As a "critic", what is your purpose or motivation?

[Rob Bowman]

BOMT,

You wrote:

Endless spin.

I'm afraid that's my assessment of your response.

You wrote:

How again is that "evidence"?

I know embarrassing. Hence why I hope you leave everything up on the website. I won't bring up more examples, I don't want to embarrass you anymore.

You haven't begun to do so, except that I am embarrassed for you to admit that you actually want us to keep things on our website that you consider embarrassingly bad. This says something unflattering about you, not about us.

You wrote:

Besides, why would you want to drive us a crazy? I would think you would want to do what you stated earlier "I am motivated to do what I do by the two motivating values of truth and love". I guess we should add the "third" motivating factor, "to drive us crazy".

This is silly. Of course I don't want to drive you crazy. All I said was that I know criticizing Joseph Smith will do that to you, given your responses up to now. I wish it were not so.

[Gervin]

Gervin,

We do even better.

Please check out this link. You can take any publication regarding Mormonism, primarily regarding the BOM, and do a review. You need to follow professional guidelines, but if you find an apologetic book, article, DVD that you can give the weaknesses of logic, scholarship, factual errors, etc, just submit it for publication.

The article cannot be an attack on whether the BOM, for example, is true, but you can show the flaws in a specific apologetic work.

There are many of the classic apologetic books, from Nibley, Christensen, to authors here in this forum where you can demonstrate their flaws. Let's see what you got, and I'm serious. I'd love to see someone take on Nibley, et al. in a serious review.

Why must a scholarly critique be submitted to the Maxwell Institute? I was suggesting that critiques, such as this can simply be linked through FAIR Wiki.

[Gervin]

That is exactly what I am saying.

It is absolutely impossible for an honest truth seeker who sincerely wants to know to not receive the promised answer. That is the beauty of Moroni's promise and I know it without any doubts whatsoever.

This is true for you because as a prerequisite to testing Moroni's promise you must first believe that the test is valid; the Book of Mormon is true because the Book of Mormon (first) truthfully provides you a test for truth.

Isn't it interesting that the person who claimed to be truth no where tells us how to test the truthfulness of His claim, but simply says "come unto me"? I wonder why that is?

[Vance]

You may not have any obligation to prove your honesty, but if you wish me to see you as honest, and, given your previous recommendation of the dishonest DVD(s), it seems you'd want to go out of your way to demonstrate that honesty.

Your choice, to contact the publisher in the case you find the DVD disingenuous, is laudable.

Yes, it would. And I have no doubt that it would be acknowledged either by removing the offending material, or at least by a caveat stating its basis was in question. But this is not a very close parallel.

I believe you would be. Since, as far as I can determine, there is no such material, however.

Is there any place on the FAIR site that is demonstrably untrue? One, perhaps, that pretends to tell us (or any other reader) what another religious society believes and does so incorrectly and repeatedly even after having been shown the errors?

If not, you do not have an argument. We should recall that there is no LDS ministry devoted to debunking others' beliefs, our missionary force notwithstanding. There is no exbaptistsforJesus.com sponsored by the Church or any Saint I know of. If you know of such a site, I'd be glad to investigate it.

Lehi

[bookofmormontruth]

This is true for you because as a prerequisite to testing Moroni's promise you must first believe that the test is valid; the Book of Mormon is true because the Book of Mormon (first) truthfully provides you a test for truth.

It was true for me, yes.

But it is not a pre-requisite to believe the test is "valid". Numerous people in my life including my fiance, have proved this. They didn't know if the promise was valid, but were sincere in heart, having real intent and faith in the Lord that they would receive an answer. You might be confusing the pre-requisite with "having faith in the Lord" and having faith that we will receive an answer.

Isn't it interesting that the person who claimed to be truth no where tells us how to test the truthfulness of His claim, but simply says "come unto me"? I wonder why that is?

The Book of Mormon is one test. When a person finds that the Book of Mormon is true, they may also know that the Lord lives and is their Savior which is also stated in the Introduction of the Book of Mormon. I have had people in my life who have found the Savior through the Book of Mormon.

"Come unto me" is a universal invitation for the world and includes "rest" and salvation through the gift of the Resurrection. Satan gives the same invitation without the same rewards. Many people will also come unto the Lord and receive salvation, but this is not the case with exaltation where more is required.

