Exploring religious theory

[lostnfound]

I believe that you are a rare breed yourself my friend. Nearly all the people I know who fall into the true skeptic category (relying on objective evidence) are either agnostic or atheist.

:) From one rare breed to another..:):) I think I just wanted to know without a shadow of a doubt that my faith was real..especially if I was going to teach others..and I think your right the objective people probably were atheist or agnostic. The two books I suggested one started off as an atheist and wrote the book because he was trying to disprove christianity. That is why I suggested it. It is a interesting angle to read.

[lostnfound]

Without going into how to find True faith..Can I purpose to you a good place to start off in objective evidence in a God is creation. Most reglions will not argue this.

I think of Romans 2.."His invisable attributes and divine nature have been clearly seen, through what has been made, so they are without excuse." That is so true and spoken by someone who studied biology, the more complex you see creation the more you see evidence of God in it. Food for thought.

[lilered]

Originally Posted by DigitalShadow

Alright, so my question is about religion and what leads a person to it. I contend that there is no way to objectively prove that one religion is true while others are false (if you disagree, please state why and give evidence to support your claim). This means that belief in religion based solely on the subjective human experience.

I find it fascinating that so many people have unquestioning belief in something that can only be verified through their own personal experience of receiving thoughts and feelings, and furthermore that some people go so far as to criticize others for not having the same subjective experiences (I'm not talking about you, relax tom) or drawing the same conclusions from them. In extreme cases, people will even die and kill for these beliefs.

There have been a multitude of religions in this world throughout history and one can even track the change of religions to fit the need of the cultures at the time. People nowdays have no trouble dismissing ancient religions and even current ones they don't agree with as mythology and superstition, but when I take it one logical step farther and dismiss their beliefs just as easily, I am met with much hostility, especially here in America. People are more than willing to believe that everyone else is capable of fooling themselves into believing something is true, but when it comes to their own beliefs they are sure that it could not possibly be false.

I take the position that I have not seen enough evidence to proclaim any church to be absolutely true and yet ironically I am usually accused of pride and arrogance by the people presuming to know the word of God as a fact.

I guess the bottom line is that I would like to know if there is a good reason to hold beliefs that are based solely on the subjective experience of feeling God's presence? I'm certainly not saying it is a bad thing, but I hear many making the claim that it is necessary for a happy life to believe X religion faithfully. This wouldn't be so much of a dilemma if there weren't so many religions out there with the same claim but different beliefs and no objective evidence to support any of them.

Thoughts, anyone?

_________________________________

Conversly, during the time Jesus Christ was upon the earth, people witnessed his miracles, others have seen angels, and yet their expierences did not convince them he was the savior of mankind or the Son of God. Even during the time of Moses, and all of the blessings that God himself gave these people hile they were in the wilderness, did not convince them. What this speaks to is that for some it is insuffiecent to witness the events, for them to believe.

So it then follows, if seeing doesn't convince one, and words alone will not convince one, there has to be some other way to touch the hearts and minds of man for God to communicae wit him suffiecently to bring about change/belief.

That is why witnessing comes from the spirit. The Holy Ghost can work thru mankinds spiritis for the truth to be revealed.

Similairly, Joseph Smith was at this same point, and he sought revelation from God.

[DigitalShadow]

Without going into how to find True faith..Can I purpose to you a good place to start off in objective evidence in a God is creation. Most reglions will not argue this.

I think of Romans 2.."His invisable attributes and divine nature have been clearly seen, through what has been made, so they are without excuse." That is so true and spoken by someone who studied biology, the more complex you see creation the more you see evidence of God in it. Food for thought.

I have heard this argument many times and I have two major problems with it:

1. I have seen an overwhemling amount of evidence for the theory of evolution. I don't want to derail this thread with information that I've posted in many other threads before so if you're curious, do a forum search on "endogenous retrovirus" and read some of my other posts.

