Interesting Article About Mormonism.

[canard78]

I think that they are taken in by critic interpretations of lds history. They are also taken in by the slant of such interpretations. The comments on the webpage seem to confirm this since many of the comments are right out of the anti-lds critic internet handbook.

 

I think you're reading based on your own assumptions.

 

Brigham Young said:

 

"There is one principle I wish to urge upon the Saints in a way that it may remain with them—that is, to understand men and women as they are, and not understand them as you are."

http://en.fairmormon.org/Journal_of_Discourses/8/8

 

If it sounds like they're out of the "anti-LDS critic internet handbook" then maybe that's because there are certain core challenges to the LDS claims and origins. People will view these either as non-issues (which I assume you must) or as issues. The challenges exist independent of interpretation. The interpretation and importance people place on these challenges leads to one or the other. 

 

Just because you ignore or resolve those challenges doesn't invalidate the conclusion someone else reaches on the same question. It's all about one's personal paradigm and expectations.

Edited February 2, 2014 by canard78

[canard78]

However, this is what critics of the lds church are attempting to do with the mormons. According to them, the lds experience is not exceptional. It is rather ordinary. And since that is the case, why trust such experiences because they mean nothing about lds truth claims. I believe that this is what the critics are now attempting to do to lead people away from the lds church.

 

However, I would claim different. The lds spiritual experience is different. Overwhelmingly, the people who prayed about the book of mormon or who have prayed about the truth claims of the lds church have had very powerful spiritual experiences when they have done so. And I think that this is what is unique. Plus, they have also had spiritual experiences while listening to talks, attending meetings, home teaching, visiting teaching etc. And this can be church wide encompassing many members.

 

We are not just talking about a burning of the bosom as is commonly claimed by the critics but unique spiritual experiences and often. That being said, I have no idea why other people in other faiths tend to mock the burning of the bosom experience especially if they are having such experiences too. I would think that they don't and so they mock.

 

So are you saying that the Holy Ghost will only witness of the truth when an LDS teacher is speaking?

 

How was it that I felt an affirmation of the truth when I was sat listening to an Anglican vicar on Christmas day last year? Was it because I was LDS or because I was listening to truth spoken by a non-LDS? Would other people in the congregation have felt that same spiritual witness of truth or would they have missed it because they are not LDS?

 

How is it that pre-LDS investigators feel the spirit? Is it because they are being taught LDS doctrine or hearing truth?

 

You keep saying that no-one else experiences these spiritual witnesses. Can you quote an example of this mockery? Is it because they mock the ability for God to answer prayers and guide us or is it because they assume that LDS doctrine is false and therefore can't comprehend why someone would be guided there by God. They are more likely doubting the origin of that witness than the ability for someone to be guided by God.

 

Corrie Ten Boom, a hero of mine:

 

"In Tramp for the Lord, Corrie tells of her adventures of feeling led by the Lord to go from country to country to tell her story after her release from the Ravensbruck death camp. She boarded a plane without hotel reservations, scheduled speaking engagements, or details, trusting the Lord to lead her when she arrived. And the amazing thing is that He did."

 

http://www.crosswalk.com/faith/women/the-faith-of-corrie-ten-boom.html

 

She said, in 1974 (emphasis added):

 

I feel I have a divine mandate to go and tell the people of this world that it is possible to be strong in the Lord Jesus Christ... We must be filled with the Holy Spirit. This is no optional command of the Bible, it is absolutely necessary. Those earthly disciples could never have stood up under the persecution of the Jews and Romans had they not waited for Pentecost. Each of us needs our own personal Pentecost, the baptism of the Holy Spirit. We will never be able to stand in the tribulation without it.

 

 

More about her history here: http://www.corrietenboom.com/history.htm

[PtolemyGlenn]

what can I clear up for ya?

Every thing you listed.

[why me]

If it sounds like they're out of the "anti-LDS critic internet handbook" then maybe that's because there are certain core challenges to the LDS claims and origins. People will view these either as non-issues (which I assume you must) or as issues. The challenges exist independent of interpretation. The interpretation and importance people place on these challenges leads to one or the other. 

