What Distinguishes The Evangelical Witness Vs. Lds Testimony

[CV75]

Both LDS and I share a view that we are free agents. We are responsible for our actions, what we do actually does bring about self caused outcomes, consequences and so forth. Following that, then it would stand to reason that there is something that the LDS believer has done to be ready for the full truth and also that there is something the non-believer has not done to be ready for the truth. So my question is a two part.

1. What is it that LDS beleiver has done to be prepared for the full truth?

2. What is it that non beleiver has not done to be prepared for the full truth?

I believe that preparation for the the specific principles of truth that are unique to the Restored Gospel is independent of church membership. For anyone, receiving truth depends on a) the spiritual characteristics of the individual (see the parables of the sower and the talents); b) the opportunities he has to exercise those characteristics on specific principles of truth (Acts 17:26-28); and c) his openness to receiving the new or next undiscovered truth (Matthew 9:16-17; 18:4). The same would be true for the imperceptible stages one undergoes in developing characteristics and opportunities that eventually lead to acquiring the full truth (John 8:31-32; 1 Peter 5:6-11).

The parables show that anyone can consciously prepare to receive more truth by honoring the truth he possesses (John 7:17). Because this preparation appears to be relative to one’s circumstances (Luke 12:48), only the Lord can judge what one has or hasn’t done to receive the truth in a time and place that accords with His plan and will for him.

While we rightly invite one another to partake of the truth that we possess, and invite each other to try the methods by which that truth may be known, no man can rightly tell the other what he has or has not done to know the truth, unless he has been given the keys to do so. So when the truth is rejected, it is safest to assume that John 9:3 applies.

[jo1952]

I was not surprised that you said.

This seems to be a common vein of thought amongst LDS when dealing with the idea that there are some who have examined their beliefs, in this case evangelicals, and haven't drawn the same conclusions about it that they have. If a person is LDS, this may be the best possible answer. However to an evangelical like myself it implies that I am some how deficient.. if not permanently then at least it could be said that it implies I am presently deficient.

There isn't much way around an EV, like yours truly, getting a little chaffed by that notion and given that our particular views on the afterlife are different in some respects, from my view it seems elitist.

I am not surprised by what you believe. I was a little surprised that rather than offering an answer to the question I asked you side stepped it when you said. (It's not a big deal, don't worry about it or anything like that.)

As a whole, I have thought the notion that as you say, "Not everyone is ready for full truth," is more of an ad hoc

solution to why some people don't become LDS. But if it is actually the answer rather than a solution put together to fit the circumstance then there are certain implications of that answer.

I don't mean to be long winded, but I actually would like some LDS response on this, so I will try this again with but any who feel so inclined offer their thoughts on the matter, please feel free to do so.

If you are LDS and you believe that in some cases, not everyone is ready for full truth in regards to the claims of the CoJCoLDS. Then there are some distinct implications.

1. The LDS believer was somehow ready for the full truth.

2. The non believer was somehow not ready for the full truth.

Both LDS and I share a view that we are free agents. We are responsible for our actions, what we do actually does bring about self caused outcomes, consequences and so forth. Following that, then it would stand to reason that there is something that the LDS believer has done to be ready for the full truth and also that there is something the non-believer has not done to be ready for the truth. So my question is a two part.

1. What is it that LDS beleiver has done to be prepared for the full truth?

2. What is it that non beleiver has not done to be prepared for the full truth?

Hi Mudcat!

Okay, I'm going to offer my thoughts, even though right now I feel like my comments have so far been invisible to you.

If you are LDS and you believe that in some cases, not everyone is ready for full truth in regards to the claims of the CoJCoLDS. Then there are some distinct implications.

Hopefully the majority of the LDS don't actually believe they have the full truth. If they make such claims then they aren't paying attention; and that conclusion doesn't even make sense with respect to our seeking truth wherever we can find it. IOW, if we have the full truth, then why are we still looking for more??

