prisonchaplain

@Carborendum, thank you. "Excellent recovery," as they say. Of course, I believe there are traditional answers and discussion points to all of these. BUT, there is no doubt that people are finding answers, fulfillment, "Now I get it!" etc. in your church. To use the first AoF as an example, there is no question but that the traditional churches have struggled with describing the nature of God from the time of Christ until now. Indeed, Jesus claim to be the Son of God is a big part of why he was opposed--at least theologically. The appeal of the LDS Godhead on one side, and of modalism on the other (Jesus is God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost--United Pentecostal Church) both attest to the dilemma. Ironically, those that struggle are quite often the ones who are the most hungry to know God in deeper ways. So again, I appreciate your answers!

You point out something important. Those who grow up in church come to value certain traditions. When the preacher gets loud, and there are many 'amens' the people will often say, "The Holy Ghost was really present today." For some, who experienced more contemplative traditions, the experience of holy silence may feel like the kiss of God. You suggest that these feelings/sensations are not the Holy Ghost. I wonder. To use an objective example, if a Muslim--raised in the belief that Jesus Christ was a prophet of Allah--has a dream in which Jesus tells him/her that he really is the Messiah--is it not the Holy Ghost that then draws the dreamer to repentance? He's not LDS. He's not even Christian. Yet . . . Could it not be that the Holy Ghost is presenr in all encounters in which a truth drives us towards Heavenly Father?

It's interesting that you start with foreknowledge. Traditionally, the discussion was between pre-destination (Calvin) and free will (Armnius). Calvinists asked how God could be all-powerful if his creation were allowed to defy him. Free will advocates responded that God is all-powerful because he foreknows everything. It was God's will to let us be free. So, the foreknowledge position was a means for free will advocates to defend the doctrine of free will against the accusation that it somehow diminished God's power and authority. If he knows and wills that we be free to disobey then his power is not diminished. As for God not being a respecter of persons, I found a great illustration of this during my tour of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints temple in Langley, B.C. The guide showed us the men's locker/changing room, and pointed out that bankers and car mechanics change into the same white clothes. All are made equal in the temple. God is no respecter of persons. That truth does not restrict God from granting us free will. He may look to the banker and the mechanic with the same love and justice. He is not a distinguisher of persons--especially based on human social structures. However, He certainly will judge the just and the unjust, the repentant and the unrepentant. He will do so in pure justice, we believe, because each soul has been allowed the liberty to love or rebel.

This still begs the question...you joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because the D&C, which is only recognized as scripture by the church, says that this church is the only true one. So, how did you come to believe that the D&C is God's word?

This is a worthy discussion. Jewish believers interpret New Testament writings in light of their scriptures, and claim to see discrepancies. They know the Hebrew scriptures are inspired by God, and so insist that any claimed revelations from God comport with their interpretation of their existing scriptures. Christians interpret the Old Testament in light of the New Testament, because we are convinced that it's all inspired of God, and that the New Testament completes the old. The latter revelation is allowed to inform the previous revelation. HOWEVER, we are not certain about the latter-day revelations your church. So, we do as the Jewish rabbis, and interpret them in light of the already-revealed words of God. We know the Bible is inspired of God, and so figure any revelations that come afterwards will comport with them. If we knew these latter-day words were also God's words--that they were/are scripture, then we would likely allow them to "complete" the New Testament.

This may be an in-house discussion, but I'll share how I took the comments. There are folks who join a religion or church mostly for reasons of human fellowship, a safe culture to raise children, and for other social reasons. I suspect some of these will be those of whom Jesus will say, "Depart from me. I never knew you." Even within traditional Christianity we struggle to make this distinction. Some will speak of "Great Commission Christians" or "On-fire Christians" or "100%-harvest Christians," etc. I did not take the comments to mean that those who have the strongest burning in the bosom automatically make the best believers.

There's an incredible amount of common ground. Just as I look to Judaism as the foundation from which Christianity flourished, I suspect that so much of LDS teaching has its roots in traditional Christian teaching--especially the Arminian branch that we both grew from. It's just that this particular thread is examining those differences that lead some--especially converts--to join your church.

We have less revelation, so how we will become remains a matter "we see through a dark glass" (loosely from 1 Corinthians 13). However, traditional Christian teaching is that God was/is/will always be all-powerful, all-knowing and everywhere-present. So, I do not believe we will ever become what He is now. Nevertheless, we will rule and reign with Him. We will see as He sees. Another lessening of distinction is that God always had our creation in his mind. So, though we do not believe we are eternal intelligence, there is a sense in which we have always existed--at least in the thoughts of Almighty God.

The traditional vs. LDS doctrine of human nature is infinitely different. Tradition says we came into existence at creation. God made us "out of nothing." So the infinite difference is going backwards. However, moving forward that difference becomes less. We may never become Gods, but we are immortal. We were indeed made in His image, and we shall never be extinguished or annihilated. We shall become godly and god-like. We just won't catch up, because God had an eternal head start. So...while the LDS answer to the atheist's inquiry may be more of a slam dunk, the traditional belief that, as a great thinker once said, "You've never met a mere mortal..." is also compelling.

