I Also Know This Church Is True But

[Damien the Leper]

Walden,

I agree with you here. I would hope that people who encounter those who didn't gain a testimony weren't being disrespectful or presumptuous in thinking that something was wrong with the person, or they may not have been ready, or that they weren't sincere enough in their seeking. Those attitudes would say more about the people who think that way than they would the people to whom those attitudes are being applied.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Exactly. Which is why JS testimony, for example, cannot be fully trusted because it wasn't meant for me.

For the world, for which you are a part. Almost every OT book begins with the Prophet's ("Author's") private calling.

[pogi]

Interesting analogy.

I cannot be arrogant enough to say that without a single shred of doubt that God does or does not exist. Such a statement either way is ridiculous and should be rejected outright.

You really consider all those who claim to know God as being arrogant and ridiculous? Such blatant rejection of testimony before you have even heard it is the opposite of arrogance? You admit that you do not know, yet you speak as if you know something about God - that he cannot be known. I admit that testimony does not and cannot serve as proof, but it certainly stands as evidence worthy of consideration that the possibility of knowing God exists. To reject all testimony as arrogance and ridiculousness is perhaps even more arrogant and ridiculous. How do you know that nobody knows? How do you know that God is not uniquely known to each individual he manifests himself to. While knowledge of his fullness may not be known, knowledge of his existence is possible. I know Him, if not in his fulness. I pray to him in mediation and prayer each morning and night and hold him in my heart throughout the day, he communes with me ofttimes through personal and undeniable means which are completely unverifiable to others. How is this arrogance to say so?

Edited March 7, 2013 by pogi

[altersteve]

Exactly. Which is why JS testimony, for example, cannot be fully trusted because it wasn't meant for me.

Yes, it was. God's witness to Joseph Smith was not intended for you. It was intended for Joseph Smith. But Joseph Smith's testimony is for all of us. So is my testimony, your testimony, and anyone else's.

And yes, there is a difference.

Edited March 7, 2013 by altersteve

[canard78]

I wish there was a system in place where one can choose the true Church or reject it.

it is so sad that there are millions of other false Churches.

it is sad to see people join the fly by night start up down the street instead of one with living Apostles and Prophets.

Urgh... Here's Joseph Smith's view on things:

Joseph Smith:

"If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way. Do you believe in Jesus Christ and the Gospel of salvation which he revealed? So do I. Christians should cease wrangling and contending with each other, and cultivate the principles of union and friendship in their midst; and they will do it before the millennium can be ushered in and Christ takes possession of His kingdom."

Don't forget that by design, the vast majority of God's children will have absolutely no interaction in this life with Christianity, let alone Mormonism. It appears to have never been God's intention for the majority of his children to have any exposure to the "one true church" in this life. Apparently He decided they would be much better served by having fulfilling life experiences in another religious/philosophical environment.

Joseph also said:

The great designs of God in relation to the salvation of the human family, are very little understood by the professedly wise and intelligent generation in which we live. Various and conflicting are the opinions of men concerning the plan of salvation, the requisitions of the Almighty, the necessary preparations for heaven, the state and condition of departed spirits, and the happiness or misery that is consequent upon the practice of righteousness and iniquity according to their several notions of virtue and vice.

But while one portion of the human race is judging and condemning the other without mercy, the Great Parent of the universe looks upon the whole of the human family with a fatherly care and paternal regard; He views them as His offspring, and without any of those contracted feelings that influence the children of man, causes "His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." He holds the reins of judgment in His hands; He is a wise Lawgiver, and will judge all men, not according to the narrow, contracted notions of men, but, "according to the deeds done in the body whether they be good or evil," or whether these deeds were done in England, America, Spain, Turkey, or India. He will judge them, "not according to what they have not, but according to what they have," those who have lived without law, will be judged without law, and those who have a law, will by judged by that law. We need not doubt the wisdom and intelligence of the Great Jehovah; He will award judgment or mercy to all nations according to their several deserts, their means of obtaining intelligence, the laws by which they are governed, the facilities afforded them of obtaining correct information, and His inscrutable designs in relation to the human family; and when the designs of God shall be made manifest, and the curtain of futurity be withdrawn, we shall all of us eventually have to confess that the Judge of all the earth has done right.

