Reason, Experience, And The Existence Of God

[Teancum]

I think I understand what you are saying.

If I'm understanding correctly, it bothers me when someone has the attitude that "since I don't know something then obviously it can't be known."

 

 

If one claims to know a supernatural event is truth and says they know it then they need to provide evidence beyond their own personal experience.   Other wise the experience they claim is good only for them.

[mfbukowski]

1:  By really there I mean is there a God?

 

2:  Yes there is scientific evidence a star is really there.  Yes the pain in my toe is real if I drop an anvil on it.   Yes as a human we know that our emotions are real and love can be seen as activity in our brains on a brain scan.

1. Yes

2. Good, then so is religious experience.

 

The pain in your toe is real even if you do not drop an anvil on it.  The pain "in your toe" is real even if it has been cut off, and is as real as the star we have "scientific evidence" for even when it is not there.

 

Can you see how all this is semantic garbage?

[mfbukowski]

If one claims to know a supernatural event is truth and says they know it then they need to provide evidence beyond their own personal experience.   Other wise the experience they claim is good only for them.

So what?

 

The experience of your love for your wife is only good for you as well, but it has (presumably) altered the course of your life.  Yet I suppose it is not "real"?

[Calm]

 Yes the pain in my toe is real if I drop an anvil on it.  

Yet I have pain in my toes without any anvil or other thing dropping on it, for no apparent cause that doctors can find and there are people who have pain in their toes and they don't even have toes.

 

(Oops, I see Mark got there first…)

Edited November 27, 2014 by calmoriah

[canard78]

I think you and I agree more often than we disagree. Are you like this in Sunday School/Priesthood? It must be a lot of fun. If you ever visit UK I'll happily buy you dinner.

I am quoting this so that I have it in front of me to answer each of your points

 

My answer is of course my opinion on how I resolve my understanding of what I think causes you dissonance and why none of this bothers me one iota.

It doesn't bother me that there is contradiction. It bothers me that some religious people don't consider the contradictions in the assumptions made about spiritual experiences. I opened this thread because it's an interesting topic for discussion.

The individual had a problem reconciling Bible verses.

That is a main clue for me. How could the Bible be teaching that all need baptism, yet so many do not receive baptism?

That is a genuine conflict in the bible.

God knew that he needed resolution. If he did not resolve the dissonance, he might stop believing all together. Your child is having trouble learning division, but shows a definite aptitude for math. The teacher's method is not working, You tach the child another method which works, but keeps the child on track toward wanting to learn more math.

By resolving this one issue, his belief in Christ is saved, and gives him the opportunity to learn more.

Yes! Yes, I don't disagree with you at all. I've long spoken about this in different venues.

Here's something I wrote 18 months ago:

I believe in a God that communicates and guides. I believe in a God that is such a perfect teacher that every one of His children has a personalised curriculum. Perhaps even personalised in part by the student not the teacher.

My children moved from an elementary school of 30 per class with one teacher and a fixed curriculum (optimised for the majority but imperfect for all of them) to a school with maximum class sizes of 12 children, 2 teachers per class and a personalised 'student lead learning' approach to the curriculum.

Given God's omnipotence, he goes one step further. While keeping us in a setting of interaction with other students he offers a ratio of 1 student:1 teacher and a fully personalised curriculum. Even within Mormonism we are reminded to not run faster than we have strength, line upon line etc. 'Cafeteria Mormonism' has become a dirty word. But I certainly see and embrace plenty of 'personally adapted Mormonism.' And it works best that way.

My wife is not active and no longer considers herself Mormon. She would go as far to say she is a 'non-believer' in any interactive deity. Certainly Mormonism's understanding of such.

And here's the strange reality I've come to terms with and am trying to help her extended family to accept: she is tangibly better off that way. Emotionally, socially, spiritually. Her life has changed for the better because she has left Mormonism. She is certainly more able to be a 2+2 or 5+5 servant and is more 'sheep' than 'goat' in her treatment of others (see Matt 25). Some may point out that there is another parable in the chapter and may assume she is foolish not wise. From my perspective her lamp is well trimmed and she is not short of oil. Although she may not use the same name, she still knows the master. And what, after all, is in a name?

