What Distinguishes The Evangelical Witness Vs. Lds Testimony

[altersteve]

But what God says privately to you has absolutely no authority for me or for anyone else in the Christian community.

Question: why do you limit this to the Christian community? Do you not believe God speaks to Muslims, Jews, or Buddhists?

[altersteve]

Okay. But this means that in the end you decide which thoughts are from God, which are from Satan, and which are just your own. You "attribute" some thoughts to God and other thoughts to Satan. Since both sets of thoughts are in your head, how do you decide which thoughts come from which source?

That's not a question that we can answer. That's something that each person has to learn for himself.

I certainly am nobody authorized to deny what God has said.

Do you deny that God has told me that the Book of Mormon is true?

But first I need to know if God really said it. I'm not supposed to take your word for it, am I?

No, you're not. But you can take God's word for it.

Edited August 24, 2011 by altersteve

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

You wrote:

The way you worded it made it seem as though the Holy Ghost cannot bear witness of things outside the Bible. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

No problem.

That said, you don't believe that the Holy Ghost does not, for example, bear witness of things in science? I think He most certainly does, just as he teaches us of all other things as Jesus taught in John 14:26.

I'll comment on John 14:26 below. How does the Holy Ghost's witness in science work? For example, let's say you are testing a blood sample and the result indicates leukemia. How do you receive a witness from the Holy Ghost about this test result? What form does the witness take? Must you pray to receive it? Should you reject the test result unless you get confirmation by a witness from the Holy Ghost?

Regarding my understanding of John 14:26, you wrote:

If you would rather not, it's fine. However, I don't see any other possible interpretation of that passage without twisting the Savior's words. But I'm interested in hearing your thoughts. Hopefully people can be civil and respectful and be able to challenge your interpretation without being hostile or scornful this time.

I appreciate that.

In the Upper Room Discourse in the Gospel of John, Jesus has much to say about the Holy Spirit. Jesus would ask the Father to send them the Spirit of truth to be another Advocate (paraklêtos) to be with his disciples forever (14:16-17). Although the persons to whom Jesus was speaking directly were the apostles (see verses 18-19), there is nothing in the immediate context precluding this statement from being applicable to all believers in Christ who receive the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. His next comment about the Holy Spirit, though, is a different matter: “I have said these things to you while I am still with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you” (14:25-26). Jesus here identifies the persons that will receive this work of the Holy Spirit as those with whom he had been physically present. They are the ones who had heard Jesus speak to them, and so they are the ones whom the Holy Spirit was to remind about what Jesus had said to them. The Holy Spirit cannot be said to “remind” believers living today of what Jesus said to them when he was physically present with them. In context, then, these words are directed to the apostles who had been with Jesus, not to all believers. Later, Jesus says that the Spirit “will testify” on Christ’s behalf, and the apostles will also testify to him because they had been with him from the beginning of his ministry (John 15:26-27). This statement also appears to be focused exclusively on the apostles who were living in Jesus’ day and had been physically present with him during his ministry. The Spirit “will prove the world wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment,” while he will “guide you into all the truth” by speaking whatever he hears from the Son and declaring the things to come (John 16:7-15). Here again, by “you” in context Jesus means the apostles, those to whom he had more to say that they were not ready to hear (v. 12).

It is therefore a mistake to read all of these statements about the ministry of the Holy Spirit in John 14-16 as referring directly to what the Holy Spirit does for each believer. Certainly there is an application directly relevant to every Christian, because the Holy Spirit does indwell every believer, providing comfort and strength and support. But Jesus was not promising all believers that the Holy Spirit would directly reveal truth to them, guide them into all the truth, or declare to all believers directly things that are to come. Those who wish to claim such privileges will have to derive them from some other source, because John14-16 simply is not making such promises.

Finally, I should add that the meaning of "all things" is to be determined from the context, and in the context of John 14-16 "all things" means all of the things that Christ wanted the apostles and those who would come after him to know about who he was, what he had done for their salvation, and so forth. The context gives no support to the idea that Jesus was here enunciating a general epistemological principle that all knowledge comes by a direct revelation from the Holy Spirit.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

You wrote:

Question: why do you limit this to the Christian community? Do you not believe God speaks to Muslims, Jews, or Buddhists?

What do you mean by this? Surely you don't mean that the Qur'an is genuinely inspired by God or that Muhammad was a true prophet of God. Buddhists don't even claim that God speaks to them--many Buddhists don't even believe in a God.