[canard78]

From Boyd K. Packer's October 1971 General Conference address, "The Only True and Living Church:"

The position that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true church upon the face of the earth is fundamental. Perhaps it would be more convenient and palatable and popular if we were to avoid it; nevertheless, we are under a sacred obligation and a sacred trust to hold to it. It is not merely an admission; it is a positive declaration. It is so fundamental that we cannot yield on this point.

Now to those who think us uncharitable, we say that it was not devised by us; it was declared by Him, for he gave commandments to the early brethren, and I quote:

“… to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually.” (D&C 1:30)

Now this is not to say that the churches, all of them, are without some truth. They have some truth—some of them very much of it. They have a form of godliness. Often the clergy and adherents are not without dedication, and many of them practice remarkably well the virtues of Christianity. They are, nonetheless, incomplete. By his declaration, “… they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” (JS—H 1:19)

And 7 years later the first presidency said the following:

On 15 February 1978 the First Presidency, consisting of President Spencer W. Kimball and his counselors, President Marion G. Romney and President N. Eldon Tanner, issued an official statement regarding the Church’s position toward other religions. The statement reads:

“Based upon ancient and modern revelation, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints gladly teaches and declares the Christian doctrine that all men and women are brothers and sisters, not only by blood relationship from mortal progenitors, but also as literal spirit children of an Eternal Father.

“The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.

“The Hebrew prophets prepared the way for the coming of Jesus Christ, the promised Messiah, who should provide salvation for all mankind who believe in the gospel.

“Consistent with these truths, we believe that God has given and will give to all people sufficient knowledge to help them on their way to eternal salvation, either in this life or in the life to come.

“We also declare that the gospel of Jesus Christ, restored to his Church in our day, provides the only way to a mortal life of happiness and a fullness of joy forever. For those who have not received this gospel, the opportunity will come to them in the life hereafter if not in this life.

“Our message therefore is one of special love and concern for the eternal welfare of all men and women, regardless of religious belief, race, or nationality, knowing that we are truly brothers and sisters because we are the sons and daughters of the same Eternal Father.”

The gospel of Jesus Christ is the way. There are ways of travelling along the paths towards the Lord - even in vehicles where His name is known by another title.

[teddyaware]

And 7 years later the first presidency said the following:

The gospel of Jesus Christ is the way. There are ways of travelling along the paths towards the Lord - even in vehicles where His name is known by another title.

Hi canard, Read the "7 years later" First Presidency declaration carefully and don't see that it in any substantive way contradics or modifies what Elder Packer had to say. If you see a point, or points, of departure in these two statements, point them out to me and we'll discuss them.

We Latter-day Saints can afford to be charitable and even deferential to adherents of other religions because we take very seriously the apostolic pronouncement that Christ "is the light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world." God has left his non-LDS spirit children bereft of salvative light and knowlwedge. But this does not alter the Lord's own pronouncement in the Doctrine and Covenants that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true and living Church. Ultimately, the wise purpose for the existence of these other non-LDS churches is to prepare and set the stage for the members of these churches to receive the fulness of the truth "when the opportunity will come to them in the life hereafter if not in this life."

Edited March 7, 2013 by teddyaware

[Damien the Leper]

You really consider all those who claim to know God as being arrogant and ridiculous? Such blatant rejection of testimony before you have even heard it is the opposite of arrogance? You admit that you do not know, yet you speak as if you know something about God - that he cannot be known. I admit that testimony does not and cannot serve as proof, but it certainly stands as evidence worthy of consideration that the possibility of knowing God exists. To reject all testimony as arrogance and ridiculousness is perhaps even more arrogant and ridiculous. How do you know that nobody knows? How do you know that God is not uniquely known to each individual he manifests himself to. While knowledge of his fullness may not be known, knowledge of his existence is possible. I know Him, if not in his fulness. I pray to him in mediation and prayer each morning and night and hold him in my heart throughout the day, he communes with me ofttimes through personal and undeniable means which are completely unverifiable to others. How is this arrogance to say so?

Tell me, do you have an undeniable knowledge of things that transcend reality as we know it? Since it seems that you say that you know God exists, can you provide verifiable and testable proof, at the very least, or show me God Himself at the most? Of course not! That is a ridiculous request to even conjure let alone outrightly request it. To say you believe that God exists is an appropriate and reasonable response. I believe that God exists but I do not know that God exists. For me, saying that I know He exists defies the elements of faith and hope.