So would God give people "remarkable epiphanies" that contradict? Yes, I'm very comfortable that he would.

http://manyotherhands.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/if-there-is-one-divine-source-how-can.html

The BOM passage is a classic example of interpretations of the BOM which seem to validate Protestantism.  That is a separate issue, but I have no problem with that, I ascribe that to Joseph's cultural heritage of Protestantism confusing his "translation" or revelation of the BOM.  I have no problem with cultural factors influencing revelation- of course it does.

 

We cannot separate ourselves from our culture.  Today, it is pretty well know that Mormons do not believe in a "hell" of fire and brimstone, so I take that whole BOM passage as we see it today- not as what it literally says in a Protestant context.   I see it as saying that those who believe in infant baptism will go to spirit prison until they learn correct beliefs.  No big deal.

That's an interesting perspective on the translation process. One for another thread perhaps.

No big deal? Whether it's a brimstone version or a prison version... I would imagine it will be a big deal for the person I quoted. He might reasonably feel aggrieved if he lands up in spirit prison for believing and practicing something that you and I agree could have been taught him by the Holy Spirit.

Brimstone or otherwise, if a belief in infant baptism has been part of this man's "personalised curriculum" and if that belief has helped him along the path to godliness then I don't believe for a moment that he might be punished for that belief.

 

Yep I pretty much think that's it and guess what ?

 

THAT'S MORMON DOCTRINE!  If infants don't get baptized here, they get it in the next life.  Eventually every knee will bow and tongue confess.  We have eternities to grow into one view of the "truth" according to our faith.

 

So pogi is right- ultimately Mormonism resolves all these questions in one view.

I can't give you that. Mormon doctrine does not teach that God does not care whether an infant is baptised or not. Mormon doctrine teaches that God really does care if an infant is baptised. Whether it's a 'new mormon' version of the light and fluffy hell or the Book of Mormon/Protestant hell... That's where Mormonism teaches people who baptise babies are going. Even you have said that "those who believe in infant baptism will go to spirit prison until they learn correct beliefs." Clearly you believe that God does have an opinion on infant baptism one way or another.

[bluebell]

If one claims to know a supernatural event is truth and says they know it then they need to provide evidence beyond their own personal experience. Other wise the experience they claim is good only for them.

Why does an experience have to be good for everyone before someone is allowed to use the word 'Know'?

[mfbukowski]

I can't give you that. Mormon doctrine does not teach that God does not care whether an infant is baptised or not. Mormon doctrine teaches that God really does care if an infant is baptised.

 

We agree on 99 % of this- why this point? Disagree, but there is nothing here to contend about!

 

Of course God's commandment is that everyone be baptized.  No problem.  TEMPLE BAPTISMS DUDE!  (Sorry- that is language we use in the colonies...)

 

If the baby is not baptized here, doctrine tells us that he will have chance in the next life.  Net effect is that ALL will have the opportunity to be baptized, THEREFORE theologically it doesn't matter if he is baptized as an infant or any other time. 

 

In fact ANY BAPTISM OTHER THAN MORMON BAPTISM doesn't count anyway.

 

Therefore, according to Mormon doctrine, baptism for non-members becomes a non-issue.  If not here, then there.  No biggie.

[mfbukowski]

Why does an experience have to be good for everyone before someone is allowed to use the word 'Know'?

Agree- a ridiculous assumption about the definition of a word.  Again, semantic nonsense.

 

To avoid the issue of this silliness I often use the word "I am certain".    I say "I know the church is true" all the time in real life, but here because of this nonsense I often say things like "I am absolutely certain that the church provides me the best possible way of life for me to achieve happiness both in this life and in the life to come"

 

It's a lot of extra silly verbiage, but I am certain it says exactly the same thing. 

[canard78]

Please have another look at the comment I made as your reply doesn't address the central issue in it.

 

I can't give you that. Mormon doctrine does not teach that God does not care whether an infant is baptised or not. Mormon doctrine teaches that God really does care if an infant is baptised. Whether it's a 'new mormon' version of the light and fluffy hell or the Book of Mormon/Protestant hell... That's where Mormonism teaches people who baptise babies are going. Even you have said that "those who believe in infant baptism will go to spirit prison until they learn correct beliefs." Clearly you believe that God does have an opinion on infant baptism one way or another.

We agree on 99 % of this- why this point? Disagree, but there is nothing here to contend about!

