How do those of other faiths gain their testimonies?

[Stargazer]

Something @Exiled said in another thread reminded me of a question I have heard from time to time.  Exiled stated:

Quote

...there is a danger that the questioner will realize that whatever good feelings one gets in the church is merely a function of belief itself and that the belief that the source of the good feelings comes from one place is really illusory and could come from almost anywhere or nowhere.  Also, good principles are had in many different places

And yes, I do realize that good principles are had in many different places -- something that LDS general authorities have also said.

The thing about "good feelings" is that, as Exiled points out, they could come from almost anywhere or nowhere.  For example, I've gotten emotional satisfaction from watching a good movie, or listening to a perfectly worldly piece of music.  I recall that a song put out by Armin van Buuren once gave me a great deal of emotional comfort after my wife had died.  These good feelings can easily be mistaken for the Spirit, and I believe they have been so mistaken by members of the LDS church, as well as, perhaps, members of other churches (or even no churches).  Now, as to me personally, and others I know and have known, the "confirmation" of the truth of Christ's Atonement, of the Book of Mormon, the truth of the LDS church, and various things in connection with these things, are a matter of something far deeper and profound than some mere "good feeling".

This leads me to a question about confirmation of truth in relation to other churches.  When it comes to Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Hindus and others, what do these people point to as confirmation of belief in their religion?  Do any of them feature anything even remotely similar to the promise in Moroni 10?  When a person investigates the Roman Catholic Church, is it suggested to him or her that he or she should pray about it and get confirmation from the Spirit?  Are those born into a Baptist denomination asked to get a testimony of the gospel by means of seeking for a confirmation of the spirit (does the "altar call" constitute the result or the cause of such?). If so, what is the nature of the confirmation?  One of my Protestant (probably Baptist) coworkers in my former place of employment once told me that he had "felt" a call to the ministry at one time, but had finally decided to disregard it. He didn't explain how the "call" manifested itself?  A voice?  A vague impression? Was it God that gave him that "call" or was it something else?  I happen to believe that the Spirit works with all men and women in the furtherance of God's work, so perhaps that "call" did come from God.  

I know that some of you don't really believe that God works with people, perhaps because variously, God doesn't exist, just sits and watches without intervening, or something else.  But what of you who do believe that God intervenes?  How do all these non-LDS faiths express certification of their basic beliefs?  I've heard many things here and there, and am hoping to get a good cross section here.  Among the things I've heard is Protestants disparaging "good feelings" as to the convincing of Jesus being the Son of God, but not really providing anything else. 

Thanks in advance for your contributions!

 

[SouthernMo]

8 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Something @Exiled said in another thread reminded me of a question I have heard from time to time.  Exiled stated:

And yes, I do realize that good principles are had in many different places -- something that LDS general authorities have also said.

The thing about "good feelings" is that, as Exiled points out, they could come from almost anywhere or nowhere.  For example, I've gotten emotional satisfaction from watching a good movie, or listening to a perfectly worldly piece of music.  I recall that a song put out by Armin van Buuren once gave me a great deal of emotional comfort after my wife had died.  These good feelings can easily be mistaken for the Spirit, and I believe they have been so mistaken by members of the LDS church, as well as, perhaps, members of other churches (or even no churches).  Now, as to me personally, and others I know and have known, the "confirmation" of the truth of Christ's Atonement, of the Book of Mormon, the truth of the LDS church, and various things in connection with these things, are a matter of something far deeper and profound than some mere "good feeling".

This leads me to a question about confirmation of truth in relation to other churches.  When it comes to Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Hindus and others, what do these people point to as confirmation of belief in their religion?  Do any of them feature anything even remotely similar to the promise in Moroni 10?  When a person investigates the Roman Catholic Church, is it suggested to him or her that he or she should pray about it and get confirmation from the Spirit?  Are those born into a Baptist denomination asked to get a testimony of the gospel by means of seeking for a confirmation of the spirit (does the "altar call" constitute the result or the cause of such?). If so, what is the nature of the confirmation?  One of my Protestant (probably Baptist) coworkers in my former place of employment once told me that he had "felt" a call to the ministry at one time, but had finally decided to disregard it. He didn't explain how the "call" manifested itself?  A voice?  A vague impression? Was it God that gave him that "call" or was it something else?  I happen to believe that the Spirit works with all men and women in the furtherance of God's work, so perhaps that "call" did come from God.  

I know that some of you don't really believe that God works with people, perhaps because variously, God doesn't exist, just sits and watches without intervening, or something else.  But what of you who do believe that God intervenes?  How do all these non-LDS faiths express certification of their basic beliefs?  I've heard many things here and there, and am hoping to get a good cross section here.  Among the things I've heard is Protestants disparaging "good feelings" as to the convincing of Jesus being the Son of God, but not really providing anything else. 

Thanks in advance for your contributions!

