What Distinguishes The Evangelical Witness Vs. Lds Testimony

[Mudcat]

I think the inconsistency is in the eye of the beholder. I don't find an inconsistency with the Bible and BOM, particularly in light of these verses:

I guess I would need to know to what you are referring specifically. I don't see an inconsistency with Moroni 10:4 which talks about enlightenment and bearing witness to the truth of something.

Sorry for the lack of clarity. In a way it's a bit of a complex notion I am positing, but not incredibly difficult. I don't think I am doing a good job of articulating it though. I will try again.

To be specific.

From my perspective, we do not see the HS make an offering to establish the veracity of his words in the Bible as we see in Moroni 10. Rather there seems to be an a priori assumption that because he has said them they are true. The actual test of veracity is seen in the actions of Holy Spirit. What he does is simply consistent with what he has said he would do.

So verification of belief and the truth of the Bible is action related by what he testifies to.

The Moroni challenge is a different thing. Rather than the assumptive role towards truth we have seen the HS take in the Biblical canon, we see a new element. The HS present an offering to ask him if the BoM is true. It is more of a "yes it's true" statement for verification, rather than the Holy Spirit simply being consistent with the claims he makes of himself via his action, as we see happening in the Bible.

Moroni 10:4, seems to be communicating on the part of the Holy Spirit, "Even though I have said it, if you don't believe I have said it, just ask me sincerely in faith and I'll tell you I have said it." It is a different manner of handling things for certain, which seems to put it as a bit inconsistent as it relates to the HS treatment of the Bible and his related actions regarding it.

Is that any clearer?

[jmordecai]

If you read my words carefully, you will see no indication that one person's witness is any more true than another's. We all receive the truth we are capable of bearing...

So from that, we can conclude that a witness that the LDS church is true... and a witness that the LDS church is false... are both equal. Got it. You really don't know if your witness is true, since all witnesses are equal.

Here are a few passages from the Bible:

Here's the problem jo.

1. You stated "the only way to know if any so-called scripture is true or not is ONLY through the Power of the Holy Ghost."

2. I then asked you to qualify that statement.

3. In response, you pointed me to... scripture.

The very thing you need to prove: the truthfulness of scripture; is the very thing you cite in order to prove it. That is circular.

The notion that the spirit provides confirmation of truth does not exist in a vacuum, but rather comes from the scriptures. Thus the scriptures must be true in and of themselves in order to be a trustworthy guide to how the spirit works.

Most EV's believe the biblical texts are true, in and of themselves, irrespective of any personal feelings one has towards them. Since we believe they are true, by virtue of preservation, historicity, authenticity, duplication, quotations, etc., they serve as the constitution of our faith. They act to arbitrate between folks who claim "God told me THIS" and others who claim "God told me THAT".

Since I think the Book of Mormon was written deliberately to appear as an authentic ancient text (KJV English, wholesale quoting of the Bible), and its author took deliberate measure to make sure it would be hard to dissect (i.e. use an unknown language, add layers of abridgments upon abridgments, exterminate the people, destroy the land with natural disasters, no plates to examine, etc.) the LDS is left to claim that scripture itself cannot stand on its own, but must be authenticated by a spiritual witness. Yet the LDS is unable to demonstrate the notion how the witness itself is the determining criteria without appealing to... the scriptures.

[jmordecai]

I was simply responding to what you said here:

I do have to respond to this, though. It is not just a "burning in the bosom" for Latter-day Saints. We call it that sometimes, but it is much more than that, as myself and others have already explained in this thread. The internal dwelling of the Holy Spirit is found in almost every religion out there: all people have access to the power of the Holy Ghost. However, the other three you mentioned are not simple "spiritual experiences," nor are they witnesses; Sufism in Islam is a practice of turning away from everything except God. In Buddhism and other Indian religions, nirvana is a total liberation from greed, hatred, suffering, and delusion, and moksha in Hinduism is liberation from all worldly things to become reconciled with the supreme being. Is there not truth in those things? Are we not taught to turn away from all worldly things, all greed, hatred, suffering, and delusion, in order for us to truly become one with our Savior, and aren't we taught to look to Him and what He did for us so that such liberation becomes possible?

These religions may be missing a very important aspect (Jesus Christ), but obviously none of them are "counterfeits" by any means. If you believe all that Christ taught regarding our journey to leave all evil and worldly things behind in order to find true happiness, then you will accept the truth in the experiences that the Muslim, the Buddhist, and the Hindu all claim to have, as well as in the things that they believe. All it takes is an open mind and a more loving, Christlike perspective in order to see these truths.

Yeah, Jesus accept all the things the Pharisees believed. Paul and John accepted all the things the Gnostics believed.

They didn't warn about false prophets (Mt. 7:15, 24:11, 24:24, Mk. 13:22, 2 Pt. 2:1, 1 Jn. 4:1, Rev 16:13).

That sounds all warm and fuzzy, but that's simply not the Christianity that Jesus Christ and his apostles taught.

[Messenger]

Yes, but believing you have Priesthood authority and actually having it are two different things.

Deborah,

I wanted to agree with you about authority, and the importance of it as it pertains to this thread. There isn’t much true authority in the Evangelical church, certainly with my experience being a Born Again Christian prior to my LDS baptism. To expand on this, I will first of all tell the Born Again Christians that your testimony of Jesus Christ and having accepted him as your personal savior is both honorable and wonderful at the same time.

However, unless a person has the authority to act on his behalf when asked to do so, not much action is taken at all, besides personal action. LDS people that volunteer have various volunteer stewardships that change as needed by the local bishop or stake president. One example of stewardship is teaching. I can tell you that nearly anybody that has been called as a teacher by the bishop in authority has experienced a great power of the calling in receiving direction about what it is you teach in the framework of the lesson. I've been in wards where I have expanded the lesson material using the church website by quite a bit. Then, there have been other times where I have been directed to restrict this. It depends on the class, and nobody knows the readiness of the people we teach the lesson material to better than Heavenly Father, who directs us.

