My Response To Jeremy Runnells Part 2 Plagiarism Accusations And Spiritual Experiences

[KevinG]

Um, okay. No need to get nasty.

If you would only extend that charity towards the word choice, and illustrators of church manuals.

Do you see the hypocrisy of pendantic insistence that illustrators of church children's manuals, and other posters on MD&D be exacting to a high degree In their comments, while excusing yourself from accuracy by telling us were not worth the time to be more circumspect or accurate with yours?

That is not being nasty. Rather a stubborn insistence on fairness and respect.

And a rather nice illustration of wresting meaning from things that aren't there, mich like the subject of this thread. (If I say so myself).

Edited October 23, 2014 by KevinG

[ttribe]

If you would only extend that charity towards the word choice, and illustrators of church manuals.

Do you see the hypocrisy of pendantic insistence that illustrators of church children's manuals, and other posters on MD&D be exacting to a high degree In their comments, while excusing yourself from accuracy by telling us were not worth the time to be more circumspect or accurate with yours?

That is not being nasty. Rather a stubborn insistence on fairness and respect.

And a rather nice illustration of wresting meaning from things that aren't there, mich like the subject of this thread. (If I say so myself).

 

I'm not sure where this is coming from.  I guess I'll just reiterate again what I've said in hopes that my position is clear - 1) I was critical of using the Mormon & Moroni picture to refute Cinepro's criticism of the translation illustrations for the reasons I've already stated; 2) I pointed out the fact that the Church has never published an illustration of Joseph using the hat because it's a fact and it's not going away; and 3) I stated, multiple times now, I'm not expressing support for anyone's position on the underlying issue (yours or Cinepro's).

 

Not sure how anything I've done is either unfair or disrespectful; your repeated pejorative use of the term "pedantic" notwithstanding.

 

I've seen this exact same argument many, many, times over the years.  I was lurking, happened to notice a point at which the argument could be improved and pointed it out.  Didn't mean to offend you.

[KevinG]

No offense taken and you shouldn't be offended either. We are having a discussion, and I don't know why you accused me of getting nasty.

In your comments you expressed an expectation of exactness from others from which you excused yourself. If I am misusing pendantic And hypocritical as a description of this behavior I am open to suggestions for a better phrase.

I would not want to be an offender for a word.

[KevinG]

Seriously I'm a bad boy and can't keep a straight face anymore. Don't let me get to you.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L0MK7qz13bU

[ttribe]

No offense taken and you shouldn't be offended either. We are having a discussion, and I don't know why you accused me of getting nasty.

In your comments you expressed an expectation of exactness from others from which you excused yourself. If I am misusing pendantic And hypocritical as a description of this behavior I am open to suggestions for a better phrase.

I would not want to be an offender for a word.

 

That's okay.  I was mistaken in participating.  I'm pretty sure I exhausted my supply of useful comments on this board a couple of years ago.  I was curious what might be discussed today on this board in light of the publication of the polygamy essay, and got sucked in to a discussion on a minor point.  Carry on.

[KevinG]

I feel so dirty now.

[Ares]

I feel so dirty now.

You should. Behave and stay on topic.

[CurrentlyAlive]

Jeremy cannot prove that all spiritual experiences are false, and I cannot prove my spiritual experience to the world because it is personal.  Just because Catholics and Pentecostals say they had a revelation, that does nothing to disprove my spiritual experience. Jeremy may follow the Occam razor, he may think that the simplest explanation is to assume that all spiritual experiences are false, but I do not blame him, If I had not experienced my spiritual testimony, I would have not believe in any religion. 

 

I agree that one person's spiritual experience cannot disprove another.  That said, how do you explain the contradicting spiritual experiences people of various faiths have?  What makes Mormon spiritual experiences superior to Baptist experiences, or Muslim experiences?  From what I can tell, people in both of those faiths have experiences very similar to ours, which they believe is solid proof that they are correct.