[Damien the Leper]

Yes, it was. God's witness to Joseph Smith was not intended for you. It was intended for Joseph Smith. But Joseph Smith's testimony is for all of us. So is my testimony, your testimony, and anyone else's.

And yes, there is a difference.

Let me explain...if I were to faithfully believe the Book of Mormon that doesn't automatically make JS a prophet. Likewise, faithfully believing the Torah doesn't automatically make J, P, E, D1, D2, and R prophets.

I believe JS had a sacred experience. I don't know what that experience was exactly based on the historical evidence. Just because the LDS church canonized one of the many narratives of the First Vision does not automatically make it the most accurate. Honestly, I don't care what divine and holy personage(s?) JS claims to have seen. What matters to me is that I believe i am able to commune with God through the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon isn't dependent on whether or not Joseph was a prophet, which I do believe by the way. It is dependent on God.

[altersteve]

Let me explain...if I were to faithfully believe the Book of Mormon that doesn't automatically make JS a prophet. Likewise, faithfully believing the Torah doesn't automatically make J, P, E, D1, D2, and R prophets.

I believe JS had a sacred experience. I don't know what that experience was exactly based on the historical evidence. Just because the LDS church canonized one of the many narratives of the First Vision does not automatically make it the most accurate. Honestly, I don't care what divine and holy personage(s?) JS claims to have seen. What matters to me is that I believe i am able to commune with God through the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon isn't dependent on whether or not Joseph was a prophet, which I do believe by the way. It is dependent on God.

Well, I didn't say the Book of Mormon is dependent on Joseph Smith being a prophet (I agree that it's not, it's the other way around), and I didn't say the canonized First Vision account is the "most accurate." All I said was that Joseph Smith's testimony of what he saw is for the whole world to hear, but the First Vision itself was intended for him, because it wasn't shown to anyone else. Similarly, my spiritual experiences were intended for me, not for you or anyone else, but my testimony of those experiences is for everybody, since I believe I've been commanded by God to share that testimony with everybody. That's all I said. I said nothing about the Book of Mormon or the several First Vision accounts.

[CV75]

I wish there was a system in place where one can choose the true Church or reject it.

There is (Agency).

[Damien the Leper]

Well, I didn't say the Book of Mormon is dependent on Joseph Smith being a prophet (I agree that it's not, it's the other way around), and I didn't say the canonized First Vision account is the "most accurate." All I said was that Joseph Smith's testimony of what he saw is for the whole world to hear, but the First Vision itself was intended for him, because it wasn't shown to anyone else. Similarly, my spiritual experiences were intended for me, not for you or anyone else, but my testimony of those experiences is for everybody, since I believe I've been commanded by God to share that testimony with everybody. That's all I said. I said nothing about the Book of Mormon or the several First Vision accounts.

I know you didn't. I brought them up to demonstrate a point. My testimony of God or the Book of Mormon have little to do with Joseph Smith. Is JS important when it comes to the Book of Mormon? Yes! But that's really where it stops for me. I'm glad I have been able to read portions of his journals and his testimony. But ultimately, his testimony has very little to do with the development and understanding of my spirituality. JS is but one of countless servants worldwide and through out history. He is no more important than William Tyndale, Martin Luther, St. Thomas Moore, or Athanasius of Alexandria.

[blackstrap]

I watched an interview by Oprah of an NDE experiencer. The experiencer said something that many also note when they "pass on and return " She said she knew that she was HOME on the other side. That THERE was the true reality, not HERE. Some people get hung up on proving that God exists using the tools of this world .Kind of like asking an ant to prove the existence of an eagle when the best the ant could do is refer to a passing shadow.

[pogi]

Tell me, do you have an undeniable knowledge of things that transcend reality as we know it?

I don't think that reality as I know it is the same as reality as you know it, so I don't know how to answer your question. I don't think that there is a reality "as WE know it." I do have an undeniable knowledge of things that have been revealed to me, including the existence of God.

Since it seems that you say that you know God exists, can you provide verifiable and testable proof, at the very least, or show me God Himself at the most? Of course not! That is a ridiculous request to even conjure let alone outrightly request it. To say you believe that God exists is an appropriate and reasonable response. I believe that God exists but I do not know that God exists. For me, saying that I know He exists defies the elements of faith and hope.

