posted
The last meeting with the Mormon missionaries occurs this afternoon. I'll be sure to post what happens later today/tonight. Hopefully things will go over well.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well it turns out this wasn't the last meeting, as they asked for another one (which surprised me after some of the issues I brought up). Regardless, here's a nice little summary of what happened.
I told them that after much thought and prayer that I had come to a conclusion of sorts. My interest in the LDS church had been more of a temporary, makeshift solution to larger, more permanent problems. I told them about being overly judgmental, of being critical of everyone (and in particular being critical of myself). I told them that I had thought that maybe by finding like minded people that the problem might fade away. I then told them that I realized this wasn't the right way to treat the problems. A temporary quick fix isn't good for issues like this.
They sort of nodded at this, saying they understood. I then went into some of the problems I have with the writings of Joseph Smith. I talked about misogynistic language in the Doctrine and Covenants. I talked about how some of the D&C just seemed like quick fixes for problems in Joseph Smith's life (like him saying "Oh, I have this problem now. Maybe I can say the Lord said this to me, and it'll fix that problem"). I also brought up the whole thing about poligamy being an everlasting covenant, and how this was only changed by "revelation" after the U.S. put pressure on the Mormons. I basically threw out any and all problems I had, things that bothered me about the church or about the scriptures.
They nodded and then tried to either explain reasons for some of this or offer some other explanation. At one point, I had both missionaries quite stumbled, so much so that all they could say is that "sometimes religion can't be a fully intellectual endeavor. Sometimes it has to just come down to faith." I reassured them that I wasn't trying to attack their faith or make them have their own doubts. I was just trying to explain why I thought their faith could not be my faith. I think the main point they kept repeating to me was that I needed to continue reading/studying the scriptures and praying about it.
At the end (after about 2 hours of thorough discussion), they tried to convince me to come to a baptism at 4PM tomorrow. I told them that I couldn't. One of them asked me why I couldn't, what was stopping me. I then brought up my experience from my last time at the Mormon church; how I felt isolated and like I was never going to be as spiritual as the people around me. They tried to tell me that I felt that way because it was the first time at a new church. I countered that I had had a first experience at a Methodist church that was totally different; where I felt almost immediately like I was in the right place and that I was on the same level as other people. They really couldn't explain why there was such a difference between the two experiences, so they just let the subject of the baptism drop.
They finally asked if they could come back again. I told them that I didn't mind, but that I might have more arguments for them by the time they came back. They said that was okay. They both said they enjoy talking to me because it's usually something that pushes them intellectually. I said I didn't mind talking as long as we all remained respectful of each others' ideas and faith. That seemed agreed upon. So they scheduled a time to meet me in the coming week and then headed off. And that was my experience with the Mormon missionaries this week.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My goal isn't to deconvert them. I have nothing against them or their faith (I think I've made that abundantly clear). I just have to explain what problems I have with it, what things keep me from believing in it.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was quite serious. I don't see where it matters what pfresh's goal was; deconversions usually happen when people are exposed to unanswerable questions from a source they do not see as being an enemy.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why would he want to deconvert them? I don't see how that would be something you'd want to achieve. If anything it seems a bit cruel, even if you think their beliefs are absurd, you gain nothing by trying to take something they value away from them, no matter how silly it might seem to you.
This isn't like telling a child that Santa doesn't exist, we know that for a fact. With religion there's always the chance that you could be wrong in your belief that God doesn't exist, so to try to take their faith from them when you have nothing to offer them seems little more than an exercise in cruelty.
Not to offend you or anything KoM, I'm just very puzzled as to why you'd consider that a good thing. Care to shed some light as to why you see it that way?
Posts: 459 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because adults who believe in Santa Claus are bloody dangerous, and the fewer of them we have around, the better. And since the good guys are at the moment unlikely to win a civil war, deconversion is the current best tactic.
