Confirmation through the spirit or feelings?

[Mars]

ouagadougouu, we can't know for sure if you're "to blame" or not.  we can only go off what you describe and point out what appear to us to be discrepancies in how the system works.  no one's faith is 'higher' or purer or mo bettah or anything.  when God's children pursue him in any avenue they see fit, in and outside of mormonism, He will count it as righteousness and all will be right in the end.

if your point is that you're the counter example for the moroni 10 system of mormon testimony and therefore it does not work, maybe you should start off with that as a sort of truth in advertising disclaimer.  if you're frustrated that you've tried and tried for years with real intent and you've gotten nothing and that angers you, then you have my sympathies.  that must feel like torture. i kinda wrestled with it in the beginning, but only for a few moments before i had my own little 'a ha!' moment.

there's not much else that can come from a conversation of this topic.  it's either a "feel and validate my pain" or it's a "your system is flawed and the rest of you must be doing something kooky because it doesn't work for me."  i'll let you figure out which one is a more fruitful conversation!

if i've misunderstood you, i apologize.

[Stargazer]

On 3/31/2017 at 5:03 AM, snowflake said:

Stargazer,

So what you are basically claiming is that you  prayed harder than Ouagadougou so your confirmation is superior to his confirmation.  A testimony war, you "know" yours is right so all of us who have received the confirmation that the BOM is a counterfeit gospel are wrong. Everyone has personal spiritual experiences the question is how do you truly know if they are from God or not? We both cannot be right. Either the BOM is fiction or not. The Holy ghost told you it was correct, O and I have been told it is fiction. I submit that to truly test the spirits they must agree with God's word the Holy Bible.  If they agree then that would be a confirmation of truth, if they disagree it should be discarded as incorrect. 

 

Nope, I didn't say that I prayed harder than Ouagadougou. How am I supposed to know that?  I wasn't there.  I've testified that I have received a testimony through the Spirit of the Lord that the Book of Mormon is true, and Ouagadougou says that he has not received one through the Spirit.  In fact, he has said that his anti-testimony (if you want to call it that) is based on worldly evidence, not divine.  So there is no "testimony war" there.  I said that I received a spiritual confirmation; he says that he did not receive one.

As to your testimony, if you want to insist that God told you the Book of Mormon is false, so be it  You're responsible for your own interactions with God.  

That being said, I was about to accept that you had received a spiritual confirmation (or personal revelation) through the Spirit that the Book of Mormon is false, but then I read:

"I submit that to truly test the spirits they must agree with God's word the Holy Bible.  If they agree then that would be a confirmation of truth, if they disagree it should be discarded as incorrect."

Now, THAT is a very interesting methodology.  It has a long and venerable history!  Using this method, the Pharisees concluded that Jesus Christ was of the devil, and they leagued with the Sadducees in persecuting Him and His followers unto death.  And they were completely justified!  In their own eyes, at least.  The Pharisees and the Saducees listened in horror as Jesus said (in the Sermon on the Mount): "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."  Then He proceeded to (in their eyes) tear down that which they said they upheld, the Law of Moses, and He directly confronted them on the question of righteousness by saying "I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."  Their righteousness in keeping that Law which Jesus said He was fulfilling, was pretty much the only leg they had to stand on in keeping themselves in authority above the people, and here Jesus was in effect placing Himself not only above the Law, but above its rightful administrators: themselves.  They thus became His implacable enemy, and they did not cease from seeking His destruction.  By your own words, which are "they must agree with God's word the Holy Bible", they were completely in the right!

And yet they weren't.  As you know.

But how do you know it?  How do you know that Jesus is the Son of God and the Savior of Mankind?  How do you know that it is faith in Jesus Christ that saves you from eternal damnation?  How do you know that He died upon the cross and was resurrected on the third day?  By your study of the Bible?  That's very unconvincing, snowflake.  A man I know studied the Bhagavad Gita and concluded thereby that Hinduism is the true religion.  I am tempted here to ask you if you want to have a "testimony war" with him, but nevermind.