You are right, that is a ridiculous request, but why should that be proof to you that I do not know or have not undeniably experienced Him? No I cannot prove to you that I have experienced Him, just like a witness bearing testimony in court cannot prove that they saw what they saw. It simply stands as evidence worthy of consideration, not proof. The fact is you have no proof either way, you simply choose to "believe" that I have not undeniably experienced Him, but you have no proof and are mistakingly rejecting all testimony based on the fact that it is unverifiable and untestable.

I understand what you are saying about hope and faith, but I assure you that knowledge of his existence is far from knowledge of his wholeness, and hope and faith are still required in overcoming my false beliefs, fears, and doubts about many aspects regarding God and my own perceived limitations of self.

[Damien the Leper]

You are over complicating the question. Can you see into God's plane of existence? Have you seen the eternities? Have you seen His transcending power that surpasses our humanity?

It is illogical to assume or be presumptuous to assume that believing and knowing are in any way synonymous.

[pogi]

You are over complicating the question. Can you see into God's plane of existence? Have you seen the eternities? Have you seen His transcending power that surpasses our humanity?

It is illogical to assume or be presumptuous to assume that believing and knowing are in any way synonymous.

You presume that one needs to "see" in order to know, or that one needs to understand or comprehend God in His fulness in order to know His very real, undeniable, unverifiable, inexplicable, yet completely accessible love. Again, you are having difficulty separating knowledge of his fullness with knowledge of His existence.

I do not assume that believing and knowing are synonymous.

[Damien the Leper]

Pogi, I get what you're saying. I believe God exists and not just from an emotive perspective such as the "burning bosom" mess. I believe there are logical and rational arguments to be made in favor of His existence. However, no scripture and no prophet validates the existence of God. Until I see God face to face, I will continue to believe he exists rather than knowing.

Edited March 10, 2013 by Valentinus

[pogi]

Pogi, I get what you're saying. I believe God exists and not just from an emotive perspective such as the "burning bosom" mess. I believe there are logical and rational arguments to be made in favor of His existence. However, no scripture and no prophet validates the existence of God. Until I see God face to face, I will continue to believe he exists rather than knowing.

Valentius, your belief can have fruition into knowledge before you have the privilege of seeing him face to face. I completely agree that no scripture, prophet, or man can validate the existence of God. However, if you profess to believe the Bible, you profess also to believe that God is knowable to man as the prophets, apostles, and Christ Himself have testified throughout scripture. The scriptures testify that He is indeed accessible to man. We too can know as Peter when he proclaimed "thou art the Christ", after which Christ assured him that this knowledge was not of man (i.e. logical and rational arguments of his existence) but was revealed of God. You cannot profess to believe the Bible and not also profess to believe that God's existence (not fullness) is indeed revealed to man.

You cannot deny the possibility of man knowing that God's existence is real. To do so would indeed be presumptuous without definitive proof. Why deny the possibility when you have no assurance of certainty?

Edited March 10, 2013 by pogi

[Damien the Leper]

As I stated. I believe God exists. I believe scripture to be a witness of God but also the human response to God. Saying that one knows that God exists is not synonymous with God being knowable. This is demonstrably clear.

From a paper I wrote for a class:

"It's not about proving the existence of God. Such a task should be rejected outright. It's about communing with and meeting that mysterious presence in our deepest moment of need and embracing new life and a truly life changing and knee bending love. Resurrection is the ultimate invitation to trust. This is the mission and call to be the Christ...redemption and renewal."

[pogi]

As I stated. I believe God exists. I believe scripture to be a witness of God but also the human response to God. Saying that one knows that God exists is not synonymous with God being knowable. This is demonstrably clear.

Let me say this, I know that God exists not because I know of Him, but because I know Him. Because he is not known in his fullness does not mean that he cannot be known in part. I don't think I know anybody in their fullness, but this does mean that I cannot be acquainted with them enough to proclaim that "I know them." Christ stated that "This is life eternal that they might know thee..." (John 17:3). "The Lord is with you while you are with him; and if ye seek him, he will be found of you..." (2 Chronicles 15:2).

I guess I am a little confused about your stance because on one hand you reject any witness of God's existence as ridiculous and arrogant by saying:

I cannot be arrogant enough to say that without a single shred of doubt that God does or does not exist. Such a statement either way is ridiculous and should be rejected outright.

Yet on the other hand you uphold scripture as a witness of God's existence by saying:

I believe scripture to be a witness of God but also the human response to God.

My witness is also a human response to God, and as well as humans can know anything, I know that God exists. I have found him as did many of the Israelites in the following scripture: "But when they in their trouble did turn unto the Lord God of Israel, and sought him, he was found of them" (2 Chron 15:4).