1. The LDS believer was somehow ready for the full truth.

I would tweak this implication to be in accordance with what I understand. Again, therefore, I would point out that we are still seeking for truth wherever we can find it. Truth does not only reside within the LDS Church; it resides in Heaven and is shared with mankind on the earth through the power of the Holy Ghost whenever He is instructed to reveal it by Father, to whomever Father tells Him to. As I pointed out in my previous post, Paul told us that he had planted, and it is God who gives the increase; and Peter encouraged us to desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:.

One of the first things I was ever taught by the LDS Church was during the Missionary lessons. That was the admonition to do the very same thing that Joseph Smith did:

James 1:5

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

This is continually taught in the Church. We are even taught to pray about the direction that is given to us by the Prophet, the Apostles, General Authorities, and our local Church leaders. This is very different from what I remember being taught by the Lutheran church. Although we prayed, I was also TOLD to believe the doctrines they taught; not to "pray" about them, but to accept them without question. Inasmuch as I discovered while being prepared to take my first communion that the doctrine they taught was in conflict with what the Bible was teaching me in my personal study of the Bible, I kept asking questions of my Pastor about the differences. Additionally, I asked other questions which were about passages which were not being discussed. I was told that there were some things we just weren't supposed to ask about, that the thinking had already been done by man in the past. IOW, I was being told NOT to pray about any "wisdom" I felt that I was lacking. If the ECF hadn't provided us with answers to any of my specific questions, then I was not supposed to know the answers. If I felt the Bible had taught me something different, then I MUST give up anything that did not agree with the ECF. Even at the age of 13, this just didn't feel right to me. I loved God and wanted to know everything I could about Him. It did not sit well with me that God didn't want me to know more about Him. However, I did continue attending the Lutheran church, though I was always seeking another denomination which believed the Bible had taught them the same things it had taught me. I was 22 when I found and joined the LDS Church.

Since I became involved in apologetics I have been truly shocked to learn that some believers actually think that the Holy Ghost has already revealed everything He had to reveal; and that He revealed everything to the ancient Apostles, and that His job is done. With this belief, they therefore do not pray for any further knowledge or understanding. Instead, they depend upon obtaining their knowledge about God by reading what scholars and Theologians have written about Him. Then they take those writings and compare them with the Bible. It is not a surprise; therefore, that what they see in the Bible happens to agree with the writings of man. They do not go to the source of Truth through prayer to obtain knowledge; though they do pray to thank God for the knowledge they have received via the scholars and Theologians. Therefore, their prayers are going only in one direction: upwards; but they are denying themselves any opportunity to "receive" anything FROM Heaven. In fact, they have been taught by Orthodoxy to actually fear seeking guidance from the Holy Ghost because "there is no guaranty that what they may hear or be directed on is actually coming from the Holy Ghost".

With these differences in mind, I would say that the LDS believe that we are ABLE to eventually receive full truth because of the very reason that we continue to seek it and pray for it. But this must be considered a process; it is not the same as saying we HAVE all truth, or even that you can only receive full truth from within the LDS Church. It is due to the fact that we have opened our minds and DO pray sincerely and seek FOR truth, that we are preparing ourselves to receive truth whenever Father deems we are able to bear it and thus have it revealed to us. This includes finding truth everywhere - not just within the confines of the LDS faith.

Now, combine this with our “receiving the Holy Ghost” wherein, as others including myself, have seen an actual difference in our lives in how much more easily we recognize the Holy Ghost’s influence. We can also then notice the difference when the Holy Ghost withdraws from us. We come to thirst for His presence and even depend upon His guidance in our everyday lives. During this process, we also learn to discern the difference between His influence vs our own thoughts.