2. Arguing that complexity requires design by a more complex organism gets us no where. So let's say we are so complex that a more complex being had to have created us. Who created our creator? and who created his creator? and so on. There is nothing wrong with believing it for religious reasons, but I don't see how that it any more logical of a conclusion than believing we arose from the matter in the universe and the set of observed rules it follows.

[sgallan]

If you ever end-up joining a church, any church, because of measureable evidence, then what is going to happen when "better evidence" comes along? Are you going to leave that church, and join the new "better" church?

Good question/observation. This is bit of cognative dissonance I no longer deal with. When your position is you believe in nothing supernatural there isn't any "expanations" or "changing faiths" necessary. Though it is not unusual for my Lack of faith being called a "faith" (don't go here or I will bring up Santa).

[DigitalShadow]

Conversly, during the time Jesus Christ was upon the earth, people witnessed his miracles, others have seen angels, and yet their expierences did not convince them he was the savior of mankind or the Son of God. Even during the time of Moses, and all of the blessings that God himself gave these people hile they were in the wilderness, did not convince them. What this speaks to is that for some it is insuffiecent to witness the events, for them to believe.

So it then follows, if seeing doesn't convince one, and words alone will not convince one, there has to be some other way to touch the hearts and minds of man for God to communicae wit him suffiecently to bring about change/belief.

That is why witnessing comes from the spirit. The Holy Ghost can work thru mankinds spiritis for the truth to be revealed.

Similairly, Joseph Smith was at this same point, and he sought revelation from God.

Interesting perspective, your post did make me pause and think for a while, but I still don't see how using the "spirit" to communicate is any more reliable than simply appearing in front of people as supposedly happened in the day of the New Testament. From my perspective claiming that the elusive "spirit" is God's only means of communication and that faith is required seem only like convenient survival mechanisms for religions.

[DigitalShadow]

If you ever end-up joining a church, any church, because of measureable evidence, then what is going to happen when "better evidence" comes along? Are you going to leave that church, and join the new "better" church?

Good question/observation. This is bit of cognative dissonance I no longer deal with. When your position is you believe in nothing supernatural there isn't any "expanations" or "changing faiths" necessary. Though it is not unusual for my Lack of faith being called a "faith" (don't go here or I will bring up Santa).

This is part of the reason I do not belong to a church. I've stated before that my strong belief in open-mindedness is not suited to religious endevours and this is exactly what I meant by it. I generally accept what there is the most evidence for and as I stated before I do not see use for clinging to beliefs in the face of strong evidence against them.

[DigitalShadow]

...assuming he believed in his own personal experience, and didn't throw it out as a delusion of a psychotic mind...

HiJolly

ps. I know, he did not have a deluded mind. Just commenting for DS's sake...

I've witnessed a homeless person wander into my place of work having a conversation with God and refusing to leave until he was escorted by the police. Throwing out some thoughts as delusions is not the inherently bad thing you seem to think it is.

[DigitalShadow]

Well sure. I understand the point you are making. That's why my example was missing any component of whether the candy tasted good or bad. The truths that were evident from the example of the candy are these: The subject knows 1) that the candy has taste, and 2) what it tastes like. He will then have to be the judge of whether it is good or not.

The other point I was sure to make was that our senses can be deceived. The scriptures describe the witness of the Holy Ghost, as something beyond the senses of the flesh (Matt. 16:17). That's what we mean when we talk of testimony.

Many religions actually appeal to the senses. They either use music (not that there is anything wrong with music), drugs, or some other third thing (as Spongebob would say) to simulate to the subjects the Spirit. I'm not saying they intentionally set out to deceive, but many are lead to believe that this subjective experience represents God speaking to them. This leads to many different organizations each claiming that theirs is the right one.

The true and actual power of the Holy Ghost, on the other hand, will not be the validator of confusion or falsehoods. It will validate only truth, and will testify of the Father and the Son.

