Rock Waterman Excommunicated

[ttribe]

I stand by my observation that you can't credibly argue that feelings of the heart are an unreliable determination (something I've seen Evangelicals repeatedly assert) and also claim that you prayed and had God tell you the Book of Mormon is false. That is an inconsistent position; there's no escaping that fact.

 

I can see doing that if you're trying to make a mockery of the Mormon position.

 

Okay, well, just passing on what I've been told by investigators and others in the past.

[Scott Lloyd]

Okay, well, just passing on what I've been told by investigators and others in the past.

Be that as it may, this aspect of the discussion pertains specifically to Evangelicals (allegedly "many" of them) who claim to have prayed and received an answer that the Book of Mormon is false.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I stand by my observation that you can't credibly argue that feelings of the heart are an unreliable determination (something I've seen Evangelicals repeatedly assert) and also claim that you prayed and had God tell you the Book of Mormon is false. That is an inconsistent position; there's no escaping that fact.

 

I can see doing that if you're trying to make a mockery of the Mormon position.

I have had a few EV's tell me that they prayed and got an answer in the negative that the spirit told them it was false. 

 

I always figured they were being a bit disingenuous as no where in any scriptures do we learn that he spirit will testify of false things or tell you it is false. His mission is to testify of truth. 

 

They only tell you that because they think they are being clever and think they have a "gotcha" to our queries of "praying for a witness".

 

Did they actually ever pray? I have no idea. What I do know is that they never received a witness telling them that it was false, as out lined above, there is no record any were that the spirit testifies that something is false.

 

So what must one do when they hear of such an "untestimony"? We should reject it. Can you really argue with the person? No, it serves no purpose. But we don't have to accept what they are saying for very good reasons.

 

IOW you are correct Scott.

[ttribe]

Be that as it may, this aspect of the discussion pertains specifically to Evangelicals (allegedly "many" of them) who claim to have prayed and received an answer that the Book of Mormon is false.

 

Well, "many", is certainly subjective and mine is nothing more than very limited anecdotal evidence, so take if for whatever you think it's worth.

[HappyJackWagon]

Be that as it may, this aspect of the discussion pertains specifically to Evangelicals (allegedly "many" of them) who claim to have prayed and received an answer that the Book of Mormon is false.

And what about members who have attempted to receive a spiritual answer about the BoM but have not received that affirmation?

 

Usually we just say they didn't have enough faith, or weren't sincere enough, or patient enough. But how long should one keep asking the same question before accepting the lack of affirmative answer as THE answer.

 

D&C 9:9

 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a ^astupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is ^bsacred save it be given you from me.

 

We often use this concept for discerning when something is not from God, yet when it is applied to something like Moroni's promise it is dismissed.

[Gray]

I have had a few EV's tell me that they prayed and got an answer in the negative that the spirit told them it was false. 

 

I always figured they were being a bit disingenuous as no where in any scriptures do we learn that he spirit will testify of false things or tell you it is false. His mission is to testify of truth. 

 

They only tell you that because they think they are being clever and think they have a "gotcha" to our queries of "praying for a witness".

 

Did they actually ever pray? I have no idea. What I do know is that they never received a witness telling them that it was false, as out lined above, there is no record any were that the spirit testifies that something is false.

 

So what must one do when they hear of such an "untestimony"? We should reject it. Can you really argue with the person? No, it serves no purpose. But we don't have to accept what they are saying for very good reasons.

 

IOW you are correct Scott.

 

I don't know about you, but I grew up with the idea that the Holy Ghost would send you warnings when confronted with false or dangerous things. 

[Scott Lloyd]

 

And what about members who have attempted to receive a spiritual answer about the BoM but have not received that affirmation?

 

Usually we just say they didn't have enough faith, or weren't sincere enough, or patient enough. But how long should one keep asking the same question before accepting the lack of affirmative answer as THE answer.

 

We often use this concept for discerning when something is not from God, yet when it is applied to something like Moroni's promise it is dismissed.

