What Distinguishes The Evangelical Witness Vs. Lds Testimony

[Rob Bowman]

Ahab,

I had just about given up on this thread. Thank you for making such an effort to respond civilly and constructively.

You wrote:

You did notice that some of us were saying that a person who hasn't received "the gift" of the Holy Ghost doesn't have the RIGHT to the constant companionship to the Holy Ghost, didn't you? That's the difference. A person who hasn't complied with our Lord's ordinance involving having hands laid upon their head by those who have the authority to give them the gift of the Holy Ghost doesn't have the RIGHT to have the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost because they havne't complied with that ordinance as our Lord has commanded, but they may still have the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost if the Holy Ghost wants to stay with them, for as long as the Holy Ghost wants to stay with them, because it's up to the Holy Ghost to determine how long he wants to stay with a person.

Lots of words there, I know, and I can see how the words and terms may cause some confusion, but there is a distinct difference between having the "right" to have the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost and simply having the companionship of the Holy Ghost, either constantly or as long as the Holy Ghost wants to stay with a person.

Okay, I understand the distinction you are making. If this is indeed the LDS position, I certainly want to understand it to be so. I am determined to respect your right to believe what you think is right and to interpret your beliefs as you see fit.

Here's my problem (and perhaps it is my problem). I have not been able to find any statement in LDS literature, by anyone, offering this explanation or making the distinction you (and others here) make. I cannot find anyone from Smith to Monson or any recognized leader or teacher in LDS history who acknowledges that non-Mormons may have the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost or who says that while the gift of the Holy Ghost bestows the right to this experience it is also possible for those who do not have the gift of the Holy Ghost. This seems to be a distinction introduced here in this thread. What I find in recognized LDS sources are statements that at least seem to me, admittedly an outsider to your religion, to preclude non-Mormons from having the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. (In what follows, bold italics is my emphasis.) For example:

"People everywhere may feel the influence of the Holy Ghost from time to time in their lives. But only those who have been baptized and confirmed can receive the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by one in authority, which makes His constant companionship possible."

Elder Robert D. Hales, "Receiving a Testimony of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ," Ensign (CR), Nov. 2003, 28.

Notice here that Elder Hales says that the gift of the Holy Ghost makes the Holy Ghost's constant companionship "possible." It is not only that it gives Saints the "right" to that constant companionship, but that the gift of the Holy Ghost makes that constant companionship possible. As best as I can figure it, honestly, this seems to mean that non-Mormons cannot have the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost because it is not "possible" without the gift of the Holy Ghost, which comes to "only those who have been baptized and confirmed" by a Mormon male priesthood holder.

Victor Ludlow made the same point this way:

"The Prophet Joseph Smith has explained that the three members of the Godhead made an 'everlasting covenant' before the organization of this earth. There they planned for the progress and salvation of mankind. Because of special assignments, they would be known to us as 'God the first, the Creator; God the second, the Redeemer; and God the third, the witness or Testator.' He also taught that while the temporary influence of the Holy Ghost, the divine power of witnessing gospel truths, can be received before baptism, the lasting gift or constant companionship of the Holy Ghost can be received only after baptism and the laying on of hands."

Victor L. Ludlow, Principles and Practices of the Restored Gospel (Deseret, 1992), 59.

That seems rather explicit to me.

LDS teachers do say, of course, that the gift of the Holy Ghost gives the "right" to the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. But this qualification in LDS teaching materials always appears to me to have the same point, which is that a baptized and confirmed Mormon does not automatically experience or enjoy that constant companionship but must remain repentant and obedient. No LDS teacher seems to have made this distinction more frequently or emphatically than Bruce McConkie. He wrote, for example:

"When we are confirmed members of the Church, we receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, which is the right to the constant companionship of that member of the Godhead, based on faithfulness. The actual enjoyment of this gift depends upon personal worthiness."

President Bruce R. McConkie, "The Lord’s People Receive Revelation," Ensign (CR), June 1971, 77.

McConkie contrasts the right to that constant companionship with the "actual enjoyment" of it, not with the possibility of those who are not confirmed members of the LDS Church experiencing that constant companionship despite not having the right to it. The point of the "right" qualification is that the reception of the gift of the Holy Ghost is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for experiencing or enjoying the Holy Ghost's constant companionship. But it is a necessary condition, if I understand McConkie correctly. This understanding would seem to be confirmed in another of his writings, in which he says the following:

"In the full and complete sense required to receive enduring revelations of the divine Sonship of our Lord, the Comforter, 'whom the world cannot receive' (John 14:17) and whose companionship is reserved for the saints of God, comes only to Church members. It is the faithful only who receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. This gift is the right to the constant companionship of that member of the Godhead. It is received by the laying on of hands following faith and repentance. It is only then that those who love the Lord receive a fulfillment of the promise: 'By the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.' (Moro. 10:5.)... When we are confirmed members of the only true and living church, we receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. This gives us the right to the constant companionship of that member of the Godhead based on faithfulness. The world cannot receive this priceless gift. It is to the faithful saints only that the promise is made: 'He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.' (John 14:17.)"

Bruce R. McConkie, The Promised Messiah: The First Coming of Christ (Deseret, 1978), 75, 127.

Here's Robert Millet, apparently saying also that the Holy Ghost's constant companionship is only for baptized members of the LDS Church:

"Joseph Smith taught that one may receive promptings or impressions of the Spirit prior to baptism, but that the gift of the Holy Ghost or constant companionship is granted only after an authorized baptism."

Robert L. Millet, The Mormon Faith: Understanding Restored Christianity (Deseret, 1998), 83.

Now, perhaps I have misunderstood all of these statements. I am open to correction on this point. It would be very helpful to me if you could cite for me some known LDS prophet, apostle, theologian, or other recognized teacher who has given the same explanation you have. It would also help me if you could explain the above statements, all of which seem to me to be saying that the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost is available (or even "possible," as Elder Hales puts it) only to those who have been baptized and confirmed by a priesthood holder.

[wenglund]

The only reason I wouldn't have responded is that I hadn't read the thread at all or just that section (I don't always read all of a thread and sometimes I accidentally skip over posts like this one because of how the board marks new responses or rather in some cases does not mark new posts). If anyone has been reading my posts for very long, they should be aware I always speak up (unless I don't have time and then I use the report function and let the mods take care of it) if I see this happen. Feel free to use the report function as the mods generally are pretty strict when this happens in my experience, it also seems to me few people use the function (i do know that there has been a response every time I've reported it).

