Non-Lds, How Do You Know?

[altersteve]

But people from most religious streams (including Muslims) certainly do say that they have received personal revelation from God that their own religious system is true, to the exclusion of all others.

So?

While the LDS Church may be the only religious system that teaches its practitioners to engage in prayer to God concerning such things, it is not even remotely unique to the LDS Church.

I never claimed it was.

Individual people from all religious streams claim to have had unique revelation or testimonies or whatever you want to call them.

No one every claimed otherwise. In fact, the Church actually teaches this. And just to make this clear, a testimony and a revelation are not the same thing. A testimony comes as a result of a revelation.

And their testimonies are many times irreconcilable with that experienced by Mormons.

You mean their experiences are irreconcilable. A testimony is not an experience.

Does this prove the LDS Church is not true. No. But your testimonies certainly don't prove the LDS Church is true.

Of course my testimony doesn't prove anything. My testimony of the gospel is a result of proof that I have been shown. It's up to the Holy Ghost, not me, to reveal that proof to others, though I can bear witness of it.

[diglot]

I am not missing your point. A hypothetical, to be useful, must be possible. Yours is not. There is no imaginable universe in which a Muslim would pray about the Koran. It will not happen.

Lehi

Wow you are just dead wrong. It has happened. I hate to have to keep repeating myself, but this isn't debatable.

The Muslim religion does not teach its practitioners to pray to Allah as to whether the Qur'an is true, or whether Muhammad was a prophet. But individual Muslims (mostly Western ones from what I understand) have done such things.

And more Muslims, without using the path of prayer, have received confirmation or testimonies from God that Muhammad was a prophet, etc.

I feel like the participants in this thread are stuck in their own little world, having never studied other religions.

Edited October 27, 2011 by diglot

[Calm]

Diglot, the type of people who like to discuss and debate this kind of stuff tend to be nitpickers. I have also drawn the conclusion that the tenor of LDS tends to be primarily pragmatic, we look for examples and stories rooted in the physical world even as we reach out to the spiritual.

Might as well get used to it now....unrealistic hypotheticals aren't going to be discussed for the purpose of examining possibilities, rather they will be dissected and dismissed for their unreliability. Better to choose realistic examples.

I have seen many evangelicals state that it is totally inappropriate to pray about the Bible and then they say they've prayed about the BoM and gotten the answer it was false. I have to wonder just what kind of attitude they had when they went down on their knees. Could the Spirit really get through the wall of belief that such a prayer was unworthy of the Lord and his Word?

In reading the posts, I think you have gotten answers from several LDS and it is typical in my experience (this is not an infrequent question for LDS, understandably so). bottom-line for me as well as the others who have spoken is that I cannot judge the validity of another's spiritual experience, only my own. I can only speak for myself and what I believe God has told me. If someone represents that God has told them something else, I am satisfied to simply leave it as a mystery. It is not a judgment I feel I need to make. It is their path and their right to determine what their own spiritual experiences mean to them.

[diglot]

So?

So that means the LDS Church is false.

I never claimed it was.

Actually, you said Muslims don't prayer about the Qur'an. That is true as a general statement, but definitely false if you mean no Muslim ever prays about such matters.

No one every claimed otherwise. In fact, the Church actually teaches this. And just to make this clear, a testimony and a revelation are not the same thing. A testimony comes as a result of a revelation.

So the LDS Church teaches that God gives contradictory testimonies to people regarding issues like whether Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. Strange. God must be quite capricious then.

Edited October 27, 2011 by diglot

[3DOP]

Do any of us believe something that we hate? I know I love what I believe. It seems to me that our beliefs cannot hold up for long if we hold a strong aversion to them. If there is merit to my theory, our beliefs are acts of the will. In other words, we can persevere for a time believing something that is repulsive to us. But over time, we can only believe in something that is compatible with our own desires. Christians don't want to be atheists. Do atheists want to believe? Do atheists have an aversion to atheism? If they do, I think they will find a way out of it. Anybody who believes in the same thing for a long time, loves what they believe.

I am suggesting that all of us believe what we want to believe. Our will doesn't serve our belief, but vice versa. "Man is a giddy thing." Oh...I already said that.

