Are Our Spiritual Experiences Superior?

[Stone holm]

That refers to the gift of discernment. We can discern error in others, that is not the same as mind reading. Of course we have to be wary of arrogance in case the beam is actually in our own eyes.

[mfbukowski]

deleted

Edited June 5, 2013 by mfbukowski

[pmccombs1]

That refers to the gift of discernment. We can discern error in others, that is not the same as mind reading. Of course we have to be wary of arrogance in case the beam is actually in our own eyes.

You mean, of course, error according to the standard of truth we have accepted for ourselves. Some of the above comments in this thread, regarding the universality and immutability of "truth," are not particularly salient in light of the OP, in my opinion. Those sorts of statements are "begging the question," (as TruthSeeker2013 correctly pointed out) because they already presume the correctness of LDS doctrine. But an impartial spectator--one who stands dispassionately apart from the various creeds--will have no means of discernment at all, and therefore no way to arrive at the "logical" conclusion about who is right. Is it Joseph Smith and his Measuring Stick, or is it something else? The original, fundamental, power of discernment lies in passion itself. What story speaks to us?

The problem with stories that claim the existence of universals, and then claim to provide the key and measuring stick to those, is that they can produce people who are very intolerant--even cruel--to others who disagree with this particular version of Truth. The Scientific Method is one such system, and I believe that is why there are so many militant atheists out there who are such awful jerks. In fact, they are just like many of the people they criticize. Let's not demote religion to the standard of science!

The atheist, Penn Jilette, speculated that if religion were to be wiped out, who knows what new and strange religions may arise to replace it? We wouldn't get the same things twice, and I happen to agree with that. Isn't it wonderful? Religion and belief is always evolving; it's a living thing. But, were science to disappear, someone would eventually find that old measuring stick called the "Scientific Method," and then we'd be back with many of the same scientific truths all over again. And that is the only Truth, says Mr. Jilette, pure and absolute. What does that say about science? What a bore. What a horrific bore.

Give me truth that lights up my inner life. Who knows what shape it will come in? Give me Robert Louis Stevenson's lantern bearers, whose pleasure in their dreadful, oily bulls-eye lanterns was said to be "merely fanciful." None of the reasonable people could understand those boys and their lanterns. Why couldn't they see the truth of the matter--of their evil-smelling lanterns? Oh, the Knowers of Universal Truth can certainly discern the error of it.

But, "To miss the joy", says Stevenson, "is to miss the all... for no man lives in the external truth among salts and acids, but in the warm, phantasmagoric chamber of his brain, with the painted windows and the storied wall." William James said he knew of no finer words in all of Stevenson, and I heartily agree. Universal truth... bah. What's the point? It's useful, to be sure: Useful for machines and automata. Useful for science. But they are not machines that must stand up at some final judgment.

Edited June 5, 2013 by pmccombs1

[Stone holm]

You mean, of course, error according to the standard of truth we have accepted for ourselves. Some of the above comments in this thread, regarding the universality and immutability of "truth," are not particularly salient in light of the OP, in my opinion. Those sorts of statements are "begging the question," (as TruthSeeker2013 correctly pointed out) because they already presume the correctness of LDS doctrine. But an impartial spectator--one who stands dispassionately apart from the various creeds--will have no means of discernment at all, and therefore no way to arrive at the "logical" conclusion about who is right. Is it Joseph Smith and his Measuring Stick, or is it something else? The original, fundamental, power of discernment lies in passion itself. What story speaks to us?

The problem with stories that claim the existence of universals, and then claim to provide the key and measuring stick to those, is that they can produce people who are very intolerant--even cruel--to others who disagree with this particular version of Truth. The Scientific Method is one such system, and I believe that is why there are so many militant atheists out there who are such awful jerks. In fact, they are just like many of the people they criticize. Let's not demote religion to the standard of science!

The atheist, Penn Jilette, speculated that if religion were to be wiped out, who knows what new and strange religions may arise to replace it? We wouldn't get the same things twice, and I happen to agree with that. Isn't it wonderful? Religion and belief is always evolving; it's a living thing. But, were science to disappear, someone would eventually find that old measuring stick called the "Scientific Method," and then we'd be back with many of the same scientific truths all over again. And that is the only Truth, says Mr. Jilette, pure and absolute. What does that say about science? What a bore. What a horrific bore.