 

As I understood it, Teancum's initial claim (before he equivocated) was that he had met "many" Evangelicals who said they had prayed and received an answer that the Book of Mormon is false, not that they had prayed and not received any answer whatsoever.

 

Besides, that they would have prayed and gotten any answer at all is inconsistent with what I see as a stock Evangelical position: that being that feelings of the heart are unreliable and that it is contemptible to pray and ask for a spiritual witness in the first place.

 

Usually we just say they didn't have enough faith, or weren't sincere enough, or patient enough. But how long should one keep asking the same question before accepting the lack of affirmative answer as THE answer.

 

We often use this concept for discerning when something is not from God, yet when it is applied to something like Moroni's promise it is dismissed.

 

 

From the perspective of one who has prayed and received a witness, all he can reasonably do is testify of it to those who haven't and to invite and encourage them to continue their own  effort for as long as it takes and to do so "with real intent" and "having faith in Christ."

 

How one responds to such testimony, invitation and encouragement is, of course, a matter of personal agency.

 

But the fact that one has not (yet) received a spiritual witness does not negate the experience of one who has. And frankly, that is what I see Teancum and others endeavoring to do here.

Edited June 15, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ERayR]

 

And what about members who have attempted to receive a spiritual answer about the BoM but have not received that affirmation?

 

Usually we just say they didn't have enough faith, or weren't sincere enough, or patient enough. But how long should one keep asking the same question before accepting the lack of affirmative answer as THE answer.

 

We often use this concept for discerning when something is not from God, yet when it is applied to something like Moroni's promise it is dismissed.

 

 

Another possibility is that they are getting answers and didn't recognize it.  For several years that was my condition.  I was expecting and waiting for the spectacular revelation.  One day I heard a sermon about him coming in a still small voice which caused me to do some introspective searching and realized I had been hearing that voice for a very long time.  After that it was much more clear and I began to recognize it more often.

[Scott Lloyd]

Another possibility is that they are getting answers and didn't recognize it.  For several years that was my condition.  I was expecting and waiting for the spectacular revelation.  One day I heard a sermon about him coming in a still small voice which caused me to do some introspective searching and realized I had been hearing that voice for a very long time.  After that it was much more clear and I began to recognize it more often.

Perhaps the Lamanites mentioned in 3 Nephi 9:20 were in a similar situation:

 

20 And ye shall offer for a ^asacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit. And whoso cometh unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, him will I ^bbaptize with fire and with the Holy Ghost, even as the Lamanites, because of their faith in me at the time of their conversion, were baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and they knew it not.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

As I understood it, Teancum's initial claim (before he equivocated) was that he had met "many" Evangelicals who said they had prayed and received an answer that the Book of Mormon is false, not that they had prayed and not received any answer whatsoever.

 

Besides, that they would have prayed and gotten any answer at all is inconsistent with what I see as a stock Evangelical position: that being that feelings of the heart are unreliable and that it is contemptible to pray and ask for a spiritual witness in the first place.

 

I'm going to document what I have said here by quoting verbatim from one of the most prominent anti-Mormon websites on the Internet. I won't link to it, nor will I identify it. I'm not sure that is allowed under board rules, and in any event, I don't want to drive traffic to it. But here is what is said there on the matter of Mormons receiving a spiritual witness. From past observation, I believe it represents a stock anti-Mormon Evangelical position:

 

 

1. Mormons will bear their testimony to you and tell you that they know the Mormon church is true, and that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God.
2. There are two basic approaches you can take.
   1. Ask them where their testimony is.
      1. "In my heart." They'll say.
      2. You say, "Did you know that the Bible says not to trust your heart because it is deceitful?"
      3. "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?" (Jer. 17:9)

 

 

 So again, if an anti-Mormon Evangelical -- who presumably holds this stock position -- says he has prayed and had God tell him that the Book of Mormon is false, what are we to make of it other than that he didn't really receive a true witness (you can't trust your heart, after all, because it is deceitful -- or so the standard line goes) but he is in reality mocking Mormons and Mormonism.

