Have you heard of the Burning of the Bosom?

[DaGeo]

Yes. We've heard of it and so have those missionaries. It's not heartburn.

The "more sure word of prophecy" is a core part of knowing the Book of Mormon is true.

I've seen Christian revivals where they invite people to come down to confess Christ and be saved. This usually comes after the pastor has whipped the crowd into an emotional frenzy and then starts up the choir with beautiful renditions of heavenly praise... all part of a religious MK Ultra experience.

The fact is no one has any proof that the promises the gospel offers are true. The only convincing evidence is a witness by the Holy Spirit and that is what the burning of the bosom represents. Emotions, while they are moving, seldom result in lasting change. We witness miracles all the time, acts of great courage and tragedies that people overcome through some higher power and yet, tomorrow, we mostly walk through our lives as we have always walked, thankful, probably, but unaffected all the same. The difference between the emotional drama played out in revivals and good movies or even some real-life events and the burning of the bosom we talk about is that a different person walks away from the burning in the bosom. The latter is the power that gives birth to a newness of life, not just as a witness to the beauty of it but as a participant in it.

Just what I thought. Another belief held together by a psychic variety of witch doctor type of false miracles and a contrived “burning of the bosom” distinction. Wow, what an apologetic that is

So many false Christianities and false religions all around the world boast about their “miracles” but they show nothing even approximating the real miracles performed by real prophets, Jesus or the apostles did through the power of God.

Not only that, but there continues to be no accounting for the more than 4000 changes to the Mormon “word of God”. All you have are obvious attempts to cover up for all the glaring inconsistencies within the Book of Mormon. These changes prove your god is no more than a mishap invention of Joesph Smith or at best, a make believe stooge.

And we’re just starting out

Wanna hear more

 

[radvermin]

I was thinking, if the men on the road to Emmaus received a burning of the heart to confirm truth--then God could act that way to confirm other truths we have a question about. I don't believe that is the only way He can act, but if we prayed about truth, asking God for help in understanding something spiritual--then I believe He could act in the same manner described in Luke 24.

Yeah, I get that but I wonder whether or not I understand completely.
Maybe this question will help me understand your position better.

Say a person does everything you say, they read the Book of Mormon, they properly experience the burning of the bosom.
Is that feeling confirming
A) the BoM is true
B) the BoM is Scripture
C) Both
D) Neither

My apologies that this question is like school!

 

[dberrie2020]

Yeah, I get that but I wonder whether or not I understand completely.
Maybe this question will help me understand your position better.

Say a person does everything you say, they read the Book of Mormon, they properly experience the burning of the bosom.
Is that feeling confirming
A) the BoM is true
B) the BoM is Scripture
C) Both
D) Neither

My apologies that this question is like school!

No problem--I look at earth life as a big schoolroom. You seem fair minded to me.

Well, my take on it is--if it's scripture, then it's truth. I was taught to ask God specific questions, so--I would ask if the Book of Mormon is His scripture. The I would know it's true, if I received a confirmation from God.

Rad--the Book of Mormon is true, and anyone who reads it with a sincere heart will know that. Those who have read and studied the Biblical text--will know it's true.

I have asked a many a time--what does one find in the Book of Mormon--which isn't found in the Biblical text--as far as salvational doctrines go? I have yet to have the first person to engage that question.

 

[brotherofJared]

I was thinking, if the men on the road to Emmaus received a burning of the heart to confirm truth--then God could act that way to confirm other truths we have a question about. I don't believe that is the only way He can act, but if we prayed about truth, asking God for help in understanding something spiritual--then I believe He could act in the same manner described in Luke 24.

He certainly isn't going to send a self-addressed stamped envelope with his answer to our prayers. Most people don't see angels or blinding lights either. I have to wonder, how would God communicate to those who ask him questions? Does he do skywriting? I don't think so.