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

I had asked Ahab: "But this means that in the end you decide which thoughts are from God, which are from Satan, and which are just your own. You "attribute" some thoughts to God and other thoughts to Satan. Since both sets of thoughts are in your head, how do you decide which thoughts come from which source?" You replied:

That's not a question that we can answer. That's something that each person has to learn for himself.

That lack of an answer would seem to create an impasse.

You wrote:

Do you deny that God has told me that the Book of Mormon is true?

I'm afraid so. How could I not deny it, when I have strong reasons to believe that the Book of Mormon is false? Would it not be hypocritical of me to believe that the Book of Mormon is false but not deny that God told you it was true?

Suppose someone tells me that God told him that the Qur'an is true. Is it wrong for me to deny his claim?

You wrote:

No, you're not. But you can take God's word for it.

If you can't tell me how to know what is God's word and what is not, again that would seem to create a barrier to further elucidation of what you are advocating.

[KevinG]

jo,

You wrote:

First, it's Rob, not Bob.

Second, my comment in the post you quoted above was not directed at you. It was not criticizing you at all. My comment was a response to Mr. Bukowski, who had claimed that what I had said to you was absurd gibberish. I was simply explaining to him what I had said to you.

Third, I told you in post #146, the post immediately following your post #145 that you quote above, why I did not respond to any questions in your post. In that post, you had written:

To which I replied:

"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."

Now, in post #248 you point out that you had claimed that DaddyG had already answered my questions:

However, what you missed is my reply to DaddyG in post #147:

"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.'"

Although DaddyG replied in post #148, his reply did not address the specific problem I was raising in my question to you. Here, I will review it for you. You had written:

I responded to the above comments as follows in post #141:

Neither of DaddyG's replies to me addressed the problem here. In his first reply, DaddyG affirmed that Mormons believe in salvation by grace, which wasn't the question I asked. In his second reply, DaddyG stated that (1) he believed that faith in Christ was valid for people of all denominations, that (2) Mormons believe in exaltation as well as a more general salvation, and that (3) he was offended by evangelicals suggesting that Mormons might not be saved at all. However, none of these statements addressed my question in the slightest. In what sense are non-Mormon Christians "saved"? DaddyG didn't say. It can't be in the sense of attaining entrance to the celestial kingdom or attaining exaltation. That leaves the general salvation. However, as I pointed out, in Mormon theology everyone gets that, including non-Christians who don't believe in Christ. That means, as far as I can tell, that the fact that non-Mormons who "convert to the LDS Church" were not "already saved" because of their faith in Christ. To put it another way: In LDS doctrine, faith in Christ is more than is needed for general salvation (resurrection, immortality) but less than is needed for individual salvation (celestial kingdom, exaltation).

Finally, I will point out again (I don't know how many times I have already done so) that I have not said that it is wrong to pray about our questions. It is the way that we pray about them that is of concern. If we pray in a way that presupposes that only one type of answer is acceptable, we are likely engaged in self-deception. For example, if we pray, "Please give me a witness of the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon is true," such a prayer assumes that the Book of Mormon is true. It would be better to pray something like this: "God, if the Book of Mormon is true, I want to know it; and if it's false, I want to know that, too. Please help me to understand the issues and to see the Book of Mormon for what it really is. If you do want to give me a revelation that the Book of Mormon is true, I'm open to that, but if that isn't your will I'm open to learning in any way that honors you." Then we should study the issues, test the Book of Mormon according to the biblical standards for testing anything that purports to be revelation from God, and stay determined to put knowing God's truth above personal comfort, human relationships, or anything else.

I did howver answer and clarify in a later post.

[wenglund]

Wade,

The Bible itself contains multiple witnesses. The Old Testament and the New Testament may be viewed as distinct witnesses. Various books of the Old Testament provide accounts or teachings about the same subjects (e.g., creation in Genesis, Job, the Psalms, and Isaiah). We have four Gospels that provide distinct testimonies concerning the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We have epistles from Paul, James, Peter, John, and Jude that attest to the doctrine of the apostles in the first century.

Yes, in a certain respect the Bible contains multiple witnesses, and those who believe in the Bible also provide numerous witnesses.