 

 

As a corollary to the above, I would add this:

 

Teancum said this to me:

 

 I know dozens if not more evangelicals who think their witness is as valid as yours. Yet your answer is they did not have real intent. Well did you have real intent when you asked if their religion was true? Or have you ever bothered?

 

What does Teancum want me to ask about? Whether they are speaking the truth when they say that "the Bible says not to trust your heart because it is deceitful"? If I prayed and got a witness that they are right in saying this, how could I trust it? After all, the Bible supposedly says not to trust my deceitful heart.

 

He claims he knows "dozens if not more evangelicals" who think their witness is as valid as mine. What is the nature of their witness? Apparently it is not like mine, because this presumably representative anti-Mormon Evangelical website declares that the heart is deceitful and can't be trusted.

 

Did Teancum really have "dozens if not more Evangelicals" tell him that they feel a witness in their hearts that the Book of Mormon is false? Are anti-Mormon Evangelicals really that prone to blatant inconsistency in their positions and arguments?

 

And by the way, what does "dozens if not more" even mean? Unless it gets into the hundreds, it would seem "dozens" would pretty much cover the waterfront.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't know about you, but I grew up with the idea that the Holy Ghost would send you warnings when confronted with false or dangerous things. 

And just were is that taught in scripture?

 

The closest I can recall is GC talks were past Prophets shared stories of voices crying out for them to not do certain things. I am unfamiliar with a single story that bore a witness that something was false.

[Avatar4321]

Another possibility is that they are getting answers and didn't recognize it.  For several years that was my condition.  I was expecting and waiting for the spectacular revelation.  One day I heard a sermon about him coming in a still small voice which caused me to do some introspective searching and realized I had been hearing that voice for a very long time.  After that it was much more clear and I began to recognize it more often.

I agree. when I was seeking my testimony I experienced the Spirit again and again and did not recognize it til I had first recognized the Spirit and looked back at itm

[Teancum]

And?  Stephen R. Covey once said we don't see things as they are; we see them as we are.  This concept can even include a thing like truth, especially religious truth; but even taking religion out of the equation for a second, philosophers have been pontificating about things like truth, the nature and meaning of existence, and so on, for millennia.  I don't think they're in danger of coming to agreement on any definitive answer anytime soon, but so what?  Alma said true seeds, good seeds, bear good fruit, period. Christ says we may know people and principles by their fruits, and that good people and good principles don't bring forth evil fruit, nor do evil people and evil principles bring forth good fruit.

 

You can keep right on insisting that I should tell someone, "No, sorry; you don't actually have any good fruit, bread, or fish there; you've only got thorns, thistles, stones, and serpents," or that I tell him, "No, sorry; I know you have what seems to you to be good fruit, bread, and fish there, but those actually are just ersatz fruit that's actually kinda thorny and thistly; ersatz bread that's actually kinda stony; and ersatz fish that's actually kinda 'serpenty.'"  But however long and hard you keep on insisting that I should do that, Stephen R. Covey was right: I see truth as I am, he sees truth as he is, and you see truth as you are.

 

The question of whether any given precept bears good fruit isn't just an interesting sidelight in the discussion: it's central to it.

I am not insisting you do anything. Just trying to discuss what I see as some serious conflict between adherents of various faiths who come up with conflicting answers through the spirit, prayer or however they get their answers.

[Teancum]

So you are backing away from the claim that you "have met many evangelical Christians who claim they prayed about the Book of Mormon and were told it was false"?

Again, those are your words, and that is specifically what I was challenging.

Look, people of other faith traditions profess many things that I would agree with: the reality of God, the resurrection of Christ, that Christ atoned for the sins of the world, that God loves His children, etc. That people should have spiritual feelings connected with such truths does not strike me as incredible.

But I am challenging your assertion that I have quoted above. Rather than owning that statement and either affirming or retracting it, you change your story and then accuse me of playing games.

