Knowing What To Take On Faith

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Oct 11 2004, 04:48 PM

I've known Catholics with just as fervent a testimony of Catholicism as your is of Mormonism? Where does their testimony come from?

Maybe the same place. Is it possible that those fervent Catholics might be sensing the spiritual truth of one part of what they're being taught, and mistaking it for a manifestation that the whole Catholic structure is true, not just the part? (Or vice versa, with Mormons making the same mistake?)

PD--if it comes from the same place then that "place" is sending awfully ambiquous messages---if church leaders are to be believe. If the LDS church is the only "saving" church and all must join, why would God send such garbbled messages?

[Guest Unorthodox]

Originally posted by Jenda@Oct 11 2004, 08:38 PM

Hey! Welcome back, Tao! We have missed you!

Has the baby come yet???? We all want to know. :)

Thanks :)

Yes, the baby is 7 months old now! Already crawling!

[Guest Unorthodox]

Originally posted by Cal+Oct 12 2004, 07:58 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Oct 12 2004, 07:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Oct 11 2004, 04:48 PM

I've known Catholics with just as fervent a testimony of Catholicism as your is of Mormonism? Where does their testimony come from?

Maybe the same place. Is it possible that those fervent Catholics might be sensing the spiritual truth of one part of what they're being taught, and mistaking it for a manifestation that the whole Catholic structure is true, not just the part? (Or vice versa, with Mormons making the same mistake?)

PD--if it comes from the same place then that "place" is sending awfully ambiquous messages---if church leaders are to be believe. If the LDS church is the only "saving" church and all must join, why would God send such garbbled messages?

I think he meant that IF GOD EXISTS (which we do not KNOW), then he is the "place" sending messages. Since He generally doesn't just tell us things in plain english, unless we are an english-speaking prophet, He sends us "warm feelings". So if you go to a catholic church you might get a warm feeling. And if you read the BoM, you might get a warm feeling. One of those must be a stronger or warmer feeling than the other (unless God is a Unitarian Universalist). But since we don't have any way to measure how another person feels, we cannot compare the temperatures of our warm feelings...no way to compare which church is "truer".

If God has no true church, probably all warm feelings are equal.

If the LDS Church is true, then the BoM probably gives the warmest feelings. But a catholic might still get a warm feeling at their church too...it might just be a few degrees cooler.

If the Catholic Church is true, then the BoM is giving a cooler message.

But the problem is that the Catholic and the Mormon are the only ones who can feel their own warmth (testimonies) and therefore cannot compare to find out who is getting the "truer" testimony.

So, in conclusion, both believe that their church is true based on their assumption that their warm feeling was the warmest. But they might be wrong because their level of warmth might be all they know...and they might now be aware that there are higher temperatures (tesimonies) in other churches.

If there is no god at all, then the "place" that PD refers to must be something else...human emotion, the Tao, or whatever...

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Cal+Oct 12 2004, 06:58 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Oct 12 2004, 06:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Oct 11 2004, 04:48 PM

I've known Catholics with just as fervent a testimony of Catholicism as your is of Mormonism? Where does their testimony come from?

Maybe the same place. Is it possible that those fervent Catholics might be sensing the spiritual truth of one part of what they're being taught, and mistaking it for a manifestation that the whole Catholic structure is true, not just the part? (Or vice versa, with Mormons making the same mistake?)

PD--if it comes from the same place then that "place" is sending awfully ambiquous messages---if church leaders are to be believe. If the LDS church is the only "saving" church and all must join, why would God send such garbbled messages?

Ask Him.

"If the LDS church is the only 'saving' church and all must join ..."

I think you're presenting a false premise there. I know some Church leaders have said that there is no salvation outside the Church (borrowing the old Catholic formula nulla salus extra eccelesiam.) I have also known other Church leaders to teach that the apostolic Church will ultimately be dissolved, being replaced (at least in the eternities) by a more direct relationship between God and his children.