 

Here's a Baptist testimony:

 

"On a Wednesday night my dad was preaching at our church. He preached about the rich man going to hell. I felt the power of the Holy Spirit dealing with me once again. I felt so guilty and ashamed for rejecting Christ for so long. After the message Bro. Byron Shive came to me and encouraged me to pray. I went to the front of the church and began to pray. I repented of my sins and asked God to please forgive me. I remember getting to a point where I wanted to be saved more than anything else in the world. It was at that point that I felt peace flood over my body. I asked God if that was it. The peaceful feeling seemed to intensify. I knew I was saved and began to rejoice. This personal experience with God is what will take me to Heaven."

 

(taken from this site:  http://testimoniesofotherfaiths.blogspot.com/search/label/Baptist)

 

 

Here's a Muslim testimony:

 

"During my clean up I found my old Qur'an in Arabic that I had bought while I was a student at Rabat. I had bought it as a study guide to help me learn to read Arabic.

It had been many years since I had last read anything in Arabic. I was curious as to if I could still read it. I opened it to Surah Fatiha and the first line literally jumped out at me.

Bismillah ir Rahman ir Raheem. 'In the name of Allaah, the provider, the Most merciful'

It was like the words glowed and completely filled me with an inner peace I never felt before.  I turned back to the preface and saw it was the supplication:

'Auzu Billahi Mina Al Shaytan Al Rajeem'.

(In Allaah(swt) I seek refuge from the evils of Satan)

After over 20 years of not speaking Arabic it all flowed back to me. I could not stop reading and I was not simply reading words, the feeling of each ayyat came upon me with an indescribable warmth and sense of understanding. I could not stop. I do not know how long I read I know it was for at least 48 hours and I still could not stop the feeling was so powerful and filling me with a strong sense of love and joy on the morning of what I believe was the 3rd day I finally set the Qur'an down and knew I was Muslim. I instantly said the Shahadah and knew I was now part of the Ummah."

 

(taken from this site:  http://testimoniesofotherfaiths.blogspot.com/search/label/Muslim)

 

 

And here's a Catholic testimony:

 

"This process took two years. We did not easily convert. But we were definitely wooed by God. Both of us, at one point, were spoken to by the Holy Spirit, Who told us, 'This is the truth. If you reject it, you are in danger of hellfire. Do you accept My teaching and will you say 'Yes' to the Catholic Church? Or will you reject My teaching?'"

 

(from this site:  http://testimoniesofotherfaiths.blogspot.com/search/label/Catholic)

 

 

How do you explain these experiences?  Are they wrong?  Is there reason to believe a Mormon experience is superior?  Is there a qualitative difference between experiences like these and Mormon spiritual experiences?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

How do you explain these experiences?

The HG testifies of truth. There is truth even in the Koran.

 

  Are they wrong?

See above.

 

  Is there reason to believe a Mormon experience is superior?

Nope. And anyone claiming so generally presents it as a straw man.

 

 

  Is there a qualitative difference between experiences like these and Mormon spiritual experiences?

 

There might be and there might not be. It is impossible to say.

 

So what would happen when some one who has the experience of the baptist and later converts to Mormonism.

 

Do you think he would or should reject his experience as a Baptist over his conversion to Mormonism?

 

Another thing, are all of these examples equal? What are the differences?

 

Edited October 24, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Kevin Christensen]

I agree that one person's spiritual experience cannot disprove another.  That said, how do you explain the contradicting spiritual experiences people of various faiths have?  What makes Mormon spiritual experiences superior to Baptist experiences, or Muslim experiences?  From what I can tell, people in both of those faiths have experiences very similar to ours, which they believe is solid proof that they are correct.

 

Here's a Baptist testimony:

 

"On a Wednesday night my dad was preaching at our church. He preached about the rich man going to hell. I felt the power of the Holy Spirit dealing with me once again. I felt so guilty and ashamed for rejecting Christ for so long. After the message Bro. Byron Shive came to me and encouraged me to pray. I went to the front of the church and began to pray. I repented of my sins and asked God to please forgive me. I remember getting to a point where I wanted to be saved more than anything else in the world. It was at that point that I felt peace flood over my body. I asked God if that was it. The peaceful feeling seemed to intensify. I knew I was saved and began to rejoice. This personal experience with God is what will take me to Heaven."