 

Love this topic already.  I think Mormonism is quite unique in it's appeal to personal prayer and personal revelation as it's foundation.  From my Mormon-born-and-raised perspective, I think this path to truth makes the most sense, but I realize I'm biased.  I completely understand how others can see our approach as weak - particularly because our origin story involving golden plates that are not available today to be inspected that were translated through the use of two rocks and a hat by a known treasure hunter is a pretty outlandish story on the surface.

Of course, every individual has their personal reasons for adhering to a particular faith/tradition, but generally, here is what I've found:

Catholics find comfort in tracing their authority/history/Papacy back to Peter himself.

Many Christian faiths find comfort in their faith by connecting their current beliefs and practices with bible teachings.  Of course, this is problematic because all scripture can be interpreted differently, hence the many bible-based Christian denominations.

Muslim scholars find literary and mathematical beauty in the Koran that gives strong evidence that it must have been divinely inspired - especially given the education and background of the prophet Mohammed.  The Mohammed origin story is very similar to Mormonism's Joseph Smith origins.

Judaism is a really old faith, and there is comfort finding a very clear link between the teachings and traditions of today to some of the oldest writings available on earth.

I've found both Buddhists and the Baha'i find truth in the inclusiveness and openness of the tradition.  It's beauty/truth is found in the teaching that there is room for all within it's walls.

My perspective, for what it's worth...

[CV75]

42 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Something @Exiled said in another thread reminded me of a question I have heard from time to time.  Exiled stated:

And yes, I do realize that good principles are had in many different places -- something that LDS general authorities have also said.

The thing about "good feelings" is that, as Exiled points out, they could come from almost anywhere or nowhere.  For example, I've gotten emotional satisfaction from watching a good movie, or listening to a perfectly worldly piece of music.  I recall that a song put out by Armin van Buuren once gave me a great deal of emotional comfort after my wife had died.  These good feelings can easily be mistaken for the Spirit, and I believe they have been so mistaken by members of the LDS church, as well as, perhaps, members of other churches (or even no churches).  Now, as to me personally, and others I know and have known, the "confirmation" of the truth of Christ's Atonement, of the Book of Mormon, the truth of the LDS church, and various things in connection with these things, are a matter of something far deeper and profound than some mere "good feeling".

This leads me to a question about confirmation of truth in relation to other churches.  When it comes to Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Hindus and others, what do these people point to as confirmation of belief in their religion?  Do any of them feature anything even remotely similar to the promise in Moroni 10?  When a person investigates the Roman Catholic Church, is it suggested to him or her that he or she should pray about it and get confirmation from the Spirit?  Are those born into a Baptist denomination asked to get a testimony of the gospel by means of seeking for a confirmation of the spirit (does the "altar call" constitute the result or the cause of such?). If so, what is the nature of the confirmation?  One of my Protestant (probably Baptist) coworkers in my former place of employment once told me that he had "felt" a call to the ministry at one time, but had finally decided to disregard it. He didn't explain how the "call" manifested itself?  A voice?  A vague impression? Was it God that gave him that "call" or was it something else?  I happen to believe that the Spirit works with all men and women in the furtherance of God's work, so perhaps that "call" did come from God.  

I know that some of you don't really believe that God works with people, perhaps because variously, God doesn't exist, just sits and watches without intervening, or something else.  But what of you who do believe that God intervenes?  How do all these non-LDS faiths express certification of their basic beliefs?  I've heard many things here and there, and am hoping to get a good cross section here.  Among the things I've heard is Protestants disparaging "good feelings" as to the convincing of Jesus being the Son of God, but not really providing anything else. 

Thanks in advance for your contributions!

 

I think Mosiah 29 conceptually helps with this:

  25 Therefore, choose you by the voice of this people, judges, that ye may be judged according to the laws which have been given you by our fathers, which are correct, and which were given them by the hand of the Lord.

  26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.

  27 And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.

While this is about what people decide to do as a community, it is also about what individuals decide to do on their own. The one's intentions and the discovery of oneself, God's truth and spiritual development progress along a continuum. Applying "good feelings" to "desiring things which are right to do," given the options one has, allows people to move closer and closer to a fullness of truth as they choose and are able to choose. As one becomes more like God, it doesn't matter where he begins or where is is at the moment, but that he is progressing. There is nothing wrong with good feelings, whether they are primitive intentions or confirmed and elevated by the Holy Spirit. It doesn't matter what someone thinks they are, or what he attributes them to as long as he continues to discover what they "really" are (Alma 32).

[Kevin Christensen]

Consider the sorts of things in Ninan Smart's Worldviews and Ian Barbour's Myths Models, and Paradigms.  I wrote this up to compare the kinds of things that believers cite in the context of comparative world religion, with LDS experience here:

http://oneclimbs.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/model_of_experience.pdf

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited August 20, 2018 by Kevin Christensen

[The Nehor]

My biggest comfort is that the same voice of the Spirit that confirms my faith is perfectly willing to disagree with me. That feeling of resistance is a small part of what convinces me it is real. I have met people for whom spirituality and revelation appear to just be their own thoughts and views dressed up in divine sanction. Seems like a particularly dangerous form of idolatry.