While there are times that we have authority given to us, simultaneously there are times when one or more people have authority over us. While this creates conflict at times, most of us LDS people learn that that conflict can be a natural way to progress and learn. Why is it important to have a calling or stewardship over someone else? Its because there are times when I am not totally in tune with the Holy Ghost. I feel I am at the highest level of my spirituality I have ever had in my life. Even with that acknowledgement, I would be remiss and telling anybody that I was 100% in-tune all the time. When a Home Teacher tells me to consider a change of direction, I listen. I pray about it, and I decide for myself. It is his authority to assist, and suggest, but it is my authority to act or not.

Now for a story .... Years ago I used to work for MCI. I was a Customer Service Manager for the Business Sales and Marketing in Portland Oregon. After years of hard work, I got a call from someone in Atlanta Georgia at the corporate office. This person, who would not identify himself, told me I was going to be laid off in a few months. I prepared and had several job opportunities being worked when I was laid off. For a week, I was not working, and had two jobs I was interviewing for. One of them was a position for the same company and position in Ohio. The other was for a health organization in the same town where I was living. They made me an offer in Ohio, and I was still waiting for an offer for the health organization.

Hoping to speed up the process, I went before Heavenly Father and told him of the two jobs that were progressing along, and I wanted to know which I should take. I thought I was being rather creative and clever because if he said it would be the Portland Job, then I would know that they were about to offer it to me! LOL . But I was rather shocked at the answer I immediately received. The answer was this ...... "which one do you think is best?" I thought to myself I was not going to get an actual answer. And for a second or two, I was disappointed. But through some heavenly encouragement, I decided to think about the question again. After some thinking, I gave various reasons why I thought the Portland Job at the health organization would be best. Then an answer that was a total paradigm shift came to my mind ...... As one priesthood holder to another, and thinking of my family and being a steward over them, the answer was .... "Granted". I learned a big lesson that day. When something is right, for the right reason, and is congruent with Gods direction, he will give you the power to make it come to pass. I got the offer the next day, and I accepted it.

This is the essence of the authority and power of the Priesthood. We share his power when doing his will; it is Christ's sacrifice that makes this possible.

[Deborah]

From my perspective, we do not see the HS make an offering to establish the veracity of his words in the Bible as we see in Moroni 10.

Yes, but remember what the Bible is. It was created out of the scrolls of many writers but it was also compiled centuries ago and became part of not only the tradition but the community of those who were near contemporaries or at least familiar enough with the stories to not question their happenings. We don't have to pray about the Bible per se because it has been part of our culture and something we have accepted for generations.

The plates of the BOM on the contrary were gathered by one man whose task was to abridge the record for the purpose of coming forth in the last days. Because it is a second witness that came forth in the latter days, it doesn't have the tradition and culture to testify of it's truth. Plus it's coming forth was so totally foreign to what the people of the day were accustomed to that without the Spirit to testify of it many, as many do, would consider it a work of fiction.

Now having said that I personally never prayed to know if the BOM was true. I didn't need to. I knew the first time I stepped into an LDS building that the church was the one I had been waiting for after a year of studying the Bible. My testimony of the BOM came more as I read it and understood it and the Spirit testified of its truthfulness as I read it.

[Mudcat]

I wanted to agree with you about authority, and the importance of it as it pertains to this thread. There isn’t much true authority in the Evangelical church, certainly with my experience being a Born Again Christian prior to my LDS baptism. To expand on this, I will first of all tell the Born Again Christians that your testimony of Jesus Christ and having accepted him as your personal savior is both honorable and wonderful at the same time.

Hi Messenger,

I know your post was not directed at me, but I wanted to respond.

Bold mine. Your own experience aside, I actually do believe that there is a wealth of true authority in the EV church. If by authority, you mean person A has the authority to tell person B they need to do X.... and maybe that person B has the authority to tell person C to help with project X.. and so on.. Well no, there isn't much of that sort of authority. More of a communal type thing in that respect.

However, in an EV setting, each member does consider themselves a distinct member of Christ's royal priesthood and we typically believe we are authorized to act accordingly, with what we have been given. Certainly their are different roles.. ministers, teachers, evangelists and so forth, but no role holds more authority than another.

In analogy, I look at the Church like a construction project with God as the architect of it.. but in a communist sort of fashion. Tasks may vary from specific sorts of engineers, foreman, equipment operators.. to painters, cooks and clean up crews. However, none hold's literal station grade above another person. If there is a questionable issue, even the workers that are handling what some might think are the simplest of tasks, can simply ask the architect directly.

Of course we all get paid in arrears and the quality of our work is directly proportionate to our reward. Save Christ, no one stands over us... rather we stand together.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[altersteve]

Yeah, Jesus accept all the things the Pharisees believed. Paul and John accepted all the things the Gnostics believed.

They didn't warn about false prophets (Mt. 7:15, 24:11, 24:24, Mk. 13:22, 2 Pt. 2:1, 1 Jn. 4:1, Rev 16:13).

That sounds all warm and fuzzy, but that's simply not the Christianity that Jesus Christ and his apostles taught.

......

You didn't even read what I said, did you? I never said anything about accepting "all the things" that other people believe. Come on, dude. Your habit of putting words in my mouth is absolutely ridiculous.

Please, read what I actually said and comment on that.

[Messenger]

Hi Messenger,

I know your post was not directed at me, but I wanted to respond.

Bold mine. Your own experience aside, I actually do believe that there is a wealth of true authority in the EV church. If by authority, you mean person A has the authority to tell person B they need to do X.... and maybe that person B has the authority to tell person C to help with project X.. and so on.. Well no, there isn't much of that sort of authority. More of a communal type thing in that respect.

However, in an EV setting, each member does consider themselves a distinct member of Christ's royal priesthood and we typically believe we are authorized to act accordingly, with what we have been given. Certainly their are different roles.. ministers, teachers, evangelists and so forth, but no role holds more authority than another.

In analogy, I look at the Church like a construction project with God as the architect of it.. but in a communist sort of fashion. Tasks may vary from specific sorts of engineers, foreman, equipment operators.. to painters, cooks and clean up crews. However, none hold's literal station grade above another person. If there is a questionable issue, even the workers that are handling what some might think are the simplest of tasks, can simply ask the architect directly.