I know several other posters who do the same thing, LDS and nonLDS.

Count me in. I have spoken up on occasion even though I am not Evangelical and even if the alleged LDS offenders may claim they can read.

However, I must say that it has been nice to have an evening and a morning without being told what I believe. I am grateful to Rob for giving us this brief respite, whatever the reason behind it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Here's my problem (and perhaps it is my problem). I have not been able to find any statement in LDS literature, by anyone, offering this explanation or making the distinction you (and others here) make. I cannot find anyone from Smith to Monson or any recognized leader or teacher in LDS history who acknowledges that non-Mormons may have the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost or who says that while the gift of the Holy Ghost bestows the right to this experience it is also possible for those who do not have the gift of the Holy Ghost. This seems to be a distinction introduced here in this thread.

I just did a search of my LDS collectors library, and while I found a number of instances where the Gift of the Holy Ghost was carefully explained and differentiated from temporary companionship and witnesses of the Spirit, I didn't find any explicit statements either way on this esoteric and unimportant issue--in part, because, as previously intimated, the focus of the Church is in setting forth what we offer as a faith, and not on what other faiths may or may not have to offer.

The silence of the brethren means that we LDS are left to speak here for ourselves about our beliefs on this esoteric and unimportant issue. You, as a non-LDS, still do not get to tell us what we believe-try as you constantly might. Sorry.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

Thank you for your comment. I still have a problem, and that is that it appears to me that "the brethren" have not been silent on the issue. I quoted statements from Hales, Ludlow, McConkie, and Millet, all of which appear to me to say that the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost is "possible" (Hales's own word) for those who have been baptized and confirmed in the LDS Church. If this is not your own view, I certainly would not presume to tell you what you personally believe. If I have misunderstood these men, I would be grateful for you to explain to me why their statements do not mean that they seem to me to mean. Thank you for any light you can shed on this matter.

I just did a search of my LDS collectors library, and while I found a number of instances where the Gift of the Holy Ghost was carefully explained and differentiated from temporary companionship and witnesses of the Spirit, I didn't find any explicit statements either way on this esoteric and unimportant issue--in part, because, as previously intimated, the focus of the Church is in setting forth what we offer as a faith, and not on what other faiths may or may not have to offer.

The silence of the brethren means that we LDS are left to speak here for ourselves about our beliefs on this esoteric and unimportant issue. You, as a non-LDS, still do not get to tell us what we believe-try as you constantly might. Sorry.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[altersteve]

Rob,

This discussion is going nowhere. Let me try to explain my point of view.

I disagree with the others who are saying that those who have not received the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands can have the Spirit's constant companionship when they are worthy of it. I believe that this companionship is only possible after the gift of the Holy Ghost is given by God through a priesthood holder with the proper authority of performing this ordinance. However, I am not denying your claim of having the Holy Ghost's constant companionship because I believe that what you mean by that is different than what we understand it to mean. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that your belief in having the Holy Ghost's constant companionship is to be guaranteed a place with Heavenly Father after you die:

Thus, Mormons who accept these standard doctrines of the LDS Church should have no trouble denying the validity of an evangelical's testimony that the Holy Spirit resides permanently in and with him, assuring him that his place in heaven with the Father is already secure.

And again, the typical evangelical (like me) maintains that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is a permanent, unconditional blessing of salvation received through faith alone. This is a claim no faithful Mormon can acknowledge as valid. That means that at its core, the typical evangelical testimony or claim of the witness of the Holy Spirit must be regarded from the LDS perspective as invalid.

But we are led by our doctrinal convictions to conclude that your claim to have a witness from the Holy Ghost (that Mormonism is true) to be false, and likewise LDS doctrine leads to the conclusion that the evangelical claim to have a witness from the Holy Spirit (that we are assured of eternal life with God the Father by the permanent indwelling and companionship of the Holy Spirit) is false.

However, for Latter-day Saints, the "constant companionship of the Holy Ghost" is to receive divine guidance, instruction, and inspiration from the Spirit when we are worthy of said revelation. You would be correct in saying that nobody who has not received the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands can have our definition of what "constant companionship of the Holy Ghost" means. Since Latter-day Saints do not believe that eternal life is assured "by the permanent indwelling and companionship of the Holy Spirit," there is a need, I believe, for us to talk about the LDS beliefs about salvation.

Let me first explain that we don't believe that one is saved how you say we are:

Furthermore, any evangelical who claims that he or she is assured of eternal life with God the Father on the basis of Christ's sacrifice alone, apart from any ritual obligations or other works, must from the LDS perspective be deceived. This is because LDS doctrine maintains that only those who in addition to believing in Christ are baptized in the LDS faith (now or by proxy in the afterlife), receive the other ordinances, receive the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, keep the covenants they make in the temple, etc., etc., will gain entrance into the celestial kingdom and eternal life with Heavenly Father.

These are only the basics, the ordinances that we must receive in order to live with God again. But It is much, much more than that, Rob. Despite what our critics claim, we do not believe that we are saved by works, as this statement of yours implies. I hope to God that I never hear a fellow Saint claim that he can get to heaven by doing only what he can do. None of these things that you listed will be worth a pile of crap if faith is not involved. I was reading the New Testament last night and these verses in 1 Peter 1 struck me:

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,

5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

6 Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations:

7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:

8 Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory:

9 Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.

10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:

11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

13 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;

14 As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:

15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;

16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

Verses 3–5 seem to support your belief that an internal dwelling of the Holy Spirit, which comes by faith salvation, but I think it is saying something else. It says that thanks to the mercy of our Father in Heaven, we are given a way to return to Him, where He will give us "an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away" that He has reserved for us. But just because He has reserved it for us does not mean that it is guaranteed. Verse 3 says that through the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and because of His mercy, He has "begotten us again unto a lively hope" — that is, through the Resurrection of Christ, we ourselves can become resurrected (born again) both physically and spiritually. This is what is meant when the Lord told Moses that His work and glory is "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." The distinction that the Lord makes between immortality and eternal life is important. To be immortal is to overcome physical death like Jesus did, but eternal life is different: it is to overcome spiritual death, to be resurrected spiritually and become born again as sons and daughters of Jesus Christ through faith in Him.

