Testimony in new prophet

[Bernard Gui]

On 5/5/2018 at 7:05 PM, changed said:

I would hope that everyone is concerned about their testimony of God and the Savior, more than their testimony of any organized religious group or person... 

They are not mutually exclusive.

 

[SouthernMo]

49 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

They are not mutually exclusive.

 

True - they definitely are NOT mutually exclusive, but my experience has showed me that I have gained stronger testimonies by being specific, and granular, rather than lumping "is the church true?" all together.

Seeking for testimonies of specific doctrines has protected my testimony/membership in the church.  While I don't want to make this thread about the things that have been shown to be wrong or false over the nearly two centuries of the restored church, if I try to include everything about the church in my testimony, I'd have left this church by now.  I would reject so much good & truth because of the very little untrue that has been taught.

As an aside, even if I believe that the church is true, and the process for succession in the presidency of the church is inspired of God, if seeking to know that Russell M. Nelson is a prophet brings me to my knees, and prompts me to study, I think seeking this specific testimony is a good thing.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, SouthernMo said:

True - they definitely are NOT mutually exclusive, but my experience has showed me that I have gained stronger testimonies by being specific, and granular, rather than lumping "is the church true?" all together.

Seeking for testimonies of specific doctrines has protected my testimony/membership in the church.  While I don't want to make this thread about the things that have been shown to be wrong or false over the nearly two centuries of the restored church, if I try to include everything about the church in my testimony, I'd have left this church by now.  I would reject so much good & truth because of the very little untrue that has been taught.

As an aside, even if I believe that the church is true, and the process for succession in the presidency of the church is inspired of God, if seeking to know that Russell M. Nelson is a prophet brings me to my knees, and prompts me to study, I think seeking this specific testimony is a good thing.

Good points.

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

True - they definitely are NOT mutually exclusive, but my experience has showed me that I have gained stronger testimonies by being specific, and granular, rather than lumping "is the church true?" all together.

Seeking for testimonies of specific doctrines has protected my testimony/membership in the church.  While I don't want to make this thread about the things that have been shown to be wrong or false over the nearly two centuries of the restored church, if I try to include everything about the church in my testimony, I'd have left this church by now.  I would reject so much good & truth because of the very little untrue that has been taught.

Well stated (and expresses many of my thoughts and feelings).  I actually have always thought that people saying "I know this church is true" is a bit odd to say (although I know what they're trying to express).  

Edited May 8, 2018 by ALarson

[SouthernMo]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I actually have always thought that people saying "I know this church is true" is a bit odd to say (although I know what they're trying to express).  

While I haven't done the exercise, imagine writing in one column all of the possible definitions of "church" (building, members, leadership, doctrine, etc...) and in the other column writing all of the possible definitions of "true" (accurate, helpful, revealed by god, etc...).  Then try and mix and match each of those definitions.  Confusion ensues.

I agree - we know what people are trying to express when they say "I know this church is true."  If those words fulfill others, I am glad for them.

In the past I have said those words, but have come to find more rich meaning and deeper understanding by trying to be more accurate with my words.  When I listen to others who are specific and careful with their words, they are more credible to me.  I want to be credible in my testimony.

One last though (for now):

A testimony in a legal setting needs to be specific and backed up by personal experience.  I think there is value in applying those guidelines to my own testimony.  Imagine if in a courtroom, I stated "I know that John Doe murdered Jane Doe."  Would that be enough to convince a jury?  Maybe some.  More powerful and credible would be if I can walk someone through my exact experiences as to why I have come to that conclusion.  In that thought process is my testimony.

[JayneAdelle]

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If I volunteer to have my blood spilled, perhaps I can finally do someone some good, after all!  

Awww, don't say that. Anytime you've ever been kind to someone, you've done someone some good. 

[ALarson]

28 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

While I haven't done the exercise, imagine writing in one column all of the possible definitions of "church" (building, members, leadership, doctrine, etc...) and in the other column writing all of the possible definitions of "true" (accurate, helpful, revealed by god, etc...).  Then try and mix and match each of those definitions.  Confusion ensues.

Exactly.  That's why I've thought it was kind of an odd statement to hear so often (again, I recognize it's stated with good intentions).

 

30 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

In the past I have said those words, but have come to find more rich meaning and deeper understanding by trying to be more accurate with my words.  When I listen to others who are specific and careful with their words, they are more credible to me.  I want to be credible in my testimony.