2. The non believer was somehow not ready for the full truth.

Again, I would point out that the LDS do NOT believe they have “full” truth. Moving on, however, I believe in answering your first question, I have also answered your second. To clarify, I would say that any truth which has not been revealed to any particular individual (be they LDS or not) is due to that person’s method of belief wherein they either think that the Holy Ghost has already revealed all truth to the Apostles, OR that it is not necessary to (or they just won’t) pray for any additional understanding, then God is not going to give them any more knowledge. “Knock, and it shall be opened unto you”. If you aren’t knocking (sincerely seeking for and praying for clarification or wisdom or additional knowledge), then you are most likely not going to receive it. The “unworthy” LDS is also not going to receive truth either. When I say “unworthy”, I am referring to the individual who has either broken covenants, sinned grievously and is unrepentant, or who is simply not striving to keep the commandments. The Holy Ghost will withdraw from that person until they have made things right again.

If you have doubts or questions and put them in the bag for later consideration (as described in the video), and then all you do with each question/doubt which you retrieve from it, is only ponder it and think about it until you have driven it into the ground, you are not going to receive any actual answers UNLESS you include sincere prayer in your process. I would offer that you NOT, at that point, try to discover what scholars and Theologians have to say. You need to go to the source of all Truth which is in Heaven. That is when the provision God made to be the guide to all Truth on the earth, i.e., the Holy Ghost, will then be directed by Father to reveal truth to you.

I believe my comments by now have also answered your last two questions. If not, I would be happy to address any specific questions you have.

Best regards,

jo

[mfbukowski]

I was not surprised that you said.

This seems to be a common vein of thought amongst LDS when dealing with the idea that there are some who have examined their beliefs, in this case evangelicals, and haven't drawn the same conclusions about it that they have. If a person is LDS, this may be the best possible answer. However to an evangelical like myself it implies that I am some how deficient.. if not permanently then at least it could be said that it implies I am presently deficient.

No, not at all "deficient". I honestly believe that if we allow ourselves to be led by the spirit we end up in the church in which God can teach us best with our differing personalities. Are some people "deficient"? No doubt- but I think that those who are earnest seekers who follow the spirit have found the best place for them for now. It is like being a polar bear or a black bear- neither is "deficient" but each is better suited for their situation and their environment than the other- a polar bear could not survive where a black bear can, and vice versa.

There isn't much way around an EV, like yours truly, getting a little chaffed by that notion and given that our particular views on the afterlife are different in some respects, from my view it seems elitist.

Well you should feel what's it like to be told you worship a False Christ and are deluded all day! Someone feeling just elitist would be refreshing!

I am not surprised by what you believe. I was a little surprised that rather than offering an answer to the question I asked you side stepped it when you said. (It's not a big deal, don't worry about it or anything like that.)

Not quite sure what you mean. Rob presented two insulting alternatives, so I came back with one that was a bit of a put-down for EV's- you asked if I really believed that, so I answered as doctrinally as possible, while trying not to be as jerky the second time as I had been the first.

I don't know - do you have to deal with whole ministries and books and websites which are devoted to being "anti - EV"? You get a little overly testy I think dealing here on the boards with anti's all day.

As a whole, I have thought the notion that as you say, "Not everyone is ready for full truth," is more of an ad hoc

solution to why some people don't become LDS. But if it is actually the answer rather than a solution put together to fit the circumstance then there are certain implications of that answer.

I don't mean to be long winded, but I actually would like some LDS response on this, so I will try this again with but any who feel so inclined offer their thoughts on the matter, please feel free to do so.

Most EV's don't understand that we believe that 1- we believe we are the true church and 2- we also believe that everyone will have a fair chance at hearing the truth- even if it is on the other side. So the conclusion many of us draw is that if someone has heard something about Mormonism, surely they should be converted, so if they are not yet converted they will have a chance on the other side. It is not particularly "elitist" - it is more of a feeling that they do not yet have enough information or do not have a correct understanding yet. Hence this board. My goal in being here is to give others the "right information" which will finally enable them to correct their mistaken notions about the church, and then of course they will then want to join the church.

So if you're not yet a member, it's because you don't quite know enough or all your questions have not been answered (yes Rob- remember "study it out in your mind" before you get a witness?) "well enough"- or perhaps you have not yet spoken to someone who is enough like you to explain it in a way you will understand. So it's not about "elitism" - it's about proper understanding and finding the right teacher.