There is, hopefully I can make it clearer. This isn't just about baptism, it's a much bigger point about the impact of conflicting spiritual experiences.

Of course God's commandment is that everyone be baptized.  No problem.  TEMPLE BAPTISMS DUDE!  (Sorry- that is language we use in the colonies...)

 

If the baby is not baptized here, doctrine tells us that he will have chance in the next life.  Net effect is that ALL will have the opportunity to be baptized, THEREFORE theologically it doesn't matter if he is baptized as an infant or any other time.

That's not what I'm talking about. I know about temple baptisms old chap (the language we use in the motherland)

If "it doesn't matter if he is baptized as an infant" why does Mormon scripture say it DOES matter? Even you have said that it does matter, in an earlier post you said that you believe that the person who believes in infant baptism will do a spell in spirit prison until he learns otherwise.

In fact ANY BAPTISM OTHER THAN MORMON BAPTISM doesn't count anyway.

 

Therefore, according to Mormon doctrine, baptism for non-members becomes a non-issue.  If not here, then there.  No biggie.

 

This isn't even about validity, this is about the belief. Moroni 8:

14 Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.

20 And he that saith that little children need baptism denieth the mercies of Christ, and setteth at naught the atonement of him and the power of his redemption.

23 But it is mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ, and the power of his Holy Spirit, and putting trust in dead works.

So Example 1 has apparently been taught infant baptism as a true principle by the spirit. The spirit has taught him something that Mormons teach is something that is an indication of someone having no faith and setting at naught the atonement and mocking God.

This isn't about simply doing things that are not valid, this is Mormonism claiming that the person in Example 1 is believing something evil, even after being taught it through a spiritual experience.

Do you accept Moroni 8 as doctrine or not?

If you do, how do you reconcile the spirit teaching someone a false doctrine (infant baptism)?

[mfbukowski]

Please have another look at the comment I made as your reply doesn't address the central issue in it.

There is, hopefully I can make it clearer. This isn't just about baptism, it's a much bigger point about the impact of conflicting spiritual experiences.

That's not what I'm talking about. I know about temple baptisms old chap (the language we use in the motherland)

If "it doesn't matter if he is baptized as an infant" why does Mormon scripture say it DOES matter? Even you have said that it does matter, in an earlier post you said that you believe that the person who believes in infant baptism will do a spell in spirit prison until he learns otherwise.

This isn't even about validity, this is about the belief. Moroni 8:

So Example 1 has apparently been taught infant baptism as a true principle by the spirit. The spirit has taught him something that Mormons teach is something that is an indication of someone having no faith and setting at naught the atonement and mocking God.

This isn't about simply doing things that are not valid, this is Mormonism claiming that the person in Example 1 is believing something evil, even after being taught it through a spiritual experience.

Do you accept Moroni 8 as doctrine or not?

If you do, how do you reconcile the spirit teaching someone a false doctrine (infant baptism)?

Wow I really don't know where you are coming from on this at all. It feels like you are singing tenor and I am singing bass in perfect harmony and then I hear "BLAAAATTTTT" in the middle followed by harmony again. I don't get it.

I see your understanding of symbols and getting personal revelation as our harmony points, the basic functions of religions, and then suddenly you come out with fundamentalistic pronouncements. It just sounds dissonant to me- it doesn't seem to fit with the rest.

 

Clearly you believe that God does have an opinion on infant baptism one way or another.

Not in that sense.  I think infant baptism doesn't make sense, but if God has provided a remedy for that mistake, I don't see that it makes any difference.

 

I think we all need to make covenants with God. I think that the function of baptism is to declare symbolically that we take upon ourselves the name of God, Baptizing infants doesn't make sense to me at all, not because it has been declared forever and all time in some book, but because it just doesn't make sense.

An infant cannot make covenants. Even an 8 year old is probably too young, but most churches teach that is around the age when one knows right from wrong, and I agree with that, so I have no problem with baptism at age 8. For a child I think it is more a question of them promising to be on "God's side" and to choose the right instead of the wrong.

But people going to hell- a burning hell- because they believe otherwise? Preposterous. We don't even believe in a burning hell. Outer darkness? Yes, but that is not a burning hell and people who just get one doctrinal minor question wrong hardly qualify for OD.

