Have you heard of the Burning of the Bosom?

[Magdalena]

That's not an answer.

Who said that the burning bosom saved anyone? Do u understand the argument? It isn't about being saved.

I have the more sure word of prophesy. Full speed ahead. My course is sure.

If the truths of the Bible depended on archeology, then for sure there is no such thing as a resurrection or life after death.

So, back to my question, what is the more sure word of prophesy? You've already stated it's not spiritual. Now what is it?

Are you saying you've had the second anointing? You had your calling and election made sure?

 

[radvermin]

I didn't make a reference to Like, but I am curious why Luke isn't part of scripture?

That's actually not what I said. My emphasis was supposed to be on the phrase, "to something that Jesus said which isn't in Scripture. "
Luke is DEFINITELY Scripture.

This is an example of the "more sure word of prophesy", "For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven."

If you can explain that, then you will know how we know that the Book of Mormon is the word of God.

Okay, my point, though, is that the Burning of the Bosom (or any feeling) is not a test for what is Scripture, as there is no Biblical basis for that.

 

[brotherofJared]

That's actually not what I said. My emphasis was supposed to be on the phrase, "to something that Jesus said which isn't in Scripture. "
Luke is DEFINITELY Scripture.

That doesn't help. You're vague references are useless.

Okay, my point, though, is that the Burning of the Bosom (or any feeling) is not a test for what is Scripture, as there is no Biblical basis for that.

Then what was it that Peter received in reference to who Jesus Christ was? Your claim that there is no biblical basis for your assertion is not based on the Bible.

 

[radvermin]

That doesn't help. You're vague references are useless.

Then what was it that Peter received in reference to who Jesus Christ was? Your claim that there is no biblical basis for your assertion is not based on the Bible.

First of all, the burning of the bosom, according to the LDS Website is a feeling in the bosom which is referenced in D&C 9:8.

"Then as needed, according to his wisdom, his word will come into my mind through my thoughts, accompanied by a feeling in the region of my bosom. It is a feeling which cannot be described, but the nearest word we have is ‘burn’ or ‘burning.’"

Section 9, “Your Bosom Shall Burn within You”

Section 9, “Your Bosom Shall Burn within You”-Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual

www.churchofjesuschrist.org

Nowhere is this described as happening with Peter, not in Mat 16, nor Mar 8, nor in Luke 9.

Second, the only cross reference from the D&C to the Bible is Luke 24:32.
However, that's a failed test to prove anything is Scripture. Read the following, taking note that V32 states their heart burned when he "opened to us the scriptures":
Luke 24: 25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
28 And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further.
29 But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them.
30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.
32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

Jesus' words when he "opened up the scriptures" is not in Scripture!
So if the Burning of the Bosom from Jesus' words is not evidence that something is Scripture, then the Burning of the Bosom from the Book of Mormon is not evidence that something is Scripture.

 

[brotherofJared]

First of all, the burning of the bosom, according to the LDS Website is a feeling in the bosom which is referenced in D&C 9:8.

I agree but that isn't a converting power. It's not enough to know if that is a hill we can die on. The "more sure word of prophesy" is that.

I described the show boating that our critics use to win converts, for a little while, by playing on those very feelings. So it seems ludicrous even hypocritical to I kept to this source of evidence. I'm not discounting it. How else can you explain how the Holy Spirit communicates with us? It can't be seen or heard. It's not tangible. It can only come to us through another sense outside of the five we are born with.

So, I don't buy your objection. But the witness one received when they know the book of Mormon is true goes beyond a good feeling, far beyond it. It's something I don't believe any of you have ever experienced. It is like describing that salt tastes like to someone who have never tasted it. A burning of the bosom is close, but I believe the more sure word of prophesy is closer.

Nowhere is this described as happening with Peter, not in Mat 16, nor Mar 8, nor in Luke 9.

That's because it's not easy to describe. Peter said, it was the more sure word of prophesy in another verse. That, to me, is on par with our description. As I said, though, a simple "feel good" witness isn't accurate. That certainly isn't enough to change a person. The witness one received is, however; undeniable even if they cannot explain it. It is more easily recognized by observing behavior after the experience.

