Does the “study it out in your mind” principle apply when determining the truthfulness of the church?

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This concept is foreign to me. Does it apply to other things or just the Church if Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? 

Does it take a PhD to determine Scientology is not true? A PhD to determine the earth is round? A PhD to determine vaccinations are good? Does it take a PhD to decide the germ therory of disease is correct? What makes the church different?

If you’ll recall, 10THAmendment asked some heavy questions:

Quote

Does the “study it out in your mind” principle apply when determining the truthfulness of the church?

Or is it more for temporal topics of concern? Should investigators be encouraged to study church history and then ask God if the conclusions they draw are correct?

Should we both study the BOM and the historical background of its creation? Should we study the origins of the BoA, temple ceremony, how polygamy was lived when determining whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet?

One has to note that you ignored the context of the OP when posing your question for me, an immediate anti-intellectual approach, which indicates all the more why I replied as I did.  Scholarly questions cannot be addressed by greenies, nor even by experienced LDS missionaries.  That is not their purpose, in any case.

Naturally, if one places all those questions in the OP on a par with studying the foundations of the Flat Earth Society or Scientology, it may seem that no actual intellect is required, but 10THAmendment may not have had such an easy task in mind.  What would you recommend to him in answer to his actual questions?

Edited April 28, 2019 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

Studying it out in your mind is of course part of determining whether the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is ¨true¨ or not. If it were not, then missionaries could simply say ¨Hello, we´re missionaries from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, please pray to God to know if it is His authorized church or not and then contact us and let us know if he tells you it is.¨ Anything more than this (like the missionary lessons) are things that you are more or less studying out in your mind.

So should you study out more than the missionary lessons?

Absolutely!

1) they are ¨selling¨ something; they aren´t presenting this info in order for you to say no, they want you to say yes - their presentation is affected by this desire. Do you take the Chevy dealer´s word for it when they are selling you a Chevy?

Looking under the hood is always a good idea.  One might also want to take the car to a favorite, trusted auto mechanic for examination and advice.  It could be a lemon.  However, precisely the same rules apply to Jesus Himself, and to his Apostles.  They are "selling" the Gospel, to use your crass terminology, even though the evangelists themselves never said that.  Jesus and his messengers instead claimed that they were bringing spiritual food and drink which had no price.  They preached the holy word of God, and the good news of Christ.  All LDS missionaries (male and female) are official ministers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, obeying the Savior's Great Commission. 

Quote

2) they are only new adults, they are little more than regurgitating what they either only just learned themselves or the only thing they have ever been raised with; don´t assume they really know what they are talking about.

True enough, but all the more reason to depend upon the Holy Spirit of truth.  Cheapening the kerygma by declaring the ignorance of those preaching the Gospel seems more like an attack on Jesus Himself.

Quote

3) their argument from Moroni´s Challenge is a non-sequitur - you can take this as enough to disqualify their church or you can use it as reason to consider more than just what they are offering.

The NT declares that the word of God is best understood through the same Spirit which gave it, and that is the Holy Spirit of God, which supersedes any and all authority, tradition, or magisterium.  However, there are other means by which to know truth, and Alma 32 in the BofM affords an experimental method, and scholars can certainly do whatever they like in bringing science and reason to bear.

Quote

4) if the Book of Mormon was written, preserved, and translated miraculously to show the Restoration of God´s authorized/true church, then the whole book should be read before full commitment. [Even after indicating some of my issues with their claims, one missionary actually asked me to read one particular chapter and then pray whether the LDS Church was true! - I could have written off the whole religion for an official representative´s hubris or I could write it off on his youth.]

5) Are the members nice? So are con-men and atheists.

6) Do they do good works? So does almost every other religious group. Pretty buildings? Ditto. Inspiring religious texts and messages? Ditto.

All the more reason to depend upon the Holy Spirit.  Liars, cheats, and thieves abound.  Everyone is on the make.  Who can you trust?  That is why Joseph Smith followed sage advice in James 1:5 to take his inquiry to God.

Quote

-You can and should study it out in your mind while praying to God to bring you to the truth of the matter. You don´t have to do just one or the other (to do so would be silly, especially on one of the most important issues of your life - if you do, you´ve earned your error).

Finally, if you are serious about Ultimate Truth and how it should effect every part of your life, then, of course, do much more than any other important decision you make: more than deciding what apartment to rent, what house to buy, what college to go to, what major/career to seek, who to marry, etc. Many of these issues get study and prayer all the time - no need to just do one of the two. Why should a much more important issue get any less? To do less is to disrespect your most important decision.

Certainly good advice, Joshua.  The question in the OP was how far does one need to go in that (or any other) endeavor?  Naturally, if the Holy Spirit is regarded as the foundation of fairy faith, and cannot stand on its own, then other means must be employed.  I see no problem with that.  You are in good company.

Edited April 28, 2019 by Robert F. Smith

[3DOP]

3 hours ago, TOmNossor said:

I can tell you that “to determine vaccinations are good” or “to decide the germ theory of disease is correct” takes either a PhD or faith in (acceptance of / deference to) the scientific consensus.  To suggest otherwise is to misunderstand epistemology and/or history.

A testimony is SUBJECTIVE evidence of the truth of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  We trust SUBJECTIVE evidence everyday for all kinds of stuff.  Furthermore, I would suggest when it comes to divine questions, evidence from prayer is particularly germane.

To evaluate the OBJECTIVE evidence concerning the truth claims of the Church does in fact require years of study, complicated by the radical polarization in the source material (there is no such thing as unbiased reporting, but there are more and less biased sources and most material on the CoJCoLDS is in the more biased category).  This volume of study if applied to achieving a PhD would achieve a PhD, so yes Robert Smith’s comment is correct.

I do not know much about Scientology, but I have been studying Catholicism for more than 25 years.  The OBJECTIVE reason I am not a Catholic is because I cannot explain the OBJECTIVE evidence associated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints without appealing to the supernatural.  Now, if you randomly picked 25 Catholics, I am quite certain I could provide >20 of them objective evidence that something they thought was true of Catholicism was in fact not true (and I think it likely for all 25).  But, there are Catholics who know all and more PROBLEMS with Catholicism than I do and are rationally Catholic.  I could not prove with OBJECTIVE evidence that the Pope is not the Vicar of Christ (and if the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, we should all be Catholic).