That's not to say that people in different religions have not felt the true influence of the Holy Ghost. I believe many people have. Perhaps they felt the Holy Ghost, whenever they did something good for someone else to help them out. Or maybe they felt Him when they had their first child. Maybe they felt the calm assurance of their actions when they apologized to someone for something they did wrong. These are each cases when the Spirit might testify to someone of true principles. They might have even felt the Spirit when they prayed to God for the welfare of their own souls, or those of their children. The scriptures describe the fruit of the Spirit better than I can:

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law" (Galatians 5:22-23)

We must learn to recognize the influence of the Holy Ghost in our quest for truth. Alma, a prophet in the Book of Mormon, really teaches well how a person can gain spiritual knowledge. The key ingredient is faith, which is "...the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Heb. 11:1). I don't know if you are willing to explore it, but I encourage you to consider the words of Alma in the following passages: -> Alma 32:26-43. It's not too many verses, but it relates to our conversation. Let me know what you think.

Sincerely,

Vanhin

I read the suggested passages and I do find them interesting. I believe tomk has quoted parts of that to me before on various occasions.

I am willing to explore the concept of faith. If not I wouldn't waste my time here at all, but after all this investigation, I still can't help but think that man is capable of growing the seed of faith into whatever he desires as is evidence by the multitude of religions that exist and have ever existed in human history. Religion's dependence on faith has always seemed too convenient for my skeptical mind. Not that I reject it outright, but I still haven't been convinced that my faith would be well placed in any particular religion.

[Vanhin]

I read the suggested passages and I do find them interesting. I believe tomk has quoted parts of that to me before on various occasions.

I am willing to explore the concept of faith. If not I wouldn't waste my time here at all, but after all this investigation, I still can't help but think that man is capable of growing the seed of faith into whatever he desires as is evidence by the multitude of religions that exist and have ever existed in human history. Religion's dependence on faith has always seemed too convenient for my skeptical mind. Not that I reject it outright, but I still haven't been convinced that my faith would be well placed in any particular religion.

Thanks DigitalShadow for considering my words.

At least according to us, there really is no other way to gain spiritual knowledge than the process described in Alma 32. Faith is both the first principle of the Gospel, and prerequisite to receiving the witness of the Holy Ghost. Acting on faith, such as the example of planting the seed to see if it will grow, is also prerequisite. Just like the bag of candy, if my friends never taste it, they will never know it has taste or what it tastes like. Likewise, if you don't plant the seed, you will never know if it will grow, thereby proving that it is a good seed (a bad seed will not grow).

A skeptic, or unbeliever, would have to find away in themselves to muster up at least a desire to try the seed, before any progress can be made in this department. That is because even God honors our agency (free will).

I want to tell you how this "mysterious" Spirit is a better witness than anything that can be presented to our physical senses.

Before being born into mortality, we existed as spirit children of God. Our scriptures teach us that man is spirit (D&C 93:33). Spirit is not something mystical that is somehow unexplainable or incomprehendable. It is matter:

There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; (D&C 131:7)

Joseph Smith taught that our spirit is our mind, the intelligent part about us (LDS.org - Melchizedek Priesthood Chapter Detail - The Great Plan of Salvation).

When I was a little kid, even before I could speak, I remember knowing what I wanted to say, but not having the words to say it. I kid you not, I actually remember that. The memory itself has faded over the years, and I don't remember specifics any more, but I do remember having that very experience. Being bilingual (Finnish/English), I sometimes run into a situation when switching between languages where I cannot recall the word I am trying to say in any language, but in my mind I know what I am wanting to say.

This is our spirit. It is our comprehension, our intelligence. Part of our Father's plan for us is to enter mortality. When we are born into mortality, our spirit enters a mortal body made of physical matter. This allows us to continue learning and growing, as children of God, in ways not possible without physical bodies. I don't fully understand it, but our scriptures teach that spirit and element inseparably connected results in a fullness of joy (D&C 93:33 again). That's the main reason we are here on this earth. One of the other reasons some of us are here, are to gain experiences, and to grow by learning the difference between good and evil, and hopefully choosing good. When we learn something, it is our spirit that comprehends it.

