When my testimony started heading south

[byu71]

"I'm not saying all other churches are bad, I'm just saying that I attended other Christian churches dozens of times and never felt the Spirit in any other church except for an LDS Church. It was a stark contrast."

I'm sorry for being rude to Indy, but I honestly think that the best way of characterizing that type of thinking is delusional. It's also rude and insulting toward other religions -- I don't like it.

He should have added. " It was probably my fault. I didn't prepare myself to receive the spirit like I do when I attended LDS churches". Then I think what he said would have been OK.

[LA Ute]

"I'm not saying all other churches are bad, I'm just saying that I attended other Christian churches dozens of times and never felt the Spirit in any other church except for an LDS Church. It was a stark contrast."

I'm sorry for being rude to Indy, but I honestly think that the best way of characterizing that type of thinking is delusional. It's also rude and insulting toward other religions -- I don't like it.

Perhaps not your best choice of words ever.

[tooblue]

"I'm not saying all other churches are bad, I'm just saying that I attended other Christian churches dozens of times and never felt the Spirit in any other church except for an LDS Church. It was a stark contrast."

I'm sorry for being rude to Indy, but I honestly think that the best way of characterizing that type of thinking is delusional. It's also rude and insulting toward other religions -- I don't like it.

How can it be that any and all individuals who do not think the same way you do, or agree with you are either a liar or delusional?

[Moliere]

"I'm not saying all other churches are bad, I'm just saying that I attended other Christian churches dozens of times and never felt the Spirit in any other church except for an LDS Church. It was a stark contrast."

I'm sorry for being rude to Indy, but I honestly think that the best way of characterizing that type of thinking is delusional. It's also rude and insulting toward other religions -- I don't like it.

I don't get this last paragraph. Plenty of people (well okay just a few, hey I served in europe) on my mission came to church and didn't feel anything or didn't feel more strongly towards my church then they did their current religion or whatever they believed. Was that also insulting to me? Indy is speaking from personal experience and to extrapolate that from his experience to everyone else is false application.

Now if Indy is out telling everyone else they are wrong and that the spirit is not present in their church, then that would be insulting and rude.....well unless it is the Westboro Baptist Church.

[mUUser]

He should have added. " It was probably my fault. I didn't prepare myself to receive the spirit like I do when I attended LDS churches". Then I think what he said would have been OK.

Credit where credit's due. That right there is some funny stuff.

[SeattleUte]

At the risk of over-simplifying, anything those other Christian faiths would have to say would need to be derivative of the Bible alone. (The Catholics do have the Pope, and in a way I think they see him as a type of prophet.) Our canon is much larger and contains much more specific information about the nature of revelation and God's relationship to mankind. We also believe in continuing revelation. That's all a big part of our message, and a part that I buy into 100%. In a sense, we have a "revelatory" theology, as opposed to a more academic theology in other faiths. Again, I am not bragging, just trying to be accurate. Ours is a distinctive faith, whether one believes it or not. In fact, our distinctiveness is what causes us to be reviled by so many Orthodox Christian faiths.

There's lots of irony here. LDS docrine is incoherant and constantly shifting. To the extent there's any clarity it's derivative, except maybe the concept of baptism for the dead (THAT does seem to be original).

For example:

Is Christ Jehova? Talmage seems to have thought so, but as we've seen, apostles write stuff that is just wrong all the time. Where's the revelation to clear up this critical issue? If Christ is Jehova, what's this business about Jehova being called the Father in the OT?

Why were blacks denied the priesthood? Quoth Boyd K. Packer: "We don't know." Was this doctrine or policy? We don't know.

The temple ceremony is an interesting example of Joseph Smith's magpie tendencies.

I wonder how much of a larger or "revelatory" canon you'd have left if you removed the redundancies (how many times does the D&C say "sharp as a two edged sword"?), the just plain gibberish (have you ever read the D&C cover to cover?), the Book of Abraham (apparently this didn't come from where Joseph said it did), and the material wholesale or nearly wholesale copied from the Bible?

Yes, sometimes less is more.

[LA Ute]

There's lots of irony here. LDS docrine is incoherant and constantly shifting. To the extent there's any clarity it's derivative, except maybe the concept of baptism for the dead (THAT does seem to be original).

For example:

Is Christ Jehova? Talmage seems to have thought so, but as we've seen, apostles write stuff that is just wrong all the time. Where's the revelation to clear up this critical issue? If Christ is Jehova, what's this business about Jehova being called the Father in the OT?