And to overcome spiritual death is, as Jesus said, to "know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent" (John 17:3), and to truly know God is not just to know He exists. It is to know Him as our Father, and to know Jesus Christ as our Savior, on a very personal level. We are to develop a personal relationship with God, and that is how we "partake of the divine nature" within us (2 Peter 1:4) and become like Him one day, and it is the development of that personal relationship how we truly accept the grace that He freely offers us. But to accept His grace and mercy is to "love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you" (Moroni 10:32). We must accept it with all our hearts in order for the Atonement to truly take effect, and we can only accept it by keeping all of Christ's commandments, but obviously, that's not possible. Fortunately, thanks to the mercy of our Heavenly Father and the love He has for us (see John 4:16), He "hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead," as Peter wrote in the passage I quoted above. The Atonement of Jesus Christ makes up for our failings and shortcomings and makes us perfect. Jesus said, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect" (Matthew 5:48). That was a commandment, but obviously we can't do it ourselves. Where we fail is where His grace comes in.

In 1 Peter 1:6–9, Peter goes on to say that the trial of our faith precedes our salvation. Verse 9 mentions "the end of your faith," but a better translation would be "the object of your faith," which is how Joseph Smith revised this verse. The object of our faith is salvation, as Peter says, and it is through faith in the grace of Christ that we are turned into the perfect person that He commanded us to be. In other words, we can't be saved unless we have a trial of our faith first. That is how we are perfected. This is where 2 Nephi 25:23 comes in. Nephi teaches here that "it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do." We can only do so much when our faith is tried. As Peter later writes, God commands us to "Be ye holy; for I am holy." Obviously, though, becoming holy like God is not something that we can just do on our own. Some of our own effort must go into it, but without faith in, and full acceptance of, the Atonement, none of that effort will mean anything.

What I'm trying to get at here is that the Latter-day Saint doctrine of salvation is that it is a progress; it doesn't happen in one moment as Protestants believe. In LDS doctrine, the "constant companionship of the Holy Ghost" is a tool for us to use in our journey to become like our Heavenly Father. The Holy Ghost and His constant companionship is there for us, as I've said, to receive constant guidance and instruction from God directly. It is not to ensure our life with God in the hereafter, but rather to assist us as we progress in this journey we call life. Latter-day Saints reject the "once saved, always saved" idea that you seem to be promoting as completely false.

I would also like to repeat the following, since I'm not sure if you've seen it or not:

But the core of the typical evangelical testimony contradicts LDS doctrine . . .

The core of any Christian's testimony should be about the saving grace and divinity of Jesus Christ, and His status as the Son of God and the Savior and Redeemer of all mankind, which obviously does not contradict LDS doctrine. Is the core of the typical evangelical testimony something other than that?

And again, Rob, the gift of the Holy Ghost is not just constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. It is for us to receive the truth of all things from God directly whenever we are worthy of His presence. Even without the gift of the Holy Ghost, though, you still have constant access to the power of the Holy Ghost, because that never goes away. You are confusing constant companionship of the Holy Ghost with constant access to the witness and power of the Holy Ghost. There is a difference.

I also think you are making the mistake of confusing a testimony, or a witness of the Spirit, with the gift of the Holy Ghost. There is a big difference there, too. The gift of the Holy Ghost comes after one receives said witness and obtains a testimony of Jesus Christ. Our definitions of what it means to have the Holy Spirit's constant companionship are also in contradiction with one another, it seems. You seem to me to believe that the constant companionship of the Spirit comes by accepting Christ and that having it means to be guaranteed a place with Heavenly Father after this life, whereas we believe that we obtain constant divine guidance and inspiration from the Spirit after accepting Christ and that having it means that we are able to receive revelation and inspiration from God directly when we are worthy of it, but does not ensure our salvation. It also seems that you believe that those who have not accepted Christ cannot have the influence of the Holy Ghost in their lives, and we believe otherwise.

So according to our doctrine, both the evangelical's testimony of Jesus Christ and the Latter-day Saint's testimony of Jesus Christ are equally valid.

Edited September 1, 2011 by altersteve

[wenglund]

It may be of interest to note that Elder McConkie, when speaking about Jesus in his youth and prior to his baptism: "Further: In his study, and in the learning process he was guided from on high in a way that none other has ever been. Being without sin—being clean and pure and spotless—he was entitled to the constant companionship of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit that will not dwell in an unclean tabernacle, the Spirit that, conversely, always and everlastingly dwells with the righteous." (The Mortal Messiah, Vol.1, p.369 - p.370)

McConkie later addresses the question of why Jesus, who was sinless, was baptized? McConkie gave a 5-part answer, the third of which was: "3. To receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; that is to say, to conform to the law that gave him the right to the constant companionship of that member of the Godhead. As we are aware, this was a formality only in his case, for he being holy and without sin, the Spirit was his companion always. At baptism he simply went through the form that is required for all men, and that he should have done so is manifest by the fact that "the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove." (The Mortal Messiah, Vol.1, p.402)

Clearly, we have at least one example from a Church leader where someone had the constant companionship of the Holy Spirit prior to, and regardless of, having received the Gift, and this on the basis of righteousness.

However, let me clarify once again. My position isn't that there are, in fact, non-LDS who have the constant companionship of the Holy Spirit. Rather, I am saying that we LDS don't know, and aren't in a position to judge whether they do or not (such judgement is between God and the individuals), and so for all intents and purposes, we don't care if they do or not--which is why the brethren are conspicuously silent on the matter.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[LeSellers]

My position isn't that there are, in fact, non-LDS who have the constant companionship of the Holy Spirit. Rather, I am saying that we LDS don't know, and aren't in a position to judge whether they do or not (such judgement is between God and the individuals), and so for all intents and purposes, we don't care if they do or not--which is why the brethren are conspicuously silent on the matter.

It seems several of us have said the same thing. Rob either isn't getting it, or doesn't want to hear it; which is open for discussion.

The right to have the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost and actually having the constant companionship of Holy Ghost are separate issues. It's something like the II amendment to the USmerican Constitution: we have the right to keep and bear arms, but not all of us have them, and many do not want to have them. In Britain, they do not have this right, but many have arms nonetheless.

This is not an invitation to turn the discussion into one on the Constitution, nor on the II, nor about politics in general.

It's a simile (more or less). Leave it alone.

Lehi

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

You wrote:

This discussion is going nowhere.

