Quote:
There was a time, not too long ago that I would have said prayer gave me all the answers and testimony that I was as assured in as you seem to be. I said all the right LDS things and did all the right LDS things. I have just come to a point where much of what I believed was the truth and as sure about it as you are started appearing irrational.
I have experienced what LDS call the witness of the spirit again I am guessing, just as much as you have. Because the facts of history are not conflicting with that testimony I have come to suspect that perhaps what I thought was revelation was some other emotional response. This is the reason I started this thread. Are we really asking to know truth to being told that we should ask until what someone is telling us is true. I think there is a fundamental difference.
It may also be a distinct possibility that what you a terming the "facts of history" aren't an accurate description of the phenomena you are referencing. There are plenty of counter-arguments Jason, and perfectly plausible ones, to each and every historical anamoly or problem in church history. They're out there and easily accessible. The anti-Mormon criticisms regarding church history really aren't
that compelling when contrasted with the plausible arguments to the contrary. Indeed, one of the purposes of the Spirit is getting us through storms such as this spiritually intact. If your expecting, or think, that all the fragmentary aspects of church history that could be adduced to cast doubt on the Church are ever going to be answered definitively such that you can then rationally go ahead with your belief and activity in the Church, you will, indeed, be waiting a very long time, because no historical questions, particularly those relating to phenomena for which evidence is fragmentary, of dubious quality or provenance, or unavailable, are ever going to be answered in human scholarly terms.
I've studied church history vis-a-vis its problems and challenges for upwards of 25 years now, and I've seen nothing that cannot be either plausibly answered or dismissed as patient falsification by the enemies of the Church. The bottom line here is that, not to put to fine a point on it, one either has a testimony of the Gospel or one does not. I don't know what you've experienced, but I do know that what I've experienced, on a number of occasions relative to various principles, has inoculated me against the kind of crisis of faith you are undergoing, at least at this point in my life.
It was because of this I knew that the Salamander Letter was in some way a big bottle of snake oil, and when Hoffmon exposed himself through his own behavior, I wasn't surprised in the least. The Signature Books crowed had egg on their faces, but quietly dropped the issue and went on the newer, greener pastures without looking back (I heard Anthony Hutchison personally say that he and "scholars" were 99% certain of the letter's authenticity. You see, in things historical as in other human intellectual endeavors, 1% can be more than the sum of the entire 100%).
I do not want to be disrespectful. I used to say this exactly as you. I have bore such a testimony hundreds of time in Church, as a missionary, to friends I was sharing the gospel with. The fact is such knowledge is not knowledge in the same sense as knowing that if I drop an apple it will hit the ground.
Correct. Its better. Its more direct, immediate, and perfect. It isn't mediated by the perceptual filters implicit in all other mortal perception, including empirical facts of experience. Its a pure, unfiltered communication from the Spirit of God to our spirit intelligence. We can interpret and filter it out of existence after its reception, but reception itself is unmistakable and indelible. This is what Moses meant when he desired that tablets of the Law to be "written on the hearts" of the people; its an indelible imprint upon the heart and mind, indeed, upon the entire organism (as I have experiened it at times). Its a pure perception of the truth, and, the thing is, in receiving knowledge in this way, once received, its as if one had always known it. Its not so much as if one is learning something, as that one has just
become aware of something that is clear and was always known.
Now maybe someday the apple will not hit the ground but empirical evidence is such that I pretty well can say I know it will hit the ground. The same empirical evidence is not there for the LDS testimony.
Why should it be? I don't understand what it is you are looking for here? Empirical evidence of your testimony? If your testimony was empirical, then this implies it would be open to obervation by other, unbiased observers, who would, on empirical or logical grounds, be obliged to agree with it.
What, I wonder, is your understanding of the preexistence, the war in heaven, the plan of salvation, and the purpose of mortal life?
Other people of other faiths testify just as vigorously as we do and think Joseph was a false prophet.
This isn't compelling to me Jason. This state of affairs is exactly what is required of our mortal probation based upon its purpose and necessity. We knew this would be the nature of things before we came here.
Additionally, your testimony as well as mine in the past, disputes what the Book of Mormon teaches in Alma 32. There Alma says that when we have a perfect knowledge we no longer have faith. The testimony you describe above still requires faith and thus is not a perfect knowledge.
I'm not following you here. My sure knowledge of the truth of central Gospel claims has nothing whatever to do with my faith in Jesus Christ as my Savior. My faith is not in church doctrines. That's where my knowledge given me by the Holy Spirit is key, as well as to my sure knowledge that God exists and Christ is the Messiah. My faith is in Jesus Christ, and regardless of the knowledge of doctrine, or of him, that I have through revelation, my life requires complete and utter faith in him and confidence in his love and support for me in my mortal journey. All the revealed knowledge in the world, just as knowledge, will not allow us to survive this world spiritually intact. Jesus Christ is our personal Savior and also our protector and advocate. The evils, temptations, and opposition to righteousness we encounter in this world will overwhelm us without faith in him and his Atoning sacrifice. Knowing the Gospel is true, and that Joseph was a true prophet settles the issues of church history or doctrinal problems, but it does not settle the opposition we will encounter here. For that, we need faith in the Lord Jesus Christ on a continual basis such that we might overcome both our own weakness as well as the opposition of Satan we encounter while in these bodies. Therefore, knowledge are the things not seen to which faith is the substance, and faith empowers us to preserver through the attempts of Satan and those who support him here to destroy our souls. Knowledge may be pure, but faith is the power of God unto salvation, as Paul said. Without that, knowledge, even if revealed, it would seem is inert. What good is having a pure and exact knowledge of spiritual things if one is overcome by sin and human weakness?
This is the part played by faith and grace. That's when knowledge begins to have power.
What is the Lord's way Coggins? This is my point. If one asks and they get an answer different then your, or what the Church says, is that a true answer? Or if the only answer is what Joseph taught and what the Church says and the prayer is simply to confirm that we should not teach that we do not expect one to follow blindly. We are then saying there is really only one answer.
All truth is one Jason, no matter from what source it may come. The Restored Church, besides having the pure truth concerning Jesus Christ and his Gospel, while not claiming to have, at present, a monopoly on truth, does have one important thing that nobody else does, and that is the authority to act in the name of God and the ordinances. My faith is not in the knowledge I have. It is in Jesus Christ.
More later.