 

Just because you ignore or resolve those challenges doesn't invalidate the conclusion someone else reaches on the same question. It's all about one's personal paradigm and expectations.

I had this feeling that the comments were cloning what they have read on the internet. I saw no independent thinking but I did see a repetition of what these former members read on the internet. That was my point. The interpretation of events become extremely important for the church and the critics know this too. Thus, they have their own interpretation of the facts as does FAIR or the lds church. At this moment it seems that the critics have the upper hand but the lds church is catching up by offering a different interpretation. And this is what FAIR also does: offer an interpretation of events.

[why me]

So are you saying that the Holy Ghost will only witness of the truth when an LDS teacher is speaking?

 

How was it that I felt an affirmation of the truth when I was sat listening to an Anglican vicar on Christmas day last year? Was it because I was LDS or because I was listening to truth spoken by a non-LDS? Would other people in the congregation have felt that same spiritual witness of truth or would they have missed it because they are not LDS?

I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that the spiritual experiences of others cannot be compared with the experience of members of the lds church. I think that truth is manifested in many places and that the holy spirit can bear witness to that truth. However, in the lds church, the spiritual experiences are many. They happen when one visits a member's home, or in several of the meetings that take place on sunday. Or in institute or in seminary and in the interaction of members as they come together in followship. And when they pray about the truthfulness of the book of mormon or about the truthfulness of the lds church. The spiritual experiences that have been documented in many members' journals both in the past and in the present testify to something special happening in the lds chruch, especially the spiritual experiences when praying about the book of mormon.

 

But for the critics, the job now seems to lessen these many spiritual experiences by claiming that others' have the same experiences and as often. The attempt to disqualify the lds experience is now the strategy of exmormons and critics. And when the church begins to churn out their own historical interpretations and they are successful in doing so, we will see the exmormons begin to stress the spiritual experiences of members---They will attempt to nullify such experiences as they are doing now but with more force and determination. .

[why me]

The last year has taught me a great deal about my spiritual experiences both as an LDS member and then during and after my departure. I am grateful to the LDS church because it helped prepare me for my deeper faith in the Orthodox tradition and I have been able to experience God more fully and clearly. Communing with God has never been so fruitful before this. The LDS church paved the way for where God has called me to be.

Can I ask you a personal question? When you were a member you most likely prayed about the book of mormon and received a spiritual experience that it was true. Or perhaps you prayed asking god if the lds church were true. And most likely, you received a positive answer that the book was true or the lds church was true. If so, how do you reconcile such experiences with now deciding to go back to the orthodox tradition?

[canard78]

I had this feeling that the comments were cloning what they have read on the internet. I saw no independent thinking but I did see a repetition of what these former members read on the internet. That was my point. The interpretation of events become extremely important for the church and the critics know this too. Thus, they have their own interpretation of the facts as does FAIR or the lds church. At this moment it seems that the critics have the upper hand but the lds church is catching up by offering a different interpretation. And this is what FAIR also does: offer an interpretation of events.

There's a risk of circular conversation on this.

12 people go to dine, all have the same dish. Half get food poisoning, the other 6 have an immunity. Are the 6 poisoned diners parroting a reason or simply sharing the same cause?

[Kenngo1969]

You will find many similar experiences in other religions, inside and outside Christianity. Using Catholicism as an example, many Catholics tell of profound experiences they've had involving the Eucharist. Further, Catholic history tells of many supernatural and spiritual experiences had by many. It is also quite amazing.

This says nor means nothing about the experiences had in the LDS faith, but there is no need to attempt to diminish spiritual experiences had elsewhere (or that people may have to reevaluate their understanding of experiences had in their faith prior to conversion to the LDS faith),, that's all.

 

I think God leads each of us to the best path we are ready for at a given stage of progression in our lives, so any spiritual experience in any faith can be a "true" manifestation of where God wants us to be at any particular time.