I can't respect that.

I say that this question has already been answered.

The aspects of others' religious professions that are true I don't need to pray about; I already have a witness that they are true.

As for their claims that contradict those things of which I have received a spiritual witness, why should I pray to know if their claims are true, when I have already received a witness to the contrary?

Sigh talk about straining at a gnat.....yes Scott, I can think of three maybe four evangelicals who have told me that they read at least part of the Book of Mormon, prayed about it and got a negative answer. One is married to a Mormon women.. Would you like his name and phone number to call and ask him? And one of his friend is an ex Mormon who claims his original witness as a Mormon was a false spirit. Also, while it has been some time a number of EV types told me this when I was bible bashing with them as a missionary.

Believe it or not that's the detail of it.

Now for this comment you made:

As for their claims that contradict those things of which I have received a spiritual witness, why should I pray to know if their claims are true, when I have already received a witness to the contrary?

What does one do when an honest person really does express a sincere spiritual witness to something that does conflict with yours. Russell seems to think others beliefs are different or come in some way that is not the same as an LDS testimony. I don't agree. I have Orthodox Jewish aquaintences that seem as fervent in their beliefs as any LDS. I know a number catholic persons who are versed in their doctrine and some of it disagrees Mormonism. Is their personal deep held faith and the way the obtain it flawed or less than yours. If it disagrees how do we determine who is correct?

Edited June 16, 2015 by Teancum

[Teancum]

I stand by my observation that you can't credibly argue that feelings of the heart are an unreliable determination (something I've seen Evangelicals repeatedly assert) and also claim that you prayed and had God tell you the Book of Mormon is false. That is an inconsistent position; there's no escaping that fact.

I can see doing that if you're trying to make a mockery of the Mormon position.

I cannot state with certainty that some of what I refer to above in my post was not mockery on an EVs part, The missionary experiences likely were. Though the two specific persons I mention seem sincere . Edited June 16, 2015 by Teancum

[Teancum]

As I understood it, Teancum's initial claim (before he equivocated) was that he had met "many" Evangelicals who said they had prayed and received an answer that the Book of Mormon is false, not that they had prayed and not received any answer whatsoever.

 

Besides, that they would have prayed and gotten any answer at all is inconsistent with what I see as a stock Evangelical position: that being that feelings of the heart are unreliable and that it is contemptible to pray and ask for a spiritual witness in the first place.

 

From the perspective of one who has prayed and received a witness, all he can reasonably do is testify of it to those who haven't and to invite and encourage them to continue their own  effort for as long as it takes and to do so "with real intent" and "having faith in Christ."

 

How one responds to such testimony, invitation and encouragement is, of course, a matter of personal agency.

 

But the fact that one has not (yet) received a spiritual witness does not negate the experience of one who has. And frankly, that is what I see Teancum and others endeavoring to do here.

Oh honestly. I am not trying to negate anyone's experience. I simply am trying to lay out why I find this method FOR ME PERSONALLY unreliable. I am also trying to find what others who find it reliable do when it conflicts with others personal witnesses however they claim to receive it. Your answer is why ask when something conflicts with your witness which I thnk means yours trumps, at least for you and you have no interest in testing it. A number of others seem to feel the same. Fine,if that works for you. Again I understand this having been where you are and now querying this method further. But the LDS testimony is totally subjective to the individual as I assume most or all spiritual witnesses are.

That's it.

[Teancum]

I'm going to document what I have said here by quoting verbatim from one of the most prominent anti-Mormon websites on the Internet. I won't link to it, nor will I identify it. I'm not sure that is allowed under board rules, and in any event, I don't want to drive traffic to it. But here is what is said there on the matter of Mormons receiving a spiritual witness. From past observation, I believe it represents a stock anti-Mormon Evangelical position:

 

 So again, if an anti-Mormon Evangelical -- who presumably holds this stock position -- says he has prayed and had God tell him that the Book of Mormon is false, what are we to make of it other than that he didn't really receive a true witness (you can't trust your heart, after all, because it is deceitful -- or so the standard line goes) but he is in reality mocking Mormons and Mormonism.