Of course we all get paid in arrears and the quality of our work is directly proportionate to our reward. Save Christ, no one stands over us... rather we stand together.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

I would agree with that, although my experience as a Born Again Christian was few in years. The difference is that you believe that the authority comes directly from Christ and through nobody else. This makes sense from an historical standpoint. However in the LDS church, when a Home Teacher teaches a specific lesson that he or she is directed to, the calling supports that person. If a person abuses that authority, they quite simply are removed. The spirit directs either authority. We believe that we share the power of Christ because he allows us to, in order that we may learn and be more like him. Keeping this power to himself would be contrary to his example in the New Testament. While there are people that are stewards over us, we are also stewards over them in various callings at the same time. There is no clearer representation of this than the LDS General Conference. People are asked to give talks on what they are inspired to. I always find it amazing how the talks seem to be preparatory to future events and how they either confirm my own direction, or help to think of something I have not. With prayerful consideration, I change accordingly.

Most Born Again Christians tend to shy away from a well organized and directed church central authority. Without this authority, the rubber really never meets the road in my opinion, although it does to a lesser degree; this being evidenced in the success of the LDS church as an organization, and using its power and authority in various capacities throughout the world. Yet, no one on the receiving end of this power has ever felt we were ruling with an iron fist, or taking over. It is our free agency that we believe in, that allows everyone else to have the same. In other words, we can teach something using our authority, but we can’t make someone do something. If a person wants to murder, they can, but they won’t be a member for very long. But having direct authority allows us to have all the power Christ did in our respective stewardship. Having experienced it in various stewardships, I can tell you I have had more than just a few spiritual experiences that seem powerful; they can happen almost daily.

Gifts of the spirit are vast, and something that we share between our religions. My Born Again mother and I share many spiritual conversations about our experiences. What she shy’s away from is the things that we do from a central church authority. These include temple work, or anything that is either created or directed from a central location. What she fails to consider is the good that is built from such undertakings. I suppose her fear comes from historical figures from authoritative religions; which is why the Born Again movement was created in my opinion. It took me more than a few years after converting to LDS, to trust those in authority, and trust the free agency I had. Yet without it, I would never have experienced the concentration of truth in participating in it. I would say that every time I am a leader in some capacity, I am always amazed how much I am supported by other members and how they are willing to be directed by me - under Christ direction. That’s why I never do anything that is without direction in those areas. For if I did, amen to my Priesthood authority. Yet, if I was an emergency preparedness coordinator for example, I would have every right to receive direct revelation on specific future disasters in order to help members prepare for it. I not only have that right, I have actually received direct revelation on specific future disasters while I had this calling in Utah for the members I was a steward over in Pleasant Grove. But that information was for them, in the calling I had at the time. While that information resides in me today, it is not my calling to proclaim that to anybody else. Those that got that direction will use it in the future. That’s an example of how the priesthood works.

Mark

[KevinG]

"Nuh uh" is not an argument. You need to explain how, according to LDS arguments here, the Holy Spirit will give specific revelation, testimony, witness, etc., that the LDS church is the one true church, while at the same time he can give revelation, testimony, witness, etc., to another that another religion is true, and even that the LDS church is false.

This explains a great deal about your habit of cherry picking the most incindeary (and out of context) statements you can. You are looking for an argument, while I was hoping to gain understanding.

You may want to have your argument with someone else because I'm not playing juvenile games of contention and gotcha.

- - -

Regarding your last statment - it like your quotes is a misrepresentation of my OP and LDS teachings. I never said the Holy Ghost would give conflicting testimonies (as in whose church is authoratative) but the Holy Ghost will affirm the broad and deep similarities between religions including the values and truths they have in common and most importantly a testimony of Jesus Christ.

You are stuck in us vs. them mode and it shows in how you interpret a very select few LDS teachings most of which are non-doctrinal. I don't find that productive or in any way condusive for gaining understanding from the Holy Ghost so I'm done playing your game.

Edited August 22, 2011 by DaddyG

[KevinG]

Hi DG,

This a tough topic, IMO. I am typically not one who tries to argue that I am more right than another individual, IMO the Holy Spirit is actually the best arbiter of what is correct.

I think what is interesting is that both LDS and non-LDS Christians believe they encountered the Holy Spirit and via such experience have received knowledge. The actual knowledge claims themselves are quite different. I don't think arguing something to the effect of "my experience is better than yours" gets anyone much of anyplace... I mean, given the fact we only have direct access to our own experiences, we have no way of knowing which experience is actually better, or more authentic, and that sort of thing.

I think the best way to actually address the issue is to simply take it as a given that both parties could have had an experience with the Holy Spirit. Then take a good look at the specific role of the Holy Spirit in both cases, what he has said and so forth.

My Evangelical testimony is similar to many others. The role of the Holy Spirit was to convict me of my sins. To affirm the reality of Christ as the Son of God and his salvific work. To bring peace to my heart, after accepting Christ by affirming that I am in good standing with God by accepting Christs payment for debt of my sins. Also the Holy Spirit serves a continuous role of helping me to conform to the image of Christ as well as bringing me to a better understanding of how to achieve God's will and a greater understanding of God's word.

I bolded a bit of what I said, this I think is what you might call an EV "witness" though we typically refer to it as a "testimony".. as it seems you do towards your own. It might be better to specifically address this role of the Holy Spirit, rather than his continuous role in my life.

In regards to your question of the possible greater validity of my experience vs. that of an LDS experience. What I would offer is that what the Holy Spirit seems do in his role is consistent with what is claimed in the Bible that the Holy Spirit would do.

I think an argument for greater validity of the EV position could be made, by asserting that, from an Evangelical perspective the Holy Spirit fulfills what has been claimed of him in the Bible and this fulfillment is in some way contrary/inconsistent to the role LDS would claim that he takes.

I know that sounds unnecessarily broad, so I will try to be more specific. It has to do with how the Holy Spirit confirms the truth of the Bible. To me, the Holy Spirit fulfills the Bible's claims of him. By virtue of this both the Bible and the Holy Spirit are mutually authenticating of one another. The Holy Spirit does not inform me specifically that the Bible is true in a yes/no sort of fashion. Also, it is worth noting that EV's would attribute the Holy Spirit as the Bible's actual author. By his action the Holy Spirit confirms that the Bible actually is true.