With this in mind, the general teaching of the Church appears now to be that while every person will ultimately recognize Christ as the Son of God, and while acceptance of the gospel is still necessary for exaltation, there is no time limit on this. I read an interview between Neal Maxwell and Hugh Hewitt in which Elder Maxwell said that every person would have a full and fair chance to accept the gospel -- and that just because a person had been nominally exposed to the Church through a missionary or other source, that didn't necessarily mean that it was his time to receive that opportunity for a yes or no choice.

For whatever reason, in the world, spiritual promptings are extremely subtle. I can remember very few of them, and I have to admit that none of them were in response to requests for confirmation of the Church's historical origins. Other people feel, or claim to feel, these promptings more often.

In ultimate answer to your question of why the Lord would work this way, maybe it's the only way available, consistent with the laws he set for the universe. Or maybe both the Catholics and the Mormons are reading too much into the inspiration both receive. We'll just have to wait and find out.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Snow --

Interesting article. The researcher with the magnetic field, I think, makes my point: What is it about the mere idea of God than can have as powerful an effect on the mind as an externally-applied magnetic field?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Un -- Very well put. I don't think I'd taken that line of thinking as far as you did, but your expansion makes a lot of sense.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Unorthodox+Oct 12 2004, 11:24 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Unorthodox @ Oct 12 2004, 11:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Oct 12 2004, 07:58 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Oct 11 2004, 04:48 PM

I've known Catholics with just as fervent a testimony of Catholicism as your is of Mormonism? Where does their testimony come from?

Maybe the same place. Is it possible that those fervent Catholics might be sensing the spiritual truth of one part of what they're being taught, and mistaking it for a manifestation that the whole Catholic structure is true, not just the part? (Or vice versa, with Mormons making the same mistake?)

PD--if it comes from the same place then that "place" is sending awfully ambiquous messages---if church leaders are to be believe. If the LDS church is the only "saving" church and all must join, why would God send such garbbled messages?

I think he meant that IF GOD EXISTS (which we do not KNOW), then he is the "place" sending messages. Since He generally doesn't just tell us things in plain english, unless we are an english-speaking prophet, He sends us "warm feelings". So if you go to a catholic church you might get a warm feeling. And if you read the BoM, you might get a warm feeling. One of those must be a stronger or warmer feeling than the other (unless God is a Unitarian Universalist). But since we don't have any way to measure how another person feels, we cannot compare the temperatures of our warm feelings...no way to compare which church is "truer".

If God has no true church, probably all warm feelings are equal.

If the LDS Church is true, then the BoM probably gives the warmest feelings. But a catholic might still get a warm feeling at their church too...it might just be a few degrees cooler.

If the Catholic Church is true, then the BoM is giving a cooler message.

But the problem is that the Catholic and the Mormon are the only ones who can feel their own warmth (testimonies) and therefore cannot compare to find out who is getting the "truer" testimony.

So, in conclusion, both believe that their church is true based on their assumption that their warm feeling was the warmest. But they might be wrong because their level of warmth might be all they know...and they might now be aware that there are higher temperatures (tesimonies) in other churches.

If there is no god at all, then the "place" that PD refers to must be something else...human emotion, the Tao, or whatever...

I find much of what you have said quite credible. Nothing much to disagree with.

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck+Oct 12 2004, 11:56 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheProudDuck @ Oct 12 2004, 11:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Oct 12 2004, 06:58 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Oct 11 2004, 04:48 PM

I've known Catholics with just as fervent a testimony of Catholicism as your is of Mormonism? Where does their testimony come from?

Maybe the same place. Is it possible that those fervent Catholics might be sensing the spiritual truth of one part of what they're being taught, and mistaking it for a manifestation that the whole Catholic structure is true, not just the part? (Or vice versa, with Mormons making the same mistake?)

PD--if it comes from the same place then that "place" is sending awfully ambiquous messages---if church leaders are to be believe. If the LDS church is the only "saving" church and all must join, why would God send such garbbled messages?

Ask Him.

"If the LDS church is the only 'saving' church and all must join ..."

I think you're presenting a false premise there. I know some Church leaders have said that there is no salvation outside the Church (borrowing the old Catholic formula nulla salus extra eccelesiam.) I have also known other Church leaders to teach that the apostolic Church will ultimately be dissolved, being replaced (at least in the eternities) by a more direct relationship between God and his children.