I wish LDS who discover true things about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would believe the true things and not reject the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS.  “May we all become disillusioned because who would want to be illusioned.”

Charity, TOm

Hey Tom,

You might know that I entertain the probability, or even certainty that Joseph Smith could not have produced the Book of Mormon by himself. Since 2004 when I came here, I have never proposed a naturalistic explanation for the Book of Mormon. I don't have one. My position is that if the Catholic Church is true, that non-Catholic religions are all to one degree or other demonic. From what I understand, Joseph dabbled in occult practices prior to the writing of the Book of Mormon. This would make it seem even more likely that there appeared to him a demon disguised as an "angel of light". It has never been the devil's final goal to make people drunk or mean, if while being sober and nice, there is a way to prevent them from receiving eternal life. This is why I can't buy into that saying of those who say "Joseph couldn't do it, and the devil wouldn't do it." I think Satan loves that saying! It doesn't properly deal with plausible demonic motives for why the devil might approve of religions that result in common decency and upright behaviors. He knows that we must be elevated supernaturally beyond that to enjoy the beatific vision. He also knows that Holy Communion is the ordinary way of supernatural sanctification, and if that can be avoided at all costs, the Evil One has won a great victory.

If Catholics receive the True Bread of Heaven, the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist, the devil will propose anything to prevent the deification that takes place when well-disposed souls receive the same Jesus Christ who suffered, died, was resurrected, and ascended to the Father, in to their souls and bodies. If this same Jesus lies hidden in our tabernacles and He is truly Present to Catholic faithful who adore their God under the appearance of bread and wine, it makes a reason for why the devil might be the author of the Book of Mormon. Satan doesn't mind our being faithful to our spouses, and avoiding all of the other filth and sin that he uses to entrap other souls if we don't receive Jesus Christ, sacramentally present in the Holy Eucharist. The devil is a cunning spirit that makes souls think that when a religion makes good parents, and good spouses, filled with natural goodness and hospitality, confident that they are not missing anything by being deprived of the sacraments and ministries of the Catholic and Apostolic Church. This is how this Catholic necessarily perceives Latter-day Christianity. It doesn't mean I think LDS or their founder love the devil. There are many strategies for luring souls away from the true faith. Mormonism is one of the most admirable in the sense that it is used on people who have a sense of natural decency and dignity and who make excellent neighbors and fellow citizens.

"Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you." (Jn. 6:54) For a believing Catholic, this is why it is no surprise at all to me if "Joseph couldn't do it" (write the Book of Mormon). It is completely credible, knowing what non-Catholics are being deprived of, for a believing Catholic to believe that the devil would eagerly do it.

Rory

Edited April 28, 2019 by 3DOP

[Joshua Valentine]

5 hours ago, changed said:

To some he gave prophets, to others evangelists, to some he gave Muhammad, to others he gave Buddah, and to some he gave Joseph.   There are incredible lessons within all the different groups - I could not believe in a loving God if I believed only one group was chosen, special, loved.  I hope God loves and guides everyone.  

The hardest think for me to know is knowing where I'm supposed to be, what to do, how to fit into and belong to any one group without putting others down, without pride, without divisions.

 

4 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Really a good statement of your situation; thank you for sharing that. You appear to be able to respect that God has given a plethora of paths to his children and each has differing degrees of truth. Simultaneously, you have an inability to choose between any of them for fear of being seen as someone who has made a decision for themselves and their family. Do you see the conflict there?  How does having made a decision to belong to one group equate to disrespecting all others?  They have all made a choice for themselves and you deny yourself that same right.

I think you know exactly where you belong because it is staring you right in the face. You have created a construct in your mind that ensures that you remain frozen in place. Who would want you to be in that position? What do the scriptures teach you - any scriptures you choose - the Bible, the Qur'an, you pick?

You both make good points here: Changed, with your description of the tensions of a spiritual journey with broader perspective, and Storm Rider, with your points about how broader perspective should not overwhelm you into paralysis.

However, ¨you know exactly where you belong because it is staring you right in the face¨ could mean a number of things.  Given our context here, I fear Storm Rider is advocating the LDS Church for you.  But, really, the thing that is staring her most in the face is not the LDS Church (necessarily) but the lack of church. Perhaps, for a time, and until certain lessons are learned, Changed is supposed to be churchless. And, perhaps, in being churchless Changed is supposed to find something that may be harder to find in any particular church, including the LDS one: the centrality and ultimate foundation of simple relationship between oneself and the God that Actually Exists (or the Actual Ultimate).

In fact, this out-of-church/religion bare relationship could assist Changed in being able to participate with a church/religion without pride. Just acknowledging that each religion has some truth or even just acknowledging that God may somehow want you to be with another/unauthorized religion for some time for some reason may not be enough or even seem hollow without first experiencing this simple relationship between you and the Ultimate. By experiencing this simple relationship and its primacy, these two ideas gain perspective, making them more obviously true, meaningful, and even essential. With this perspective, I believe, one can then enter a particular religion with a much better chance of not putting down others, having pride about your decision, and even less sense of significant division.

But then it does matter what the religion is as well, of course. If the religion claims super-exclusivity, denounces the ignorance (at best, evil at worst) of all other religions, tells its members they are special because they got to be members, and that your personal accomplishments lead to your future and eternal differentiation from all others, including your own fellow members, then it may be more difficult to avoid pride, putting down others, and inordinate divisions.*

*I believe this description holds for a number of religions and individual churches.

Edited April 28, 2019 by Joshua Valentine
correction of pronoun and adverb

[Joshua Valentine]

glitch repeat of quote without my reply

Edited April 28, 2019 by Joshua Valentine

[Joshua Valentine]

24 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Looking under the hood is always a good idea.  One might also want to take the car to a favorite, trusted auto mechanic for examination and advice.  It could be a lemon.  However, precisely the same rules apply to Jesus Himself, and to his Apostles.  They are "selling" the Gospel, to use your crass terminology, even though the evangelists themselves never said that.  Jesus and his messengers instead claimed that they were bringing spiritual food and drink which had no price.  They preached the holy word of God, and the good news of Christ.  All LDS missionaries (male and female) are official ministers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, obeying the Savior's Great Commission. 