Our scriptures teach that Heavenly Father, and Jesus Christ have bodies of flesh and bone, but the Holy Ghost does not. The reason is evident from the following passage:

The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us. (D&C 130:22)

This allows the Holy Ghost to communicate directly with our spirits so that we comprehend Him without the limitations of the flesh. He speaks the language of our mind... our spirit. It is the toungue of angels:

Do ye not remember that I said unto you that after ye had received the Holy Ghost ye could speak with the tongue of angels? And now, how could ye speak with the tongue of angels save it were by the Holy Ghost? Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ. Wherefore, I said unto you, feast upon the words of Christ; for behold, the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do. (2 Ne. 32:2-3)

I used to love going on long drives with my dad. Looking back I realize that I learned so much from him that I didn't always give him credit for during times like that. He taught me that lying was not right, for example. He would said, "a lie by any other name is still a lie". I still remember those times when he taught me true principles, because the message was carried to my soul be the influence of the Holy Ghost. I know that lying is wrong, and that being honest is right because of the things I learned by the Spirit. Of course, I didn't always recognize the influence of the Spirit then, but now looking back, I recognize that that is what it was. The Spirit will testify of the truth; any and all truth (Moroni 10:5). I bet even you have felt the influence of the Holy Ghost speak to you heart and mind that something was true. Perhaps you simply did not recognize it for what it was.

I don't really mean to preach to you too much. I just hope that something in what I have told you inspires you to plant that seed, and try the experiment.

Sincerely,

Vanhin

[Moksha]

It has seemed to me that we are all (even Scott Gallan:eek:) engaged in our own spiritual dance on our own pathways. It seems wonderful when these pathways run parallel, intersect and even intertwine. :)

In the meantime, let us be good to one another and celebrate our dance in anticipation of the banquet.

[Guest tomk]

This is part of the reason I do not belong to a church. I've stated before that my strong belief in open-mindedness is not suited to religious endevours and this is exactly what I meant by it. I generally accept what there is the most evidence for and as I stated before I do not see use for clinging to beliefs in the face of strong evidence against them.

And yet, here you are. :)

We've explained ourselves to you the best we can.

Why do you keep coming back?

I don't say any of this in anger. I'm genuinely curious. Why are you here if you doubt us when we tell you "this is how we know" ???

Tell me again how these posts are helping you understand us better.

What are your desires as they relate to the LDS Faith?

Obviously you think the LDS Faith, indeed all faiths, are flawed, since they don't agree.

So why are you here?

You don't seem to like the answers we give you, even though they are fundamental to our faith.

Just trying to understand.

[lostnfound]

I have heard this argument many times and I have two major problems with it:

1. I have seen an overwhemling amount of evidence for the theory of evolution. I don't want to derail this thread with information that I've posted in many other threads before so if you're curious, do a forum search on "endogenous retrovirus" and read some of my other posts.

2. Arguing that complexity requires design by a more complex organism gets us no where. So let's say we are so complex that a more complex being had to have created us. Who created our creator? and who created his creator? and so on. There is nothing wrong with believing it for religious reasons, but I don't see how that it any more logical of a conclusion than believing we arose from the matter in the universe and the set of observed rules it follows.

We will not derail this thread with this because you want to stay on topic. :) I'm not sure who in your life has given you this argument and if they were someone that could intellectually give it to you..but digital..here is a little background knowledge on me. I am the grown daughter of a well know doctor in his area..a former athesist and all my life i have heard the arguements for evolution and then that same athesist gave his life to christ and then still did not give up evolution theory and then after careful study saw that their was more evidence for creation then evolution and speaks all over the country on this matter. I have seen the extreme ends to this argument and I concur there is more evidence for creation then evolution. But we will stay on topic here okay. maybe start a new thread just on this topic:)

[Guest tomk]

Disclaimer: This thread is not for the philosophically faint of heart. I am not a member of any church and this thread will explore my thoughts on religion in general. What I am looking for is a deep philosophical discussion rather than references to scriptural doctrine since I am exploring the concept of religion in general as opposed to looking for LDS specific answers. If you do not have an open mind or are easily offended by opposing viewpoints, feel free not to read or contribute to this thread.