While you may not accept my argument, sadly; I'm afraid the undeniability of the experience prevents me from accepting any of your argument. Have you made any effort to explain how the Holy Ghost might witness truth to a person? What was it that changed the cowering fearful apostles from that state to a state willing to die for their witness? Explain that. Explain how that works and show me how it isn't based on feelings.

 

[Magdalena]

I agree but that isn't a converting power. It's not enough to know if that is a hill we can die on. The "more sure word of prophesy" is that.

I described the show boating that our critics use to win converts, for a little while, by playing on those very feelings. So it seems ludicrous even hypocritical to I kept to this source of evidence. I'm not discounting it. How else can you explain how the Holy Spirit communicates with us? It can't be seen or heard. It's not tangible. It can only come to us through another sense outside of the five we are born with.

So, I don't buy your objection. But the witness one received when they know the book of Mormon is true goes beyond a good feeling, far beyond it. It's something I don't believe any of you have ever experienced. It is like describing that salt tastes like to someone who have never tasted it. A burning of the bosom is close, but I believe the more sure word of prophesy is closer.

That's because it's not easy to describe. Peter said, it was the more sure word of prophesy in another verse. That, to me, is on par with our description. As I said, though, a simple "feel good" witness isn't accurate. That certainly isn't enough to change a person. The witness one received is, however; undeniable even if they cannot explain it. It is more easily recognized by observing behavior after the experience.

While you may not accept my argument, sadly; I'm afraid the undeniability of the experience prevents me from accepting any of your argument. Have you made any effort to explain how the Holy Ghost might witness truth to a person? What was it that changed the cowering fearful apostles from that state to a state willing to die for their witness? Explain that. Explain how that works and show me how it isn't based on feelings.

You obviously don’t know what the “more sure word of prophecy” means in mormonism.

 

[radvermin]

I agree but that isn't a converting power. It's not enough to know if that is a hill we can die on. The "more sure word of prophesy" is that.

I described the show boating that our critics use to win converts, for a little while, by playing on those very feelings. So it seems ludicrous even hypocritical to I kept to this source of evidence. I'm not discounting it. How else can you explain how the Holy Spirit communicates with us? It can't be seen or heard. It's not tangible. It can only come to us through another sense outside of the five we are born with.

So, I don't buy your objection. But the witness one received when they know the book of Mormon is true goes beyond a good feeling, far beyond it. It's something I don't believe any of you have ever experienced. It is like describing that salt tastes like to someone who have never tasted it. A burning of the bosom is close, but I believe the more sure word of prophesy is closer.

Thanks for the reply.
I'm not trying to convert anyone out of the LDS. I'm just putting something out there to see if I can explain it correctly and if it makes sense.
But I'm still trying to figure out if I've accomplished this because you said, "I agree" but then said, "It's not enough" which is like saying, "Yes" and then "No" to my argument. How is that possible? I'll try my best to explain.

First, to clarify, I've tried my best to say that this is AN argument, or that this is evidence. I recognize that there are other things that factor into proving something is Scripture, otherwise why try and find the Nephites and Lamenites. The Missionaries I've been talking to have made that clear that there's a lot more to prove Scripture than just a burning (which they didn't even know about).
However, it is still brought forward as an evidence that what is taught in the Book of Mormon is true. I disagree.
However, this is my position:
"The LDS understanding of the Burning of the Bosom cannot be used to prove (or used as evidence to say) that anything is Scripture, based on the fact that the Burning of the Bosom (as referenced in Luke 24:32 by the footnotes in the D&C) is not used to prove Scripture."
Do you agree? If you agree, then not only is it "not enough" (as though there is some part of my position that is true), but "not at all".

I do appreciate that you clarify that it's not a "converting power" as other LDS Missionaries have presented it that way.

That's because it's not easy to describe. Peter said, it was the more sure word of prophesy in another verse. That, to me, is on par with our description. As I said, though, a simple "feel good" witness isn't accurate. That certainly isn't enough to change a person. The witness one received is, however; undeniable even if they cannot explain it. It is more easily recognized by observing behavior after the experience.

