Conference tecrus::mormonism

    Thank you, Allen, for making this entry.  I often find myself asking
    myself a similar question:  Is this coming from my head or from
    the Spirit?
    
    I have found from my own experience that it has been necessary for
    me to pray for two things:
    
    1)  Ask that God's will be revealed to me, and
    
    2)  That I will be able to *recognize* His will as being *His* will
        and not my will.
    
    At first, this was very difficult for me to do because I constantly
    struggled with "Is this me or is this God?"  And at that point,
    I would ask for verification.  Slowly, I began to *feel* the difference
    between His will and mine.  
    
    When I am doing God's will, I find myself more at peace with myself and
    I have a feeling of confidence that I *am* doing the right thing.
    I don't feel this confidence nearly as strong when it's my will.
    There always seems to be a tinge of doubt still lingering around.
    I don't feel the need to question myself or God when I am doing
    His will - I just do it.
    
    Thanks again for this topic.
    
    Tamara

Note 4.7 discusses from a Biblical viewpoint our belief that the Holy Ghost
does speak through our feelings, or more accurately, that we recognize the
promptings of the Holy Ghost through our feelings.

    Re: 167.4 (which was moved to 118.2)
    
    Hi Ed,
    
    I found your note very interesting, and I do agree that it is a
    subjective experience to feel and know the power of the Holy Ghost. You
    commented that it is without scriptural precedent for truth to be
    manifest by a feeling in ones heart in response to prayer. I believe
    that such a precedent does exist.
    
    The first is a beautiful story of an early manifestation of the
    resurrected Lord: 
    
         And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village
         called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about three-score
         furlongs. 
         
         And they talked together of all these things which had
         happened. 
         
         And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and
         reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. 
         
         But their eyes were holden that they should not know him. 
         
         And he said unto them, What manner of communications are
         these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad? 
         
         And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said
         unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not
         known the things which are come to pass there in these days? 
         
         And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him,
         Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in
         deed and word before God and all the people: 
         
         And how the chief Priests and our rulers delivered him to be
         condemned to death, and have crucified him. 
         
         But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed
         Israel: and beside all this, today is the third day since
         these things were done. 
         
         Yea, and certain women also of our company made us
         astonished, which were early at the sepulcher; 
         
         And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that
         they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was
         alive. 
         
         And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulcher,
         and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw
         not. 
         
         Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe
         all that the prophets have spoken: 
         
         Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter
         into his glory? 
         
         And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded
         unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning
         himself. 
         
         And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and
         he made as though he would have gone further. 
         
         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. 
         
         And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took
         bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. 
         
         And their eyes were opened, and they know him; and he
         vanished out of their sight. 
         
         And they said one to another, Did no our heart burn within
         us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened
         to us the scriptures? (Luke 24:13-32) 
                                              
    Indeed, I believe our hearts do burn within us, as God's Holy Spirit
    bears witness of truth. I bear witness that Jesus is our Resurrected
    Lord, and I rejoice in Him!
    
    On the day of Pentecost, there were two things that happened that
    relate to this question. 
    
         And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire,
         and it sat upon each of them, 
         
         And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to
         speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
         (Acts 2:3-4) 
    
    So powerful was the burning influence of the Holy Ghost so as to appear
    as tongues of fire upon them. Peter then delivered a powerful witness
    of the Savior, which had a remarkable effect: 
    
         Therefore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly that
         God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both
         Lord and Christ. 
         
         Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart,
         and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and
         brethren, what shall we do? 
         
         Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one
         of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,
         and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts
         2:36-38) 
    
    So forceful was the testimony of Peter by the power of the Holy Ghost
    that they felt pricked in their hearts, and they knew it was true.
    Peter promised them that, if they would repent and be baptized, they,
    too, would receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 
    
    Can Satan counterfeit such a feeling? Perhaps he can if we are not
    careful. But I believe that if a person is truly sincere, wants to know
    the truth, is willing to follow the truth when he knows it, and asks
    God in the name of Jesus Christ in faith, believing that He can and
    will answer, that Satan has no power to answer such a prayer. If a
    child asks of his father for bread, will he give him a stone? No. Our
    Father in Heaven will hear such a prayer and the Holy Spirit will bear
    witness of all things that are true. 
    
    Your experience with the martial arts and the burning feeling you had
    would seem to confirm this, Ed. When you sincerely invoked the name of
    Jesus Christ, the feelings you had were shown not to be from God. 
    