Then again I might just be arrogant and way too judgmental of others.

[Storm Rider]

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Something @Exiled said in another thread reminded me of a question I have heard from time to time.  Exiled stated:

And yes, I do realize that good principles are had in many different places -- something that LDS general authorities have also said.

The thing about "good feelings" is that, as Exiled points out, they could come from almost anywhere or nowhere.  For example, I've gotten emotional satisfaction from watching a good movie, or listening to a perfectly worldly piece of music.  I recall that a song put out by Armin van Buuren once gave me a great deal of emotional comfort after my wife had died.  These good feelings can easily be mistaken for the Spirit, and I believe they have been so mistaken by members of the LDS church, as well as, perhaps, members of other churches (or even no churches).  Now, as to me personally, and others I know and have known, the "confirmation" of the truth of Christ's Atonement, of the Book of Mormon, the truth of the LDS church, and various things in connection with these things, are a matter of something far deeper and profound than some mere "good feeling".

This leads me to a question about confirmation of truth in relation to other churches.  When it comes to Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Hindus and others, what do these people point to as confirmation of belief in their religion?  Do any of them feature anything even remotely similar to the promise in Moroni 10?  When a person investigates the Roman Catholic Church, is it suggested to him or her that he or she should pray about it and get confirmation from the Spirit?  Are those born into a Baptist denomination asked to get a testimony of the gospel by means of seeking for a confirmation of the spirit (does the "altar call" constitute the result or the cause of such?). If so, what is the nature of the confirmation?  One of my Protestant (probably Baptist) coworkers in my former place of employment once told me that he had "felt" a call to the ministry at one time, but had finally decided to disregard it. He didn't explain how the "call" manifested itself?  A voice?  A vague impression? Was it God that gave him that "call" or was it something else?  I happen to believe that the Spirit works with all men and women in the furtherance of God's work, so perhaps that "call" did come from God.  

I know that some of you don't really believe that God works with people, perhaps because variously, God doesn't exist, just sits and watches without intervening, or something else.  But what of you who do believe that God intervenes?  How do all these non-LDS faiths express certification of their basic beliefs?  I've heard many things here and there, and am hoping to get a good cross section here.  Among the things I've heard is Protestants disparaging "good feelings" as to the convincing of Jesus being the Son of God, but not really providing anything else. 

Thanks in advance for your contributions!

 

Exiled style of questioning or making statements is sophistry. On this topic, we need to be both clear and careful which words are used. When we see a good movie and feel good afterward - those feelings are feelings of pleasure and have no correlation to the feelings the disciples of Christ on the road to Emmaus described as a burning in the bosom. 

Members of faith all over the world receive confirmation of truth by the same Spirit of Truth that we do. This has been taught to us by the prophets for generations and is not a surprise. As a Church, as disciples of Jesus Christ, we are seekers after truth and we claim it as ours wherever we find it. 

The Catholic Church takes a different tack in their teaching process. They attempt to use both Reason and Faith; this is the Church founded by Peter and remains unto this day. They rely heavily on the that proposed rock and the promise that nothing would ever overcome it. It does not come close to saying, "Read it, pray about it and let the Spirit guide". 

God is teaching all seekers of truth. I believe that where humans fall short (one of the many) is that we are not as interested in finding the truth as we are finding what is comfortable to us. I am a very great fan of Catholicism and find more truth there than I find in all of the other faiths, churches, or belief systems. I admire a great deal about Islam. I find the majority of Christian churches to be Jesus-lite or just lite. However, I know that individuals find comfort in each of them. 

I find the argument that because some truth is found elsewhere and that people hold it dear and find comfort that we are then faced with a conundrum and challenge. If there is one source of truth in the world then all truth comes from him. It might get watered down and mingled with a great many teachings of men, but there is still some truth. This fact in no way affects the reality of the Restoration, the fulness of the gospel of Exaltation, or even that these other groups have things to teach LDS. 

[Stargazer]

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

My biggest comfort is that the same voice of the Spirit that confirms my faith is perfectly willing to disagree with me.

Yes, I'd say that is true for me, too.

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That feeling of resistance is a small part of what convinces me it is real.

Some of my most dramatic spiritual experiences were answers to prayers that were unexpected -- meaning that if I had been answering my own prayer, it would have been quite different from what was received.  And there were a few experiences that were not in response to prayer, that came in "over the transom' as it were, unexpectedly, with unexpected content.

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I have met people for whom spirituality and revelation appear to just be their own thoughts and views dressed up in divine sanction. Seems like a particularly dangerous form of idolatry.

Then again I might just be arrogant and way too judgmental of others.

Perish the thought!

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Something @Exiled said in another thread reminded me of a question I have heard from time to time.  Exiled stated:

And yes, I do realize that good principles are had in many different places -- something that LDS general authorities have also said.