A favorite, trusted auto mechanic may be someone of their previous religion, a trusted wise or educated person not of either religion, or a person critical of the religion. The rules certainly did apply to Jesus and his Apostles - Jesus himself said if you do not believe me, believe because of the works. Whether we consider his miracles (which he offered and missionaries, in general, do not) or just consider his teaching, I do not believe Jesus would have any issue with his listeners consulting Hebrew scripture and leaders, just as Paul valued the Bereans´ fact-checking.

I´m not sure what you were going for at the end there. Jesus and his Apostles offered more than just claims to prove their authenticity (miracles that LDS missionaries do not).

24 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

True enough, but all the more reason to depend upon the Holy Spirit of truth.  Cheapening the kerygma by declaring the ignorance of those preaching the Gospel seems more like an attack on Jesus Himself.

It could be a reason to rely on the Holy Spirit, but I simply meant it as perspective on how little of the religion you are receiving from these newbies. So, whether the Holy Spirit AND/or more study, more of something is needed.

24 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The NT declares that the word of God is best understood through the same Spirit which gave it, and that is the Holy Spirit of God, which supersedes any and all authority, tradition, or magisterium.  However, there are other means by which to know truth, and Alma 32 in the BofM affords an experimental method, and scholars can certainly do whatever they like in bringing science and reason to bear.

Alma 32 has its merits, no doubt, but also its risks. To try something that one would otherwise recognize as bad with the tools they have available could lead to falling for a false light.

24 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

All the more reason to depend upon the Holy Spirit.  Liars, cheats, and thieves abound.  Everyone is on the make.  Who can you trust?  That is why Joseph Smith followed sage advice in James 1:5 to take his inquiry to God.

While taking your inquiry to God is a good idea: 1) James 1:5 is only tenuously advocating what you and other LDS say it does, 2) our inquiries to God are not without their contexts and circumstances (if you ask God if something is true, when He has already told you the truth and it is obviously different than what you are praying about, then God is in His rights to let you go your errant way). So, thought, introspection, study, and contemplation, with a good smattering of humility can go a long way to avoiding deception, by other or by self, and allow for clearer communication and more full revelation from God.

24 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Certainly good advice, Joshua.  The question in the OP was how far does one need to go in that (or any other) endeavor?  Naturally, if the Holy Spirit is regarded as the foundation of fairy faith, and cannot stand on its own, then other means must be employed.  I see no problem with that.  You are in good company.

I was simply pointing out that the decisions about what to believe about and how to interact with The Ultimate are much more important than these other things that we do much more than simply pray about. I was indicating that the greater import calls for greater care and utilization of all resources, not less. So, yes, I did not indicate where it should end.

In the end, it can be endless and is, in fact, endless, unless you assume (at your own risk) too much simplicity in an earthly instantiation of God´s Will made up of humans. As with Changed on another thread, you do not want to be paralyzed with indecision, at some point you have to move forward, hopefully in faith in the Actual Ultimate and not the very version of God that you are ¨being sold¨ and are questioning.
 

Also, the Holy Spirit certainly can stand on His own, unfortunately we who seek are not the Holy Spirit. That is, the communication of the Holy Spirit is not all there is in the equation - there is us to hear it. And humans are affected by all kinds of influences that may lead us to hear what has not been said or miss what has been said, to ask the wrong questions, or otherwise bungle the whole endeavor.  To study things out, in theory and to a certain extent, can help us avoid manipulations and biases that may lead to poor hearing.

Edited April 28, 2019 by Joshua Valentine

[CV75]

19 hours ago, 10THAmendment said:

Or is it more for temporal topics of concern? Should investigators be encouraged to study church history and then ask God if the conclusions they draw are correct?

Should we both study the BOM and the historical background of its creation? Should we study the origins of the BoA, temple ceremony, how polygamy was lived when determining whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet?

From what I remember on my mission investigators were only to read select parts of the BOM and then pray about it. Should they be doing more?

Yes. D&C 9 and Moroni 10 use such phrases as "according to that which you desired of me", "continue as you commenced", "expedient", "ponder it in your hearts", "with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ", as well as the Lord's works and mercy, etc. Of course, since Oliver hadn't been exposed to Moroni 10 or many or the other things you listed at that point, he was very  early in the learning curve. The Lord will meet us wherever we are, so the sooner we apply good faith, the better and help us along the way thereafter. It is never too soon to study, ponder and pray about what the Lord offers us to know or do, or what we seek to do for the Lord (which is the context of D&C 9).

[Wade Englund]

I don't think there will be much if any disagreement that the principle applies.

However, what may be of issue is to what extent and at what points does the principle need to be applied, and is it the only principle that should be applied, and if not, how should it be weighted in comparison to other principles?

The answers to these question ought to be considered in relation to the intent and purpose of the restored gospel--i.e. becoming like Christ.

Think of it as analogous to becoming a pilot. Some mental study is useful in determining which flight school may be best. And, some mental study needs to occur before taking flight. Yet, much of the truth acquisition about flying, and much of the skills in becoming a competent pilot,  comes from doing (flying).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[JLHPROF]

21 hours ago, 10THAmendment said:

Or is it more for temporal topics of concern? Should investigators be encouraged to study church history and then ask God if the conclusions they draw are correct?

Should we both study the BOM and the historical background of its creation? Should we study the origins of the BoA, temple ceremony, how polygamy was lived when determining whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet?

From what I remember on my mission investigators were only to read select parts of the BOM and then pray about it. Should they be doing more?

Well the first half of Moroni's promise, the part we rarely quote, would seem to apply:

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.
            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.

Seems to me like studying out the things in the Book of Mormon is a prerequisite for praying for confirmation.