    You made the point that such a subjective test of truth is dangerous
    and that one must rely on the... 

>  the verity and objectivity of the
>  scriptures as an objective arbiter, and a willingness to respect the
>  judgment of those more mature and experienced than yourself. I might 
>  add that you become familiar with that which is *mis-leading*, too.    
                                                     
    You say we should rely on those more experienced than yourself, but
    what if they are 'familiar with that which is *mis-leading*'? This is
    the mistake the Jews made when they listened to their unrighteous
    religious leaders and demanded the crucifiction of our Lord. I'd
    say *that* is a dangerous recommendation. 
    
    You say the scriptures are objective, but I say the scriptures
    according to whom? There are so many interpretations of the scriptures,
    many found to be in conflict with each other. I would assert that
    scripture is not for private interpretation, but by the Spirit, which
    would seem to say that the Holy Ghost is he that gives us understanding
    of the scriptures and not the other way around. 
    
         We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do
         well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a
         dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in
         your hearts; 
         
         Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of
         any private interpretation. 
         
         For the prophecy came not in the old time by the will of man:
         but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy
         Ghost. (2 Peter 1:19-21) 
         
    That the Holy Ghost plays a powerful role in witnessing of truth, and
    that we should *ask* to know truth of God is abundantly taught in the
    Bible. For example, consider the following passages. 
    
         "...no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy
         Ghost."  (1 Cor 12:3) 
           
         "For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it,
         but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.  (Gal 1:12) 
                             
         "That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory,
         may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the
         knowledge of him"  (Eph 1:17) 
           
    The Savior taught us to ask, and promised that we would be given: 
    
         "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find;
         knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that
         asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him
         that knocketh it shall be opened." (Matt 7:7-8) 
                                           
         "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth (the Holy Ghost), is
         come, he will guide you into all truth"  (John 16:13) 
           
    To know the truth of such things, a man must ask God, in faith: 
    
         "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth
         to all men liberally, and upbraideth (censures) not; and it
         shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing
         wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea
         driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think
         that he shall receive any thing of the Lord."  (James 1:5-7) 
           
    My testimony is this: I have asked God if these things are true. He has
    revealed to me by the Power of the Holy Ghost that they are true. It is
    on this basis that I can bear witness of their truth. While you may
    reject my witness, I have no choice but to bear witness of what I know
    to be true. Otherwise I would offend God. 

    The Book of Mormon carries this promise: 
           
         "Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these
         things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that
         ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the
         children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until
         the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in
         your hearts. 
           
         And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you
         that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of
         Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask
         with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in
         Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the
         power of the Holy Ghost. 
           
         And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of
         all things."  (Moroni 10:3-5) 
                                   
    I do testify that this promise works. The principles taught in this
    promise are the same as those taught in the Bible: Ask, in Faith, and
    the Lord will reveal the truth by the power of the Holy Ghost. 
    
    Witnessing of Christ,
    Rich

RE: Note 167.4  by CASV02::PRESTON 

Hi, Ed,

I'd like to join in on addressing the 'burning bosom' question. Rich has 
pointed out that a pentecostal type witness happens all the time, which 
some refer to as the 'burning bosom.' But some also use that phrase to 
refer to less dramatic feelings, which is what I think you were talking 
about, and which I'd like to address. If one receives a pentecostal-type 
witness regarding every aspect of their religious experience, well then 
that is that. But there is a place for less dramatic communications/
feelings/witnesses/etc. that help us arrive at truth.

>   What 
>   no one has yet addressed is whether or not a "burning bosom" is a valid
>   indicator of truth. Certainly good feelings can and often do accompany
>   truth, but to use them as a basis for determining truth is a grave error
>   indeed. 

If you modify this to say that to use feelings as the *sole* basis for 
determining truth is a grave error, then I would agree. 

One can't ignore one's feelings, and I don't think the Lord would want us
to. If indeed one does have a feeling of warmth and comfort, followed by
coldness and/or shakes, I would be far more ready to ascribe the former to 
the forces of light and truth and the latter to the forces of darkness than 
the other way around. But I would only call that an indication, not proof. 

I don't know if it is possible to reach the 100% proof level. I like to
think of it in terms of the scientific method. You start out with a
hypothesis. You test it. You test alternatives. You look at the results and
come to conclusions. And when more information comes along, you revise and 
expand upon your conclusions.