The thing about "good feelings" is that, as Exiled points out, they could come from almost anywhere or nowhere.  For example, I've gotten emotional satisfaction from watching a good movie, or listening to a perfectly worldly piece of music.  I recall that a song put out by Armin van Buuren once gave me a great deal of emotional comfort after my wife had died.  These good feelings can easily be mistaken for the Spirit, and I believe they have been so mistaken by members of the LDS church, as well as, perhaps, members of other churches (or even no churches).  Now, as to me personally, and others I know and have known, the "confirmation" of the truth of Christ's Atonement, of the Book of Mormon, the truth of the LDS church, and various things in connection with these things, are a matter of something far deeper and profound than some mere "good feeling".

This leads me to a question about confirmation of truth in relation to other churches.  When it comes to Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Hindus and others, what do these people point to as confirmation of belief in their religion?  Do any of them feature anything even remotely similar to the promise in Moroni 10?  When a person investigates the Roman Catholic Church, is it suggested to him or her that he or she should pray about it and get confirmation from the Spirit?  Are those born into a Baptist denomination asked to get a testimony of the gospel by means of seeking for a confirmation of the spirit (does the "altar call" constitute the result or the cause of such?). If so, what is the nature of the confirmation?  One of my Protestant (probably Baptist) coworkers in my former place of employment once told me that he had "felt" a call to the ministry at one time, but had finally decided to disregard it. He didn't explain how the "call" manifested itself?  A voice?  A vague impression? Was it God that gave him that "call" or was it something else?  I happen to believe that the Spirit works with all men and women in the furtherance of God's work, so perhaps that "call" did come from God.  

I know that some of you don't really believe that God works with people, perhaps because variously, God doesn't exist, just sits and watches without intervening, or something else.  But what of you who do believe that God intervenes?  How do all these non-LDS faiths express certification of their basic beliefs?  I've heard many things here and there, and am hoping to get a good cross section here.  Among the things I've heard is Protestants disparaging "good feelings" as to the convincing of Jesus being the Son of God, but not really providing anything else. 

Thanks in advance for your contributions!

 

The problem here is the assumption  that  there is  one perfect path for each individual human to FIND GOD'S TRUTH.  BUT there is a difference between the TRUTH and how one FINDS it.

The problem is the belief that everyone should have the same path- read Moroni and Alma, get zapped and baptized and if that doesn't work there is something wrong with THEM.

There is a difference between the path to the truth and the truth, or the method to get the truth vs the truth to be found.

The problem is not "what is the BEST ANSWER- we already know what that is = (LDS).  And I think I can back that up pragmatically but that would take another thread or at least a book for you all to buy. 

The question AT FIRST is not what the ultimate "answer" is but HOW to GET there.  It is a question of methodology to FIND the truth.  Now I have said it at least four times. 

God teaches us individually the right PATH for us to follow because he knows us individually.  If you are an alcoholic on skid row, he might confirm to you individually that the Salvation Army (actually a Protestant Denomination) is the best PATH available to you to find Christ.   If you are a pantheist in the Arabian desert he might teach you that Islam is the right path for you to at least learn about "one God" to whom you can actually pray.

If you are an atheist maybe any teaching that gives you purpose in life which is non-falsifiable will advance your understanding that positivism is dead and that the "importance" of anything in life cannot be proven empirically.  Even a secular religion of a life dedicated to "save the whales" is- in my opinion- better than a life without understanding that we all need a higher purpose to have a fulfilled life.   So yes- God might inspire you to live for saving the whales if that is the only thing that reaches you.

But at least you will learn that it is ok to believe in non-empirical data ("that whales SHOULD be "saved") to give your life a purpose.  At least you will have the idea that faith in action leads to "salvation" even if you are "only" saving whales.

So the presumption that if I find Islam and am convinced that "God told me to become a Muslim" is WRONG could well be itself WRONG,  if God genuinely led you there as a true step to your path in development.

So if someone tells me God told them to wash dishes for a living or join a cult- who am I to say that that is NOT God showing them what they need to learn?

Perhaps even that it is the WRONG path  and stop doing that?

As one who has been through at least 4 religions - including Atheistic Maoist Communism- (in which one could literally die for being not 'politically correct' and therefore a traitor to the cause) which I believed "religiously"- and now been LDS for about 40 years that was the way it was for me.  I needed each step to get here.

But here I am.   And besides after I die who knows - maybe I will convert on the other side?! We are the only faith  I know of which believes that is theoretically possible.

You pick up truths along the side of the road, put them in your pack,  and keep on walking the direction God is teaching you at the moment.  Who knows what He has in store for you?

The journey continues.... 

 

Edited August 15, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

On 8/15/2018 at 6:26 AM, Stargazer said:

...................................