I agree.  If I could give you a rep point for your post, I would!!!

[Stargazer]

37 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I agree - we know what people are trying to express when they say "I know this church is true."  If those words fulfill others, I am glad for them.

In the past I have said those words, but have come to find more rich meaning and deeper understanding by trying to be more accurate with my words.  When I listen to others who are specific and careful with their words, they are more credible to me.  I want to be credible in my testimony.

Over the more than 50 years of church membership, I have testified that I know the Church is true many times.  And over that period, while the words haven't changed, what I understand and mean by them has varied and grown.  

And I expect that in the hearts of those who have heard my words what it meant and means to them has varied a great deal.

 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

True - they definitely are NOT mutually exclusive, but my experience has showed me that I have gained stronger testimonies by being specific, and granular, rather than lumping "is the church true?" all together.

Seeking for testimonies of specific doctrines has protected my testimony/membership in the church.  While I don't want to make this thread about the things that have been shown to be wrong or false over the nearly two centuries of the restored church, if I try to include everything about the church in my testimony, I'd have left this church by now.  I would reject so much good & truth because of the very little untrue that has been taught.

As an aside, even if I believe that the church is true, and the process for succession in the presidency of the church is inspired of God, if seeking to know that Russell M. Nelson is a prophet brings me to my knees, and prompts me to study, I think seeking this specific testimony is a good thing.

Of course. Nevertheless, they are not mutually exclusive. 

[changed]

On 5/8/2018 at 8:33 AM, Bernard Gui said:

They are not mutually exclusive.

 

You hold your testimony in an organized religious group on par with your testimony of Heavenly Father??!!??  I am sorry, but that is the mindset that gives birth to cults.  

Jesus did not distinguish between the followers of one group over another... so I guess I will not either.

Luke 9:49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. 50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

I pray to Heavenly father - NOT Joseph smith.  I have a testimony in Heavenly Father, and my Salvation comes through Jesus Christ - NOT through any prophet.  

Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

There is no borrowed light, "Each must gain a personal knowledge of the truth and be guided by the light within himself." - link

 

Edited May 10, 2018 by changed

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, changed said:

You hold your testimony in an organized religious group on par with your testimony of Heavenly Father??!!??  I am sorry, but that is the mindset that gives birth to cults.  

Jesus did not distinguish between the followers of one group over another... so I guess I will not either.

Luke 9:49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. 50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

I pray to Heavenly father - not Joseph smith.  I have a testimony in Heavenly Father, and my Salvation comes through Jesus Christ - NOT through any prophet.  

Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

There is no borrowed light, "Each must gain a personal knowledge of the truth and be guided by the light within himself." - link

 

You are attempting to create a separation that doesn't exist.

The way to Christ is through his Church.  The way to God is through Christ.

Those that think they can come to God except through Christ will be sorely disappointed.  And those that think they can come to Christ except through his Church will also be sorely disappointed.  There is one path, straight and narrow, and few that find it.

[changed]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

You are attempting to create a separation that doesn't exist.

The way to Christ is through his Church.  The way to God is through Christ.

Those that think they can come to God except through Christ will be sorely disappointed.  And those that think they can come to Christ except through his Church will also be sorely disappointed.  There is one path, straight and narrow, and few that find it.

I believe in a just God who communicates with, and loves all of his children, not just 1 percent of them.  ... I also believe God has a high student success rate - if He does not, if He is not a good teacher, if the test is unfair, and educational material limited, then count me out.

 

God is accountable for correctly teaching all His children.  Our success rate is His success rate.

Edited May 10, 2018 by changed

[JLHPROF]

43 minutes ago, changed said:

I believe in a just God who communicates with, and loves all of his children, not just 1 percent of them.  ... I also believe God has a high student success rate - if He does not, if He is not a good teacher, if the test is unfair, and educational material limited, then count me out.

 

God is accountable for correctly teaching all His children.  Our success rate is His success rate.

Then you don't believe the words of Christ.  

Or at the very least you are selective in which words of Christ  you choose to follow, which would make it not Christ but yourself you are following.

Edited May 10, 2018 by JLHPROF

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

You are attempting to create a separation that doesn't exist.

The way to Christ is through his Church.  The way to God is through Christ.

Those that think they can come to God except through Christ will be sorely disappointed.  And those that think they can come to Christ except through his Church will also be sorely disappointed.  There is one path, straight and narrow, and few that find it.