I'm happy for you to contribute toward getting it somewhere.

You wrote:

Let me try to explain my point of view.

I disagree with the others who are saying that those who have not received the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands can have the Spirit's constant companionship when they are worthy of it. I believe that this companionship is only possible after the gift of the Holy Ghost is given by God through a priesthood holder with the proper authority of performing this ordinance.

I'm gratified that you agree with me that this is the LDS position. Perhaps you can understand my frustration at having several Mormons here essentially yelling at me that I have gotten it wrong and berating me for supposedly telling them what they believe (which I never did), when it would seem that their own explanation is open to question by other Mormons.

You wrote:

However, I am not denying your claim of having the Holy Ghost's constant companionship because I believe that what you mean by that is different than what we understand it to mean. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that your belief in having a the Holy Ghost's constant companionship is to be guaranteed a place with Heavenly Father after you die:...

That's the focus of it, but there is more to it that than. We believe that the Holy Spirit guides us, illuminates our minds, convicts us when we need to confess sin, empowers and gifts us for witness and other forms of service, and so forth.

But if we focus on the point that for evangelicals the constant companionship of the Holy Spirit in and with them assures them of eternal life with God the Father, I don't see how you can avoid concluding that our belief that we have this is false. As you said, "Latter-day Saints do not believe that eternal life is assured 'by the permanent indwelling and companionship of the Holy Spirit.'" On that basis, it would seem that you would have to conclude that our claim as evangelicals to have the permanent indwelling and companionship of the Holy Spirit is a false or mistaken claim. And that was the main point toward which I was driving.

You wrote:

Let me first explain that we don't believe that one is saved how you say we are:

Furthermore, any evangelical who claims that he or she is assured of eternal life with God the Father on the basis of Christ's sacrifice alone, apart from any ritual obligations or other works, must from the LDS perspective be deceived. This is because LDS doctrine maintains that only those who in addition to believing in Christ are baptized in the LDS faith (now or by proxy in the afterlife), receive the other ordinances, receive the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, keep the covenants they make in the temple, etc., etc., will gain entrance into the celestial kingdom and eternal life with Heavenly Father.

These are only the basics, the ordinances that we must receive in order to live with God again. But It is much, much more than that, Rob. Despite what our critics claim, we do not believe that we are saved by works, as this statement of yours implies. I hope to God that I never hear a fellow Saint claim that he can get to heaven by doing only what he can do. None of these things that you listed will be worth a pile of crap if faith is not involved.

I'm having difficulty understanding just where you think I misstated what you believe about how one is saved. My description did not deny or omit the fact that in LDS teaching no one can be saved "if faith is not involved." Nor was I arguing that Mormons believe in "salvation by works"; that is a somewhat different issue and turns on how one defines "salvation by works." All I was saying, and you seem to agree with it, was that in LDS doctrine believing in Christ is not sufficient for gaining eternal life with God the Father; one must also at a minimum, to use your wording, receive the ordinances (of the LDS Church). Therefore, if LDS doctrine is correct, evangelicals who claim that the Holy Spirit witnesses to them that they are assured of eternal life with God the Father are mistaken. Is this not a fair and accurate inference from LDS doctrine? This is my response to your quotation from an earlier post. The belief that we are assured of eternal life with God the Father through faith in Christ alone, apart from any ordinances, rituals, or other religious obligations, is essential to the evangelical testimony. If this belief is false, the evangelical testimony is false. Granted, both Mormons and evangelicals belief that Jesus is the Messiah, that he died on the cross and rose from the grave, and that he is in some sense divine (though we differ very much on what that means). I am not arguing that our respective testimonies do not share some common elements of truth. But what you claim the Holy Ghost does for you is something we do not accept, and what we claim the Holy Spirit does for us is something you cannot accept (or so at least it seems to me, as I've tried to explain).

Thanks again, and I hope I have responded appropriately.

[wenglund]

Wade,

Thank you for your comment. I still have a problem, and that is that it appears to me that "the brethren" have not been silent on the issue. I quoted statements from Hales, Ludlow, McConkie, and Millet, all of which appear to me to say that the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost is "possible" (Hales's own word) for those who have been baptized and confirmed in the LDS Church.

That is fine. You are free to draw whatever inferences you may wish from the non-explicit and relatively vague and somewhat out of context statements of our leaders. And, I see no reason or need to change your mind.

However, it would help you to finally understand that what YOU may infer from their comments, as distinguished from what they explicitly say, is of no relevance to us LDS. What is relevant to us is how we interpret their comments. And we, or at least I, view them as speaking to we LDS or prospective LDS and what we, ourselves, as contrasted with other faiths, need in order to have RIGHT to the constant companionship of the Holy Spirit. I see them speaking about us and to us, rather than to others faiths about other faiths.

Also, unlike you, I don't view their comments as absolute and exclusionary to what may or may not be the case with non-LDS. Again, our interest as LDS isn't in judging other faiths (we leave that to God). Instead, we are about testifying to what we believe is Christ's path and gospel plan for us. It is one of our Article of Faith, to recognize your privilege to worship how, where, and what you may.

In short, I don't interpret their comments as a judgement of other faiths and their claim to having a constant companionship. As reiterated, we don't know, aren't in a position to judge, and for practical purposes, we don't care what they may claim for themselves. That is their business, and we are about our business.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 1, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

It seems several of us have said the same thing. Rob either isn't getting it, or doesn't want to hear it; which is open for discussion.

The right to have the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost and actually having the constant companionship of Holy Ghost are separate issues. It's something like the II amendment to the USmerican Constitution: we have the right to keep and bear arms, but not all of us have them, and many do not want to have them. In Britain, they do not have this right, but many have arms nonetheless.

This is not an invitation to turn the discussion into one on the Constitution, nor on the II, nor about politics in general.

It's a simile (more or less). Leave it alone.

Lehi

Excellent and instructive analogy.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

I just did a search of my LDS collectors library, and while I found a number of instances where the Gift of the Holy Ghost was carefully explained and differentiated from temporary companionship and witnesses of the Spirit, I didn't find any explicit statements either way on this esoteric and unimportant issue--in part, because, as previously intimated, the focus of the Church is in setting forth what we offer as a faith, and not on what other faiths may or may not have to offer.