"It's not about proving the existence of God. Such a task should be rejected outright. It's about communing with and meeting that mysterious presence in our deepest moment of need and embracing new life and a truly life changing and knee bending love. Resurrection is the ultimate invitation to trust. This is the mission and call to be the Christ...redemption and renewal."

This I can fully agree with, and it was beautifully written! The task of "proving" God should be rejected outright. Yet I proclaim with Job, "I know that my redeemer lives" (Job 19:25).

Edited March 11, 2013 by pogi

[Damien the Leper]

I'm not rejecting others witness. I apologize if that is how it sounds. I'm saying that others witness is not reliable enough for me to have a testimony. They give their own insights and impressions and I'm good with that. But contrary to the mistaken words I said before, they are not necessarily authoritative. I cannot in my humanity say that I know God exists. God doesn't interact as intimately as he did in scriptural times.

I have hope and trust and faith in Resurrection. Without Resurrection, not even the Atonement means a thing. I hope and pray that God exists. But I won't know until I see Him. I applaud the allegory that is Job's narrative. It is a very unique teaching tool. As Paul Toscano said, "Perhaps faith is to give God the benefit of the doubt."

[pogi]

Thanks for the discourse. I just want to make one last comment about some rather definitive sounding statements you make:

I cannot in my humanity say that I know God exists. God doesn't interact as intimately as he did in scriptural times. I hope and pray that God exists. But I won't know until I see Him.

How can you speak so authoritatively? You say that you do not reject other's witnesses yet such authoritative and definitive statements in fact do reject other's witnesses as impossibilities of knowing or intimately interacting with God. Why close your heart and mind and not even consider the possibility? I am not asking you to accept my witness or any other mans witness as authoritative, but I am asking you to keep an open mind and heart. Volgadon, those statements above are only true for you because you "believe" them.

[Damien the Leper]

I'm speaking authoritatively only for myself and no one else. I recognize the sanctity of others experiences but they are not the ultimate arbiter. I wish to only keep an open mind rather than that of a mind of certainty.

[pogi]

I'm speaking authoritatively only for myself and no one else. I recognize the sanctity of others experiences but they are not the ultimate arbiter. I wish to only keep an open mind rather than that of a mind of certainty.

Sorry to create so much fuss over this issue, but I feel it is important. I appreciate that you recognize the sanctity of others experiences and feel that you are only speaking for yourself. I get the sense that you truly want to keep an open mind and only speak for yourself, and I respect that, but I would ask, who are you speaking for when you say, "God does not interact as intimately as he did in scriptural times"? This to me sounds like you are speaking for God, as well as for those who claim to intimately interact with Him rather than for yourself. You also say that you "wish to keep an open mind rather than that of a mind of certainty." Perhaps a more open minded statement which only speaks for yourself would be:

"I have not personally interacted as intimately with God as others in history have, and as others in the present day claim, but I will not limit God in my beliefs as to who, how, why, and when he will interact with man. I cannot disprove other peoples claims of intimacy with God and will therefore not create a "mind of certainty" that he does not and cannot interact with man in the present day, and that he does not and cannot interact with me."

It is the same with your other two statements, you say: "I cannot in my humanity say that I know God exists." This is another example of speaking with a mind of certainty (something you wish to avoid) when in reality , it is only a belief. This is both a self limiting and a God limiting belief that will in the end become a self-fulfilling prophecy if you cannot keep an open mind to the word of God. Perhaps a more open minded statement would be: "I do not personally know that God exists, but I believe in Him with all my heart and seek after Him. If it so be that he choose to reveal his existence and love for me in an undeniable way as I believe he has done in history, I will accept it with an open heart."

And finally, "I hope and pray that God exists, but I won't know until I see him." In an effort to keep an open mind and avoid a mind of certainty, perhaps consider restructuring this belief to say, "I hope and pray that God exists, and I will know when I know."

[Damien the Leper]

Perhaps intimately was the wrong word. What I mean is that he isn't sending floods because he lost faith in us (again). That is just an example. The God who was so deeply involved in his community seems much more distant. If what Joseph Smith said is true, then he may have been the last person to see God in person.

I get what you mean by the statements but it comes down to the fact that I do not know anything for certain. I have no interest in knowing for certain. Certainty, for me, derails faith and hope.