"The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned". 1 Corinthians 2:14. The natural man needs a spiritual witness to "know' of the Lord and that witness comes through the Holy Ghost who testifies and teaches us all things.

[cdowis]

Why must a scholarly critique be submitted to the Maxwell Institute? I was suggesting that critiques, such as this can simply be linked through FAIR Wiki.

Interesting. And why not.

I do not have any particular connection or knowledge to the Fair Wiki, but where do you suggest that the link belongs. Do you know who is able to contribute to fair wiki, and perhaps we can find a way to add it.

Does anyone know how to add articles and items to fair wiki?

[mfbukowski]

CFR on three points: (1) That I "always avoid questions" on this subject (two examples of me doing this will suffice), (2) that I (being an evangelical) have said that I "believe in personal revelation," and (3) that I do "not believe in praying about either the BOM or the Bible." On this third point, you are simply contradicting what I have explicitly stated in this very thread.

Let's start with number 3 first.

The assertion that I made was that you don't endorse the Moroni test the way that Mormons understand it, and applying that test to the Bible. In fact that is a correct statement, and the distinction you are making on this thread is new to me. On this very thread you said:

Second, you may or may not know this, but I don't endorse the "Moroni test" for determining if the Book of Mormon is true.

Those are your words, not mine. As a Mormon I take that at its face value.

Now if you are making some kind of a distinction between the way Mormons usually take this (and, being Mormon, of course that is the way I took it,) that is another thing. In the next sentence you say:

I'm all for praying about the Book of Mormon, but I cannot endorse the approach you are suggesting, at least not as Mormons usually understand it.

If you are making a distinction, fine, but I am going to understand that "as Mormons usually understand it." I have yet to hear your new theory about what makes the Bible "True" which doesn't involve circular argumentation and which includes prayer.

Now for CFR number 1- whether or not you "avoid" the question of how we are supposed to know the Bible is true.

Vance and I have been watching you on this very topic now for probably six months at least, and there are too many instances to even count.

Avoidance of an issue BY DEFINITION does not leave quotable references That is precisely the problem in documenting avoidance and you know it. You cannot quote a statement which was not made!

Yet if one looks at multiple threads you can see a pattern- and that is what I am talking about and also what Vance is talking about. There was an exchange a few weeks ago which started incidentally with you interrupting a conversation about the Book of Mormon, which led me to say this:

What if indeed? I don't care because the Holy Spirit has confirmed to me that the Book of Abraham is the word of God.

And what Moses revelation was just his imagination?

You have nothing but circular logic- that the Bible testifies of itself.

There.

Now I have responded to your original post.

Your turn.

That in turn led to your assertion that the Bible could be proven historically, which I questioned, and then, after some exchanges, you said:

Mr. Bukowski,

If you don't see the difference between a circular argument that assumes the truth of a document and a historical argument that examines what the document says to see what can be determined to be factual, I probably can't help you understand it. Maybe you could ask a Mormon historian.

Your claim that I have answered nothing is ridiculous. Go bother someone else.

All that, after indeed it was you who interrupted the original discussion. If that is not avoidance I don't know what is.

This then led me to ask David Bokovoy what he thought of your argument in another thread, quoting the above, and of course he agreed with me, and that led to the thread about the difference between Divinity schools and University training. I wasn't kidding when I said there were instances too many to mention or research. I have a life too, hard as that is to imagine.

Now for CFR number two,

(2) that I (being an evangelical) have said that I "believe in personal revelation,"

That one is easy to come up with, and here it is:

Robert,

You wrote:

Have you ever even met an evangelical?

It is a commonplace among evangelicals that "God doesn't have grandchildren" -- that is, that each person must have a personal faith in Christ, not merely accepting the faith of another. Hence, the evangelical insistence on knowing Christ as "one's personal Lord and Savior." Evangelicals also typically have personal "testimonies" about how they came to Christ and what he has meant in their lives. These testimonies are also not transferable.

I have yet to see you show how we can know that the Bible is true excluding some sort of personal revelation, in the same way we know the Book of Mormon is true, and how you know that Jesus is the Christ and your personal savior.

I have testimonies of all of the above, and they also are, to use your words, "not transferable".