This is quite different from the LDS position that follows Moroni 10:4

So the BoM sets up a different sort of claim for the Holy Spirit. Granted the claim is internally consistent with the BoM, but this places the Holy Spirit treating differently two independent sets of documents (Bible and BoM) that he is both claimed to author. LDS seem to believe in the Bible and BoM.. as well as the rest of the Standard Works. How do you explain what I would think might be inconsistent methodology on the part of the HS. I know it only seems like a very minor point, but arguments from experience are typically well balanced so even minor points add weight in a crucial sort of way.

Also, I bolded a bit of Moroni 10:4 as another distinction. It seems that from an LDS perspective, faith in Christ is a prerequisite to receiving a testimony from the HS about the BoM. I am not sure I have that quite right DG, but that seems to be how it reads. If that is the case, could you describe the process of receiving an LDS testimony of Christ?

Personally, I don't see much in specific difference when you phrase it like that. I would think that one group is likely closer to the truth than the other. But I don't believe that there is a wall of "error" that man can erect that is not within the Holy Spirits power to penetrate.

I am hoping you can provide some more specific information on to what you mean exactly when you are talking about an LDS Testimony, as it would be quite helpful in my responses.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

Thank you for teaching me more. Your post is in the spirit that I'd hoped this conversation could be held in. Regarding nomenclature, I have been navigating many world that mean the same but different things to my friends of different Christian persuation here in the South. Many people are openly spiritual and sometimes it takes a few conversations to understand we're saying the same or similar things. I really value the testimony and prayers of my non-LDS Christian friends and feel the power of their faith when they exercise it for me. The reality and veracity of the power of their prayers for me and their confirmation that my prayers have blessed them tells me that the Holy Ghost works in a very ecumenical way when it comes to faith in Christ.

Regarding the differences between protestant Christianity (for lack of a better term) and Mormon Christianity (for lack of a better term ) I am hearing a theme from you and Rob that the EV/Protestant/Christian view of what the Holy Spirit will testify to is somewhat bound by the Biblical description of those powers and gifts. Similar to but sometimes distinct from the role that the Holy Ghost plays in Mormonism. This makes sense to me because traditional Christianity is based on a complete and self contained Biblical canon while the LDS adhere to an open canon and Latter-day Revelation.

What you described above as the role of the Holy Spirit is 100% in agreement with how the LDS understand the role of the Holy Spirit. If someone teaches you the Holy Spirit in LDS beliefs is less than your excellent description "The role of the Holy Spirit was to convict me of my sins. To affirm the reality of Christ as the Son of God and his salvific work. To bring peace to my heart, after accepting Christ by affirming that I am in good standing with God by accepting Christs payment for debt of my sins. Also the Holy Spirit serves a continuous role of helping me to conform to the image of Christ as well as bringing me to a better understanding of how to achieve God's will and a greater understanding of God's word." This phrase would be greeted with agreement in any LDS sermon or Sunday School lesson.

Regarding the LDS experience of the Holy Ghost testifying of Christ...

It is crucial to remember that in all of these Christian faiths (including the LDS) doctrinally and in practice the primary job of the Holy Spirit is to testify of Jesus Christ. In fact the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God and therefore if you know Him you know God. Ancillary issues such as the authority of a particular church, personal revelation, gifts of the spirit like wisdom and knowledge are all part of the mission of the Holy Spirit, but these are all secondary to a testimony of Christ's Atonement.

Even in Moroni's invitation a testimony of the truthfullness of the Book of Mormon implies that the subject of the Book is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately I think making a big deal out of a singular passage to claim the LDS testimony is substancially different in it's focus on Jesus Christ is based on ignorance. A reading of the few verses following Moroni 10:4 shows just what "these things" that Moroni refers to knowing by the power of the Holy Ghost are:

Moroni 10:4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ^aask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not ^btrue; and if ye shall ask with a ^csincere heart, with ^dreal intent, having ^efaith in Christ, he will ^fmanifest the ^gtruth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may ^aknow the ^btruth of all things.

6 And whatsoever thing is good is just and true; wherefore, nothing that is good denieth the Christ, but acknowledgeth that he is.

7 And ye may ^aknow that he is, by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore I would exhort you that ye deny not the power of God; for he worketh by power, ^baccording to the faith of the children of men, the same today and tomorrow, and forever.

8 And again, I exhort you, my brethren, that ye deny not the ^agifts of God, for they are many; and they come from the same God. And there are ^bdifferent ways that these gifts are administered; but it is the same God who worketh all in all; and they are given by the manifestations of the ^cSpirit of God unto men, to profit them.

9 ^aFor behold, to one is given by the Spirit of God, that he may ^bteach the word of wisdom;

10 And to another, that he may ^ateach the word of ^bknowledge by the same Spirit;

11 And to another, exceedingly great ^afaith; and to another, the gifts of ^bhealing by the same Spirit;

12 And again, to another, that he may work mighty ^amiracles;

13 And again, to another, that he may prophesy concerning all things;

14 And again, to another, the beholding of angels and ministering spirits;

15 And again, to another, all kinds of tongues;

16 And again, to another, the interpretation of ^alanguages and of divers kinds of tongues.

17 And all these gifts come by the Spirit of Christ; and they come unto every man severally, according as he will.

18 And I would exhort you, my beloved brethren, that ye remember that ^aevery good ^bgift cometh of Christ.

- - -

On a very personal note. I know we don't usually bear testimony and this forum isn't for that purpose I do want to share my own experience when the LDS missionaries taught me to pray according to the pattern Christ set forth in the Bible. I did question if Jesus Christ was simply a great prophet or indeed my Savior. Asking this question of God the Father, thanking Him for my blessings, asking wanting to know the truth, asking in the Name of Jesus Christ and (critically) listening and having (weak but earnest) faith I would receive an answer; I received the singular most powerful and distinct answer I have ever received from God. I knew Jesus Christ lived and was my redeemer. It was impressed upon my soul by a direct revelation from Jesus Christ.

