LDS: how do you validate your spiritual testimony?

[catholic-rcia]

“Is that valid enough or is there something I’m missing?”

Have you ever read the Bible in its historical context?
Do you know where in the Bible that the Old Testament Prophecies came to be fullfilled?

Do you know who was inspired to complete the Bible?
Do you know when the Bible was completed?

Have you been taught about the Saints of the Christians prior to Joseph Smith? Do you know of any of these Saints? The Saints that the Bible speaks of?

Do you know how Christ has been spread throughout the world? The cost involved?

Please take the time to read about just one of them who gave their life up to Christ for others.

catholic-rcia.com/pages/cJouges_page.html

God Bless

 

[DeeAnn]

“Is that valid enough or is there something I’m missing?”

Have you ever read the Bible in its historical context?
Do you know where in the Bible that the Old Testament Prophecies came to be fullfilled?

Do you know who was inspired to complete the Bible?
Do you know when the Bible was completed?

Have you been taught about the Saints of the Christians prior to Joseph Smith? Do you know of any of these Saints? The Saints that the Bible speaks of?

Do you know how Christ has been spread throughout the world? The cost involved?

Please take the time to read about just one of them who gave their life up to Christ for others.

catholic-rcia.com/pages/cJouges_page.html

God Bless

That would be a “no” on all accounts. Are you saying that someone can’t have a testimony of the truthfulness of Catholicism without having done these things? I think these are all interesting topics, and certainly could be very faith-promoting, but I hardly think they are a litmus test for the basis for someone’s testimony.

DeeAnn

 

[majick275]

I would have to disagree then. One should study and gain knowledge so that they know just what they are seeking a spiritual witness of. I find it disturbing that so many people claim to “know” a church is true without knowing what that church is, what it teaches, how it came to be, etc.

There is such a vast difference between Catholic RCIA and LDS missionary discussions. In RCIA you are taught over a long period time (better part of a year) the history, teachings, doctrine and practices of the Catholic church. Only when you can truly make an informed decision are you expected to make a profession of faith.

I think this an area of confusion for many Catholics regarding LDS testimonies, it seems you are putting the cart before the horse and asking God to just “tell” you what church is true and then you can learn what the doctrine, practices, etc. are at your leisure, secure in the knowledge that whatever the church directs “must” be true.

 

[Phaedrus]

Thanks, Majik, that is exactly the point I was trying to make. Dee Ann, I wasn’t referring to study so much as verification. Study implies just learning about something. When I approached the Catholic Church, my intent was to challenge the doctrines and beliefs of the Roman Church to see if they stood the tests of scripture, logic, and history. It’s difficult for me to believe that Mormon converts do the same type of thing because so many LDS claims have no verification in scripture, logic, or history. It seems obvious to most disinterested observers that there never was a lost tribe of Israel in North America. And the whole golden plates thing just does not have the ring of truth. I don’t know what kind of language “reformed Egyptian” was, but the latest writing we have from ancient Egypt is hieroglyphs - not the most concise form of writing. For the golden tablets to contain all the words in the book of Mormon the plates would have had to cover several football fields. Joseph Smith would have had to have a bulldozer just to get them out of the ground.
Dee Ann, it is not my intent to attack you. You seem like a very nice and sincere person. And I don’t have a grudge against Mormons, despite the fact that you produced Donny and Marie Osmond. But I honestly believe (you might say that I have a testimony) that the Catholic Church was and remains the one, true Church that Jesus founded on the rock that was Peter. My prayer is that you will come to believe that too.

Under the Mercy,
Phaedrus

 

[DeeAnn]

I would have to disagree then. One should study and gain knowledge so that they know just what they are seeking a spiritual witness of. I find it disturbing that so many people claim to “know” a church is true without knowing what that church is, what it teaches, how it came to be, etc.

There is such a vast difference between Catholic RCIA and LDS missionary discussions. In RCIA you are taught over a long period time (better part of a year) the history, teachings, doctrine and practices of the Catholic church. Only when you can truly make an informed decision are you expected to make a profession of faith.

Well you are making the assumption that no potential LDS person ever does any studying outside the discussions. It’s very rare for someone, at least in my experience, to join without first doing a lot of studying up on the church. For example, we had a recent baptism in my ward where the guy attended church and studied it for 8 years before joining. I would say he had probably done his homework.

My husband met with the missionaries and did a LOT of studying on his own for about 5 months before he joined. I know he read a lot of stuff critical of the church as well as faith-promoting. He wanted to make sure he was making the correct decision.

