What Distinguishes The Evangelical Witness Vs. Lds Testimony

[mfbukowski]

Many evangelicals speak about “the testimony of the Holy Spirit” and affirm that in some sense they know that Christianity is true because of that testimony or witness. Is this idea analogous to what the LDS Church teaches with regard to the Holy Ghost revealing that the Book of Mormon is true, per Moroni 10:4?

Since evangelicals vary among themselves in their doctrinal understanding of such questions, I cannot rule out that some evangelicals may think about the testimony of the Holy Spirit in a way that is analogous to the Mormon testimony of the Holy Ghost to the Book of Mormon.

I don't know about anybody else, but this is all I need.

The rest is Rob Bowman's personal opinion and therefore irrelevant. He has admitted they can be seen as, and for some ARE the same.

[KevinG]

I don't know about anybody else, but this is all I need.

The rest is Rob Bowman's personal opinion and therefore irrelevant. He has admitted they can be seen as, and for some ARE the same.

In fairness he did say that the Holy Spirit is limited in testifying to those things that are Biblical (again if I got that wrong please excuse me - I am trying to understand some fairly complex explainations here).

This is in contrast to the LDS belief that the Holy Spirit can testify to the truth of All Things.

This distinction is understandable if you consider the Evangelical belief that the Bible is complete and the canon is closed.

This would also explain why Dr. Craig would teach that the Holy Ghost can teach the truth, but the Book of Mormon would not be soemthing the Holy Ghost would testify about. I disagree with this conclusion but I can understand why an Evangelical Christian would hold it.

The only thing that disturbs me is while we LDS take our time to provide proxy ordinances so our kindred dead can obtain the fullness of God's blessings if they were in error during this lifetime, the Evangelicals are busy telling us God's infinite love sends us to h*** for being mistaken and publishing web sites and tracts to warn people away from being "tricked" by our "satanically inspired" doctrines.

[mfbukowski]

This is not only true of the evangelicals you characterize here.

1. Anyone who equates factual knowledge with spiritual knowledge is not spiritually inclined.

2. Anyone who attempts to sustain a relationship without knowledge is ignorant of how relationships work, and can sustain only ignorant relationships.

3. Anyone that does not settle the question of which version of Christianity is true by appealing to or receiving a private religious experience simply hasn’t found the question to be important enough.

4. Anyone that feels or reasons that he should not pray for divine guidance (a private revelation or spiritual experience) simply lacks the interest to do so, or lacks a fuller personal relationship with God.

Sometimes these things are done in ignorance, sometimes in pride. In either case, the Light of Christ calls upon all God's children to move forward in developing a fuller relationship with God through the ministrations of the Holy Spirit. Everyone responds in their own way, at their own pace, and sometimes not in the way God wants them to.

I agree. Rob is setting up a strawman not reflecting our beliefs at all.

As always, his understanding of our position is deficient.

We do not (typically) pray about factual matters. We pray about spiritual matters, or about decisions to make in our lives. Those are not "facts".

The only way of determining even that the Bible is "true" is by the spirit.

The Bible asserts that Jesus died for our sins. That cannot be determined by "facts", but only by the spirit.

[mfbukowski]

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.

It is. Of course Bowman is not Craig. I think Bowman is struggling to harmonize his position with Craig because he does not to want to blatantly disagree with him. But based on his previous statements, I think he knows his position conflicts significantly with Craig's- heck, as you point out, Craig's position conflicts with Craig's position.

So Bowman is stuck between a rock and a hard place- he has to affirm a conflicting position to appear to agree with Craig.

[Vance]

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 truths already outlined in the Bible, therefore evangelicals would not ask about things outside of their existing canon.

May I suggest some changes?

"Evangelicals believe that the Holy Spirit will only testify to those truths already outlined in the Bible AS UNDERSTOOD BY EVANGELICALS, therefore evangelicals would not ask about things outside of their UNDERSTANDING OF THE existing canon.

[KevinG]

May I suggest some changes?