This was the first important and distinct revelation I received upon being taught by the LDS missionaries. Other revelations followed to later prayers and pondering about the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, the LDS Church and a plethora of other concepts of religion and heaven, but they were never as central to my knowledge of Christ as this most important revelation was. Christ is the center and source of my religion.

- -

I hope that helps describe in my own sometimes awkward way what the Holy Ghost means for my understanding of Christ and His church. It really is my belief from being a member of another protestant religion and my conversations with other Christians that we have much more in common than we have different and that the Holy Ghost will communicate these and all truthes no matter who we are or what our differences are.

For a good reference of the Holy Spirit and LDS beliefs (which I have barely begun to describe here) please go to lds.org and search the Holy Ghost. You will find many authoratative talks and resources that do a better job of describing our doctrine than I have done here. In this article http://lds.org/ensign/1974/05/the-holy-ghost?lang=eng you will note some differences in doctrines about the physical and spiritual nature of the Holy Ghost, but you will also notice many common beliefs in His sacred role.

Edited August 22, 2011 by DaddyG

[KevinG]

No amount of "fiery" preaching or whatever excuses you have diminishes the fact that General Authorities made degrading remarks against other religions.

It is also to the Book of Mormon to which we turn for the plainest description of the Catholic Church as the great and abominable church. Nephi saw this ‘church which is the most abominable above all other churches’ in vision. He ‘saw the devil that he was the foundation of it’ and also the murders, wealth, harlotry, persecutions, and evil desires that historically have been a part of this satanic organization.

Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p.130 1958

Who founded the Roman Catholic Church? The Devil, through the medium of Apostates.

Orson Pratt, The Seer, p.205

This sentiment is pervasive in church history, despite whatever polish you want to give it.

You do know that McConkie was censured by the Prophet for that comment and instructed to remove it from his book?

You do know that in the early days of the LDS Church the Catholics and LDS were firing polemics at each other and in succeeding years their relations moderated significantly. I don't excuse this intolerant language but you will not find it used among the vast majority of Latter-day Saints and you will find it condemned among our current leadership.

Be a simple search http://lds.org/searc...&query=catholic+ you will find lots of articles and events describing cooperation and understanding between the Catholic and LDS church despite our obvious doctrinal differences. One of my dearest friends and I enjoyed our drives to work together where we could discuss our similarities and differences as men of God - he Catholic and I Mormon. I learned a great deal from him and I hope the experience was mutual.

Really - it is not inappropriate to ask you to seek knowledge about the LDS from the source...

Don't accuse other posters of cut n' paste. - Ares

Sorry. I removed the offending remark.

Edited August 22, 2011 by DaddyG

[jmordecai]

......

You didn't even read what I said, did you? I never said anything about accepting "all the things" that other people believe. Come on, dude. Your habit of putting words in my mouth is absolutely ridiculous.

Please, read what I actually said and comment on that.

You make statements, and then take them back as soon as they are scrutinized. Now again you deny making such claims. Suppose I retract this... then I have nothing to work with because you aren't offering any arguments that are relevant to the conversation. If you are now suggesting that other religions do indeed have false teachings... then we agree... and therefore I must ask what is your point then?

To clarify, this is what you said:

These religions may be missing a very important aspect (Jesus Christ), but obviously none of them are "counterfeits" by any means...

"None are counterfeits... by any means." So this tells me that the only problem with other religions is not that they have wrong or false teachings, but only part of the truth...

...then you will accept the truth in the experiences that the Muslim, the Buddhist, and the Hindu all claim to have, as well as in the things that they believe...

You stated I should accept the truth... in the things that they believe. Since you never qualified what percentage of their "truth" I should accept, and you just prior to this qualified that none of them are counterfeits by any means, I have no choice but to conclude what I did.

So if I misunderstood what you were saying, and again, the other religions do hold false and wrong teachings... then again I must ask... what is your point then?

[Ares]

You make statements, and then take them back as soon as they are scrutinized. Now again you deny making such claims. Suppose I retract this... then I have nothing to work with because you aren't offering any arguments that are relevant to the conversation. If you are now suggesting that other religions do indeed have false teachings... then we agree... and therefore I must ask what is your point then?

To clarify, this is what you said:

"None are counterfeits... by any means." So this tells me that the only problem with other religions is not that they have wrong or false teachings, but only part of the truth...

You stated I should accept the truth... in the things that they believe. Since you never qualified what percentage of their "truth" I should accept, and you just prior to this qualified that none of them are counterfeits by any means, I have no choice but to conclude what I did.

So if I misunderstood what you were saying, and again, the other religions do hold false and wrong teachings... then again I must ask... what is your point then?

You have been asked repeatedly not to turn this thread into an argument over which church is true. If you want to do that start another thread but be polite.

You are banned from this thread.

[KevinG]

Hardly passive as Mormonism asserts/declares in which members are taught/believe that they are the (the opposite is false and dead):

If Mormons were content to leave others alone and that others as Christians are believers as well according to Biblical teaching, then the following is not necessary:

That would be fine and somewhat justified if they didn't do some of the same things they accuse others of.

If critics of the LDS church were content to engage in discussions of our differences in doctrine like the examples from above (that are incidently between 25 and 35 years old) I would be thrilled. Unfortunately there are those critics who currently have full time jobs telling people why I and my brothers and sisters are going to h*** along with our Satanic cult.

I not only appreciate but I welcome missionaries from various Christian denominations and I enjoy discussing our common faith in Christ with them. We even have polite discussions about where we differ and why.

But while we are off the topic - do you have any constructive thoughts on the similarities and differences between the Evangelical and LDS concept of the Holy Ghost and His mission?

Edited August 22, 2011 by DaddyG

[Vance]

I would agree that both EV's and LDS come from a position of faith; without exercising faith there can be no witness received from the Holy Ghost. I think the difference which the EV do not recognize, is that most converts to the LDS Church (not to be confused with the person's conversion who is already LDS), have already been saved. IOW, they have already exercised faith and believe in Jesus Christ. What the Church offers, is additional truth, additional latter-day revelation, another Testament of Christ, an understanding as well as the reality of Priesthood Authority; an understanding of and a ability to participate in the ordicances while stilll in this life which can help us gain exaltation; IOW, a real Restoration of the Gospel message, as opposed to a Reformed version. I even will offer a REASON the EV do not recognize this. They have been taught to fear us through all of the anti-LDS propaganda that has surrounded the Church even before it was established, as it also followed Joseph Smith from the time he was just a boy.