Even though I believe only one path will get us all the way back to Christ, many paths will get us most of the way there.  My $0.02.

[volgadon]

Every thing you listed.

 

I: the first-person personal pronoun.

[Tacenda]

Can I ask you a personal question? When you were a member you most likely prayed about the book of mormon and received a spiritual experience that it was true. Or perhaps you prayed asking god if the lds church were true. And most likely, you received a positive answer that the book was true or the lds church was true. If so, how do you reconcile such experiences with now deciding to go back to the orthodox tradition?

I know you didn't address this question to me.  But felt compelled to answer.  I've often thought of how people can get a feeling, strong impression of truth, without evidence.  And I believe it can happen because many things in life are true.  But I wonder if you want something bad enough, if our minds can affect our bodies to get a reaction.  Or our minds can play tricks on us. Lately I have a terrible time driving.  Sometimes all it takes is a quick thought that I'm going to get a panic attack and should I exit the freeway early or not even attempt to get on the freeway, and then I get one, just that quick, a physical reaction by just thinking about it!!  But I guess I have never experienced something as powerful as some on this board of the spirit telling me the church is true.  But do feel the Lord can help non LDS in their faith walk as well as the LDS in theirs.  Truth in all things, they say.  

[Thinking]

Reading the below link I find it rather sad that exmembers seem to have been taken in by the internet. Reading the article I felt as if the exmembers bought the critic interpretations of lds history on the internet hook, line and sinker.

 

I have often wondered how such former mormons just throw out their spiritual experiences when they were members so quickly. How can this be explained?

 

http://mag.newsweek.com/2014/01/31/when-saints-go-marching-out.html

 

Am I the only one who sees the irony that you are using an internet article to criticize some ex-members disaffection with the church based on information found on the internet?

[Damien the Leper]

Can I ask you a personal question? When you were a member you most likely prayed about the book of mormon and received a spiritual experience that it was true. Or perhaps you prayed asking god if the lds church were true. And most likely, you received a positive answer that the book was true or the lds church was true. If so, how do you reconcile such experiences with now deciding to go back to the orthodox tradition?

Yes, I prayed. But reflecting on it I believe I had to convince myself to believe which isn't spiritually honest. The LDS church was essentially a vessel to get me where I'm at now.

[why me]

Am I the only one who sees the irony that you are using an internet article to criticize some ex-members disaffection with the church based on information found on the internet?

I have met quite a few exmembers on the internet boards. And when I ask them about how they deal with the spiritual experiences that they had had when they were members they usually reply that these experiences mean very little because other people in other faiths have the same experiences. It seems like a usual response these days.

 

I am sure that the exmembers in the comment section of the article would basically give the same response. But I have no idea just how they know their belief to be true: that everyone in other faiths have such experiences as the lds.

[Palerider]

Can I ask you a personal question? When you were a member you most likely prayed about the book of mormon and received a spiritual experience that it was true. Or perhaps you prayed asking god if the lds church were true. And most likely, you received a positive answer that the book was true or the lds church was true. If so, how do you reconcile such experiences with now deciding to go back to the orthodox tradition?

 

Hope you don't mind if I chime in here as well.

 

When we studied the BofM in seminary, I wasn't a big reader at the time. But the instructor explained the stories to us and we read PASSAGES. 

 

Taken alone many passages have the ring of truth to them. And why shouldn't they since they advocate for righteousness and for Christ. If one watches the Chronicles of Narnia you get the same feeling.

 

Later while preparing for my mission I was asked to read one of the four standard works and it was suggested that the NewTestament would be a good one in light of the country I had been called to.

 

Up until that point I had a feeling that I was going in the right direction, but it wasn't until I read the New Testament that I truly gained a fully confirming witness of the Savior's divinity and mission, which was beyond anything that I had experienced before and became the root of my faith.

