Bearing testimony:

[Archaea]

If one sees things clearly without equivocations, bearing it is easy. However, where one sees ambiguities, accurately bearing is sometimes difficult, in that one always senses an inadequacy in what one attempts to lay witness of. Does anybody else experience this dilemma?

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

If one sees things clearly without equivocations, bearing it is easy. However, where one sees ambiguities, accurately bearing is sometimes difficult, in that one always senses an inadequacy in what one attempts to lay witness of. Does anybody else experience this dilemma?

I think the reason people who see ambiguities feel inadequate about sharing their testimonies is because there is often an "all or none" attitude in Mormonism. i.e. .either the Book of Mormon is completely literal, or it is a complete fraud...either everything is absolutely true, or Moroni or Joseph Smith was lying...or either Joseph Smith was a prophet, or he was a crazy person...

But a lot of people are in the middle on some issues, and the middle is usually not an acceptable or popular place for a Mormon testimony to be.

[creekster]

Personal religious practices are exactly that. Most of us here are part of a rather unique subgroup that chooses to believe (or formerly believed) in an outpouring of prophetic pronouncements beginning with Joseph Smith and continuing, albeit in a manner that is increasingly less dramatic, to the present. What are these outpourings of spirit? To some they may be very specific announcements or instructions that must be followed. To others, they may be a profound but uncertain phenomenon to be interpreted and applied. All of these could be correct, and even true, in their sphere. I know what I know, and it is that I believe in the manifestations that I have received. This is why I practice as I do. I am not a child, and I have given it some thought and consideration over the years, and yet I am here, because I think this is truth and it is, for me, and it makes me happy. I believe others could experience and benefit from this same truth, but I certainly cannot condemn someone for declining to do so.

Some here have simple yet powerful beliefs; others are more complicated; still others have almost violently contrary opinions. At an intellectual level it is very interesting to read what has been discussed here the last few days. At a spiritual level, however, little posted here can help any one of us decide whether or not to be a good person, or to follow Christ, or to be baptized by one with authority. I, for one, will read Ehrman’s book and look forward to discussing it (or at least reading the discussions about it). Others may feel doing so takes them too far from their spiritual center. So be it. As MW points out, faith is a gift, as is testimony, etc., and we all have different levels of those gifts won in different ways. Regardless of where anyone may fall on the spectrum of belief about any given doctrine, I think the fact that we are spiritual beings by our nature is undeniable. We must believe and we all innately want to believe and the utter lack of belief is rare and even more rarely found in a happy person. Could this be explained by a “spiritual gene”, or by some physiological imperative in the wiring of our brain? Perhaps, but I don’t think so, and over my life I have reached conclusions about this that studies, or Bart Ehrman or even Seattle Ute are unlikely to sway.

So continue on, if it interests you. Study to your heart’s content. But never lose sight of the transcendent aspect of your existence that can lead to happiness and contentment. For me, I have found that contentment in the LDS church. My testimony of the goodness and the efficacy and the truth of the message presented by Joseph Smith and his successors will not turn on the date that some ancient scribe did or did not record the words attributed to Isaiah. I do want to know about these things, but I do not find them determinative.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Archaea

If one sees things clearly without equivocations, bearing it is easy. However, where one sees ambiguities, accurately bearing is sometimes difficult, in that one always senses an inadequacy in what one attempts to lay witness of. Does anybody else experience this dilemma?

Come on Arch. I would be willing to bet you could put a little thought into it and say something that reflected the ambiguities you have identified without 99% of the listening audience even appreciating it. I imagine you have a highly developed skill for that you apply at work.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by creekster

Personal religious practices are exactly that. Most of us here are part of a rather unique subgroup that chooses to believe (or formerly believed) in an outpouring of prophetic pronouncements beginning with Joseph Smith and continuing, albeit in a manner that is increasingly less dramatic, to the present. What are these outpourings of spirit? To some they may be very specific announcements or instructions that must be followed. To others, they may be a profound but uncertain phenomenon to be interpreted and applied. All of these could be correct, and even true, in their sphere. I know what I know, and it is that I believe in the manifestations that I have received. This is why I practice as I do. I am not a child, and I have given it some thought and consideration over the years, and yet I am here, because I think this is truth and it is, for me, and it makes me happy. I believe others could experience and benefit from this same truth, but I certainly cannot condemn someone for declining to do so.

Some here have simple yet powerful beliefs; others are more complicated; still others have almost violently contrary opinions. At an intellectual level it is very interesting to read what has been discussed here the last few days. At a spiritual level, however, little posted here can help any one of us decide whether or not to be a good person, or to follow Christ, or to be baptized by one with authority. I, for one, will read Ehrman’s book and look forward to discussing it (or at least reading the discussions about it). Others may feel doing so takes them too far from their spiritual center. So be it. As MW points out, faith is a gift, as is testimony, etc., and we all have different levels of those gifts won in different ways. Regardless of where anyone may fall on the spectrum of belief about any given doctrine, I think the fact that we are spiritual beings by our nature is undeniable. We must believe and we all innately want to believe and the utter lack of belief is rare and even more rarely found in a happy person. Could this be explained by a “spiritual gene”, or by some physiological imperative in the wiring of our brain? Perhaps, but I don’t think so, and over my life I have reached conclusions about this that studies, or Bart Ehrman or even Seattle Ute are unlikely to sway.

So continue on, if it interests you. Study to your heart’s content. But never lose sight of the transcendent aspect of your existence that can lead to happiness and contentment. For me, I have found that contentment in the LDS church. My testimony of the goodness and the efficacy and the truth of the message presented by Joseph Smith and his successors will not turn on the date that some ancient scribe did or did not record the words attributed to Isaiah. I do want to know about these things, but I do not find them determinative.

That font is hard to read. Can you make it TNR and also increase the size?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

That font is hard to read. Can you make it TNR and also increase the size?

WHat's TNR?

Also I tried to make it bigger, but couldn't really figureout how to do so. Not sure if its really worht the effort, to tell you the truth.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by creekster

WHat's TNR?

I think he means Times New Roman. He's very high maintenance.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by creekster

WHat's TNR?

Times New Roman, that is what you changed the font to. Also I think I figured out the size thing.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

I think he means Times New Roman. He's very high maintenance.

It WAS Times New Roman. Like I said, It's really not worth it.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Times New Roman, that is what you changed the font to. Also I think I figured out the size thing.

Nope I changed it to ARIAL.