[TOmNossor]

6 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Hey Tom,

You might know that I entertain the probability, or even certainty that Joseph Smith could not have produced the Book of Mormon by himself. Since 2004 when I came here, I have never proposed a naturalistic explanation for the Book of Mormon. I don't have one. My position is that if the Catholic Church is true, that non-Catholic religions are all to one degree or other demonic. From what I understand, Joseph dabbled in occult practices prior to the writing of the Book of Mormon. This would make it seem even more likely that there appeared to him a demon disguised as an "angel of light". It has never been the devil's final goal to make people drunk or mean, if while being sober and nice, there is a way to prevent them from receiving eternal life. This is why I can't buy into that saying of those who say "Joseph couldn't do it, and the devil wouldn't do it." I think Satan loves that saying! It doesn't properly deal with plausible demonic motives for why the devil might approve of religions that result in common decency and upright behaviors. He knows that we must be elevated supernaturally beyond that to enjoy the beatific vision. He also knows that Holy Communion is the ordinary way of supernatural sanctification, and if that can be avoided at all costs, the Evil One has won a great victory.

If Catholics receive the True Bread of Heaven, the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist, the devil will propose anything to prevent the deification that takes place when well-disposed souls receive the same Jesus Christ who suffered, died, was resurrected, and ascended to the Father, in to their souls and bodies. If this same Jesus lies hidden in our tabernacles and He is truly Present to Catholic faithful who adore their God under the appearance of bread and wine, it makes a reason for why the devil might be the author of the Book of Mormon. Satan doesn't mind our being faithful to our spouses, and avoiding all of the other filth and sin that he uses to entrap other souls if we don't receive Jesus Christ, sacramentally present in the Holy Eucharist. The devil is a cunning spirit that makes souls think that when a religion makes good parents, and good spouses, filled with natural goodness and hospitality, confident that they are not missing anything by being deprived of the sacraments and ministries of the Catholic and Apostolic Church. This is how this Catholic necessarily perceives Latter-day Christianity. It doesn't mean I think LDS or their founder love the devil. There are many strategies for luring souls away from the true faith. Mormonism is one of the most admirable in the sense that it is used on people who have a sense of natural decency and dignity and who make excellent neighbors and fellow citizens.

"Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you." (Jn. 6:54) For a believing Catholic, this is why it is no surprise at all to me if "Joseph couldn't do it" (write the Book of Mormon). It is completely credible, knowing what non-Catholics are being deprived of, for a believing Catholic to believe that the devil would eagerly do it.

Rory

Hello Rory!

I find the insistence on naturalistic explanations from the bulk of Catholics with whom I dialogue to be in a way evidence of their departure from Christianity. 

As you and I have discussed, were I Catholic I would see demonic action in the production of the BOM.  If I burn in endless fire for an eternity because I no longer partake of the Eucharist and because I cannot go to absolution, the Devil will have won a soul I suspect would have been a committed and informed Catholic who took his faith seriously (and spent time in the confessional regularly because it is important).

Now as we have also discussed, it is my position that if God allows the devil to make a faith that has adherents like me who worship God through His Son Jesus Christ.  Who believe that Christ died for my sins and rose on the third day.  Who believe all that I believe and strive (imperfectly) to follow Him… AND who tried with all their might to pray to know if God wanted them to be a LDS, then that appears to be saying something ugly about God in my opinion!  (I do recognize that my opinion is of little consequence in God’s universe-wide plans and that self-deception is possible).

I have long felt that the “pray to know” is a valid way of seeking God’s will in one’s life.  But, if God lets the devil counterfeit Christianity in the way that you, Rory, must believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is and the Devil carries out this counterfeiting because it wins souls for him (which again it seems you must believe), then surely prayer is the ONLY recourse.

Having said that prayer is the only recourse, I suggest to you that the LARGEST Catholic apologetic apostolate (in the world I think, but certainly in the English speaking worlds) has a document (with lies or at least falsehoods about the Book of Mormon and an Imprimatur, which attempts to demonstrate that the divine authority of the Catholic Church has certified it) that says, “it would be wrong of me to pray about the Book of Mormon.”  BTW, I know that the Imprimatur certifies that there is no error in the Catholicism (doctrinal or moral) present in that flawed document, but I submit it is further evidence of deception (from the father of lies) for this document to have an Imprimatur when it is almost entirely about the Book of Mormon and has little or no Catholic (doctrinal or moral) content in it.

I submit that the council not to pray is not JUST a Catholic Answers thing as I have heard it from many Catholics (those folks that seem quite non-Christian in how they address my church).  I submit that the faith that councils one to not pray about the Book of Mormon, or not pray if the Eucharist is Transubstantiated is probably the faith with more solid demonic connections.

Now two more things:

1.  It is not lost upon me that what we call the occult was part of Joseph Smith’s life.  I think a handful of things about this.  First, Joseph Smith and those around him considered what they did that appears occultic to us to be allowing God and those who follow Him to give supernatural aid.  Second, the Bible is full of positive occultic things like casting lots for the replacement of Judas or staffs that become snakes, so I reject the idea that there is some clear line between that which is occultic and that which is from God.  Finally, the Catholic Church is full of pagan symbols, rites, and festivals.  Cardinal Newman tells us that God’s Church takes these things and turns them for His purposes.  This is very similar to Richard Bushman’s words about Joseph Smith preparing to be a prophet through what some might call “magical thinking.”

2.  I hope it was clear that I think if virtually all faithful and fully committed Catholics will burn in hell or virtually all faithful and fully committed LDS will burn in hell, I think there is very good reason to believe it is the Catholics.  But, imputing this horrible condition upon God and His plan for the world is something that the Catholic is strongly inclined to do.  It is not something the informed LDS has any inclination to do.  If the CoJCoLDS is God’s church, most LDS believe faithful committed Catholic will be beside us in heaven.  I would even say that most informed LDS believe there will be no barriers to Celestrial Marriage and the greatest rewards God wishes to bestow upon our Catholic brothers and sisters.  And burning in hell for eternity is not something LDS believe anyway. 