 

(taken from this site:  http://testimoniesofotherfaiths.blogspot.com/search/label/Baptist)

 

 

Here's a Muslim testimony:

 

"During my clean up I found my old Qur'an in Arabic that I had bought while I was a student at Rabat. I had bought it as a study guide to help me learn to read Arabic.

It had been many years since I had last read anything in Arabic. I was curious as to if I could still read it. I opened it to Surah Fatiha and the first line literally jumped out at me.

Bismillah ir Rahman ir Raheem. 'In the name of Allaah, the provider, the Most merciful'

It was like the words glowed and completely filled me with an inner peace I never felt before.  I turned back to the preface and saw it was the supplication:

'Auzu Billahi Mina Al Shaytan Al Rajeem'.

(In Allaah(swt) I seek refuge from the evils of Satan)

After over 20 years of not speaking Arabic it all flowed back to me. I could not stop reading and I was not simply reading words, the feeling of each ayyat came upon me with an indescribable warmth and sense of understanding. I could not stop. I do not know how long I read I know it was for at least 48 hours and I still could not stop the feeling was so powerful and filling me with a strong sense of love and joy on the morning of what I believe was the 3rd day I finally set the Qur'an down and knew I was Muslim. I instantly said the Shahadah and knew I was now part of the Ummah."

 

(taken from this site:  http://testimoniesofotherfaiths.blogspot.com/search/label/Muslim)

 

 

And here's a Catholic testimony:

 

"This process took two years. We did not easily convert. But we were definitely wooed by God. Both of us, at one point, were spoken to by the Holy Spirit, Who told us, 'This is the truth. If you reject it, you are in danger of hellfire. Do you accept My teaching and will you say 'Yes' to the Catholic Church? Or will you reject My teaching?'"

 

(from this site:  http://testimoniesofotherfaiths.blogspot.com/search/label/Catholic)

 

 

How do you explain these experiences?  Are they wrong?  Is there reason to believe a Mormon experience is superior?  Is there a qualitative difference between experiences like these and Mormon spiritual experiences?

It is important to consider the background expectations against which a person considers reports of personal spiritual experience. Do you expect exclusive truth and virtue for one group, and nothing but folly and delusion elsewhere? The formal LDS claims for "mine authority and the authority of my servants" in D&C 1 is expressly non-exclusive with respect to truth and human virtue, imperfect, and incomplete. Our own scriptures insists that "God remembers the heathen", that God gives to all nations "all that he seeth fit for them to have" (see Alma 29), and that there are divers means and ways that God speaks to all peoples. See Moroni 7:24, "And behold, there were divers ways that he did manifest things unto the children of men, which were good; and all things which are good cometh of Christ; otherwise men were fallen, and there could no good thing come unto them."

What D&C 1 specifies as the justification for the existence of the LDS faith is not exclusive truth, nor exclusive virtue, nor exclusive revelation (the chapter mentions unnamed "others" and later declares that God is willing to give information to all). What we ought to be looking for then, it not unique spiritual experience, but rather the things that D&C 1 spells out as providing what makes this gather "well pleasing". And that turns out to be additional revelation, priesthood authority, scripture such as the Book of Mormon, knowledge of covenants, ordinances, temples, and such that in actual fact and practice do distinguish the LDS faith from others. Not necessarily in absolute exclusive difference, but in a notable, well pleasing way. I've long found it interesting that the Biblical passages using "true and living" imagery match up with the themes of D&C 1 verse for verse, point for point.

My profile links to an essay called "A Model of Mormon Spiritual Experience" that looks at LDS accounts in light of comparative religious accounts and study. Personally, I find that such things increase my appreciation for what we have, rather than somehow neutralizing them.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[CurrentlyAlive]

The HG testifies of truth. There is truth even in the Koran.