I was reading an article on this subject recently that gave as an example 
some of the work that led up to the invention of transistors. A group of 
scientists were investigating electromagnetic resonances in crushed
silicon. They didn't understand why there should be two resonances instead
of one. They tried all sorts of explanations, including testing silicon 
that had been crushed in different ways.

Eventually someone had the idea that it may have something to do with the 
impurities in the silicon. The silicon had been doped with another element 
that had two electron obital levels. Sure enough, the resonance values of
this element agreed with those of the test sample of doped silicon. They
were 90% sure this was the answer. 

They tried doping silicon with another element that had four orbital
levels. Again the results agreed. They were 99% sure. 

They then tried doping silicon with an element that had two isotopes 
(configurations), one with six orbital levels and one with eight. Sure enough, 
the test sample with this element displayed all fourteen resonances. They 
were then 99.99999% sure they had the answer.

Of course, there is always that infinitesimal possibility for error. But
after a while, you can be certain enough of your conclusions that you can
proceed on the assumption that you have arrived at 'truth.' 

I use this model when thinking about my 'knowledge' that the Church is 
true. I have experienced the 'warm feeling,' especially so when performing 
certain priesthood ordinances, such as healing the sick. But it isn't the 
only evidence I have to go on. I don't feel the necessity to describe in 
exact detail here what some of those things are, but suffice it to say that 
I feel I've arrived at 'truth,' at least in part.

When I ask the Lord (and I know I have as much access to God as anyone) to
help me understand when I read the Book of Mormon, and my insights are thus
amplified, I am pretty certain that Book is of God. When I then apply those 
insights and see how they help others, it increases my certainty. When I do 
my missionary work and the Spirit speaks to me of the indescribable joy in 
heaven over bringing a lost sheep to Christ, I *believe*. When I use my
priesthood authority to heal the sick or confer the Gift of the Holy Ghost
and feel the very power of God within me, I *know*. 

The main criterion I feel I must always satisfy is that my conclusions 
should always make *sense*. If there is any meaning and purpose to life at 
all, then it is by God's design, and it should therefore make sense. If
something comes up that I don't understand, or that doesn't seem to make
sense, then it is incumbent upon me to look into it further. When Leza or
you or anyone brings to my attention some claim that discredits the Church,
for example, then I need to see what the factual basis is for it. If there
is any, and it still doesn't fit into my conceptual framework, then I need
to look at related facts. I'll need to draw upon the wisdom of those more
learned than me. If I still have a problem, I need to go to the Lord and
see if He will provide me with further insight and/or revelation, which He
has on many occasions. 

I can tell you that this process has never, never, ever once failed. 
Challenges to my testimony have always in the end strengthened it. 

So I am faced with two choices. Either Satan has so arranged things as to 
so completely deceive me in hundreds of individual such investigations and 
experiences that I have been able to build a fundamentally false belief in
Mormonism, implying that even my entreaties to the Lord have somehow been
frustrated.... 

...or Mormonism is true. And all that that implies.

So there is much more involved than burning bosoms and warm feelings.

Perhaps the Lord would just as soon not have me retain some skepticism, no
matter how small. The story of Moses striking the rock twice comes to mind.
The kind of assurance that you speak of in terms of having Christ within 
you sounds attractive. And I should say that there are some elements of my
testimony for which the Lord has blessed me with no doubt whatsoever.
Absolute zero. But given that I must continue to learn and grow, and that
by examining opposites 'the truth is made manifest,' this will sometimes
include generating doubt with which I'll have to wrestle until it is
resolved. 

And my experience gives me the faith to believe that it *will* eventually 
be resolved. No matter what.

A brother in Christ,
/kevin

The feelings that are experienced with spiritual promptings are often
described as 'burning' or as 'aha!' experiences.  But, to say that all such
comfortable, burning feelings are from God would be an incorrect assertion.  
Burning feelings can also be associated with feelings such as lust, hate, envy, 
hostility or other unholy feelings, even though one may feel comfortable with 
them.  (I am certain that the wicked that persecuted the early Christians felt 
comfortable with the burning feelings they had in their hearts.)  Comfortable 
feelings that can be described as 'burning' are alone not sufficient as 
evidence of spiritual promptings, but such feelings often accompany such
promptings.  