However, I am not so sure the law of witnesses is just a matter of quantity as it is types of witnesses. To use a secular example, let's say a person is accused of raping a woman. It may or may not be sufficient to convict the rapist depending upon the word or testimony of the victim and another witnesses. However, conviction may more certainly be be established by other types of witnesses, like empirical evidence (DNA, etc.) and circumstantial evidence (like past rape convictions, motive, opportunity, etc.).

To me, the reason that different types of witnesses are important is not only because they may vary in the level of surety instill in those being witnessed to (empirical evidence seems more sure than eye-witness testimonies, etc.), but also from the standpoint of checks and balances and orientation. Buy this I mean that if all we have are words written in the fallible language of men, and interpreted and judged by fallible men, then essentially all we have as a check and balance and orientation is man. All we have to assess the things of God is fallible man, in all his varied opinions.

However, through the witness of the Spirit, we have God as a check and balance and orientation. We have God to help and assist us in assessing and judging the things of God.

Then, if we add to this the fruits of the Spirit, we have our changed lives and altered states (from natural to spiritual man) as a check and balance and orientation. We have the increasing godliness within us as a means for assessing the things of God.

But, that may just be how we LDS see things. And, there is nothing but reason that would demand that an individual avail themselves of these other types of witnesses from God.

As evangelicals see it, the Bible's objective teaching about Christ and salvation is complemented by the subjective experience of forgiveness, acceptance, and love from God through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. in this sense the Holy Spirit's internal witness complements his external witness in Scripture (which he inspired). I don't have a problem viewing these as "two witnesses" in that respect.

I don't either. [Thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 24, 2011 by wenglund

[KevinG]

DaddyG,

I'm sorry I didn't reply to you sooner, but there is quite a lot going on just in this thread! You wrote:

Yes, by "Spirit-illuminated mind" I mean a believer's mind illuminated by the Holy Spirit. According to evangelical theology, the gifts of the Spirit are a distinct phenomenon from the illumination of the Spirit. All true Christians are illuminated by the Spirit, but they have different spiritual gifts, not all of which are knowledge-oriented. (For example, a believer could have a spiritual gift of leadership or of mercy or of giving.) Illumination enables believers to see and recognize and accept what God says in Scripture; it is not additional knowledge beyond what is given in Scripture.

So if the Book of Mormon is revealed scripture the Holy Ghost could testify that it is such according to this. So I see Moroni's promise as very consistent with this belief of a "Spirit-Illuminated mind" which I would describe as the gift of knowledge.

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

Thanks for your comments. We agree on some things here, which is nice. You wrote:

Buy this I mean that if all we have are words written in the fallible language of men, and interpreted and judged by fallible men, then essentially all we have as a check and balance and orientation is man. All we have to assess the things of God is fallible man, in all his varied opinions.

However, through the witness of the Spirit, we have God as a check and balance and orientation. We have God to help and assist us in assessing and judging the things of God.

The problem here is that you are still a fallible human being perceiving what you think is the witness of the Spirit. There is no reason why that perception should not also be fallible, just as is our perception of the meaning of a text. It is a fallible man reading the text and a fallible man having a religious experience he interprets as a witness of the Spirit.

God is infallible, and his word or witness are likewise infallible. However, our knowledge of God, of his word, of his Spirit, is incorrigibly fallible, regardless of the medium or form in which that knowledge comes to us. This problem is not circumvented by the idea of a witness of the Spirit as a general principle of knowledge.

[KevinG]

Storm Rider,

I had written:

You replied:

This is a misrepresentation. I am not limiting what the Holy Spirit can and cannot do. I am stating what I understand from the Bible that the Holy Spirit does and does not (normally) do. There is a difference between saying that God cannot do something and saying that he does not do something. If I say that the Holy Spirit normally does not directly reveal to individuals who wrote the Book of Esther or whether David Koresh was a true or false prophet, this does not mean that I "must believe that the Holy Spirit is limited in some way." It means rather that I understand that there are some things that the Holy Spirit chooses not to do, or that he chooses for us to learn some things in a different way than by direct revelations to individuals.

Please tell me that you understand this distinction and that you now recognize that your statement about my belief was inaccurate before we try to move forward.

I get it. So the Holy Spirit is not limited, but chooses to limit what He does. Ingoring your ackward juxtaposition of David Koresh and LDS Scripture for a moment.

My experience with the Holy Spirit is consistent that He would choose to warn people against joining a harmful cult and he would choose to instruct people about Latter-day revealed scriptures.