In another post you quoted, you said:

 

I believe in a God that communicates and guides. I believe in a God that is such a perfect teacher that every one of His children has a personalised curriculum. Perhaps even personalised in part by the student not the teacher.

My children moved from an elementary school of 30 per class with one teacher and a fixed curriculum (optimised for the majority but imperfect for all of them) to a school with maximum class sizes of 12 children, 2 teachers per class and a personalised 'student lead learning' approach to the curriculum.

Given God's omnipotence, he goes one step further. While keeping us in a setting of interaction with other students he offers a ratio of 1 student:1 teacher and a fully personalised curriculum. Even within Mormonism we are reminded to not run faster than we have strength, line upon line etc. 'Cafeteria Mormonism' has become a dirty word. But I certainly see and embrace plenty of 'personally adapted Mormonism.' And it works best that way.

My wife is not active and no longer considers herself Mormon. She would go as far to say she is a 'non-believer' in any interactive deity. Certainly Mormonism's understanding of such.

And here's the strange reality I've come to terms with and am trying to help her extended family to accept: she is tangibly better off that way. Emotionally, socially, spiritually. Her life has changed for the better because she has left Mormonism. She is certainly more able to be a 2+2 or 5+5 servant and is more 'sheep' than 'goat' in her treatment of others (see Matt 25). Some may point out that there is another parable in the chapter and may assume she is foolish not wise. From my perspective her lamp is well trimmed and she is not short of oil. Although she may not use the same name, she still knows the master. And what, after all, is in a name?

So would God give people "remarkable epiphanies" that contradict? Yes, I'm very comfortable that he would.

 

There is, hopefully I can make it clearer. This isn't just about baptism, it's a much bigger point about the impact of conflicting spiritual experiences.

 

BLLAAATTTTTTT.

So what's the deal?  Does God give people what appear to be conflicting experiences or not?  And what does it matter??

Do you accept Moroni 8 as doctrine or not?

 

The way I interpret it, I do, and I already spoke about that.

 

I do not believe in scriptural inerrancy.  And I think Mormons don't really have "doctrine" except on very basic issues, like infant baptism.  I believe in orthopraxis.

 

 I don't recall a question about people going to hell for believing in infant baptism being on the temple recommend interview, and I suppose if it was, I would not qualify for a recommend.

 

I think that believing that contradicts the rest of the gospel.  

 

It doesn't make sense that God would burn people in a hell we don't even believe in, for receiving a "false" revelation, that you acknowledge is a "contradictory 'remarkable epiphany" with which you are supposedly "comfortable".   I just don't get it at all.

 

Other than that, we agree just fine.  

Edited November 28, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

So would God give people "remarkable epiphanies" that contradict? Yes, I'm very comfortable that he would.

 

And then we have the question about what scripture IS.

 

Suppose one "remarkable epiphany" about Baptism in the BOM conflicts with another now taught by the church, you know, kind of like the Blacks in the Priesthood issue, or arguably turning on and turning off polygamy.

 

If one of these conflicts now bothers you, why didn't it before?  What's the difference?  This really is not adding up for me at all.

[MormonFreeThinker]

There is, hopefully I can make it clearer. This isn't just about baptism, it's a much bigger point about the impact of conflicting spiritual experiences.

 

People have to decide on their own what is real and what is not. 

 

Going back to the SETI example, if scientists detect an alien signal, each scientist will have to verify it himself. 

Again, when Dr. Jerry R. Ehman detected the wow signal, he was alone. He didn't need his peers to be impressed. 

 

Do you accept Moroni 8 as doctrine or not?

If you do, how do you reconcile the spirit teaching someone a false doctrine (infant baptism)?

 

But Moroni 8 is talking about infant baptism in the church, by someone that has the authority. 

Other churches do not perform real baptisms, there is no such thing as infant baptism in other religions, because baptism in other religions doesn't exist. 

 

"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" Religion: True Jesus Church

 

How does the True Jesus Church define infant baptism and salvation? Please define them.  

 

 

How do you know the world is real? You can't know, we all have a degree of faith or confidence

 

Edited November 28, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Teancum]

I'm going to assume that you don't actually know this the way you claim you do.

Feel free to provide emperical, testable verifiable evidence that what, for example, is testified as "knowing" in an LDS testimony, is actually factual.