The thing about "good feelings" is that, as Exiled points out, they could come from almost anywhere or nowhere.  For example, I've gotten emotional satisfaction from watching a good movie, or listening to a perfectly worldly piece of music.  I recall that a song put out by Armin van Buuren once gave me a great deal of emotional comfort after my wife had died.  These good feelings can easily be mistaken for the Spirit, and I believe they have been so mistaken by members of the LDS church, as well as, perhaps, members of other churches (or even no churches).  Now, as to me personally, and others I know and have known, the "confirmation" of the truth of Christ's Atonement, of the Book of Mormon, the truth of the LDS church, and various things in connection with these things, are a matter of something far deeper and profound than some mere "good feeling".

This leads me to a question about confirmation of truth in relation to other churches.  When it comes to Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Hindus and others, what do these people point to as confirmation of belief in their religion?  Do any of them feature anything even remotely similar to the promise in Moroni 10?  When a person investigates the Roman Catholic Church, is it suggested to him or her that he or she should pray about it and get confirmation from the Spirit?  Are those born into a Baptist denomination asked to get a testimony of the gospel by means of seeking for a confirmation of the spirit (does the "altar call" constitute the result or the cause of such?). If so, what is the nature of the confirmation?  One of my Protestant (probably Baptist) coworkers in my former place of employment once told me that he had "felt" a call to the ministry at one time, but had finally decided to disregard it. He didn't explain how the "call" manifested itself?  A voice?  A vague impression? Was it God that gave him that "call" or was it something else?  I happen to believe that the Spirit works with all men and women in the furtherance of God's work, so perhaps that "call" did come from God. 

Mormon epistemology is not restricted to James 1:5 and Moroni 10, but may find a more dependable and systematic method of knowing in Alma 32:26-43 -- the experimental method.  You'll have to find an Arhat to explain how one becomes enlightened enough to find nirvana.

Quote

.................... But what of you who do believe that God intervenes?  How do all these non-LDS faiths express certification of their basic beliefs?  I've heard many things here and there, and am hoping to get a good cross section here.  Among the things I've heard is Protestants disparaging "good feelings" as to the convincing of Jesus being the Son of God, but not really providing anything else. ......................

I have found that mainline Protestants and Evangelicals will only demean the Holy Spirit and spiritual feelings when conversing with Mormons.  Among themselves they are willing to allow the influence of the Holy Spirit, whether it is a "calling" they feel, or a feeling that they have been "saved."  What they truly fear is being associated with the extremism of the Pentecostals (Holy Rollers).   As with their blind admiration of Trump, their ethics are highly situational.

However, as evangelical scholar William Lane Craig himself observes of his own personal saving experience, his teenage "spiritual rebirth,"

Quote

I still think this experiential approach to the resurrection is a perfectly valid way to knowing that Christ has risen.  It's the way that most Christians today know that Jesus is risen and alive.^[1]

---

^[1] "Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?" A Debate between William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman at College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, Massachusetts, March 28, 2006, online at http://www.bartdehrman.com/pdf/resurrection_debate.pdf .

 

Edited August 17, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[Gray]

Most conversion stories I've heard sound very similar, across different faiths. However, the read and pray method for sparking the conversion seems to be mostly limited to the various Mormon denominations.

Edited August 16, 2018 by Gray

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Most conversion stories I've heard sound very similar, across different faiths. However, the read and pray method for sparking the conversion seems to be mostly limited to the various Mormon denominations.

I think there's an element of similarity although the formal theologies (or equivalent) often are at odds with how laity view such things. Mormons don't have trouble with that I should add. In many ways Mormonism is somewhat a formalization of folk theology and spiritualism that was at odds with formal theology in the western Christian tradition. So the traditional folk views of ghosts and so forth are embraced for instance.

[Exiled]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Mormon epistemology is not restricted to James 1:5 and Moroni 10, but may find a more dependable and systematic method of knowing in Alma 32:26-43 -- the experimental method.  You'll have to find an Arhat to explain how one becomes enlightened enough to find nirvana.

I have found that mainline Protestants and Evangelicals will only demean the Holy Spirit and spiritual feelings when conversing with Mormons.  Among themselves they are willing to allow the influence of the Holy Spirit, whether it is a "calling" they feel, or a feeling that they have been "saved."  What they truly fear is being associated with the extremism of the Pentecostals (Holy Rollers).   As with their blind admiration of Trump, their ethics are highly situational.

However, as evangelical scholar William Lane Craig himself observes of his own personal saving experience, his teenage "spiritual rebirth,"

 

How does one apply Alma 32 without assuming some conclusion? Planting the mormon seed means living morminism, which isn't much different than living like any other religious person, all seek to treat others fairly and serve others. So, when the principles of mormonism lead to a "good" life, whatever that means, how can one be sure that the growth isn't just coming from something generic to all religion? The good comes from the principles that any worthy system provides. So, how does one make the leap to fielty to mormon authority? It seems one needs to assume only mormonism provides the good times in order for this to work.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

Most conversion stories I've heard sound very similar, across different faiths. However, the read and pray method for sparking the conversion seems to be mostly limited to the various Mormon denominations.