Happy Easter everyone! Let's celebrate the Resurrection and leave all this arguing behind for a few hours ok?

[LDSToronto]

A critic is anyone who expresses a value judgement.

Informally, criticism is a common aspect of all human expression and need not necessarily imply skilled or accurate expressions of judgement. Critical judgements, good or bad, may be positive (in praise of an object of attention), negative (in dispraise), or balanced (weighing a combination of factors both for and against). Since all criticism must be regarded as having a purpose, a critic may also be definable by his or her specific motivation. At its simplest, and for whatever reason, a critic may have either constructive or destructive intent. My link

Granted, this forum has more "honest critics" than what I have seen in other forums and being rare are very welcomed. Yet, I continue to see "cheap shots" toward our sacred faith with "questions" disguised as "gotchas" or the elusive trail to the "nail in the coffin" for the Lord's Church.

As a "critic", what is your purpose or motivation?

I only ask because I know of no one in the LDS Church who plays the role as a "critic" for other's beliefs and I completely don't understand the need to be one. I am open to understand.

I suppose I could be called a critic, by your definition, though I'd like to think that I am questioning. The reason I prod and poke and test claims is because the LDS church and its doctrines and practices are so integrated into the lives of it's faithful adherents. For years, I've been a faithful, never-questioning member, until recently, when a number of things I believed to be true were cast with a heavy shadow of doubt.

Thus, I made a personal determination to explore the exact nature of every claim that the church makes and that its members make, and to decide whether I must accept or reject each of those claims based on a synthesis of all sources.

For a church that expects much of me, it is only fair that I should inquire after its worthiness to impact my life in such personal and intimate way.

H.

[bookofmormontruth]

I just have to say, I love the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the members in it.

I know we don't have a monopoly on all the good people in the world, but wow we have some honorable, very intelligent and fearless members. Thank you for your examples for you all handle yourself a lot better than I in defending the Lord's Church. Critics and the like, beware.

Happy Easter!

[LDSToronto]

I just have to say, I love the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the members in it.

I know we don't have a monopoly on all the good people in the world, but wow we have some honorable, very intelligent and fearless members. Thank you for your examples for you all handle yourself a lot better than I in defending the Lord's Church. Critics and the like, beware.

Happy Easter!

All of the members, BOMT? Even those, like me, who are members and question the church's truth claims? The very kind of person you would call a critic?

H.

[bookofmormontruth]

All of the members, BOMT? Even those, like me, who are members and question the church's truth claims? The very kind of person you would call a critic?

H.

You have that right, but I wouldn't define you as a critic.

And yes, including you - despite your absolutely ridiculous posts. I also have a good time with my gay friends who disagree with my beliefs so I am sure I would with you too.

Happy Easter!

[zerinus]

I suppose I could be called a critic, by your definition, though I'd like to think that I am questioning. The reason I prod and poke and test claims is because the LDS church and its doctrines and practices are so integrated into the lives of it's faithful adherents. For years, I've been a faithful, never-questioning member, until recently, when a number of things I believed to be true were cast with a heavy shadow of doubt.

Thus, I made a personal determination to explore the exact nature of every claim that the church makes and that its members make, and to decide whether I must accept or reject each of those claims based on a synthesis of all sources.

For a church that expects much of me, it is only fair that I should inquire after its worthiness to impact my life in such personal and intimate way.

H.

I cannot find fault with that approach; except that there is a snag. The snag is, what do you use as the criteria by which you test the validity of those "claims" that you are questioning? You say, "a synthesis of all sources," which raises more questions than it answers. What does that actually mean? If the "test criteria" that you are going to use to pass judgement on the Church's "claims" is a flawed criteria, then you are not going to be any better off, are you? How do you intend to solve that problem?

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

I had written: CFR on three points: (1) That I "always avoid questions" on this subject [how we know the Bible is true] (two examples of me doing this will suffice), (2) that I (being an evangelical) have said that I "believe in personal revelation," and (3) that I do "not believe in praying about either the BOM or the Bible." On this third point, you are simply contradicting what I have explicitly stated in this very thread. I will comment briefly on your replies to each of these three points.