I cannot conceive why either of these important topics would be beyond what the Holy Spirit would choose to reveal or warn against given all of the promises from the Bible quoted in this thread. Neither of those issues seem insignificant whan it comes to faith in Christ and following His true disciples.

While Hughes terse response that the Holy Spirit told him the Book of Mormon was not scripture does not agree with my experience, I find it a much more congurent and Biblically consistent answer than assuming what the Holy Spirit chooses to reveal and chooses not to reveal. (edited to avoid unintended offense).

Edited August 24, 2011 by DaddyG

[mfbukowski]

I would agree that most Evangelicals typically by the "whole package" so to speak as you have done with the teachings of the CoJCoLDS. I don't fall into that category I suppose.

I realize that my first encounter with the Holy Spirit was one that offered a brief but ultimately significant message which I have embraced as completely as I can. Obviously this hasn't led me to the singular conclusion that a specific church is true. Just simply that I have become a child of God and should seek to follow him.

Since then I have done my best to follow the Spirit and the evidence where it leads from there and have grown accordingly.

This to me, is a very "LDS" attitude, and again points to our similarity.

[Ahab]

Okay. But this means that in the end you decide which thoughts are from God, which are from Satan, and which are just your own.

Think more in terms of reality, Rob. I don't "decide" which thoughts are from God and which are from Satan, as if my decision to attribute a thought to God means ipso facto that it actually came from God. I simply recognize the fact that a thought didn't originate in me and then I do my best to recognize who it really came from.

You "attribute" some thoughts to God and other thoughts to Satan. Since both sets of thoughts are in your head, how do you decide which thoughts come from which source?

By getting to know the sources, personally. Thoughts actually do come from God, and thoughts actually do come from Satan. Which are which is simply a matter of getting to know both God and Satan well enough to know who the thoughts are coming from.

Would you be surprised to hear that I know Satan, personally? Knowing Satan is pretty much a requisite to gaining knowledge of God, because Satan often masquerades as God and even calls himself God while sharing his thoughts with me, and with you, and with other people. Thus, to know God, you need to gain some knowledge of who he is NOT, at least well enough to know that he is not Satan.

I'm sorry, but I really think I've addressed this question a dozen times in this thread. Some of you seem bent on trying to convince me that our methods of knowing are not very different. Why is this so important to you? Obviously there must be some difference, because we don't agree on some very fundamental issues.

Shrug. I don't know. I guess seeing the common links between us helps us to know... or at least helps me to know, that we're really not all that different.

Personally, I think our methods are very similar and the difference is mainly in WHO we trust as we gain our own knowledge. We get to know Satan in pretty much the same way we get to know God, at least in methodology, so the difference mainly lies in who is God and who is Satan.

I certainly am nobody authorized to deny what God has said. But first I need to know if God really said it. I'm not supposed to take your word for it, am I?

No, but you shouldn't deny what God has said unless you REALLY know that he did NOT, and since proving a negative is pretty much impossible there is no real way for you or anyone else to do that. What we really need to find out is what God HAS said, rather than worrying about what we think he did NOT say, and then when we find out what God HAS said, we need to ask him to make it perfectly clear to us what he meant by what he said.

[Rob Bowman]

DaddyG,

You finished with this:

While Hughes terse response that the Holy Spirit told him the Book of Mormon was not scripture does not agree with my experience, I find it a much more honest and consistent answer than assuming what the Holy Spirit chooses to reveal and chooses not to reveal.

I'm sorry, but I don't feel inclined to continue discussions with individuals who make such unwarranted judgments about whether I have answered a question honestly.

[KevinG]

Ahab,

You wrote:

I took your question as rhetorical. That is, I took you to be making a point -- that my way of knowing is inadequate to assure that I really know it is from God -- and not asking a question.

You wrote:

You mean, you have thoughts that differ from what the Holy Ghost tells you? Does this mean that you have thoughts that the Book of Mormon is not true but the Holy Ghost tells you otherwise? I doubt this is what you mean. What, then, do you mean? How do "your own thoughts" differ from "something the Holy Ghost is telling you"?