And you should noite, I never claimed that pfresh would want to deconvert anyone; I said, 'with a bit of luck', it would happen. Not luck for pfresh, necessarily.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand why you would want to deconvert anyone. Is someone else believing in something you don't believe in that bad? Particularly with a group like the Mormons who don't do anything bad and actually do good with their beliefs (disagree with them though you may)? I just can't understand why you'd want to pull someone's beliefs from them.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm also not sure how someone being LDS is dangerous. From my personal experience, I have found them all to be wonderful and caring people with some decent moral values. I may just be lucky in that regard and my experience is limited, but to make such a sweeping statement that could be just as easily turned against you seems somewhat silly.
I'm not a theist by the way so I am not defending beliefs, rather I am questioning the morality of deconverting a theist so that you can feel like you have more people on your side.
Posts: 459 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: . I don't see where it matters what pfresh's goal was; deconversions usually happen when people are exposed to unanswerable questions from a source they do not see as being an enemy.
There are a couple problems with that statement/belief. First off, you are assuming there are "unanswerable quesitons." I find most of the Mormon questions are answerable--just not to my satisfaction. However many missionaries are satisfied. More power to them.
Second, if these quesions are unaswerable and potential converts are not an enemy to missionaries, then more missionaries would be deconverted.
As far as being dangerous--only if they try to establish a theocracy. I think the church is past that history where they feel a need to create a theocratic government--even tho Joseph Smith taught that a theocracy would be the most just system.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Though I'm a little sad (since this is my faith we're talking about) that you've made your decision the way you have, it's good that you did not make a committment under false pretences. It's never a good sign when you find yourself making excuses to do/not do something.
Despite KOM's usual saber-rattling, we all believe something and live our lives accordingly. I hope you find whatever it is you are really seeking. If religion and Christianity is your interest, reading scriptures and daily prayer is always a fine idea, regardless where you finally make your home.
posted
Iem, I wouldn't even say they are dangerous if they try to establish a theocracy, as long as they did it within the current political system we have (which would be difficult to do). They would only be dangerous if they tried to install a theocracy by force, but I don't see the LDS church doing that any time soon.
estavares, I'm not sure I get why you're sad (you say it's because I made my decision the way I did, but that could be taken at least two different ways). As for what I'm seeking, I'm seeking truth, truth enough to strengthen my faith. I'm also seeking a more permanent solutions to problems in my life (although this is mostly separate from religion).
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by estavares: Despite KOM's usual saber-rattling, we all believe something and live our lives accordingly.
While this is true, believers in, say, the superiority of Linux over Windows somehow rarely find themselves inspired to strap explosives to their bodies and blow up buses. Weird, that.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the other hand, they were certainly prepared to fight a minor civil war, back in the 1830s. Not to mention the Mountain Meadows massacre. Not very nice, really.
[ March 27, 2006, 12:48 AM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KOM, that is probably the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Yes the Mountain Meadows Massacre was terrible thing and yes the pioneers were ready to fight to protect their homes from attacking mobs. But here is the very important difference. They were attacked first. The early members of the church were driven from their homes multiple times. Their women were raped, their men killed, and their homes and property were illegally confiscated. The idiot governor of Missouri even signed an extermination order, which was illegal even then. As a people they had been pushed to the brink.
So what? Are you saying that after all that, they are religious nuts because they FINALLY decided to take up arms and defend themselves. You seem to conviently forget that it had not been very long after the Revolutionary War had been fought. Some of those people had parents and grandparents that fought in the war. They still remembered the sting of the whip of the British. Of course they wanted to fight back, but yet, with few exceptions, they didn't.
The massacre at Mountain Meadows happened because there were many pioneers that were still angry. The people in the wagon train that was killed said and did things that reopened old wounds and they were killed for it. Does that make it right? No. However I am amazed that after EVERYTHING the early church members went through that they did not fight back and make the rivers run with blood. Thank goodness they did not. So before you start accusing mormons of being these violent war mongers, you should look at the facts.