"Evangelicals believe that the Holy Spirit will only testify to those truths already outlined in the Bible AS UNDERSTOOD BY EVANGELICALS, therefore evangelicals would not ask about things outside of their UNDERSTANDING OF THE existing canon.

i don't have a problem with the notion that Evangelicals believe the Spirit verifies their own understanding. That is somewhat human nature to want to reconcile new information with our preconceived notions.

However, demanding that others beliefs be interpreted and bound according to our preconceived notions is hardly coming to an understanding. I am afraid that is a trap that is snaring Rob and other Evangelicals who preach against Mormons using flawed understanding of Mormonism (intentional or not).

[mfbukowski]

That we can go in and induce religious experiences in people does not "prove" religion false (nothing can prove anything false in the sense religious people demand)it certainly shows that religious experiences are just as likely to be resulted from natural origins, as supernatural (if not more likely).

LDS are materialists, and everything IS "natural" in that sense- no such thing as immaterial matter- remember that?

You still have not answered my previous post. about the "cause" of experience, religious and otherwise. You cannot separate electro chemical brainstates from experience. So what?

Eldwynn was asked to take this topic to another thread. You are welcome to pick up that portion of the discussion on a new thread. Thank you, Ares

[Rob Bowman]

DaddyG,

You wrote:

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).

I would sincerely be appreciative if you could give me a specific example of me taking information given to me here and selectively presenting it in such a way as to smear the LDS uncharitably or with a lack of integrity. If need be you can send me a PM to bring such an example to my attention. I make every effort to be fair, accurate, and charitable in what I say about any religion, and assure you I will make any changes necessary to that end to the best of my ability.

More later.

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

It is. Of course Bowman is not Craig. I think Bowman is struggling to harmonize his position with Craig because he does not to want to blatantly disagree with him. But based on his previous statements, I think he knows his position conflicts significantly with Craig's- heck, as you point out, Craig's position conflicts with Craig's position.

So Bowman is stuck between a rock and a hard place- he has to affirm a conflicting position to appear to agree with Craig.

Setting aside all of your other questionable comments, your claim that "Craig's position conflicts with Craig's position" shows you are not even trying to understand our views fairly or accurately. If you were, you would not make such a statement without seriously engaging the explanation that was given as to why that claim is incorrect.

[KevinG]

DaddyG,

You wrote:

I would sincerely be appreciative if you could give me a specific example of me taking information given to me here and selectively presenting it in such a way as to smear the LDS uncharitably or with a lack of integrity. If need be you can send me a PM to bring such an example to my attention. I make every effort to be fair, accurate, and charitable in what I say about any religion, and assure you I will make any changes necessary to that end to the best of my ability.

More later.

I'n 30 secondsI picked up some great examples of falsehoods that you have perpetuated from your web site:

"Mormonism pays lip service to the Bible, but only uses it when and where it appears to support Mormon teachings."

We study, research, distribute and pray about the Bible too. It is not in conflict with our other teachigns.

"The Book of Mormon contradicts both the Bible and other Mormon Scriptures. This could be why they want you to pray about it instead of investigating it carefully."

We ask people to read, ponder (IOW investigate carefully) and pray about all of our doctrines. We don't baptize unless potential coverts have a strong understanding of our doctrines and declare a testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

"Joseph Smith’s discovery and production of the Book of Mormon was rooted in his and his father’s superstitious and occultic practice of digging for money."

Falsehoods and calumny often addressed in apologetics.

I assume you will be issuing corrections based on what you learn at this site or owning up to the fact that you do present a biased interpretation of our beliefs in order to warn others away from learning about us from our own missionaries and members.

---

But back from the rabbit trails... can you address my actual question and summary above?

Edited August 22, 2011 by DaddyG

[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.

Here it is Rob. Please address this (the original topic).

[Vance]

<snip snide personal remark> . . . your claim that "Craig's position conflicts with Craig's position" shows you are not even trying to understand our views fairly or accurately.