I suppose in that case someone has to pick them up and carry them.

[changed]

25 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Then you don't believe the words of Christ.  

Or at the very least you are selective in which words of Christ  you choose to follow, which would make it not Christ but yourself you are following.

I do not trust in the arms of flesh - this is what abuse at the hands of LDS leaders has taught me.

I now believe that everyone has a conscience, that everyone can pray, that no one is saved based on what religious group they are affiliated with... or do you think there was something else I should have learned from my trial?  

14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: 15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again. 16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. 17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

for "all" - no middle-man about it... 

that is the evil of many religious groups, they place themselves between believers and the G-d head.  

Edited May 10, 2018 by changed

[RevTestament]

5 minutes ago, changed said:

I do not trust in the arms of flesh - this is what abuse at the hands of LDS leaders has taught me.

I now believe that everyone has a conscience, that everyone can pray, that no one is saved based on what religious group they are affiliated with... or do you think there was something else I should have learned from my trial?  

14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: 15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again. 16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. 17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Every Church has sinners. The Baptist Church has youth ministers who have abused, etc. That is not the measure of the true degree to which a Church follows the gospel. 

I join you in your conviction not to trust the arm of the flesh too much. I pray on those things I have questions about. The LDS Church does not teach, as you seem to imply, that no one in other Churches will be saved. Indeed, we do believe that many good persons outside the Church will be saved. 

[Bernard Gui]

On 5/10/2018 at 9:58 AM, changed said:

You hold your testimony in an organized religious group on par with your testimony of Heavenly Father??!!??  I am sorry, but that is the mindset that gives birth to cults.  

 Jesus did not distinguish between the followers of one group over another... so I guess I will not either.

No, I do not. I did not say that. I said they are not mutually exclusive, which means they can logically be held simultaneously. It does not imply an inappropriate priority. But obviously a testimony of the truthfulness of the Church, it’s doctrines, and it’s leaders is wholly dependent on a testimony that God exists. Additionally, a testimony of those things confirms, enhances, and strengthens one’s testimony of the existence and nature of God. There’s nothing cultish about that. They are mutually inclusive and supportive.

Quote

1.A. I pray to Heavenly father -

1.B. not Joseph smith.  

2. I have a testimony in Heavenly Father, and my Salvation comes through Jesus Chast - NOT through any prophet.

1.A. So do I, through and in the name of Jesus.

1.B. Neither do I, nor does any other Latter-day Saint. 

2. So do I, as do all other Latter-day Saints. This is emphatically  taught multiple times in the Book of Mormon.

If you want to know the truth about our beliefs, I recommend reading Mosiah chapters 15 and 16 (Book of Mormon) to gain a fuller understanding of the relationship between God, Jesus, the prophets, and the people. It’s a phenomenal exposition.

Edited May 12, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[SouthernMo]

On 5/10/2018 at 1:11 PM, JLHPROF said:

You are attempting to create a separation that doesn't exist.

In my experience, my testimony has suffered when I have not separated God from the LDS chuch.  To say that there is no separation?  If I held your view, I would have left the church by now - expecting that this organization is perfectly aligned with my Heavenly Father, and being disappointed.

While I refuse to list the many, many mistakes men have made in this church INCLUDING the leaders of our church, to pretend that this church and all its decisions are in perfect harmony with God and that there is no separation is dangerous and harmful.  Dangerous because while God will not fail me, this church has.  Harmful because some teachings from church leaders have led me and others to suicidal attempts, depression, isolation, and addiction.  Harmful because the contradictions between teachings are never explained - only leaving those of us who ask about them feeling gaslighted, and consequently more isolated and confused.

Don't get me wrong - I believe, to @Bernard Gui's point, the testimony of the Savior and of this organization are not mutually exclusive.  I don't have to choose between God and the LDS Church.  But, it is hard for me to see how anyone can claim that a separation does not exist.

@JLHPROF Seriously - explain to me how you can believe that God's will is perfectly exemplified in this church?  In all God's great glory, perfection, peace, and beauty - you see all this in this LDS Church?  A flawless organization?  Where is this Zion you speak of?

[Jeanne]

42 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

In my experience, my testimony has suffered when I have not separated God from the LDS chuch.  To say that there is no separation?  If I held your view, I would have left the church by now - expecting that this organization is perfectly aligned with my Heavenly Father, and being disappointed.