I suspect the most common way is a witness to our spirit, our heart. A conviction, a transformation of our character could be a determining factor that it was God speaking to us. All other religions literally rely on that and even pump up the volume, so to speak, in order to get the emotions following. Ever been to a Billy Graham revival? Choirs singing, Billy calling those who want to witness to Christ to come-on-down... it's a pretty emotional event all designed to cause that burning of the heart. Many shed tears during that event it is so moving.

And yet, when we describe it as a burning of the heart, suddenly, we can't trust it. LOL. What they are really worried about is that conviction that our message is true and the transformation of the person hearing the word. Indeed, most to have heard the message do exclaim, how beautiful upon the mount are the feet of them that publish glad tidings.

 

[brotherofJared]

Say a person does everything you say, they read the Book of Mormon, they properly experience the burning of the bosom.
Is that feeling confirming
A) the BoM is true
B) the BoM is Scripture
C) Both
D) Neither

I guess it depends on the question they actually ask. Try being specific.

 

[radvermin]

I guess it depends on the question they actually ask. Try being specific.

Why would it depend?

 

[radvermin]

No problem--I look at earth life as a big schoolroom. You seem fair minded to me.

Well, my take on it is--if it's scripture, then it's truth. I was taught to ask God specific questions, so--I would ask if the Book of Mormon is His scripture. The I would know it's true, if I received a confirmation from God.

It seems like, if I understand you, you are saying "C". You can ask if the BoM is His Scripture and he can confirm that truth. I'm saying that Luke 24:32 is not an example of that happening.

Your position, as I understand it, is that God can confirm truths through a burning experience. So if God can confirm a truth through that method, then why not confirming Scripture.
The problem, and this is a separate argument from what I've made so far, is that the burning experience is unreliable and therefore problematic.
A person can experience it and it not be true, or can confirm something truth without that experience.
So the question is, how has God confirmed his Sacred Scripture in the past?
I think another important question is "what even is Scripture"? Not all truths are scripture, not all things God has said throughout time is Scripture, so what makes the Bible special?

Rad--the Book of Mormon is true, and anyone who reads it with a sincere heart will know that. Those who have read and studied the Biblical text--will know it's true.

I have asked a many a time--what does one find in the Book of Mormon--which isn't found in the Biblical text--as far as salvational doctrines go? I have yet to have the first person to engage that question.

I've read the Book of Mormon as well, but come to a different conclusion. There may be some true things said in it, but it's not all true and not at all Scripture. I've equated it to a Satanic book. I don't say this to put you or anyone down, but just being honest so you know where I stand.

As for your question, I would point to 2 Nephi 25:23 "For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do."
This is an addition and twisting of Ephesians 2:8 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:" (KJV). Moreover, the argument that 2 Nephi is referring to those before Christ doesn't matter. The law never saved anyone, before or after Christ.

But I wonder whether or not your question is even a valid one in support of the Book of Mormon. I imagine that if one verse were shown (for illustrative purposes only) that you needed to wear a hat to be saved, you would simply say, "Yes, that is true. This shows why you need the Book of Mormon, otherwise you wouldn't have known you needed a hat." So, I don't really see the point of your question in what it will accomplish.

 

[brotherofJared]

Why would it depend?

How can one get an answer to a question they did not ask?

 

[radvermin]

How can one get an answer to a question they did not ask?

I guess it depends on the question they actually ask.

... aaand "ignore"

 

[brotherofJared]

... aaand "ignore"

I specifically stated that your question needed to be more specific if you wanted a specific answer.

 

[brotherofJared]

Just what I thought. Another belief held together by a psychic variety of witch doctor type of false miracles and a contrived “burning of the bosom” distinction. Wow, what an apologetic that is

Yep. That's all you've offered is your thoughts. What an apologetic that is.

Not only that, but there continues to be no accounting for the more than 4000 changes to the Mormon “word of God”.

completely irrelevant. That's a molehill in comparison to the number of changes in the supposedly inerrant Bible. Still spewing your opinions as if they matter.

And we’re just starting out

Nah. Your opinion does not about the number of corrections doesn't amount to anything but your opinion.

 

[Janice Bower]

No problem--I look at earth life as a big schoolroom. You seem fair minded to me.