 

Rory, I responded as aggressively as I knew how because I am quite certain I will not offend you.  You didn’t offend me of course.  May God guide us to Him and if I choose to be with God for an eternity in the highest heaven, I fully expect to see you and your family (and even that son of yours out teaching heresy).

Charity, TOm

Edited April 29, 2019 by TOmNossor

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

A favorite, trusted auto mechanic may be someone of their previous religion, a trusted wise or educated person not of either religion, or a person critical of the religion. The rules certainly did apply to Jesus and his Apostles - Jesus himself said if you do not believe me, believe because of the works. Whether we consider his miracles (which he offered and missionaries, in general, do not) or just consider his teaching, I do not believe Jesus would have any issue with his listeners consulting Hebrew scripture and leaders, just as Paul valued the Bereans´ fact-checking.

I´m not sure what you were going for at the end there. Jesus and his Apostles offered more than just claims to prove their authenticity (miracles that LDS missionaries do not).

Fact-checking is a great idea in a time of rampant fakery, but who is really qualified to do it?  As to "miracles," LDS theology actually rejects the concept in favor of naturalism.

6 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

It could be a reason to rely on the Holy Spirit, but I simply meant it as perspective on how little of the religion you are receiving from these newbies. So, whether the Holy Spirit AND/or more study, more of something is needed.

Alma 32 has its merits, no doubt, but also its risks. To try something that one would otherwise recognize as bad with the tools they have available could lead to falling for a false light.

While taking your inquiry to God is a good idea: 1) James 1:5 is only tenuously advocating what you and other LDS say it does, 2) our inquiries to God are not without their contexts and circumstances (if you ask God if something is true, when He has already told you the truth and it is obviously different than what you are praying about, then God is in His rights to let you go your errant way). So, thought, introspection, study, and contemplation, with a good smattering of humility can go a long way to avoiding deception, by other or by self, and allow for clearer communication and more full revelation from God.

There are certainly risks.  In Jesus' own time, He and His disciples faced a broad spectrum of mutually exclusive versions of Judaism:  Which path to follow?  Jesus Himself paid the utlimate price for heresy, and He well understood the positive value of that seemingly negative decision by the powers that be.  However, in the midst of that decision-time dilemma, Jesus asked His disciples a crucial question about His identity:

Quote

“But who do you say that I am?”  Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”  Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven."  (Matthew 16:13–17; Mark 8:27–30; Luke 9:18–21)

Direct knowledge via revelation from God.  The Roman government and Rabbinic Judaism rejected that approach to truth, and so may we.

6 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

I was simply pointing out that the decisions about what to believe about and how to interact with The Ultimate are much more important than these other things that we do much more than simply pray about. I was indicating that the greater import calls for greater care and utilization of all resources, not less. So, yes, I did not indicate where it should end.

In the end, it can be endless and is, in fact, endless, unless you assume (at your own risk) too much simplicity in an earthly instantiation of God´s Will made up of humans. As with Changed on another thread, you do not want to be paralyzed with indecision, at some point you have to move forward, hopefully in faith in the Actual Ultimate and not the very version of God that you are ¨being sold¨ and are questioning.

Also, the Holy Spirit certainly can stand on His own, unfortunately we who seek are not the Holy Spirit. That is, the communication of the Holy Spirit is not all there is in the equation - there is us to hear it. And humans are affected by all kinds of influences that may lead us to hear what has not been said or miss what has been said, to ask the wrong questions, or otherwise bungle the whole endeavor.  To study things out, in theory and to a certain extent, can help us avoid manipulations and biases that may lead to poor hearing.

You'll certainly not get any objection from me on these principles.  As a practical matter, however, most people have the sort of very busy family lives and obligations which allow very little leisure for deep scholarly inquiry -- which can very easily turn into a lifetime pursuit.  In light of that unfortunate fact, how can ordinary folk find truth, without being sold a bill of goods by a flimflam artist?  

The constant fear of mainstream Protestant and Catholic Christianity has been that one can too easily be led astray by a pentecostal approach, and that dependence upon the Holy Spirit is far too dangerous.

[strappinglad]

I recall when Thomas refused to believe that Christ had resurrected until he personally felt the wounds. When Christ appeared again to the apostles ,Thomas was present and was able to affirm Christ's resurrection. Christ said that Thomas was blessed because , having seen, he believed , however more blessed are those who believed without seeing. I wonder why.

Moroni's promise is quite specific and yet it lacks the word or concept " immediately " .Several posters here claim to have put Moroni's promise to the test without receiving a full and resounding response. I do not doubt their word, so is God a respecter of persons? Maybe that is their Abrahamic test. Just spit-ballin' .

[rpn]

NT counsel is to live the doctrine to know whether it is of God.   I think study it out applies to individual principles of the Gospel, because I don't think it is possible for mortals to study everything about life and truth at the same time in any degree.   And there are only a few principles that one needs at least a beginning testimony of before baptism.  Existence of God, Restoration, and Authority is how I would boil them down.   So how much study does that require to begin that?  For some a few days of reading the Book of Mormon is enough.  For others reading the entire book multiple times is NOT enough.

The point of study it out is that revelation works to confirm what we have determined as truth, to be truth, when it is truth.  Respecting our agency means requiring that we fully and freely opt in personally.  Not do what we are told to do.

Edited April 29, 2019 by rpn

[Tacenda]

12 hours ago, TOmNossor said:

Hello Rory!

I find the insistence on naturalistic explanations from the bulk of Catholics with whom I dialogue to be in a way evidence of their departure from Christianity. 

As you and I have discussed, were I Catholic I would see demonic action in the production of the BOM.  If I burn in endless fire for an eternity because I no longer partake of the Eucharist and because I cannot go to absolution, the Devil will have won a soul I suspect would have been a committed and informed Catholic who took his faith seriously (and spent time in the confessional regularly because it is important).

Now as we have also discussed, it is my position that if God allows the devil to make a faith that has adherents like me who worship God through His Son Jesus Christ.  Who believe that Christ died for my sins and rose on the third day.  Who believe all that I believe and strive (imperfectly) to follow Him… AND who tried with all their might to pray to know if God wanted them to be a LDS, then that appears to be saying something ugly about God in my opinion!  (I do recognize that my opinion is of little consequence in God’s universe-wide plans and that self-deception is possible).

