Where Does Apologetics Fall Short?????

[Randall57]

To some people the glass is half empty, to others it is half full. I am an optimist. I see the Church getting stronger, not weaker. Once upon a time the US government sent an army to destroy the Saints. Not likely to happen now.

Personally I am a optimistic person, but I am also a realist, being either optimistic or pessimistic in an objective study of the facts does not lend credence to the observation, in this case our discussion. Which lead to the starting point of the conversation which was your statement that was along the lines of 'no one cares about discussing certain questions,' which I believe is ignoring the facts.

I have no idea what the US government sending a Army to destroy the saints 100 plus years ago has to do with any of the questions I asked in regards to your very general opining to my post?

Again, being a realist, Church membership is grossly exaggerated, financial accountability with the body is non existent. Liberal PC has taken a foothold with the Brethren's decision making and is forming a new ideology for the younger generation, and confusion for the "older" generations, and aside from the GP series, which is still a general out line, the GA are not defining core doctrines as they once did.

[Deborah]

Same process, different result. Why is one view more legitimate than the other?

Priesthood authority and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. When the majority of the church followed the Q12, they were doing as Joseph Smith said they should do. The Q12 has the same authority as a body that the Prophet has. Look at the fruits. Which is the church that has gone out and filled the world as prophesied by both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and which groups have become isolated sects?

[Deborah]

from the Joseph Smith manual:

“The Standard of Truth has been erected; no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done.” (Chapter 11)

From the Brigham Young manual:

“For the first time in my life, for the first time in your lives, for the first time in the kingdom of God in the 19th century, without a Prophet at our head, do I step forth to act in my calling in connection with the Quorum of the Twelve, as Apostles of Jesus Christ unto this generation—Apostles whom God has called by revelation through the Prophet Joseph, who are ordained and anointed to bear off the keys of the kingdom of God in all the world.

“… Now, if you want Sidney Rigdon or William Law to lead you, or anybody else, you are welcome to them; but I tell you, in the name of the Lord that no man can put another between the Twelve and the Prophet Joseph. Why? Because Joseph was their file leader, and he has committed into their hands the keys of the kingdom in this last dispensation, for all the world” (Chapter 1)

[Poly]

Priesthood authority and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. When the majority of the church followed the Q12, they were doing as Joseph Smith said they should do. The Q12 has the same authority as a body that the Prophet has.

The offshoots claim this authority through the apostles that went with them. A majority does not truth make. They would say that the modern mainstream church is apostate, that they have received witness to the truthfulness of this through the holy ghost. Said gift was given them, in their perspective, through proper authority.

Look at the fruits. Which is the church that has gone out and filled the world as prophesied by both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and which groups have become isolated sects?

Seriously? In a global perspective:

Part 1: Neither of them.

Part 2: Both of them.

[ERayR]

The offshoots claim this authority through the apostles that went with them. A majority does not truth make. They would say that the modern mainstream church is apostate, that they have received witness to the truthfulness of this through the holy ghost. Said gift was given them, in their perspective, through proper authority.

Seriously? In a global perspective:

Part 1: Neither of them.

Part 2: Both of them.

By their works ye shall know them.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is indeed a world wide church.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not isolated.

[Poly]

My irony meter just broke.

The Seventh Day Adventists were founded in the same time frame as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It now has more members in more countries than the LDS church and is growing at a much faster rate. It is more apt to fulfill said prophecy.

The Assembly of God now has 30 million or so members, is growing at a much, much faster rate, and was founded nearly 100 years after the LDS church. Is it fulfilling the prophecy?

Both have some pretty respectable fruit, if by fruit you mean growth rate, or members engaged in good works, charitable donations, people living good lives. But if it is numbers that are fruit of veracity, then you aren't doing so well.

[Poly]

Despite the entertaining diversions into fruits, you have still to provide any real argument as to why your version of spiritual witness is any more reliable than anyone else's.

[Deborah]

Despite the entertaining diversions into fruits, you have still to provide any real argument as to why your version of spiritual witness is any more reliable than anyone else's.

There is no argument that can be made. I know what I know. Others may proclaim the same but being a convert I know the difference.

Too often I've seen members of the church get hung up on one or two points of doctrine and by so doing lose sight of the big picture and fall into one of these groups, mainly polygamous, that base their entire religion on that one point. It's putting on blinders and failing to see the greater purpose and mission of the church. As to those of other faiths, if they have found something fulfilling to them I don't question it. Because they have a conviction of it doesn't mean they have had the same experience I have had in my conversion and that given the full opportunity to hear the truth wouldn't embrace it.

[Poly]

A member of one of the offshoot sects would make the same claims of knowing, and arrived to their conclusion by the same method. Why are you right and they are not?