While you may not accept my argument, sadly; I'm afraid the undeniability of the experience prevents me from accepting any of your argument. Have you made any effort to explain how the Holy Ghost might witness truth to a person?

Well, I'm fairly certain the passage you're thinking of is found in 2 Peter 1:19.
So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. (NASB).
So what makes it more sure? Peter tells us in the context.
17 For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, "This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased "--
18 and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
19 So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.
20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,
21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

What I'm gathering is that your experience, to use your word, was a subjective thing; meaning that only you could have experienced it and nobody else in the room experienced your experience. Like one person feeling happy. The experience Peter had was not subjective at all, but rather there was an audible voice that could be heard. It was a physical experience they had and shared.

Men were moved of God to speak. This isn't to say that the word "moved" is functioning as a method to say how they recognized what they were saying was from God, but simply that God moved them to speak what they said. And it's on the basis of Scripture (The Old Testament prophets in this case) that one can TEST whether anything else is false. This is why chapter 2.
Do you believe this? If you believe that you can use the Old Testament to test false prophets, and confirm what is true, then you should be able to use the Old Testament to test whether the Book of Mormon, the D&C, and other prophetic writings are true. And I'm not talking about theory here, have you looked at the critics of the LDS church who use the Old Testament to disprove the teachings of the LDS church? Joseph Smith didn't: He looked at Genesis 1:1 and taught that berasheet was was changed by a Jew to say that the head gods created the heavens and the Earth (https://byustudies.byu.edu/further-study-lesson/volume-6-chapter-23/). That's not looking at the Old Testament, that's changing God's word to fit what he wanted it to say. I hope that I've demonstrated by how I've treated your replies that this is not how we treat other people's words (by altering them to make them say what we want to), rather we try to understand what they're saying and let them speak for themselves.

This is important because Peter IMMEDIATELY goes into talking about false prophets. Can you tell how to spot a false prophet according to Peter? One does this by using Scripture, the Old Testament of course. But what else do these false prophets do according to Peter in chapter 2?
1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.
2 Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned;
3 and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.
I underlined what was important but I recognize how you would disagree. However, Joseph Smith came from among the Christians. He did things in secret like the translating, he had MANY wives, he gave false words regarding the Bible (as I said above with regards to his translation of Genesis 1:1 which is true especially since the LDS Bible does not follow his own translation! )

What was it that changed the cowering fearful apostles from that state to a state willing to die for their witness? Explain that. Explain how that works and show me how it isn't based on feelings.

Seeing the risen Christ did that. Christ is their basis for knowing, not their feelings. I pray you will see how powerful Christ is to be our basis for truth, not our feelings.
When He rose from the dead, it meant that everything that Jesus had said was true (John 2:22). It meant that Jesus was the fulfillment of the Old Testament (John 5:39). Just read the New Testament and take note of how the Apostles reacted to suffering, and to death. How they rejoiced in it, not based on a feeling, but on the person of the risen Christ - who gives life, who gives meaning, who gives a rich inheritance.
Does that not stir you? Ah, you see that I talked about an emotion. Yes, I did, because I know you and understand you Emotion is a part of life, but it's not the basis of it. Go one step deeper. Know Christ, and the rest will follow.

 

[brotherofJared]

I'm not trying to convert anyone out of the LDS.

I wasn't accusing you of doing that. You seem to think you are right. I'm not arguing if it's right or wrong. My statement I'm afraid the undeniability of the experience prevents me from accepting any of your argument." is simply my experience and it is undeniable.

But I'm still trying to figure out if I've accomplished this because you said, "I agree" but then said, "It's not enough"

I'm sorry you are confused. There are several kinds of spiritual experiences mentioned in the Bible (maybe more), but there is the experience that Peter received when Christ asked them who they said he was. That is the burning in the bosom. That is not enough for conversion as we can easily see since Peter denied Christ three times. This is not rocket science. Your whole argument is based on denial of the scriptures. You have yet to answer, what was it that happened to Peter in that instance? How was it that he was convinced that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God? Did Jesus argue or provide any evidence to convince Peter? No. It was spirit to spirit which is a sense that occurs outside of the 5 mortal senses that most humans test the truthfulness of a testimony or witness.