1. You claim "Avoidance of an issue BY DEFINITION does not leave quotable references." You then go on to try to provide some quotable references. Your examples and explanation amount to this: You think my argument for the Bible's truth is circular, even though I have tried to explain to you why it is not. Saying you don't think my answer is a good one is one thing; saying I avoided the subject is another.

2. To show that I as an evangelical have said that I believe in personal revelation, you quoted the following statement from me:

It is a commonplace among evangelicals that "God doesn't have grandchildren" -- that is, that each person must have a personal faith in Christ, not merely accepting the faith of another. Hence, the evangelical insistence on knowing Christ as "one's personal Lord and Savior." Evangelicals also typically have personal "testimonies" about how they came to Christ and what he has meant in their lives. These testimonies are also not transferable.

Here you have mistakenly equated a personal testimony with a personal revelation. I affirm the validity of the former but not of the latter.

3. You infer that if I reject the Moroni test I must also reject praying about the Book of Mormon (and the Bible). This is a false inference. There are other ways to pray about the Book of Mormon or the Bible besides praying to receive a personal revelation of its truth.

I release you from the CFR, but the fact is that you were wrong about me on all three points.

[Vance]

Here you have mistakenly equated a personal testimony with a personal revelation. I affirm the validity of the former but not of the latter.

Which, unfortunately for you, ignores what the Bible has to say on the matter.

Rev. 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

So, according to the Bible, you can't have a "testimony of Jesus" without have "the spirit of prophesy" meaning, of course, REVELATION.

This of course is supported by the words of Jesus to Peter.

Matt 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Peter's testimony of Jesus was given to him from the Father BY REVELATION!

A true testimony of Christ MUST BE revealed, anything else is simply the intellect of man.

[cdowis]

Which, unfortunately for you, ignores what the Bible has to say on the matter.

snip

A true testimony of Christ MUST BE revealed, anything else is simply the intellect of man.

You can now ascend the Rameumpton and give a prayer of gratitude for your moral superiority.

[mfbukowski]

Here you have mistakenly equated a personal testimony with a personal revelation. I affirm the validity of the former but not of the latter.

Please explain the difference, and how they can be distinguished.

[Vance]

You can now ascend the Rameumpton and give a prayer of gratitude for your moral superiority.

[elguanteloko]

As a "critic", what is your purpose or motivation?

Criticism is a necessary product of rational thought. I criticize because I think. If you don't think you don't criticize. Questioning the validity of things and judgments necessarily implies a criticism of them. Probably what you wanted to know is about those that already hold a position more or less stable and are quite vocal about it. These are my reasons (not in any particular order):

1- I like to talk about interesting things and I find religion and philosophy extremely interesting.

2- I seriously want others to know what I know and see what i see.

3- It is one of the most gratifying things to see someone who, even if she continues to disagree with me, at least has a new view she didn't think about before. When they realize that a new world of thought has opened... it's just something beautiful to see and feel for oneself! The love for discovery!

4- If I didn't have the above reasons I would still do it (though probably less) because I think it is one's duty to try and convince others of what you think is the best.

I only ask because I know of no one in the LDS Church who plays the role as a "critic" for other's beliefs and I completely don't understand the need to be one. I am open to understand.

If you live in a world in which you don't criticize then you live in a world of mindless propaganda.

[Gervin]

G: This is true for you because as a prerequisite to testing Moroni's promise you must first believe that the test is valid; the Book of Mormon is true because the Book of Mormon (first) truthfully provides you a test for truth.

It was true for me, yes.

But it is not a pre-requisite to believe the test is "valid". Numerous people in my life including my fiance, have proved this. They didn't know if the promise was valid, but were sincere in heart, having real intent and faith in the Lord that they would receive an answer. You might be confusing the pre-requisite with "having faith in the Lord" and having faith that we will receive an answer.

I probably didn't phrase my question well. How do you know that the test for proving the Book of Mormon is true? You must first believe (presuppose) that the Book is true and the test is a valid way of discerning truth, correct?

G: Isn't it interesting that the person who claimed to be truth no where tells us how to test the truthfulness of His claim, but simply says "come unto me"? I wonder why that is?

The Book of Mormon is one test. When a person finds that the Book of Mormon is true, they may also know that the Lord lives and is their Savior which is also stated in the Introduction of the Book of Mormon. I have had people in my life who have found the Savior through the Book of Mormon.