I don't care if you agree with the beliefs of the LDS church or not, but this kind of crap makes me angry. As a member of the church am I proud of the Mountain Meadows Massacre? No way. But don't you dare try use that sad incident to compare a group of people that, as a whole, believe in peace, patrotism, and love for their fellow man to religious zealots who try use their beliefs as a weapon to cause terror.
Posts: 263 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reddwarf, I think that you need to do some more research. I sincerely doubt that most of your fellow church members would agree with your assessment of the situation. Murdering the wagon train did NOT constitute "fighting back." That's why it's a massacre. Those that caused the massacre were most certainly violent religous zealots that are comparable to any other violent religous zealot. They are as representative of Mormonism as the Islamic terrorists are representative of Islam. In other words, not very.
I think KOM is wrong because it is not just religious ideals that lead people to violence. The Oklahoma City bombing was fueled by political ideals. Riots have been fueled by racial tension. Any subject that is very close to people's hearts (and I submit that Windows vs. Linux is not) has the capacity to lead violent people to make violent choices. That alone says nothing of the subject, it only says something about the people that commit such acts.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amanecer, I was not saying that the MMM was fighting back. It was a massacre and is very sad sad chapter of LDS history. However, the those that were killed were not killed because religious zealots decided that they should pay for their sins through a notion of blood atonement. Brigham Young did teach that concept yes, but that was not the reason the massacre happened. It happened because those that were killed pushed the wrong buttons in the wrong place at the wrong time. Those people were killed because some of the church members wanted revenge for the atrocities they had suffered. Those people were killed for vengence, not religous principle. It's still not the same and still a very unfair comparison.
Edit: The blood atonement concept was probably used later on by those that particpated in the massacre to justify their actions. This is speculation of course, but so is the notion that the massacre occured in order to fulfill a blood atonement. The only historical fact that can be confirmed is that the massacre took place. The true motives of the killers are all but lost to time.
Posts: 263 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The true motives of the killers are all but lost to time.
I don't know that that's entirely true. In 1857, US troops were marching on Utah. Young declared martial law and gave instructions that people should prepare to defend themselves against invasions. I do not think that the party was killed because of vegeance so much as emotions stirred up by the threat of all out war. Someone could say that it was not a religious war and was merely political, but I would disagree.
Here's a couple of FAIR LDS articles on the subject. These articles try to paint the perpetrators of the massacre as extremists. Why is that a difficult thing to say? If they're not extremists that would make them representative of average Mormons. I don't think you're trying to say that, so I don't really understand why you're arguing this specific point. The MMM has plenty of controversy surrounding it, but I don't think that the religious fanaticism of the murderers is really in question.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the link to those articles Amanecer. The problem is that the articles you pointed me too dispute your premise that religion had anything to do with this. Especially the speech given by Gene Sessions. Here is an especially enlighting quote.
"Q: You said that it was fear basically that caused the September 11 executions. They were afraid the wagon trains would get back to California and say it was the Mormons. But what caused the initial attack that started off the whole thing?
SESSIONS: Good question. As I was answering the other question I realized I was skipping past that.
There was a meeting held on Sunday, the High Council met, and the initial decision was not to attack and there had been a lot of trouble with these folks coming down the road and the same motivation, it seems to me, was involved: 'If they get to California and tell the Californians how weak we are and how poorly defended we are, we're in big trouble.'
I think that also provoked the initial attack. There was a sense of anger at these folks for what they'd done but there was also this sense of, 'Gosh, if they get out of here and tell the folks in California, 'Yeah we went through there and we can do whatever we want. We think they're poorly armed, they're poor, they're living in 10x10 dugouts--no problem."
Now I will admit that these articles do discount my conclusions about the killers intentions. Looks like that history has been able to discover their motivations after all. Still I don't see how you are getting that this was a crime motivated by religious beliefs in any way.
Now may I suggest that we stop hijacking this thread over this topic? If everyone would like to discuss this further, I suggest that someone create a different thread dedicated to it. I make this suggestion because I know that I am the biggest perpetrator of the hijacking.
