We can each have our own testimonies

[FormerLDS]

On 5/20/2018 at 9:57 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

So why are the evangelicals so contemptuous of those whose testimonies depend upon the witness of the Holy Spirit?

How do you know it was the "Holy Spirit"?

What if I told you that what you assume to be the Holy Spirit was actually "another spirit" mentioned in 2 Corinthians 11:4?

[bluebell]

On 5/20/2018 at 8:57 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

So why are the evangelicals so contemptuous of those whose testimonies depend upon the witness of the Holy Spirit?
 

They are only contemptuous of such testimonies when they disagree with their own beliefs.  

[Marginal Gains]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You might do better by simply quoting him.  Your version of what he thinks is turgid and obscure at best.

Okay.

“It is not unusual to have a missionary say, “How can I bear testimony until I get one? How can I testify that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ, and that the gospel is true? If I do not have such a testimony, would that not be dishonest?”

Oh, if I could teach you this one principle. A testimony is to be found in the bearing of it!”

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1983/01/the-candle-of-the-lord?lang=eng

[cinepro]

40 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Okay.

“It is not unusual to have a missionary say, “How can I bear testimony until I get one? How can I testify that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ, and that the gospel is true? If I do not have such a testimony, would that not be dishonest?”

Oh, if I could teach you this one principle. A testimony is to be found in the bearing of it!”

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1983/01/the-candle-of-the-lord?lang=eng

Of course, what Elder Packer was saying was 100% true.  Unfortunately (and probably unintentionally),  he was describing a common psychological flaw, not a spiritual principle.

In fact, it could be argued that if a "testimony" can truly "be found in the bearing of it", then it is a very unreliable methodology for discovering truth, and things people claim to "know" because they have a "testimony" should not be trusted. 

Which would mean that it is even more important to seek other evidence, not less important.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

They are only contemptuous of such testimonies when they disagree with their own beliefs.  

Sometimes.  However, they also regularly make general condemnation of people who feel the power of the Holy Spirit, whether Mormons or Pentecostals.  They believe in Scripture only (sola scriptura), and thus discount the Holy Spirit.  They ask how can anyone depend on a "feeling"?  They do not believe in revelation or inspiration in our day.  That is why they primarily cite proof texts and ignore nearly everything else.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, FormerLDS said:

How do you know it was the "Holy Spirit"?

What if I told you that what you assume to be the Holy Spirit was actually "another spirit" mentioned in 2 Corinthians 11:4?

That is exactly what is so often asked by evangelicals.  After all, it is only a feeling, and who can depend on a mere "feeling"?  And yet Jesus praises Peter for using the Holy Spirit as the source of his knowledge about who Jesus really is.  The Holy Spirit revealed it to Peter, and that is the most reliable source of knowledge about faith.

One can  only be responsible for his own beliefs and his own testimony.  A personal testimony is not transferable.  Every one has to obtain it for himself, or not, as he chooses.  One cannot live on borrowed light.

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Of course, what Elder Packer was saying was 100% true.  Unfortunately (and probably unintentionally),  he was describing a common psychological flaw, not a spiritual principle.

In fact, it could be argued that if a "testimony" can truly "be found in the bearing of it", then it is a very unreliable methodology for discovering truth, and things people claim to "know" because they have a "testimony" should not be trusted. 

Which would mean that it is even more important to seek other evidence, not less important.

Elder Packer goes on to say-

 

"Somewhere in your quest for spiritual knowledge, there is that “leap of faith,” as the philosophers call it. It is the moment when you have gone to the edge of the light and stepped into the darkness to discover that the way is lighted ahead for just a footstep or two. “The spirit of man,” is as the scripture says, indeed “is the candle of the Lord.” (Prov. 20:27.)

It is one thing to receive a witness from what you have read or what another has said; and that is a necessary beginning. It is quite another to have the Spirit confirm to you in your bosom that what you have testified is true. Can you not see that it will be supplied as you share it?"