After all we are so adorable, how could anyone NOT want to be LDS?

If you are LDS and you believe that in some cases, not everyone is ready for full truth in regards to the claims of the CoJCoLDS. Then there are some distinct implications.

Both LDS and I share a view that we are free agents. We are responsible for our actions, what we do actually does bring about self caused outcomes, consequences and so forth. Following that, then it would stand to reason that there is something that the LDS believer has done to be ready for the full truth and also that there is something the non-believer has not done to be ready for the truth. So my question is a two part.

1. What is it that LDS beleiver has done to be prepared for the full truth?

Not much- he has just gotten taught in a way he will fully understand

2. What is it that non beleiver has not done to be prepared for the full truth?

Not been taught properly.

Why do people NOT become EV? Many would say because they are not among the "elect". So being elect is NOT elitist? You should talk to a Calvinist sometime as a heathen Mormon. Tons of fun.

[Mudcat]

Hi Mudcat!

Okay, I'm going to offer my thoughts, even though right now I feel like my comments have so far been invisible to you.

Hi Jo!

No they are not invisible I assure you. I always enjoy your thoughts. This am, I responded to mfb, then started working on the yard today and still haven't finished.

I like our new house and the yard is great.. It is just 4 acres vs. the 1 acre from the old place. I haven't had the cash to upgrade my yard gear yet.. but man I need too. Talk about building sweat equity..

I skimmed the thread for a minute and wanted to respond to let you know what is up.

My band plays tonight.. so it will be later tomorrow before I start posting. However, I will do it in a chronologic way.. so it may be a bit before I get to your last post.. as you have one ahead of up.

Regards,

Mudcat

[jo1952]

Hi Jo!

No they are not invisible I assure you. I always enjoy your thoughts. This am, I responded to mfb, then started working on the yard today and still haven't finished.

I like our new house and the yard is great.. It is just 4 acres vs. the 1 acre from the old place. I haven't had the cash to upgrade my yard gear yet.. but man I need too. Talk about building sweat equity..

I skimmed the thread for a minute and wanted to respond to let you know what is up.

My band plays tonight.. so it will be later tomorrow before I start posting. However, I will do it in a chronologic way.. so it may be a bit before I get to your last post.. as you have one ahead of up.

Regards,

Mudcat

Thanks Mudcat!!

Good luck with your four acres!! I used to have 2 1/2. Now Frank and I have made an offer on a place with 20 acres! Yikes!!

I very much look forward to your post. Please take your time. And have fun tonight!

Best regards,

jo

Edited August 27, 2011 by jo1952

[Storm Rider]

Mudcat,

I think those who convert to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ have opened their hearts in a search for truth. Those who did not join simply are not open. This is not an issue of righteousness or being worthy, but about a self-recognized need for something that makes them more whole. Others have their glass full with what they have; they see no need and thus are not open; they have become content.

[mfbukowski]

< Tapping on the monitor's glass>

Rob?

ROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB?

Are you there?

[Rob Bowman]

< Tapping on the monitor's glass>

Rob?

ROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB?

Are you there?

Yes, why? Please see this post.

[mfbukowski]

Yes, why? Please see this post.

Please see post 387

Edited August 28, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

Please see post #324, in which you said (emphasis added):

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.

Looks like you are the one who needs the reminder of that post.

Even after you made the above statement in post #324, I wrote posts specifically responding to you an additional four times. In one of those posts, I specifically discussed your "altar call" analogy. Yet you are still claiming (post #387) that you have received no answer from me to your question comparing the LDS experience with the evangelical altar call experience.

This is your standard modus operandi. Every time I get into a discussion with you, you claim that I never answer your questions. It is why I stopped wanting to discuss anything with you. I thought we had finally put that nonsense behind us, but no such luck.

If you do it again, I will consider it harassment and lodge a formal complaint.

[WalkerW]

William Lane Craig explains the evangelical position rather well.

His explanation of properly basic beliefs is quite good as well:

I've enjoyed his philosophical views on religious experiences, as well as those of Alvin Plantinga (who he is borrowing from) and Richard Swinburne.