[Deborah]

A member of one of the offshoot sects would make the same claims of knowing, and arrived to their conclusion by the same method. Why are you right and they are not?

If you don't know I can't explain it. It has to be experienced. I've known enough people in these offshoot groups to clearly see the difference.

[Poly]

The offshoot folks reap the whirlwind of living the restored gospel.

But as a methodology for knowing the truth, as two people following the exact same method can come to such differing conclusions, the method seems full of vagaries and wholly unreliable.

[Randall57]

If you don't know I can't explain it. It has to be experienced. I've known enough people in these offshoot groups to clearly see the difference.

Experience is subjective, you can go down the line and use experience for both sides of the argument. For example, Emma Smith, by experience, chose the reformed church over the Utah church...others chose the Utah church by their subjective experience. Each and all were converts just like you and made their choices for different reasons. To say you made your choice by your experience is fair, but to say your experience is the truth based solely on your experience is not a valied argument.

[Deborah]

But it isn't the exact same methodology. That is the point. Part of the process is following the living prophet and the Q12.

From chapter 27 of the Joseph Smith manual:

“I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives.”

Furthermore I have close family members who were once faithful and have been influenced by someone they feel is very spiritual and intelligent and have studied their way out of the church, seeing the church and prophet as being in apostasy. Having known these people all my life I can tell you there is a difference in them now. There is a darkness and a bitterness and loss of perspective and sense of humor as they teach against the church. They are convinced they have followed the spirit, but it isn't the same spirit they once followed and it is obvious in their countenance and behavior.

Joseph Smith also said (from the same chapter):

There is a superior intelligence bestowed upon such as obey the Gospel with full purpose of heart, which, if sinned against, the apostate is left naked and destitute of the Spirit of God, and he is, in truth, nigh unto cursing, and his end is to be burned. When once that light which was in them is taken from them they become as much darkened as they were previously enlightened, and then, no marvel, if all their power should be enlisted against the truth, and they, Judas-like, seek the destruction of those who were their greatest benefactors.

[Benjamin McGuire]

My spiritual witness is reliable more than anyone else's spiritual witness because I experienced it. That's the beauty of a spiritual witness. It is personal, it is unique, and it represents the basis on which I will be judged by God. No one else will be judged by the same standards I will be, because no one else will have received my spiritual witness or be held to its standards. Joseph Smith understood this when he suggested that we aren't all judged by the same standard, but rather by what we do with the light we are given (individually).

The Book of Mormon - particularly Nephi (in 1 and 2 Nephi) recognizes the fact that the same spiritual witness can mean quite different things to the people who receive it - because they experience it differently (we are, after all, unique individuals). The problem occurs when we try to assert that there are absolutes within which we have to evaluate everyone elses understanding. That, and of course, the fact that the Pure Gospel of James is about caring for the needy, taking care of the widows, dealing with those on the fringes of society. Even if our understandings are different, if we do the work of God, the end result will be the same. James doesn't feel the necessity to include in his descrption of pure gospel a clarity of epistemology.

I am perfectly happy with recognizing that someone else receives a different spiritual witness than I have received. It doesn't invalidate my witness - because of the differences. It is this limitation - this requirement that some people have that suggests that everyone's witness must conform to some sort of standard that is flawed. And yet we see this assertion so boldly stated here:

But as a methodology for knowing the truth, as two people following the exact same method can come to such differing conclusions, the method seems full of vagaries and wholly unreliable.

Perhaps Poly can defend his epistemological perspective in a meaningful way? Perhaps we could apply to the simple task of reading a book right? If two people can read a book and understand it quite differently, does this mean that their method of reading is full of vagaries and thus is wholly unreliable? Does this mean that a real reading a book is an impossibility? Can you imagine talking to your spouse with this sort of thought process in the background?

Part of the problem is that this takes a model of understanding that works well in some circumstances, and tries to apply it to an arena where it cannot work well. But it doesn't result in a conclusion that the paradigm of understanding doesn't work (those who want to follow this sort of epistemological model hold to it with religious conviction). It results instead in an attempt to say the the results of such spiritual experiences because they do not conform are simply noise.

Ben M.

[Deborah]

Experience is subjective, you can go down the line and use experience for both sides of the argument. For example, Emma Smith, by experience, chose the reformed church over the Utah church...others chose the Utah church by their subjective experience. Each and all were converts just like you and made their choices for different reasons. To say you made your choice by your experience is fair, but to say your experience is the truth based solely on your experience is not a valied argument.

Did I say otherwise? And btw Emma didn't choose the reformed church. She chose not to go with Brigham Young and the other saints mainly because she had problems with BY. But she never embraced the reorganized church.

