What Distinguishes The Evangelical Witness Vs. Lds Testimony

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

Here is the way I see the Moroni experience, and would compare it to the altar call experience

1- "An inkling" that something is amiss in one's life- call it a conviction of sin- that works for me too- an idea that one's life is "incomplete" or something lacking- just a feeling of emptiness that is waiting to be filled.

2- "A seeking" for what is missing- or a solution to how one can feel/be forgiven for one's sins- the need for something to "explain" why we are here on earth- a search for meaning.

3- "A possible finding of the answer" This for a Mormon would be receiving the Book of Mormon, perhaps reading some of it, or contemplating the idea of how reasonable the plates and angels are, etc. Perhaps for an Evangelical, it would be finding a Bible and doing some reading, for both groups perhaps finding a friend and asking them about church etc.

4- "An invitation" this for a Mormon could be reading Moroni 10:4-5, or perhaps a missionary's challenge etc. For an Evangelical in an altar call setting, it might be a pastor calling them up to the altar to say the "salvation prayer" and be saved etc.

5- "Action". The person responds and prays about the Book of Mormon, goes forward for the altar call, prays the salvation prayer, etc

6- "Some kind of experience"- confirmation by the Holy Ghost- a "witness" whatever you want to call it, that the action was God's will for that person- possibly Craig's "witness" or a Mormon "burning of bosom"

7- "Further confirmation/ investigation" more steps and further witnesses, perhaps baptism, more instruction and reading etc.

Now I will ask you to please explain your position on these steps and how one correctly (according to you receives a true "witness" of the Holy Ghost. I will go through your post and guess about how you might see the stages above in relation to your posts- of course I am bound to not get it right.

The fact that it is possible to develop this sort of highly generalized analysis that shows the "Moroni 10:4" experience to be vaguely analogous to the "altar call" experience proves nothing. One could develop a similar analysis for all sorts of experiences. For example, the same structure can be used to show that a woman's falling in love with a man is "analogous" to the altar call experience:

1- "An inkling" that something is amiss in one's life--an idea that one's life is "incomplete" or something lacking--just a feeling of emptiness that is waiting to be filled.

2- "A seeking" for what is missing--going shopping, going to a bar, indulging in some chocolates.

3- "A possible finding of the answer"--she meets a guy and is attracted to him; she wonders if this might be the one.

4- "An invitation"--the man asks her out on a date.

5- "Action"--she goes out on a date with the man, hits it off with him, starts seeing him a lot.

6- "Some kind of experience"--they kiss on the third date, she feels that she has fallen in love.

7- "Further confirmation/ investigation"--she agrees to pursue a more serious relationship, accepts his engagement ring, starts planning for the wedding.

Please understand that I'm not making fun of your analogy. I'm simply saying that it doesn't have any bearing on the nature of the spiritual experience or the truth of Moroni 10:4. It doesn't mean that evangelicals have the same sort of spiritual experience that Mormons have and that we are therefore being hypocritical if we deny the validity of the Mormon experience.

You wrote:

Not even in an altar call? At what moment is a person "saved"? I have heard individuals say "I know the day and time I was saved!" How does this relate to that?

A person may become aware of the witness of the Spirit for the first time at a specific moment of time, but the Spirit was testifying prior to that first awareness and his witness continues and abides with the believer for the rest of his or her life.

You wrote:

Uh oh, you're confusing me again. So there are two witnesses? The "dynamic witness" which is NOT self authenticating? And then the "self authenticating" witness AFTER one is a "believer"?

No, the witness is always dynamic, but it becomes self-authenticating once an individual has been born again and permanently indwelled by the Holy Spirit.

You wrote:

I must confess I find this tremendously confusing, but I am not very bright, as you are fond of pointing out. Can you help me with this?

I don't recall ever questioning your intelligence. As for helping you understand what I said, I've been doing my best.

I had written:

"How many times have I specifically and explicitly said that I am not prohibiting or discouraging anyone from praying about anything?! What is the explanation for your persistence in perpetuating this misrepresentation of my position?"