Give me truth that lights up my inner life. Who knows what shape it will come in? Give me Robert Louis Stevenson's lantern bearers, whose pleasure in their dreadful, oily bulls-eye lanterns was said to be "merely fanciful." None of the reasonable people could understand those boys and their lanterns. Why couldn't they see the truth of the matter--of their evil-smelling lanterns? Oh, the Knowers of Universal Truth can certainly discern the error of it.

But, "To miss the joy", says Stevenson, "is to miss the all... for no man lives in the external truth among salts and acids, but in the warm, phantasmagoric chamber of his brain, with the painted windows and the storied wall." William James said he knew of no finer words in all of Stevenson, and I heartily agree. Universal truth... bah. What's the point? It's useful, to be sure: Useful for machines and automata. Useful for science. But they are not machines that must stand up at some final judgment.

Are you not actually complaining of those who live in black and white worlds?

[mfbukowski]

Give me truth that lights up my inner life. Who knows what shape it will come in? Give me Robert Louis Stevenson's lantern bearers, whose pleasure in their dreadful, oily bulls-eye lanterns was said to be "merely fanciful." None of the reasonable people could understand those boys and their lanterns. Why couldn't they see the truth of the matter--of their evil-smelling lanterns? Oh, the Knowers of Universal Truth can certainly discern the error of it.

But, "To miss the joy", says Stevenson, "is to miss the all... for no man lives in the external truth among salts and acids, but in the warm, phantasmagoric chamber of his brain, with the painted windows and the storied wall." William James said he knew of no finer words in all of Stevenson, and I heartily agree. Universal truth... bah. What's the point? It's useful, to be sure: Useful for machines and automata. Useful for science. But they are not machines that must stand up at some final judgment.

Beautiful!

[pmccombs1]

Are you not actually complaining of those who live in black and white worlds?

Well, there are people who live in black and white worlds as you say. I do complain about them. Some of the nice ones will admit that they don't have all truth, but what they do have is certain. It isn't the not-having that I have a problem with, or even the admitting that others also have some truth, but it is the certainty that worries me. Certainty begins to create "authority," which is a problematic concept where experiences are ultimately private matters. It happens in religion, in sports, in the enjoyment of the arts... people become "fan(atics)s" and don't react well to those of the opposing teams or schools.

It's not often that you find people who are certain about their own truths and who don't also regard them as superior, or authoritative, in comparison to the lesser truths of others--based on the experiences that gave them certainty. The view is that you have to be in the right club, or things will go badly for you in the end.

And so they march about shaping and painting the whole world after their own image, and that is where conflict and unhappiness arise. There is this idea that what I have is just exactly what is needed to bring joy to other people, who must not have joy because they don't have my exact same, sputtering model of bulls-eye lamp. Well, share it if you like. If it gives you joy, maybe there's a chance it will give me joy too. But don't presume too much if I don't care for it, and don't get pushy either. Religion is a species of inner truth that cannot justify the sort of certainty that judges others, i.e., that "discerns the error of others." Instead, it demands faith, which is not nearly a perfect knowledge and nothing like certainty.

So the great religious leaders were luminaries and revelators--storytellers, if you will. They weren't administrators. They didn't dispense truth and spoon-feed it to people in order to enable them, and they weren't in the business of managing an institution complete with penalties for those who don't conform and special gifts for those who do. Instead, they had stories that connected with people and worked on the premise of invitation. When "invitation" is backed by "authority" and by "institution," it is often the case that it no longer is invitation, but compulsion--even if the idea of compulsion is unintentional. One does not kick against the pricks, you see.

Therefore, religious knowledge ought never to be authoritative or binding on other people, unless it connects with them personally and becomes shared knowledge. When I say I "know" a religious truth, it's like saying I know that a Jackson Pollock painting is really beautiful. But it's not like knowing the truth of the laws of physics and of what will happen if I step off a cliff or attempt to walk through a brick wall. One species of truth is not reliable, which is to say, it does not appear to affect everyone in the exact same way. The other kind of truth is more reliable, appearing to affect everyone regardless of their desires. We know how to put reliable knowledge to work to control much of the physical world around us to some perceived benefit, but it is unjust to wield the unreliable knowledge we possess in order to control the world of conscience. We need to separate the two and not treat them the same way.