[Poly]

The methodology is described in Moroni's promise. Where in there is the caveats you describe Deborah?

The methodology of Moroni's promise as an epistemology is an exercise in begging the question and circular reasoning.

[Randall57]

Did I say otherwise? And btw Emma didn't choose the reformed church. She chose not to go with Brigham Young and the other saints mainly because she had problems with BY. But she never embraced the reorganized church.

Then why did she become a member and support Joseph 3rd in his presidency? Who knows what she really believed, she certainly did not endorse plural marriage, but she chose to become a member of the reformed church, and to support and sustain her son as president.

[Randall57]

My spiritual witness is reliable more than anyone else's spiritual witness because I experienced it. That's the beauty of a spiritual witness. It is personal, it is unique, and it represents the basis on which I will be judged by God. No one else will be judged by the same standards I will be, because no one else will have received my spiritual witness or be held to its standards. Joseph Smith understood this when he suggested that we aren't all judged by the same standard, but rather by what we do with the light we are given (individually).

The Book of Mormon - particularly Nephi (in 1 and 2 Nephi) recognizes the fact that the same spiritual witness can mean quite different things to the people who receive it - because they experience it differently (we are, after all, unique individuals). The problem occurs when we try to assert that there are absolutes within which we have to evaluate everyone elses understanding. That, and of course, the fact that the Pure Gospel of James is about caring for the needy, taking care of the widows, dealing with those on the fringes of society. Even if our understandings are different, if we do the work of God, the end result will be the same. James doesn't feel the necessity to include in his descrption of pure gospel a clarity of epistemology.

I am perfectly happy with recognizing that someone else receives a different spiritual witness than I have received. It doesn't invalidate my witness - because of the differences. It is this limitation - this requirement that some people have that suggests that everyone's witness must conform to some sort of standard that is flawed. And yet we see this assertion so boldly stated here:

Perhaps Poly can defend his epistemological perspective in a meaningful way? Perhaps we could apply to the simple task of reading a book right? If two people can read a book and understand it quite differently, does this mean that their method of reading is full of vagaries and thus is wholly unreliable? Does this mean that a real reading a book is an impossibility? Can you imagine talking to your spouse with this sort of thought process in the background?

Part of the problem is that this takes a model of understanding that works well in some circumstances, and tries to apply it to an arena where it cannot work well. But it doesn't result in a conclusion that the paradigm of understanding doesn't work (those who want to follow this sort of epistemological model hold to it with religious conviction). It results instead in an attempt to say the the results of such spiritual experiences because they do not conform are simply noise.

Ben M.

What then are the boundries of your understanding of this, what if a persons spiritual witness is that Christ is not the only way and not necessary for ones salvation. What and where is yardstick as to what is truth, and what is precieved truth. John says we are to test all spirits to what is true, so when your spiritual witness contridicts anothers spiritual witness, how do you measure what is truth? I will guess you answer will be circular, with the only answer being faith...example is that you used 1&2 Nephi as a yardstick, I used John, and they contridict each other.

[Poly]

Deborah,

Every time you add conditions you beg the question of your position being the one that gets to set the rules. The offshoots would say no. That your's is an apostate position.

This serves to demonstrate that the difference between you and they is which subset of prophetic pronouncements you choose to ignore.

[mathonihah]

What then are the boundries of your understanding of this, what if a persons spiritual witness is that Christ is not the only way and not necessary for ones salvation. What and where is yardstick as to what is truth, and what is precieved truth. John says we are to test all spirits to what is true, so when your spiritual witness contridicts anothers spiritual witness, how do you measure what is truth? I will guess you answer will be circular, with the only answer being faith...example is that you used 1&2 Nephi as a yardstick, I used John, and they contridict each other.

Everyone who has a testimony, or claims to have, has it for him/herself, not for another. It is not something that can be shared. It is like the parable of then virgins. Each was responsible for having oil her own lamp. If somebody didn't, or thought they did but it turned out to be water instead of oil, or was sold fake oil instead etc., the truth would be revealed when the bridegroom came. When her lamp didn't light up, then she knew that she had been fooled. That is how it is with testimony. I may claim to have a testimony that the Moonies are true, and somebody else may claim to have a testimony that the Shakers are true. Only God knows which (if any) is true. When the day of reckoning comes, and only those who had the right oil in their lamps are chosen, and the rest are rejected, then everyone will know.