...So what would happen when some one who has the experience of the baptist and later converts to Mormonism.

Do you think he would or should reject his experience as a Baptist over his conversion to Mormonism?

Another thing, are all of these examples equal? What are the differences?

 

I could accept testifying of truth, and that there could be truth in the Koran.

 

If someone converts from Baptist to Mormon, they probably won't discard their old experiences.  They will probably re-frame them.  Maybe they will say they thought they were saved, but they had really just felt the love of God, and had misinterpreted.

 

What do you make of someone who converts AWAY from Mormonism to being a Baptist, due to spiritual experiences?  Might they not do the same thing?  They might say, I thought the spirit told me the BOM was literal truth, but it turns out there was just some truth in it, and the Spirit was responding to that.  Now I am REALLY saved, and I know because of my spiritual experiences.  How can we ever know who is right?

 

And, what about those who feel lead by God to Islam, and away from Christianity?  Would God be the source of that conversion?

[CurrentlyAlive]

It is important to consider the background expectations against which a person considers reports of personal spiritual experience. Do you expect exclusive truth and virtue for one group, and nothing but folly and delusion elsewhere? The formal LDS claims for "mine authority and the authority of my servants" in D&C 1 is expressly non-exclusive with respect to truth and human virtue, imperfect, and incomplete. Our own scriptures insists that "God remembers the heathen", that God gives to all nations "all that he seeth fit for them to have" (see Alma 29), and that there are divers means and ways that God speaks to all peoples. See Moroni 7:24, "And behold, there were divers ways that he did manifest things unto the children of men, which were good; and all things which are good cometh of Christ; otherwise men were fallen, and there could no good thing come unto them."

What D&C 1 specifies as the justification for the existence of the LDS faith is not exclusive truth, nor exclusive virtue, nor exclusive revelation (the chapter mentions unnamed "others" and later declares that God is willing to give information to all). What we ought to be looking for then, it not unique spiritual experience, but rather the things that D&C 1 spells out as providing what makes this gather "well pleasing". And that turns out to be additional revelation, priesthood authority, scripture such as the Book of Mormon, knowledge of covenants, ordinances, temples, and such that in actual fact and practice do distinguish the LDS faith from others. Not necessarily in absolute exclusive difference, but in a notable, well pleasing way. I've long found it interesting that the Biblical passages using "true and living" imagery match up with the themes of D&C 1 verse for verse, point for point.

My profile links to an essay called "A Model of Mormon Spiritual Experience" that looks at LDS accounts in light of comparative religious accounts and study. Personally, I find that such things increase my appreciation for what we have, rather than somehow neutralizing them.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Thanks for the response, Kevin.  I've read the article you link to.  It's really fascinating.  I do think that there are differences in the types of spiritual experiences people have.  My big problem is that in the church, we use our spiritual experiences to justify our unique beliefs.  However, people in other faiths describe very similar experiences to describe their unique beliefs as well, including beliefs that directly contradict ours.

 

Some have said that the Spirit has testified of some truth in other religions, but the person has misinterpreted their experience to mean the complete religion is true.  Others have said that a spiritual experience means that the religion is true "for you".  I take that to mean that God is telling you that there is something beneficial to you in it, but for some reason uses spiritual language that leads you to believe it is ultimate, objective truth, even if it's not.  I find those to be thoughtful responses.  However, if that can be true for a Catholic, Baptist, or Muslim, could it not be true for a Mormon, too?  May we not have also misinterpreted our experiences?

[Kevin Christensen]

Thanks for the response, Kevin.  I've read the article you link to.  It's really fascinating.  I do think that there are differences in the types of spiritual experiences people have.  My big problem is that in the church, we use our spiritual experiences to justify our unique beliefs.  However, people in other faiths describe very similar experiences to describe their unique beliefs as well, including beliefs that directly contradict ours.