You replied:

Golly I'm not sure how many times. Should I count? I was confused by your saying that one should not seek the witness of the spirit, but I am still confused by how you cannot be a Christian without the witness and yet you shouldn't seek it. I suppose that is the two different witness right? Exactly like how we believe in the "visitation" of the Spirit vs. the Gift of the Holy Ghost- right?

I am pessimistic about making any significant progress here. Your sarcasm tells me that you take no responsibility for your earlier false statements about my position even though they flatly contradicted what I stated repeatedly. You are not getting it and are "still confused" because you are still insisting on understanding "the witness of the spirit" as something you have to get by seeking it in the Moroni 10:4 way (praying to receive it as the grounds for accepting its truth). If you put the witness of the Holy Spirit in the theological context I have already explained in detail, there should be no confusion as to what I am saying. It makes no sense to speak of an unbeliever seeking something if that seeking presupposes that he already believes. An unbeliever is not going to seek the witness of the Spirit if he does not yet believe in the Spirit. He is not going to seek the Spirit's witness to Christ if he does not already believe in Christ. He may seek to know if Jesus Christ is the risen Son of God and Savior, and he might even pray about it, but his doing so (if he is sincere) is an indication that the Spirit is already testifying to him of his need for Christ. Once the unbeliever repents and trusts in Christ (which results from the Spirit's witness in conjunction with the hearing of the gospel), the witness of the Spirit becomes for him a permanent reality of which he will become aware (not necessarily immediately) and that he will come to recognize in the form of an inner assurance that what the gospel says is true and applicable in his own life: that God loves him and accepts him in Christ.

You wrote:

So Christians do not pray to receive answers about where to live, who to marry, etc? That's funny because I have heard that a lot on Christian boards and from friends.

I'm pretty sure we've been over this before. There is a range of experiences that get described in this way. Some are biblically sound and some are frankly superstitious, and there are experiences between these two extremes. When a responsible, mature Christian says that he prayed about whether to marry a particular person and that he received an answer, he typically means that he experienced a spiritual state of confidence or assurance that confirms whatever decision he reached. But that decision is not, or should not be, made on the basis of that spiritual sense. The marriage example is especially problematic because in our culture the decision to marry is typically dependent in large measure on the two persons' feelings. The decision regarding where to live is a better example. No wise or discerning Christian should base such a decision on a spiritual feeling or intuition alone. He should make a responsible decision based on objective considerations (location, safety, adequacy of the housing, costs, etc.). If he has a spiritual or inner experience of rest or unrest about a particular location that could be a legitimate consideration when two or more objectively acceptable places are in view. That's a very different context than one in which there can only be one right answer, such as whether the Book of Mormon is true.

Regarding 1 John 5:14-15, you wrote:

Gosh, that's funny, it sure seems to me that it's saying that we can have confidence that if we ask ANYTHING we can be sure that he heard us and he has given us what we desired regardless of if we immediately understand that or not.

Silly me. Where's the part about the "wrong way to pray about things"? I guess I missed that part.

More sarcasm. Here, I will highlight the part you say you missed:

"And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him" (1 John 5:14-15).

Asking according to his will is the right way to pray about things; asking that is not according to his will is the wrong way to pray about things.

This is the last time I will attempt to answer your questions unless you drop the sarcasm and other displays of disrespectful attitude.

[Vance]

And let us not forget this verse.

1 Tim. 2:4 (God) Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

[Rob Bowman]

CV75,

You wrote:

RE: the 3 reasons for Moroni's Promise not being valid:

(1) This is an instance of refusing spiritual truth on the basis of temporal evidence, which is discussed often.

(2) This is one subjective and selective interpretation of the Bible.

(3) There is no evidence that such individuals satisfied all the conditions of Moroni 10:3-8. For some, at some point an interest becomes so important that it moves beyond a scholarly or religious pursuit related to a belief in Christ and requires faith in Christ for a spiritual solution.

My responses:

(1) Your statement assumes that it is in fact spiritual truth. An objective way of stating the matter is that it is an instance of rejecting spiritual claims on the basis of temporal evidence. I plead nolo contendere to this charge, without embarrassment. We properly do this all the time. For example, Mary Baker Eddy claimed that her nineteenth-century inspired text, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, was divinely inspired and revealed to her directly from God; but in fact her "Christian science" system was largely adapted from P. P. Quimby. This 'temporal evidence" decisively refutes her claim concerning the book.