Their opinion and ideas about the LDS Church are unavoidably filtered through preconceived notions. One of the biggest warnings an anti-LDS person will give to another Christian is to don't allow the Missionaries to get you to pray with them or to pray about the Book of Mormon, as you will receive a false witness. IOW, they convey and perpetuate their own fears.

Notice that in the video, how William Lane Craig is supporting the concept of occasionally taking a doubt (unanswered question) out of your doubt bag and to study, ponder and pray about it until you have received some type of answer. However, later in the thread we find out that if that question involves praying about the Book of Mormon, he backtracks his comments and starts qualifying what exactly you should or should not pray to find out about; fear is his motivation for altering his own previous advice. He learned that fear from man's precepts. This is evidence that he does not trust the very Holy Ghost who witnessed to him concerning Christ, to protect him in further matters concerning the Kingdom of God. Thus he shuts the door to the very Being whose responsibility and ability it is to lead him to all truth. How incredibly sad!!!

Then I read Rob Bowman's comments about how an EV will NOT pray about certain things. It all appears to be a bunch of double speak to me.

I have been told many different things by EV's and other anti-LDS who have learned my conversion story from the Lutheran to the LDS Church. Even though I was raised Lutheran, nor can I remember a time when I didn't love Christ or my Heavenly Father, I have heard such things as: 1) I had never been saved, or I would never have let an orthodox denomination; 2) I was saved; but now I am unsaved and a heretic; 3) For 22 years I only thought I was a Christian; therefore, 4) For 22 years I had never prayed to the one True God and never believed in or loved the real Jesus Christ; to, 5) At the very moment I opened my mouth to pray about the Book of Mormon, the Holy Ghost left me and a demonic spirit entered my body.

Best regards,

jo

[Rob Bowman]

jo,

You wrote:

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

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

You wrote:

What the Church offers, is additional truth, additional latter-day revelation, another Testament of Christ, an understanding as well as the reality of Priesthood Authority; an understanding of and a ability to participate in the ordicances while stilll in this life which can help us gain exaltation; IOW, a real Restoration of the Gospel message, as opposed to a Reformed version.

See above. Without these things, evangelicals and other non-Mormon Christians are not "saved," according to LDS doctrine, except in the sense that all people (including non-Christians of all kinds) are "saved" to immortality in one of the lower heavenly kingdoms.

You wrote:

I even will offer a REASON the EV do not recognize this. They have been taught to fear us through all of the anti-LDS propaganda that has surrounded the Church even before it was established, as it also followed Joseph Smith from the time he was just a boy.

First, the historical evidence does not support the claim that anti-LDS propaganda followed Joseph Smith when he was a boy.

Second, I do not fear Mormons, nor do I fear Mormonism. I simply and sincerely am convinced that Mormonism is false. I don't base my belief on someone's "anti-LDS propaganda." I reached my own conclusions by studying the issues for myself.

You wrote:

Their opinion and ideas about the LDS Church are unavoidably filtered through preconceived notions. One of the biggest warnings an anti-LDS person will give to another Christian is to don't allow the Missionaries to get you to pray with them or to pray about the Book of Mormon, as you will receive a false witness.

I don't tell people not to pray about the Book of Mormon. On the other hand, I don't endorse the kind of prayer about the Book of Mormon taught by LDS missionaries.

You wrote:

Notice that in the video, how William Lane Craig is supporting the concept of occasionally taking a doubt (unanswered question) out of your doubt bag and to study, ponder and pray about it until you have received some type of answer.

Actually, that's not what he said. He said nothing about praying about the question until you receive some type of answer. He said to research it and study it "into the ground" until you come up with an answer that you find fully satisfying.

You wrote:

However, later in the thread we find out that if that question involves praying about the Book of Mormon, he backtracks his comments and starts qualifying what exactly you should or should not pray to find out about; fear is his motivation for altering his own previous advice.

This is incorrect, because he did not previously advise people to pray for revelations answering their unanswered questions.

You wrote:

He learned that fear from man's precepts. This is evidence that he does not trust the very Holy Ghost who witnessed to him concerning Christ, to protect him in further matters concerning the Kingdom of God. Thus he shuts the door to the very Being whose responsibility and ability it is to lead him to all truth. How incredibly sad!!!

As I have explained, you have misconstrued Craig's comments and thus your conclusion about him is not supported by the facts.

You wrote:

Then I read Rob Bowman's comments about how an EV will NOT pray about certain things. It all appears to be a bunch of double speak to me.

I'm sorry you didn't understand me any better than you did Bill Craig. By the way, I know Bill personally. We have been to many conferences together, and I used to live about a mile from his house. I even filled in for him in his Sunday School class a few times when he was out of town. I know Bill's positions very well and can assure you from that personal knowledge that you have misunderstood him.

[Ahab]

In another thread there was an unanswered question that unfortunately got bogged down in arguments over whether it had been answered before or not.

For the benefit of those of us who were not privy to the earlier discussions can any self described (non-LDS) Christian explain why their belief in a witness from the Holy Spirit leading to knowledge of the claims of their faith is distinct and by implication more valid than the LDS claims of testimony from the Holy Spirit that can lead to a knowledge of the truthfulnessof the LDS claims?

The main question you are asking is this:

Can any self described (non-LDS) Christian explain why their belief in a witness from the Holy Spirit leading to knowledge of the claims of their faith is distinct and by implication more valid than the LDS claims of testimony from the Holy Spirit that can lead to a knowledge of the truthfulness of the LDS claims?

The simple answer to your question is: Yes, they can explain it, and their explanation in simple terms boils down to this:

They believe they have a witness from the Holy Spirit which leads them to a knowledge of the claims of their faith and their belief that they do have a witness from the Holy Spirit is "distinct" and by implication "more valid" than the LDS claims of testimony because they believe LDS claims to a testimony from the Holy Spirit contradict what they believe the Holy Spirit has told them.