 

Some have said that the Spirit has testified of some truth in other religions, but the person has misinterpreted their experience to mean the complete religion is true.  Others have said that a spiritual experience means that the religion is true "for you".  I take that to mean that God is telling you that there is something beneficial to you in it, but for some reason uses spiritual language that leads you to believe it is ultimate, objective truth, even if it's not.  I find those to be thoughtful responses.  However, if that can be true for a Catholic, Baptist, or Muslim, could it not be true for a Mormon, too?  May we not have also misinterpreted our experiences?

Think about Alma 32.

And now behold, is your knowledge perfect?

Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing,

and your faith is dormant; and this because ye know,

for ye know that [the seed] hath sprouted up,

that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened,

and your mind doth begin to expand.

Oh then is this not real?

I say unto you, Yea, because it is light;

and whatsoever is light is good,

because it is discernible,

therefore ye must know that it is good;

and now behold, after ye have tasted this light

is your knowledge perfect?

I say unto you, Nay. (Alma 32:34–36)

While many Mormons like to talk about their spiritual experiences as providing perfect knowledge, Alma, both unexpectedly, and I think, very sensibly, says something else.

Alma 32 also makes an important contrast between people who want to "know" with absolute, once and for all, finality, and those who settle for "cause to believe" and an ongoing process of learning.

I'm very comfortable with spiritual experiences of all kinds and denominations, but I'm also very confident in the "cause to believe" that supports my own LDS faith tradition. Lots of people have NDEs, for example, but not many of them produce anything like the Book of Mormon, which also just happens to have several authentic NDE accounts, in a few interesting flavors. The well-pleasingness to which D&C 1 points me is open-ended and ongoing, and a clear distinction.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I could accept testifying of truth, and that there could be truth in the Koran.

 

If someone converts from Baptist to Mormon, they probably won't discard their old experiences.  They will probably re-frame them.  Maybe they will say they thought they were saved, but they had really just felt the love of God, and had misinterpreted.

 

What do you make of someone who converts AWAY from Mormonism to being a Baptist, due to spiritual experiences?  Might they not do the same thing?  They might say, I thought the spirit told me the BOM was literal truth, but it turns out there was just some truth in it, and the Spirit was responding to that.  Now I am REALLY saved, and I know because of my spiritual experiences.  How can we ever know who is right?

 

And, what about those who feel lead by God to Islam, and away from Christianity?  Would God be the source of that conversion?

Well, when it comes down to personal experiences they are persona for a reason and they are only for the person involved with them.

 

I have come to the conclusion that people may have different paths for reasons we don't understand. I am not sure that some one leaving Mormonism is led away or following the devil. Not sure it is that black and white.

 

At the same time am I to throw away my experience because it is "contradicted" by some one else experience? Of course not. So what I am left with is trying to figure out how it fits. One way is to say they are false. Well I can't do that. Because of the experiences I have had. So I am left with trying to figure out how they all fit.

[MormonFreeThinker]

I agree that one person's spiritual experience cannot disprove another.  That said, how do you explain the contradicting spiritual experiences people of various faiths have?  What makes Mormon spiritual experiences superior to Baptist experiences, or Muslim experiences?  

 

It is you that makes that decision, spiritual experiences are personal. There is a difference between emotions, confirmation bias, and spiritual experiences, the difference is the feeling that comes from God. It is something that I cannot prove to you. 

 

God has me in Mormonism, so I stay in Mormonism, it is that simple.  If God has a Baptist in a Baptist church, he can stay in that church, that simple.  

It is not about absolute knowledge, we go by what we personally receive, and what is good. 

 

Edited October 24, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[CurrentlyAlive]

I have come to the conclusion that people may have different paths for reasons we don't understand. I am not sure that some one leaving Mormonism is led away or following the devil. Not sure it is that black and white.

 

God has me in Mormonism, so I stay in Mormonism, it is that simple.  If God has a Baptist in a Baptist church, he can stay in that church, that simple.  

It is not about absolute knowledge, we go by what we personally receive, and what is good.