Then I offered the more sure word of prophecy. I believe that is what occurred on the day of Pentecost. That one can't be explained, however; it is life-changing. Joseph Smith described it as pure intelligence. It is a change of perspective based on connections of many events that God instills in you. Before the sound of rushing waters that gathered people to see what was going on, the apostles were afraid to teach the gospel. They cowered being uncertain about what to do or if they did anything that would cost them their lives and produce no converts. After that witness, they were no longer afraid and their speech was filled with revelation, the tongues of angels. That is how I know this church is the only true church. There are many pieces of evidence that support my conclusion but none of them had the power to convert and, as I said, the burning in the bosom does not have that power. I specified before that I don't believe anyone has ever been converted by a burning in the bosom. Peter wasn't.

Does that help you understand the difference?

Then I offered the revelations that occur to prophets, in visions and dreams

The last two do not involve feelings. But the first two definitely do.

And then the last one, speaking with God face to face as Moses did.

First, to clarify, I've tried my best to say that this is AN argument, or that this is evidence.

What is evidence? Your opinion?

recognize that there are other things that factor into proving something is Scripture

The scriptures cannot be proven. Prove that Jesus was resurrected after three days. Prove that there are no other gods. You can't prove scriptures. You can accept them as truth, but that is not proof of anything except that you accept what you believe they say. You and I obviously disagree about what they say.

otherwise why try and find the Nephites and Lamenites.

I'm not sure how this relates to this discussion.

The Missionaries I've been talking to have made that clear that there's a lot more to prove Scripture than just a burning (which they didn't even know about).

I think you're just not understanding what they said. You cannot prove the scriptures with a burning in the bosom. There is much in the Book of Mormon that is moving, but being moved, feeling good about what you're reading doesn't mean it's true. The invitation in Moroni is to ask God with real intent having faith in Jesus Christ and he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

There's nothing in there about good feelings or burning in the bosom.

However, it is still brought forward as an evidence that what is taught in the Book of Mormon is true. I disagree.

It's not. Burning of the bosom is not mentioned once in the Book of Mormon, that I can find. We can know something is right by the burning in the bosom but that's not enough t know it's true. Oliver Cowdery's experience with it was that he wanted to know how he'd know if his translation was correct. God's answer was that you will "feel that it is right".

When the people who were with Cornelius when Peter taught them the gospel, the Holy Ghost fell upon them. From the description of the events, it was far more than a good feeling. They knew that what Peter was teaching them was true. That's the difference.

However, this is my position:
"The LDS understanding of the Burning of the Bosom cannot be used to prove (or used as evidence to say) that anything is Scripture

And I agree. That has never been my argument. The scriptures cannot be proven through any physical means and I cannot prove what I know to be true because there is NO physical PROOF. Words on paper is not proof. Both of these experiences, the burning and the more sure word of prophecy are spirit to spirit. No one can see it. The only person who can "feel" it is the person receiving the witness. But they are both based on feeling.

So, one more time, how do you explain Peter's witness and the change in the apostles on the day of Pentecost? What physical proof did they have? Sure they had physical proof. They were witnesses of the resurrection, but that did not make one iota of difference in them. They remained cowards until they received a witness from the Holy Ghost. Even with the resurrected Lord chastising the coward Peter after his resurrection asking him if he loved him. Three times Peter replied and Jesus said, feed my sheep. Jesus knew that Peter was unable to carry out the mission without the second comforter.

that the Burning of the Bosom (as referenced in Luke 24:32 by the footnotes in the D&C) is not used to prove Scripture."

I have never made a reference to Luke 24:32. The burning they experienced led them to believe that they were talking to Christ himself because of that burning. Again, the feeling indicated that they were right, not that anything was true.

Do you agree? If you agree, then not only is it "not enough" (as though there is some part of my position that is true), but "not at all".

I'm really not sure what the issue is that you're arguing here. I already indicated that the burning in the bosom is not enough for anyone to know something is true.