The point I am trying to make is that leaning upon your own understanding in deciding if the Book of Mormon is of God is to lean upon a reed.  Can you find places where the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible?  Perhaps you can.  Perhaps you'll come back with some clear examples.  But the Bible contradicts its own self in places, and yet I don't think this will lead you to argue that the Bible cannot be true, will it?  Both books are of God, and yet neither one of them were written by God, "but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:21).  And do men make errors?  Of course they do.  

Getting back to how we know that Jesus is the Christ, I am curious as to how you think conversion takes place, when it comes to those who are not Christians from birth.  Peter knew Jesus Christ, saw him perform miracles, and saw his resurrected body after he was crucified.  He had moved well beyond faith and into knowledge.  There was no way to convince Peter that Jesus was not the Christ and the Son of God.  But how was anyone else to believe him, if they had not also been there and saw what Peter saw?  The key to this is found in Acts 10, as Peter was teaching the gospel to Cornelius and his friends.  The Roman gentile Cornelius was already a believer in God, but now he was confronted with the words of a man who made some pretty astonishing claims about someone Cornelius had never heard of.  And what did Peter preach?  That God had sent Jesus, who had been killed, but then this Jesus had been raised from the dead, and that He "was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead".  Did Peter try to convince Cornelius and his household of Christ using the scriptures?  Nope, because there were no relevant scriptures to use.  The Old Testament only looked forward to Christ; it didn't testify of Him.  But Peter had an ace in the hole: the Holy Ghost:

44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

What was that which was poured out to the people on the Day of Pentecost, and to Cornelius and his household?  Convincing scriptural exegesis? No, it was the Holy Ghost.  

This is why I cannot understand how anyone, claiming to be a Christian, can say that when James wrote "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", that that wisdom is given through intellect and not by Spirit.  

The thing is, snowflake, that there are plenty of non-LDS Christians who have compared the Book of Mormon to the Bible, and having seen that the Bible and the Book of Mormon do not contradict each other, have asked of God whether the Book of Mormon is true, and have received a testimony through the Spirit that it is true.  Are you at "testimony war" with them?

As for me, in my childhood I lived for a time after my mother died with my great grandmother, who was a devout Bible believer.  This was when I was between 7 and 8 years old. She read to me from the Bible, and told me Bible stories.  I liked the stories, and perhaps you could say that I believed in the Bible, but I was a child and I imagine that if my great grandmother had told me that the moon was made of cheese I might have believed that, too.  When my father remarried, my new stepmother was a nominal Baptist, and a few times each year she went to church and took me with her (my father was agnostic).  It was fun, and I liked the Sunday School classes.  I was a bit dismayed at the "fire and brimstone" sermons given by the clergyman Brother Hitt, but I could tell that he was a good man -- just enthusiastic against sin.  You could say that I was a nominal Christian -- that is, if someone had asked me what my religion was, that's what I would have told them.  But I had no conviction that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and my Savior. 

It wasn't until I acquired a testimony of the Book of Mormon that I finally had a testimony of the Bible as the word of God, and a testimony of Christ as the Son of God and the Savior of mankind.  It was because the Spirit testified to me that the Book of Mormon was true that I knew the Bible to be true, too.  For the Book of Mormon testifies of the divine origin of the Bible!  And it was through the Book of Mormon that I acquired my testimony of the reality of Christ's atoning sacrifice, and His saving Grace.  Take away the Book of Mormon, and to me the Bible is the dead words of dead men.  I might be where Ouagadougou is today: wishing that it were true, but convinced that is fiction -- well-meaning fiction, yes, and full of good advice, worthy to be followed -- but no more authoritative than the Bhagavad Gita or the Koran, or for that matter Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People."