[canard78]

Wow I really don't know where you are coming from on this at all. It feels like you are singing tenor and I am singing bass in perfect harmony and then I hear "BLAAAATTTTT" in the middle followed by harmony again. I don't get it.

I see your understanding of symbols and getting personal revelation as our harmony points, the basic functions of religions, and then suddenly you come out with fundamentalistic pronouncements. It just sounds dissonant to me- it doesn't seem to fit with the rest.

Nice analogy. It made me smile. I think there are a couple of issues here.

First: I think we're on a topic that is one of those beautiful discordant chords. It's an Am9 chord where it sounds brilliant when we're both on the right note but awful if one of us misses slightly.

The other problem is that perhaps my questions sound like beliefs I'm defending. They're not. Not at all. They're questions I'm asking you and others here.

 

Not in that sense.  I think infant baptism doesn't make sense, but if God has provided a remedy for that mistake, I don't see that it makes any difference.

 

I think we all need to make covenants with God. I think that the function of baptism is to declare symbolically that we take upon ourselves the name of God, Baptizing infants doesn't make sense to me at all, not because it has been declared forever and all time in some book, but because it just doesn't make sense.

An infant cannot make covenants. Even an 8 year old is probably too young, but most churches teach that is around the age when one knows right from wrong, and I agree with that, so I have no problem with baptism at age 8. For a child I think it is more a question of them promising to be on "God's side" and to choose the right instead of the wrong.

But people going to hell- a burning hell- because they believe otherwise? Preposterous. We don't even believe in a burning hell. Outer darkness? Yes, but that is not a burning hell and people who just get one doctrinal minor question wrong hardly qualify for OD.

 

The challenge of this Am9 chord we're singing is that sometimes you say things that sound, to me, like... well... BLLAAATTTTTTT. You talk about pragmatism and utilitarianism. You criticise people for being fundamentalists. But then, in another post earlier, you said the following:

 

"I see it as saying that those who believe in infant baptism will go to spirit prison until they learn correct beliefs.  No big deal."

 

What? BLLAAATTTTT! How can you believe that the spirit taught him a principle that would send him to spirit prison? That sounds pretty fundamentalist to me. I'm more than happy to put outer darkness or brimstone to one side. But spirit prison? The Holy Spirit teaches someone a principle that lands them in spirit prison until they are taught otherwise? Otherwise than what the spirit taught them? How does that make sense to you?

 

You also said, earlier in the thread, that " ANY BAPTISM OTHER THAN MORMON BAPTISM doesn't count anyway." That sounds pretty fundamentalist to me. How can you reconcile that the person in example 1 gets a spiritual witness of something you are saying doesn't count? I don't understand how that makes sense to you.

 

BLLAAATTTTTTT.

So what's the deal?  Does God give people what appear to be conflicting experiences or not?  And what does it matter??

The way I interpret it, I do, and I already spoke about that.

 

I do not believe in scriptural inerrancy.  And I think Mormons don't really have "doctrine" except on very basic issues, like infant baptism.  I believe in orthopraxis.

 

 I don't recall a question about people going to hell for believing in infant baptism being on the temple recommend interview, and I suppose if it was, I would not qualify for a recommend.

 

I think that believing that contradicts the rest of the gospel.  

 

It doesn't make sense that God would burn people in a hell we don't even believe in, for receiving a "false" revelation, that you acknowledge is a "contradictory 'remarkable epiphany" with which you are supposedly "comfortable".   I just don't get it at all.

 

Other than that, we agree just fine.  

 

To be clear what note I'm singing and what note I'm not singing:

 

I believe that it's possible that both the infant baptism spiritual experience and witnesses of the Book of Mormon being true are both potentially genuine spiritual experiences even though they appear, on face value, to be contradictory. I believe/hope that God is a better teacher than we are.

 

With that acceptance I don't believe that a person will be punished in any way for believing in or practicing infant baptism if that belief came from a god-given spiritual experience.

 

I don't actually think that what we believe is what God cares about at all. I don't believe that our religious practice is what he cares about either. I believe he cares about what we become and whether we've made steps (however small) during mortality in the right direction on the path to godliness. I recognise that our beliefs and religious practices will have an influence on what we become but they are not, in an of themselves, the end game.