Alright, so my question is about religion and what leads a person to it. I contend that there is no way to objectively prove that one religion is true while others are false (if you disagree, please state why and give evidence to support your claim). This means that belief in religion based solely on the subjective human experience.

I find it fascinating that so many people have unquestioning belief in something that can only be verified through their own personal experience of receiving thoughts and feelings, and furthermore that some people go so far as to criticize others for not having the same subjective experiences (I'm not talking about you, relax tom) or drawing the same conclusions from them. In extreme cases, people will even die and kill for these beliefs.

There have been a multitude of religions in this world throughout history and one can even track the change of religions to fit the need of the cultures at the time. People nowdays have no trouble dismissing ancient religions and even current ones they don't agree with as mythology and superstition, but when I take it one logical step farther and dismiss their beliefs just as easily, I am met with much hostility, especially here in America. People are more than willing to believe that everyone else is capable of fooling themselves into believing something is true, but when it comes to their own beliefs they are sure that it could not possibly be false.

I take the position that I have not seen enough evidence to proclaim any church to be absolutely true and yet ironically I am usually accused of pride and arrogance by the people presuming to know the word of God as a fact.

I guess the bottom line is that I would like to know if there is a good reason to hold beliefs that are based solely on the subjective experience of feeling God's presence? I'm certainly not saying it is a bad thing, but I hear many making the claim that it is necessary for a happy life to believe X religion faithfully. This wouldn't be so much of a dilemma if there weren't so many religions out there with the same claim but different beliefs and no objective evidence to support any of them.

Thoughts, anyone?

I am reminded of this verse.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

This is me trying to explain it to you, not to judge you.

These things are spiritually discerned.

If you do not even believe you have a spirit, then you will never comprehend these things, DS. I don't say so, God says so!

I don't make the rules. Your "issues" are with God, not with man. That is why these posts will continue to never resolve anything with you. They may help you understand our position, but the answer will ulitmately come from God. Words alone, no matter how eloquent, will never provide the answers you seek.

I don't know how to help any more than I already have.

I look forward to your thoughts, and if I have any more to give, I will post.

Tom

[rayhale]

I may have said this in a previous thread but I will restate it here since this seems to be a more relevant thread.

Religion is based on subjective evidence, I am not arguing that, but science does the same thing when they do not have answers that they do not want to have. For example, the ‘theory of evolution’ is stated as FACT since the only other feasible option is creation. Creation, in the minds of scientists, could not be true no matter how much evidence there is since that to believe in creation is to believe in God, and most scientists cannot accept that.

It is interesting to note the parallels in science and religion.

Theory is the same as or at least similar to faith. Both have no proof that they are true, people will often state theory of something, or faith in something, as truth. For an example the theory of evolution, or faith of the creation. People on both sides will discount the ‘proof’ of the other side since it will disprove their side and make him/her question his/her entire belief system. Most people are not ready for that kind of knowledge.

[rayhale]

This may be a little off topic but lets read Articles of Faith 1:

11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

I think this is interesting since that we believe in living the commandments of God as we choose and let other people worship Him as they choose. This is a serious and demanding question since we need to ask the question of what is ‘just’ a sin and what is both a sin and what is, or should be illegal. For example, homosexuality is a sin but should it be against the law as well? Now of course we should treat everyone with respect. I have heard of people beating up and even killing people for being homosexual. That is just wrong. I would put anyone that would kill anyone else in jail. Laws, both God’s and man’s are for our own good, and safety. If something is illegal then we should go though the proper channels of authority so people that are not involved are not hurt.

[Misshalfway]

So much of what we receive from Father in terms of light and knowledge comes after we first desire it. I think Father allows all of these choices and allows men to choose what level of light they are satisfied. In the end, it would only be the power of God that could discern the hearts of the children of men.

I think their is a lot of wiggle room between being exalted and being condemned. We will be judged according to the light we accepted and the opportunities with which we were able to receive it.