The silence of the brethren means that we LDS are left to speak here for ourselves about our beliefs on this esoteric and unimportant issue. You, as a non-LDS, still do not get to tell us what we believe-try as you constantly might. Sorry.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I still cannot figure out what possible relevance this- as you correctly define it- "esoteric and unimportant issue" has on the discussion of the difference and similarities between the doctrinal differences between the Evangelicals and LDS on the types of witnesses the Holy Ghost provides.

Clearly it speaks to the question of whether or not we or they accept each other's witnesses as "genuine" - as if such a thing could be defined and tested in some way- to me it is a distinction without a difference and therefore silly to discuss, but it has no relevance to the issue of what each respective group believes about the witness of the Holy Ghost.

The title of the thread is "What Distinguishes The Evangelical Witness Vs. Lds Testimony" and this whole discussion has nothing to do with that. The title of this discussion, on the other hand, could be titled "Do Evangelicals and LDS Recognize Each Other's Witnesses of the Holy Ghost as Valid?".

I think from the first post of that hypothetical thread it would be clear that we are acknowledge their experience of the Holy Ghost, but they do not acknowledge ours. Case closed, no further discussion necessary.

I think it is clear that both groups acknowledge that such experience is "self authenticating" and grows deeper the more one studies and develops a knowledge of Christ, and that through this growth, one may develop an "abiding" sense of constant contact with the spirit.

Those are the areas of agreement

I think expecting each group to agree that the other has the authority to administer such witnesses though, either through being "saved" or by our Melchizadek Priesthood, is kind of silly. Of course we are not going to acknowledge that authority- there are bigger issues and differences of belief between us than this one truly "esoteric and unimportant issue"

In other words- "Right on, Dude!!"

[altersteve]

That's the focus of it, but there is more to it that than. We believe that the Holy Spirit guides us, illuminates our minds, convicts us when we need to confess sin, empowers and gifts us for witness and other forms of service, and so forth.

Then the difference between the "evangelical witness" and the "LDS testimony" is not as large as it seems to be. No Latter-day Saint would disagree with this.

But if we focus on the point that for evangelicals the constant companionship of the Holy Spirit in and with them assures them of eternal life with God the Father, I don't see how you can avoid concluding that our belief that we have this is false. As you said, "Latter-day Saints do not believe that eternal life is assured 'by the permanent indwelling and companionship of the Holy Spirit.'" On that basis, it would seem that you would have to conclude that our claim as evangelicals to have the permanent indwelling and companionship of the Holy Spirit is a false or mistaken claim. And that was the main point toward which I was driving.

Yes. But I would not say that you are deceived. Those without the gift of the Holy Ghost absolutely have access to His power, which guides, illuminates minds, convicts individuals of sin, empowers, and gifts individuals for witness and other forms of service. I think what you say is the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost is constant access to the power of the Holy Ghost. So I'm not 100% rejecting your belief, because I see truth in it. You do indeed have constant companionship of the Holy Ghost in that sense, just as everyone else can.

I'm having difficulty understanding just where you think I misstated what you believe about how one is saved. My description did not deny or omit the fact that in LDS teaching no one can be saved "if faith is not involved."

But you didn't mention it, either. When talking about the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or the doctrine of any other faith for that matter, it's important to present it accurately and completely by mentioning things that need to be mentioned.

Nor was I arguing that Mormons believe in "salvation by works"; that is a somewhat different issue and turns on how one defines "salvation by works." All I was saying, and you seem to agree with it, was that in LDS doctrine believing in Christ is not sufficient for gaining eternal life with God the Father; one must also at a minimum, to use your wording, receive the ordinances (of the LDS Church).

It is absolutely not LDS doctrine that "believing in Christ is not sufficient for gaining eternal life with God the Father." It is faith in, love for, and acceptance of Christ from which comes a true desire to receive those ordinances. If one truly has faith in Christ, loves Him, and fully accepts His grace and mercy, then obedience will follow. We simply believe that Christ has commanded us to do more than you believe He has, and because of our faith in Him we desire to do "all we can do" in order for us to accomplish all that He asks of us.

Therefore, if LDS doctrine is correct, evangelicals who claim that the Holy Spirit witnesses to them that they are assured of eternal life with God the Father are mistaken. Is this not a fair and accurate inference from LDS doctrine?

The LDS doctrine regarding this is taught in the Bible, which does not teach the "once saved, always saved" idea. I think it's very clear in the Bible that salvation is a progress and that it can be taken away from us. In Matthew 7:21–23, Jesus says, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

We can fall from grace and our salvation is not assured. If it were, then Christ would not have commanded us to endure to the end (Matthew 10:22, 24:13; Mark 13:13). He would not have told us to "be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life" (Revelation 2:10). There are those who may profess faith but who deny God through their sins, disobedience, and lack of good works (Titus 1:16). The New Testament is full of passages that warn us that God will deny us our salvation if we give Him a reason to. The Bible teaches us to be cautious, to endure, and to forsake sin so that we never fall. As said in Hebrews 12:15, we are to "look diligently, lest any man fail of the grace of God."

This is my response to your quotation from an earlier post. The belief that we are assured of eternal life with God the Father through faith in Christ alone, apart from any ordinances, rituals, or other religious obligations, is essential to the evangelical testimony. If this belief is false, the evangelical testimony is false.

Latter-day Saints believe that having "faith in Christ alone" encompasses all the ordinances and other things that He has commanded us to do and receive. As I said above, we simply believe that Christ has commanded us to a great deal more than what is made clear in the Bible. There are certainly some differences in our beliefs, but neither of us is entirely false. You believe that salvation is only found in Christ. So do I. I have a testimony that through faith in and full acceptance of Jesus Christ, I can live with my Father in Heaven again, overcome my faults, and become perfect just as He commanded me to be. Do you agree with that? If so, then we are both testifying of the Savior, and that is what matters the most.

Granted, both Mormons and evangelicals belief that Jesus is the Messiah, that he died on the cross and rose from the grave, and that he is in some sense divine (though we differ very much on what that means).

How so? You believe Christ is God. I believe Christ is God. Our beliefs of the divinity of Christ suddenly don't seem to differ as much as you say they do.

I am not arguing that our respective testimonies do not share some common elements of truth. But what you claim the Holy Ghost does for you is something we do not accept, and what we claim the Holy Spirit does for us is something you cannot accept (or so at least it seems to me, as I've tried to explain).