Well, my take on it is--if it's scripture, then it's truth. I was taught to ask God specific questions, so--I would ask if the Book of Mormon is His scripture. The I would know it's true, if I received a confirmation from God.

Rad--the Book of Mormon is true, and anyone who reads it with a sincere heart will know that. Those who have read and studied the Biblical text--will know it's true.

I have asked a many a time--what does one find in the Book of Mormon--which isn't found in the Biblical text--as far as salvational doctrines go? I have yet to have the first person to engage that question.

I asked the TRUE God instead of yours: "22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s..." D&C 130

The TRUE God told me that Mormonism is false.

Psalm 119
11Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.

The next step was to compare the Mormon teachings to the Bible.

 

[DaGeo]

completely irrelevant. That's a molehill in comparison to the number of changes in the supposedly inerrant Bible. Still spewing your opinions as if they matter.

You hardly understand your own “scriptures” How are you then qualified to speak about the inerrant Bible

First of all, the Mormons where forced to effect over 4000 corrections in the Book of Mormon just to cover over all the errors and contradictions

On the other hand, ancient copies of the inerrant Bible share complimentary differences between texts.
Even copyists errors from a given text are easily accounted for and identified because we have so many accurate copies to compare.

This is quite unlike making corrections to cover up contradictions in the Book of Mormon

So much for the Book of Mormon “coming from God or an angel of God”. God doesn’t make stupid mistakes

Nah. Your opinion does not about the number of corrections doesn't amount to anything but your opinion.

If you can’t defend you can always deny

 

[brotherofJared]

You hardly understand your own “scriptures”

That's a pretty wild accusation. there's no possible way you could know what I understand. Your only diminishing your own reputation by exposing you all-knowing power.

First of all, the Mormons where forced to effect over 4000 corrections in the Book of Mormon just to cover over all the errors and contradiction

Again, your opinion does not make it fact. Please provide the evidenced that we were forced to make changes.

On the other hand, ancient copies of the inerrant Bible share complimentary differences between texts

Again, your opinion isn't supported by the facts. The manuscripts do not agree and has been proven to errant. The popular consensus among many versions was to make the corrections to the errant older editions, but the problem still remains that we do not have a single complete original manuscript.

I'm sure you believe what your religion teaches you, but the fact is, just because you believe it does not make it true. When your ready to discuss the evidence instead of bloviating from your opinion, let me know.

Even copyists errors

Well, make up your mind. Are there errors or not?

we have so many accurate copies to compare.

You all have no idea which copy is accurate because you don't have the original. That must exist in order to know if the copy is accurate.

If you can’t defend you can always deny

You haven't made an argument that I need to defend. I can't argue against your opinions. You are the expert on those. But without substantiating them, they are just so much hot air, but probably not enough to launch an argument.

 

[dberrie2020]

It seems like, if I understand you, you are saying "C". You can ask if the BoM is His Scripture and he can confirm that truth. I'm saying that Luke 24:32 is not an example of that happening.

Your position, as I understand it, is that God can confirm truths through a burning experience. So if God can confirm a truth through that method, then why not confirming Scripture.
The problem, and this is a separate argument from what I've made so far, is that the burning experience is unreliable and therefore problematic.
A person can experience it and it not be true, or can confirm something truth without that experience.
So the question is, how has God confirmed his Sacred Scripture in the past?
I think another important question is "what even is Scripture"? Not all truths are scripture, not all things God has said throughout time is Scripture, so what makes the Bible special?

I suppose you will have to make up your own mind about what you believe. That is your choice.

What makes the Bible special, IMO-- is it leads us to Christ--the same as the Book of Mormon.

I've read the Book of Mormon as well, but come to a different conclusion. There may be some true things said in it, but it's not all true and not at all Scripture. I've equated it to a Satanic book. I don't say this to put you or anyone down, but just being honest so you know where I stand.

As for your question, I would point to 2 Nephi 25:23 "For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do."
This is an addition and twisting of Ephesians 2:8 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:" (KJV). Moreover, the argument that 2 Nephi is referring to those before Christ doesn't matter. The law never saved anyone, before or after Christ.