Posts: 263 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It happened because those that were killed pushed the wrong buttons in the wrong place at the wrong time. Those people were killed because some of the church members wanted revenge for the atrocities they had suffered.
It's worth noting that, despite the contrast you've attempted to draw here, it's arguable that many suicide bombers are acting from a similar motivation and, like the MMMs, are merely using scripture incorrectly to lend a veener of divine justification to their actions.
That said, I don't think any reasonable person can draw a particularly close comparison between the behavior of 19th-century Mormon extremists and modern Islamic extremists, except to perhaps make the broad generalization that armed extremists are dangerous.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reddwarf, I get the impression that you are saying that they were extremists, just not religious extremists. I thought your earlier position was that they were not extremists. In that case, I think we have a lot more common ground then I previously thought.
Tom- I think KOM was drawing the comparison trying to say that religious views lead to extremism which led to both events. I'm saying that deeply held views lead extreme people to extreme events. I think that the comparison between the two events is valid in the context of this argument.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Because adults who believe in Santa Claus are bloody dangerous, and the fewer of them we have around, the better. And since the good guys are at the moment unlikely to win a civil war, deconversion is the current best tactic.
Chairman Mao thought the same thing. Luckily for China, the "good guys" were able to win that civil war. Yippee.
On a lighter note, good luck with the missionaries, pfresh. I'd be glad to respond to any of your concerns if you're interested.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see your point. Just because Mao thought 'X is a good tactic', it doesn't follow that X is evil. And anyway, Mao was the best thing that happened to China since the Great Wall; just ask Blayne.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amanecer, I guess that maybe we are looking at the word extremist differently. I think that we are probably arguing the same thing, just from different angles. To me an extremist is a person that uses a system of beliefs as an excuse to do evil things. To me, the MMM was not an example of extremism, but more of an example of an angry mob mentality. Extremists, motivated by belief, will use violent tactics over and over again to accomplish their purposes. The MMM was more of an incident than a tactic. Fear is what turns normal rational thinking people into an angry mob. While the MMM was definately well planned and well executed, that planning and execution happened at the spur of the moment.
The information you gave me to read I think shows that the people involved were not necessarily acting upon a system of beliefs to accomplish a set of political or ideological goals, but rather they were reacting to perceptions of what would happen to them if that particular wagon train reached California. In that sense, I am definately arguing that they were not extremists, but normal people, given a different set of circumstances, probably would not have made the same choice.
Posts: 263 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll give the Mormons this: you can't take the wind from their sails too easily. I more or less told them that I'm not going to their church (and then outline reasons why), and they just smiled about it and offered scripture advice (both from the Bible and from the Book of Mormon). Then they sung a hymn, which was just totally random (and I felt sort of embarassed for them). I then told them my whole thing saying why I can't believe their stuff using logical constructs (if p then q, if not q then not p) and such. They really couldn't argue that. They then had some chips and cheese dip (which my roommate made). They then prayed and then tried to plan a meeting with me. Apparently at some point they want me to fast (they think maybe this "will be enough of a sacrifice to show me the truth of the gospel"). Personally, I don't believe it, and I told them as much. They're bound and determined though. *shrugs* What are you going to do?
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: estavares, I'm not sure I get why you're sad (you say it's because I made my decision the way I did, but that could be taken at least two different ways). As for what I'm seeking, I'm seeking truth, truth enough to strengthen my faith. I'm also seeking a more permanent solutions to problems in my life (although this is mostly separate from religion).
Pfresh, I meant that I believe in that doctrine so I feel it's unfortunate you're not having a better experience. It's like seeing a movie you love and telling someone about it, then they see it and claim it really wasn't their thing.
At the same time, you will never get any kind of solid answer on spiritual/religious questions by approaching it only with logic. It's "apples and oranges" really, because spirituality is based on the notion that there are forces and circumstances and experiences that are NOT measurable by current scientific means. Results are measured in much different ways.