Now try asking one of them what makes them believe they actually have a witness from the Holy Spirit when all they are doing is agreeing with their own interpretation of what is written in the Holy Bible.

If someone simply agrees with what they think is written in some book, that doesn't (necessarily) mean they have a witness from the Holy Spirit to assure them that what is written in that book is actually true, and it also doesn't (necessarily) give them the correct interpretation of those writings, either.

And btw, there's another very interesting thing I have noticed between non-LDS Christians and LDS Christians, too, which may be of some interest to you.

While many non-LDS Christians believe that what LDS Christians believe contradicts non-LDS Christian beliefs which come straight from the Holy Bible, LDS Christians actually agree with those teachings even though they believe we don't.

In other words, they often believe we disagree with them when in reality we actually agree with them.

Edited August 22, 2011 by Ahab

[KevinG]

Rob,

I'm not going to speak for Jo, but with as much time as you have spent gathering (and filtering) information on the LDS for your purposes I am surprised as some of these questions.

Regarding salvation or "being saved" by Christ... A good summary of LDS and Christian doctrines in a classic talk by Elder Dalin Oaks is to be found here. http://lds.org/gener...ery=saved+grace You will find it instructive.

In short we are saved by the Grace of Jesus Christ just as any Christian claims to be. Obedience to Christ's laws is a condition of our reward but the atonement covers our weakness. Only willful sin or denial of the Holy Ghost will separate us from Christ and even then repentace will bring us back. In my extensive conversations with Evangelicals the distinction is they will claim someone who lost faith "was never saved" while the LDS will cite both Biblical precepts that we are saved by grace and we are constantly proven through our obedience to Jesus Christ. Please don't pretend that there isn't already a great debate over faith vs. works among the general Christian world.

You wrote: "First, the historical evidence does not support the claim that anti-LDS propaganda followed Joseph Smith when he was a boy."

No - it only shows that he was mocked, disregarded and bullied. The true propagandists didn't get into the ring until he was a few years older and a threat to their established rule.

I'm glad you don't fear us, but you sure spend an inordinate amount of time taking a slanted view of our beliefs to convice others to do so. Since this discussion began I visited your site and was sorely disappointed to find my suspicions you used these discussions to refine your anti-mormon ministry were correct. While I endeavor to keep my discussions cordial and respectful I have to say I was very dissapointed to see what you do with your discussions with us. Your representations are very one sided and slanted and do not allow for LDS rebuttal. I would not associate with such propaganda against any sect no matter how I disagreed with them.

You wrote: "I don't endorse the kind of prayer about the Book of Mormon taught by LDS missionaries."

Were you aware that the LDS missionaries teach people to pray after the order Christ taught in the Lord's prayer? That is how I received my testimony of Jesus Christ. I prayed in the manner they taught using the Biblical verse as my guide. I continue to use that pattern to petition my Father in Heaven for all knowledge I seek from Him. It seems your real issue is what we pray to know about, not that we pray incorrectly. Even then I can't imagine a God that would deny His children revelation they ernestly seek because they didn't get the ritual steps down just right.

I won't even attempt to interpret what Dr. Craig said other than to say that I also got the impression that he would agree on how to pray and receive answers up until the point that the answers were about a religion he disagreed with. I do not limit the ability of God to send His children any information, any truth, any counsel. As I said before I can understand your POV that the Holy Spirit will verify only what is written in the Bible. That is consistent with your view of a closed canon. I disagree with that from my own experience with God and revelation but I do allow you the courtesy of having your beliefs without creating a website to preach against them or warn others of their dangers.

Edited August 22, 2011 by DaddyG

[KevinG]

And btw, there's another very interesting thing I have noticed between non-LDS Christians and LDS Christians, too, which may be of some interest to you.

While many non-LDS Christians believe that what LDS Christians believe contradicts non-LDS Christian beliefs which come straight from the Holy Bible, LDS Christians actually agree with those teachings even though they believe we don't.

In other words, they often believe we disagree with them when in reality we actually agree with them.

I have noticed this. Living in the Bible Belt I have no shortage of opportunities to explain we believe in Jesus Christ as presented in the Bible, we believe in the Bible as scripture and we believe in most of the interpretations and understandings about Christ that my Baptist, Evangelical and non-denominational neighbors do.

I am often shocked (but should not be) at the complete fabrications they believe about Mormons from full and part time anti-mormon ministries or from false traditions.

[jo1952]

jo,

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

See above. Without these things, evangelicals and other non-Mormon Christians are not "saved," according to LDS doctrine, except in the sense that all people (including non-Christians of all kinds) are "saved" to immortality in one of the lower heavenly kingdoms.

First, the historical evidence does not support the claim that anti-LDS propaganda followed Joseph Smith when he was a boy.

Second, I do not fear Mormons, nor do I fear Mormonism. I simply and sincerely am convinced that Mormonism is false. I don't base my belief on someone's "anti-LDS propaganda." I reached my own conclusions by studying the issues for myself.

I don't tell people not to pray about the Book of Mormon. On the other hand, I don't endorse the kind of prayer about the Book of Mormon taught by LDS missionaries.

Actually, that's not what he said. He said nothing about praying about the question until you receive some type of answer. He said to research it and study it "into the ground" until you come up with an answer that you find fully satisfying.

This is incorrect, because he did not previously advise people to pray for revelations answering their unanswered questions.

As I have explained, you have misconstrued Craig's comments and thus your conclusion about him is not supported by the facts.

I'm sorry you didn't understand me any better than you did Bill Craig. By the way, I know Bill personally. We have been to many conferences together, and I used to live about a mile from his house. I even filled in for him in his Sunday School class a few times when he was out of town. I know Bill's positions very well and can assure you from that personal knowledge that you have misunderstood him.

Hi Rob,

For the most part, I think DaddyG pretty well covered what I would have said to your specific comments. (Thank you, DaddyG!!!!) Just a few more things in general, however.

It saddens me to see how you continually hop down rabbit trails about issues which you have already discussed with the LDS concerning their beliefs for so many years. Yet you will bring them up as though you have not been over these things before. This is typical anti-LDS mantra and I do not believe it is done with the intent of dealing with the questions being specified, as much as those specific questions are used as another opportunity for you to create a rabbit trail and stand on your soapbox. It gives me the impression you aren't interested in the real discussion going on; that your agenda is much more important to you.