Edited October 27, 2011 by 3DOP

[diglot]

Might as well get used to it now....unrealistic hypotheticals aren't going to be discussed for the purpose of examining possibilities, rather they will be dissected and dismissed for their unreliability. Better to choose realistic examples.

As I have stated many times, people have prayed about these things. There are Muslims who have prayed about the Qur'an. There are Catholics who have prayed about the bodily assumption of Mary. They claim that God gave them a testimony that their religious belief is true.

There are Muslims, Catholics, etc, who without the aid of prayer, have received testimonies that their unique religious beliefs are true.

I have seen many evangelicals state that it is totally inappropriate to pray about the Bible and then they say they've prayed about the BoM and gotten the answer it was false. I have to wonder just what kind of attitude they had when they went down on their knees. Could the Spirit really get through the wall of belief that such a prayer was unworthy of the Lord and his Word?

And then I would have to ponder the attitude of Mormons who claim to pray about something and receive a testimony. If they were willing to pray about it, then maybe they wanted to believe in the first place.

Speculating as to someone's sincerity is pointless and a lame attempt to deny the validity of other people's testimonies.

In reading the posts, I think you have gotten answers from several LDS and it is typical in my experience (this is not an infrequent question for LDS, understandably so). bottom-line for me as well as the others who have spoken is that I cannot judge the validity of another's spiritual experience, only my own. I can only speak for myself and what I believe God has told me. If someone represents that God has told them something else, I am satisfied to simply leave it as a mystery. It is not a judgment I feel I need to make. It is their path and their right to determine what their own spiritual experiences mean to them.

And that is fine with me.

This whole issue was raised because someone said they know for certain that they are correct (due to their testimony). I simply asked whether the fact that people receive contradictory testimonies would make them maybe not know with absolute certainty that they are correct. That is all I wanted to know. But somehow this has degenerated into a discussion as to whether people from other religious systems ever pray about stuff or receive testimonies (which they do).

Edited October 27, 2011 by diglot

[altersteve]

So that means the LDS Church is false.

The fact that a Muslim says that does not mean the LDS Church is false.

Actually, you said Muslims don't prayer about the Qur'an. That is true as a general statement, but definitely false if you mean no Muslim ever prayers about such matters.

Muslims are actually taught not to do this. To be a Muslim is to fully submit yourself to God (that's what the world islam means), without any sort of spiritual conformation. Sure, they sometimes do seek such confirmation, and sometimes feel as if they receive it, but that's between them and God. I don't get involved with someone's personal relationship with their Heavenly Father. I can only say what God has revealed to me. What He has chosen to reveal to another one of His children and how He decides to lead them to the gospel is between Him and that person. I have no problem with God inspiring people to join a religion other than the Church of Jesus Christ, and I believe that He often does, so I have no reason to discount the authenticity of something experienced by a member of another faith.

So the LDS Church teaches that God gives contradictory testimonies to people regarding issues like whether Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. Strange. God must be quite capricious then.

No. The Church teaches that God speaks to all people of all faiths, revealing to them the amount of truth that He decides for them (2 Nephi 29), often by raising up teachers and leaders (such as Muhammad) throughout all the ages and all across the world, both inside and outside the Church. That's what I meant.

And then I would have to ponder the attitude of Mormons who claim to pray about something and receive a testimony. If they were willing to pray about it, then maybe they wanted to believe in the first place.

Often times this is the case, but not always.

Speculating as to someone's sincerity is pointless and a lame attempt to deny the validity of other people's testimonies.

I agree. No Latter-day Saint ever attempts to deny the validity of another person's testimony. We are strongly taught not to do this. All we can do, and all we are told to do, is testify of the things that we believe God has revealed to us, and let the Holy Ghost take over from there.

Edited October 27, 2011 by altersteve

[mfbukowski]

Steve,

You wrote:

As an evangelical, I'm happy to answer your question(s).

An answer that you might accept as "straight" is made difficult or problematic by the fact that "how do you know" questions can be taken in several ways. You might be asking "what chain of events led you to accept this idea as true," or you might be asking "what reason or reasons do you find personally convincing at the present time that this idea is true," or "what is the actual ground or foundation on which this truth rests," or possibly something else. Most people assume that "how do you know" questions are straightforward and unproblematic; they are not. Epistemology is a complex matter.