(2) I disagree; I see nothing either subjective or selective about what I said about the Bible's teaching concerning testing alleged prophetic or other revelatory claims.

(3) There is no evidence that any Mormon who claims to have a testimony has satisfied all of the conditions of Moroni 10, either. It is impossible in the nature of the case to provide evidence proving a person's sincerity or his claim to have faith in Christ. Your objection smacks of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy: it assumes that the promise of Moroni 10:4 is true and therefore anyone who didn't get the promised answer must not really have satisfied all of the conditions.

[Vance]

"And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him" (1 John 5:14-15).

Asking according to his will is the right way to pray about things; asking that is not according to his will is the wrong way to pray about things.

Ok,

So now let's add these,

Matt 7:7 ¶ Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?

10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?

11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

Matt. 21:22 And all things (except "truth"), whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

And this,

1 Tim. 2:4 (God) Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

So it is God's will that all come to the knowledge of the truth. And, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him".

Still not seeing how a Bible believer can legitimately reject Moroni's promise.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

There is a least one problem with this statement. It ASSUMES that all who have "claimed" to have met the requirements of Moroni's promise actually did. Sorry but that ASSUMPTION is far too big to swallow for those of us who are familiar with human nature. Any conclusion base on this assumption is faulty.

No, I make no such assumption. I simply point out that some people who claim to have met the conditions of Moroni 10:4 report an affirmative answer and some report a negative answer. I neither assume that all of the former met the conditions nor that all of the latter did so. Unless we assume that all of the former did meet the conditions and none of the latter did so, the evidence does not fit the claim that Moroni 10:4 makes. And as I explained to CV75, I see no way to support that assumption that does not beg the question.

[Vance]

A person may become aware of the witness of the Spirit for the first time at a specific moment of time, but the Spirit was testifying prior to that first awareness and his witness continues and abides with the believer for the rest of his or her life.

Could the "sola scripurist" Bowman, provide a verse to support this very bald assertion?

No, the witness is always dynamic, but it becomes self-authenticating once an individual has been born again and permanently indwelled by the Holy Spirit.

Could the "sola scripurist" Bowman, provide a verse to support this very bald assertion?

Call me HIGHLY doubtful.

[Vance]

No, I make no such assumption.

Your conclusion was based upon that assumption, so yes, you did assume that.

I simply point out that some people who claim to have met the conditions of Moroni 10:4 report an affirmative answer and some report a negative answer. I neither assume that all of the former met the conditions nor that all of the latter did so.

Of course not, you assumed that all who claimed to have met the requirements did in fact meet the requirements.

Unless we assume that all of the former did meet the conditions and none of the latter did so, the evidence does not fit the claim that Moroni 10:4 makes.

From my experience, those that "claimed" to have met the requirements and received a "no" answer, when questioned, it becomes rather obvious that they did NOT in fact meet the requirements.

Edited August 26, 2011 by Vance

[wenglund]

To me, the Spirit is analogous to a pair of glasses crafted to help us with our poor spiritual sight. It makes little sense to me to severely restrict the use of such a valued instrument to only a few select situations. If nothing else, I would think the Spirit would be best used to understand and determine or see what is of God or not. But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 26, 2011 by wenglund

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Your conclusion was based upon that assumption, so yes, you did assume that.... Of course not, you assumed that all who claimed to have met the requirements did in fact meet the requirements.... From my experience, those that "claimed" to have met the requirements and received a "no" answer, when questioned, it becomes rather obvious that they did NOT in fact meet the requirements.

I have explained why I did not make the assumption you claim I made. Merely repeating that I did doesn't change the argument. And your claim that it is "obvious" that those who got a No answer did not meet the conditions of Moroni 10 is also not evidence for that claim. You appear to be assuming what needs to be evidenced.

Given the previous history between us and your clear misunderstanding of my argument here, I don't plan to open up more issues with you by trying to engage you on all of the biblical texts you have quoted. Sorry, but I have limited time and energy and therefore have to make choices.