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

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

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

Regards,

jo

[Rob Bowman]

jo,

I did nothing to "derail" this thread. You made statements and I asked questions about some of them and responded to others.

Since you chose to ignore my questions, I guess we've come to an impasse.

[Rob Bowman]

DaddyG,

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

If you don't find my participation here to your liking, you don't need to engage me in discussion at all. I was invited here by a Mormon and have followed the board guidelines to the best of my ability.

[KevinG]

DaddyG,

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

If you don't find my participation here to your liking, you don't need to engage me in discussion at all. I was invited here by a Mormon and have followed the board guidelines to the best of my ability.

It is not your participation here that is to my disliking- it is how I feel you have taken information given you and selectively presented it in order to create a website with the sole purpose of turnign people away from the Gospel of Jesus Christ. ( I know your beliefs differ and in that I have no difficulty - however I find your methods of smearing the LDS lacking in integrity and charity).

Regarding your question if Christians who convert to the LDS faith are already saved-

I believe faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Redeemer is valid no matter which denomination it comes through. If there are errors in less central doctrines than I believe that mercy and the atonement will cover our errors and give us opportunities to learn and grow in wisdom unto perfection in Christ. Being in error over a specific set of doctrines or authoritative questions does not invalidate our faith in Jesus Christ. I only wish that other self proclaimed Christians would not attempt to obfuscate that basic principle of the Gospel and claim others with salvic faith in Jesus Christ are damned because of doctrines far less central to the Gospel than Christ's atonement.

Remember that the LDS are not only concerned with salvation in the EV understanding but also exaltation and becoming "joint heirs with Christ". Again please reference Elder Oaks talk to fully understand the LDS doctrines regarding salvation and our destiny as children of God.

Jo really did address your question in her own way. While we believe that faith in Jesus Christ is a first principle of the Gospel others have not offered us the same consideration and even claim our testimony of Christ and His atonement is somehow tainted by evil spirits or the devil. That is a pernicious and evil lie. One I would hope a self professed Christian would not find enough hate in their sould to spread.

Will I continue to engage you? I weigh the utility of having a chance to dispell some of the myths about Mormons you perpetuate vs. giving you an opportunity to refine them to the point that they are plausable for your own audience outside of this site. Just as I weigh the utility of my participation in apologitics vs. what good I could be doing in the non-virtual world by being an example of the body of Christ. To be completely honest, having had time this weekend it might have been better spent weeding an elderly neighbors garden, or helping my sons with their scouting advancement.

Then again publicly addressing those who knowingly or unknowinly advance falsehoods about Mormon belief could be of benefit down the road to someone who earnestly seeks the truth and finds the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Edited August 22, 2011 by DaddyG

[Ahab]

Perhaps you can clarify exactly what you mean here. You surely do not mean that they have been "saved" in the general, unconditional, near-universal sense that they are assured of immortality in one of the three heavenly kingdoms, because one does not need to have exercised faith or believed in Christ to have salvation in that sense.

Where do you come up with that idea, Rob? To be saved in one of the 3 heavenly kingdoms, one DOES need to exercise faith or believe in Christ to be saved. They may not have had faith in him or believed in him at some point in their past, but to be saved they will need to come to the point where they do, otherwise they will not be saved in any of the 3 heavenly kingdoms.

On the other hand, it would seem that you cannot mean that they have already been saved in the particular, individual, conditional sense of being granted entrance into the celestial kingdom, because in LDS theology this requires far more than faith or belief in Jesus Christ: it also requires baptism in the LDS Church, the priesthood, the temple rituals, the faithful keeping of covenants made in the LDS Church, and so forth. So what do you mean when you say that Christian converts to the LDS Church are already saved?

I'm pretty sure she means that, in most cases, they had already accepted Jesus Christ as the one and only Savior of the world before joining the true Church of Christ, as members of other churches, rather than coming from a point where they didn't know who Jesus Christ really is.

See above. Without these things, evangelicals and other non-Mormon Christians are not "saved," according to LDS doctrine, except in the sense that all people (including non-Christians of all kinds) are "saved" to immortality in one of the lower heavenly kingdoms.

That's what "saved" means, Rob, when not talking specifically about salvation in the Celestial kingdom.

If someone is going to go to one of the 3 heavenly realms, all of which can be referred to as heaven, then they are considered "saved" regardless of which realm of heaven they end up being sent to.

[KevinG]

Rob - I am trying to understand your explanation of the original question on this thread. Frankly I wish you would refine your ideas more to the "plain and precious" side of things rather than the complex and obscure side of things but I suppose that is a weakness of apologetics all around.

I will try to characterize the essense of the difference as you see it. Please correct my summary as you see errors.

The LDS and Evangelical ideas of testimony are identical in respect to these ideas:

The Holy Spirit will answer questions and convey information

The Holy Spirit also includes other gifts like wisdom, peace and sometimes prophecy

The Holy Spirit's #1 job is to testify of Christ's Salvation

The Holy Spirit can also make us aware of our sins and the need for salvation

The primary difference in the LDS and Evangelical views is this:

Latter-day Saints believe that the Holy Spirit will testify to the truth of all things in and out of the Bible (including our open canon)

Evangelicals believe that the Holy Spirit will only testify to those truthes already outlined in the Bible, therefore evangelcals would not ask about things outside of their existing canon.

Let me know if this is a fair summary of the topic to this point.

Assuming I have accurately portayed these points and am not in error (I really am trying to understand here)...

There is full agreement that the Holy Spirit's primary function is to testify of Christ and that all mankind can receive this revelation though asking in faith.

The fundamental difference in our understanding of the secondary roles of the Holy Spirit reflect our belief in a complete and closed canon contained soley in the Bible vs. open canon and belief in Latter-day revelation from God.

The only diffuculty I have is reconciling how an evangelcal Christian believes that they can receive wisdom and blessings in things like health concerns, job searches, which church to join, family matters, etc. with a belief that Latter-day Saints are in error asking about the truthfullness of the Book of Mormon and which church to join.