 

With that in mind, I don't believe that God really has a view on whether infant baptism is evil or not. I believe that spiritual directions and intuition are hugely useful for the individual who receives them. Some might say that this makes God the author of lies. I say it makes him the author of a personalised curriculum.

 

I wish that Mormonism would embrace this more easily and readily. We have spent most of this year in priesthood studying the words of a fundamentalist. Joseph Fielding Smith believed and said things that are very black and white. I think it's a shame that this black and white thinking continues to be compounded and emphasised in our Sunday meetings and general conferences sessions.

 

Perhaps that helps you see where I'm coming from.

But... I'm still a little perplexed by some of your "fundamentalist sounding" statements mentioned above.

[LinuxGal]

 

An infant cannot make covenants. Even an 8 year old is probably too young, but most churches teach that is around the age when one knows right from wrong, and I agree with that, so I have no problem with baptism at age 8. For a child I think it is more a question of them promising to be on "God's side" and to choose the right instead of the wrong.

 

Paul says baptism is the new covenant replacement for circumcision:

 

Colossians 2:

 

[11] In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

[12] Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

 

And as you know, even Christ was circumcised the eighth day.

[Teancum]

1. Yes

2. Good, then so is religious experience.

 

The pain in your toe is real even if you do not drop an anvil on it.  The pain "in your toe" is real even if it has been cut off, and is as real as the star we have "scientific evidence" for even when it is not there.

 

Can you see how all this is semantic garbage?

1: Please provide emperical, testable and verifiable evidence that God exists.

2: certainly I agree a religious experience can be evidenced by emotions and activity in the brain can be examined through a brain scan. What cannot be examined nor proven is that the spiritual, revelation through the Holy Ghost, etc is coming from anything other than internal to the person. So yes love and a religious experience are similar in that they are both generated internally. Both my be stimulated by outside forces that are physical such as the physical person we love, a preacher, good music, a moving play or portrayal, etc. but there is nothing external for the religious experience thqt would demonstrate that the person gained factual knowledge.

I will grant that the experience has meaning for the person experiencing it. I have experienced spiritual experiences. Such experiences are interpreted based on our personal paradigm and bias and thus Re once again not reliable for determining factual knowledge.

As for all this being semantic garbage why bother to dialogue is it is all just garbage.

[Teancum]

So what?

 

The experience of your love for your wife is only good for you as well, but it has (presumably) altered the course of your life.  Yet I suppose it is not "real"?

Yet I don't testify that the love for my wife is the one and only true love and that others should really on that testimony to determine their one and only true love as well.

[Teancum]

Yet I have pain in my toes without any anvil or other thing dropping on it, for no apparent cause that doctors can find and there are people who have pain in their toes and they don't even have toes.

 

(Oops, I see Mark got there first…)

I have not researched the phantom pain issue but my guess is it has something to do with fixed brain wave patterns.

Do you equate your example to KNOWING for a fact that there is a God and that this God is the same way the Mormon Church teaches and that its members testify that they KNOW is truth?

[canard78]

People have to decide on their own what is real and what is not. 

 

Going back to the SETI example, if scientists detect an alien signal, each scientist will have to verify it himself. 

Again, when Dr. Jerry R. Ehman detected the wow signal, he was alone. He didn't need his peers to be impressed.

 

They do, but at least all scientists can evaluate the signals under the same conditions and debate the the implications with equal knowledge and experience. The same cannot be said for spiritual experiences. This is why I call them useful but not reliable.

But Moroni 8 is talking about infant baptism in the church, by someone that has the authority. 

Other churches do not perform real baptisms, there is no such thing as infant baptism in other religions, because baptism in other religions doesn't exist. 

 

"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" Religion: True Jesus Church

 

How does the True Jesus Church define infant baptism and salvation? Please define them.

Give this a bit more thought.

Here's what Moroni teaches about baptism of infants, it's not what you're saying it's saying:

Mormon 8:14 ...he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell

This is not even talking about the act of baptism by authority or otherwise. This is saying that people who believe an infant needs to be baptised are being deceived. So was this person's spiritual experience a deception? (Let me guess... you're going to reply with an answer about tigers)

 

How do you know the world is real? You can't know, we all have a degree of faith or confidence

Yawn... we've discussed this before. I don't know. None of us know. How does Neo know that the ship he gets moved to isn't a simulation within a simulation? What if the simulation he gets put into is actually what is real. It doesn't add anything to the conversation.