Most Protestants (especially Evangelicals) put great stock in the Word of God (the Bible), and make it their prime source of knowledge about God and His Church.  So reading is not at issue.  Sola scriptura is central to them.  They may not explicitly advise their fellow Protestants to pray about whether that Scripture is true, because that is an unstated assumption which goes along with being Protestant.  However, they do pray frequently in praise of God/Lord Jesus, and in thanksgiving for his grace -- as should we all.  And, when going forward to be "saved" following a sermon (by Billy Graham or other revivalist), they certainly pray, and are assisted in prayer.  This is a moment of conversion for many of them, and it is undeniable that the Holy Spirit is the key influence in that act, even if he is unacknowledged -- as William Lane Craig pointed out.  The only time they vociferously deny that fact is in conversation with Mormons.

Edited August 16, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[The Nehor]

Presumably other faiths get testimonies via satanic rites or through ouija boards or something.

[Robert F. Smith]

Here are some Protestants who claim to have been spoken to by the Spirit, by an angel, and directly by God:

 

[BonhoefferFan]

On 8/15/2018 at 2:26 PM, Stargazer said:

@Exiled

When it comes to Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Hindus and others, what do these people point to as confirmation of belief in their religion? 

It probably varies as much as it does to Mormons.  There is a whole spectrum of experiences and practices that validate and cement religious beliefs.  Paul was struck down by the Risen Christ, not like Moroni at all.  But in the end the experiences are relatively similar, even if the belief structure is different. 

[Exiled]

On 8/17/2018 at 7:35 AM, The Nehor said:

Presumably other faiths get testimonies via satanic rites or through ouija boards or something.

Haha. At times I was persuaded this was how it really worked with those other people.

[Exiled]

On 8/16/2018 at 9:52 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Most Protestants (especially Evangelicals) put great stock in the Word of God (the Bible), and make it their prime source of knowledge about God and His Church.  So reading is not at issue.  Sola scriptura is central to them.  They may not explicitly advise their fellow Protestants to pray about whether that Scripture is true, because that is an unstated assumption which goes along with being Protestant.  However, they do pray frequently in praise of God/Lord Jesus, and in thanksgiving for his grace -- as should we all.  And, when going forward to be "saved" following a sermon (by Billy Graham or other revivalist), they certainly pray, and are assisted in prayer.  This is a moment of conversion for many of them, and it is undeniable that the Holy Spirit is the key influence in that act, even if he is unacknowledged -- as William Lane Craig pointed out.  The only time they vociferously deny that fact is in conversation with Mormons.

Perhaps some retrenchment is going on due to the implicit claim by the church and sometimes explicit claim to having a monopoly on authority? Evangelical Christianity seems more group oriented, having many flavors under the Christian umbrella.

Edited August 19, 2018 by Exiled

[mfbukowski]

19 hours ago, Exiled said:

Haha. At times I was persuaded this was how it really worked with those other people.

It was!

It was your version of reality that changed.

 You can't prove either one is right.

 

Edited August 20, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

19 hours ago, Exiled said:

Perhaps some retrenchment is going on due to the implicit claim by the church and sometimes explicit claim to having a monopoly on authority? Evangelical Christianity seems more group oriented, having many flavors under the Christian umbrella.

Authority is always real if you accept it.

 You accept the reality that that person or organization has Authority, and then it does.

Magic!

If your group has Authority then by definition the others don't. Simple as that!

Edited August 20, 2018 by mfbukowski

[hope_for_things]

On 8/15/2018 at 6:26 AM, Stargazer said:

Something @Exiled said in another thread reminded me of a question I have heard from time to time.  Exiled stated:

And yes, I do realize that good principles are had in many different places -- something that LDS general authorities have also said.

The thing about "good feelings" is that, as Exiled points out, they could come from almost anywhere or nowhere.  For example, I've gotten emotional satisfaction from watching a good movie, or listening to a perfectly worldly piece of music.  I recall that a song put out by Armin van Buuren once gave me a great deal of emotional comfort after my wife had died.  These good feelings can easily be mistaken for the Spirit, and I believe they have been so mistaken by members of the LDS church, as well as, perhaps, members of other churches (or even no churches).  Now, as to me personally, and others I know and have known, the "confirmation" of the truth of Christ's Atonement, of the Book of Mormon, the truth of the LDS church, and various things in connection with these things, are a matter of something far deeper and profound than some mere "good feeling".