 

[Magdalena]

I wasn't accusing you of doing that. You seem to think you are right. I'm not arguing if it's right or wrong. My statement I'm afraid the undeniability of the experience prevents me from accepting any of your argument." is simply my experience and it is undeniable.

I'm sorry you are confused. There are several kinds of spiritual experiences mentioned in the Bible (maybe more), but there is the experience that Peter received when Christ asked them who they said he was. That is the burning in the bosom. That is not enough for conversion as we can easily see since Peter denied Christ three times. This is not rocket science. Your whole argument is based on denial of the scriptures. You have yet to answer, what was it that happened to Peter in that instance? How was it that he was convinced that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God? Did Jesus argue or provide any evidence to convince Peter? No. It was spirit to spirit which is a sense that occurs outside of the 5 mortal senses that most humans test the truthfulness of a testimony or witness.

Then I offered the more sure word of prophecy. I believe that is what occurred on the day of Pentecost. That one can't be explained, however; it is life-changing. Joseph Smith described it as pure intelligence. It is a change of perspective based on connections of many events that God instills in you. Before the sound of rushing waters that gathered people to see what was going on, the apostles were afraid to teach the gospel. They cowered being uncertain about what to do or if they did anything that would cost them their lives and produce no converts. After that witness, they were no longer afraid and their speech was filled with revelation, the tongues of angels. That is how I know this church is the only true church. There are many pieces of evidence that support my conclusion but none of them had the power to convert and, as I said, the burning in the bosom does not have that power. I specified before that I don't believe anyone has ever been converted by a burning in the bosom. Peter wasn't.

Does that help you understand the difference?

Then I offered the revelations that occur to prophets, in visions and dreams

The last two do not involve feelings. But the first two definitely do.

And then the last one, speaking with God face to face as Moses did.

What is evidence? Your opinion?

The scriptures cannot be proven. Prove that Jesus was resurrected after three days. Prove that there are no other gods. You can't prove scriptures. You can accept them as truth, but that is not proof of anything except that you accept what you believe they say. You and I obviously disagree about what they say.

I'm not sure how this relates to this discussion.

I think you're just not understanding what they said. You cannot prove the scriptures with a burning in the bosom. There is much in the Book of Mormon that is moving, but being moved, feeling good about what you're reading doesn't mean it's true. The invitation in Moroni is to ask God with real intent having faith in Jesus Christ and he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

There's nothing in there about good feelings or burning in the bosom.

It's not. Burning of the bosom is not mentioned once in the Book of Mormon, that I can find. We can know something is right by the burning in the bosom but that's not enough t know it's true. Oliver Cowdery's experience with it was that he wanted to know how he'd know if his translation was correct. God's answer was that you will "feel that it is right".

When the people who were with Cornelius when Peter taught them the gospel, the Holy Ghost fell upon them. From the description of the events, it was far more than a good feeling. They knew that what Peter was teaching them was true. That's the difference.

And I agree. That has never been my argument. The scriptures cannot be proven through any physical means and I cannot prove what I know to be true because there is NO physical PROOF. Words on paper is not proof. Both of these experiences, the burning and the more sure word of prophecy are spirit to spirit. No one can see it. The only person who can "feel" it is the person receiving the witness. But they are both based on feeling.

So, one more time, how do you explain Peter's witness and the change in the apostles on the day of Pentecost? What physical proof did they have? Sure they had physical proof. They were witnesses of the resurrection, but that did not make one iota of difference in them. They remained cowards until they received a witness from the Holy Ghost. Even with the resurrected Lord chastising the coward Peter after his resurrection asking him if he loved him. Three times Peter replied and Jesus said, feed my sheep. Jesus knew that Peter was unable to carry out the mission without the second comforter.

I have never made a reference to Luke 24:32. The burning they experienced led them to believe that they were talking to Christ himself because of that burning. Again, the feeling indicated that they were right, not that anything was true.

I'm really not sure what the issue is that you're arguing here. I already indicated that the burning in the bosom is not enough for anyone to know something is true.

Why are you still trying to deceive people about the meaning of the “more sure word of prophecy” in mormonism?