You say you're searching for truth yet you have dismissed the LDS faith (evident by your increasingly sour perspective) by approaching it with the wrong measuring stick, IMHO. I have always been of the opinion that discovering spiritual truth requires learning a new language––a sensitivity that realizes truth even when our flawed, incomplete logic can't always figure it out. It takes time to learn a new language.
My grandparents have a set of encyclopedias from 1960, I think, still on their shelf. You open those up and half of what's there is already outdated. Temporal truth changes rapidly, with errors being made every single day. I submit, when it comes to personal faith and spirituality, there's a better way.
I wonder if any religion, regardless of your desire, will meet your criteria. I personally want to hear these big questions that the missionaries can't seem to answer...
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You say you're searching for truth yet you have dismissed the LDS faith (evident by your increasingly sour perspective) by approaching it with the wrong measuring stick, IMHO.
Be careful with this. The "measuring stick" in question requires you to suspend your disbelief in order to begin receiving evidence. This is fertile ground for self-deception.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It can be said as such, but all truth gathering has the potential for self-deception.
There are controls and variables and data gathering in spiritual affairs, just as much as temporal. Gaining spiritual knowledge is not completely intangible, hence the concept of "by their fruits, ye shall know them." I believe, for example, both by subtle but clear spiritual impressions and consistent reinforcement again and again it is true. This so-called suspension of disbelief is a willingness to accept the notion that something could be true...and this open-mind policy provides the seeker a chance to recieve independent confirmation. I've seen it happen over and over again.
That's one of the reasons I believe the way I do. My faith consistently asks people to find out for themselves. I've never had to take's someone's word something was true. I could find out for myself, and I'd like to think I'm savvy enough to know when I'm being duped.
At the same time, I firmly believe that if someone approaches such a process, fully expecting it to be false, they will get nothing. It's like switching the radio off because the idea of radio waves is too absurd to believe. A good scientist must work with eyes wide open, and so should a seeker of spiritual truth...
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:At the same time, I firmly believe that if someone approaches such a process, fully expecting it to be false, they will get nothing.
In much the same vain that if someone approaches such a process, fully expecting it to be true, they will get their answer.--whether it is Mormonism, fundamental Mormanism, Islam, Scientology, Catholicism, Baptist Doctcrine, et cetera.
There is no measuring stick that gets consitent results across diverse people.
quote: There is no measuring stick that gets consitent results across diverse people.
I strongly disagree.
This process of spiritual confirmation works in every country, with every class and race and age and circumstance of person imaginable. The commonality with all of those who get their answer is that they wanted to know for themselves it was true (or not) and practiced the faith to some degree to see for themselves if it was right for them.
I've seen people from Brazil, Zaire, China, Switzerland and numerous other countries get this confirmation. There was no way I or anyone else could convince them.
Does initial inclination influence this? Sure. Does it make something false (or true, for that matter) knowing this? Nope. The process is subjective, which makes sense to me but infuriates those who rely only on their five senses.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:This process of spiritual confirmation works in every country, with every class and race and age and circumstance of person imaginable.
On Hatrack alone, you will find at least six people who claim to have gone through this process with an open mind and emerged without confirmation. It clearly does not work for all people, unless these six are liars.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: On Hatrack alone, you will find at least six people who claim to have gone through this process with an open mind and emerged without confirmation. It clearly does not work for all people, unless these six are liars.
Except that more than simply "an open mind" is requred; for instance the scriptures speak of a broken heart and contrite spirit. There's the requirement that the person have a sincere desire to know and commitment to change their life if the answer dictates. And lots of other requirements for the experiment to work. Just because a difficult and complicated experiment isn't successfully completed 100% of the time doesn't necessarily indicate the experiment is flawed or that the failed investigators are liars.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Except that more than simply "an open mind" is requred; for instance the scriptures speak of a broken heart and contrite spirit.