 

After arriving in the mission field I began reading the BofM as a book , not just as individual passages to be learned and understood. It was then that I realized that as I was reading I wasn't getting the same feeling or "hearing the same confirming voice" as when I read the New Testament. As a matter of fact I was a little dismayed at the lack of spiritual energy I received from the BofM.

 

But assuming that the LDS faith was the one that had brought me to Christ, then I also assumed that the BofM must be true and that Joseph Smith must be a prophet. Plus I was kind of "dazzled" by his audacity and his flamboyant extrapolations of the different doctrines. He was and (even in death) is a charismatic. Which in some cases should be a red flag to "approach with caution".

 

So I fulfilled my mission very honorably and returned home and was caught up in the day to day struggle of life while in the meantime, the LDS church kept me as busy as possible. They give lip service to taking time to ponder and seek understanding and to educate yourself regarding the church but in reality, they keep you peddle to the metal with: meetings upon meetings, teaching and callings, temple work, hometeaching, extra assignments and on and on........ 

 

But eventually my kids grew up and things leveled out and I had a little time to go back and review some of those "curious items" that kind of interested me in church history. It took about five years of study to finally come to the heart wrenching conclusion that the church was not true. And yes the internet made that study easier. 

 

And I think it's important to note that I didn't take the "anti's" word for what had happened in church history, I did the research and came to my own conclusions. And as a word of advice?

 

I would say just because your enemy is the one who says it, doesn't make it untrue. And your friends don't always tell you the things you need to hear.

Edited February 2, 2014 by Palerider

[Thinking]

I have met quite a few exmembers on the internet boards. And when I ask them about how they deal with the spiritual experiences that they had had when they were members they usually reply that these experiences mean very little because other people in other faiths have the same experiences. It seems like a usual response these days.

 

I am sure that the exmembers in the comment section of the article would basically give the same response. But I have no idea just how they know their belief to be true: that everyone in other faiths have such experiences as the lds.

 

When I was a missionary, I was taught to recognize when the investigator was feeling something, then identify it as the spirit testifying that what we were teaching was true. I don't know if missionaries are taught the same tactic today. I now believe that I was manipulating an emotional response into a spiritual experience.

[why me]

When I was a missionary, I was taught to recognize when the investigator was feeling something, then identify it as the spirit testifying that what we were teaching was true. I don't know if missionaries are taught the same tactic today. I now believe that I was manipulating an emotional response into a spiritual experience.

What were they feeling? And why look at it as manipulation? It just may have been the spirit testifying to them. Also, why deny those people the beginnings of a spiritual experience? And what exactly is an emotional response? I can have an emotional response if I watch a sad movie, or a love story or a sad and sentimental tale. But a spiritual experience is something different. I certainly would not call it emotional.

 

But this is the rationalization that I see coming from exmormons on the internet. Their spiritual experiences become lessened, just an emotional response that can be had in many situations.

[why me]

 

And I think it's important to note that I didn't take the "anti's" word for what had happened in church history, I did the research and came to my own conclusions. And as a word of advice?

I find church history also interesting. But I also try to keep it simple in my interpretations of it. For example, the coming forth of the book of mormon. I see a few people involved in the process: emma, martin, oliver, joseph. I also try to put myself in their place. So, this is what I see. All these people are involved in the process to some extent. There they are being scribes to the process or witnesses. And all of these people were truly finding the experience extraordinary. No one saw joseph as a fraudster in that group of people. Why? because they knew him quite well and could not believe that he would do such a thing. Also, after the day was over I am sure that they had a wonderful time eating supper together discussing the wonders of the day. All came across as human beings and none the more amazed at what was accomplished than Joseph. To be a fly on the wall would have been marvelous especially to hear the conversations of emma and joseph in the evening as they discussed the process and wonders of it. No reason for charisma...just the experience.

 

So, what to make of it all? There is emma, never denying the prophethood of her husband, wearing a locket of his hair around her neck after he was murdered and long afterwards even after she married again. She loved her husband. And we have oliver and martin coming back to the fold with oliver ready to serve a mission to england, giving his testimony to the members and martin too. Were they all liars? Or psychopaths?