I have long felt that the “pray to know” is a valid way of seeking God’s will in one’s life.  But, if God lets the devil counterfeit Christianity in the way that you, Rory, must believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is and the Devil carries out this counterfeiting because it wins souls for him (which again it seems you must believe), then surely prayer is the ONLY recourse.

Having said that prayer is the only recourse, I suggest to you that the LARGEST Catholic apologetic apostolate (in the world I think, but certainly in the English speaking worlds) has a document (with lies or at least falsehoods about the Book of Mormon and an Imprimatur, which attempts to demonstrate that the divine authority of the Catholic Church has certified it) that says, “it would be wrong of me to pray about the Book of Mormon.”  BTW, I know that the Imprimatur certifies that there is no error in the Catholicism (doctrinal or moral) present in that flawed document, but I submit it is further evidence of deception (from the father of lies) for this document to have an Imprimatur when it is almost entirely about the Book of Mormon and has little or no Catholic (doctrinal or moral) content in it.

I submit that the council not to pray is not JUST a Catholic Answers thing as I have heard it from many Catholics (those folks that seem quite non-Christian in how they address my church).  I submit that the faith that councils one to not pray about the Book of Mormon, or not pray if the Eucharist is Transubstantiated is probably the faith with more solid demonic connections.

Now two more things:

1.  It is not lost upon me that what we call the occult was part of Joseph Smith’s life.  I think a handful of things about this.  First, Joseph Smith and those around him considered what they did that appears occultic to us to be allowing God and those who follow Him to give supernatural aid.  Second, the Bible is full of positive occultic things like casting lots for the replacement of Judas or staffs that become snakes, so I reject the idea that there is some clear line between that which is occultic and that which is from God.  Finally, the Catholic Church is full of pagan symbols, rites, and festivals.  Cardinal Newman tells us that God’s Church takes these things and turns them for His purposes.  This is very similar to Richard Bushman’s words about Joseph Smith preparing to be a prophet through what some might call “magical thinking.”

2.  I hope it was clear that I think if virtually all faithful and fully committed Catholics will burn in hell or virtually all faithful and fully committed LDS will burn in hell, I think there is very good reason to believe it is the Catholics.  But, imputing this horrible condition upon God and His plan for the world is something that the Catholic is strongly inclined to do.  It is not something the informed LDS has any inclination to do.  If the CoJCoLDS is God’s church, most LDS believe faithful committed Catholic will be beside us in heaven.  I would even say that most informed LDS believe there will be no barriers to Celestrial Marriage and the greatest rewards God wishes to bestow upon our Catholic brothers and sisters.  And burning in hell for eternity is not something LDS believe anyway. 

 

Rory, I responded as aggressively as I knew how because I am quite certain I will not offend you.  You didn’t offend me of course.  May God guide us to Him and if I choose to be with God for an eternity in the highest heaven, I fully expect to see you and your family (and even that son of yours out teaching heresy).

Charity, TOm

That's what is so amazing to me, so many different paths to take out there, and so many getting different signals. How can we ever say there is just one religion that is correct? The LDS only has about 1 percent of people in the world, wow is that just a little worrisome that they should say they are the only church that is correct. I don't think so. But feel there are many that are and a few that aren't because of harm caused. And IMO the LDS church has done harm, so I don't think I can say it's the only church with authority when they get it wrong so often. Trust issues I guess.

[LoudmouthMormon]

Quote

Does the “study it out in your mind” principle apply when determining the truthfulness of the church?

It sure applied for me.  

Quote

But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

If this principle was in the dictionary, there'd be a picture of me there as the example.  Pretty much word for word what happened back in 1994-95 with me. 

[TOmNossor]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

That's what is so amazing to me, so many different paths to take out there, and so many getting different signals. How can we ever say there is just one religion that is correct? The LDS only has about 1 percent of people in the world, wow is that just a little worrisome that they should say they are the only church that is correct. I don't think so. But feel there are many that are and a few that aren't because of harm caused. And IMO the LDS church has done harm, so I don't think I can say it's the only church with authority when they get it wrong so often. Trust issues I guess.

 

Hello Tacenda,

I think you and I have a different view of our church (my church? I get confused).

1.  I think the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is correct in a qualified way.

2.  I think the CoJCoLDS is the only Church in a qualified way.

3.  I do not think other churches are wrong except in a qualified way.

4.  I think the CoJCoLDS has done some harm, but mostly because we are all wounded folks banging into one another (hurt people, hurt people).

#1 I believe post mortally non-LDS will be faced with the truth that Joseph Smith was a prophet and the Book of Mormon is scripture.  LDS are correct.  I believe post mortally Brigham Young discovered that black people were not really less valiant in the pre-existence, he and the CoJCoLDS (generally) were not correct. 

#2 IMO God leads the CoJCoLDS through President Nelson in a unique way.  That being said, God does not neglect other Christians and even guides their leaders if their leaders are willing to listen.  I have told Rory that PERHAPS he might be a luke-warm LDS and is better as an on-fire Catholic. Also, as I said above I believe when Rory and his family arrive in heaven and stand next to President Hinckley and John Paul II, Rory and JP2 will realize that President Hinckley was God’s leader on earth in a way that JP2 was not.  I lean towards the view the President Hinckley will not be surprised in the least to see JP2 and Rory.

#3 Other churches are wrong when they say that the CoJCoLDS is not a Christian Church, when they say that President Nelson is not a prophet, when they say that they possess all truth or more truth than the CoJCoLDS.  That being said they are right when they say that Christ died for our sins, or God loves you.  Some church was right when it said that black people were not less valiant in the pre-existence too (though if they denied the pre-existence, I think they were wrong in this).