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

To me, the Spirit is analogous to a pair of glasses crafted to help us with our poor spiritual sight. It makes little sense to me to severely restrict the use of such a valued instrument to only a few select situations. If nothing else, I would think the Spirit would be best used to understanding and determining or see what is of God or not. But, to each their own.

That's not a bad analogy, actually. I would use the same analogy to argue that what the Holy Spirit does in matters such as the revelatory claims of the Book of Mormon, Science and Health, the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ, etc., is to enable us to see more clearly the objective truth about these texts. Like a pair of glasses, the Holy Spirit is not a substitute for looking at the objective reality but someone whose indwelling in genuine believers in Christ heightens our ability to see the objective reality for what it is.

[wenglund]

That's not a bad analogy, actually. I would use the same analogy to argue that what the Holy Spirit does in matters such as the revelatory claims of the Book of Mormon, Science and Health, the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ, etc., is to enable us to see more clearly the objective truth about these texts. Like a pair of glasses, the Holy Spirit is not a substitute for looking at the objective reality but someone whose indwelling in genuine believers in Christ heightens our ability to see the objective reality for what it is.

I a way, I suppose it does the same for us in seeing the non-revelatory, dogmatic claims of certain Evangelicals, Puritans, and Jehovah Witnesses, as "they really are". To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 26, 2011 by wenglund

[CV75]

(1) Your statement assumes that it is in fact spiritual truth. An objective way of stating the matter is that it is an instance of rejecting spiritual claims on the basis of temporal evidence. I plead nolo contendere to this charge, without embarrassment. We properly do this all the time. For example, Mary Baker Eddy claimed that her nineteenth-century inspired text, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, was divinely inspired and revealed to her directly from God; but in fact her "Christian science" system was largely adapted from P. P. Quimby. This 'temporal evidence" decisively refutes her claim concerning the book.

(2) I disagree; I see nothing either subjective or selective about what I said about the Bible's teaching concerning testing alleged prophetic or other revelatory claims.

(3) There is no evidence that any Mormon who claims to have a testimony has satisfied all of the conditions of Moroni 10, either. It is impossible in the nature of the case to provide evidence proving a person's sincerity or his claim to have faith in Christ. Your objection smacks of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy: it assumes that the promise of Moroni 10:4 is true and therefore anyone who didn't get the promised answer must not really have satisfied all of the conditions.

You believe in God, so it is interesting to me that these are the same responses to the same observations I’ve received from atheists. It tells me that the common thread is simply a certain fundamental, visceral orientation that has been rationalized and then invigorated by subsequent study from that perspective to the extent of going on the offensive against Mormonism. This is why such conversations reach an impasse; religious study is as much a subjective process as prayer.

P.S. I didn't say that the promise of Moroni 10:4 is true and therefore anyone who didn't get the promised answer must not really have satisfied all of the conditions; I said that you have no evidence that the people in your example did meet them (which is why you used it as your weakest argument); my point being that, at some point an interest in knowing the truth becomes so important that it moves beyond a scholarly or religious pursuit related to a belief in Christ (for the Christian) or against Christ (for an atheist) and into a spiritual one requiring faith in Christ (anyone finding themselves in a position of really, really, really needing to know).

[Ahab]

... my point being that, at some point an interest in knowing the truth becomes so important that it moves beyond a scholarly or religious pursuit related to a belief in Christ (for the Christian) or against Christ (for an atheist) and into a spiritual one requiring faith in Christ (anyone finding themselves in a position of really, really, really needing to know).

Or really, really, really wanting to know.

A person's religion needs to be more than paying lip service to what they think is true, and it also needs to involve more than their intellectual interest in the subject.

It needs to involve the whole heart and the whole mind and the whole soul of a person, on a deeply personal level, and anything less than that is just not enough.

[Rob Bowman]

CV75,

You wrote:

You believe in God, so it is interesting to me that these are the same responses to the same observations I’ve received from atheists.

That may be true with regard to the first consideration but not the second, i.e., no atheist would agree that a text might even hypothetically express genuinely supernatural knowledge of the future. For atheists, this is an a priori assumption brought to all texts including the Bible, not a test brought to texts to determine if they show evidence of divine inspiration or of false claims to such inspiration.