 

Such is the beginnings of church history. Quite convincing when one keeps it simple.

Edited February 2, 2014 by why me

[mfbukowski]

And what would make the lds spiritual experience special attributing it to the true church?

I think that we are the "truest" of all churches- having the most truth.  We are not perfect, but have the best of a whole bunch of imperfect spiritual models.

 

But not everyone is ready for the full truth. Eventually they will see it.  That is why we have work for the dead- progress continues forever.

[mfbukowski]

 

Even though I believe only one path will get us all the way back to Christ, many paths will get us most of the way there.  My $0.02.

That's pretty much what I meant.

[Tacenda]

I find church history also interesting. But I also try to keep it simple in my interpretations of it. For example, the coming forth of the book of mormon. I see a few people involved in the process: emma, martin, oliver, joseph. I also try to put myself in their place. So, this is what I see. All these people are involved in the process to some extent. There they are being scribes to the process or witnesses. And all of these people were truly finding the experience extraordinary. No one saw joseph as a fraudster in that group of people. Why? because they knew him quite well and could not believe that he would do such a thing. Also, after the day was over I am sure that they had a wonderful time eating supper together discussing the wonders of the day. All came across as human beings and none the more amazed at what was accomplished than Joseph. To be a fly on the wall would have been marvelous especially to hear the conversations of emma and joseph in the evening as they discussed the process and wonders of it. No reason for charisma...just the experience.

So, what to make of it all? There is emma, never denying the prophethood of her husband, wearing a locket of his hair around her neck after he was murdered and long afterwards even after she married again. She loved her husband. And we have oliver and martin coming back to the fold with oliver ready to serve a mission to england, giving his testimony to the members and martin too. Were they all liars? Or psychopaths?

Such is the beginnings of church history. Quite convincing when one keeps it simple.

To the question were they liars, no but Emma may have not wanted to tarnish Joseph's reputation. And David and Oliver, may have found they get much from living as a LDS. I know of hundreds that live in the church but are not of it, or don't believe everything about it. Either because it's a good way to live and worship, or for their families.

[mormonnewb]

I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that the spiritual experiences of others cannot be compared with the experience of members of the lds church. I think that truth is manifested in many places and that the holy spirit can bear witness to that truth. However, in the lds church, the spiritual experiences are many. They happen when one visits a member's home, or in several of the meetings that take place on sunday. Or in institute or in seminary and in the interaction of members as they come together in followship. And when they pray about the truthfulness of the book of mormon or about the truthfulness of the lds church. The spiritual experiences that have been documented in many members' journals both in the past and in the present testify to something special happening in the lds chruch, especially the spiritual experiences when praying about the book of mormon.

But for the critics, the job now seems to lessen these many spiritual experiences by claiming that others' have the same experiences and as often. The attempt to disqualify the lds experience is now the strategy of exmormons and critics. And when the church begins to churn out their own historical interpretations and they are successful in doing so, we will see the exmormons begin to stress the spiritual experiences of members---They will attempt to nullify such experiences as they are doing now but with more force and determination. .

My wife is prettier than yours! Sure, I've never seen your wife but I know that she can't be as pretty as my wife. My wife is REALLY pretty. All of my friends and family tell me so. I'm not going to show you a picture of her (her beauty is too sacred to share) but I KNOW she is prettier than your wife. Why don't you believe me? Because it's not true.

Your wife is just as beautiful to you as my wife is beautiful to me. And a Catholic's spiritual experiences are just as meaningful to them as your experiences are to you.

So why do so-called "critics" sometimes demean the LDS claims of a spiritual experience? I do it because they are often presented with such a presumption of validity. Only us Mormons will say, "You should believe what I say is true because I've had spiritual experiences that are too sacred to share with you." Replace the term "spiritual experiences" and you will see how arrogant this statement is. It presumes that our experiences are such that everyone else should throw out their experiences ... without even hearing the details of our experiences. But hey, a Mormon has spoken, so the issue is resolved, right?