#4 I think there has been harm done.  I am SURE I lack the ability to do the calculus required to determine when, how, and by whom.  Telling the truth about pre-marital sex can cause folks to be hurt. Expressing too much compassion when dealing with hundreds of folks who participates in pre-marital sex can cause folks to be hurt.  I do not believe God can make a number that is >2.9 and <1.1 at the same time and perhaps there will be hurt because of this.  But, I am certain that humans, even those who receive inspiration, hurt people in ways God could avoid.  I lean toward the view that you Tacenda, would be TOO tolerant.  Tolerance is the last virtual of a totally depraved society.  The CoJCoLDS IMO is not as likely to be too tolerant as you are, and God is not TOO tolerant.

 

Tacenda, does the Book of Mormon come from God or from the devil?  If it is as Bill Real says a rarefied act of extraordinary genius and history demonstrates Joseph Smith was not capable of such genius, what does that mean you should do?

Charity, TOm

[california boy]

I think all of this is a moot point.  We live in a different time.  If I am interested in ANYTHING, I Google it.  I read the good reviews and the bad reviews.  Then I make a decision.  So I just Googled Mormonism.  Mostly what came up is things the church has put up.  (The good reviews if you will).  Then I Googled What Mormons won't tell you.  All the bad reviews came up.

If I was investigating the church today, I would not have to rely on 18 year old kids telling me what I should know our how I shoud go about finding the truth of their claims.  Sure I would listen to them.  Then I would probably let them respond to "the things Mormons won't tell you."  If I was satisfied with the answers, I would pray about it and seek a witness from God.

Gone are the days where anyone can tell a person investigating anything just one side of the story.  If you investigate what speakers to buy or where you should be eating pizza, you certainly are going to investigate what church to join.  And we all know how to do it.

Edited April 29, 2019 by california boy

[Tacenda]

29 minutes ago, TOmNossor said:

 

Hello Tacenda,

I think you and I have a different view of our church (my church? I get confused).

1.  I think the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is correct in a qualified way.

2.  I think the CoJCoLDS is the only Church in a qualified way.

3.  I do not think other churches are wrong except in a qualified way.

4.  I think the CoJCoLDS has done some harm, but mostly because we are all wounded folks banging into one another (hurt people, hurt people).

#1 I believe post mortally non-LDS will be faced with the truth that Joseph Smith was a prophet and the Book of Mormon is scripture.  LDS are correct.  I believe post mortally Brigham Young discovered that black people were not really less valiant in the pre-existence, he and the CoJCoLDS (generally) were not correct. 

#2 IMO God leads the CoJCoLDS through President Nelson in a unique way.  That being said, God does not neglect other Christians and even guides their leaders if their leaders are willing to listen.  I have told Rory that PERHAPS he might be a luke-warm LDS and is better as an on-fire Catholic. Also, as I said above I believe when Rory and his family arrive in heaven and stand next to President Hinckley and John Paul II, Rory and JP2 will realize that President Hinckley was God’s leader on earth in a way that JP2 was not.  I lean towards the view the President Hinckley will not be surprised in the least to see JP2 and Rory.

#3 Other churches are wrong when they say that the CoJCoLDS is not a Christian Church, when they say that President Nelson is not a prophet, when they say that they possess all truth or more truth than the CoJCoLDS.  That being said they are right when they say that Christ died for our sins, or God loves you.  Some church was right when it said that black people were not less valiant in the pre-existence too (though if they denied the pre-existence, I think they were wrong in this).

#4 I think there has been harm done.  I am SURE I lack the ability to do the calculus required to determine when, how, and by whom.  Telling the truth about pre-marital sex can cause folks to be hurt. Expressing too much compassion when dealing with hundreds of folks who participates in pre-marital sex can cause folks to be hurt.  I do not believe God can make a number that is >2.9 and <1.1 at the same time and perhaps there will be hurt because of this.  But, I am certain that humans, even those who receive inspiration, hurt people in ways God could avoid.  I lean toward the view that you Tacenda, would be TOO tolerant.  Tolerance is the last virtual of a totally depraved society.  The CoJCoLDS IMO is not as likely to be too tolerant as you are, and God is not TOO tolerant.

 

Tacenda, does the Book of Mormon come from God or from the devil?  If it is as Bill Real says a rarefied act of extraordinary genius and history demonstrates Joseph Smith was not capable of such genius, what does that mean you should do?

Charity, TOm

Why are there so many whackos that come out of our church. To name a few, all of the abusive polygamists probably wouldn't exist had JS not married young women and other men's wives. And the preppers or anti government groups such as the father of Tara Westover, her book is called Educated. There are quite a few LDS just like him.

The depressed state of Utah too. Thinking that we need to do better each week and never feeling good enough, like a hamster on the wheel. These are a few things I don't miss about being active in the church. Yesterday when our ministering teachers came my husband told them something he'd never told me. After they were asking us to come back to church, or what they could do to help us do that, my husband told them that his deceased father has told him twice that he is alright by not attending. Not his words exactly, but my husband is really not for believing that spirits will visit those on earth, since my niece is a Medium and I've had a reading, he is a total skeptic, so for him to say that is quite surprising. But he wasn't lying. 

How do you explain NDE's that don't sound anything like what our church says it's like, unless of course they're LDS, because God is so wonderful he'll want everyone to feel comfortable when they die. 

And Medium's that don't say there are three heavens, sure there are many mansions according to scripture, but that certainly doesn't mean heavens. 

Thanks though Tom, I don't deserve your time consuming posts like you've done. You're a gem! I mean that sincerely. 

[3DOP]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

That's what is so amazing to me, so many different paths to take out there, and so many getting different signals. How can we ever say there is just one religion that is correct? The LDS only has about 1 percent of people in the world, wow is that just a little worrisome that they should say they are the only church that is correct. I don't think so. But feel there are many that are and a few that aren't because of harm caused. And IMO the LDS church has done harm, so I don't think I can say it's the only church with authority when they get it wrong so often. Trust issues I guess.

Hi Tacenda...I'll jump in with my perspective since Tom was speaking to me. 

The reason I am interested, as a Catholic, in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is because it is almost unique among the thousands of sects and splinters in Christianity. What make it nearly unique is that it claims to be the one true church with the only valid priesthood on earth. Now that gets my attention. That is what I am looking for if I am going to financially support a church, and live my life in obedience to its teachings and disciplines. Otherwise forget it. These "churches" that deny being the one true church don't interest me at all. I take them at their word. And they can't challenge you because they know that you are free to go the next one of dozens of not one true churches that are close by. I can't love mediocre, expendable, here today, gone tomorrow "churches" enough to be involved when I don't even believe in it much. If I can't find one and true, I am on my own.  

