Burning in the bosom for the Bible?

[DeFide]

I often hear Mormons insist that the way you know the Book of Mormon is inspired is to read it and see if you get some sort of “burning in the bosom”.

Aside from my problems with this sort of emotion-based test, why aren’t Mormon’s consistent with their “busom-burning” test of inspiration for:

1. The Bible
2. Self-proclaimed “inspired” works of any source.
3. Any other writing.

 

[Jerusha]

“burning in the bosom”.

Indigestion

 

[tkdnick]

Jerusha:

Indigestion

C’mon now…you know that’s not nice and our LDS friends won’t respond in a positive manner to that.

My suggestion is that it is a psychosomatic response. They are told they are supposed to have this response, so their subconscious brain tells their body to create this reaction. (this idea has been proven time and time again in medical and other research areas)

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:

C’mon now…you know that’s not nice and our LDS friends won’t respond in a positive manner to that.

My suggestion is that it is a psychosomatic response. They are told they are supposed to have this response, so their subconscious brain tells their body to create this reaction. (this idea has been proven time and time again in medical and other research areas)

Am I to be less put-off by this? I am really not offended by what you said, I just wanted to tease you.

I am very convinced that there are logical and consistent “weak-atheists” or “weak-agnostics.” But at the same time they got to this position by denying that which called them to God long ago.

You suggested that LDS who lean primarily upon their spiritual witness of the truth of the CoJCoLDS are leaning upon a psychosomatic response.

Does this mean that your faith in the Catholic Church is different?

Are you Catholic because reason directed you to the Catholic Church and all other considerations are of little value?

Do you consider non-critical thinking cradle Catholics to be less than Catholic or merely serendipitously in the true church?

Why would God create us (from nothing) such that true seekers will misinterpret “psychosomatic responses” as spiritual witnesses? Do not many wonderful Christians “fall” due to this?

Do you believe that some are born to find the truth and others are born to be deceived?

As a Catholic, I do not think I could provide answers that would satisfy Catholics to the above questions. As a LDS I think I could provide answers that would satisfy LDS.

I am thoroughly convinced that the type of thinking taught by those who would have LDS cease to be LDS if consistently applied will tear down all theistic paradigms. This is the reason I ask the above questions.

Lastly, what would you have me do? What course of action can I pursue that will result in my ceasing to be ignorant? Or am I “invincibly ignorant?”

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

DeFide:

I often hear Mormons insist that the way you know the Book of Mormon is inspired is to read it and see if you get some sort of “burning in the bosom”.

Aside from my problems with this sort of emotion-based test, why aren’t Mormon’s consistent with their “busom-burning” test of inspiration for:

1. The Bible
2. Self-proclaimed “inspired” works of any source.
3. Any other writing.

I became interested in Tdnick’s thoughts, but let me answer your original question just to be fair.

My spiritual witness points to the validity of the Bible just like the BOM. There was an interesting thread on another board were LDS claimed that the witness of the truth of the Bible and the BOM was identical and LDS critics claimed that one came from God and the other was Satan’s imitation. These critics of course claimed that they did not receive a spiritual witness of the BOM, so their assessment of the difference was merely what they must demand to conform to their paradigm.

I have recognized that as a LDS there is something in the history of the church that suggests that I pray about other belief structures. I do this to a limited extent. But, it is also true that I have no reason to believe that the LDS authority is apostate so I can to a limited extent expect further revelation to come through God’s leaders. I refuse to investigate every religion, but those that touch me I try to give some solid thought. And of course I always pray to know and follow God’s will.

Charity, TOm

 

[Tmaque]

DeFide:

I often hear Mormons insist that the way you know the Book of Mormon is inspired is to read it and see if you get some sort of “burning in the bosom”.