We understand it quite well, it is just that it is inconsistent. The fact that you don't see the inconsistency in it and we do, doesn't mean that we don't understand it.

[mfbukowski]

I am probably sticking my nose in here where it doesn't belong since this was not addressed to me- on the other hand, knowing Mudcat well, I don't think he will object. Furthermore, I am just working my way through this thread, as I said I would and don't know at this moment what has been said since this post was made

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.

I think there is not a word of this so far that I would disagree with. I have no problem with any of it. As far of which testimony is "better" I think that God teaches each of us individually and neither is "better"- it's just that some of us learn one way and others learn better a different way- but I think we are all ultimately on the same path. "Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess...."

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 don't see the inconsistency and you have not yet shown that.

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

OK but I am still not seeing it.....

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.

Still not getting the inconsistency you are claiming. We believe the same truth is in all four Standard Works- including of course the Bible. One might have "one quarter of a testimony" (from my pov) that only the Bible is "true"- I don't see my testimony as conflicting with that- just that it is only a testimony of a part of the truth.

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?

Imo, it can work either way. If one has a testimony of Christ before one reads the BoM then it is an additional testimony to one's testimony of Christ. Yet IF the BoM is true, then all that is in it is also true, and the BoM is "another testimony of Christ". As I mentioned, I did not have a testimony of Christ until I had an experience confirming the BoM.

Overall, I think we have a real basis for discussion of these points- unlike Rob who doesn't seem to want to budge an inch in his condemnation of Moroni 10:4-5.

I think you and I are very close, whereas I feel like I am galaxies away from Rob. From that perspective, I think you are a far better missionary for Evangelicalism- if that is a word- than Rob.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

addressed previously.

Edited August 22, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[mfbukowski]

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?

Gosh, not yet.

[Mudcat]

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.

Hi DG,

Thanks for a thoughtful reply. Emphasis mine on this part you wrote. I agree that you have surmised correctly that I do actually believe the HS is bound by what he has declared of himself in the Bible. But I don't want you to think that I believe he is restricted in some sort of way. I think it might be better said the if the Holy Spirit is bound by his word, this is simply because it is in his nature to be trustworthy and not make false commitments.

Is it possible that the Holy Spirit could do things outside of the Biblical claims of him? I certainly think so. Though I would add the caveat, that it is my belief that God is not duplicitous. By that I mean, I don't think it possible for the Holy Spirit to do anything that is contrary from previous claims of him.

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.

I'll take that as a compliment and I am glad we are in agreement on this. I have not participated in many Sunday School lessons at the CoJCoLDS (only one that I can recall) but I have had a number of discussions with many members. Certainly we have our differences, but I have always enjoyed exploring the issues we hold in common.

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:

Emphasis mine, I don't want to give the impression I was proof texting. I do disagree with you a bit here though. Not such much in the fact that Moroni 10:4 has a greater associated context regarding the Holy Spirit other than the verse itself. But rather in the application of Moroni 10:4 as used by LDS.

This pertains most directly to LDS missionary discussions I have had. There is quite an impetus placed on soliciting the investigator to read and pray specifically about the BoM. Moroni 10:4 as well as James 1:5-6 seem to be referred to in the conversations I have had. There may be an undue emphasis on these verses, but I don't think I am out of line suggesting that such applicational emphasis does exist.

I suppose one point I had with Moroni 10:4 is that it does seem to be posited to operate through a priori faith in Christ. So the result of it, isn't faith in Christ, rather faith that what BoM professes of Christ as well as other events within it are true.. I suppose. The verse is fascinating because of it's structure and caveat of first having faith in Christ before askance. I may start a thread on it one day.. but don't have much in the way of spare time lately.

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.

Thanks for sharing that. This is similar if not identical to many descriptions I have heard from a number of Evangelicals.

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.

Bold mine. I agree, I think when we keep our eyes on Christ, we all do better.

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.