This leads me to a question about confirmation of truth in relation to other churches.  When it comes to Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Hindus and others, what do these people point to as confirmation of belief in their religion?  Do any of them feature anything even remotely similar to the promise in Moroni 10?  When a person investigates the Roman Catholic Church, is it suggested to him or her that he or she should pray about it and get confirmation from the Spirit?  Are those born into a Baptist denomination asked to get a testimony of the gospel by means of seeking for a confirmation of the spirit (does the "altar call" constitute the result or the cause of such?). If so, what is the nature of the confirmation?  One of my Protestant (probably Baptist) coworkers in my former place of employment once told me that he had "felt" a call to the ministry at one time, but had finally decided to disregard it. He didn't explain how the "call" manifested itself?  A voice?  A vague impression? Was it God that gave him that "call" or was it something else?  I happen to believe that the Spirit works with all men and women in the furtherance of God's work, so perhaps that "call" did come from God.  

I know that some of you don't really believe that God works with people, perhaps because variously, God doesn't exist, just sits and watches without intervening, or something else.  But what of you who do believe that God intervenes?  How do all these non-LDS faiths express certification of their basic beliefs?  I've heard many things here and there, and am hoping to get a good cross section here.  Among the things I've heard is Protestants disparaging "good feelings" as to the convincing of Jesus being the Son of God, but not really providing anything else. 

Thanks in advance for your contributions!

 

Thanks good topic, I think this is important.  What you're describing is a great illustration of why its problematic for any church to claim exclusive authority.  When it comes right down to it, all religious experiences are individual and subjective.  There haven't been any objective sightings of a deity, or objective actions by a deity that preference one group or individual over another.  So it all boils down to feelings at the end of the day. 

Those feelings are an important part of the experience of life, so just to be clear, I'm not diminishing these experiences.  But its really a lot like how someone feels about another person they fall in love with.  For them, that person is the "one true" love to have a relationship with.  These relationships are true in a very real sense for the participants.  As we know, people change and love changes sometimes as well, and some people get divorced and end those relationships because they are no longer in a true relationship for the participants.  

So just like love can be true and beautiful for some people who are compatible, it can be false and ugly for others.  This is exactly like the church relationship.  The Mormon church or any other church can be true for someone in the same way a relationship of love can be true.  That varies by person and varies by circumstance.  

 

[LoudmouthMormon]

Many other faiths don't really have much in the way of some sort of spiritual confirmation.  You tend to be Jewish because your mother was.  You tend to be a Muslim because of your culture, or you're attracted to it's tenets.  When I talk to other Christians about why they're Christian, I hear much about the persuasive power of the Bible to explain things, or how coming unto Christ has been a freeing wonderful thing - a list of blessings that have come as a result of your choice, or a sense of duty born of worldly perspective.  You start asking folks "how do you know God exists", and you don't hear much testimony-esque stuff from non-CoJCoLDS folks.

[Kevin Christensen]

22 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks good topic, I think this is important.  What you're describing is a great illustration of why its problematic for any church to claim exclusive authority.  When it comes right down to it, all religious experiences are individual and subjective.  There haven't been any objective sightings of a deity, or objective actions by a deity that preference one group or individual over another.  So it all boils down to feelings at the end of the day. 

Those feelings are an important part of the experience of life, so just to be clear, I'm not diminishing these experiences.  But its really a lot like how someone feels about another person they fall in love with.  For them, that person is the "one true" love to have a relationship with.  These relationships are true in a very real sense for the participants.  As we know, people change and love changes sometimes as well, and some people get divorced and end those relationships because they are no longer in a true relationship for the participants.  

So just like love can be true and beautiful for some people who are compatible, it can be false and ugly for others.  This is exactly like the church relationship.  The Mormon church or any other church can be true for someone in the same way a relationship of love can be true.  That varies by person and varies by circumstance.  

 

Not all religious experiences are individual.  Some very important experiences are social and/or ritual. For example, the stories of the Book of Mormon Witnesses were social, as are several New Testament accounts, and some other stories like Fatima and elsewhere.   Participation in church meetings, or service projects, or simple service can be profoundly spiritual with both an experimental and social dimension.  Some of my most profound experiences have been social, where I have felt and experienced spiritually charged events in the company of my wife, or during blessings, or in meetings I have attended. 

And there is the problem of positivism in deciding how to value reports of religious experience like the Book of Mormon, which is not a completely subjective phenomena.

Plus, religious experience not all reducible to "feelings."  Feelings are important, yes, but that does not mean that our brains don't also consider thinking experiences as important.

Quote

If the kinds of basic experience that underlie religious belief can be approached without reference to any particular doctrinal interpretation, Ian Barbour suggests that such experiences can serve as a common ground for discussion, a place of solid footing, a point of little disputed reference from which to examine the varied interpretations and traditions. Those that I see as most interesting (generally following Barbour¹¹⁰) can be seen as generally framing a movement:

(a) From responses to external impressions regarding:

• Order and creativity in the world
• The common mythic symbols and patterns underlying most religious traditions¹¹¹
• Key historical events that define separate traditions and bind individuals

(b) Through the innermost experiences of the individual:

• Numinous awe and reverence
• Mystical union
• Moral obligation
• Reorientation and Reconciliation with respect to personal sin, guilt, and weakness, the existence of evil, suffering, and death, and tensions between science and faith.