Let the black and white people have their say, and let them march about with their certainty. I disagree with them and will voice that. There's no problem at all, living in a world of low-level conflict where conscience, in the end, is still preserved. We need people to push against us and to challenge us, or we can't grow or learn anything. But as soon as the Certain begin to assert--and you know they are doing it when their language gets martial ("The war on _________," etc)--that is where we need to head it off and not allow the perceived superiority of truth to be enforced on everyone by either side of the argument.

Anyway, that's my personal view. I'm a Mormon anarchist, and some of the preceding may be in conflict with the current official teachings of my church, so be advised.

[TruthSeeker2013]

Well, there are people who live in black and white worlds as you say. I do complain about them. Some of the nice ones will admit that they don't have all truth, but what they do have is certain. It isn't the not-having that I have a problem with, or even the admitting that others also have some truth, but it is the certainty that worries me. Certainty begins to create "authority," which is a problematic concept where experiences are ultimately private matters. It happens in religion, in sports, in the enjoyment of the arts... people become "fan(atics)s" and don't react well to those of the opposing teams or schools.

It's not often that you find people who are certain about their own truths and who don't also regard them as superior, or authoritative, in comparison to the lesser truths of others--based on the experiences that gave them certainty. The view is that you have to be in the right club, or things will go badly for you in the end.

And so they march about shaping and painting the whole world after their own image, and that is where conflict and unhappiness arise. There is this idea that what I have is just exactly what is needed to bring joy to other people, who must not have joy because they don't have my exact same, sputtering model of bulls-eye lamp. Well, share it if you like. If it gives you joy, maybe there's a chance it will give me joy too. But don't presume too much if I don't care for it, and don't get pushy either. Religion is a species of inner truth that cannot justify the sort of certainty that judges others, i.e., that "discerns the error of others." Instead, it demands faith, which is not nearly a perfect knowledge and nothing like certainty.

So the great religious leaders were luminaries and revelators--storytellers, if you will. They weren't administrators. They didn't dispense truth and spoon-feed it to people in order to enable them, and they weren't in the business of managing an institution complete with penalties for those who don't conform and special gifts for those who do. Instead, they had stories that connected with people and worked on the premise of invitation. When "invitation" is backed by "authority" and by "institution," it is often the case that it no longer is invitation, but compulsion--even if the idea of compulsion is unintentional. One does not kick against the pricks, you see.

Therefore, religious knowledge ought never to be authoritative or binding on other people, unless it connects with them personally and becomes shared knowledge. When I say I "know" a religious truth, it's like saying I know that a Jackson Pollock painting is really beautiful. But it's not like knowing the truth of the laws of physics and of what will happen if I step off a cliff or attempt to walk through a brick wall. One species of truth is not reliable, which is to say, it does not appear to affect everyone in the exact same way. The other kind of truth is more reliable, appearing to affect everyone regardless of their desires. We know how to put reliable knowledge to work to control much of the physical world around us to some perceived benefit, but it is unjust to wield the unreliable knowledge we possess in order to control the world of conscience. We need to separate the two and not treat them the same way.

Let the black and white people have their say, and let them march about with their certainty. I disagree with them and will voice that. There's no problem at all, living in a world of low-level conflict where conscience, in the end, is still preserved. We need people to push against us and to challenge us, or we can't grow or learn anything. But as soon as the Certain begin to assert--and you know they are doing it when their language gets martial ("The war on _________," etc)--that is where we need to head it off and not allow the perceived superiority of truth to be enforced on everyone by either side of the argument.

Anyway, that's my personal view. I'm a Mormon anarchist, and some of the preceding may be in conflict with the current official teachings of my church, so be advised.

Awesome, awesome, awesome. I love the immense thought you've put into this. Very powerful stuff.

[mfbukowski]

When I say I "know" a religious truth, it's like saying I know that a Jackson Pollock painting is really beautiful.