I am willing to explore the concept of faith. If not I wouldn't waste my time here at all, but after all this investigation, I still can't help but think that man is capable of growing the seed of faith into whatever he desires as is evidence by the multitude of religions that exist and have ever existed in human history. Religion's dependence on faith has always seemed too convenient for my skeptical mind. Not that I reject it outright, but I still haven't been convinced that my faith would be well placed in any particular religion.

This is why humility is an important element. Faith must be tempered with the willingness to put the will of God first. Again, another plug for the H.G. because it is thru this medium that the Father makes his will known to the individual -- even beyond the calling of prophets and the publishing of His words.

I know when I am doing my own will. I feel it. I feel when I am departing from the will of God. Sometimes I feel the warning before I act. Other times I recognize it when I have taken steps in a certain direction. But, if I commit my life and my attitude to NOT relying on the arm of the flesh, I find the help and influence I need to choose a path for myself. I am not perfect..... thank goodness for the grace and patience of God as he works with me until I learn all my lessons.

You make faith seem like something weak.....like something easy. Try walking on water sometime! It takes work...and discipline and humility to fight the doubt. It takes lots of work to nourish and maintain faith. It must be nurtured with study and understanding and wisdom and experience. Faith is not blind. The fruit of faith is light and knowledge and surety. But one must walk into the dark and believe there is light even though all the earthy senses say there is only darkness.

IMHO, it is easy to stay to the known. It is like staying on the dry ground while others swim. You can't know that you can swim until you get in!!!

[ztodd]

I haven't read all the posts because I don't want to take the time to do so. So I'll just repond to the original post. I'm sorry if I'm rehasing any points that have already been beaten to death.

Disclaimer: This thread is not for the philosophically faint of heart. I am not a member of any church and this thread will explore my thoughts on religion in general. What I am looking for is a deep philosophical discussion rather than references to scriptural doctrine since I am exploring the concept of religion in general as opposed to looking for LDS specific answers. If you do not have an open mind or are easily offended by opposing viewpoints, feel free not to read or contribute to this thread.

I'm not the smartest person in the world, but I try to use the brain God gave me, as well as any other resources he has given me.

Alright, so my question is about religion and what leads a person to it.

Well there are a lot of things of course. Probably the first impression of a church or religion usually comes from interaction with its members.

I contend that there is no way to objectively prove that one religion is true while others are false (if you disagree, please state why and give evidence to support your claim).

I agree. There could be a way if God wanted it to be that way, but He doesn't. So there's not. (For the record, I don't believe that other religions are "false".)

This means that belief in religion based solely on the subjective human experience.

False conclusion. The actual conclusion should be that proof of a religion being true is not based on objective evidence. You can't conclude anything about belief in a religion based on your premise.

Belief in a religion can in fact be based solely on subjective experience, or can even be based solely on whatever objective evidence is available (even if incomplete), if a person chooses to believe based on that. It's a personal choice. My belief is based on a combination of subjective and objective evidences.

I find it fascinating that so many people have unquestioning belief in something that can only be verified through their own personal experience of receiving thoughts and feelings,

It is a fascinating concept. It's kind of like love. It's possible to come to love a person even if there doesn't seem to be anything lovable about that person when you look at him or her objectively. :)

I know it's not the best analogy, since there's not an absolute truth about whether the person is to be loved or not. Hmm, on second thought, perhaps there is an absolute truth to that- after all, we are commanded by God to love one another, as He has loved us.

and furthermore that some people go so far as to criticize others for not having the same subjective experiences (I'm not talking about you, relax tom) or drawing the same conclusions from them.

Fascinating, yes, I suppose so. But not surprising to me. We are all human and judgmental of each other at times. It is not justified though. We need to allow all men and women to choose what they believe and not pass judgment on them.

In extreme cases, people will even die and kill for these beliefs.

Yes, this has always been the case since the beginning. Sometimes it is justified by God and sometimes it is not. Either way it is a very serious matter.

There have been a multitude of religions in this world throughout history and one can even track the change of religions to fit the need of the cultures at the time.

