f you’re asking me to prove to you that God exists, or saying that you won’t believe unless you get proof, then you will never believe. God has ensured that he cannot be approached except by faith. That’s the constraint that we all live with when we wish to know God. The good thing is that, by exercising faith, we really can know him eventually. But not by rational proof.

Thanks for your honesty; not all theists share that kind of comment.

Personally, I find it important to believe in things I know are true. A belief based on faith is not ratinal proof, as you said, and I don’t adhere to any such belief.

We all have a choice. You pick the faith side, I pick the rational side.

Thanks, take care.

since the very basic idea of God and Holy Spirit being real is unproven to me, there is no point in addressing something I consider to be entirely natural, i.e., thinking…

I’m not sure what you mean here. If you’re asking me to prove to you that God exists, or saying that you won’t believe unless you get proof, then you will never believe. God has ensured that he cannot be approached except by faith. That’s the constraint that we all live with when we wish to know God. The good thing is that, by exercising faith, we really can know him eventually. But not by rational proof.

Yes, we are all very aware that the best way to indoctrinate people into a religion is to teach them from a very young age that God exists. This makes the child consider that principle as fundamentally true, without any critical analysis possible. It is then piratically impossible to have a rational approach to the question “Do you believe God exists?”

You can call it indoctrination if you want, Hugo, but you have to teach children something about God. either you teach them your belief in God or you teach them your disbelief. I happen to have a belief in God, which leads me to teach my children about my belief. But that’s not what I’m talking about here.

I’m talking about the fact that even children can feel the Holy Spirit. They don’t need indoctrination to do it. You can too, Hugo, if you don’t destroy any possibilty of it by taking a purely rational approach. Reason isn’t the only way to truth, and it’s a dead end when it comes to appraching God.

The answer was put in the child’s mind before the child could even think for him/herself. The answer cannot be anything else than ‘yes’ as it is the pre-supposition needed to explain all the rest of any theistic worldview.

If it were that easy, Hugo, then everyone would always believe what they were taught as children. Fortunately, we all reach an age where we have to discover the truth for ourselves. Some end up with faith in God that is similar to what they were taught and some end up in a very different faith, and some end up with no faith at all. In my experience, few just go along unquestioning what they were taught as children. What I try to teach my children is that they need not rely on my belief, they can find out for themselves, as can anyone who sincerely wants to know.

Because that’s what I am asking you basically… How can you make the difference between a thought which is yours and a thought which was “generated” by the Holy Spirit in your mind?

First of all, the Holy Spirit doesn’t necessarily generate thoughts in your mind. That’s why I described it as a “feeling,” rather than a thought. It can give you impressions in your mind, but generally it gives you feelings confirming things that others say or that you read or say yourself. I already explained how you can tell that these things come through the Spirit. You learn to recognize these feelings by comparing them to feelings you have had before. Once you learn to recognize it, it isn’t hard to know when it’s happening again.

Hugo, in my view, revelation from God comes in a particular way and carries with it particular feelings.

This is really vague; do you have any way to define the ‘particular way’ and ‘particular feelings’ ?

We can begin learning how to recognize it at an early age.

Yes, we are all very aware that the best way to indoctrinate people into a religion is to teach them from a very young age that God exists. This makes the child consider that principle as fundamentally true, without any critical analysis possible. It is then piratically impossible to have a rational approach to the question “Do you believe God exists?” The answer was put in the child’s mind before the child could even think for him/herself. The answer cannot be anything else than ‘yes’ as it is the pre-supposition needed to explain all the rest of any theistic worldview.

For example, when we first begin to read the scriptures, and listen to others testify of Christ, the Holy Spirit tells us of the truth of these things by giving us certain feelings.

Confirmation bias?
You have certain feelings and ideas, and by finding people with similar feelings and ideas you can confirm that yours are “real”.