 

This is a point of view I can respect.  It's certainly not a view promoted by the church itself, though.  I also think it becomes more complicated when we look at actual, specific, contradicting spiritual experiences.  There are people who feel that God has miraculously led them into AND out of all sorts of religions.  It doesn't seem to be related to absolute knowledge or objective truth.

 

I guess that's more of a Universalist point of view.  Now, I also can't really prove that one experience isn't right while the others are wrong.  Theoretically it does seem like someone could be deceived.  But, how would anyone know, if the experiences are the same, or at least, just as powerful?

 

The video you posted makes the point that his world view (Christianity), in addition to being supported by spiritual experiences, makes logical sense.  I think this is important.  However, Baha'i, Muslims, and Jehovah's Witnesses also believe their world views make sense.  I think we can make sense out of a lot of things if we want to badly enough.  I'm not really convinced that there is much to go on here that is unique.  What makes the most sense to me is that people of all faiths have these spiritual experiences that confirm their faiths to them, but they are colored and interpreted by their cultures, expectations, and point of view.

[MormonFreeThinker]

This is a point of view I can respect.  It's certainly not a view promoted by the church itself, though.

 

Don't be certain, let me give you one example 

"On behalf of the leadership and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we extend our warmest wishes to His Holiness Pope Francis and pray he will feel the peace of the Lord as he serves as pontiff of the Catholic Church." 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/first-president-offers-warmest-wishes-pope-francis

 

 

 What makes the most sense to me is that people of all faiths have these spiritual experiences that confirm their faiths to them, but they are colored and interpreted by their cultures, expectations, and point of view.

 

Alister Mcgrath said in that video that he was an atheist, Alister said he didn't want there to be a God. His experience was not interpreted by his culture, expectation, and point of view. Alister is a scientist, he has a doctorate in Molecular Biophysics. 

 

I am open minded, I will stop believing in the LDS church if you present good evidence against it, but I haven't seen it. My spiritual experiences is a good reason for me to believe in the LDS church, but I do not have absolute knowledge. 

Edited October 25, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Calm]

"Alister Mcgrath said in that video that he was an atheist, Alister said he didn't want there to be a God. His experience was not interpreted by his culture, expectation, and point of view."

In your studies, I suggest you start paying more attention to psychology.

[MormonFreeThinker]

"Alister Mcgrath said in that video that he was an atheist, Alister said he didn't want there to be a God. His experience was not interpreted by his culture, expectation, and point of view."

In your studies, I suggest you start paying more attention to psychology.

 

Why? How is that confirmation bias? Alister did not like religion. 

[Calm]

Because it is impossible not to interpret the world through filters created by experience, etc. it is not just about confirmation bias. The reason why he chooses to weight certain evidence more than others is a filter. His culture has taught him to value the scientific method,etc.

Edited October 25, 2014 by calmoriah

[MormonFreeThinker]

Because it is impossible not to interpret the world through filters created by experience, etc. it is not just about confirmation bias. The reason why he chooses to weight certain evidence more than others is a filter. His culture has taught him to value the scientific method,etc.

 

Yes, he believes he has good reasons and good personal evidence. 

Edited October 25, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[CurrentlyAlive]

Don't be certain, let me give you one example 

"On behalf of the leadership and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we extend our warmest wishes to His Holiness Pope Francis and pray he will feel the peace of the Lord as he serves as pontiff of the Catholic Church." 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/first-president-offers-warmest-wishes-pope-francis

 

 

 

Alister Mcgrath said in that video that he was an atheist, Alister said he didn't want there to be a God. His experience was not interpreted by his culture, expectation, and point of view. Alister is a scientist, he has a doctorate in Molecular Biophysics. 

 

I am open minded, I will stop believing in the LDS church if you present good evidence against it, but I haven't seen it. My spiritual experiences is a good reason for me to believe in the LDS church, but I do not have absolute knowledge. 