Indeed it can be. But they can also be about what works universally for all mankind, like "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

The key is that both work to give you something- something personal for your soul. "Do unto others.." gives freedom from conflict, if everyone actually did it, but contemplating a Jackson Pollack might give you an experience of a kind of meditative joy. In both cases, you are more fulfilled and your life just goes better.

Data about the distance from the earth to the sun doesn't do that- it has a different function.

The problem is that people don't usually think of truth functionally, like different tools in a bucket, and they want to use a screw driver to solve a math problem.

It doesn't work that way.

[pmccombs1]

Indeed it can be. But they can also be about what works universally for all mankind, like "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Yeah, I think so too. There are some apparent universals that seem to exist in religious or moral truth, but they appear to be relatively few. Maybe it started out with the 42 apophatic confessions of the ancient Egyptians and was reduced to the 10 commandments in the time of the Hebrews. Then Jesus came and reduced it further to a couple of imperatives: Love God, and love your neighbor. Oh, and by the way, one often shows one's love of God by loving one's neighbor... Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these, and so forth. And that seems universal; few religions, in spite of their intricate truths, forget to include that one.

[Stone holm]

Well, there are people who live in black and white worlds as you say. I do complain about them. Some of the nice ones will admit that they don't have all truth, but what they do have is certain. It isn't the not-having that I have a problem with, or even the admitting that others also have some truth, but it is the certainty that worries me. Certainty begins to create "authority," which is a problematic concept where experiences are ultimately private matters. It happens in religion, in sports, in the enjoyment of the arts... people become "fan(atics)s" and don't react well to those of the opposing teams or schools.

It's not often that you find people who are certain about their own truths and who don't also regard them as superior, or authoritative, in comparison to the lesser truths of others--based on the experiences that gave them certainty. The view is that you have to be in the right club, or things will go badly for you in the end.

And so they march about shaping and painting the whole world after their own image, and that is where conflict and unhappiness arise. There is this idea that what I have is just exactly what is needed to bring joy to other people, who must not have joy because they don't have my exact same, sputtering model of bulls-eye lamp. Well, share it if you like. If it gives you joy, maybe there's a chance it will give me joy too. But don't presume too much if I don't care for it, and don't get pushy either. Religion is a species of inner truth that cannot justify the sort of certainty that judges others, i.e., that "discerns the error of others." Instead, it demands faith, which is not nearly a perfect knowledge and nothing like certainty.

So the great religious leaders were luminaries and revelators--storytellers, if you will. They weren't administrators. They didn't dispense truth and spoon-feed it to people in order to enable them, and they weren't in the business of managing an institution complete with penalties for those who don't conform and special gifts for those who do. Instead, they had stories that connected with people and worked on the premise of invitation. When "invitation" is backed by "authority" and by "institution," it is often the case that it no longer is invitation, but compulsion--even if the idea of compulsion is unintentional. One does not kick against the pricks, you see.

Therefore, religious knowledge ought never to be authoritative or binding on other people, unless it connects with them personally and becomes shared knowledge. When I say I "know" a religious truth, it's like saying I know that a Jackson Pollock painting is really beautiful. But it's not like knowing the truth of the laws of physics and of what will happen if I step off a cliff or attempt to walk through a brick wall. One species of truth is not reliable, which is to say, it does not appear to affect everyone in the exact same way. The other kind of truth is more reliable, appearing to affect everyone regardless of their desires. We know how to put reliable knowledge to work to control much of the physical world around us to some perceived benefit, but it is unjust to wield the unreliable knowledge we possess in order to control the world of conscience. We need to separate the two and not treat them the same way.

Let the black and white people have their say, and let them march about with their certainty. I disagree with them and will voice that. There's no problem at all, living in a world of low-level conflict where conscience, in the end, is still preserved. We need people to push against us and to challenge us, or we can't grow or learn anything. But as soon as the Certain begin to assert--and you know they are doing it when their language gets martial ("The war on _________," etc)--that is where we need to head it off and not allow the perceived superiority of truth to be enforced on everyone by either side of the argument.

Anyway, that's my personal view. I'm a Mormon anarchist, and some of the preceding may be in conflict with the current official teachings of my church, so be advised.