Upon further reflection, I must amend my words a bit.  I have found, through the testimony of the Holy Ghost, that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of the Eternal God.  He is my Savior.  If both the Bible and the Book of Mormon were to be proven to be false, I would still believe in Christ.  By this point in my life, my testimony is sustained by the Holy Spirit, not by the dead words of dead men.  But those dead men, including Moses, Peter, Nephi and Joseph Smith, wrote as they were moved upon by the Holy Ghost, and that same Holy Ghost has confirmed the truth of their words to me.  And those words now live in me.  

I don't know how I can be any more clear than that.

PS - I apologize for going on at such great length.  There's a concern in me that multiplying words causes eyes to glaze over, or for the reader to simply stop reading after one or two paragraphs.  I know that I am certainly guilty of that from time to time.  If I could distill all of the above to 200 pithy words, I would.  Oh, well, in the end it is not up to me.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 3/31/2017 at 2:05 PM, Ouagadougou said:

So because your faith and belief is at such a higher level you were able to receive a different answer than me, right? Of course I came to this conclusion on my own, but it did put in the time and effort (as the church wants) to receive an answer.  No answer for me...and I've never been happier in my life.  

Attitude has a lot to do with the conclusions reached.  A negative attitude is self-fulfilling.  

 

[mrmarklin]

Without reading all replies I will state that for me, the knowledge I have that the gospel is true is based on spiritual revelation, not feelings or emotions. This is the fundamental teaching of the church. "Upon this rock............".

 

in my case, this was revealed to me by sincere prayer. When I have given healing blessings or ordinations, there is no question the Spirit is speaking through me. I experience an actual "separation " of my spirit from my body performing sacred ordinances. 

This Is not a feeling or an emotion it's a fact and cannot be denied. Just like Joseph could not deny his revelation in 1820.

Revelation is the foundation of the church and unless one has experienced it, one does not have a lasting testimony of the truth.

Edited April 1, 2017 by mrmarklin

[Ouagadougou]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Attitude has a lot to do with the conclusions reached.  A negative attitude is self-fulfilling.  

 

I didn't realize that the attitude of freedom of thought/choice was negative.  I guess it's negative to you if my opinions don't align with what you and the church would like...

[Kenngo1969]

Ouagadougou:

I'm broad-minded enough to accept the fact that not everyone will accept the same paradigm(s) I do.  OK; fine; no problem. Each of us sees the world, not as it is, but, rather, as we are. If anyone asks, I'll be more than happy to tell him what I get out of my testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Conversely, if one doesn't happen to adhere to any particular religious paradigm but is an honest, upright, moral*, decent, caring individual who is determined to make life as good as he can make it for those within his influence before (from his perspective) "succumbing to the void," great. More power to him.

As I have already stated, I'll be more than happy to tell anyone who's interested what I "get" from my testimony of the Book of Mormon and of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, in other words, to tell him what good fruit these things bear and have borne in my life.  So I suppose that's my question for you: What do you "get" from your "non-testimony" of the Book of Mormon?  The Book of Mormon and the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ are not true, ergo, for you, what?  Even if I were to die tonight and were to meet my Maker, only to find out that, "Guess what?  Mormonism isn't where it's at!  Bzzzzt!  Sorry! Thanks fer playin'!"  At least I could say, "Well, 'Mormonism' may not have been where it's at, but if you want to call me 'nothing but a sucker' for doing my best to love God, to love my neighbor, to serve others, to succor them according to their needs and according to their wants, and on and on, practically ad infinitum, go ahead.  In my book, If I'm nothing but a sucker for attempting to ascertain what God wants of me and to do the best I could to carry that out, I'm completely OK with that: There are a lot worse things to be than merely being gullible."

I've already explained elsewhere why I don't think the "inspired fiction" theory of the Book of Mormon works, but if someone loves the Book of Mormon and is inspired to live a better life by studying it and by applying its precepts in his life, more power to him.  I'll leave his standing between him and his Maker.  What about it?  Even if the the Book of Mormon were not "true," are you willing to allow for the possibility that the fact that it is good matters?

*Setting aside, for purposes of this discussion, the question of where morality comes from: your mileage probably varies, but that becomes a much trickier question to answer when God is removed from the equation.