 

I think this is a pretty good response.  In my experience, I was always taught that other churches were in error and they'd all be better off as Mormons, but you do occasionally hear other perspectives.  It does seem like the church may be more ecumenical now.  So, I could see it being reasonable to believe that "God has me here, and God has you there, and we are both where we are supposed to be".  I think this works especially well if no one is making absolute truth claims (for example, God has showed me the absolute truth about idea x, and therefore idea y is false).

 

By the way, I'm not trying to get you to stop believing the LDS church.  I am interested in believing members' responses to other religious peoples' testimonies.  I actually had a mission comp who had a perspective very similar to yours, I think, and he was one of the most honest, thoughtful, good guys I served with.  So, in my book, you are in good company.

 

People do make very contradictory claims sometimes, though.  For example, here's a testimony from a member of True Jesus Church:

 

"I asked the Lord Jesus Christ for a sign to show that the True Jesus Church has the whole truth...

One day, I was sitting under a tree, thinking deeply. I was trying to recall some Bible verses on baptism and praying about a doubt that I had. Suddenly, a miracle happened to me. It was like a light that I could not exactly figure out. It shone on me and took away the doubt in my mind. It seemed that the darkness in my mind was lifted. The doctrine on infant baptism, which I could not at first accept, suddenly became very clear me. I could then accept it with my mind and heart. Since that incident, each time I read the Bible, that former opinion to oppose and the refusal to believe and accept were gone. Today I believe that infants must be baptized in order to be saved.

...Now I know and am confident that this is the end of my search for the whole truth. I thank the Lord Jesus Christ for answering my prayer and giving me a sign. I have found the whole truth of my salvation. Glory be given to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Hallelujah!!"

 

This definitely contradicts LDS doctrine, but it sounds to me just like many LDS personal revelations.  To me, it seems that at the very least, there has to be some serious wiggle room in interpreting spiritual experiences and revelations.  Certainly this guy can't be objectively right if LDS doctrine on the subject is also right.

[KevinG]

This definitely contradicts LDS doctrine, but it sounds to me just like many LDS personal revelations.  To me, it seems that at the very least, there has to be some serious wiggle room in interpreting spiritual experiences and revelations.  Certainly this guy can't be objectively right if LDS doctrine on the subject is also right.

 

I always encourage people to follow their inspirations.  How can we be true to Christ if we are untrue to ourselves?

 

It is not up to me to judge someone else's revelation or try to disprove it.  It is up to us to teach and share what we know, and for the Holy Spirit to convert.  There are a thousand reasons why mortals can receive differing revelations.  Step by step progression towards the truth, from different starting points.  Innocent mistakes or misinterpretations.  Different missions and callings in mortality.  

 

No one has a corner on the truth.  Even we know our knowledge of the Gospel is incomplete.  We claim to have the fullness as so far revealed.  

[MormonFreeThinker]

This definitely contradicts LDS doctrine, but it sounds to me just like many LDS personal revelations.  To me, it seems that at the very least, there has to be some serious wiggle room in interpreting spiritual experiences and revelations.  Certainly this guy can't be objectively right if LDS doctrine on the subject is also right.

 

You cannot verify his experience, you can only verify yours, but again, it is not about absolute knowledge. 

 

We do not know if he was hallucinating, or if he is simply lying. 

Edited October 27, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[CurrentlyAlive]

You cannot verify his experience, you can only verify yours, but again, it is not about absolute knowledge. 

 

We do not know if he was hallucinating, or if he is simply lying. 

 

The people I have known who have had such experiences have been overwhelmingly sincere.  Of course, that's a subjective judgement, too, but that has been my experience.  I don't believe they are lying.  That website has links to the original contexts for most of the testimonies.  It may be worthwhile to read his whole story and the full stories of many others and then try to judge their sincerity.  Better yet, get to know someone in real life with strong, spiritual convictions that run counter to our own.  That was an eye-opener for me.

Could they be hallucinating?  Maybe, but if we grant that possibility for him, I'd say we have to grant it for ourselves, too.

 

We agree that it's not absolute knowledge.  I can agree to disagree about what our own experiences mean.