Yes, our church / religion fits that description as well. I believe that God will allow adjustments to happen within his true church because the people need them. There may even be somewhat different policies in the church in different parts of the world. We are all somewhat products of our cultures and need to be catered to a little bit.

People nowdays have no trouble dismissing ancient religions and even current ones they don't agree with as mythology and superstition, but when I take it one logical step farther and dismiss their beliefs just as easily, I am met with much hostility, especially here in America.

I'm sorry this has been your experience. I personally am trying to find the proper balance between defending the faith and allowing others to express their doubts without fear of being attacked.

People are more than willing to believe that everyone else is capable of fooling themselves into believing something is true, but when it comes to their own beliefs they are sure that it could not possibly be false.

I think you are basing your whole discussion here on a dichotomy between "us" and "them" that really isn't (or shouldn't be) the case. I believe there is truth to be found in most all churches and we should embrace truth wherever it may be found. On the other hand, there are false ideas present even with the members of the true church of God. But the fact still remains that there is a true church of God in which He has restored the authority to act in His name.

For the most part I don't think everyone else is fooling themselves into believing something is true when it's really not... I think that for the most part, for whatever reason, people just haven't found themselves in the position yet to be able to receive the fullness of the saving ordinances of the gospel. Perhaps they just haven't found the right questions to ask yet, or perhaps there is just a different purpose for their life currently- preparing them for the right moment when they will be able to receive the fullness.

I hope we can all be patient enough to allow the Lord to give us the answers we seek in his own due time.

I take the position that I have not seen enough evidence to proclaim any church to be absolutely true and yet ironically I am usually accused of pride and arrogance by the people presuming to know the word of God as a fact.

I hope I haven't come across as accusational. Please point it out to me if I have.

I guess the bottom line is that I would like to know if there is a good reason to hold beliefs that are based solely on the subjective experience of feeling God's presence?

Yes, I would say so, if that subjective experience is strong enough to absolutely convince you. But I don't think God makes us rely solely on our own personal witness- he also provides many, many other witnesses- testimonies of others, or "fruits" of the church that show that it is probably a good thing.

I'm certainly not saying it is a bad thing, but I hear many making the claim that it is necessary for a happy life to believe X religion faithfully.

I don't make that claim, but I do make the claim that in order to receive the fullness of the saving ordinances of the gospel and reach one's full potential to once again dwell with Father in Heaven in His glory, one must eventually be baptized, receive the Holy Ghost, and all other ordinances, and be faithful and obedient to the commandments God has revealed to His prophets from both biblical and modern times.

This wouldn't be so much of a dilemma if there weren't so many religions out there with the same claim but different beliefs and no objective evidence to support any of them.

Yes, it is a dilemma to claim that one can only find happiness in one particular religion. Not because of a lack of objective evidence I don't think, but just because it doesn't make much sense. :) I do propose however that a fullness of joy can only be found after accepting all that God has to offer. And not to worry, all will eventually have the opportunity, whether in this life or the next.

.

[ztodd]

Your line of questioning is somewhat similiar to mine to lds members and others..in that many follow after their reglion with such ferver and for a subjective reasons.."well I prayed about it and it is true" (subjective, because no voice came down from heaven to say it was true), or "I looked into it and it felt right to me" (subjective again)..or i have heard this also "It sounds true to me and nobody can convince me otherwise"

Hold on a minute.. let me make sure I know what y'all mean by subjective... You're saying that if a voice came down from heaven to say it's true then it's no longer subjective? Even if no one else was there to hear it?

My understanding was that subjective basically means personal or unable to be proven to someone else. If I heard a voice from heaven but no one else was there to hear it, that's what I thought would classify as a subjective experience.

What if only two people hear the voice or see a vision together? Is it not a subjective experience for those two people? (As with Joseph Smith and Sydney Rigdon) What if it was only about 2500 people who saw angels come down from heaven to minister? (as recorded in the Book of Mormon)

Only a limited number of people saw Christ walk on the water or perform his miracles. They had personal first hand experience. What do we have? All we have to start with are their testimonies. Ok, so we have archaeology giving evidence that there really was a Jerusalem.. but what does that prove as far as whether Jesus Christ was the Son of God and Redeemer of the world?