Edited August 29, 2011 by WalkerW

[mfbukowski]

His explanation of properly basic beliefs is quite good as well:

I've enjoyed his philosophical views on religious experiences, as well as those of Alvin Plantinga (who he is borrowing from) and Richard Swinburne.

Again we illustrate the conflict between Craig and Bowman.

[mfbukowski]

Even after you made the above statement in post #324, I wrote posts specifically responding to you an additional four times. In one of those posts, I specifically discussed your "altar call" analogy. Yet you are still claiming (post #387) that you have received no answer from me to your question comparing the LDS experience with the evangelical altar call experience.

The fact that it is possible to develop this sort of highly generalized analysis that shows the "Moroni 10:4" experience to be vaguely analogous to the "altar call" experience proves nothing. One could develop a similar analysis for all sorts of experiences. For example, the same structure can be used to show that a woman's falling in love with a man is "analogous" to the altar call experience:

That was your "reply" ? One mention of the altar call? Yes there was more to the post- but an extended analogy between the Holy Spirit and other valid experiences seemed to be more of a general discussion to me than a "reply"

OK - we are getting nowhere obviously.

If you do it again, I will consider it harassment and lodge a formal complaint.

Harassment because I asked you to reply repeatedly as did virtually every other poster on this thread? Do you want me to re-post every post which implies or directly states that you are avoiding the issues?

I am petrified.

Edited August 29, 2011 by mfbukowski

[WalkerW]

Again we illustrate the conflict between Craig and Bowman.

Ironically enough, it was the arguments of Craig (Protestant), Plantinga (Protestant), Swinburne (Eastern Orthodox), and David Bentley Hart (Eastern Orthodox) that caused me to embrace more fully the validity of personal spiritual experiences as well as trusting the experiences of others.

[WalkerW]

Again we illustrate the conflict between Craig and Bowman.

Ironically enough, it was the arguments of Craig (Protestant), Plantinga (Protestant), Swinburne (Eastern Orthodox), and David Bentley Hart (Eastern Orthodox) that caused me to embrace more fully the validity of personal spiritual experiences as well as trusting the experiences of others.

[Mudcat]

Mudcat - thanks for being open and taking the risk to jump in as an Evangelical on these boards. That was a risk on this particular discussion with the ratio of Mormons to others. I have found that our faith experiences are similar and I appreciate your plain and honest answers.

I've enjoyed the correspondence as well.

My frustrations with the word play of a professional anti-mormon intent on painting my Church in a particular manner do not color my opinion of all Evangelicals. As I've said before I am appreciative of the good Christian faiths that surround us here in Georgia.

I appreciate your discernment on the subject. I think a general problem in forums like this and others, is that typically the opposing views are offered by the most critical sector of any particular group and usually that sector isn't a major percentage of the that group.

It actually leads to a general misrepresentation of the group as a whole and I am glad you have been able to experience other Christian groups in your area and recognize the difference.

My prayer is that you and your extended family continue to understand each other and come to a meeting of minds. May your shared faith in Christ bring you great joy!

I too pray this. Thank you.

[Rob Bowman]

Bukowski,

Did you or did you not say the following?

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.

Did I or did I not respond four more times to you even after you made the above statement?

I see in your reply you avoided quoting or commenting on the above. How about it?

[Rob Bowman]

WalkerW,

You wrote:

Ironically enough, it was the arguments of Craig (Protestant), Plantinga (Protestant), Swinburne (Eastern Orthodox), and David Bentley Hart (Eastern Orthodox) that caused me to embrace more fully the validity of personal spiritual experiences as well as trusting the experiences of others.

Craig and Plantinga, at least, do not argue for the validity of all spiritual experiences and certainly not that we should trust the experiences of others. Craig, for example, distinguishes between how an individual can know that Christianity is true and how we should try to show other people that Christianity is true. For Craig, we show others that Christianity is true using objective, publicly accessible evidence, not by appeal to our personal experiences. Also, Craig and Plantinga speak about the existence of the God of Christianity being "properly basic" on the basis of certain religious experiences; this doesn't mean, in their view, that all religious experiences are trustworthy.