 

[Aaron32]

I recently talked with some LDS Missionaries. Smart kids. I asked about a proof for the Book of Mormon being scripture being the burning of the bosom, as I had previously heard this from other missionaries.
They said that they had never heard of this.

So 2 questions.
1. Have you heard of the Burning of the Bosom?

Yes.

and
2. Is that a core part of knowing that the book of Mormon is Scripture?

Thanks a bundle.

Imo, for me - Absolutely.
I experienced the burning of the Bosom when I prayed about the BoM at a very young age.

 

[Aaron32]

What's the "more sure word of prophecy"?
Again, I'm looking at whether the Burning of the Bosom is evidence the Book of Mormon is Scripture.

Just as Jesus told Peter "flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." So is the burning of the Bosom. It's rather unmistakable.

Joseph Smith's words explain the essence of it:
"...though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true. … I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it.”

 

[Richard7]

Yeah, and I actually think it ironic that the argument is that the burning of the bosom is evidence that the BoM is Scripture and then points to Luke to something that Jesus said which isn't in Scripture.

Also dreams and revelation which many have experienced... I for one....
Agency allows us to discern for ourselves what is and what is not, each conversion is never exactly the same....

 

[brotherofJared]

Well, I'm fairly certain the passage you're thinking of is found in 2 Peter 1:19.
So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. (NASB).
So what makes it more sure? Peter tells us in the context.

That high-lighted section is all the context we need.

but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

My question to you is how do you think that happens. How is one "moved"? How do you describe it? It sure sounds like feelings to me.

What I'm gathering is that your experience, to use your word, was a subjective thing; meaning that only you could have experienced it and nobody else in the room experienced your experience.

You cannot feel what I feel. Of course, it's subjective.

Like one person feeling happy.

You need to get a better grasp of my argument. I have never supported that as being a means of establishing truth.

The experience Peter had was not subjective at all,

How do you know that?

The experience Peter had was not subjective at all, but rather there was an audible voice that could be heard.

Source, please. Nothing in the passage suggests that Peter heard anything. Rather, it was revealed. You weren't there and no one else said they heard a voice.

Men were moved of God to speak. This isn't to say that the word "moved" is functioning as a method to say how they recognized what they were saying was from God,

But the star rising in the heart does.

And it's on the basis of Scripture (The Old Testament prophets in this case) that one can TEST whether anything else is false. This is why chapter 2.

That was not how the apostles received communication from God. Do you think they studied the Old Testament before then went up into the mount of Transfiguration? Seriously? And still, that was "proof" for them, but it wasn't enough. All the wonderful things they witnessed didn't change their hearts one bit. Peter still ran off when it came down to it.

Do you believe this?

Of course, It's evidence, but like other evidence, it is not enough to convert.

Men were moved of God to speak.

That's not what it says. That's just your interpretation. I interpreted to me that being moved by the Holy Spirit was the way that God talked to them. Being moved is an indication of a spiritual inner connection that can only be detected by our feelings. It is not visible to other people.

This isn't to say that the word "moved" is functioning as a method to say how they recognized what they were saying was from God, but simply that God moved them to speak what they said

Isn't that kind of like using a human being as a ventriloquist dummy? On the same order as a seance where they go into a trance and start uttering the words from someone else? If you believe that then I guess you would also believe that Muhammad what is the true prophet.

then you should be able to use the Old Testament to test whether the Book of Mormon, the D&C, and other prophetic writings are true. And I'm not talking about theory here, have you looked at the critics of the LDS church who use the Old Testament to disprove the teachings of the LDS church?

No I haven't. I don't trust critics of other people's religions. You have your interpretations from the Old testament and the new. And you all tend to swap things around to fit your fit your theology rather than the other way around. For example nowhere in the Old testament or anywhere else does it say that God created things out of nothing. And yet that's what you believe because that's what you were told. You're indoctrinated critics can only speak from their limited view.