And to assume that there are no LDS who study early church history and other religions as well as our own in depth, would be a grave mistake.

Of course there are many LDS who don’t know our history. I would venture to say there are probably just as many Catholics in the same boat.

I think this an area of confusion for many Catholics regarding LDS testimonies, it seems you are putting the cart before the horse and asking God to just “tell” you what church is true and then you can learn what the doctrine, practices, etc. are at your leisure, secure in the knowledge that whatever the church directs “must” be true.

Well, this is quite the sweeping generalization. Can you elaborate on how you came to this conclusion?

DeeAnn

 

[DeeAnn]

Phaedrus:

Thanks, Majik, that is exactly the point I was trying to make. Dee Ann, I wasn’t referring to study so much as verification. Study implies just learning about something. When I approached the Catholic Church, my intent was to challenge the doctrines and beliefs of the Roman Church to see if they stood the tests of scripture, logic, and history.

That’s great. I know of many LDS who joined the church after taking a similar approach of “I’m going to prove the LDS church false”

It’s difficult for me to believe that Mormon converts do the same type of thing because so many LDS claims have no verification in scripture, logic, or history. It seems obvious to most disinterested observers that there never was a lost tribe of Israel in North America.

Well, granted there is a lack of information on the subject.

And the whole golden plates thing just does not have the ring of truth. I don’t know what kind of language “reformed Egyptian” was, but the latest writing we have from ancient Egypt is hieroglyphs - not the most concise form of writing. For the golden tablets to contain all the words in the book of Mormon the plates would have had to cover several football fields. Joseph Smith would have had to have a bulldozer just to get them out of the ground.

"Inscribed potsherds (ostraca) from the eighth and seventh centuries B.C.E. (Before Common Era, or B.C.), found in both Israel and Judah, provide evidence for writing in the tenth century B.C.E. "These ostraca contain Hebrew characters as well as signs and numerals in hieratics-a cursive form of Egyptian hieroglyphics.

"Curiously, these hieratic signs do not appear in contemporaneous documents of Israel’s neighbors, even though Egypt’s relations with Philistia and Phoenicia in the ninth and tenth centuries B.C.E. were much closer than those with Israel.

“Moreover, no eighth- or seventh-century Egyptian parallels have been found for many of the signs on the Hebrew ostraca.” (Cow Town or Royal Capitol? Evidence For Iron Age Jerusalem, Nadav Na’aman, Biblical Archaeological Review, July/August 1997, p. 45).

Sounds like “reformed Egyptian” to me. For other articles on the topic fairlds.org/apol/ai091.html

Dee Ann, it is not my intent to attack you. You seem like a very nice and sincere person. And I don’t have a grudge against Mormons, despite the fact that you produced Donny and Marie Osmond. But I honestly believe (you might say that I have a testimony) that the Catholic Church was and remains the one, true Church that Jesus founded on the rock that was Peter. My prayer is that you will come to believe that too.

WHAT? You don’t like Donny and Marie? I don’t feel that you are attacking me. I hope I never come across as attacking the Catholic church or anyone on this board. Hopefully we are both defending our faiths with open eyes and hearts to the other’s position.

DeeAnn

 

[majick275]

*Quote:
I think this an area of confusion for many Catholics regarding LDS testimonies, it seems you are putting the cart before the horse and asking God to just “tell” you what church is true and then you can learn what the doctrine, practices, etc. are at your leisure, secure in the knowledge that whatever the church directs “must” be true.

Well, this is quite the sweeping generalization. Can you elaborate on how you came to this conclusion?

DeeAnn*

Please notice that I made no claim to definitive, universal “fact” here. I said “it SEEMS” thus indicating that it is a perception.

My opinion here is based on many years of being LDS and sitting through many testimony meetings, speaking in classes (and just chatting) with other LDS. I feel pretty confident that most converts to the LDS church do not spend lengthy periods of time in study before baptism, I also think that Missionary discussions tend to stick to the most basic elements of LDS religion. Obviously most elements of the Temple cannot be taught even in sunday classes. (I would note that there aren’t classes IN the temple either, nor Temple “manuals” or even interactive instructor led discussions within the Temple). I realize that some LDS DO study LDS history and doctrine thoroughly and SOME converts do go through a lengthy journey to baptism. I just think it’s the exception rather than the rule. (I also admit that things can be very different in other locations than what I have experienced in the places I have lived in).

What I have seen on FAIR,FARMS, jefflindsay, etc. seems to back up my opinion that the most common LDS practice IS to assume that what the church is true and from God and then look for ways that it could be possible.