You wrote:

By testing what I believe to make sure it isn't just my opinion. I can test my beliefs with various means. (1) Compare them with the Bible. (2) Discuss my beliefs with other Christians and see what they say. (Perhaps they will point me to biblical texts I have overlooked or to other considerations I missed.) This includes reading Christian books (from a variety of theological perspectives), talking to Christians, listening to lectures, and the like. (3) Consider the logical implications of my beliefs with the intent of making sure that I am thinking coherently and consistently. (4) Listen to what Christian and non-Christian critics of my beliefs say and think through their objections as honestly as I can. (4) If a particular belief calls for some action on my part, pursue that action and see what happens, assuming neither that it will prove true nor that it will prove false. And I do all these things in an attitude of seeking God's illuminating, clarifying help; thus, prayer is relevant to all of these means of testing my beliefs.

You wrote:

Hopefully what I have said above already answers your question here. I do not assume that if I think myself to be wise then what I believe must come from God. That would be rather arrogant and presumptuous. I test my beliefs in every legitimate way I can, trusting in God to light the way.

I agree with your testing as listed above and the Saints would not argue against any of these things. I'm sure you are fimiliar with Alma's experiement in faith which asks us to reason things out, ponder them, pray about them. We are promised that we will be enlightened and the light of Christ is sufficient for us to know truth from falsehood. Again it is the witness of the Holy Spirit which is the ultimate indicator of the truth. Coming full circle then - we can reason, find consistency in scriptures, reason with other believers- yet all of these things fall short of direct revelation from the Holy Spirit.

Separating our own opinions and notions from what God tells us is a delicate process which includes living according to the laws we are given (those who obey Christ will know Him) eschewing the natural man, repenting and humbling ourselves to be receptive to counsel from God (the natural man is enemy to God) and checking our individual promptings with the doctrines of the church (the Spirit prompts men to do what is good).

The answer to "how do you know?" has only one sure answer which is "God has answered me." and this through the Holy Spirit.

Again we are very much in agreement on many points about revelation, but I see your descriptions as limiting the role of the Holy Spirit unneccesarily and un-Biblically be it by the nature or choice of the Holy Spirit.

[Rob Bowman]

Ahab,

You wrote:

Personally, I think our methods are very similar and the difference is mainly in WHO we trust as we gain our own knowledge. We get to know Satan in pretty much the same way we get to know God, at least in methodology, so the difference mainly lies in who is God and who is Satan.

Well, that's a pretty big difference!

You wrote:

No, but you shouldn't deny what God has said unless you REALLY know that he did NOT, and since proving a negative is pretty much impossible there is no real way for you or anyone else to do that. What we really need to find out is what God HAS said, rather than worrying about what we think he did NOT say, and then when we find out what God HAS said, we need to ask him to make it perfectly clear to us what he meant by what he said.

If I believe that God has said certain things, and then I am told that God said something contrary, I cannot accept both beliefs. For example, if my understanding of the NT is that after Jesus Christ's ascension in Acts 1:9-11 he was not going to return bodily to the earth until his second coming (see also Acts 3:19-21), then I cannot also accept the claim of the Book of Mormon that Christ descended shortly after his ascension and spent considerable time speaking to and touching people in the Americas. I'm not asking you to agree with me on this, but to understand why I can reasonably deny that God said one thing on the basis of something else I believe God really did say.

[KevinG]

Some of you seem bent on trying to convince me that our methods of knowing are not very different. Why is this so important to you? Obviously there must be some difference, because we don't agree on some very fundamental issues.

That is the origin of this thread. Evangelicals accuse the Saints of being led by the devil where they claim to be led by God. My point in starting this thread is to ask you the very question why do you deny the Saints the same gifts of the Holy Spirit you reserve for yourself?

The only difference I see so far is not the way the Holy Spirit talks to us (through scripture, through direct ministrations to our mind and spirit, through the body of Christ as we teach each other...) but in your view that the Holy Spirit chooses not to reveal things about the Book of Mormon because according to you it is not considered scripture like the Bible.

[KevinG]

I've discussed the passage in John 14 on this forum before, and the hostility and scorn my interpretation received does not excite me about doing it again. But we can go there if that would be helpful.

While I don't condone contention apologists deal with hostility towards their ideas and beliefs all the time. As a full time critic of the Latter-day Saints you might be charitable towards those who disagree with you and address the issues.

An admonishment I often give to my fellow Saints and apologists is that while this may be the 100th time you have answered this question it may be the first time the person asking it has done so.

[Ahab]

Well, that's a pretty big difference!

Yes, but as I was saying, the difference is between Satan and God, rather than how we get to know who is who.