And there are people here who claim to have received a confirmation who did NOT have a broken heart at the time.
I submit that these unknown variables conspire to make the "confirmation" a completely unreliable test.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: And there are people here who claim to have received a confirmation who did NOT have a broken heart at the time.
Of course there's a semantical issue about what "broken heart" means. The difficulty with a spiritual experiment (or, at least, this spiritual experiment) is that the requirements can't be quantified in the way they can for a physical experiment.
quote:I submit that these unknown variables conspire to make the "confirmation" a completely unreliable test.
I can understand why you would come to that conclusion. I disagree (but then, you already knew that). <edit> And I think that "unquantifiable variables" is a more accurate term than "unknown variables" </edit>
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would say when I first came looking at the LDS Church and the Book of Mormon, I came with a broken heart and contrite spirit. I also came seeking knowledge about the truth (as far as it relates to religious matters). I have yet to receive any sort of confirmation. Instead, I find my analytical mind bringing up things that would keep me from a confirmation. The missionaries just seem to think it will take time, but I've already spent months on reading and studying the scriptures and the history surrounding them. Instead of feeling myself moved closer towards the church, I've felt like each day is a move away from the church. So I'm not sure how good the confirmation test really is if I'm an indication of results.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by estavares: This process of spiritual confirmation works in every country, with every class and race and age and circumstance of person imaginable. The commonality with all of those who get their answer is that they wanted to know for themselves it was true (or not) and practiced the faith to some degree to see for themselves if it was right for them.
Seems to me you are rather cherry-picking your data, here. Unless you really meant to imply that your criterion for consistency was 'it works for some and not others, and that's true for all nationalities?'
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Based on my experience I have come to the conclusion that sincere investigators do recieve their confirmation from the spirit, but many fail to act on it out of fear, pride, overdependance on their own intellect, etc. Consequently, their "window of opportunity" passes, and the sprit leaves their life.
This is described in both the New Testiment with the parable of the sower and in the Book of Mormon with the "seed of faith" analagy.
On a side note, one of the great errors that is often perpetuated as doctrine by LDS members is that all people receive their confirmation by a strong spritual manifestation (e.g. a "burning in the bosom"). However the Doctrine and Convenets clearly states that not everyone needs to have this experience.
From section 46:
11 For all have not every gift given unto them; for there are many gifts, and to every man is given a gift by the Spirit of God.
12 To some is given one, and to some is given another, that all may be profited thereby.
13 To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world.
14 To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.
I must admit that "logically" there are many aspects of my religion that don't make perfect sense. But then again, human logic is flawed and imperfect. On the other hand, I have had too many events in my life that positivly support the position that God is real and LDS church is his temporal orginzation to execute his plan.
Anyway, other than King of Men's snarky comments, this has been an interesting thread to see the investigative process from the other side.
Posts: 157 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Based on my experience I have come to the conclusion that sincere investigators do recieve their confirmation from the spirit...
Based on your experience? At best, you could have come to this conclusion based on your observations.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
My husband converted before we got married. I don't think he ever had a "confirmation" so to speak. He kept coming up with more and more questions then we would research them until we found answers. It took him a very long time to come up with answers to all his questions, but after like a year or so of research, he decided he had no more objections therefore, it must be good. Five years later, he still has no regrets. A much more intellectual (and slow) conversion than what the missionaries expected him to have, but what he needed.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Based on my experience I have come to the conclusion that sincere investigators do recieve their confirmation from the spirit, but many fail to act on it out of fear, pride, overdependance on their own intellect, etc. Consequently, their "window of opportunity" passes, and the sprit leaves their life.
I find this notion arrogant to the point of offensiveness. You have absolutely no way to tell whether another person is sincere or has recieved confirmation. You are also indirectly calling many people on this board either insincere or liars, neither of which do I think is true.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have had many prayers where I really wanted to get an answer, and I didn't get anything.
I have also had many prayers where the answered poured forth. As far as I can tell, I was neither more worthy nor more spiritual nor more open when the answers came than when they didn't.