"Come unto me" is a universal invitation for the world and includes "rest" and salvation through the gift of the Resurrection. Satan gives the same invitation without the same rewards. Many people will also come unto the Lord and receive salvation, but this is not the case with exaltation where more is required.

I, again, probably didn't make myself clear. If Christ IS Truth, then why did he not instruct us to pray to receive an answer to affirm His claim? Yet, for the Book of Mormon we are instructed (by the Book, see above) to discern truth [would you call this a lesser or subordinate truth?] by praying for a sign from the Holy Ghost.

[zerinus]

I probably didn't phrase my question well. How do you know that the test for proving the Book of Mormon is true? You must first believe (presuppose) that the Book is true and the test is a valid way of discerning truth, correct?

The Book of Mormon is addressed to a future generation who are already believers in the Judo/Christian faith, and the author takes it as a "given" that for a believer in God/Jesus Christ, obtaining the truth of a divine claim by prayer is valid proposition. You do not need to "presuppose the truth of the Book of Mormon" in order to apply that test; what you need to "presuppose" the existence of a God who hears and answers prayer.

I, again, probably didn't make myself clear. If Christ IS Truth, then why did he not instruct us to pray to receive an answer to affirm His claim? Yet, for the Book of Mormon we are instructed (by the Book, see above) to discern truth [would you call this a lesser or subordinate truth?] by praying for a sign from the Holy Ghost.

In a way He did: "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened" (Matthew 7:7-8; Luke 11:9), amounts to the same thing.

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

I wrote: Here you have mistakenly equated a personal testimony with a personal revelation. I affirm the validity of the former but not of the latter.

You asked:

Please explain the difference, and how they can be distinguished.

Sure. Evangelicals use the term "personal testimony" to mean the individual Christian telling others what Christ has done for them. For example, an evangelical might talk about how he was burdened by guilt and shame over things he'd done, until he heard the gospel and trusted in Jesus Christ, when that guilt and shame were lifted and he knew the peace of God's forgiveness and acceptance. Or he might talk about a seemingly strange series of "coincidences" by which he came to hear the gospel and believe, which he later could see in retrospect was divine providential leading. There are thousands of different stories like these; no two are identical.

A "personal revelation" would mean a special communication from God to the individual that is apart from or beyond the revelation provided already in Scripture, and other than the convicting work of the Holy Spirit. All evangelicals believe that the Holy Spirit reveals Christ to believers in the sense of convincing people that they are sinners and that they need to trust in Christ as their Savior. However, this revealing work of the Spirit is not the impartation of some special individualized revelation in the sense of being a supernatural experience or extra-scriptural verbal communication. Furthermore, the revelatory work of the Spirit is focused on Christ and is initiated by the Spirit, not by the believer (or potential believer). No biblical text, for example, suggests that an unbeliever ask the Holy Spirit for a revelatory experience to prove to them that Jesus is the Savior. The initiative is all on the side of the Holy Spirit, not of us.

[LeSellers]

I probably didn't phrase my question well. How do you know that the test for proving the Book of Mormon is true?

Because one of God's prophets said so.

But, for anyone who believes the Bible to be true (which doesn't identify a test to discern if it it true), James explicitly said that anyone who lacks wisdom can ask, and God will not upbraid him for asking.

I have seen people who claim that it would be a sin to pray about the Book of Mormon. But James is quite clear: there is no reason to fear anything in asking.

You must first believe (presuppose) that the Book is true and the test is a valid way of discerning truth, correct?

I don't know where you find this: Moroni's test says you have to have faith (not in the Book of Mormon) in Christ, that you must ask with "real intent". Here's the quote:

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Where does it say you have to believe first? (Hint: it doesn't.)

Now, it does say you have to "hav[e] real intent", but that only means that, when you get the answer "Yes, the Book of Mormon is true", you must be committed to doing what that entails: joining The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and following the teachings she will give you. You must be sincere, meaning that when you get the answer "Yes, the Book of Mormon is true", you must be committed to doing what that entails: joining The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and following the teachings she will give you.