Lol.. I like you ending. Yet, isn't that striving for certainty what Christianity values, why each Fast and Testimony meeting members march up to testify. To assert the certainty of their convictions, the trueness of the Church, the exclusive path home to God? And to a greater or lesser degree most Christian sects preach the same, except recently during a slip up by Pope Francis which was quickly erased by Vatican clerics?

[mfbukowski]

Yeah, I think so too. There are some apparent universals that seem to exist in religious or moral truth, but they appear to be relatively few. Maybe it started out with the 42 apophatic confessions of the ancient Egyptians and was reduced to the 10 commandments in the time of the Hebrews. Then Jesus came and reduced it further to a couple of imperatives: Love God, and love your neighbor. Oh, and by the way, one often shows one's love of God by loving one's neighbor... Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these, and so forth. And that seems universal; few religions, in spite of their intricate truths, forget to include that one.

If you want to develop a rational theory for these "natural moral laws" which become pretty universal, you can say that the reason is that they have "survival value" as memes for all societies which value peace. Societies which use these values prosper and are pleasant places to live, and people have more children in these societies, etc, as opposed to a possible society which values war and slavery and conquering others.

On the other hand, you can say they were inspired by God. I happen to think both are true, and you can argue it any way you want.

The Didache speaks of the "Way of Life", and includes all those peaceful values among what it recommends, and contrasts it with the "Way of Death" which include warlike behaviors and things which break down the family (adultery etc). I think that is the key to this realization- that moral living actually has survival value within society, whereas those things which are against the 10 commandments lead ultimately to a disordered society in which people do not live long.

You can see it both ways- they both work and are different descriptions/interpretations for whatever context/vocabulary communicates most effectively to your audience. Sociologists would see it one way and religious people would see it another, yet both are true.

[pmccombs1]

Lol.. I like you ending. Yet, isn't that striving for certainty what Christianity values, why each Fast and Testimony meeting members march up to testify. To assert the certainty of their convictions, the trueness of the Church, the exclusive path home to God? And to a greater or lesser degree most Christian sects preach the same, except recently during a slip up by Pope Francis which was quickly erased by Vatican clerics?

I'd say that Christianity values faith, hope, and charity and that those things are at least somewhat at odds with certainty. Who needs faith where there is certainty? How can there be hope when the outcome is certain? And certainty erodes generosity and consideration toward the undeserving, because it's easier to feel justified in placing conditions on love when one is certain.

So what of expressions of certainty that we hear in Fast and Testimony meeting? There are times when I can appreciate those, just as I might appreciate a music critic's insistence that Mozart is the greatest of composers. It may encourage me to listen more closely and consider what I otherwise might have dismissed. But I can take that for what it is: a declaration of subjective knowledge. It gets distasteful when it becomes overtly comparative or begins to put down other beliefs, or to suggest a want of truth in other people. That's when I tune out. That's when I realize that I'm listening to someone who mistakes their knowledge for another kind of truth that it isn't.

Pope Francis' comments endeared him to many people. I was unaware that Vatican clerics were trying to suppress that.

[Mudcat]

Mormon truth claims can be examined for their accuracy but the Church teaches that it is by the spirit that one can know the truth of something. This is said to be a feeling of warmth, agreement in your heart and mind, a feeling of peace, etc.

My question is this: How can one know whether these feelings are God testifying that something is true? Are there not many other Christians (and other religious people) who themselves feel these feelings about their own leaders, doctrines, etc. and thus believe that they are true? How can we know that our feelings are the correct ones from God and theirs are not?

(And I'm talking about things that are at odds, like Evangelicals feeling that God has told them through the spirit that the Book of Mormon is false and Mormons obviously feeling that the spirit has told them the opposite).

Consequently, should our quest for truth involve a greater focus on investigating the truth claims of religions rather than relying on the universally felt spirit of God?

Haven't followed the thread. I did want to offer my thoughts on the OP. I am an EV.

I think one of your Prophets said something to the effect .. that sometimes we think we have revelation when it might have been last nights liver and onions .. I think it was Lee, but can't remember the quote exactly.

I think the Spirit reveals truth and He does so through God's Word. The funny thing is, that normally we come by these revelations after application of what we do know.