C. S. Lewis once wrote, "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else" ("Is Theology Poetry?" in The Weight of Glory: And Other Addresses [New York: HarperCollins, 1980], 140). We not only have evidence that shows that God exists, that the Bible is the word of God, etc., but it is also the case that for us the truth of Christianity illuminates everything we see.

It is one thing to know, or believe, that God exists; it is another thing to have faith in God, to trust in him. Many people are convinced that God exists but he plays no significant role in the way they live. It turns out that in a sense my answer to all three questions can be rolled into one, though some clarifications and distinctions will have to be made.

A short answer to your question is that I know that God exists because he has revealed himself. God reveals himself in his creation, in my conscience, in Christ, and in Scripture. I am daily confronted anew with the evidence of nature that an infinite or transcendent, yet personal, Being is responsible for the world in which I live. I am also daily confronted anew with the fact that I am a creature accountable to a moral standard not of human invention, a standard against which I fall short. These two realities, one external to me and one internal to me, appear to me utterly convincing proof that God exists. Apart from God's revelation in Christ and in Scripture, though, I would not know much about this God or anything about how to relate to him. God's revelation in Christ is known to me in and through his revelation in Scripture (the Bible), so that for me these two are inseparable (even though distinguishable). This dual revelation of God, both personal (in Christ) and propositional (in Scripture), reveals God in a way that is concrete and life-changing in a way that the general revelation in creation and conscience does not.

Viewed in this way, my answer to all three of your questions is that the "how" of my knowing these things is divine revelation. God reveals himself to me in all four of the ways just mentioned; that is how I know that God exists. God reveals himself in Christ as Savior and by the Holy Spirit convicts me (through my conscience) of my sin and therefore of my need of salvation, and that same Holy Spirit has made known to me (through Scripture) that Christ is the answer to that need and has instilled trust or confidence in Christ as meeting that need for me personally; that is how I know that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior. Since it is through Scripture that I come to know God in this way and to know that Jesus Christ is my Savior, the one who reconciles me to God, in practical terms this is how I know that Scripture is the word of God. That is, the Bible is God revealing himself in words; ultimately, then, I know that the Bible is God's word because it is, because in it I recognize God speaking, and specifically God speaking about Christ as my Savior.

This knowledge of God, Christ, and Scripture is not separate from or pitted against the factual evidence. God makes himself known in the physical world as Creator; the scientific facts testify to this reality. God revealed Christ to be his divine Son through his teaching, miracles, and especially his resurrection from the dead; the historical facts testify to and corroborate these things to be true. God reveals himself in the words of Scripture; the teaching of Jesus Christ about the nature of Scripture, the evidences of fulfilled prophecies, and various factual evidences provide different sorts of attestations to and corroborative evidence for the inspiration of the Bible as the word of God. I never pit facts or evidences against revelation because for me all facts are revelatory. God reveals himself in every scientific measurement, in every historical event, in every text, in every experience. God is the light by which all facts are properly known, and in turn all facts properly understood testify to God, to his Son, and to his written Word. As fallible and fallen creatures, people often misinterpret God's revelations, but that's our fault, not his.

You're getting better at answering this question. That almost makes sense.

The only problem is that many if not most LDS would agree with that answer. Horrors! You believe the same way we do. How can that be?

Edited October 27, 2011 by mfbukowski

[diglot]

The fact that a Muslim says that does not mean the LDS Church is false.

Agreed, it doesn't mean that the LDS Church is false, except to the person who received the confirmation from God.

Muslims are actually taught not to do this. To be a Muslim is to fully submit yourself to God (that's what the world islam means), without any sort of spiritual conformation.

Yet it apparently doesn't stop every Muslim from actually doing so. They are just like everyone else and are plagued by doubts at times, doubts which are taken to God in prayer. (But as I said in another post, I've only heard of this in Western Muslims, which might explain why. In other words, if they converted to Islam from say, Christianity, then they would be used to taking their doubts before God in prayer and asking God questions).

Sure, they sometimes do seek such confirmation, and sometimes feel as if they receive it, but that's between them and God. I don't get involved with someone's personal relationship with their Heavenly Father. I can only say what God has revealed to me. What He has chosen to reveal to another one of His children and how He decides to lead them to the gospel is between Him and that person. I have no problem with God inspiring people to join a religion other than the Church of Jesus Christ, and I believe that He often does, so I have no reason to discount the authenticity of something experienced by a member of another faith.