So--how are you claiming 2Nephi25:23 differs from the Biblical testimony?

Matthew 10:22---King James Version
22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

But I wonder whether or not your question is even a valid one in support of the Book of Mormon. I imagine that if one verse were shown (for illustrative purposes only) that you needed to wear a hat to be saved, you would simply say, "Yes, that is true. This shows why you need the Book of Mormon, otherwise you wouldn't have known you needed a hat." So, I don't really see the point of your question in what it will accomplish.

My question was--what does one find in the Book of Mormon which isn't found in the Biblical NT--as far as salvational doctrines go.

If one can't find any differences--then it would certainly weaken the argument the Book of Mormon is an unChristian book, IMO.

 

[DaGeo]

That's a pretty wild accusation. there's no possible way you could know what I understand. Your only diminishing your own reputation by exposing you all-knowing power.

Not a wild accusation at all. Simply based on you own ignorance. Maybe you ought to fact check the content of your own posts

Again, your opinion does not make it fact. Please provide the evidenced that we were forced to make changes.

Ok, I dare you to check out a copy of the original Book of Mormon at any University library (but not a Mormon one) and compare what you find to your newest compromised edition

Again, your opinion isn't supported by the facts.

Check out a copy like I suggested

The manuscripts do not agree and has been proven to errant. The popular consensus among many versions was to make the corrections to the errant older editions, but the problem still remains that we do not have a single complete original manuscript.

Now you’re rambling. Are you talking about your embarrassing Book of Mormon or something else

I'm sure you believe what your religion teaches you,

Not everyone is like you, some of us fact check. I encourage you to do the same

but the fact is, just because you believe it does not make it true. When your ready to discuss the evidence instead of bloviating from your opinion, let me know.

I’m discussing right now while waiting for you to show what you find in the early copy of the Book of Mormon at the library (not at a Mormon library BTW)
Can’t believe you just believe whole hog everything they tell you without so much as a simple fact-check Sheeeesh

Well, make up your mind. Are there errors or not?

Copyists errors, didn’t I already say that already

You all have no idea which copy is accurate because you don't have the original. That must exist in order to know if the copy is accurate.

Obviously you know nothing about textual criticism. Have you ever seen these two words put together Have you even seen them used separately

You haven't made an argument that I need to defend.

That’s right, if you can’t defend you can always deny

I can't argue against your opinions.

Thanks, I knew that all ready

You are the expert on those.

Thanks but I’m used to flattery and it doesn’t move me

But without substantiating them, they are just so much hot air, but probably not enough to launch an argument.

Deny deny deny

 

[Janice Bower]

....
My question was--what does one find in the Book of Mormon which isn't found in the Biblical NT--as far as salvational doctrines go.

If one can't find any differences--then it would certainly weaken the argument the Book of Mormon is an unChristian book,


My question was--what does one find in the Book of Mormon which isn't found in the Biblical NT--as far as salvational doctrines go.

If one can't find any differences--then it would certainly weaken the argument the Book of Mormon is an unChristian book, IMO.

The Book of Mormon is a tool of Mormon missionaries to lead people to Mormonism and acceptance of extra biblical laws and ordinances. Mormons have multiple so-called scriptures and teachings not found in the Book of Mormon. An example of Smith anti-Christian beliefs:

"...all the priests who adhere to the sectarian religions of the day with all their followers, without one exception, receive their portion with the devil and his angels."
- Prophet Joseph Smith , The Elders Journal, Joseph Smith Jr., editor, vol.1, no.4, p.60

Scripture from your church, dberrie2020,
Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith---History 1
Verses 18-19

My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)---and which I should join.
I was answered that I should join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight: that those professors were all corrupt; that: they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach or doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.


Clever con-man, Joseph Smith made sure the Book of Mormon told readers that all other churches were of the devil:

 

[dberrie2020]

dberrie said---My question was--what does one find in the Book of Mormon which isn't found in the Biblical NT--as far as salvational doctrines go.