Why were blacks denied the priesthood? Quoth Boyd K. Packer: "We don't know." Was this doctrine or policy? We don't know.

The temple ceremony is an interesting example of Joseph Smith's magpie tendencies.

I wonder how much of a larger or "revelatory" canon you'd have left if you removed the redundancies (how many times does the D&C say "sharp as a two edged sword"?), the just plain gibberish (have you ever read the D&C cover to cover?), the Book of Abraham (apparently this didn't come from where Joseph said it did), and the material wholesale or nearly wholesale copied from the Bible?

Yes, sometimes less is more.

And to think that on my visit to Seattle at the end of this month I was planning to pay for lunch! Keep this up, bucko, and you can forget about that! I have principles, you know.

[BlueHair]

There's lots of irony here. LDS docrine is incoherant and constantly shifting. To the extent there's any clarity it's derivative, except maybe the concept of baptism for the dead (THAT does seem to be original).

For example:

Is Christ Jehova? Talmage seems to have thought so, but as we've seen, apostles write stuff that is just wrong all the time. Where's the revelation to clear up this critical issue? If Christ is Jehova, what's this business about Jehova being called the Father in the OT?

Why were blacks denied the priesthood? Quoth Boyd K. Packer: "We don't know." Was this doctrine or policy? We don't know.

The temple ceremony is an interesting example of Joseph Smith's magpie tendencies.

I wonder how much of a larger or "revelatory" canon you'd have left if you removed the redundancies (how many times does the D&C say "sharp as a two edged sword"?), the just plain gibberish (have you ever read the D&C cover to cover?), the Book of Abraham (apparently this didn't come from where Joseph said it did), and the material wholesale or nearly wholesale copied from the Bible?

Yes, sometimes less is more.

If "And it came to pass" was removed from the BOM, it would really shorten things up.

[BlueHair]

Three quick points

1. I've never personally heard another person from another faith testify how their faith is based solely upon an independent witness from the Spirit. That doesn't mean there aren't people out there that have, but based on my experience, they would be a very small exception. I'm not trying to invalidate someone of another faith's testimony of their faith, I'm just curious how many of these people exist rather than being some theoretical construct. Christianity as a whole doesn't really adopt (or at least emphasize) the Mormon formula for obtaining truth.

2. Regardless of what someone else says or believes, my independent witness is not dependent on their witness. My witness is for me, not for someone else. Someone else has to get their own witness.

3. What range of doctrines is someone's spiritual witness comprised of? That Christ lived and died for our sins and through His Grace we can overcome sin and commune with God? That particular doctrine is not unique to Mormonism. Is their spiritual witness about their religion or about general, mainstream Christian tenets? Has a person of another faith mused seriously on the doctrines of continuing revelation, salvation for the dead, eternal families, etc.? Mormonism doesn't completely supplant mainstream Christian beliefs, they supplement them.

I really like what you said about #2. Your witness is your own. No person should take any stock in someone else's testimony.

[Moliere]

There's lots of irony here. LDS docrine is incoherant and constantly shifting. To the extent there's any clarity it's derivative, except maybe the concept of baptism for the dead (THAT does seem to be original).

For example:

Is Christ Jehova? Talmage seems to have thought so, but as we've seen, apostles write stuff that is just wrong all the time. Where's the revelation to clear up this critical issue? If Christ is Jehova, what's this business about Jehova being called the Father in the OT?

Why were blacks denied the priesthood? Quoth Boyd K. Packer: "We don't know." Was this doctrine or policy? We don't know.

The temple ceremony is an interesting example of Joseph Smith's magpie tendencies.

I wonder how much of a larger or "revelatory" canon you'd have left if you removed the redundancies (how many times does the D&C say "sharp as a two edged sword"?), the just plain gibberish (have you ever read the D&C cover to cover?), the Book of Abraham (apparently this didn't come from where Joseph said it did), and the material wholesale or nearly wholesale copied from the Bible?

Yes, sometimes less is more.

Where is the revelation to tell us who killed JFK? If God really existed and talked to modern day prophets he would reveal it and the real killer would be put to death.

[BlueHair]

Where is the revelation to tell us who killed JFK? If God really existed and talked to modern day prophets he would reveal it and the real killer would be put to death.

I like the way you think. We could use President Monson as an Oracle of sorts, like in Minority Report.