He's not advocating 'fake it till you make it.'  He's saying that the spirit can witness to us when we say something that is true, just as much as it can witness to us when we hear or read something that is true.  So in that regard, it is no more or less reliable a way to find truth than any other way which relies on the spirit.  

Besides that, no one should believe that something is true just because someone says it is.  It's not about who can or can't be trusted, it's about what can be trusted.

And yes, he does understand that skeptics will believe that he is describing a common psychological flaw.

"The skeptic will say that to bear testimony when you may not know you possess one is to condition yourself; that the response is manufactured. Well, one thing for sure, the skeptic will never know, for he will not meet the requirement of faith, humility, and obedience to qualify him for the visitation of the Spirit.

Can you not see that that is where testimony is hidden, protected perfectly from the insincere, from the intellectual, from the mere experimenter, the arrogant, the faithless, the proud? It will not come to them.

Bear testimony of the things that you hope are true, as an act of faith. It is something of an experiment, akin to the experiment that the prophet Alma proposed to his followers. We begin with faith—not with a perfect knowledge of things. That sermon in the thirty-second chapter of Alma is one of the greatest messages in holy writ, for it is addressed to the beginner, to the novice, to the humble seeker. And it holds a key to a witness of the truth.

The Spirit and testimony of Christ will come to you for the most part when, and remain with you only if, you share it. In that process is the very essense of the gospel.

Is not this a perfect demonstration of Christianity? You cannot find it, nor keep it, nor enlarge it unless and until you are willing to share it. It is by giving it away freely that it becomes yours."

 

[cinepro]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

"The skeptic will say that to bear testimony when you may not know you possess one is to condition yourself; that the response is manufactured. Well, one thing for sure, the skeptic will never know, for he will not meet the requirement of faith, humility, and obedience to qualify him for the visitation of the Spirit.

 

 

Uh, he doesn't actually deny it.

What if he said "The skeptic will say that you can't actually learn the truth of things by using a Ouija board.  Well, one thing is for sure, the skeptic will never know, for he will not meet the requirement of faith in the Ouija board that qualifies him for a visitation from the spirits."  But if someone can fool themselves into believing they are being visited by the Ouija spirits by pretending they have faith in those spirits, and the skeptic knows this and would like a more reliable method of determining the veracity of the Ouija board that doesn't involve a great risk of self delusion, why is that a bad thing?  And why is it a good thing for the Ouija believer to admit it?

In the end, he's just saying the same thing twice.  "A skeptic will point out that pretending you know something and saying it out loud will condition you to that belief over time, regardless of whether it is true or not.  Well, one thing's for sure, the skeptic will never pretend that they know something and say it out loud and then condition themselves to believe it over time.  They're going to wait until they have more reliable knowledge before they go around saying they know something."

[rongo]

29 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That is exactly what is so often asked by evangelicals.  After all, it is only a feeling, and who can depend on a mere "feeling"?  And yet Jesus praises Peter for using the Holy Spirit as the source of his knowledge about who Jesus really is.  The Holy Spirit revealed it to Peter, and that is the most reliable source of knowledge about faith.

One can  only be responsible for his own beliefs and his own testimony.  A personal testimony is not transferable.  Every one has to obtain it for himself, or not, as he chooses.  One cannot live on borrowed light.

I was in my 2nd area on my mission for only two months. I had been put with a native German (26 years old, university degree in economics) who was almost ready to go home. I was his first junior companion, and he was tortured by doubts and testimony concerns. He was one of my favorite companions, a really hard worker, and a good senior companion. He wouldn't speak English with me, except to clarify some Beatles lyrics (  ), and my German really took off. He was constantly asking me about my testimony --- what I knew and believed, how, why, how can I say that, etc. Sincerely, not to make me doubt. It was very challenging only in German, but it helped a lot! 

The great thing about those two months is that we got let in --- a lot. He was very articulate, and a native speaker, and good with people. His only baptism occurred during that time --- a really good convert he talked to at a street display. 