 

 

As a corollary to the above, I would add this:

 

Teancum said this to me:

 

What does Teancum want me to ask about? Whether they are speaking the truth when they say that "the Bible says not to trust your heart because it is deceitful"? If I prayed and got a witness that they are right in saying this, how could I trust it? After all, the Bible supposedly says not to trust my deceitful heart.

 

He claims he knows "dozens if not more evangelicals" who think their witness is as valid as mine. What is the nature of their witness? Apparently it is not like mine, because this presumably representative anti-Mormon Evangelical website declares that the heart is deceitful and can't be trusted.

 

Did Teancum really have "dozens if not more Evangelicals" tell him that they feel a witness in their hearts that the Book of Mormon is false. Are anti-Mormon Evangelicals really that prone to blatant inconsistency in their positions and arguments?

 

And by the way, what does "dozens if not more" even mean? Unless it gets into the hundreds, it would seem "dozens" would pretty much cover the waterfront.

I assume as a writer you understand what hyperbole is. As noted as a missionary I had many say this. Dozens? Maybe. Now I have noted two specific persons I know. the one person I mentioned that is married to a Mormon has a "out reach" he is involved with that you would term anti Mormon. I have also met a few of his associates who I used to ask if they tested Moroni's promise. This was in my apologetic days. A number of them said yes and there was not q positive confirmation. Were they lying? Maybe. I have always found their positions about spiritual witnesses through feelings only nonsensical because as studied as they thnk they are they still need a spiritual witness. An an alter call is about as emotional of an event and response as I have ever seen.

So now I have exhausted this. Next time I will be sure to provide footnotes.

[Kenngo1969]

I am not insisting you do anything. Just trying to discuss what I see as some serious conflict between adherents of various faiths who come up with conflicting answers through the spirit, prayer or however they get their answers.

I think the Book of Mormon is wonderful, and that it is essentially what it purports to be; though he wasn't perfect (and he admitted as much), I revere the prophet, Joseph Smith, and each of his successors as prophets of God.  I believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God's church, restored to earth in these, the latter days.  I wish everyone could gain that same witness.  But if someone doesn't receive a witness of these things (or doesn't recognize it as such), then what?  There are those among my non-Mormon Christian brothers and sisters, including on this Board, who fall into that category, but they walk, as best they know how, in the light of what truth they have received.  I respect them for it, and I think the vast majority of my fellow Saints do, as well. Two of the things I was taught about how to teach as a missionary were: (1) build relationships of trust; and (2) build on common beliefs.  How well do you think missionaries would be received if they, instead, were to say, "You're wrong; the Holy Spirit tells me so, and here's why"?

 

Is what one believes important?  Sure.  But far more important is what one does: "Inasmuch as men do good, they shall in nowise lose their reward."

[Avatar4321]

If the spiritual witness is subjective how do you explain all those who sincerely read the Book of Mormon and didn't want it to be true getting the Holy Spirit to witness that it is?

[ttribe]

If the spiritual witness is subjective how do you explain all those who sincerely read the Book of Mormon and didn't want it to be true getting the Holy Spirit to witness that it is?

 

That's a new one.  How does that comport with praying with real intent?

[Gray]

And just were is that taught in scripture?

 

The closest I can recall is GC talks were past Prophets shared stories of voices crying out for them to not do certain things. I am unfamiliar with a single story that bore a witness that something was false.

 

I don't know about scriptures. If we're limiting what we believe to only what's in the scriptures, we'll have to strip away a great deal of things typically believed by members of the church.

 

In any case, this is one such talk describing a warning of the Holy Ghost:

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2002/10/yielding-to-the-enticings-of-the-holy-spirit?lang=eng

 

 

When my friends had proposed that we invade the garden, I had felt uncomfortable but lacked the courage to say no and so suppressed my feelings. Now, after the deed had been accomplished, I was filled with remorse. To my regret, I had ignored the promptings warning me of the error of my actions.