You said that the Holy Ghost "guides us, illuminates our minds, convicts us when we need to confess sin, empowers and gifts us for witness and other forms of service, and so forth." We absolutely accept that. I say that the Holy Ghost provides inspiration, direction, and guidance, and that it is by the witness of the Holy Ghost that we come to the conviction that Jesus is the Christ. Don't you agree?

Edited September 1, 2011 by altersteve

[mfbukowski]

Yet again, I am reminded of Blake Ostlers comments on Mormon "Doctrine" as being "orthopraxis"

Personal revelation is the cornerstone of our faith- from the time Joseph went into the grove and for the reasons he did so, that has been true.

The most important principle to me, as a member of the church, is my personal right to a testimony of each principle as God teaches me, and as long as those principles are in alignment with those on the temple recommend interview, I qualify to be a member and receive temple blessings which is all that is important to me in life.

On the other hand, antithetical to my faith is the idea of blindly accepting - without the spirit's confirmation- any book or principle about which I do not have a testimony.

This I think is the foundational difference between Evangelicals and us- here speaking for myself though. I would not accept the Bible without a testimony of the spirit- a "witness" if that is the EV term- nor would I accept the Book of Mormon or any other of the standard works, nor would I accept the statements of General Authorities if the spirit does not testify to me that they teach true principles.

In a very real sense, we are free as individuals to work much of this out for ourselves - to "not be commanded in all things"- and THIS is the incredible thing about the church- that 13 million independent souls agree on these issues at all is a very real miracle. That in itself is evidence to me, of the Holy Spirit at work.

But agree we do on the important points, and the defining filter for those important points is the temple recommend interview. No other church in my knowledge encourages such a reliance on the spirit and personal revelation.

But all these discussions on nuanced interpretations of word or two are just irrelevant to us.

THAT is a principle that I think we all implicitly understand, but those who are not members will never understand. Another way of saying that all, is that when you are a member, you have the right to the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost- and THAT is what makes each little renegade individual unify in Ostler's orthopraxis.

[mfbukowski]

Suppose you have a friend who started as a visitor, has never changed his permanent address, but has slept on your couch for 35 years.

Is he a "visitor" or has he "taken up residence"? THAT is the crux of this non-issue.

There is no practical difference- it is a distinction without a difference.

[mfbukowski]

... we have the right to keep and bear arms, but not all of us have them, ....

Which also incidentally distinguishes the difference between Ammon in the Book of Mormon, and his enemies!

[LeSellers]

Which also incidentally distinguishes the difference between Ammon in the Book of Mormon, and his enemies!

Whoooooosh!!!

Lehi

[Vance]

Suppose you have a friend who started as a visitor, has never changed his permanent address, but has slept on your couch for 35 years.

Is he a "visitor" or has he "taken up residence"? THAT is the crux of this non-issue.

There is no practical difference- it is a distinction without a difference.

I happened to catch a portion of an evangelical sermon this morning on the radio. It just so happens that the preacher was talking about this issue (more or less). He indicated (I am paraphrasing what I understood him to mean) that when you accept Jesus you get a permanent "indwelling" of the Holy Spirit, but unless you are living righteously (obeying the commandments) the Spirit is dormant or inactive in our lives. The scripture he referred to was,

Gal. 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

He was basically saying that when we accept Jesus "we live in the Spirit" but to have the Spirit active in our lives we need to "also walk in the Spirit" or obey the commandments. He said that you COULDN'T be led by the Spirit unless you were OBEDIENT.

I don't know who he was, but apparently he wasn't wearing the anti-Mormon blinders at the time.

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

You wrote:

Yes. But I would not say that you are deceived. Those without the gift of the Holy Ghost absolutely have access to His power, which guides, illuminates minds, convicts individuals of sin, empowers, and gifts individuals for witness and other forms of service. I think what you say is the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost is constant access to the power of the Holy Ghost. So I'm not 100% rejecting your belief, because I see truth in it. You do indeed have constant companionship of the Holy Ghost in that sense, just as everyone else can.

It is odd, at least in my mind, that I could have the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost in that sense and yet be so wrong about who he is and what his presence means, if I am indeed wrong. If the Holy Spirit is guiding me, illuminating my mind, convicting me of sin, empowering me, and gifting me for witness and service, how can I at the same time be misled into thinking that the LDS Church is a false religion? Wouldn't the Holy Spirit's illumination enable me to see that the LDS religion is the true church? And how can I at the same time be misled into thinking that I am assured of eternal life with God the Father?

I had written: My description did not deny or omit the fact that in LDS teaching no one can be saved "if faith is not involved." You replied:

But you didn't mention it, either.

Actually, as I said, I did not "omit" this, which means that I did mention it. Here is what I said:

"LDS doctrine maintains that only those who in addition to believing in Christ are baptized in the LDS faith (now or by proxy in the afterlife), receive the other ordinances, receive the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, keep the covenants they make in the temple, etc., etc., will gain entrance into the celestial kingdom and eternal life with Heavenly Father."

There it is: "believing in Christ" (which in this context means the same thing as faith in Christ) is involved. I did not fail to mention this fact.

You wrote:

It is absolutely not LDS doctrine that "believing in Christ is not sufficient for gaining eternal life with God the Father." It is faith in, love for, and acceptance of Christ from which comes a true desire to receive those ordinances. If one truly has faith in Christ, loves Him, and fully accepts His grace and mercy, then obedience will follow. We simply believe that Christ has commanded us to do more than you believe He has, and because of our faith in Him we desire to do "all we can do" in order for us to accomplish all that He asks of us.

There is another semantic gap here we need to try to overcome. You have acknowledged, I think, that I believe in Christ. But your doctrine also makes it clear that as things stand I will not gain eternal life with God the Father. I am missing something. Articulate it any way you want, I think I am on safe ground in stating that it absolutely is LDS doctrine that I cannot gain eternal life with God the Father apart from the ordinances of the LDS religion. If that is not your personal belief I certainly would not want to try to convince you to accept that belief! But it does seem to be LDS doctrine.

You wrote:

Latter-day Saints believe that having "faith in Christ alone" encompasses all the ordinances and other things that He has commanded us to do and receive. As I said above, we simply believe that Christ has commanded us to a great deal more than what is made clear in the Bible.

But I would guess (and correct me if I'm wrong) that your position is not that faith in Christ alone encompasses whatever ordinances and other things a person happens to think God has commanded. Surely at least the usual, standard LDS position, is that the ordinances of the LDS Church are in fact necessary for obtaining eternal life with God the Father, whether somebody accepts this doctrine or not. I need those ordinances as much as anyone, if LDS doctrine is correct--or so at least it seems to me to be the LDS Church's teaching.