An elderly couple let us in. I've never met anyone like them in my life. They belonged to no church, and were basically disciples of Paul. They only studied and cared about Paul's writings, and they had them memorized. After teaching the Joseph Smith story and the First Vision, the husband asked how he or we could be sure that it wasn't the devil deceiving him with a counterfeit vision. "Paul said that the devil can appear as an angel of light!" I tried to think of how I could respond to that, and my companion asked, "How did Paul know that his vision on the road to Damascus wasn't the devil appearing as an angel of light?" They didn't like this question, and sputtered that Paul was different --- God would not have allowed him to be deceived like that. He pressed the point, "That doesn't do us any good, though, does it? And it seems like Joseph Smith could just as easily be immune from the possibility of being deceived as Paul." They realized that it was some sort of fallacy to insist that Paul couldn't have been deceived, but everyone else could be. 

The obvious next point was to ask how *we* can know and unravel the truth of what happened in Paul, or Joseph Smith, or whoever's case. They thanked us for coming, and told us that they didn't have further interest. 

This is exactly how I find criticisms that relying on the Spirit is hopelessly unreliable. The critic trusts his own feelings with things he wants to trust them with; he just wants to deny others the possibility of being sure for themselves in their own right. 

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Uh, he doesn't actually deny it.

What if he said "The skeptic will say that you can't actually learn the truth of things by using a Ouija board.  Well, one thing is for sure, the skeptic will never know, for he will not meet the requirement of faith in the Ouija board that qualifies him for a visitation from the spirits."  But if someone can fool themselves into believing they are being visited by the Ouija spirits by pretending they have faith in those spirits, and the skeptic knows this and would like a more reliable method of determining the veracity of the Ouija board that doesn't involve a great risk of self delusion, why is that a bad thing?  And why is it a good thing for the Ouija believer to admit it?

In the end, he's just saying the same thing twice.  "A skeptic will point out that pretending you know something and saying it out loud will condition you to that belief over time, regardless of whether it is true or not.  Well, one thing's for sure, the skeptic will never pretend that they know something and say it out loud and then condition themselves to believe it over time.  They're going to wait until they have more reliable knowledge before they go around saying they know something."

I agree, he's not denying it.  I was responding to your claim that he unintentionally described a psychological flaw.  He said it fully understanding that skeptics would claim what they claim. 

Skeptics don't believe in the resurrection.  They have all sorts of reasons why a belief in God isn't rational.  They claim that religion is the opiate of the masses.  Why would a believing member of the LDS church care?  

Answer this-If the spirit actually does confirm truth when we say it just as much as when we read it or hear it, does it matter if some people believe he's describing a 'common psychological flaw'?  

Edited May 22, 2018 by bluebell

[FormerLDS]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

And yet Jesus praises Peter for using the Holy Spirit as the source of his knowledge about who Jesus really is.  The Holy Spirit revealed it to Peter, and that is the most reliable source of knowledge about faith.

Where does Jesus praise Peter for "using the Holy Spirit as the source of his knowledge about who Jesus really is"?

I'm not trying to be condescending, but I just don't see that in Matthew 16:16-17 "And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."

The real conundrum for LDS is the fact that nowhere in the Bible does God equate a feeling in the heart with a test of truth.  It's not there folks!

LDS must believe that moroni's promise is God's test of truth with the same blind faith for which they criticize non-members.

[FormerLDS]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

An elderly couple let us in. I've never met anyone like them in my life. They belonged to no church, and were basically disciples of Paul. They only studied and cared about Paul's writings, and they had them memorized. After teaching the Joseph Smith story and the First Vision, the husband asked how he or we could be sure that it wasn't the devil deceiving him with a counterfeit vision. "Paul said that the devil can appear as an angel of light!" I tried to think of how I could respond to that, and my companion asked, "How did Paul know that his vision on the road to Damascus wasn't the devil appearing as an angel of light?" They didn't like this question, and sputtered that Paul was different --- God would not have allowed him to be deceived like that. He pressed the point, "That doesn't do us any good, though, does it? And it seems like Joseph Smith could just as easily be immune from the possibility of being deceived as Paul." They realized that it was some sort of fallacy to insist that Paul couldn't have been deceived, but everyone else could be. 