OK. Personally I think it is kind of strange for God to be giving people confirmation about irreconcilable issues. While it wouldn't make me disbelieve my own such testimony, it does prohibit me from knowing for certain that I am right.

No. The Church teaches that God speaks to all people and raises up teachers and leaders (such as Muhammad) throughout all the ages and all across the world, both inside and outside the Church. That's what I meant.

Thanks for clarifying.

Often times this is the case, but not always.

Same thing with evangelicals. I'm sure some of them do approach God in insincere prayer. And I'm sure some don't.

Edited October 27, 2011 by diglot

[Calm]

So the LDS Church teaches that God gives contradictory testimonies to people regarding issues like whether Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. Strange. God must be quite capricious then.

Not quite. There are a number of possibilities even if one assumes that the LDS Church is everything it says it is.

They could be mistaken, misreading their own experience....but what good does it do to tell them they are wrong since there is no way we can demonstrate it to them except by them undergoing another experience that confirms the truth of what we are saying. And they are hardly likely to do this if we inform them that their current experience was of no value. Instead, it is most effective to teach people to continue to seek out the Lord in all things. We believe that eventually sincere seekers will become open enough to the Spirit to hear everything he says and not just what they are comfortable in hearing.

The Spirit could be teaching the individual as much as they can currently bear to hear. It is possible that for some reason learning that the Book of Mormon was true, that the LDS faith had the fulness of the Gospel would make it more difficult for them to lead a spiritual life, not easier. Perhaps they need the support system their current faith community gives them, perhaps the sacrifices they would need to make would lead them to despair and giving it all up as not worth it.

The individual may need to learn lessons in their lives that are best learned outside of the LDS faith before receiving the knowledge and experiences that are available in the LDS faith. Different people learn things different ways and perhaps the current LDS culture would inhibit their spiritual growth rather than nurture or perhaps their spiritual growth is dependent on finding an answer for themselves rather than learning it through LDS teachings.

It should be obvious that possessing the LDS faith in this life is not essential to living a life that will bring one to God, at least not at the beginning of one's life and maybe not even until mortality is over; one simply has to look at how many have been born in situations where they have no access to the gospel as taught by LDS or at how many are taught to reject it without consideration based on the traditions they were brought up in or even how many have been crippled by abusive situations or mental and emotional disorders so they are unable to understand or even feel the Spirit and if by chance they can experience it, are unable to trust that experience as meaningful. The Lord does not judge us only by what we are given, but also by what we are able to receive. Sometimes that might mean not being able to receive the full gospel at this time, but God's mercy and grace guarantees that there will be an opportunity that appears once a person is ready to make full use of it, though it may not be immediate and in fact many are required to wait until the next life to receive it through no lack on their own part. The wonderful thing is that they will experience no lack due to any delay, the labourer who arrives last but who is diligent is paid the same wages as those who arrive first thing in the morning and work all day when it comes to the gospel.

[mfbukowski]

Apart from receiving a revelation like Paul did on his way to Damascus, I don't know how else I could ever say for certain that I know Jesus was resurrected and is Lord.

That's how I know. It's pretty certain.

[mfbukowski]

I don't but it does. I don't have the words to explain it but once you have felt that conviction you will understand.

Yep.

[mfbukowski]

So why should I believe your testimony instead of a Catholic's testimony? Or a Muslim's testimony?

You shouldn't. You have to get the revelation for yourself.

[diglot]

Not quite. There are a number of possibilities even if one assumes that the LDS Church is everything it says it is.

They could be mistaken, misreading their own experience....but what good does it do to tell them they are wrong since there is no way we can demonstrate it to them except by them undergoing another experience that confirms the truth of what we are saying. And they are hardly likely to do this if we inform them that their current experience was of no value. Instead, it is most effective to teach people to continue to seek out the Lord in all things. We believe that eventually sincere seekers will become open enough to the Spirit to hear everything he says and not just what they are comfortable in hearing.

