The Bottom Line

[_Themis]

The problem Malkie is that they don't know. Tobin and subgenius cannot think of any way of distinguishing between a message or influence from God and a message or influence from the Devil.

that's why they beat their chest about the absurdity of the question rather than answering it.

And that in spite of the scriptures that show:

- people (prophets included) have been deceived
- even the very elect [can] be deceived

they are supremely confident that they have not been and cannot be deceived.

There's a word for that!

They also state the devil can appear as an angel of light. I think though it really is just one of those aliens fooling with us.

[_Drifting]

The problem Malkie is that they don't know. Tobin and subgenius cannot think of any way of distinguishing between a message or influence from God and a message or influence from the Devil.

Or themselves. These questions bring up some real problems for those who want to claim objective truth claims through subjective spiritual experiences. How do we know that God is not just some alien race messing with us, with some playing the role of God and others the devil, and others in-between. Good and bad are not really as clear cut as we would like to believe.

Good and Bad are subjective terms that we apply to 'things' based on what we personally believe and the rules of the culture within which we operate.

[_Themis]

But you really have no way of articulating how an individual can tell if God is communicating with them or if it is some other source.

Fair enough.

That one has been obvious for everyone. This is why we so many coming to this observation of the OP>

[_Themis]

Good and Bad are subjective terms that we apply to 'things' based on what we personally believe and the rules of the culture within which we operate.

This is incorrect. Drinking tea is evil and has always been bad.

[_Drifting]

Good and Bad are subjective terms that we apply to 'things' based on what we personally believe and the rules of the culture within which we operate.

This is incorrect. Drinking tea is evil and has always been bad.

Yet in Britain Drinking tea is considered a sacred and necessary ritual...

[_Themis]

How do you tell the difference between good and evil?

How do you know when you've seen pornography? I just know it when I see it. The same is true of good and evil, we just know it when we see it.

Actually one can articulate quite clearly what they define as pornography. Sure it can vary between individuals and groups, but no problem articulating it. The LDS church has come up with many articles articulating exactly what it is, although it has changed over time.

[_Themis]

Yet in Britain Drinking tea is considered a sacred and necessary ritual...

Be realistic Drifting. Everyone knows those limey's are evil and bad.

[_Drifting]

Yet in Britain Drinking tea is considered a sacred and necessary ritual...

Be realistic Drifting. Everyone knows those limey's are evil and bad.

*sluuurrrrppppp*

[Guest]

Tobin and subgenius are still missing the point. I am questioning the reliability of method or the "weapon" itself, not so much that of the people using it. The fact still remains that the vast majority of the religious belief systems (at least all but one, in fact, since no two of them entirely agree) got it wrong using the subject approach to discerning truth. How can we justify trusting a method or weapon that clearly failed or misfired for all but, at most, a very tiny minority of those who relied on it?

Besides that, I (and, I am sure, Themis, Drifting and Malkie as well) strenuously object to and am extremely insulted by the accusation or implication that the method failed for me only because I was predisposed or determined to believe something else. I know that in my case, I fervently wanted to believe in the validity of Moroni's challenge, and to gain a personal testimony that the Book of Mormon and the LDS Church really were what they claimed to be. If I had really been mainly influenced by what I was predisposed to believe, I would have remained a faithful Mormon! When the method didn't work for me after so many trials, and learned that others using the same type of method gained "spiritual" confirmations that contradicted the Church's truth claims, my confidence in that approach understandably began to erode. Then, when I began to discover the lies told by Joseph Smith (especially about the practice of polygamy, marrying other men's wives, lying to Emma, etc.), the way the Church covered up or distorted embarrassing details about its own history, documented changes in its doctrinal claims, etc., that clinched the reluctant conclusion in my mind that the LDS Church is not at all what it claims to be! It did not make me happy to arrive at that decision, and I am still not particularly happy about it! I can't help but feel that I have been betrayed and bamboozled by the Church all my life!

The evidence of the unreliability of that approach to discerning truth remains incontestable (at least not rationally)!

[_Tobin]

Tobin and subgenius are still missing the point. I am questioning the reliability of method or the "weapon" itself, not so much that of the people using it. The fact still remains that the vast majority of the religious belief systems (at least all but one, in fact, since no two of them entirely agree) got it wrong using the subject approach to discerning truth. How can we justify trusting a method or weapon that clearly failed or misfired for all but, at most, a very tiny minority of those who relied on it?

Besides that, I (and, I am sure, Themis, Drifting and Malkie as well) strenuously object to and am extremely insulted by the implication that the method failed for me only because I was predisposed or determined to believe something else. I know that in my case, I fervently wanted to believe in the validity of Moroni's challenge, and to gain a personal testimony that the Book of Mormon and the LDS Church really were what they claimed to be. If I had really been mainly influenced by what I was predisposed to believe, I would have remained a faithful Mormon! When the method didn't work for me after so many trials, and learned that others using the same type of method gained "spiritual" confirmations that contradicted the Church's truth claims, my confidence in that approach understandably began to erode. Then, when I began to discover the lies told by Joseph Smith (especially about the practice of polygamy, marrying other men's wives, lying to Emma, etc.), way the Church covered up or distorted embarrassing details about its own history, documented changes in its doctrinal claims, etc., that clinched the reluctant conclusion in my mind that the LDS Church is not at all what it claims to be! It did not make me happy to arrive at that decision, and I am still not particularly happy about it!

We understand you just fine.

Quitting because you are bored, convince yourself it isn't what you want to do, <pick a reason of the day - I want icecream instead for instance>, and so on is NOT faith in God. It is not being diligent to God. And then turning around and saying, well - "I really wanted to believe" is non-sense. Do you really suppose you could fool God? Look at who and what you are now and what you are doing and you have your answer.

I personally know there is a God. I have spoken with many others KNOW the same thing. It isn't that we simply believe. We have spoken with God and have a personal witness of Jesus Christ. That is the basis of our faith in God and I feel sorry for you, but I also know how completely wrong you are. And one day, you WILL see God and realize the depth of your mistakes and how unreasonable you are being by not diligently seeking God.