I am confident that I have the right oil in my lamp, and I couldn't care less if somebody else thinks otherwise. What you are saying basically is that it is impossible for anyone to know whether they have the right oil in their lamp or not. That is obviously is false, and contradicts the parable. The fact that there are conflicting claims does not prove that nobody's claim can be right. It is possible to know whether you have the right oil in your lamp (or no oil at all), otherwise no one could be condemned. The fact that there are conflicting claims does not prove that it is impossible for anyone to know. What it does prove is that it cannot be shared. Each is responsible for his/her own lamp.

Edited February 17, 2013 by mathonihah

[Deborah]

Deborah,

Every time you add conditions you beg the question of your position being the one that gets to set the rules. The offshoots would say no. That your's is an apostate position.

This serves to demonstrate that the difference between you and they is which subset of prophetic pronouncements you choose to ignore.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I didn't say anyone sets the rules for anyone else. By my rules and by the admonition in D&C 8 that you will know in your mind and heart what is true, I have no doubt that I am in the right church. As others have said someone may disagree but that is their choice. I know what factors made my choice.

What prophetic announcements? The ones I quoted or something else?

[Randall57]

Everyone who has a testimony, or claims to have, has it for him/herself, not for another. It is not something that can be shared. It is like the parable of then virgins. Each was responsible for having oil her own lamp. If somebody didn't, or thought they did but it turned out to be water instead of oil, or was sold fake oil instead etc., the truth would be revealed when the bridegroom came. When her lamp didn't light up, then she knew that she had been fooled. That is how it is with testimony. I may claim to have a testimony that the Moonies are true, and somebody else may claim to have a testimony that the Shakers are true. Only God knows which (if any) is true. When the day of reckoning comes, and only those who had the right oil in their lamps are chosen, and the rest are rejected, then everyone will know.

I am confident that I have the right oil in my lamp, and I couldn't care less if somebody else thinks otherwise. What you saying basically is that it is impossible for anyone to know if they have the right oil in their lamp or not. That is obviously is false, and contradicts the parable. The fact that there are conflicting claims does not prove that nobody's claim can be right. It is possible to know whether you have the right oil in your lamp (or no oil at all), otherwise no one could be condemned. The fact that there are conflicting claims does not prove that it is impossible for anyone to know. What it does prove is that it cannot be shared. Each is responsible for his/her own lamp.

In Jesus' time, weddings were not announced with a date, the groom would go to his fathers house and build a place for the bride and himself to live, When the father felt that the room was ready he would tell his son to call for his bride. The parable is in this context, if the brides were ready for the husbands call, then they should be ready to travel at night and have "batteries for their flashlights." Five did, five did not. Jesus stated this parable with comparing it to being like the Kingdom of Heaven, and ended saying no one nows the time or place so be ready, this is the context.

What you saying basically is that it is impossible for anyone to know if they have the right oil in their lamp or not.

No, in regards to my first posts with you, I am saying is that if one can not question ones faith, test their faith, and have a strong basis for their faith apart from subjective feelings, which every person has, then their faith is a blind and forced faith based solely on subjective feelings and outside pressures such as family and institution.

And once more, the parable in context conveys a message to have a solid faith worthy for the coming of the Lord.

So back to the original question, if you are confident in your faith, why not answer question about it?

[volgadon]

In Jesus' time, weddings were not announced with a date, the groom would go to his fathers house and build a place for the bride and himself to live, When the father felt that the room was ready he would tell his son to call for his bride. The parable is in this context, if the brides were ready for the husbands call, then they should be ready to travel at night and have "batteries for their flashlights." Five did, five did not. Jesus stated this parable with comparing it to being like the Kingdom of Heaven, and ended saying no one nows the time or place so be ready, this is the context.

Where on earth did you come up with this interpretation?

[ERayR]

A member of one of the offshoot sects would make the same claims of knowing, and arrived to their conclusion by the same method. Why are you right and they are not?

Then join the one of your choice. I am not nor is it required that I prove anything to you. I present you decide.

[mathonihah]

In Jesus' time, weddings were not announced with a date, the groom would go to his fathers house and build a place for the bride and himself to live, When the father felt that the room was ready he would tell his son to call for his bride. The parable is in this context, if the brides were ready for the husbands call, then they should be ready to travel at night and have "batteries for their flashlights." Five did, five did not. Jesus stated this parable with comparing it to being like the Kingdom of Heaven, and ended saying no one nows the time or place so be ready, this is the context.

No, in regards to my first posts with you, I am saying is that if one can not question ones faith, test their faith, and have a strong basis for their faith apart from subjective feelings, which every person has, then their faith is a blind and forced faith based solely on subjective feelings and outside pressures such as family and institution.

And once more, the parable in context conveys a message to have a solid faith worthy for the coming of the Lord.

So back to the original question, if you are confident in your faith, why not answer question about it?

You are talking a lot of nonsense and you know it. Your question has been answered, and need not be answered again.