[Rob Bowman]

Bukowski,

Regarding the video of William Lane Craig explaining why he thinks belief in God is properly basic, you wrote:

Again we illustrate the conflict between Craig and Bowman.

Not at all. You seem to have missed, or ignored, two points.

1. Craig explains that the believer is within his epistemic rights to believe that God exists on the basis of his experience of being in a relationship with God through faith in Christ as witnessed by the Holy Spirit in his heart. In short, Craig gives exactly the same explanation of the witness of the Spirit that I did. It is a witness to the reality of the genuine believer's relationship with God in Christ, not a private revelation about specific issues like what books are inspired by God or which religious institution if any is the true church.

2. Craig explicitly says that the believer is warranted in accepting his belief in God as properly basic in the absence of some defeater that would call the veridicality of his experience into question. That is, Craig allows that some people's religious experiences might have external, evidential defeaters.

[mfbukowski]

Ironically enough, it was the arguments of Craig (Protestant), Plantinga (Protestant), Swinburne (Eastern Orthodox), and David Bentley Hart (Eastern Orthodox) that caused me to embrace more fully the validity of personal spiritual experiences as well as trusting the experiences of others.

Swinburne is amazing and of course Plantinga. I am not really familiar with the others- thanks for the leads.

[WalkerW]

WalkerW,

You wrote:

Craig and Plantinga, at least, do not argue for the validity of all spiritual experiences and certainly not that we should trust the experiences of others. Craig, for example, distinguishes between how an individual can know that Christianity is true and how we should try to show other people that Christianity is true. For Craig, we show others that Christianity is true using objective, publicly accessible evidence, not by appeal to our personal experiences. Also, Craig and Plantinga speak about the existence of the God of Christianity being "properly basic" on the basis of certain religious experiences; this doesn't mean, in their view, that all religious experiences are trustworthy.

I'm very aware of this. As I wrote on my old blog last year,

Dr. Craig distinguishes between knowing Christianity is true and showing that it is true. For clarification, Craig is of the view that Mormonism is false (he contributed to The New Mormon Challenge: Responding to the Latest Defenses of a Fast-Growing Movement) and that arguments can be provided to demonstrate this. Although I disagree with him on this matter, I nonetheless find his philosophy regarding the Holy Ghost quite sound.

I never said anything about trusting all experiences, whether personal or that others. However, I was pretty agnostic on the validity of spiritual experiences for a while. These philosophers are the reason I am no longer.

Nonetheless, Mormons are often asked why they believe in Mormonism. They appeal to their personal experience. I think this is perfectly fine. And if one trusts the individual as one of honest and sound mind, then that could provide an incentive to investigate his/her claims. I see nothing wrong with that.

But I am very, very careful to distinguish mere emotionalism from spiritual experiences (Howard Hunter was as well).

As for the experiences of others, Swinburne does argue for the principle of testimony, which is similar to his principle of credulity. He uses it in the case of the witnesses to the Resurrection. Same thing: without a reason to disbelieve, one should believe that the person experienced what they claim to have experienced.

Edited August 29, 2011 by WalkerW

[WalkerW]

Swinburne is amazing and of course Plantinga. I am not really familiar with the others- thanks for the leads.

Hart as far as I know doesn't give a full-on argument regarding religious experiences, but he does touch on it here and there. For example,