The Spirit could be teaching the individual as much as they can currently bear to hear. It is possible that for some reason learning that the Book of Mormon was true, that the LDS faith had the fulness of the Gospel would make it more difficult for them to lead a spiritual life, not easier. Perhaps they need the support system their current faith community gives them, perhaps the sacrifices they would need to make would lead them to despair and giving it all up as not worth it.

The individual may need to learn lessons in their lives that are best learned outside of the LDS faith before receiving the knowledge and experiences that are available in the LDS faith. Different people learn things different ways and perhaps the current LDS culture would inhibit their spiritual growth rather than nurture or perhaps their spiritual growth is dependent on finding an answer for themselves rather than learning it through LDS teachings.

It should be obvious that possessing the LDS faith in this life is not essential to living a life that will bring one to God, at least not at the beginning of one's life and maybe not even until mortality is over; one simply has to look at how many have been born in situations where they have no access to the gospel as taught by LDS or at how many are taught to reject it without consideration based on the traditions they were brought up in or even how many have been crippled by abusive situations or mental and emotional disorders so they are unable to understand or even feel the Spirit and if by chance they can experience it, are unable to trust that experience as meaningful. The Lord does not judge us only by what we are given, but also by what we are able to receive. Sometimes that might mean not being able to receive the full gospel at this time, but God's mercy and grace guarantees that there will be an opportunity that appears once a person is ready to make full use of it, though it may not be immediate and in fact many are required to wait until the next life to receive it through no lack on their own part. The wonderful thing is that they will experience no lack due to any delay, the labourer who arrives last but who is diligent is paid the same wages as those who arrive first thing in the morning and work all day when it comes to the gospel.

Thanks for your response. It is the best one I have read on these forums.

Edited October 27, 2011 by diglot

[diglot]

That's how I know. It's pretty certain.

Wait, are you saying that Jesus appeared to you like he did to Paul?

[mfbukowski]

You do not think that the fact that these sorts of testimonies being found in all sorts of widely different religious systems should give people a little bit of humility and self-awareness that perhaps they can not know for certain that their particular religious beliefs were being validated by God?

All I know is what I know. What they know is their business. I have explanations for this but who knows if they are right.

[diglot]

All I know is what I know. What they know is their business. I have explanations for this but who knows if they are right.

Thanks. That's all I wanted to know.

I wasn't trying to prove anyone's testimonies to be fraudulent. Just wondering if they would maybe make you less certain of your own.

[Calm]

As I have stated many times, people have prayed about these things. There are Muslims who have prayed about the Qur'an. There are Catholics who have prayed about the bodily assumption of Mary. They claim that God gave them a testimony that their religious belief is true.

And I have no doubt about that, but if the act of prayer in this situation is irrelevant to their faith (and sometimes contrary) then why not simply address the fact of the prayer and not assign it to a particular faith tradition that rejects such an approach as valid?

And then I would have to ponder the attitude of Mormons who claim to pray about something and receive a testimony. If they were willing to pray about it, then maybe they wanted to believe in the first place.

It is most definitely a possibility.

Speculating as to someone's sincerity is pointless and a lame attempt to deny the validity of other people's testimonies.

Which is why I don't do it. I was merely wondering how it could be done effectively. If someone claims that they did it, I take that claim at face value.

This whole issue was raised because someone said they know for certain that they are correct (due to their testimony). I simply asked whether the fact that people receive contradictory testimonies would make them maybe not know with absolute certainty that they are correct. That is all I wanted to know.

For some people it does cause doubt, in others it causes them to continue to seek out confirmation, in others it doesn't affect their personal, internal experience at all from what I've seen. Depends on the person, depends on the strength of their personal witness, depends on how they interpret it, depends on their world view about others' spiritual experiences, depends on the people involved and their prior experience with them, etc. etc. There is a wide range of responses, I believe, and if one has the time and ability to dig deep enough, I suspect that each reaction would be as individual as the experience itself.

[mfbukowski]

Perhaps you could answer my question.... The indisputable fact that people of other religious beliefs have prayed about their specific beliefs unique to their religion, and received confirmation about these beliefs, does that not then require a bit of humility and self-awareness on a Mormon's part that perhaps one can not know for absolute certain as to whether their own religious system is true?

God leads us to become closer to him; he takes us from where we are and leads us higher.