With this in mind, the general teaching of the Church appears now to be that while every person will ultimately recognize Christ as the Son of God, and while acceptance of the gospel is still necessary for exaltation, there is no time limit on this. I read an interview between Neal Maxwell and Hugh Hewitt in which Elder Maxwell said that every person would have a full and fair chance to accept the gospel -- and that just because a person had been nominally exposed to the Church through a missionary or other source, that didn't necessarily mean that it was his time to receive that opportunity for a yes or no choice.

For whatever reason, in the world, spiritual promptings are extremely subtle. I can remember very few of them, and I have to admit that none of them were in response to requests for confirmation of the Church's historical origins. Other people feel, or claim to feel, these promptings more often.

In ultimate answer to your question of why the Lord would work this way, maybe it's the only way available, consistent with the laws he set for the universe. Or maybe both the Catholics and the Mormons are reading too much into the inspiration both receive. We'll just have to wait and find out.

Ask Him.

Well, if we agree that he sends "garbbled" messages, then how can we trust any answer we would get from Him?

The rest of your posting is well received, and makes a lot of sense.

[Cal]

As to Snow's article: I read something very similar, if not the same source a few years ago. It raises interesting questions. If nothing else it establishes a physical basis for religious experience. I don't suppose it is ever logical to think that scientific investigation is going to prove that brain chemistry is the ONLY source of religious experience (analogous to proving a negative)--however, it does refute the idea that religious experience MUST come from sources external to the human brain.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Unorthodox+Oct 12 2004, 11:15 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Unorthodox @ Oct 12 2004, 11:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Oct 11 2004, 08:38 PM

Hey!  Welcome back, Tao!  We have missed you!

Has the baby come yet????  We all want to know.  :)

Thanks :)

Yes, the baby is 7 months old now! Already crawling!

7 months old???

Already? Have you really been gone that long?

[Guest Unorthodox]

Originally posted by Jenda+Oct 12 2004, 07:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Oct 12 2004, 07:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Unorthodox@Oct 12 2004, 11:15 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Oct 11 2004, 08:38 PM

Hey!  Welcome back, Tao!  We have missed you!

Has the baby come yet????  We all want to know.  :)

Thanks :)

Yes, the baby is 7 months old now! Already crawling!

7 months old???

Already? Have you really been gone that long?

I was still here for awhile after she was born. I'm sure of that because I remember that when SF, Lindy, Bat and I met up for lunch several months ago, I brought the baby with me.

I think I was gone for about 4 or 5 months after that.

[Ray]

Cal,

I think the best service you can do for your fellow Man is to help him (or her) understand how he (or she) can come to know God. This presupposes that you have come to know God, however, and if you do not know God, I recommend that you listen to people who say that they do know God. Saying that God is unknowable simply because you don’t know God is pointless, because there are other people who do know God.

Btw, I appreciate the comments about the degree of “warmness” and the test for truth, and I believe I had a similar thought when I talked about how people often say they know their “Church” when they actually only know that a particular principle is true. I do believe a person can come to know that a Church is true, though, and I am claiming to have that knowledge when I say I know that:

1) Jesus and our heavenly Father both appeared to Joseph Smith in what is now called the sacred grove.

2) Joseph Smith received the authority to organize the church of Christ when he received the messengers that Jesus sent to restore the keys, namely John the Baptist, the apostles Peter James and John, and some other prophets including Moroni, Elijah and Elias.

3) Gordon B. Hinkley and the other apostles in the Church today are true prophets of God, with each of them holding the keys to the kingdom of God, and each of them able to delegate the authority to which their keys entitle them.

Having the knowledge that these things are true, and having such knowledge given me by an assurance from God through the power of the Holy Ghost, I can say that I know that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true organization on the face of the Earth in which the power of God is truly made manifest.