Aside from my problems with this sort of emotion-based test, why aren’t Mormon’s consistent with their “busom-burning” test of inspiration for:

1. The Bible
2. Self-proclaimed “inspired” works of any source.
3. Any other writing.

LDS are absolutely consistent with their application of this sort of spiritual test. It is used to gain a “testimony” of the Bible, Jesus Christ and God the Father, and many other things as well. Faithful LDS also use this method to try and determine God’s will for their lives on most major decisions in their life. Consequently they spend a lot of time on their knees.

Do I think God makes people’s “bosoms burn” when they hit upon a “truth”? Not directly. I think it has much more to do with a person’s own subconcious than anything else. But, I don’t fault LDS for doing it. Prayer is never a bad thing and I’m sure God does lead their lives in less obvious ways.

That said, the concept of using your feelings in deciding which church to join is not unique to Mormonism. In spending two years assisting in RCIA I’ve learned that most Catholic converts are led much more by emotion than logic. The LDS terminology sounds a little strange but in practice most other faiths do much the same thing.

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

Am I to be less put-off by this? I am really not offended by what you said, I just wanted to tease you.

I’d be less put-off by the suggestion of a psychosomatic response than by the indigestion suggestion (hey, I made a rhyme!).

I am very convinced that there are logical and consistent “weak-atheists” or “weak-agnostics.” But at the same time they got to this position by denying that which called them to God long ago.

I think I’m missing your point.

You suggested that LDS who lean primarily upon their spiritual witness of the truth of the CoJCoLDS are leaning upon a psychosomatic response.

Does this mean that your faith in the Catholic Church is different?
Are you Catholic because reason directed you to the Catholic Church and all other considerations are of little value?
I’m not suggesting the people whose basis is primarily their spiritual “feeling”, but those whose basis is exclusively their spiritual “feeling”.

Yes, my faith is different if we are talking about my faith at present versus someone who’s faith is based completely on a feeling. My faith began as a feeling and has progressed to have feeling and knowledge. Thus, even during times without the “feeling” I still know.

No, reason did not direct me to the Catholic Church, but it (in part) is what has kept me Catholic. No, other considerations are not of little value. Even those who are misguided/ignorant/etc. have value.

Do you consider non-critical thinking cradle Catholics to be less than Catholic or merely serendipitously in the true church?

No, I don’t consider them less than Catholic, though I think they are an example of one of the problems in Catholicism.

Why would God create us (from nothing) such that true seekers will misinterpret “psychosomatic responses” as spiritual witnesses? Do not many wonderful Christians “fall” due to this?

Why indeed? Why would God allow 8 gazillion different religions?
Why would God allow evil? Why would God allow free choice? Why would God anything?

Do you believe that some are born to find the truth and others are born to be deceived?

No, that’s predestination.

Lastly, what would you have me do? What course of action can I pursue that will result in my ceasing to be ignorant? Or am I

“invincibly ignorant?
Oh, definitely invincibly ignorant! What I would have you do is what you have done. You have done both the spiritual “feeling” side, and the research “reason” side. I personally disagree with your conclusions, but at least you made the effort. I can respect that much more than those people who base their entire religious experience on a feeling.

 

[Jerusha]

My suggestion is that it is a psychosomatic response. They are told they are supposed to have this response, so their subconscious brain tells their body to create this reaction. (this idea has been proven time and time again in medical and other research areas)

You said it much nicer.

Do you consider non-critical thinking cradle Catholics to be less than Catholic or merely serendipitously in the true church?

Very good question.

Or am I “invincibly ignorant?

There is hope for anyone like you.

In spending two years assisting in RCIA I’ve learned that most Catholic converts are led much more by emotion than logic.

However, logic has a lot more to do with Catholicism than with LDS

 

[Tmaque]

Jerusha:

However, logic has a lot more to do with Catholicism than with LDS

I would have agreed with you 12 months ago. Now I’m not so quick to pass judgement on the intellectual diligence of LDS.

 

[Jerusha]

Those who are open-minded enough to sort through the contradictions and choose what makes the most sense, I certainly cannot criticize.Given present challenges to the BOM, they have no choice in order that their church might survive. They need to leave the 19th century and advance into the 21st. Dialog here certainly is a help to them.