You wrote:

There are certainly some differences in our beliefs, but neither of us is entirely false. You believe that salvation is only found in Christ. So do I. I have a testimony that through faith in and full acceptance of Jesus Christ, I can live with my Father in Heaven again, overcome my faults, and become perfect just as He commanded me to be. Do you agree with that? If so, then we are both testifying of the Savior, and that is what matters the most.

Far be it from me to try to convince you otherwise. The problem is that almost every clause of your testimony means something different in LDS doctrine than it means in evangelical doctrine. For example, when you say "live with my Father in Heaven again," this statement assumes the truth of the LDS belief that we were preexistent spirits in Heaven prior to our earthly mortal lives.

Regarding our beliefs in Christ as "divine," you wrote:

How so? You believe Christ is God. I believe Christ is God. Our beliefs of the divinity of Christ suddenly don't seem to differ as much as you say they do.

The problem is that we mean different things by "God." That's another topic....

[wenglund]

...In other words- "Right on, Dude!!"

I am hip to that. [thumbs u[]

Thanks -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

There is another semantic gap here we need to try to overcome. You have acknowledged, I think, that I believe in Christ. But your doctrine also makes it clear that as things stand I will not gain eternal life with God the Father. I am missing something. Articulate it any way you want, I think I am on safe ground in stating that it absolutely is LDS doctrine that I cannot gain eternal life with God the Father apart from the ordinances of the LDS religion. If that is not your personal belief I certainly would not want to try to convince you to accept that belief! But it does seem to be LDS doctrine.

Since you are an expert on all things LDS you already know the answer, so perhaps you are just being disingenuous, or perhaps you are not an expert.

Which is it?

We distinguish between immortality and eternal life. Eternal life is exaltation, immortality is just that- we will never die.

It is our belief that those who never accept the ordinances of eternal life will nevertheless live forever in heaven, being "immortal" assuming of course they have accepted Jesus as Christ and their savior.

I suppose this is the start to another derail about this now instead of the question at hand. Sigh. This thread is not about the difference between immortality and eternal life.

This is the first article which popped up in searching lds.org:

http://lds.org/new-e...ty+eternal+life

In the off chance you really don't know this and it is a genuine question, instead of one of your lame attempted "gotchas"

Here is an even better article-

http://lds.org/ensig...-saved?lang=eng

Finally, in another usage familiar and unique to Latter-day Saints, the words saved and salvation are also used to denote exaltation or eternal life (see Abr. 2:11). This is sometimes referred to as the “fulness of salvation” (Bruce R. McConkie, The Mortal Messiah, 4 vols. [1979–81], 1:242). This salvation requires more than repentance and baptism by appropriate priesthood authority. It also requires the making of sacred covenants, including eternal marriage, in the temples of God, and faithfulness to those covenants by enduring to the end. If we use the word salvation to mean “exaltation,” it is premature for any of us to say that we have been “saved” in mortality. That glorious status can only follow the final judgment of Him who is the Great Judge of the living and the dead.

Edited September 1, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

Even when I bend over backwards to avoid claiming to know anything about LDS belief better than Mormons do, and as humbly as possible ask for clarification, you respond to me with disrespect.

I am quite well aware of the distinction in LDS doctrine between immortality and eternal life. According to LDS doctrine, I will get immortality but not eternal life. I will live forever but not with God the Father. That is LDS doctrine. I get that. In fact, that's basic to my argument. My "testimony of the Holy Spirit" is that I will get eternal life with God the Father, without the ordinances and such of the LDS Church. That "testimony" of mine is false, according to LDS doctrine. Why is this so hard to accept?

[mfbukowski]

Mr. Bukowski,

Even when I bend over backwards to avoid claiming to know anything about LDS belief better than Mormons do, and as humbly as possible ask for clarification, you respond to me with disrespect.

I am quite well aware of the distinction in LDS doctrine between immortality and eternal life. According to LDS doctrine, I will get immortality but not eternal life. I will live forever but not with God the Father. That is LDS doctrine. I get that. In fact, that's basic to my argument. My "testimony of the Holy Spirit" is that I will get eternal life with God the Father, without the ordinances and such of the LDS Church. That "testimony" of mine is false, according to LDS doctrine. Why is this so hard to accept?

Eternal life=exaltation in our jargon. So you believe you will be exalted and be a god?

Is that what you want?

I think your testimony is that that you will receive "eternal life" in our sense at all. Your testimony is that you will be with not only Christ, but with the Father. We disagree on who will be with you, NOT on whether or not your life will be "eternal"

It is semantics, pure and simple.

But now of course we are going down another little semantic rabbit tunnel of yours which has nothing to do with the question at hand. It is yet another derail.

Edited September 1, 2011 by mfbukowski

[jo1952]

It may be of interest to note that Elder McConkie, when speaking about Jesus in his youth and prior to his baptism: "Further: In his study, and in the learning process he was guided from on high in a way that none other has ever been. Being without sin—being clean and pure and spotless—he was entitled to the constant companionship of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit that will not dwell in an unclean tabernacle, the Spirit that, conversely, always and everlastingly dwells with the righteous." (The Mortal Messiah, Vol.1, p.369 - p.370)

McConkie later addresses the question of why Jesus, who was sinless, was baptized? McConkie gave a 5-part answer, the third of which was: "3. To receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; that is to say, to conform to the law that gave him the right to the constant companionship of that member of the Godhead. As we are aware, this was a formality only in his case, for he being holy and without sin, the Spirit was his companion always. At baptism he simply went through the form that is required for all men, and that he should have done so is manifest by the fact that "the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove." (The Mortal Messiah, Vol.1, p.402)

Clearly, we have at least one example from a Church leader where someone had the constant companionship of the Holy Spirit prior to, and regardless of, having received the Gift, and this on the basis of righteousness.

However, let me clarify once again. My position isn't that there are, in fact, non-LDS who have the constant companionship of the Holy Spirit. Rather, I am saying that we LDS don't know, and aren't in a position to judge whether they do or not (such judgement is between God and the individuals), and so for all intents and purposes, we don't care if they do or not--which is why the brethren are conspicuously silent on the matter.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hi Wade!