Edited April 2, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

I didn't realize that the attitude of freedom of thought/choice was negative.  I guess it's negative to you if my opinions don't align with what you and the church would like...

Well, yes, if you really believe in freedom of thought and freedom of choice for yourself and for others.  Naturally, the negative attitude which you exhibit and enjoy purveying to others about the Mormon religion calls into question your claim about freedom of thought and choice.  As Joel Osteen pointed out, there are two poles of thought:  One is faith, the other is fear or sheer negativity.  You put down the faith of others in a very careless and abrupt manner, without any evidence that you actually understand the issues.  You like to attack and find fault with people of faith, while at the same time rejecting any real exchange of views or meaningful conversation.  That tells me where you are coming from.

[Ouagadougou]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well, yes, if you really believe in freedom of thought and freedom of choice for yourself and for others.  Naturally, the negative attitude which you exhibit and enjoy purveying to others about the Mormon religion calls into question your claim about freedom of thought and choice.  As Joel Osteen pointed out, there are two poles of thought:  One is faith, the other is fear or sheer negativity.  You put down the faith of others in a very careless and abrupt manner, without any evidence that you actually understand the issues.  You like to attack and find fault with people of faith, while at the same time rejecting any real exchange of views or meaningful conversation.  That tells me where you are coming from.

Where have I ever attacked you personally?  I might disagree with doctrine and opinions, but I don't attack others personally, which is something you can't say for yourself, because you have attacked me numerous times in other posts.  Here is just one example:

"If you actually knew something about the subject of Egyptology, your opinion might be worth something.  As it is, I recommend that you restrain yourself to summarizing the learned opinions of Egyptologists (and other ancient Near Easter experts).  You embarrass yourself by continually pontificating on this subject as though your apriori opinions have any gravitas.  They simply don't.  No fairminded person is going to make wild and silly claims about what a hundred Egyptologists might say.  One needs to engage what real Egyptologists have said about the subject.  Of course, if anti-Mormon agitation and propaganda is your only real objective, then you need not do anything according to Hoyle.

A perfect example of your deliberate effort to obfuscate is your implied claim here that the Bible is a fraud simply because it used the word "pharaoh" as a name in a period when that was not done -- just as you do for the BofA -- since both were transmitted down through time by the Jews. It is clearly not your purpose to make a real-world assessment, but only to engage in polemic attacks."

Your attacks/words are a great example of "negativity" IMO.  

 

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Where have I ever attacked you personally?  I might disagree with doctrine and opinions, but I don't attack others personally, which is something you can't say for yourself, because you have attacked me numerous times in other posts.  Here is just one example:

"If you actually knew something about the subject of Egyptology, your opinion might be worth something.  As it is, I recommend that you restrain yourself to summarizing the learned opinions of Egyptologists (and other ancient Near Easter experts).  You embarrass yourself by continually pontificating on this subject as though your apriori opinions have any gravitas.  They simply don't.  No fairminded person is going to make wild and silly claims about what a hundred Egyptologists might say.  One needs to engage what real Egyptologists have said about the subject.  Of course, if anti-Mormon agitation and propaganda is your only real objective, then you need not do anything according to Hoyle.

A perfect example of your deliberate effort to obfuscate is your implied claim here that the Bible is a fraud simply because it used the word "pharaoh" as a name in a period when that was not done -- just as you do for the BofA -- since both were transmitted down through time by the Jews. It is clearly not your purpose to make a real-world assessment, but only to engage in polemic attacks."

Your attacks/words are a great example of "negativity" IMO.  

Thank you for your personal attack, Ouagadougou.

This is a discussion board.  Yet you don't engage in real discussion, instead simply providing your very negative views in apriori form, and never really responding to replies with substantive arguments.  When that is pointed out to you, you cry foul.  A sincere person would not ignore the substantive arguments of others, but would reply in honest fashion.  I don't care which opinion you have on what subject, but it is amazing to me how you lack any concern with actual argument -- instead substituting rumors and fake facts as non sequiturs, as I have repeatedly pointed out to you.