(c) Then returning to the external world as human action:

• Interpersonal dialogue, in which you begin interpret external events as God speaking to you, and you answer through your own actions.
• Social and Ritual behavior

These matters cannot objectively prove the existence of a God (whether personal or impersonal), but, as I hope to demonstrate, they do constitute the core of religious experience for believers of all faiths. They provide the ground of experience on which reasoned and feeling assessments of the validity and worth of faith are based. They encompass the ways in which spirituality is manifest in history and symbol. They are the wine—and doctrine the wine-bottles. To argue and contend about doctrine rather than these kinds of experience is to emphasize the wine skin over the wine. In Alma’s terms, it is to emphasize what you think you “know” over what ultimately gives “cause to believe” (Alma 32:18).

https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/

I also used this line of thought in the "A Model of Mormon Spiritual Experience" essay that I linked in my previous post in this thread, though the "Model" essay goes into much more detail  The last part of that essay includes an extensive survey of scriptural passages that describe spiritual experience.  While several refer to feelings, an equal number refer to thinking experiences such as "enlightenment" "good judgement", "understanding", the observable results of "experiments" upon the word.  A worthwhile experiment might be to check out the list of references to see exactly what I am talking about.

I notice that what Ian Barbour calls "Reorientation and Reconciliation" neatly combines thinking and feeling.  That is, reorientation is a change of thinking, just as "reconciliation" is a change in feeling.  They ought to go together in the end, even though, one may precede and motivate work on the other.  Individuals might prefer to rely on one or the other more, and this would be in keeping with Myers-Briggs Type preference for T or F.  (I'm INFP but that does not mean that I never think.)

And some aspects of personal relationships are not just a matter of personal chemistry or compatibility, and completely un-removed from desirable standards of personal behavior and character.  For instance, it has been observed that for marriages to succeed, the ratio positive verbal comments to critical remarks should be at least 5 to 1.  And even such things has mutual physical attraction can be over-balanced by physical and emotional abuse, or infidelity, or political or spiritual incompatibility, or conflicts between music preferences, or obsession with work, hobbies, outside friends, etc.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Authority is always real if you accept it.

 You accept the reality that that person or organization has Authority, and then it does.

Magic!

If your group has Authority then by definition the others don't. Simple as that!

It's funny you say this as I was thinking about the proper response to the child interviews question and church authority. The church only has the authority we give it, as you say, so parents should simply refuse the bishops these interviews and take back their control over their children and this ought to be the message of the hunger strike.

[hope_for_things]

46 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Not all religious experiences are individual.  Some very important experiences are social and/or ritual. For example, the stories of the Book of Mormon Witnesses were social, as are several New Testament accounts, and some other stories like Fatima and elsewhere.   Participation in church meetings, or service projects, or simple service can be profoundly spiritual with both an experimental and social dimension.  Some of my most profound experiences have been social, where I have felt and experienced spiritually charged events in the company of my wife, or during blessings, or in meetings I have attended. 

And there is the problem of positivism in deciding how to value reports of religious experience like the Book of Mormon, which is not a completely subjective phenomena.

Plus, religious experience not all reducible to "feelings."  Feelings are important, yes, but that does not mean that our brains don't also consider thinking experiences as important.

But each individual in those group examples that you've given has a different and unique subjective interpretation and relationship to the experience.  The event happened in a group setting, but the meaning of the event is unique and individual.  That is essentially all I'm saying.  I too have had profound experiences in group settings.  

Can you elaborate on why the experiences people have while reading a religious text, like the BoM aren't completely subjective phenomena?  

As for feelings and thinking, I'm not making a distinction between the two.  Its all interconnected through our senses and our conscious and subconscious thought processes.  I don't know where one ends and the other begins, but that is all part of what I'm talking about when I say "feelings". 

46 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

These matters cannot objectively prove the existence of a God (whether personal or impersonal), but, as I hope to demonstrate, they do constitute the core of religious experience for believers of all faiths. They provide the ground of experience on which reasoned and feeling assessments of the validity and worth of faith are based. They encompass the ways in which spirituality is manifest in history and symbol. They are the wine—and doctrine the wine-bottles. To argue and contend about doctrine rather than these kinds of experience is to emphasize the wine skin over the wine. In Alma’s terms, it is to emphasize what you think you “know” over what ultimately gives “cause to believe” (Alma 32:18).

Thanks for the link, I didn't read the older posts in the thread yet, so I appreciate you re-linking this one.  It sounds interesting.  It also sounds like the author is attempting to point to common threads in thinking/feeling, but not to "objectively prove the existence of a God", so in that sense agrees with what I was saying.  Its interesting though, if we can't "objectively prove the existence of a God", why the correlated & orthodox Mormon position seems so oriented towards this way of thinking.  I could get along much better in Mormonism if it evolved to a post proof paradigm.  

Edited August 20, 2018 by hope_for_things