I also know that there are a lot of good people in other churches who will acknowledge that certain principles of the gospel are true, but as yet they still deny or fail to acknowledge that there are other principles of the gospel which can and would entitle them to receive all of the blessings that the gospel makes available to all of mankind.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Unorthodox+Oct 12 2004, 11:24 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Unorthodox @ Oct 12 2004, 11:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Oct 12 2004, 07:58 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Oct 11 2004, 04:48 PM

I've known Catholics with just as fervent a testimony of Catholicism as your is of Mormonism? Where does their testimony come from?

Maybe the same place. Is it possible that those fervent Catholics might be sensing the spiritual truth of one part of what they're being taught, and mistaking it for a manifestation that the whole Catholic structure is true, not just the part? (Or vice versa, with Mormons making the same mistake?)

PD--if it comes from the same place then that "place" is sending awfully ambiquous messages---if church leaders are to be believe. If the LDS church is the only "saving" church and all must join, why would God send such garbbled messages?

I think he meant that IF GOD EXISTS (which we do not KNOW), then he is the "place" sending messages. Since He generally doesn't just tell us things in plain english, unless we are an english-speaking prophet, He sends us "warm feelings". So if you go to a catholic church you might get a warm feeling. And if you read the BoM, you might get a warm feeling. One of those must be a stronger or warmer feeling than the other (unless God is a Unitarian Universalist). But since we don't have any way to measure how another person feels, we cannot compare the temperatures of our warm feelings...no way to compare which church is "truer".

If God has no true church, probably all warm feelings are equal.

If the LDS Church is true, then the BoM probably gives the warmest feelings. But a catholic might still get a warm feeling at their church too...it might just be a few degrees cooler.

If the Catholic Church is true, then the BoM is giving a cooler message.

But the problem is that the Catholic and the Mormon are the only ones who can feel their own warmth (testimonies) and therefore cannot compare to find out who is getting the "truer" testimony.

So, in conclusion, both believe that their church is true based on their assumption that their warm feeling was the warmest. But they might be wrong because their level of warmth might be all they know...and they might now be aware that there are higher temperatures (tesimonies) in other churches.

If there is no god at all, then the "place" that PD refers to must be something else...human emotion, the Tao, or whatever...

I really like your example using degrees of “warmth” in feelings, but I see a few flaws in your logic.

I was a member of another Christian church before I became a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I also spent some of my life being inactive in both churches, so I believe I do know something about differing temperature zones.

There are also other people who have gone from activity in one church to activity in another church, with many not changing religions because they felt their newer religion was “warmer”. I think some people simply feel more comfortable being a little cooler, possibly because so much isn’t expected of them in another religion, or because they are more familiar and comfortable with other people who are members there with them.

For instance, my Dad actually admitted that he was afraid to consider the ideas and teachings espoused by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, saying that he feared that if he heard about these things often enough he might start to believe it. I also know that he places a lot of value on his parents understanding of religion, having decided to follow his father’s footsteps in becoming a preacher of his particular religion. I also know that while he has a good memory of things contained in the Bible, he admits to having an extremely limited understanding of the God he worships, which I know is caused by his reliance upon the Bible without any personal relationship with Him. In other words, he denies the idea that God can communicate with him, thinking that he and everybody else should only get their information about God from the Bible only. And he seems to prefer things this way, not even being willing to listen to someone who is willing to talk about who and what God is, unless that person is also a member of his particular religion.

In other words, some people prefer to be where they feel most comfortable regardless of whether somewhere else is warmer or colder. They like what they like and that’s all that they like, and that’s all there is to it. Or at least that’s how they see it. I happen to know that there is more going on here than meets the eye, with Lucifer being intent on trying to keep people where he wants them while Jesus is intent on helping people see the light. But people who have eyes to see and ears to hear must use them.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Ray,

I think some people simply feel more comfortable being a little cooler, possibly because so much isn’t expected of them in another religion, or because they are more familiar and comfortable with other people who are members there with them.

For instance, my Dad actually admitted that he was afraid to consider the ideas and teachings espoused by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, saying that he feared that if he heard about these things often enough he might start to believe it.