We are climbing Jacob's ladder. If we ask him if we should go down, he won't answer. If we ask him if we should make a lateral move, he won't answer. But if we ask him if the next "rung" will take us higher, he answers.

That's incredibly over-simplified, but perhaps it communicates.

Note that this view does not necessarily define the LDS church as the "highest rung" even though I personally believe it is. All it does is explain why all can get a confirmation from God that they are on the "right path" for them.

[Calm]

Do any of us believe something that we hate? I know I love what I believe. It seems to me that our beliefs cannot hold up for long if we hold a strong aversion to them. If there is merit to my theory, our beliefs are acts of the will. In other words, we can persevere for a time believing something that is repulsive to us. But over time, we can only believe in something that is compatible with our own desires. Christians don't want to be atheists. Do atheists want to believe? Do atheists have an aversion to atheism? If they do, I think they will find a way out of it. Anybody who believes in the same thing for a long time, loves what they believe.

I am suggesting that all of us believe what we want to believe. Our will doesn't serve our belief, but vice versa. "Man is a giddy thing." Oh...I already said that.

That is most definitely the truth. It is only by the grace of the Lord that anyone is able to sincerely say "thy will, Lord, not mine be done". I think in many ways it is harder to believe as the Lord would have us believe than it is to do what the Lord would have us do.

[diglot]

And I have no doubt about that, but if the act of prayer in this situation is irrelevant to their faith (and sometimes contrary) then why not simply address the fact of the prayer and not assign it to a particular faith tradition that rejects such an approach as valid?

I wasn't trying to paint the picture that these faith traditions teach such an approach as valid. I didn't realize people would mistake me for saying that.

For some people it does cause doubt, in others it causes them to continue to seek out confirmation, in others it doesn't affect their personal, internal experience at all from what I've seen. Depends on the person, depends on the strength of their personal witness, depends on how they interpret it, depends on their world view about others' spiritual experiences, depends on the people involved and their prior experience with them, etc. etc. There is a wide range of responses, I believe, and if one has the time and ability to dig deep enough, I suspect that each reaction would be as individual as the experience itself.

Thanks!

[Calm]

Diglot, sometimes it is hard to get to what a person is really asking, especially if others have asked similar questions in the past. Sometimes we just kick into autopilot and then keep answering the question we thought is asked rather than the one that was asked.

Also something may seem quite obvious to us, 'givens' in a sense as soon as we postulate something. I think this is the case this time. Many LDS have answered basically the same way I did, I just took time to add detail on why we could accept things that way. Such things would just be understood by most in a discussion among LDS. Sometimes we misjudge a person's familiarity with our faith, especially if they are knowledgable and thoughtful posters as you are. Sometimes we just forget to think things through and skip to the end. I can assure you that if you are patient enough in almost every case we will eventually get there, but knowing human nature (my training is in clinical psychology) I expect there might be one or two concepts we will just not be able to communicate clearly to each other. Hopefully if that occurs, there will be enough trust built up that it is understood not to be intentional or malicious, but just one of the unfortunate side effects of our imperfections.

Edited October 27, 2011 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

Wait, are you saying that Jesus appeared to you like he did to Paul?

I will not go into that. I meant it was as certain as Paul's. That's all we need to discuss. I know that I did not manufacture it, it was from outside me and a direct communication from God. I knew it and God knew it, just as Joseph also said. If I deny it, God will know I am lying about the most precious gift he has given me.

Not gonna happen. That's what happened as far as anyone needs to know.

[Calm]

I wasn't trying to paint the picture that these faith traditions teach such an approach as valid. I didn't realize people would mistake me for saying that.

You haven't been around the board long enough, we've had several posters in the past who have done just that. I don't think people thought that was what you were doing, but I suspect our over caution is a result of past experiences trying to deal with someone making that claim....and it wasn't the claim itself that was so 'painful' but what went with it. You will likely learn there are some subjects with a lot of unsuspected baggage attached, sometimes in the most trivial ways. I try to look on it as amusing more than frustrating, otherwise I might give up talking altogether.

[mfbukowski]

Thanks. That's all I wanted to know.

I wasn't trying to prove anyone's testimonies to be fraudulent. Just wondering if they would maybe make you less certain of your own.

I appreciate your tone- it is so far above what we are used to here that it takes some getting used to!!