If I believe that God has said certain things, and then I am told that God said something contrary, I cannot accept both beliefs.

Okay, but what will you change? What you believe God has said? Is that ever open as a possibility of something you might consider changing?

I don't believe in accepting hearsay from anybody, or at least as nothing more than hearsay, so what someone says God has said pretty much means nothing to me except to maybe give me something to ask God about.

Did you really say this, God? So and so says you did, and I'm really not sure what is going on here. Did you maybe say something like what he said and maybe he's just not very good at communicating what you really said? I think I can see a little bit of truth in what he is saying, but it doesn't sound to me like what you would say, exactly. But, then, of course, I could be wrong. What do you say?

For example, if my understanding of the NT is that after Jesus Christ's ascension in Acts 1:9-11 he was not going to return bodily to the earth until his second coming (see also Acts 3:19-21), then I cannot also accept the claim of the Book of Mormon that Christ descended shortly after his ascension and spent considerable time speaking to and touching people in the Americas. I'm not asking you to agree with me on this, but to understand why I can reasonably deny that God said one thing on the basis of something else I believe God really did say.

Uh huh. I can see your predicament. Maybe just to be safe you should check with God to see what is really going on here. You know, the next time you get together to talk with him.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Ahab

[KevinG]

Steve,

You wrote:

What do you mean by this? Surely you don't mean that the Qur'an is genuinely inspired by God or that Muhammad was a true prophet of God. Buddhists don't even claim that God speaks to them--many Buddhists don't even believe in a God.

Speaking for Steve - of course not.

Surely we mean that any child of God can know right from wrong through the light of Christ. The rest of your statement above is putting words in Steve's mouth.

[KevinG]

DaddyG,

You finished with this:

I'm sorry, but I don't feel inclined to continue discussions with individuals who make such unwarranted judgments about whether I have answered a question honestly.

By Honsty I was referring to Hughes internal consistency and boldness in declaring his experience. Please don't take offense where none was intended.

In order to avoid offense I will phrase it this way: I find it a much more congurent and Biblically consistent answer than assuming what the Holy Spirit chooses to reveal and chooses not to reveal.

I am stunned that someone who runs a full time ministry opposing the beliefs of others would refuse to engage with them because they question the veracity of those claims.

Edited August 24, 2011 by DaddyG

[KevinG]

Since this thread has gone down yet another trail of "how do you know your revelations are from God and not Satan?" I will start another thread for Evangelicals to compare and contrast their beliefs with the Latter-day Saints.

[altersteve]

I'll comment on John 14:26 below. How does the Holy Ghost's witness in science work? For example, let's say you are testing a blood sample and the result indicates leukemia. How do you receive a witness from the Holy Ghost about this test result? What form does the witness take? Must you pray to receive it? Should you reject the test result unless you get confirmation by a witness from the Holy Ghost?

I'm no expert in science and I have never prayed about it, so I don't know. All I was trying to say is that the Holy Ghost can and does testify of truths that may be found in areas even outside the gospel, using my own personal belief that He can testify of scientific truths as a basic example. Your interpretation of John 14:26 is interesting, but I disagree. Jesus was talking to the Apostles and the statement was therefore directed at them, but I simply disagree. Just as latter-day revelation teaches that the Holy Ghost testifies of all truth (Moroni 10:4–5; D&C 6:15; 39:6; 79:2; 121:46), what Jesus said in John 14:26 can likewise be applied to all of God's children. Christ taught this further in John 16:13. Revealing the truth of all things is one of the primary roles of the Holy Spirit, along with bearing witness of the Father and the Son (1 Corinthians 12:3; 3 Nephi 28:11; Ether 12:41), etc.

What do you mean by this? Surely you don't mean that the Qur'an is genuinely inspired by God or that Muhammad was a true prophet of God. Buddhists don't even claim that God speaks to them--many Buddhists don't even believe in a God.

I believe that Muhammad and Buddha were inspired teachers and that the Qur'an teaches many good things. I have no problem with believing that the Qur'an and other sacred texts of other religions are at least partly inspired in the truths that they teach. See my thread about this topic and join the discussion, here.