Joseph Smith didn't: He looked at Genesis 1:1 and taught that berasheet was was changed by a Jew to say that the head gods created the heavens and the Earth

I'm okay with that. We can also see you from Genesis 1 that God was not alone. That there were other people involved in the creation of man as opposed to God simply speaking it. And all the other creative periods he spoke and it was done. But not when he made man. Genesis 1:26 and 27, 'Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness, to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, and over all the earth itselfd and every creature that crawls upon it.”

So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.'

This fits with Joseph Smith's interpretation and understanding. It also fits with the various other clauses we find the scriptures, such as Ps 82.

All your argument does for me is validate Joseph Smith's position as a prophet of God.

 

[brotherofJared]

This is important because Peter IMMEDIATELY goes into talking about false prophets. Can you tell how to spot a false prophet according to Peter? One does this by using Scripture, the Old Testament of course. But what else do these false prophets do according to Peter in chapter 2?
1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.
2 Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned;
3 and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.
I underlined what was important but I recognize how you would disagree. However, Joseph Smith came from among the Christians. He did things in secret like the translating, he had MANY wives, he gave false words regarding the Bible (as I said above with regards to his translation of Genesis 1:1 which is true especially since the LDS Bible does not follow his own translation! )

Based on this alone, that would make Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob false prophets. There is no evidence that any of Joseph's marriages were contracted on account of lust or passion.

Your idea of a heresy and God's are two different things. I have not seen any false words spoken or written by Joseph Smith. I have seen misunderstandings but it has successively been course corrected over time, IMO, in accordance with God's direction.

Seeing the risen Christ did that.

No. It didn't. I believe I have provided ample evidence to show that seeing him made no change whatsoever. They went back to fishing... For fish.

Christ is their basis for knowing, not their feelings.

Obviously, you have never experienced the more sure word of prophecy. Maybe you had a burning in ur bosom, but that's not the same thing.

When He rose from the dead, it meant that everything that Jesus had said was true (John 2:22).

I don't know how u arrived at that conclusion. Rising from the dead only proved one thing. That Jesus rose from the dead. All the rest of it fell into place on the day of Pentecost. Between the resurrection and that event, the apostles we're still unsure of themselves.

Just read the New Testament and take note of how the Apostles reacted to suffering, and to death.

That reaction came after the day of Pentecost. Before then, they were afraid.

Does that not stir you?

Are you asking about my feelings? It does stir me. It stirs me to want to experience what they experienced on that day.

Ah, you see that I talked about an emotion. Yes, I did, because I know you and understand you

LOL. If u don't recognize the feelings within you, then you are just in denial. They do exist and they are trustworthy.

You have still not explained how the Holy Spirit communicates with our spirit. How is it possible without the aid of the 5 mortal senses? What is that experience like?

Just a side note here, our critics religions do everything in there power to illicit as much of the other 5 senses as they can. Catholic dress up and swing incense. Protestants, some do the same, others add rock and roll music or a chior and provide smooth and polished orators to tease the ears and soften the heart. It's all part of a con man snake oil salesmanship. We don't have any of that. Our choirs suck, except for the Tabernacle choir. Our speakers are unpolished taken from the congregation. They have no training. We don't appeal to social influence, in order to entertain our youth I don't know if you've ever been to one of our meetings but most people find them to be rather uneventful. One person described it as being like a town meeting.

The influence of the spirit is what we depend on and it was worked for just over 200 years and we continue to grow. That feeling wins over thousands of converts, some of them obtaining the more sure word of prophecy and some of those don't even realize it. It is called being born of the spirit.

Emotion is a part of life, but it's not the basis of it.

No, but it is the basis for eternal life. Care to answer my question? Here's another one. What converted you to the gospel of Jesus Christ? It it was the Bible, then what confirmed for you that it was true?

 

[brotherofJared]

Well, I'm fairly certain the passage you're thinking of is found in 2 Peter 1:19.
So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. (NASB).
So what makes it more sure? Peter tells us in the context.

That high-lighted section is all the context we need.

but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

My question to you is how do you think that happens. How is one "moved"? How do you describe it? It sure sounds like feelings to me.

What I'm gathering is that your experience, to use your word, was a subjective thing; meaning that only you could have experienced it and nobody else in the room experienced your experience.