Is that just an example of your dad sticking with what's "comfortable," or is he making a reasoned judgment that basing his religious beliefs on a particular method of reading and interpreting the Bible is more trustworthy a method for learning truth than the more personal, open-ended Latter-day Saint teaching on personal revelation? Could he not be concerned that he might be more easily deceived by one approach than by another? Frankly, it seems to me that the very multiplicity, and former intensity, of disputes among believers deriving their differences from biblical interpretation suggests that deception is no less likely if one takes a sola scriptura approach, but relying on personal, mystical spiritual experiences has gotten lots of people into trouble as well.

[Ray]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Oct 14 2004, 02:33 PM

Ray,

I think some people simply feel more comfortable being a little cooler, possibly because so much isn’t expected of them in another religion, or because they are more familiar and comfortable with other people who are members there with them.

For instance, my Dad actually admitted that he was afraid to consider the ideas and teachings espoused by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, saying that he feared that if he heard about these things often enough he might start to believe it.

Is that just an example of your dad sticking with what's "comfortable," or is he making a reasoned judgment that basing his religious beliefs on a particular method of reading and interpreting the Bible is more trustworthy a method for learning truth than the more personal, open-ended Latter-day Saint teaching on personal revelation? Could he not be concerned that he might be more easily deceived by one approach than by another? Frankly, it seems to me that the very multiplicity, and former intensity, of disputes among believers deriving their differences from biblical interpretation suggests that deception is no less likely if one takes a sola scriptura approach, but relying on personal, mystical spiritual experiences has gotten lots of people into trouble as well.

Yes, so the question then becomes “Who do you trust?”

I believe my Dad puts more trust in his own reasoning ability and the reasoning ability of his wife and parents, and anyone else who agrees with them, than he puts trust in the idea that God is willing to reason with him or that God has reasoned with me when I have tried to help show them how their reasoning is in error.

By their perspective, I went against the reasoning ability of my family in favor of my own reasoning ability, even though I have always given glory to God for helping me to see the things that I see. But they don’t see it that way, and they don’t see it God’s way, according to their own admission. By their own admission they are doing what makes the most sense to them, and as you have said, lots of people have gotten themselves into trouble by doing that.

The only way to know the truth is through Faith, and you cannot have any Faith without God.

Btw, to clear up something that I said earlier, I define Faith as an assurance from God, but the word “faith” is simply another word for “assurance”. When that assurance comes from God, I call it Faith, with a capital “F”, but I use the little “f” when referring to an assurance from someone other than God.

The question then becomes, where does your assurance come from? Or in other words, if you’re “sure” about something, how did you get to be so sure?

[Cal]

Cal,

I think the best service you can do for your fellow Man is to help him (or her) understand how he (or she) can come to know God. This presupposes that you have come to know God, however, and if you do not know God, I recommend that you listen to people who say that they do know God. Saying that God is unknowable simply because you don’t know God is pointless, because there are other people who do know God.

Ray--you live in your own little world, and that is fine. Presupposing that other people don't know God because they don't know YOUR version of God is pretty presumptuous. Presupposing that yours is the only God anyone could possibly know is quite narrow minded.

[Ray]

Heh, I didn’t say that you should try to teach people about how to come to know the God that I believe in. I think it would be swell of you to try to teach people about how to come to know the God that you believe in. But you really don’t expect people to come to YOU to come to know about the God you believe in, do you? I asked for your recommendation about some books to read and you have yet to provide any. I also haven’t heard you say anything about how prayer is important, or about how we should seek the guidance of the Holy Ghost to help us understand the truth. Does your neglect to provide that kind of information mean that you feel that those things are not important?

[Lindy]

Great topic Bat....sorry I missed the article... I am really enjoying this thread, very interesting and insightful.

Keep up the great posts people! :)

7 months old???

Already? Have you really been gone that long?

I was still here for awhile after she was born. I'm sure of that because I remember that when SF, Lindy, Bat and I met up for lunch several months ago, I brought the baby with me.

I think I was gone for about 4 or 5 months after that.

Goodtime we all had too! Baby girl was adorable! And yes Unorth...you were still here for awhile before you took a hiatus from the board. Glad you are back!