I am a Southern Baptist.. and it's a fairly common joke among pastors.. about the one pastor who preached the same sermon multiple times.. the congregation got frustrasted about it and asked when they would get a "fresh" word from the Lord. The pastor replied," As soon as you apply the last word you were given."

We find the greatest truths when we seek to serve God, rather than the other way round.

[Stone holm]

I'd say that Christianity values faith, hope, and charity and that those things are at least somewhat at odds with certainty. Who needs faith where there is certainty? How can there be hope when the outcome is certain? And certainty erodes generosity and consideration toward the undeserving, because it's easier to feel justified in placing conditions on love when one is certain.

So what of expressions of certainty that we hear in Fast and Testimony meeting? There are times when I can appreciate those, just as I might appreciate a music critic's insistence that Mozart is the greatest of composers. It may encourage me to listen more closely and consider what I otherwise might have dismissed. But I can take that for what it is: a declaration of subjective knowledge. It gets distasteful when it becomes overtly comparative or begins to put down other beliefs, or to suggest a want of truth in other people. That's when I tune out. That's when I realize that I'm listening to someone who mistakes their knowledge for another kind of truth that it isn't.

Pope Francis' comments endeared him to many people. I was unaware that Vatican clerics were trying to suppress that.

Yeah, within days the Vatican published a retraction.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I can't get into the mind or know what events/circumstances etc... led up to someones experience- I can only go with what I know happened to me.

For example- I am an RLDS Restorationist that supports the Joint Conference of Restoration Branches because the LORD gave me a dream which contained information which I had no knowledge of, that answered a very specific question that I was fasting about concerning church organization and with whom to associate myself.

Does that mean people must accept what I say... No. Each has to have their own experience and then it is between them and God.

I will say however that if the experieince teaches you to deny Christ you can assuredly know that it is false. For example, any spiritual witness of the Koran would be false or born out of emotion, not the Spirit, because it teaches against Christ being the Son of God and only Savior.

Edited June 6, 2013 by BookofMormonLuvr

[pmccombs1]

If you want to develop a rational theory for these "natural moral laws" which become pretty universal, you can say that the reason is that they have "survival value" as memes for all societies which value peace. Societies which use these values prosper and are pleasant places to live, and people have more children in these societies, etc, as opposed to a possible society which values war and slavery and conquering others.

On the other hand, you can say they were inspired by God. I happen to think both are true, and you can argue it any way you want.

I like Adam Smith's theory of moral sentiments that says we all have fellow-feeling built into us, and from this arises the moral universals that we find everywhere. Mormonism tells a story about how we all lived with God in a "pre-existence" and that the reason we are here at all is because of our own acts of nobility and courage. Perhaps that says something about the nature of man and his fellow-feeling. At any rate, I think it's one of the best doctrines in Mormonism. Divinity lies all about us, as your William James might have said once; and the deepest human life is everywhere, is eternal. It could be that those societies that favor war and pillage are simply possessed of the "ancestral blindness" and have not yet seen the truth of their own godliness.

But you're right, it could also be that these principles are simply useful and that we have discovered them to be practical and prosperous. There is good, reliable evidence in support of many moral teachings, if well-being and happiness are valued. Perhaps that's not such a moving story, but it all depends on what sort of truth one feels inclined to believe. It is not only the "religious" who are possessed of morality, after all.

[Stone holm]

I like Adam Smith's theory of moral sentiments that says we all have fellow-feeling built into us, and from this arises the moral universals that we find everywhere. Mormonism tells a story about how we all lived with God in a "pre-existence" and that the reason we are here at all is because of our own acts of nobility and courage. Perhaps that says something about the nature of man and his fellow-feeling. At any rate, I think it's one of the best doctrines in Mormonism. Divinity lies all about us, as your William James might have said once; and the deepest human life is everywhere, is eternal. It could be that those societies that favor war and pillage are simply possessed of the "ancestral blindness" and have not yet seen the truth of their own godliness.

But you're right, it could also be that these principles are simply useful and that we have discovered them to be practical and prosperous. There is good, reliable evidence in support of many moral teachings, if well-being and happiness are valued. Perhaps that's not such a moving story, but it all depends on what sort of truth one feels inclined to believe. It is not only the "religious" who are possessed of morality, after all.