You cannot feel what I feel. Of course, it's subjective.

Like one person feeling happy.

You need to get a better grasp of my argument. I have never supported that as being a means of establishing truth.

The experience Peter had was not subjective at all,

How do you know that?

The experience Peter had was not subjective at all, but rather there was an audible voice that could be heard.

Source, please. Nothing in the passage suggests that Peter heard anything. Rather, it was revealed. You weren't there and no one else said they heard a voice.

Men were moved of God to speak. This isn't to say that the word "moved" is functioning as a method to say how they recognized what they were saying was from God,

But the star rising in the heart does.

And it's on the basis of Scripture (The Old Testament prophets in this case) that one can TEST whether anything else is false. This is why chapter 2.

That was not how the apostles received communication from God. Do you think they studied the Old Testament before then went up into the mount of Transfiguration? Seriously? And still, that was "proof" for them, but it wasn't enough. All the wonderful things they witnessed didn't change their hearts one bit. Peter still ran off when it came down to it.

Do you believe this?

Of course, It's evidence, but like other evidence, it is not enough to convert.

 

[radvermin]

Also dreams and revelation which many have experienced... I for one....
Agency allows us to discern for ourselves what is and what is not, each conversion is never exactly the same....

Yeah, i know.

 

[radvermin]

Yes.


Imo, for me - Absolutely.
I experienced the burning of the Bosom when I prayed about the BoM at a very young age.

Thank you for answering my questions

Just as Jesus told Peter "flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." So is the burning of the Bosom. It's rather unmistakable.

Joseph Smith's words explain the essence of it:
"...though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true. … I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it.”

Can you point to any official LDS documents that state what Peter experienced was a "Burning of the Bosom"? I haven't been able to find it, but it would be helpful. Jared's and you are the first two that have ever said that to me.

 

[radvermin]

Good sir, I don't know what I'm supposed to respond to. There are times where you give a response to one thing I said without taking everything I say into consideration, and so you ask a question that I've already answered. There are times where I have answered your question further down from where you asked it. There are some times where it's just that you flat out disagree with what the Bible says. There are times where you don't take into account what the Bible says after I've explained it to you (without going into the koine Greek so as not to appear proud).

It's too much, too many issues, not because of the length of your reply (which it appears to me that you spent a lot of time on and I appreciate when people take time), but because you didn't take the time to get to know my arguments; and because of this you've gone off topic on so many issues that I have no logical way of responding to your replies. I apologize for the harshness, but I have no other word to describe it but as a mess.
If you want to state that my replies to you were a mess and so blame me for it, well, me stating that only shows how much I understand you and your position. If I'm wrong, at least you can know that I'm taking the time to consider your position; so at the very least, you can know I understand you.

Our dialogue is concluded on my end.
God Bless.

 

[brotherofJared]

Can you point to any official LDS documents that state what Peter experienced was a "Burning of the Bosom"?

Can u produce any evidence anywhere that everyone heard God tell Peter that Jesus was the Messiah?

 

[Richard7]

Good sir, I don't know what I'm supposed to respond to. There are times where you give a response to one thing I said without taking everything I say into consideration, and so you ask a question that I've already answered. There are times where I have answered your question further down from where you asked it. There are some times where it's just that you flat out disagree with what the Bible says. There are times where you don't take into account what the Bible says after I've explained it to you (without going into the koine Greek so as not to appear proud).

It's too much, too many issues, not because of the length of your reply (which it appears to me that you spent a lot of time on and I appreciate when people take time), but because you didn't take the time to get to know my arguments; and because of this you've gone off topic on so many issues that I have no logical way of responding to your replies. I apologize for the harshness, but I have no other word to describe it but as a mess.
If you want to state that my replies to you were a mess and so blame me for it, well, me stating that only shows how much I understand you and your position. If I'm wrong, at least you can know that I'm taking the time to consider your position; so at the very least, you can know I understand you.

Our dialogue is concluded on my end.
God Bless.

Read the Book of Mormon and apply Moroni 10.... but please remember to be sincere and humble... God cannot lie...