The obvious next point was to ask how *we* can know and unravel the truth of what happened in Paul, or Joseph Smith, or whoever's case. They thanked us for coming, and told us that they didn't have further interest. 

There is great difference between what Paul and Joseph Smith saw.

Paul never saw an angelic being.  He only saw a bright light and heard a loud voice.  

On the other hand, I believe Joseph Smith saw an angelic being of light.  It even visited him in his room at night. 

The pre-1979 edition of the D&C correctly identified Moroni as an "angel of light" before the church realized this and simply removed the term.  

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I agree, he's not denying it.  I was responding to your claim that he unintentionally described a psychological flaw.  He said it fully understanding that skeptics would claim what they claim. 

Skeptics don't believe in the resurrection.  They have all sorts of reasons why a belief in God isn't rational.  They claim that religion is the opiate of the masses.  Why would a believing member of the LDS church care?  

Answer this-If the spirit actually does confirm truth when we say it just as much as when we read it or hear it, does it matter if some people believe he's describing a 'common psychological flaw'?  

My point is that acknowledging that you're describing an unreliable and psychologically unsound methodology for learning "truth" doesn't suddenly make your methodology sound.

This is the same conundrum that James Randi (the magician/skeptic) ran into time and time again.  He was especially perturbed by people who claimed to perform feats with their minds such as bending spoons.  So Randi, a skilled illusionist himself, would show how he could do the exact same thing that the so-called miracle workers were doing (but without any supernatural power).

But even if Randi could do the exact same thing without supernatural powers, that didn't prove that Uri Gellar wasn't doing it with supernatural powers, right?  In the end, some people can (and will) choose to believe anything for whatever reason they want.  It doesn't matter if the skeptics don't believe Gellar was bending spoons with his mind, or that Randi could do the exact same thing without supernatural help.

Likewise, it's certainly possible the Holy Ghost is especially helpful to people who "bear testimony" of things they aren't actually sure of.  But it also looks like he doesn't really need to be, because our minds are already designed towards belief (and belief preservation) for those things that we publicly express belief in.  As long as we just do this for things that are true, then it's no problem.  But hopefully no one will do this for Scientology or LuLaRoe, or they could accidentally find themselves "knowing" something that isn't true.

[Marginal Gains]

1 minute ago, cinepro said:

My point is that acknowledging that you're describing an unreliable and psychologically unsound methodology for learning "truth" doesn't suddenly make your methodology sound.

This is the same conundrum that James Randi (the magician/skeptic) ran into time and time again.  He was especially perturbed by people who claimed to perform feats with their minds such as bending spoons.  So Randi, a skilled illusionist himself, would show how he could do the exact same thing that the so-called miracle workers were doing (but without any supernatural power).

But even if Randi could do the exact same thing without supernatural powers, that didn't prove that Uri Gellar wasn't doing it with supernatural powers, right?  In the end, some people can (and will) choose to believe anything for whatever reason they want.  It doesn't matter if the skeptics don't believe Gellar was bending spoons with his mind, or that Randi could do the exact same thing without supernatural help.

Likewise, it's certainly possible the Holy Ghost is especially helpful to people who "bear testimony" of things they aren't actually sure of.  But it also looks like he doesn't really need to be, because our minds are already designed towards belief (and belief preservation) for those things that we publicly express belief in.  As long as we just do this for things that are true, then it's no problem.  But hopefully no one will do this for Scientology or LuLaRoe, or they could accidentally find themselves "knowing" something that isn't true.

Why is Scientology a less legitimate belief system than Mormonism?

[bluebell]

34 minutes ago, cinepro said:

My point is that acknowledging that you're describing an unreliable and psychologically unsound methodology for learning "truth" doesn't suddenly make your methodology sound.