 

[DeeAnn]

majick275:

Please notice that I made no claim to definitive, universal “fact” here. I said “it SEEMS” thus indicating that it is a perception.

My opinion here is based on many years of being LDS and sitting through many testimony meetings, speaking in classes (and just chatting) with other LDS. I feel pretty confident that most converts to the LDS church do not spend lengthy periods of time in study before baptism, I also think that Missionary discussions tend to stick to the most basic elements of LDS religion. Obviously most elements of the Temple cannot be taught even in sunday classes. (I would note that there aren’t classes IN the temple either, nor Temple “manuals” or even interactive instructor led discussions within the Temple). I realize that some LDS DO study LDS history and doctrine thoroughly and SOME converts do go through a lengthy journey to baptism. I just think it’s the exception rather than the rule. (I also admit that things can be very different in other locations than what I have experienced in the places I have lived in).

What I have seen on FAIR,FARMS, jefflindsay, etc. seems to back up my opinion that the most common LDS practice IS to assume that what the church is true and from God and then look for ways that it could be possible.

Thanks for elaborating. It helps.

Based on my experience, most converts have exposure to the church before taking the missionary discussions. Those who don’t, tend to come in the front door and go out the back.

Tell me, have you been to the temple? Just curious, because the doctrine taught in the temple is not anything new. It’s taught in the church all the time. Were you a convert or born LDS? How long were you a member? You don’t have to answer if you don’t want to.

DeeAnn

 

[majick275]

I agree with your observations on LDS converts. Most of the ones I saw did in fact not last long. Of course not that many came in to begin with. The ones that stayed were the ones who were already relatives or close friend of LDS before seeing the missionaries.

I was born in the LDS church and have taught primary, sunday school, seminary, priesthood and Gospel Doctrine.
I have been an Elders Quorum president and a counselor in the Bishopric. (along with many other callings)

I was sealed in the Temple and attended quite frequently for a while, to the point where I became a veil worker.

I have a lot of problems with the Temple in general and would disagree that everything taught there is taught elsewhere in the church. It is full of symbolism that is for the most part left to the individual to learn the meaning of from the “spirit”. I will refrain from going into specifics unless you specifically ask.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Have you ever read the Bible in its historical context?

Dee ann
That would be a “no” on all accounts. Are you saying that someone can’t have a testimony of the truthfulness of Catholicism without having done these things?

It took the Apostles 3 years of Jesus teaching them before there eyes were opened. Then they were rewarded with the Last Supper and Salvation by way of the Cross. Currently It takes about a year for one to begin to learn what they learned in three. Then God willing they are baptized into the death and resurrection of Christ. So yes it takes study to learn about the Sacraments and why Christ has given them to us. After one learns about the healing Sacraments (Christ) then they accept Baptism. This takes place at the Easter Vigil.

Dee ann
"I think these are all interesting topics, and certainly could be very faith-promoting, but I hardly think they are a litmus test for the basis for someone’s testimony."

Anyway we do teach these things to those looking to enter Christ’s Church, I do not have one particular testimony, I have a whole life of testimonies concerning Christ and what he has done in my life. I came to Christ, or should I say Christ came to me even before I became Catholic. Now I cannot separate Christ from His Church nor can I separate the Church from Christ. As the Church is Christ, and this Church includes even our Protestant brothers and sisters. You can find a small portion of what you would call my own testimony right here…

catholic-rcia.com/pages/Forgive.html “if only my parents had known God”

Here is another concerning my brother catholic-rcia.com/pages/Who_Blame.html

DeeAnn

As one of the LDS faith, how would you interpret the following Scripture without knowing its historical background? What is your meditation on this? What is the Spirit telling you? I am not an expert on this Scripture, this is just part of the up and coming Sunday Scriptures. I learned about it at our Bible Study tonight using historical background. We happen to have an ex Mormon in our group that knows a lot more about the Historical background of the Old and New testament than many of us Catholics. I am not trying to bait you or one up you here. I think you will be surprised. Maybe I will be surprised, who knows?

God Bless

Reading I
Is 40:1-5

Comfort, give comfort to my people,
says your God.
Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and proclaim to her
that her service is at an end,
her guilt is expiated;
indeed, she has received from the hand of the LORD
double for all her sins.

 

[Phaedrus]

DeeAnn:

I think these are all interesting topics, and certainly could be very faith-promoting, but I hardly think they are a litmus test for the basis for someone’s testimony.

DeeAnn

Dee Ann,

Do you believe there are ANY litmus tests for the basis of someone’s testimony? Or is the testimony proof of it’s own validity?

Under the Mercy,
Phaedrus