While I refuse to list the many, many mistakes men have made in this church INCLUDING the leaders of our church, to pretend that this church and all its decisions are in perfect harmony with God and that there is no separation is dangerous and harmful.  Dangerous because while God will not fail me, this church has.  Harmful because some teachings from church leaders have led me and others to suicidal attempts, depression, isolation, and addiction.  Harmful because the contradictions between teachings are never explained - only leaving those of us who ask about them feeling gaslighted, and consequently more isolated and confused.

Don't get me wrong - I believe, to @Bernard Gui's point, the testimony of the Savior and of this organization are not mutually exclusive.  I don't have to choose between God and the LDS Church.  But, it is hard for me to see how anyone can claim that a separation does not exist.

@JLHPROF Seriously - explain to me how you can believe that God's will is perfectly exemplified in this church?  In all God's great glory, perfection, peace, and beauty - you see all this in this LDS Church?  A flawless organization?  Where is this Zion you speak of?

Love this post..welcome. 

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

In my experience, my testimony has suffered when I have not separated God from the LDS chuch.  To say that there is no separation?  If I held your view, I would have left the church by now - expecting that this organization is perfectly aligned with my Heavenly Father, and being disappointed.

While I refuse to list the many, many mistakes men have made in this church INCLUDING the leaders of our church, to pretend that this church and all its decisions are in perfect harmony with God and that there is no separation is dangerous and harmful.  Dangerous because while God will not fail me, this church has.  Harmful because some teachings from church leaders have led me and others to suicidal attempts, depression, isolation, and addiction.  Harmful because the contradictions between teachings are never explained - only leaving those of us who ask about them feeling gaslighted, and consequently more isolated and confused.

Don't get me wrong - I believe, to @Bernard Gui's point, the testimony of the Savior and of this organization are not mutually exclusive.  I don't have to choose between God and the LDS Church.  But, it is hard for me to see how anyone can claim that a separation does not exist.

@JLHPROF Seriously - explain to me how you can believe that God's will is perfectly exemplified in this church?  In all God's great glory, perfection, peace, and beauty - you see all this in this LDS Church?  A flawless organization?  Where is this Zion you speak of?

You are misreading my statements.  I don't believe the Church perfectly exemplifies God's will.

I believe it represents the gateway to the one path that leads to Christ  (who in turn is the one path to the Father).

It is the only path to Christ, no matter how out of order it may be in some areas.

[SouthernMo]

On 5/10/2018 at 1:11 PM, JLHPROF said:

Those that think they can come to God except through Christ will be sorely disappointed.  And those that think they can come to Christ except through his Church will also be sorely disappointed.  There is one path, straight and narrow, and few that find it.

Does your statement here about Christ’s Church refer to His church as explained in D&C 10:67 or just members of the LDS Church?

[CMZ]

Things may work out a little differently for each person. On one hand we don't have to pray about every little point of the gospel on its own; on the other hand we absolutely can pray about whatever point we wish to. I don't think we are obligated to pray each time there's a new president to find if he was truly called to be a prophet (and, yes, we can get a testimony of them when they are called to the Quorum of the Twelve), but at and around the time of President Nelson's call I seemed to encounter more encouragement than normal to specifically pray about that point, including two such statements from different Seventies that spoke at stake conferences I attended earlier this year. I think there were even some statements to that effect in the recent general conference.

[CMZ]

Quote

We have the privilege as Latter-day Saints to receive a personal witness that President Nelson’s call is from God. While my wife, Kathy, has known President Nelson personally for nearly three decades and has no question about his divine mantle, upon his setting apart, she began reading all his general conference talks of the past 34 years, praying for an even deeper assurance of his prophetic role. I promise you that this greater witness will come to you as you humbly and worthily seek it.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2018/04/the-prophet-of-god?lang=eng

 

[CMZ]

Interestingly, President Nelson was receiving true revelation regarding the Church even before he was an apostle, such as when he received personal revelation that Spencer W. Kimball would become the prophet at a time when nobody thought that very likely. (Note that he didn't attempt to direct the Church based on the revelation he had received.)

Edited May 12, 2018 by CMZ

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Does your statement here about Christ’s Church refer to His church as explained in D&C 10:67 or just members of the LDS Church?

Both, as you cannot get to one without working through the other. You cannot come to Christ except through baptism, and the Church holds the authority to administer that ordinance.

So again, you cannot get to one without working through the other.

66 Yea, if they will come, they may, and partake of the waters of life freely.
67 Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church.