Do you even know what a real conversation is?  Have you ever had one with somebody?

[Ouagadougou]

23 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Thank you for your personal attack, Ouagadougou.

This is a discussion board.  Yet you don't engage in real discussion, instead simply providing your very negative views in apriori form, and never really responding to replies with substantive arguments.  When that is pointed out to you, you cry foul.  A sincere person would not ignore the substantive arguments of others, but would reply in honest fashion.  I don't care which opinion you have on what subject, but it is amazing to me how you lack any concern with actual argument -- instead substituting rumors and fake facts as non sequiturs, as I have repeatedly pointed out to you.

Do you even know what a real conversation is?  Have you ever had one with somebody?

Talking about the fact that you attacked me personally numerous times, is, in turn, a personal attack on you?  

Are your questions really trying to be positive (Asking if I have ever had a conversation with somebody)?  

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Where have I ever attacked you personally?  I might disagree with doctrine and opinions, but I don't attack others personally, which is something you can't say for yourself, because you have attacked me numerous times in other posts.  Here is just one example:

"If you actually knew something about the subject of Egyptology, your opinion might be worth something.  As it is, I recommend that you restrain yourself to summarizing the learned opinions of Egyptologists (and other ancient Near Easter experts).  You embarrass yourself by continually pontificating on this subject as though your apriori opinions have any gravitas.  They simply don't.  No fairminded person is going to make wild and silly claims about what a hundred Egyptologists might say.  One needs to engage what real Egyptologists have said about the subject.  Of course, if anti-Mormon agitation and propaganda is your only real objective, then you need not do anything according to Hoyle.

A perfect example of your deliberate effort to obfuscate is your implied claim here that the Bible is a fraud simply because it used the word "pharaoh" as a name in a period when that was not done -- just as you do for the BofA -- since both were transmitted down through time by the Jews. It is clearly not your purpose to make a real-world assessment, but only to engage in polemic attacks."

Your attacks/words are a great example of "negativity" IMO.  

Just FYI calling someone ignorant might seem like a personal attack, but if one shows no knowledge of a subject, they are probably ignorant in that subject. Robert is opinionated, and has called me wrong on more than one occasion, but that is not a personal attack. Personal attacks are things like name calling, or trying to point to one's personal faults, etc. Pointing out one's knowledge or lack thereof is not a personal attack. 

When Robert calls me wrong, I am more than happy to respond why I am not or concede the point(which I don't believe I have ever done with him). I don't personally know Robert, but he is very knowledgeable, and is a published author, and I find many of his posts valuable because of his knowledge. Perhaps you should reconsider your approach. 

In the meantime google ad hominem.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Talking about the fact that you attacked me personally numerous times, is, in turn, a personal attack on you?  

Are your questions really trying to be positive (Asking if I have ever had a conversation with somebody)?  

I see no evidence that you actually understand the give and take nature of real conversations.  You pretty much ignore substantive discussion.  As evidence of that, it took you around 5 posts before you realized your significant mistake on the non-Muhlestein video, and it appears that you learned nothing from that encounter.  Wouldn't it be much easier to simply pay attention to and respond to real discussion, instead of deliberately ignoring it?  Look around on this board.  People have actual discussions pro and con all the time.  You could do likewise.

Edited April 3, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[snowflake]

On ‎4‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 5:14 PM, Stargazer said:

But how do you know it?  How do you know that Jesus is the Son of God and the Savior of Mankind?  How do you know that it is faith in Jesus Christ that saves you from eternal damnation?  How do you know that He died upon the cross and was resurrected on the third day?  By your study of the Bible?  That's very unconvincing, snowflake.  A man I know studied the Bhagavad Gita and concluded thereby that Hinduism is the true religion.  I am tempted here to ask you if you want to have a "testimony war" with him, but nevermind.