 

[papist1]

Tmaque:

I would have agreed with you 12 months ago. Now I’m not so quick to pass judgement on the intellectual diligence of LDS.

I would have to say that any logic used in LDS is invalid seeing that there is no LDS teaching by anyone previous to Joseph Smith. There is no proof whatever of their interpretation of scripture in the first 18 centuries.

It is a no brainer.

The fact is, the Mormons have not lived through 2000 yrs of persecution and never will and therefore have no frame of reference for their supposed “persecution” other than a few deaths here and there and people stomping them out of their states for heresy and law breaking twisted doctrines such as polygamy. Good riddens.

Satan has created both the Islamic world and the Jws and the Mormons to cause division and chaos towards the True Church which historically, Biblically and every other way, is Catholic and always will be.

 

[TOmNossor]

papist1:

Satan has created both the Islamic world and the Jws and the Mormons to cause division and chaos towards the True Church which historically, Biblically and every other way, is Catholic and always will be.

Papist1,

Let me offer you something to chew on.

From a paradigm that the Catholic Church is God’s true church, I submit that the Catholic Church has created, Protestants, JWs, Moslems, and Mormons.

No church can be expected to be perfect, but there have been a number of things that have occurred within the Catholic Church that have been inappropriate and have contributed greatly to the creation of all of the above. Islam grew amongst a group of Christians who seem to have strayed from the heart of Christianity (this is as I understand, but I am not particularly well versed in this).

Martin Luther and many of the reformers originally desired to be reformers not schismatics. Luther spoke out against a number of things that were not appropriate. Had I been informed and lived in his time, I would not have ultimately sided with him, but he and others made good points. The lack of prevalence of the Bible in Catholic worship was something that lead to the reformists idea that the Bible was not a Catholic document. In fact, I would suggest the wonderful protestant converts to Catholicism (like Scott Hahn) have done a lot for reclaiming the Bible for Catholics. If Scott Hahn had been the norm in the 16th century, I do not think Protestants could have taken the Bible from Catholics.

JWs I believe are excellent at Biblical exegesis. They took the doctrine of sola scriptura and divorced it from centuries of authoritative interpretation. Their conclusions on what it says are quite solid and if I was a sola scripturist (in the way Protestants are), I would have to seriously consider the JWs position.

And as has been pointed out recently here Joseph Smith from a non-LDS paradigm came by his confusion about the true church honestly. Revivals at the right time and place or not, there was much confusion in his area and in his family.

As a Catholic today, you are not responsible for the historical things that I mention. But, I would suggest that if a cradle Catholic grows up and is not guided into a powerful relationship with the real presence of Christ, you are missing your calling to fellowship and teach. Catholics claim to have something that if they really do and if one really KNOWs it is there, I cannot imagine why one would leave. Catholics are responsible for many a fallen Catholic. And no, I do not think the answer is better ability to point to the evils of Joseph Smith or Martin Luther. When Protestants and Mormons explain why you are not the true church refute their ideas (potentially by showing that they fail by the same measuring stick), but concentrate on what you have. For if you really have it, who could leave?

Charity, TOm

 

[papist1]

Thanks Tom, and yes, I really have it and could never leave for I am at home, for once, in His Church.

The poorly catechized church certainly has filled the seats of the JWs, LDS and every other protestant denom.

 

[Jerusha]

Islam grew amongst a group of Christians who seem to have strayed from the heart of Christianity (this is as I understand, but I am not particularly well versed in this).

I hereby submit that Mormonism is very much like the Christian heresy that Islam reacted against. :bigyikes:

 

[stillsearching]

TOmNossor:

Papist1,

Let me offer you something to chew on.

From a paradigm that the Catholic Church is God’s true church, I submit that the Catholic Church has created, Protestants, JWs, Moslems, and Mormons.