I believe that what helps to distinguish the LDS Church from other denominations is that she provides the atmosphere which allows us continual opportunity to develop our relationship with Father and Jesus through the guidance of the Holy Ghost. I am not saying that all LDS are righteous, or that we are more righteous than any other denomination. However, the way that the Church is organized, gives each member the challenges to be able to spread their wings and grow. From the basic three classes we attend each Sunday, to the callings we receive to serve God and one another, the never ending encouragement to pray always, to study regularly, the examples we see of our peers through their talks, the chances we have to share our understanding with others via talks and teaching opportunitites we are given; so much of this is unique to the LDS Church. It is a way of life.

One of the most important aspects of life in the Church, is that we are constantly encouraged to repent. Outsiders ofter view this as ridiculous. Many believe that once you have accepted Christ, repentence takes on a different definition. Some think it isn't an admonition to ask for forgiveness, but rather a method to allow you to be able to fellowship with other believers. Some think that if you ask for forgiveness of your sins after you are baptized, that you are crucifying Christ again.

Reading Bruce R McConkie's comments about Christ's righteousness providing a vessel for the Holy Ghost helps to clarify why the Church does what she does. She is helping each of us to provide that righteous vessel where the Holy Ghost WILL be able to dwell. We don't have more access to the Holy Ghost than any other church does; we help create the vessels where the Holy Ghost is able to be. Thus, He is more actively guiding members of the LDS Church than is usually seen or experienced elsewhere.

When my husband (he was my boyfriend at the time) was trying to find a church he felt comfortable in, he was so impressed by the LDS Church. He knew immediately that the Holy Ghost was guiding and leading the members. He knew because he was being guided by the Holy Ghost and saw and felt what was going on the moment he walked into his first Sacrament meeting. He had not experienced this recognition in any other denomination or non-denominational church he had attended. When I first met the group of Mormons in the musical I was involved in, I knew there was something different about them than the other denominations represented. But I wasn't astute enough at that time to know that what was different, was the overwhelming presence of the Holy Ghost with them.

So, how is that the Holy Ghost's guidance and presence is felt by the faithful LDS? Our vessels are prepared. Again I would like to point out that is possible for anyone to achieve, regardless of the church they go to. It is the vessel that allows the companionship of the Holy Ghost. I praise God that Jesus' church was Restored which provides the organization, teachings, and method whereby our tabernacles of flesh can be prepared for the Holy Ghost (if we are obedient and remain worthy) as a way of life.

Regards,

jo

[mfbukowski]

Mr. Bukowski,

Even when I bend over backwards to avoid claiming to know anything about LDS belief better than Mormons do, and as humbly as possible ask for clarification, you respond to me with disrespect.

No comment necessary. Just repeating the quote in case someone missed it

[altersteve]

It is odd, at least in my mind, that I could have the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost in that sense and yet be so wrong about who he is and what his presence means, if I am indeed wrong. If the Holy Spirit is guiding me, illuminating my mind, convicting me of sin, empowering me, and gifting me for witness and service, how can I at the same time be misled into thinking that the LDS Church is a false religion? Wouldn't the Holy Spirit's illumination enable me to see that the LDS religion is the true church?

YES! The Holy Spirit's illumination can enable you to see that the LDS religion is true. All you need to do is sincerely ask with real intent and faith in Christ. Thank you for asking this question.

And how can I at the same time be misled into thinking that I am assured of eternal life with God the Father?

Because this belief doesn't agree with scripture.

"LDS doctrine maintains that only those who in addition to believing in Christ are baptized in the LDS faith (now or by proxy in the afterlife), receive the other ordinances, receive the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, keep the covenants they make in the temple, etc., etc., will gain entrance into the celestial kingdom and eternal life with Heavenly Father."

There it is: "believing in Christ" (which in this context means the same thing as faith in Christ) is involved. I did not fail to mention this fact.

Sorry, I missed that. Either way, it is important to emphasize this when talking about LDS doctrine. Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is the first and most important principle of the gospel, and critics rarely, if ever, mention that. However, while I understand what you meant, I don't think "believing in Christ" and "faith in Christ" are the same thing, even in that context. I "believe" in Satan, but that doesn't mean I have faith in him. But I get what you were saying.

There is another semantic gap here we need to try to overcome. You have acknowledged, I think, that I believe in Christ. But your doctrine also makes it clear that as things stand I will not gain eternal life with God the Father. I am missing something. Articulate it any way you want, I think I am on safe ground in stating that it absolutely is LDS doctrine that I cannot gain eternal life with God the Father apart from the ordinances of the LDS religion. If that is not your personal belief I certainly would not want to try to convince you to accept that belief! But it does seem to be LDS doctrine.

I never said otherwise. I agree with you. One cannot obtain eternal life with God the Father without the principles and ordinances of the gospel that are offered in His Church. You are correct in saying that according to LDS doctrine, you are "missing something," since the fullness of the gospel is only contained within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If this were not true, then there would have been no need for a Restoration, and no Restoration means the Book of Mormon is a 19th-century work written by one of the biggest frauds that the world has ever seen. So that's really what it all comes down to: whether or not the Book of Mormon is true. And there is only one way of knowing.

But I would guess (and correct me if I'm wrong) that your position is not that faith in Christ alone encompasses whatever ordinances and other things a person happens to think God has commanded. Surely at least the usual, standard LDS position, is that the ordinances of the LDS Church are in fact necessary for obtaining eternal life with God the Father, whether somebody accepts this doctrine or not. I need those ordinances as much as anyone, if LDS doctrine is correct--or so at least it seems to me to be the LDS Church's teaching.

This would be correct.

Far be it from me to try to convince you otherwise. The problem is that almost every clause of your testimony means something different in LDS doctrine than it means in evangelical doctrine. For example, when you say "live with my Father in Heaven again," this statement assumes the truth of the LDS belief that we were preexistent spirits in Heaven prior to our earthly mortal lives.

Point taken with the subtle preexistence reference, but other than that, I disagree. How is it that when you say that salvation and perfection are only found in, through, and by Jesus Christ, you don't mean what I mean? I don't think there is any other meaning other than what it says. What it says is exactly what it means. We both believe that salvation is not found under any other name than Jesus, correct?

The problem is that we mean different things by "God." That's another topic....

The fact that we disagree on how Christ is God is irrelevant. We both believe that He is God, and that's what matters.

Edited September 1, 2011 by altersteve