If one can't find any differences--then it would certainly weaken the argument the Book of Mormon is an unChristian book,

The Book of Mormon is a tool of Mormon missionaries to lead people to Mormonism and acceptance of extra biblical laws and ordinances. Mormons have multiple so-called scriptures and teachings not found in the Book of Mormon.

Says the woman who didn't list one thing the Book of Mormon contains--which isn't found in the Biblical text--as far as salvational doctrines go.

Surely--if the Book of Mormon is as unChristian as is claimed here by our critics--then one would not have any difficulty in listing a page of differences.

Silence. Not one entry. That has to make a statement of some sort, IMO.

 

[dberrie2020]

You hardly understand your own “scriptures” How are you then qualified to speak about the inerrant Bible

First of all, the Mormons where forced to effect over 4000 corrections in the Book of Mormon just to cover over all the errors and contradictions

On the other hand, ancient copies of the inerrant Bible share complimentary differences between texts.
Even copyists errors from a given text are easily accounted for and identified because we have so many accurate copies to compare.

This is quite unlike making corrections to cover up contradictions in the Book of Mormon

So much for the Book of Mormon “coming from God or an angel of God”. God doesn’t make stupid mistakes

If you can’t defend you can always deny

I always thought this was rather curious:

11. Translation of words and the printing accident that caused a 17th century printer to print the mistake: “Thou Shalt Commit Adultery”​

A primary motivation for the translators preparing the King James Version of the bible was readability by their fellow English citizenry, as well as the flowing sweep of the language when passages of the bible were read aloud from the pulpit. Spelling and punctuation were often changed, however, by the printers, who altered the spellings of words or omitted punctuation marks in order to maintain the integrity of the columns in which the volume was printed. The first released edition in 1611 had been carefully set in type, later editions found printers who were less concerned with what would one day be called quality control, and punctuation, capitalization, and even the omission of words and phrases became commonplace.

In one instance, in 1631, printers Robert Barker and Martin Lucas, who had printed the first edition of the Authorized Bible (KJV), made a printing error which cost them their license as the Royal Printer and a fine equivalent to approximately $75,000 today. In Exodus 20:14 they omitted the word not and printed “Thou shalt commit adultery”. An outraged King ordered all copies of the misprinted book be seized and burned and possession of the bible became a crime, but a few copies survived into the 21st century. While not all misprints and similar errors were as obvious, the incident illustrates how the simple misplacement of a single word can change the meaning completely.

 

[DaGeo]

I always thought this was rather curious:

11. Translation of words and the printing accident that caused a 17th century printer to print the mistake: “Thou Shalt Commit Adultery”​

A primary motivation for the translators preparing the King James Version of the bible was readability by their fellow English citizenry, as well as the flowing sweep of the language when passages of the bible were read aloud from the pulpit. Spelling and punctuation were often changed, however, by the printers, who altered the spellings of words or omitted punctuation marks in order to maintain the integrity of the columns in which the volume was printed. The first released edition in 1611 had been carefully set in type, later editions found printers who were less concerned with what would one day be called quality control, and punctuation, capitalization, and even the omission of words and phrases became commonplace.

In one instance, in 1631, printers Robert Barker and Martin Lucas, who had printed the first edition of the Authorized Bible (KJV), made a printing error which cost them their license as the Royal Printer and a fine equivalent to approximately $75,000 today. In Exodus 20:14 they omitted the word not and printed “Thou shalt commit adultery”. An outraged King ordered all copies of the misprinted book be seized and burned and possession of the bible became a crime, but a few copies survived into the 21st century. While not all misprints and similar errors were as obvious, the incident illustrates how the simple misplacement of a single word can change the meaning completely.

So, this obvious error, that even a Mormon could identify and that virtually everyone knew to be an error, is being compared to Mormonism’s ORIGINAL and EGREGIOUS contradictions and errors in the original FIRST COPY written by Mormon. But Mormon is not only a proven false prophet but a false historian as well