Physical barriers and external forces may prevent us from pursuing deviant paths, but there is also a feeling within each of us, sometimes described as a still, small voice, ¹ that when recognized and responded to will keep us from succumbing to temptation.

[Gray]

Conversion stories (regardless of the faith tradition) have more in common than they have differences. People seem to experience an ineffable and transcendent moment that they interpret as God telling them that the path they've chosen is the right one. 

 

In my opinion, if we look at the Spirit as a means of appreciating sacredness rather than literal messages from a specific being, we make more sense of the experience. We can all appreciate that sacredness, regardless of our specific tradition.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Gray

[Rain]

I didn't want to move here last year. Oh how I didn't. It is just too hot! 108 yesterday.

Yet, I was willing to trust the Lord (meaning I was willing to move) if He wanted me to so I prayed with the intent to know His will.

That, at least for me, has been one of the major keys to receiving answers and one of the hardest things for me to do - be willing to act on the answer as the Lord would have me do (in other words "with real intent" to do it) regardless of how much I want or don't want to do it.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Rain

[HappyJackWagon]

As I understood it, Teancum's initial claim (before he equivocated) was that he had met "many" Evangelicals who said they had prayed and received an answer that the Book of Mormon is false, not that they had prayed and not received any answer whatsoever.

 

Besides, that they would have prayed and gotten any answer at all is inconsistent with what I see as a stock Evangelical position: that being that feelings of the heart are unreliable and that it is contemptible to pray and ask for a spiritual witness in the first place.

 

From the perspective of one who has prayed and received a witness, all he can reasonably do is testify of it to those who haven't and to invite and encourage them to continue their own  effort for as long as it takes and to do so "with real intent" and "having faith in Christ."

 

How one responds to such testimony, invitation and encouragement is, of course, a matter of personal agency.

 

But the fact that one has not (yet) received a spiritual witness does not negate the experience of one who has. And frankly, that is what I see Teancum and others endeavoring to do here.

But should someone keep praying until they receive the answer they expect or want. D&C 9:9 talks about a stupor of thought like failure to receive an answer IS the answer. So shouldn't one accept the non answer as THE answer?

 

Someone else mentioned that the individual may not realize the answer had been given. This may be true but it doesn't seem like a very good method of communication.

 

If I'm taking a college course and have an important question I would reach out to the professor and ask. Following his instructions I might call or email directly and then talk to a TA in hopes of getting an answer. What if the answer doesn't seem to come so I move on with out it? Years later I find an encrypted message on a FB message account I had never used that appears it may have come from the professor in answer to my question. It would seem his response came in a way that wasn't useful and that it would have been better had he communicated clearly (nonencrypted) according to the method he indicated he would (ie responding back through the TA, Email or phone). So who is at fault. The student or the professor?

 

For communication to be valuable it must be recognizeable to both. So if I ask a question in English and my professor answers in binary code which I don't understand, the communication is of no value.

Edited June 16, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[Scott Lloyd]

But should someone keep praying until they receive the answer they expect or want. D&C 9:9 talks about a stupor of thought like failure to receive an answer IS the answer. So shouldn't one accept the non answer as THE answer?

 

Well, as one who has received a spiritual witness, I'm going to say a person should keep trying until they likewise receive such a witness (see Christ's parable of the importunate widow).

 

Whether a person does so is a matter of his own exercise of agency.

 

I'll just say, though, that lack of a "yes" answer is not necessarily a "no" answer. As I understand the scripture, the "no" answer will be characterized by a "stupor of thought" causing one to forget the thing that was wrong.

 

If President Spencer W. Kimball had failed to persist, reasoning that the up-to-then lack of clear direction signified a "no" answer, we would not have had the 1978 revelation on the priesthood -- at least not until later.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Scott Lloyd