I don't know why it doesn't always work. I know that it certainly does a lot of the time, and sometimes it takes a very long time for answers to come. Sometimes I probably gave up too soon. Other times, I didn't have to wait.
I absolutely believe that the Lord hears all our prayers, and that he answers them. I don't know the reasons for the variation in response, but I believe that people can try and not get it anything. Which is a bummer. I don't know why that happens.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katie, I believe the same thing, and have had the same experience. Sometimes the heavens are opened and the answers pour forth. Other times I don't understand what I'm doing wrong or why things are different but I feel unsure and unanswered.
The confirmation has come through enough times in enough circumstances that I know that every single thought and act is important and that I'm never left without loving concern and oversight. I think there must be times when I need to, on my own, come up with the next step. It's important that it come from inside me, rather than me just being a passive follower. Other times, I'm not sure why things happen as they do. I don't know why I've been given such a privilege, the companionship of a living God, when surely I deserve it far less than many people who seek and do not find it. I do know it makes sense, though. There is a whole lot of ignorance here about how the universe works and what is important and what isn't. I've got to learn all the whys and wherefores eventually. I have no doubt at all that this path is the best way to learn it. There has to be a certain amount of floundering around and being stuck before you can figure out complicated stuff. It's true for calculus and engine control systems, and everything else hard that I have learned in my life. I'm profoundly aware of how ignorant I actually am about life, the universe, and everything. There are a zillion possible good reasons why everything has to be this way.
The thing I have no doubt of is that we are each of us greatly loved, and that what we choose matters immensely in the overall scheme of things. I pray for everyone who lacks that knowledge and feels the lack, that they may find it. I've been told that if we seek earnestly we will find, and if we knock the door will be opened. Take one step toward God and God will take two steps toward you. Why it's harder or slower for some people than others is a mystery. Why we feel it sometimes and others not is too. Why I had to wait 45 years to know what I was supposed to do in life, I don't know. I'm just grateful that now I see.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pfresh, I don't know why you're having the experience you're having, but you shared the following near the beginning of this thread:
quote: So I had prepared a sort of mental list of questions to ask or subjects to discuss (I have yet to let a Mormon missionary give me a lesson).
Have you ever allowed them to share the gospel basics? The discussion is designed to build a foundation and give you tools to learn for yourself. I mean no disrespect, (hey, I wasn't there) but the impression I've gotten is you don't want them to teach you. You want them to fix you, but on your terms. You might find that the gospel basics will answer your questions.
As a teacher I am responsible to teach correct information and provide the foundation of knowledge for my students. If they want to go beyond that, that's great, but I cannot afford to have them simply decide our agenda and ask hypothetical after hypothetical. There comes a time when a student needs to be a student...otherwise, their learning is diminished.
I hope you might reflect on your motives from the get-go, and ask yourself if you were genuinely willing to listen and do as they suggest, or if you're tried this process in a way that is far less productive. I've seen people who sought and felt nothing, but I don't think it means the process is false. It's like saying breaking the sound barrier was impossible because one plane after another blew up before getting there.
It just means that sometimes we need to rethink our approach.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Seems to me you are rather cherry-picking your data, here. Unless you really meant to imply that your criterion for consistency was 'it works for some and not others, and that's true for all nationalities?'
I'm just sharing what I've seen for myself.
I do believe that such confirmation can and will come to anyone and everyone...if certain conditions are met. You cannot test a hypothesis without following certain conditions, and the same goes for spiritual experimentation.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah so. I have here beside me a rock; it is a greyish type, with whiter striations. If you pray tot his rock, you will have a spiritual revelation which will make you feel much better. Won't you try praying? But you must have an open heart and a contrite mind.
...
It didn't work? Well, clearly then you must not have been doing it right. Perhaps your mind wasn't open enough. Because I do earnestly believe that this enlightenment can come to anyone - if certain conditions are met.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