Edited February 3, 2014 by mormonnewb

[Palerider]

I find church history also interesting. But I also try to keep it simple in my interpretations of it. For example, the coming forth of the book of mormon. I see a few people involved in the process: emma, martin, oliver, joseph. I also try to put myself in their place. So, this is what I see. All these people are involved in the process to some extent. There they are being scribes to the process or witnesses. And all of these people were truly finding the experience extraordinary. No one saw joseph as a fraudster in that group of people. Why? because they knew him quite well and could not believe that he would do such a thing. Also, after the day was over I am sure that they had a wonderful time eating supper together discussing the wonders of the day. All came across as human beings and none the more amazed at what was accomplished than Joseph. To be a fly on the wall would have been marvelous especially to hear the conversations of emma and joseph in the evening as they discussed the process and wonders of it. No reason for charisma...just the experience.

 

So, what to make of it all? There is emma, never denying the prophethood of her husband, wearing a locket of his hair around her neck after he was murdered and long afterwards even after she married again. She loved her husband. And we have oliver and martin coming back to the fold with oliver ready to serve a mission to england, giving his testimony to the members and martin too. Were they all liars? Or psychopaths?

 

Such is the beginnings of church history. Quite convincing when one keeps it simple.

 

That's way over simplified if you ask me.

 

If Emma was so convinced of Joseph's prophetic calling, why did she hesitate so long to join the church? Joseph actually had to cajole her because it was becoming an embarrassment to him that she had not joined yet.

 

And we also find strong evidence of Emma's willingness to "slide on the truth" shall we say when she blatantly denied that Joseph was ever involved in plural marriage (edit: when she knew full well that he had been). She most likely did it to protect his reputation among his children but it goes to the point that rather than upset the apple cart, she was willing to fudge on the truth. So the question becomes, "could not believe he would do such a thing or did not want to believe he would do such a thing."

 

Most scholars now see Martin Harris as an unstable individual.

 

Wayne C. Gunnell in his 1955 BYU thesis on Martin Harris wrote, "Martin's motives in being (re)- baptized at that time are not known, but the data of later events would indicate a lack of sincerity." Gunnell goes on to quote a letter written in 1844 by Phineas Young to Brigham Young, "Martin Harris is a firm believer in Shakerism, says his testimony is greater than it was of the Book of Mormon".

 

Someone you failed to mention was Emma's father, Issac Hale, who had no problem calling Joseph a fraud and much of the translation of the BofM took place at his home where he was an eye witness.

 

I also think you over rate Oliver's experience at rejoining the church. There are indications he wasn't all that happy with it, otherwise why did he return to the home of David Whitmer for his final days? David said Oliver believed as he did and David believed that Joseph at minimum was a fallen prophet.

 

Such is the beginnings of church history......Not so convincing when you really look at it with a critical eye.

Edited February 2, 2014 by Palerider

[mormonnewb]

I'm still curious as to what sort of experience you find trustworthy.

I'm not sure how to answer your question. How do I access the credibility of a saint's "spiritual experience"? I'm not sure it's for me to judge (certainly if its too sacred to share). Likewise, I'm not sure why I'm supposed to presume that it's "of God" since people of all faiths (and the mentally ill) have similar experiences.

If the experience is presented to me with specificity, I will judge it just like any other claim of truth:

Is there physical proof?

Does it jibe with what I currently know/believe about God?

Is the witness otherwise trustworthy?

[Coreyb]

When I was a missionary, I was taught to recognize when the investigator was feeling something, then identify it as the spirit testifying that what we were teaching was true. I don't know if missionaries are taught the same tactic today. I now believe that I was manipulating an emotional response into a spiritual experience.

I never did that as a missionary. All I can say is that I have experienced a full range of emotions, but when I felt the Holy Ghost for the first time, I knew it was not emotion. It came from outside of my being, and it was not a burning in the bosom, though I have experienced that since

[Kenngo1969]

That's pretty much what I meant.

I know.  I agree.