I will not address the rest of the comments for now. I find it interesting, but since the very basic idea of God and Holy Spirit being real is unproven to me, there is no point in addressing something I consider to be entirely natural, i.e., thinking…

Because that’s what I am asking you basically… How can you make the difference between a thought which is yours and a thought which was “generated” by the Holy Spirit in your mind?

cheers

But in the end, we have to be responsible for the things that we have received from God through his Spirit. I can definitely say that I have no idea about a lot of things, but I have to also admit a pretty strong knowledge of where God wants me to be, based on repeated inquiry: he wants me in this Church.

The phrase you quote above doesn’t mean we’re “the best.” I don’t even know what “best” means in the context of religion. Each individual can only follow his or her conscience. If you are doing that, then you are doing what’s “best” for you.

The issue of keys and authority is more about the fact that we believe that authority to act in God’s name must come from God. It can’t come as the result of a great idea or an interesting set of beliefs. What I was getting at is that it’s not really our doctrine that sets us apart from other religions (there are a number of other churches that believe much of the same things we do), the difference is in the fact that God’s authority (meaning the power to perform saving ordinances and other acts in his name) can properly rest in only one organization. If you believe you’ve found the right one, it’s not particularly arrogant to say so, though it may sound that way I suppose.

“the sole place where all of the keys of God’s authority are found”

Seems awfully arrogant to me! You admit the possibility of other churches receiving revelations but you’re ultimatelty “the best”? not a single shred of doubt that you might be wrong?

Thanks

In other words, the question is simply: How do you know that a particular revelation is true/trustworthy or not?

At the same time, I would add that I do have “revelations” in my head myself when I am thinking/praying/meditating. There is this feeling of having other voices speaking, as if I am having a conversation with someone else. My conclusion is always that these “revelations” are nothing more than myself talking with myself, and I wonder, why would it be otherwise? why do religious people think that some people’ voices should be trusted more?

I thought it was pretty interesting to read this post and the comments because I don’t know a single thing about Mormonism; actually, I had to get to comment 15) to be sure that this was in fact discussing Mormonism’s stories! Nephi, Lehi, Joel… these names sounded so strange to me as I am not used to see them associated with Jesus or Lord.

Comment 15) was also when I learned what is my first disagreement with Mormonism: you guys have the exact same problem as other kind of Christians regarding special revelations, visions, dreams, or any other particular claim of divine knowledge. You say that Atheists reject first hand such claims, which is more or less true, I admit, being an atheist myself, but in fact, you do the exact same thing with other religions. So, at least, atheists like me (I always specify ‘like me’ because atheists have nothing in common you know…) are consistent regarding that particular point, but you are not…

In other words, how do you justify the exceptions?

How do you proceed following this statement:
“I’ll admit that not every member’s tale should be believed and not all should be related, but they all merit consideration and evaluation before being discarded.”

The most important part, though, was his conclusion. He couldn’t say which stories, if any, were true, but it didn’t matter:

Stories of the Three Nephites… are still very much a part of contemporary Mormon society. In our unguarded moments, in a testimony meeting, in a Sunday school class, in intimate conversations with small groups of friends, in the family circle — when critical perceptions are tuned low and the spiritual vibrations are strong — in these moments the Nephite stories circulate among us. And they tell us much of ourselves and of our church. They mirror our attitudes, values, and principal concerns; they reinforce Church teachings and persuade us to follow them; they tell us of a personal God concerned with our individual problems; and they provide us with pride in the past, with confidence in the future, and with the means of meeting the crises of modern living with equanimity. So long as the stories continue to meet these ends, they will remain a vital part of Mormon folk tradition, and they will continue to enlarge our understanding of Mormon culture.

I have no reason to doubt the uncle’s story. I respect my friend enough to know that if he reveres his uncle, I believe it happened. Also, too much has happened in my own life to lean otherwise. But more importantly, the story gave me a greater appreciation of our relationship to the Lord and of the numerous opportunities to make it stronger.