I, again, probably didn't make myself clear. If Christ IS Truth, then why did he not instruct us to pray to receive an answer to affirm His claim? Yet, for the Book of Mormon we are instructed (by the Book, see above) to discern truth [would you call this a lesser or subordinate truth?] by praying for a sign from the Holy Ghost.

Who knows why the Bible doesn't record such a commandment? But we see the strong implication that we will receive truth only when we do ask Him. Unless you believe that ignorance (a lack of knowledge) is preferable to asking "God, who giveth [wisdom] to all men liberally", providing they "ask in faith, nothing wavering". Which biblical scripture is very nearly like the one in Moroni. In fact, I'd be pleased to see any significant difference between them.

Lehi

[Vance]

I, again, probably didn't make myself clear. If Christ IS Truth, then why did he not instruct us to pray to receive an answer to affirm His claim? Yet, for the Book of Mormon we are instructed (by the Book, see above) to discern truth [would you call this a lesser or subordinate truth?] by praying for a sign from the Holy Ghost.

You are not really "praying for a sign from the Holy Ghost" but rather praying for the Holy Ghost to reveal truth to you.

Some critics make a big deal about the specific wording in Moroni, rather than looking to understand the principle being taught.

As far finding truth through prayer, (and in addition to the verses zerinus cited), the Bible also has these gems.

Prov 15:29 The Lord is far from the wicked: but he heareth the prayer of the righteous.

2 Chron 15:4 But when they in their trouble did turn unto the Lord God of Israel, and sought him, he was found of them.

Matt 6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

Matt 21:22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

Luke 18:1 And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;

John 14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

John 15:7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.

Philippians 4:6 Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God.

James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.

James 4:2 . . . yet ye have not, because ye ask not.

3 Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.

1 John 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

1 John 5:14 And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us:

15 And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.

And some critics say that praying to know truth is some how unBiblical.

[bookofmormontruth]

I probably didn't phrase my question well. How do you know that the test for proving the Book of Mormon is true? You must first believe (presuppose) that the Book is true and the test is a valid way of discerning truth, correct?

I, again, probably didn't make myself clear. If Christ IS Truth, then why did he not instruct us to pray to receive an answer to affirm His claim? Yet, for the Book of Mormon we are instructed (by the Book, see above) to discern truth [would you call this a lesser or subordinate truth?] by praying for a sign from the Holy Ghost.

To add what was already stated and answered.

Here is another gem.

"Prove (Greek: examine, put to the test) all things; hold fast what is good" 1 Thessolonians 5:21

Same "test" found in the Book of Mormon, yet Moroni's promise has more light and knowledge for us to learn the truth of all things.

Let me ask you. How does a person without a knowledge of the Lord, know He truly is the Truth? How do we know what is "good"?

[zerinus]

A "personal revelation" would mean a special communication from God to the individual that is apart from or beyond the revelation provided already in Scripture, and other than the convicting work of the Holy Spirit.

To us they are the same thing. A testimony of the Holy Ghost and a personal revelation are the same thing.

However, this revealing work of the Spirit is not the impartation of some special individualized revelation in the sense of being a supernatural experience or extra-scriptural verbal communication.

Whatever it is, it is a personal revelation form the Holy Ghost. The Lord tells Peter what it is:

"flesh and blood has not

revealed

it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven" (Matthew 16:17)

Furthermore, the revelatory work of the Spirit is focused on Christ and is initiated by the Spirit, not by the believer (or potential believer). No biblical text, for example, suggests that an unbeliever ask the Holy Spirit for a revelatory experience to prove to them that Jesus is the Savior. The initiative is all on the side of the Holy Spirit, not of us.

Several mistakes in that one: firstly, the "revelatory work of the Spirit" is focussed on truth, the totality of all truth (which includes the Christ):

John 16

:

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

1 John 2

:

20 But ye have an unction [anointing] from the Holy One, and ye know all things.

* * *

27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Secondly, the initiative must come from the believer, otherwise no one would be condemned for not believing. I know that goes contrary to your false theology of predestination; but you need to understand that we are not predestinarians. No one is predestined to be saved or damned. You make that choice, and God respects your choice.

And thirdly, we do not "ask the Holy Spirit for a revelatory experience;" we pray to the Father in the name of Christ, and He will make the truth of it known to us by the power of the Holy Ghost:

Moroni 10

:

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.