Not all secular or atheist opinions or arguments are bad ones. It doesn't bother me in the slightest if they happen to agree with me on something. For example, atheists and I usually agree that sex with minors is immoral, that stealing HD televisions is wrong, and that evangelical pastors who sleep with their parishioners while thundering against sexual immorality are hypocrites. Rejecting good arguments or true observations because of the source is an ad hominem fallacy.

You wrote:

P.S. I didn't say that the promise of Moroni 10:4 is true and therefore anyone who didn't get the promised answer must not really have satisfied all of the conditions; I said that you have no evidence that the people in your example did meet them (which is why you used it as your weakest argument); my point being that, at some point an interest in knowing the truth becomes so important that it moves beyond a scholarly or religious pursuit related to a belief in Christ (for the Christian) or against Christ (for an atheist) and into a spiritual one requiring faith in Christ (anyone finding themselves in a position of really, really, really needing to know).

What is the point of your distinction between those who engage in a "religious pursuit" with "belief" in Christ vs. those who engage in a "spiritual" pursuit with "faith" in Christ, if not to suggest that it is the former who don't get the promised answer?

[wenglund]

That's not a bad analogy, actually. I would use the same analogy to argue that what the Holy Spirit does in matters such as the revelatory claims of the Book of Mormon, Science and Health, the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ, etc., is to enable us to see more clearly the objective truth about these texts. Like a pair of glasses, the Holy Spirit is not a substitute for looking at the objective reality but someone whose indwelling in genuine believers in Christ heightens our ability to see the objective reality for what it is.

I a way, I suppose it does the same for us in seeing the non-revelatory, dogmatic claims of certain Evangelicals, Puritans, and Jehovah Witnesses, as "they really are". To each their own.

The point being, in the marketplace of ideas these are meaningless, throw-away lines.

To me, the issue is the extent to which one believes they may appropriately use the God-given gift of the Spirit. Evidently, for some people, it is like being given a state-of-the-art computer and internet access, and only using it to email home and as a back light for reading the scriptures; while others also put it to use as, among other things, a research and analytical devise. To each their own.

The good news is, at least you are allowing some of the spiritual rays from heaven to enlighten your way. Not a few people are content to wonder around in the spiritual dark.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

What is the point of your distinction between those who engage in a "religious pursuit" with "belief" in Christ vs. those who engage in a "spiritual" pursuit with "faith" in Christ, if not to suggest that it is the former who don't get the promised answer?

They are two separate ideas, the first being that a person’s subjective experience (in this case compliance with Moroni 10) cannot be ultimately determined by anyone by God. This serves as a springboard for the second idea, that since the scholarly or religious arguments against Mormonism in the last couple of exchanges are identical between believers and atheists, an acceptance of the truth must be reconciled through a spiritual process, as in the crucible of need pressing out all such mortal considerations. Answering this also addresses the first part of your reply.

[mfbukowski]

The fact that it is possible to develop this sort of highly generalized analysis that shows the "Moroni 10:4" experience to be vaguely analogous to the "altar call" experience proves nothing. One could develop a similar analysis for all sorts of experiences. For example, the same structure can be used to show that a woman's falling in love with a man is "analogous" to the altar call experience

Precisely right. Good answer. That's how we know the experience of the Holy Ghost is as "real" as falling in love and why it is "self authenticating" as Craig says. In fact, I often use the love analogy. If you have any doubt that you are in love, I would suggest you don't marry that person. If you have any doubt about the Holy Ghost's answer, I suggest you don't follow it.

We can be equally certain about both. Thanks for bringing that up.

A person may become aware of the witness of the Spirit for the first time at a specific moment of time, but the Spirit was testifying prior to that first awareness and his witness continues and abides with the believer for the rest of his or her life.

I have no problem with that.

No, the witness is always dynamic, but it becomes self-authenticating once an individual has been born again and permanently indwelled by the Holy Spirit.

The only way that makes sense to me is if we again analogize it to falling in love. At first we may not be sure, but at some point one knows without question. But then there is no real contrast still with Moroni 10.

It makes no sense to speak of an unbeliever seeking something if that seeking presupposes that he already believes. An unbeliever is not going to seek the witness of the Spirit if he does not yet believe in the Spirit. He is not going to seek the Spirit's witness to Christ if he does not already believe in Christ. He may seek to know if Jesus Christ is the risen Son of God and Savior, and he might even pray about it, but his doing so (if he is sincere) is an indication that the Spirit is already testifying to him of his need for Christ.