I believe that God speaks to and inspires people all the time. I believe that He inspired Alexander Graham Bell to invent the telephone and Mark Zuckerberg to create Facebook for example. These things have helped spread His gospel throughout the world. Latter-day Saints reject the idea that God only works through one denomination. We believe that truth can be found in all religions and philosophies, that God works in and through all religions, that He most certainly speaks to and inspires people around the world and throughout the ages even outside His Church, and even that God may very well inspire someone to join a religion other than the Church of Jesus Christ for His own purposes. In 1978, the First Presidency issued a statement that said, "The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God's light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals."

That lack of an answer would seem to create an impasse.

Not at all. It's simply not a question that we can answer. Each person must get to know God on a personal level (that is, to know God as our Father, not just that He exists, and develop a literal father-child relationship with Him), and then revelations and inspirations from Him will become easier to recognize and understand. The process to develop that relationship, though, is a very personal thing.

I'm afraid so. How could I not deny it, when I have strong reasons to believe that the Book of Mormon is false? Would it not be hypocritical of me to believe that the Book of Mormon is false but not deny that God told you it was true?

Suppose someone tells me that God told him that the Qur'an is true. Is it wrong for me to deny his claim?

You said that you have no authority to deny what God has said, yet you deny that God has said something. I'm simply pointing out a contradiction here.

If you can't tell me how to know what is God's word and what is not, again that would seem to create a barrier to further elucidation of what you are advocating.

It has already been explained to you how Latter-day Saints come to know what the truth is: by asking God. There is no better way to obtain knowledge than that.

Edited August 24, 2011 by altersteve

[wenglund]

Wade,

Thanks for your comments. We agree on some things here, which is nice...

The problem here is that you are still a fallible human being perceiving what you think is the witness of the Spirit. There is no reason why that perception should not also be fallible, just as is our perception of the meaning of a text. It is a fallible man reading the text and a fallible man having a religious experience he interprets as a witness of the Spirit.

God is infallible, and his word or witness are likewise infallible. However, our knowledge of God, of his word, of his Spirit, is incorrigibly fallible, regardless of the medium or form in which that knowledge comes to us. This problem is not circumvented by the idea of a witness of the Spirit as a general principle of knowledge.

Yes, fallible man is the filter through which all of this is passed. It is unavoidable.

However, I would think the point would not be to throw our hands in the air in hopeless resignation, but to utilize whatever means that have been availed us by an infallible God so as to decrease the chances of our failing--things that decrease our fallibility.

I am undoubtedly a fallible airplane pilot, and as such, it is nice to have instruction manuals and instructors that witness about how to fly the plane, the rules and regulation for air traffic, and charts and maps that witness to way we are to fly. And, to some degree, that may be sufficient on a cloudless and windless day to navigated towards a desired destination.

However, it also helps to have instruments that witness to current condition and to provide proper orientation and to warn against dangers. And, it helps to communicate back and forth with the tower about a variety of things, and receive modern revelatory witnesses, guidance, and enlightenment, regarding changes in air pressure, other traffic in the area, weather concerns, routes and elevations to fly ate, etc.). This is particularly true when flying at night or under conditions of poor visibility.

By using the flight manuals/instructors, as well as the instruments and the tower, I have received another witness in the form of success--having safely and effectively arrived at certain way points and drastically improved the quality of my flying experience.

Through each of these different types of witnesses, my confidence and sense of security as a pilot and my chances of getting happily to where I desire to go, has greatly increased, and this even though these witnesses have been filtered through my fallible mind.

But, as mentioned before, no one is being forced to avail themselves of these additional and advantageous witnesses. If someone is intent on taking flight in any and all conditions using only the instruction manuals and maps, then I wish them well in that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

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

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

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

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

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

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

(restored to original post)

[mfbukowski]

Wade,

Thanks for your comments. We agree on some things here, which is nice. You wrote:

The problem here is that you are still a fallible human being perceiving what you think is the witness of the Spirit. There is no reason why that perception should not also be fallible, just as is our perception of the meaning of a text. It is a fallible man reading the text and a fallible man having a religious experience he interprets as a witness of the Spirit.

God is infallible, and his word or witness are likewise infallible. However, our knowledge of God, of his word, of his Spirit, is incorrigibly fallible, regardless of the medium or form in which that knowledge comes to us. This problem is not circumvented by the idea of a witness of the Spirit as a general principle of knowledge.

This is the central problem isn't it?

Suppose you are wrong and will go to h*** and burn forever for being a Christian because God is in fact----- something else?

Don't you think that you had better be very sure that the Bhagavad Gita is NOT the word of God?

How can you have that certainty without the witness of the spirit?