I like these sentiments.

[mfbukowski]

I was going to not comment on this, but it is really bothering me. I have underlined the part that bothers me.

Lol.. I like you ending. Yet, isn't that striving for certainty what Christianity values, why each Fast and Testimony meeting members march up to testify. To assert the certainty of their convictions, the trueness of the Church, the exclusive path home to God? And to a greater or lesser degree most Christian sects preach the same, except recently during a slip up by Pope Francis which was quickly erased by Vatican clerics?

First of all, it is clear to me that bearing one's testimony can be a bold statement if one is aware of how audacious it really is. I say "I know the church is true" in every testimony I bear, fully aware of what those words mean, and I do it as a statement of certainty about the experiences I have personally had which confirm this to me as surely as I know anything. As Joseph said, "I knew, and I knew that God knew" - or words to that effect- and to say otherwise would be a denial of the gift I was given.

I also say those words in solidarity with others who feel as I do.

BUT in no way am I asserting that I have the "exclusive path home to God" !

That is not even church doctrine- in fact church doctrine is that indeed all but the SOP - probably just a handful- will not be saved in a kingdom of glory.

And the church teaches that ALL will have an opportunity to dwell where God dwells- if indeed they are willing to do what it takes to get there.

To say that the church even TEACHES that the church is "the exclusive path home to God" is a GROSS distortion, and what is worse is that you know better than that.

I can"t see this as anything less than a willful distortion of our beliefs and I cannot let it go without saying so.

[Kenngo1969]

As I've said elsewhere on the Board recently, I don't think God, at the judgment, is going to say to others not of my faith (or even those of no faith ... that is, those who profess no religion), "Ohhhh, I'm so sorry! You were mostly wrong ..." Rather, I think He's going to say to them, "You were mostly right, and here are some other things you might want to consider ..." Otherwise, why perform Temple ordinances for those who departed this life without having accepted the Gospel? We will be judged by our efforts to live the best we know how according to what light we've been given. I've also recently related an experience here which occurred when my parents and I, in company with nearly fifty others, took a tour of Spain. We had the usual, "Where are you from?" "Utah." "Oh. Are you Mormon? ..." And of course, we had the opportunity to overturn our wine glasses and politely decline the copious amounts of wine that were served.

Robert L. Millet tells a story of knocking on doors as a missionary, when someone answered the door and, in the course of a conversation with the missionaries, expressed a belief (I can't remember exactly on what subject) that was right in line with the Church's teachings. The next thing out of then-Elder Millet's companion's mouth was, "Did you know we also used to practice polygamy?" End of discussion!

I had a conversation with a dinner companion in Spain shortly before we returned home in which I mentioned Doctrine & Covenants 58:28, and that we believe that “(I)nasmuch as men do good [regardless of religious persuasion or lack thereof] they shall in nowise lose their reward.” She spoke very highly of other Mormons she has known, and chimed in with a belief in universal salvation. Is she exactly right? No. Is she mostly wrong? No. Did I miss out on a golden teaching moment? Did I simply “lose my nerve”? Should I have come back with, “But we have authority, and you don’t”? I think that would’ve led to an outcome similar to what occurred in Elder Millet’s encounter.

To her enormous credit, my dinner companion knows what makes Mormons similar to other Christians, and in that regard, she’s light years ahead of the, “Mormons-worship-a-diffurnt-Jeezus” crowd. Eventually, she’ll be ready to hear what does make us different, but “all things must be done in wisdom and order.” In the meantime, I hope I planted some more seeds and helped cultivate the seeds that had been planted by others.

P.S. I’ve only posted a link to this about a dozen times now on the Board, but (since I suffer from an incurable case of self-promotion ) here’s what I think is a useful approach when it comes to considering what should be the attitude of a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints vis-à-vis those of other faiths: http://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/toward-interreligious-oneness/. Perhaps everyone who desires to read this has already had the opportunity to do so, but, just in case …

Edited June 6, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

Lol.. I like you ending. Yet, isn't that striving for certainty what Christianity values, why each Fast and Testimony meeting members march up to testify. To assert the certainty of their convictions, the trueness of the Church, the exclusive path home to God? And to a greater or lesser degree most Christian sects preach the same, except recently during a slip up by Pope Francis which was quickly erased by Vatican clerics?