This is why I was confused. You had been saying that you get the self authenticating witness AFTER you show belief. My entire problem and confusion with what you have been saying is that if that was true- that one could not feel the Spirit until AFTER one accepted Christ, one could never find him in the first place. But now it appears that you are acknowledging that one CAN "feel the Spirit" at the first "inkling" of a need for Christ.

Once the unbeliever repents and trusts in Christ (which results from the Spirit's witness in conjunction with the hearing of the gospel), the witness of the Spirit becomes for him a permanent reality of which he will become aware (not necessarily immediately) and that he will come to recognize in the form of an inner assurance that what the gospel says is true and applicable in his own life: that God loves him and accepts him in Christ.

Yes, and again, that is what we call the "Gift of the Holy Ghost" which comes after one is confirmed.

I'm pretty sure we've been over this before. There is a range of experiences that get described in this way. Some are biblically sound and some are frankly superstitious, and there are experiences between these two extremes. When a responsible, mature Christian says that he prayed about whether to marry a particular person and that he received an answer, he typically means that he experienced a spiritual state of confidence or assurance that confirms whatever decision he reached. But that decision is not, or should not be, made on the basis of that spiritual sense. The marriage example is especially problematic because in our culture the decision to marry is typically dependent in large measure on the two persons' feelings. The decision regarding where to live is a better example. No wise or discerning Christian should base such a decision on a spiritual feeling or intuition alone. He should make a responsible decision based on objective considerations (location, safety, adequacy of the housing, costs, etc.). If he has a spiritual or inner experience of rest or unrest about a particular location that could be a legitimate consideration when two or more objectively acceptable places are in view. That's a very different context than one in which there can only be one right answer, such as whether the Book of Mormon is true.

No, I think that is a misunderstanding on your part. We also believe this. It is even scriptural in latter day revelation:

D&C 9:

7 Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.

8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must ^astudy it out in your ^bmind; then you must ^cask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your ^dbosom shall ^eburn within you; therefore, you shall ^ffeel that it is right.

9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a ^astupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is ^bsacred save it be given you from me.

That is why one must actually READ the Book of Mormon before one prays- remember verse 3 which often gets ignored:

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how ^amerciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ^bponder it in your ^chearts.

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ^aask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not ^btrue; and if ye shall ask with a ^csincere heart, with ^dreal intent, having ^efaith in Christ, he will ^fmanifest the ^gtruth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may ^aknow the ^btruth of all things.

Verse 3 says you must 1- read 2- remember and 3- ponder it in your heart, and THEN 4- pray. So there still doesn't seem to be a discernible difference here.

Regarding 1 John 5:14-15...

"And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him" (1 John 5:14-15).

Asking according to his will is the right way to pray about things; asking that is not according to his will is the wrong way to pray about things.

This is the last time I will attempt to answer your questions unless you drop the sarcasm and other displays of disrespectful attitude.

Fair enough, I will avoid the sarcasm. I apologize for it. But you have done your share of that also.

But in light of Moroni 10 verse 3 above- and D&C 9 - I honestly cannot see much difference here. Please do answer the other questions. Honestly I think we are actually making progress. I now see how you do in fact agree with Craig- possibly. But that self-authenticating thing is still not clear to me unless I see it in almost the same terms as we make with the distinction we make between a "temporary" and "permanent" witness of the Holy Ghost.

Edited August 26, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

Yes, and again, that is what we call the "Gift of the Holy Ghost" which comes after one is confirmed.

You might want to mention the laying on of hands here and why that is necessary.

p.s. And you might also want to mention baptism in water while you are at it, along with why that is necessary.

Edited August 26, 2011 by Ahab

[Mudcat]

You might want to mention the laying on of hands here and why that is necessary.

Better mention that to Cornelius and the rest of his house too.

[Vance]

And your claim that it is "obvious" that those who got a No answer did not meet the conditions of Moroni 10 is also not evidence for that claim.

Please show where I made this claim.