Rory

Edited April 29, 2019 by 3DOP

[MiserereNobis]

On 4/27/2019 at 11:12 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

If it were the intention of LDS Church leaders to send out sophisticated missionaries, they would provide a four-year university seminary experience (with a baccalaureate).  That is what Protestant and Catholic divinity schools do -- often through an MDiv (master of divinity degree).

And don't forget we've got those gnarly Jesuits to take you on, too  

[Tacenda]

45 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Hi Tacenda...I'll jump in with my perspective since Tom was speaking to me. 

The reason I am interested, as a Catholic, in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is because it is almost unique among the thousands of sects and splinters in Christianity. What make it nearly unique is that it claims to be the one true church with the only valid priesthood on earth. Now that gets my attention. That is what I am looking for if I am going to financially support a church, and live my life in obedience to its teachings and disciplines. Otherwise forget it. These "churches" that deny being the one true church don't interest me at all. I take them at their word. And they can't challenge you because they know that you are free to go the next one of dozens of not one true churches that are close by. I can't love mediocre, expendable, here today, gone tomorrow "churches" enough to be involved when I don't even believe in it much. If I can't find one and true, I am on my own.  

Rory

No you're not alone, if you have Jesus.

[Robert F. Smith]

47 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

And don't forget we've got those gnarly Jesuits to take you on, too  

Yes, a most impressive group.  There's even one in charge in the Vatican, although he seems to want to be a Franciscan.

[TOmNossor]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Why are there so many whackos that come out of our church. To name a few, all of the abusive polygamists probably wouldn't exist had JS not married young women and other men's wives. And the preppers or anti government groups such as the father of Tara Westover, her book is called Educated. There are quite a few LDS just like him.

The depressed state of Utah too. Thinking that we need to do better each week and never feeling good enough, like a hamster on the wheel. These are a few things I don't miss about being active in the church. Yesterday when our ministering teachers came my husband told them something he'd never told me. After they were asking us to come back to church, or what they could do to help us do that, my husband told them that his deceased father has told him twice that he is alright by not attending. Not his words exactly, but my husband is really not for believing that spirits will visit those on earth, since my niece is a Medium and I've had a reading, he is a total skeptic, so for him to say that is quite surprising. But he wasn't lying. 

How do you explain NDE's that don't sound anything like what our church says it's like, unless of course they're LDS, because God is so wonderful he'll want everyone to feel comfortable when they die. 

And Medium's that don't say there are three heavens, sure there are many mansions according to scripture, but that certainly doesn't mean heavens. 

Thanks though Tom, I don't deserve your time consuming posts like you've done. You're a gem! I mean that sincerely. 

I don't try to explain spiritual experiences (LDS, Catholic, NDE, mediums, ...) with some harmonizing rule.  You and I would probably agree that God can't be put in a box.  Furthermore all numinous experiences have an imperfect human that is an integral part of them.

Concerning those who go off the rails, I think it sufficient to endorse this statement from Joseph: "a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has the power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation.”  What we need is more grounded good folks such as yourself to leaven the whole.

Charity, TOm

[3DOP]

16 minutes ago, TOmNossor said:

I don't try to explain spiritual experiences (LDS, Catholic, NDE, mediums, ...) with some harmonizing rule.  You and I would probably agree that God can't be put in a box.  Furthermore all numinous experiences have an imperfect human that is an integral part of them.

Concerning those who go off the rails, I think it sufficient to endorse this statement from Joseph: "a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has the power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation.”  What we need is more grounded good folks such as yourself to leaven the whole.

Charity, TOm

Tom...that's a great quote about the religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things from Joseph Smith.

I would not necessarily agree that every religion that does require the sacrifice of all things is necessarily salvific. But it will be vibrant. That is why, besides considering LDS Restored Christianity years ago, I also considered Islam, reading the Qu'ran twice. Islam is in many respects, a Restoration of what they believe about the Christ. It seems to be another religion that will produce many souls who value their beliefs more than their lives.

St. Paul says somewhere, that we are "not our own, bought with a price" Is that not a remarkable claim? Our sermon touched on this point yesterday although it didn't get specific. We don't have authority over our own bodies. We need permission from the Owner of what we sometimes claim as our own, before we fill it with alcohol, allow vulgar language to come out of it, or unclean imagery to enter it, or deliberately stimulate it with actions that are intended only in marriage with another beloved soul with whom he have a sacred covenant. Jesus Christ was submissive from Bethlehem to Calvary, and so should His disciple be, from our baptisms until our own less rigorous Calvarys. If the Holy Ghost indwells us, we are not supposed to decide to do based on what we prefer, but what the Holy Ghost would want. I realize I have often failed to be reasonable, in light of the sacred reality that I do not belong to myself. Sin brings confusion, darkness, and disorder in to the soul which destroys our peace, and can make our Temples uninhabitable for God. It seems like it would help if I were to meditate more on the certain truth that the contemplation of deliberately committing any sin is a form of madness that will eventually result in spiritual suicide if it is petted and indulged. Disobedience to the God to whom we belong, otherwise known as sin, is no less irrational than self-murder of the body.

I think both of our faiths offer opportunities to make what seems like a rather substantial request which St. Paul merely calls, our reasonable service! "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God, your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world; but be reformed in the newness of your mind, that you may prove what is the good, and the acceptable, and the perfect will of God."  (Rom. 12:1, 2)

It seems to me like any "church" that waters down what St. Paul defines as reasonable service, can not qualify to be the one that can be proven (to ourselves at least) to be compatible with the good, and the acceptable, and the perfect will of God. This is another important point of common ground that I see with my LDS friends.

Rory

PS: For Rev Testament, I had intended to brush up on "The Donation of Constantine" and got sidetracked. I won't forget though. But it might need the weekend. Y'all take care.