For clarity's sake, he didn't acknowledge that he was teaching something unreliable or unsound, he acknowledged that skeptics would view it that way.  Whether or not his methodology is sound depends on whether or not he was teaching truth.  If what he said was true, then his methodology is sound, regardless of what you or others who are skeptical of the Holy Ghosts abilities think of it. 

[cinepro]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

For clarity's sake, he didn't acknowledge that he was teaching something unreliable or unsound, he acknowledged that skeptics would view it that way.  Whether or not his methodology is sound depends on whether or not he was teaching truth.  If what he said was true, then his methodology is sound, regardless of what you or others who are skeptical of the Holy Ghosts abilities think of it. 

Right, but unless you actually point out why the skeptics are wrong, then they're probably right. 

Just acknowledging it doesn't make them wrong; it just shows that you are at least self aware enough to know how flimsy your theory is, and you hope that by mentioning the skeptics people that want to believe you will choose you over them without thinking too hard about it.

 

 

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Right, but unless you actually point out why the skeptics are wrong, then they're probably right. 

Just acknowledging it doesn't make them wrong; it just shows that you are at least self aware enough to know how flimsy your theory is, and you hope that by mentioning the skeptics people that want to believe you will choose you over them without thinking too hard about it.

Can you please explain this "common psychological flaw"?  Does it address the phenomenon of the ineffable and undeniable witness of the Holy Spirit?

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Right, but unless you actually point out why the skeptics are wrong, then they're probably right. 

Just acknowledging it doesn't make them wrong; it just shows that you are at least self aware enough to know how flimsy your theory is, and you hope that by mentioning the skeptics people that want to believe you will choose you over them without thinking too hard about it.

 

 

Yes, it's clear that's how skeptic see themselves.  

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Another thought: can I have my own testimony that differs from the correlated teachings of the church?

Or, is that not a real testimony?  Does testimony only refer to truths that have already been revealed to prophets?

My view on this is that testimonies MUST be unlimited on the basis of the agency to follow one's own conscience/heart. Without that, one could not find the true church in the first place, or end up in some cult based on a charismatic personality, drinking the "Kool Aid".

Suppose a false church said only their doctrine is true about certain matters.  What would be the check against that?

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

Where does Jesus praise Peter for "using the Holy Spirit as the source of his knowledge about who Jesus really is"?

I'm not trying to be condescending, but I just don't see that in Matthew 16:16-17 "And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."

Of course you don't, and that is generally true of evangelicals as well.  However, those familiar with Holy Writ know very well that it is the Holy Spirit which reveals such matters to man, and that is what Jesus is saying.   Scholars read texts as actually intended by the author.  Perhaps you could tell us your theory of how Peter's Father in Heaven revealed it to him.  Have you bothered to read the New Testament with a view to finding out what the Holy Spirit does?  That might be a good first step.

2 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

The real conundrum for LDS is the fact that nowhere in the Bible does God equate a feeling in the heart with a test of truth.  It's not there folks!

LDS must believe that moroni's promise is God's test of truth with the same blind faith for which they criticize non-members.

I note here that you do not dare to mention the Holy Spirit, which was central to Moroni's challenge.  Why are you afraid to deal with the Holy Spirit?  That is so characteristic of evangelicals when they are attacking Mormons.  They are deeply fearful of dealing with actual biblical theology.  Dr Richard Mouw, evangelical Presbyterian pastor, and former President of Fuller Theological Seminary, has said repeatedly that his fellow evangelicals have had a policy of lying about Mormons, and he has apologized for it.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, rongo said:

I was in my 2nd area on my mission for only two months. I had been put with a native German (26 years old, university degree in economics) who was almost ready to go home. I was his first junior companion, and he was tortured by doubts and testimony concerns. He was one of my favorite companions, a really hard worker, and a good senior companion. He wouldn't speak English with me, except to clarify some Beatles lyrics (  ), and my German really took off. He was constantly asking me about my testimony --- what I knew and believed, how, why, how can I say that, etc. Sincerely, not to make me doubt. It was very challenging only in German, but it helped a lot! 

