when your religion clearly teaches that certain things are necessary to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost and enjoy the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost.

I am sensing that you still don't grasp the flaw in your logic.

I'm done arguing this point.

Ok.

You can all believe whatever you want. It's up to you. I'm also free to believe whatever I want, right?

Yup.

And I sincerely believe that what I have stated is the LDS Church's position. And why are you even arguing with it?

We aren't arguing with IT! We are arguing with your faulty logic regarding it.

Edited August 31, 2011 by Vance

[CV75]

I happen to think it is a valid and important question.

One who is empathetic to other’s different understandings, definitions and applications of “constant companionship” and “gift,” and acts in good faith, will not judge for others where such will lead, and acknowledge that ultimately the issue is between them and God. Here is much to be said about the LDS view of accountability.

You have stated the LDS position, but without evidently relating to what it really means, or how faithful LDS might think you are relating to what it really means.

Faithful Mormons will not be skeptical about others’ claims when they already posses the utmost confidence in what has been revealed to them.

When someone claims to be led by the Holy Spirit and tells others that they are not, only the Spirit and one’s receptivity to the things of God will settle the issue for each individual.

The only time there is a clash is when someone is perceived (accurately or not) to be on the offensive.

[wenglund]

Evidently, Rob is unrelenting about putting words into our mouths while claiming not to. He believes he can do so because he can read--not realizing that we can read as well, and not realizing that reading involves interpretation, and his interpretation differs from ours, and his interpretation of our beliefs doesn't take preference over our own interpretation, but the other way around.

There is little point attempting to engage someone bent on speaking for both sides of the conversation. So, I will leave him to talk amongst himself.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-