Absolutely, I pray for wisdom when studying the Bible, as James 1 says. I trust the Bible much more than I trust my feelings. People, places, dates, cities, cultures, kingdoms, mountains, rivers,  tens of thousands of manuscripts support the text in multiple varying languages, not to mention the prophicies. In studying these pieces of evidence it gives me confidence in the Book and the book's accuracy and the claims that it makes. If you want to throw all the evidence out as unconvincing that is up to you. You obviously are an educated and eloquent person. Be intellectually honest with yourself and compare evidence for the two books against each other.  I submit to you that the book of Daniel alone has more historically documented people, places and objects than the entirety of the BOM. Where is the BOM museum? Where is the evidence for the cultures described. Is there a single manuscript pre 1830 to support the text?   When I compare the BOM with the Bible there is no comparison.  The BOM reads like a cheap knock off of the Bible, Uninspired, undocumented and the LDS church to this day won't even tell us where it supposedly took place! Studying the bible is actually very convincing of it's divine origin.

People pray about the BOM to know it's truth, I prayed and have been told that it is fiction.  

[Gray]

59 minutes ago, snowflake said:

I submit to you that the book of Daniel alone has more historically documented people, places and objects than the entirety of the BOM. Where is the BOM museum? Where is the evidence for the cultures described. Is there a single manuscript pre 1830 to support the text?   When I compare the BOM with the Bible there is no comparison.  The BOM reads like a cheap knock off of the Bible, Uninspired, undocumented and the LDS church to this day won't even tell us where it supposedly took place! Studying the bible is actually very convincing of it's divine origin.

People pray about the BOM to know it's truth, I prayed and have been told that it is fiction.  

If you want to compare the Bible with the BOM, Daniel is a poor choice, with its back-dated prophesy and late composition. Daniel actually has many of the same historical problems as the BOM.

And speaking of knock-offs, isn't Revelation a "cheap knock-off" of Daniel, when it comes down to it? Or isn't Matthew a "cheap knock-off" of Mark?

[pogi]

54 minutes ago, snowflake said:

People pray about the BOM to know it's truth, I prayed and have been told that it is fiction.  

Even after concluding that it reads "like a cheap knock off of the Bible", you actually knelt before God with real intent and a sincere/open heart and mind to ask if it is true??  I would be impressed!  Did you actually hear his voice telling you that it is "fiction", or what happened exactly to make you believe that you received revelation from God who told you that the BoM is "fiction"?

 

[snowflake]

53 minutes ago, Gray said:

If you want to compare the Bible with the BOM, Daniel is a poor choice, with its back-dated prophesy and late composition. Daniel actually has many of the same historical problems as the BOM.

And speaking of knock-offs, isn't Revelation a "cheap knock-off" of Daniel, when it comes down to it? Or isn't Matthew a "cheap knock-off" of Mark?

We have extra biblical accounts of Nebuchadnezzar, Jehoiakhim king of Judah, Belshazzar, Darius the Median, Cyrus the Persian, and the Caldeans. We know these cultures existed, when and where they existed.  Is there anything extra-BOM other than a "warm fuzzy feeling" that we could examine to support the BOM??? This would be support for Daniel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behistun_Inscription

[snowflake]

49 minutes ago, pogi said:

Even after concluding that it reads "like a cheap knock off of the Bible", you actually knelt before God with real intent and a sincere/open heart and mind to ask if it is true??  I would be impressed!  Did you actually hear his voice telling you that it is "fiction", or what happened exactly to make you believe that you received revelation from God who told you that the BoM is "fiction"?

 

I love the circular reasoning with the LDS Moroni chanllenge, I either 1. didn't pray with real intent, 2. had a hidden sin in my life or 3. repeat process until you get the response that the BOM is true. If I don't get that answer, then all the blame is on me correct?