Given the previous history between us and your clear misunderstanding of my argument here, I don't plan to open up more issues with you by trying to engage you on all of the biblical texts you have quoted.

So you are going to make a false claim about what I have claimed and then run.

OK.

Sorry, but I have limited time and energy and therefore have to make choices.

Don't we all.

Given the tremendous task it would be to provide a few verses of scripture (that don't exist) to support your assertions I understand why you are choosing to not do so.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I had written (emphasis added):

"And your claim that it is 'obvious' that those who got a No answer did not meet the conditions of Moroni 10 is also not evidence for that claim."

You replied:

Please show where I made this claim.

Why? Can't you remember making it? Look at post #357 (emphasis added):

From my experience, those that "claimed" to have met the requirements and received a "no" answer, when questioned, it becomes rather obvious that they did NOT in fact meet the requirements.

Not only did you make the claim I said you made, you did so in precisely the words I used to express it.

You wrote:

So you are going to make a false claim about what I have claimed and then run.

No, but I am going to go back to ignoring you if you don't cut this stuff out.

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

Precisely right. Good answer. That's how we know the experience of the Holy Ghost is as "real" as falling in love and why it is "self authenticating" as Craig says. In fact, I often use the love analogy. If you have any doubt that you are in love, I would suggest you don't marry that person. If you have any doubt about the Holy Ghost's answer, I suggest you don't follow it.

We can be equally certain about both. Thanks for bringing that up.

Perhaps I've had a bit more real-world experience dealing with women whose hearts have been burdened and even broken by men whom they thought would be "true" to them but ended up being jerks.

I have no doubt that some Mormons "fall in love" with the Book of Mormon. That no more proves it to be God's word than a woman falling in love proves that the man is God's intended husband for her -- or even that he will prove to be acceptable. The emotional certitude a woman may feel about the man often proves to be self-deception. The same might be true about a Mormon's certitude about the Book of Mormon.

[Vance]

Taking this,

From my experience, those that "claimed" to have met the requirements and received a "no" answer, when questioned, it becomes rather obvious that they did NOT in fact meet the requirements.

And turning it into this,

And your claim that it is 'obvious' that those who got a No answer did not meet the conditions of Moroni 10 is also not evidence for that claim."

Is rather dishonest.

Nothing like TOTALLY disregarding the very specific "From my experience" to misrepresent a limited statement as a general one. Also, what is "obvious" UNDER QUESTIONING is misrepresented as "obvious" generally.

I am not really surprised at your using this tactic though. It is a common among anti-Mormons.

Edited August 27, 2011 by Vance

[Ahab]

Better mention that to Cornelius and the rest of his house too.

Better mention that Cornelius and the rest of his house would have lost the gift of the Holy Ghost they received before baptism had they not complied with our Lord's requirement to be baptized in water and receive the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost by those who had the authority to do that, because until they did that they would not be members of our Lord's church even though they had accepted the truth from our Lord's messengers.

[mfbukowski]

Perhaps I've had a bit more real-world experience dealing with women whose hearts have been burdened and even broken by men whom they thought would be "true" to them but ended up being jerks.

I wouldn't be too sure about that one. I suppose we could argue about who's congregation has more jerks in it, but I will pass. That's one I don't want to win.

I have no doubt that some Mormons "fall in love" with the Book of Mormon. That no more proves it to be God's word than a woman falling in love proves that the man is God's intended husband for her -- or even that he will prove to be acceptable. The emotional certitude a woman may feel about the man often proves to be self-deception. The same might be true about a Mormon's certitude about the Book of Mormon.

No, you are confusing the certitude about BEING in love with the fact that many marriages don't work out due to many reasons- the most common of which is selfishness on the part of one party or the other.

The question is about the certitude of a subjective experience, not about people going astray. But then again I suppose every person who believes they are "saved" never backslide or give up on Christianity, or cheat on their wives, do they?

Just for your information, zingers like this one about the Book of Mormon are what lead me to reply sarcastically, so you can call me on it later, and play the victim.

Please don't forget my other questions. I know you don't want to avoid them so I am reminding you. No hurry, just don't forget.

Would you like me to refer to posts to which you have not yet responded, or are you aware of them?

Edited August 27, 2011 by mfbukowski