Many, many paths, provided one strives to live the best one can according to what light one has been given, will get one most of the way home to God. As I say above, I don't think God's going to tell anyone, "Ooooh, sorry! You were mostly wrong!" I think He's going to tell him, "Congratulations! You were mostly right! Here are some other things you might want to consider." Think of the ubiquitousness of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," "Love your neighbor," "Love your enemy," and so on. These tenets exist not only in Christianity, but even, in some form, in many "non-Christian" religions. Per the scripture in Doctrine & Covenants that I quote above, as important as what one believes may be, it's what one does that really matters. Edited June 6, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

Haven't followed the thread. I did want to offer my thoughts on the OP. I am an EV.

I think one of your Prophets said something to the effect .. that sometimes we think we have revelation when it might have been last nights liver and onions .. I think it was Lee, but can't remember the quote exactly.

I think the Spirit reveals truth and He does so through God's Word. The funny thing is, that normally we come by these revelations after application of what we do know.

I am a Southern Baptist.. and it's a fairly common joke among pastors.. about the one pastor who preached the same sermon multiple times.. the congregation got frustrasted about it and asked when they would get a "fresh" word from the Lord. The pastor replied," As soon as you apply the last word you were given."

We find the greatest truths when we seek to serve God, rather than the other way round.

Mudcat, by the way, is an excellent example of what I've alluded to in my foregoing two posts! Mormon or not, if Mudcat's not gonna be in Heaven, then I don't wanna go, either! Edited June 6, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[ERayR]

Haven't followed the thread. I did want to offer my thoughts on the OP. I am an EV.

I think one of your Prophets said something to the effect .. that sometimes we think we have revelation when it might have been last nights liver and onions .. I think it was Lee, but can't remember the quote exactly.

I think the Spirit reveals truth and He does so through God's Word. The funny thing is, that normally we come by these revelations after application of what we do know.

I am a Southern Baptist.. and it's a fairly common joke among pastors.. about the one pastor who preached the same sermon multiple times.. the congregation got frustrasted about it and asked when they would get a "fresh" word from the Lord. The pastor replied," As soon as you apply the last word you were given."

We find the greatest truths when we seek to serve God, rather than the other way round.

One of the LDS Ga's made a similar statement. As I remember it he said we complain that we have no new revelation yet we do not live that which we have. That is a paraphrase and I don't remember which one said it.

[pmccombs1]

One of the LDS Ga's made a similar statement. As I remember it he said we complain that we have no new revelation yet we do not live that which we have. That is a paraphrase and I don't remember which one said it.

I know that Dieter F. Uchtdorf said it recently, in a 1st presidency message in an edition of the Ensign prior to a General Conference... if I recall. I'm sure others have also said it on various occasions.

I'm wary of the statement, personally. While it does make a lot of sense, it's also a great excuse for a closed canon.

[Stone holm]

I know that Dieter F. Uchtdorf said it recently, in a 1st presidency message in an edition of the Ensign prior to a General Conference... if I recall. I'm sure others have also said it on various occasions.

I'm wary of the statement, personally. While it does make a lot of sense, it's also a great excuse for a closed canon.

Yeah, I've heard that saying which I have never thought very highly of, not that it isn't true but it just kind of sounds like a smarmy excuse. People weren't living the Bible commandments when the Book of Mormon was presented, but that didn't deter the Lord from presenting the Book of Mormon. Its kind of like the millenium syndrome where things get put off to the millenium because they would be economically or socially disruptive to try and do it now. I sometimes think that our affinity for apocalyptic catastrophe films is because we have kind of a yearning for someone to push the reset button so we wouldn't have any reason to feel awkward about changing society.

Edited June 6, 2013 by Stone holm

[Kenngo1969]

... People weren't living the Bible commandments when the Book of Mormon was presented, but that didn't deter the Lord from presenting the Book of Mormon. ...

I'm curious to know exactly what you mean by this. Thanks in advance for your clarification.