A common criticism against your church is this reliance on "feelings," or subjective confirmation. This is a terrible mistake on their part. All Christians should come to faith through the drawing of the Holy Spirit. I fear we have too many "social converts" in our most of our churches. There is some patience--some 'tarrying' needed. Science, evidence, logic--these tools may bring me to the waters of conversion--but the witness of the Holy Spirit is essential, in my always humble opinion.

I exercised the gift of interpretation. :-)

The answer is similar--it's how these gifts are exercised. Prayers for healing require spiritual authority, prophecies are given by those who hold a church office that includes the role of prophet, and I'm not sure, but I've not heard that the gift of tongues is a part of LDS services. In fact, I believe some have suggested that missionaries are gifted in language-learning, and this may be the gift of interpretation. Most of the Articles of Faith might sound fine to most traditional Christian ears, but context or application, is where the distinctions become clearer. Others on this string have referenced the authority the church has (it's part of the restored gospel teaching). For LDS, this is a powerful truth. It's also a distinction--a difference.

I suppose, indirectly, this response relates to an investigator praying to God for discernment about whether the latter-day prophecies are true, and the prophets are authentic, and the religion has authority. My question is what drives people to pray the prayer? Those who are born into the church will naturally seek spiritual confirmation. However, what of converts? My suspicion is that the living testimony of an LDS member is the primary instrument. In other words, you make a friend and that person is drawn to the way you live and think. They wonder why and how, and when they learn it's primarily the religion, they sometimes turn to investigation.

Here's the text: 6 We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth. We do believe in apostolic gifts. However, the way we see these roles carried out differs. Apostles, ironically, are best seen in our full-time missionaries. They go to foreign lands, convert souls, plant churches, educate pastors, and empower-then-sustain national churches--very much like the New Testament apostles did. Our prophets do not carry that label. Instead, certain souls in local churches have been receptive to the Holy Spirit's impressions, and so speak God's words through the gift of prophecy. I have done this on many occasions. Others might say I am a prophet. I would say I occasionally exercise the gift of prophesy. So, like most of the articles, Protestants and Catholics would mostly agree, but will find a particular take that is different. Your church has living prophets and apostles who serve as national and international leaders.

I've always appreciated that you highlight and defend this doctrine. It is one of the most significant distinctions between our faiths, and if I believed as you do I would emphasize it strongly, as well. Many LDS seem to believe that the possibility of exaltation is a "meat" teaching (scripture says that spiritual babes need milk before meat), and so hesitate to discuss it with investigators, or even with curious chaplains.

And here I thought that @Scott was accusing you of falsely claiming that Democrats are demonized.

Perfectly. Thank you! Far too often, interfaith discussions become a debate, or some other version of a dual-missionizing endeavor. LDS are known for bearing testimony. It's one of your more excellent traits.

I could be mean and ask for an example of each. Instead...of these, which have you personally found important and, do you have an incident/illustration? Thank you! The question "why be LDS" is different- you should join the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints if that's what God tells you to do. Just like you should join the Catholic Church if that's what He tells you to do (or whatever other example you will have). Perhaps I can get at the draw by asking this: What brought you to asking about joining the church in the first place (assuming God did not, unprompted, simply appear to you and directly tell you: JOIN THIS)?

Thank you, @Vort. I have heard of some newer converts being unsettled by their temple experiences. At the same time, having experienced a shadow of the real thing (public tour, prior to opening), I can easily imagine that many would find temple-related experiences to be special. I have no desire to pry into sacraments and liturgies meant for the faithful. However, reading about the aftermath helps me understand better the power and appeal of your faith.

Thank you, @Vort! Perhaps I will prime the pump a bit, and ask about an obvious difference--how has having/visiting temples effected your life and spiritual journey?

Justice Barrett will interpret the Constitution, rather than legislating a Trumpian, or even conservative agenda. Justices nominated by the apparent POTUS-elect would be much more prone to legislating in ways that many people of faith would find troubling. Now that it appears we have a new President on the horizon I, like @Emmanuel Goldstein, am glad that her nomination was pushed through.

Part of what I am trying to discern is how the difference looks today. @Vort, if I am reading correctly, there is a subtle but certain sense of authority and rightness that comes with LDS encounters with the Holy Ghost. Perhaps there is somewhat less second-guessing--not as much, "Did I hear/discern that correctly?"

People of many faiths report having deeply motive, sometimes 'ecstatic', spiritual experiences. I suspect that some converts discuss this in their testimonies. How do they describe the difference? How did they know that this time (within the LDS faith) was particularly authentic?

Perhaps it is one of the most common questions you are asked: What's the difference between LDS and Protestants/Catholics? I was asked this just yesterday, by a staff member (chaplains are considered subject matter experts in most matters religious). I mentioned the question of spiritual authority, the three heavenly kingdoms, and the nature of God vs. humanity (especially premortality). (What do you say? Why be LDS? What's the difference?

The key to coming off as sophisticated is to intentionally use the less common pronunciation of words, and to say them with confidence, as if the way you choose is the obviously correct annunciation. Then again, some consider doing that to be a real jerk move.