And yes the BOM plagiarizes the Bible throughout. http://www.mormonismdisproved.org/plagiarism.html

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, snowflake said:

We have extra biblical accounts of Nebuchadnezzar, Jehoiakhim king of Judah, Belshazzar, Darius the Median, Cyrus the Persian, and the Caldeans. We know these cultures existed, when and where they existed.  Is there anything extra-BOM other than a "warm fuzzy feeling" that we could examine to support the BOM??? This would be support for Daniel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behistun_Inscription

I'm not sure I follow. How is a non-historical account based on some real historical names better than a non-historical account based on some non-historical names? If the Book of Mormon had made mention of Alexander the Great, would its status as "real" scripture be secure?

[pogi]

13 minutes ago, snowflake said:

I love the circular reasoning with the LDS Moroni chanllenge, I either 1. didn't pray with real intent, 2. had a hidden sin in my life or 3. repeat process until you get the response that the BOM is true. If I don't get that answer, then all the blame is on me correct?

Circular reasoning?  Are you responding to my post?  You might want to re-read it.

Most people who choose not to believe either 1) Don't pray because they don't want to bother God with such trivial nonsense that they already "know" to be fiction; or 2) they claim that God never answered their prayer.  It is not often that you hear someone claim to have applied Moroni's challenge and actually receive an answer/revelation from God telling them that the Book of Mormon is fiction, so I am genuinely curious about your experience.  Why do I sense a hesitation to share your experience?  

Edited April 3, 2017 by pogi

[snowflake]

18 minutes ago, pogi said:

Circular reasoning?  Are you responding to my post?  You might want to re-read it.

Most people who choose not to believe either 1) Don't pray because they don't want to bother God with such trivial nonsense that they already "know" to be fiction; or 2) they claim that God never answered their prayer.  It is not often that you hear someone claim to have applied Moroni's challenge and actually receive an answer/revelation from God telling them that the Book of Mormon is fiction, so I am genuinely curious about your experience.  Why do I sense a hesitation to share your experience?  

When I was praying for wisdom regarding the BOM it was impressed upon my conscience that it was a work of fiction, a counterfeit. There was no audible voice but an overwhelming impression that the Bible was God's word alone and not to trust the BOM. 

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, snowflake said:

When I was praying for wisdom regarding the BOM it was impressed upon my conscience that it was a work of fiction, a counterfeit. There was no audible voice but an overwhelming impression that the Bible was God's word alone and not to trust the BOM. 

THAT was Satan telling you that!!!

Do it again but ignore that guy the next time.

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, Ahab said:

THAT was Satan telling you that!!!

Do it again but ignore that guy the next time.

And this is the problem with trying to use revelation to definitively answer these kinds of questions. It's like a clock face with no numbers. Interpret the time however you wish. 

Edited April 3, 2017 by Gray

[Ahab]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

And this is the problem with trying to use revelation to definitively answer these kinds of questions. It's like a clock face with no numbers. Interpret the time however you wish. 

Yes.

First I focus on communicatin with someone other than me and then I focus on whether or not that person is a good person or an evil person.

Over time I have become better at telling the difference.

[snowflake]

34 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm not sure I follow. How is a non-historical account based on some real historical names better than a non-historical account based on some non-historical names? If the Book of Mormon had made mention of Alexander the Great, would its status as "real" scripture be secure?

Why do you consider Daniel non-historical or is that your opinion?  If we could identify any place, person or manuscript from the BOM It would give it some credibility but we are left with not much more than a "feeling".  Are you being intellectually honest with yourself when you compare the two? We have an entire Jewish culture that has survived over 2500 years with thousands of pieces of archeological evidence supporting the Bible. Are you disregarding tangible evidence for a book as "non-historical"? The evidence absolutely supports the book. Now I agree evidence does not prove the book or the stories in it as true, but it supports the timeline, culture, locations etc.

[Gray]

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

Yes.

First I focus on communicatin with someone other than me and then I focus on whether or not that person is a good person or an evil person.

Over time I have become better at telling the difference.

There is no way for you to be certain that you've become better at telling the difference, because there is nothing external to your internal experience for comparison. 

Edited April 3, 2017 by Gray