The great thing about those two months is that we got let in --- a lot. He was very articulate, and a native speaker, and good with people. His only baptism occurred during that time --- a really good convert he talked to at a street display. 

An elderly couple let us in. I've never met anyone like them in my life. They belonged to no church, and were basically disciples of Paul. They only studied and cared about Paul's writings, and they had them memorized. After teaching the Joseph Smith story and the First Vision, the husband asked how he or we could be sure that it wasn't the devil deceiving him with a counterfeit vision. "Paul said that the devil can appear as an angel of light!" I tried to think of how I could respond to that, and my companion asked, "How did Paul know that his vision on the road to Damascus wasn't the devil appearing as an angel of light?" They didn't like this question, and sputtered that Paul was different --- God would not have allowed him to be deceived like that. He pressed the point, "That doesn't do us any good, though, does it? And it seems like Joseph Smith could just as easily be immune from the possibility of being deceived as Paul." They realized that it was some sort of fallacy to insist that Paul couldn't have been deceived, but everyone else could be. 

The obvious next point was to ask how *we* can know and unravel the truth of what happened in Paul, or Joseph Smith, or whoever's case. They thanked us for coming, and told us that they didn't have further interest. 

This is exactly how I find criticisms that relying on the Spirit is hopelessly unreliable. The critic trusts his own feelings with things he wants to trust them with; he just wants to deny others the possibility of being sure for themselves in their own right. 

Some great insights.  I am not surprised, by the way, that the couple was so entranced by Paul -- completely understandable.  I have even met scholars who claim that Paul revamped Christianity, turning it into something quite different than intended by Jesus.  I don't buy that, but it is a commonly held notion.

[CMZ]

20 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

The real conundrum for LDS is the fact that nowhere in the Bible does God equate a feeling in the heart with a test of truth.  It's not there folks!

Is there a requirement for it to be there?

Quote

1 Kings 19

11 And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord. And, behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake:

12 And after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.

 

Quote

Moroni 10

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

 

And Moroni doesn't even say that you'll have a feeling in your heart. He just says you will know by the power of the Holy Ghost. Is that so anti-Biblical?

Quote

Acts 2

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

 

And are you proposing another way for an individual to discern truth?

Quote

Acts 8

14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

 

For what purpose were they being given the Holy Ghost?

Quote

John 14

26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

So.... the Holy Ghost teaches one all things but we can't use it to discern truth? I'm finding the LDS teachings to be quite Biblical.

Edited May 23, 2018 by CMZ

[Marginal Gains]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

My view on this is that testimonies MUST be unlimited on the basis of the agency to follow one's own conscience/heart. Without that, one could not find the true church in the first place, or end up in some cult based on a charismatic personality, drinking the "Kool Aid".

Suppose a false church said only their doctrine is true about certain matters.  What would be the check against that?

What would be the objective indicators of a false Church (or a true one if you prefer), other than ones own internal ‘feeling’?

[CMZ]

9 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

What would be the objective indicators of a false Church (or a true one if you prefer), other than ones own internal ‘feeling’?

There's answers to this all over the place. Human intellect can do quite a bit. But it's not infallible. That's why we "study it out in [our] minds" then "ask God if it be right." Yes......... we understand that it's a process. Yes...... we understand that not every claimed spiritual experience is a real one. Yes.......... we understand that people will come along and say, "You're just trying to convince yourselves." Yes......... we understand that someone will say, "I bet you never thought you might be wrong! Did you ever think about that? Huh? Huh?"

And people can suggest alternative methods for discerning truth if they feel like it. Otherwise it just looks like cheap potshots all the time. Only tearing down and offering nothing constructive in its place. And everyone should realize that human intellect and reasoning on its own is not enough.

Edited May 23, 2018 by CMZ

[mrmarklin]

On ‎5‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 3:45 AM, Marginal Gains said:

Testimonies come by regular repitition of what you want to believe until you come to believe it.

Nice Troll.

 

But nonsense.  And not what it taught by our prophets.