It cannot be gainsaid that Christians have faith in Easter largely because they belong to communities of believers, or that their faith is a complex amalgam of shared confession, personal experience, spiritual and ethical practice, and reliance on others, or that they are inevitably obliged to make judgments about the trustworthiness of those whose word they must take. Some also choose to venture out upon the vast seas of Christianity's philosophical or mystical traditions; and many are inspired by miracles, or dreams, or the apparent working of grace in their lives, or moments of aesthetic transport, or strange raptures, or intuitions of the Holy Spirit's presence, and so on. None of this might impress the committed skeptic, or seem like adequate grounds for faith, but that does not mean that faith is essentially willful and irrational. More to the point, it is bizarre for anyone to think he or she can judge the nature or credibility of another's experience from the outside. If [a skeptic] really wishes to take a "scientific" investigation of faith, he should promptly abandon his efforts to describe religion...and attempt instead to enter into the actual world of belief in order to weigh its phenomena from within. As a first step, he should certainly-purely in the interest of sound scientific method and empirical rigor-begin praying, and then continue doing so with some perseverance. This is a drastic and implausible prescription, no doubt; but it is the only means by which he could possibly begin to acquire any knowledge of what belief is or what it is not. (Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies, Yale University Press: 2009: pgs. 11-12)

Keith Ward (Anglican) discusses it as well.

[Calm]

Mudcat,

I think those who convert to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ have opened their hearts in a search for truth. Those who did not join simply are not open. This is not an issue of righteousness or being worthy, but about a self-recognized need for something that makes them more whole. Others have their glass full with what they have; they see no need and thus are not open; they have become content.

And there are those LDS who are not open to received more of God's truth because their glass is full while plenty of nonLDS are still adding their knowledge of the gospel while being outside the LDS faith, even those who have once or more rejected the LDS faith. Simply because the LDS faith contains certain aspects of the gospel that cannot be found elsewhere does not mean others searching outside the LDS faith have placed themselves beyond the Spirit and spiritual growth.

Openness is often as result of life experiences such as loss of loved ones and other painful events nor is it a permanent state for each individual as we all go through, in my opinion, different stages in our lives where we are more open than in others and of course, what we are open to varies as well.

Edited August 29, 2011 by calmoriah

[Storm Rider]

And there are those LDS who are not open to received more of God's truth because their glass is full while plenty of nonLDS are still adding their knowledge of the gospel while being outside the LDS faith, even those who have once or more rejected the LDS faith. Simply because the LDS faith contains certain aspects of the gospel that cannot be found elsewhere does not mean others searching outside the LDS faith have placed themselves beyond the Spirit and spiritual growth.

Openness is often as result of life experiences such as loss of loved ones and other painful events nor is it a permanent state for each individual as we all go through, in my opinion, different stages in our lives where we are more open than in others and of course, what we are open to varies as well.

Cal, I agree that those outside the LDS faith are influenced by the Holy Spirit. I also agree that many pursue truth. Just as some Mormons pursue truth in their own faith so it is with others; they search for more truth within the confines of their respective churches. I believe that their search for truth will be stunted because there is limitations on the truth available to them. I would also say that though LDS state they have a fulness of truth, the Church does not contain all there is of truth. LDS can learn a great deal by studying the teachings from other churches and other faiths.

Our purpose is to hunger for all truth. None of us should be so contented with what we have that we are unwilling to rejoice in the truths, examplary lives, spiritual cultures found elsewhere in the world.

Spiritual contentedness is the realm of the weak; they that are found there are not valiant in their search for truth in mortality and their cup is not as full as it could be with God's teachings.

[Calm]

I believe that their search for truth will be stunted because there is limitations on the truth available to them.

i would definitely agree there is a boundary that those who reject the LDS faith will put around their spiritual search which effectively creates an area they will not seek out God within. I would also say this is a habit that LDS are often prone to as well, sad to say, no matter how often our church leaders promote the concept of looking for truth everywhere.

I would also say that though LDS state they have a fulness of truth, the Church does not contain all there is of truth. LDS can learn a great deal by studying the teachings from other churches and other faiths.

Agreed.

Our purpose is to hunger for all truth. None of us should be so contented with what we have that we are unwilling to rejoice in the truths, examplary lives, spiritual cultures found elsewhere in the world.

Spiritual contentedness is the realm of the weak; they that are found there are not valiant in their search for truth in mortality and their cup is not as full as it could be with God's teachings.

Well said.

(yes, I have discovered a new smiley board...people will just have to be patient until I tire of it)