No church can be expected to be perfect, but there have been a number of things that have occurred within the Catholic Church that have been inappropriate and have contributed greatly to the creation of all of the above. Islam grew amongst a group of Christians who seem to have strayed from the heart of Christianity (this is as I understand, but I am not particularly well versed in this).

Martin Luther and many of the reformers originally desired to be reformers not schismatics. Luther spoke out against a number of things that were not appropriate. Had I been informed and lived in his time, I would not have ultimately sided with him, but he and others made good points. The lack of prevalence of the Bible in Catholic worship was something that lead to the reformists idea that the Bible was not a Catholic document. In fact, I would suggest the wonderful protestant converts to Catholicism (like Scott Hahn) have done a lot for reclaiming the Bible for Catholics. If Scott Hahn had been the norm in the 16th century, I do not think Protestants could have taken the Bible from Catholics.

JWs I believe are excellent at Biblical exegesis. They took the doctrine of sola scriptura and divorced it from centuries of authoritative interpretation. Their conclusions on what it says are quite solid and if I was a sola scripturist (in the way Protestants are), I would have to seriously consider the JWs position.

And as has been pointed out recently here Joseph Smith from a non-LDS paradigm came by his confusion about the true church honestly. Revivals at the right time and place or not, there was much confusion in his area and in his family.

As a Catholic today, you are not responsible for the historical things that I mention. But, I would suggest that if a cradle Catholic grows up and is not guided into a powerful relationship with the real presence of Christ, you are missing your calling to fellowship and teach. Catholics claim to have something that if they really do and if one really KNOWs it is there, I cannot imagine why one would leave. Catholics are responsible for many a fallen Catholic. And no, I do not think the answer is better ability to point to the evils of Joseph Smith or Martin Luther. When Protestants and Mormons explain why you are not the true church refute their ideas (potentially by showing that they fail by the same measuring stick), but concentrate on what you have. For if you really have it, who could leave?

Charity, TOm

Good heavens. That is the first time I’ve ever heard that one. I suggest you read the history of Islam before you make such statements. Otherwise, your credibility as someone who studies anything is seriously in question. A completely frivolous remark about Islam.

 

[papist1]

the lds prey upon lukewarm protestants and catholics, they cannot sell their bogus form of religion to many others. They must use terminology that certainly sounds Christian, yet has an ENTIRELY different meaning, both historically, Biblically and factually.

Most are looking for love and acceptance and are in need of structure and accountability, and boy do the controlling and pressuring reigns of the lds have that!

 

[Tmaque]

stillsearching:

Good heavens. That is the first time I’ve ever heard that one. I suggest you read the history of Islam before you make such statements. Otherwise, your credibility as someone who studies anything is seriously in question. A completely frivolous remark about Islam.

Tom’s post:
“Islam grew amongst a group of Christians who seem to have strayed from the heart of Christianity** (this is as I understand, but I am not particularly well versed in this). **”​

Why would you ridicule someone for something they said about a subject, when the person clearly stated that they were nor well versed in the subject? Tom needs no defense from me but this post just struck me as just plain mean.

 

[Casen]

Going back to the thread topic, I’d just like to point out that the “burning” feeling is also mentioned in the Bible (see Luke 24:32).

The apostles felt it when in the presence of the Savior and while he “opened unto them” the scriptures. I’ve personally felt this on many occasions while studying the scriptures; the Bible as well as the Book of Mormon.

 

[alterserver_07]

So, when you stop feeling the burning, do you stop believing?

 

[tkdnick]

Casen:

Going back to the thread topic, I’d just like to point out that the “burning” feeling is also mentioned in the Bible (see Luke 24:32).

The apostles felt it when in the presence of the Savior and while he “opened unto them” the scriptures. I’ve personally felt this on many occasions while studying the scriptures; the Bible as well as the Book of Mormon.

True, however, Jesus was not known to them until the breaking of the bread (Eucharist - Real Presence). Also, there is no guarantee that when the apostles say “were our hearts not burning within us” that they literally mean that.