Until now I've not seen a stone stop falling half-way down. If I do, I might start being suspicious, until then, I'll continue to have confidence in things that are reliable and base my motives on that which is useful.

[Teancum]

Why does an experience have to be good for everyone before someone is allowed to use the word 'Know'?

When you bear testimony and say you know it is an attempt to influence others that what you say is the factual truth and that they should some to know as well.

So tell me when you say "I know JS is a prophet of God" what do you mean? Next what do you think active Mormons mean when they say this?

Edited November 28, 2014 by Teancum

[Teancum]

Agree- a ridiculous assumption about the definition of a word.  Again, semantic nonsense.

 

To avoid the issue of this silliness I often use the word "I am certain".    I say "I know the church is true" all the time in real life, but here because of this nonsense I often say things like "I am absolutely certain that the church provides me the best possible way of life for me to achieve happiness both in this life and in the life to come"

 

It's a lot of extra silly verbiage, but I am certain it says exactly the same thing. 

I like your testimony. Especially the ME part. You should use it at church too. Start a trend!

[canard78]

So tell me when you say "I know JS is a prophet of God" what do you mean? Next what do you thnk ,oat active Mormons mean when they say this?

Oat active mormons...? They need to see a doctor about that. A good binding agent will sort them out.

[canard78]

Canard

 

Thank you for this thread.  You put many of my thoughts into words much better than I am able.   I enjoy your participation here.

Thank you

[Teancum]

Oat active mormons...? They need to see a doctor about that. A good binding agent will sort them out.

 

 

Hahha!   Hazards of posting from an Ipad and not proofing carefully.  I fixed it above.

[Teancum]

Why does an experience have to be good for everyone before someone is allowed to use the word 'Know'?

 

 

Essentially here is the problem I have with this.  The  LDS leaders teach that one can get personal revelation.  Further they teach that we should all have or obtain a what they term a testimony of certain truth claims the Church makes.  They tell us what such a testimony should include.  These are:

 

God lives and is real

Jesus is the Christ and our savior, died for us and broke the bands of death and it our redeember

Joseph Smith was a prophet and restored the Church (and by default that includes first vision, priesthood restoration, other revelations in the D&C and PoG, Temple, Etc.)

The Book of Mormon is true

The current LDS Church president is a prophet of God

 

 

 

The testimony is to be couched typically in the words "I know."   One apostle who is still living even has gone as far to say you should bear your testimony even if you don't have one because that is how you can get one.  For a Latter-day Saint this testimony is penultimate to their church experience.  It is the ultimate trump card in a debate.  I recall LDS leaders of my youth teaching us that whenever someone argued or tried to dispute our truth claims just bear your testimony because nobody can argue with that. 

 

This testimony is so important in the LDS experience that we devote 12 meetings a year in every congregation and open it up as well as encourage member to publicly proclaim their testimony.  We have youth conferences that almost always include a testimony meeting a the end (I won;t comments about how really improper I think it is to take kids away from a normal setting for a couple days, inundate them with activities designed to reinforce the organizations message then end with a group session that strongly encourages them to make a public profession of their testimony).

 

You rarely if ever hear anyone who bears testimony in these settings say anything other than "I know."   Nobody defines what this means.  So one is left to interpret it to mean what the words "I know" mean.   Nobody says "I am really strongly certain that for me these things are truth and the best way for me to live and be happy."  Nobody says "I really have strong faith and active belief that these things we teach are the truth."  Nobody says "I really think these are wonderful ideas and doctrines and I really hope they are true."

 

Almost everyone says "I know."  Oh sure once in a while you will hear someone say "I believe" or I don't know at this point but  I have "faith."  But that is rare.

 

Goodness there is even a chapter in the BoM (Alma 32) that distinguishes between knowing and faith and it says when you know you don't need faith anymore.

 

So yes call me the skeptic.  I don't think people who bear LDS testimonies really know in the way Alma 32 teaches.  But most who bear testimony use words that lend to an understanding that they do think they know. 

 

I cannot prove or disprove this.  That is why I say the spiritual experience is good only for the one claiming and and has little to no value to anyone outside themselves though it can seem to persuade others that they know as well and that I think  is why the LDS Church emphasizes this so very much.