Probably not the thread for DG, but I think we all feel our own experience with the Holy Spirit holds primacy of the experiences of others.. as it should. This isn't to say we shouldn't be open to trying and understand the experiences of another. But if we do accept another's experiences as in some way authentically from the HS and also that those experiences are different from our own in that they have led another person to some significantly different conclusions, then we are left with the question of, how can that be? Why would God say two different things?.. that sort of thing.

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.

Thanks for the link, I will check it out when I have a bit more time and may offer a comment on it in the thread.

Regards,

Mudcat

[mfbukowski]

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.

To the point that if the dishwasher feels he wants to start his own church, he does. From our point of view- that does not lead to "One Faith One Baptism". Not meant as a put-down; but you would probably not take it as one anyway, I hope.

That is precisely why we would take issue with Evangelicals on the idea of authority- but I suppose that might be more appropriate for another thread. It is clear that Protestants and other creedal Christians are not very unified on these matters, and imo unity is a hallmark of true Christianity.

Just my opinion- but I suppose we LDS are know to contend with each other too!

[KevinG]

Mudcat,

"I suppose one point I had with Moroni 10:4 is that it does seem to be posited to operate through a priori faith in Christ. So the result of it, isn't faith in Christ, rather faith that what BoM professes of Christ as well as other events within it are true.. I suppose. The verse is fascinating because of it's structure and caveat of first having faith in Christ before askance."

Good observation- my friend who served his mission in Korea was blindsided early in his teaching because Christ was not a cultural and religious assumption on the part of his students like it so often is in the West.

Again I appreciate your explanations as well as your charitable posture towards the Saints understanding.

[KevinG]

Rob,

Because I derailed my own thread - I will try to characterize the essense of the difference between the role of the Holy Spirit in the Evangelical and LDS views. 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.

[mfbukowski]

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 really could learn something from Mudcat about being a Christian and having a Christian attitude.

We both know that you have a very narrow and simple definition of the word "saved" whereas we do not. For you, all one must do is confess Christ as savior and it is done. For us that is also true- in fact it is even more simple- from our point of view we are BORN saved in your definition since we are born without original sin.

It is not my fault that your theology is deficient in explaining the rewards of heaven- speaking of "crowns" and "jewels" for rewards which you cannot explain otherwise. We have different levels of "salvation" - which are quite specific- you have vague symbols for rewards which do not make a lot of sense.

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.

But of course the spirit could not testify to you that you are right- because you don't believe that is possible. So go ahead with your rationalizations.

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.

Since evangelicals vary among themselves in their doctrinal understanding of such questions, I cannot rule out that some evangelicals may think about the testimony of the Holy Spirit in a way that is analogous to the Mormon testimony of the Holy Ghost to the Book of Mormon.

You may not endorse it, but you acknowledge that others do.

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.

And then pray about it.

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.

So why don't you explain the contradiction then?

[mfbukowski]

In fairness he did say that the Holy Spirit is limited in testifying to those things that are Biblical (again if I got that wrong please excuse me - I am trying to understand some fairly complex explainations here).

This is in contrast to the LDS belief that the Holy Spirit can testify to the truth of All Things.

Then he is limiting God's ability to speak to his children. I don't limit God's abilities especially in responding to prayer.

[mfbukowski]

Setting aside all of your other questionable comments, your claim that "Craig's position conflicts with Craig's position" shows you are not even trying to understand our views fairly or accurately. If you were, you would not make such a statement without seriously engaging the explanation that was given as to why that claim is incorrect.

I have seen no such explanation from you. Where is it? Looks like an avoidance to me.

And the real question here is not Craig's position- it is yours. If he were here I would ask him. He is not.

[Vance]

The verse is fascinating because of it's structure and caveat of first having faith in Christ before askance.

askance?

Although I think I know what you are trying to convey here, your usage of "askance" just doesn't fit.

[KevinG]

askance?

Although I think I know what you are trying to convey here, your usage of "askance" just doesn't fit.

I read that as a typo of "asking". It made sense that way.

[Vance]

I read that as a typo of "asking". It made sense that way.

That is the way I read it too, and for the same reason, but . . .