The only way to know the truth about God and Jesus Christ is through personal communication from heaven. How can it possibly be otherwise? I would dare say that if you were of a skeptical or doubtful mind and heart, and God were to show Himself to you in that state, it would still not convince you. You would almost immediately dismiss the experience as a delusion of the mind. So then, what is the answer?

Test the word of God. Prove it to yourself. Don't worry about proving it to others. You can't. But you can prove it yourself. Test God's promise that if you ask of God in faith, he will give to you liberally. (James 1:5)

Again, you can't worry about everyone else.. at least not until you yourself are grounded in the faith.

.

[lostnfound]

Hold on a minute.. let me make sure I know what y'all mean by subjective... You're saying that if a voice came down from heaven to say it's true then it's no longer subjective? Even if no one else was there to hear it?

My understanding was that subjective basically means personal or unable to be proven to someone else. If I heard a voice from heaven but no one else was there to hear it, that's what I thought would classify as a subjective experience.

What if only two people hear the voice or see a vision together? Is it not a subjective experience for those two people? (As with Joseph Smith and Sydney Rigdon) What if it was only about 2500 people who saw angels come down from heaven to minister? (as recorded in the Book of Mormon)

Only a limited number of people saw Christ walk on the water or perform his miracles. They had personal first hand experience. What do we have? All we have to start with are their testimonies. Ok, so we have archaeology giving evidence that there really was a Jerusalem.. but what does that prove as far as whether Jesus Christ was the Son of God and Redeemer of the world?

The only way to know the truth about God and Jesus Christ is through personal communication from heaven. How can it possibly be otherwise? I would dare say that if you were of a skeptical or doubtful mind and heart, and God were to show Himself to you in that state, it would still not convince you. You would almost immediately dismiss the experience as a delusion of the mind. So then, what is the answer?

Test the word of God. Prove it to yourself. Don't worry about proving it to others. You can't. But you can prove it yourself. Test God's promise that if you ask of God in faith, he will give to you liberally. (James 1:5)

Again, you can't worry about everyone else.. at least not until you yourself are grounded in the faith.

.

I agree with your definition of subjective. :) That is what I meant by most post...I remember one young lady who was a buddist. I asked why she became a buddist. Her answer "It felt right" These are the kind of answers I was making a point to.

[Teancum18]

If someone else has already mentioned this, then that's the way it goes. DigitalShadow, I think the best way to answer that question is belief in God. Obviously, someone is only going to seek out religion if they believe in God. From there, a belief in God extends to a believe in an after life. Which means, if there is an after life, and we are alive now, where were we before we came here.

I think those key concepts are at the root foundation of every individual's desire to seek out religion.

As for the contentions between the various religions, well, the reasons for that are about as numerous are the stars in the sky.

Now, here is something that will crank your gear: many people belief that religion only spawned because of evolution. The belief goes that mankind eventually evolved to a point where he could perceive his own death. So in order to cope with that, the idea of an after life was created. From there, God and religion. I for one disagree with that philosophical notion. However, you take it for what it's worth to you.

[sgallan]

You don't seem to like the answers we give you, even though they are fundamental to our faith.

This is a pretty good point/observation. In my case I am familiar with the theology and wouldn't worship this posited God even if he were proven true. Something that I mentioned to some nice missionaries who came by about three weeks ago.

[Teancum18]

...I wouldn't worship this posited God even if he were proven true.

As long as you don't worship anything, or anyone, that inspires you to fly airplanes into buildings, I'm ok with that!

[japacific]

What if your god asked you to fly an airplane into a building? Would you do it? That is the question.

[Teancum18]

What if your god asked you to fly an airplane into a building? Would you do it? That is the question.

That is a very good question! God would never ask me to fly an airplane into a building.