I believe that what accompanies 'burning' feelings as part of spiritual
promptings from God are thoughts and feelings of charity and compassion for 
others, selflessness, tearful joy, humility, and so forth - all indicative of 
Christ-like attributes and of the presence of the Holy Ghost.  To experience 
'burning' feelings at the same time that one harbors thoughts that are unholy 
is no indication that one is receiving promptings from God.  The thoughts and 
motivations present are linked to the feelings of the heart (D.C. 8:2) and 
must not be tainted by unholiness if one is to be sensitive to spiritual 
promptings from God.

Can people force themselves to experience 'burning in the bosom' to get 
incorrect answers?  I believe the answer is yes.  So, how can a person tell
when they pray about the validity of Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, 
the Bible or the Church that the 'burning' feelings they get (and they do get 
them as has already been asserted by noters that believe and that do not 
believe Mormon teachings) are from God?  I cannot answer this except that 
people must first cleanse their thoughts of all impurities and biases, study 
and experience it for themselves and ask themselves whether they believe they 
are of God (Moroni 10:3-5).

Can people force themselves to ignore the burning feelings they get as part of
spiritual promptings from God?  I believe the answer is yes.  Of course, they
will have to rationalize in a manner in which they will not be honest with 
themselves.  But, as the Lord has granted agency to us, we have the ability to
reason such events away.  Have you ever wondered why it was that the children
of Israel after seeing the Red Sea parted and after so many other miracles
were so quick to construct an idol and worship it?  They rationalized that it
was not the Lord that saved them but other gods (Exodus 32:3-4).

Steve

Hi, Ed,

Forgive me for jumping into this discussion, but I have an interest 
in epistemological arguments, and since gaining a testimony and becoming 
a Mormon, it has taken on new significance to know *how* one knows 
anything. 

>The only
>one who stands to gain from getting anyone to make a wholesale acceptance
>of something via the subjective channel of feelings is Satan, because
>once you've bought into the idea that your feeling is superior to and
>supercedes any evidence to the contrary, you're well on your way... 

Yes, but Satan provides lots of 'evidence' about things, based - of 
course - on false premises. For example, Satan has managed to convince a 
huge number of people on this planet that there is no God and never
was, and besides, we are better off without him, because if he
existed, why would God allow/cause all the suffering in the world, 
etc., etc.

If we listen only to the 'evidence' presented to us, as understood by
our frail, human faculties, we could be just as lost. It is important 
to listen to the promptings of the Spirit, even if they are only 
feelings, even if we do not understand them, because there are some 
things we humans simply cannot be told in words. 

/kevin

    My own suspicion is that the concept of appealing to the Lord for
    a personal witness of truth is one of the 'plain and precious things'
    missing from the Bible.  It is, of course, found in the other
    scriptures.  Makes sense, too, that this would have been removed.
    This would be consistent with the teachings of some of the apostate 
    churches that average people could not approach the Lord in prayer 
    directly, let alone regarding personal things.  It is also in line with a 
    vain generation that demands a physical sign or miracle from the Lord 
    before they will believe, rather than seek inside their own hearts for 
    faith.  In this way, they could exercise power over the believers.
    Keep in mind, too, that some churches have used the Bible to convince
    believers that they cannot extract benefit from personal prayer
    to the Lord.  Rather, they had to serve patrons who would in turn 
    (hopefully) pray to the Lord for them.  So cherished was this hold
    over believers that for a period of time they were not even permitted
    direct access to the scriptures.
    
    
    Steve

RE: Note 118.7  CASV01::PRESTON 

>I have a question for you: If the LDS Church *is* false, what kind of 
>feeling would you expect God to give?

Oooo! Good question! May I take a crack at it?

First off, I know what feeling LDS doctrine says you should expect. If
one studies out a proposition in one's mind, and prays and fasts etc.,
then, per D&C, one should expect a 'stupor of thought' if the proposition 
is wrong, or contrary to God's will. A 'stupor of thought' is both 
a feeling and a piece of knowledge, given to those who inquire of
the Lord, and receive negative answers. 

But, of course, if one is praying about the validity of the LDS Church
in the first place, then one could not receive a negative answer in
LDS fashion, because if it is false, so is D&C, and so would be its
method of receiving answers. (Hee, hee, hee. Is everyone sufficiently
confused to continue?) 

Answering your question requires stepping outside of Mormon ontology 
altogether. If Mormonism is false, then something else is true. This
'other' belief system could be anything, so it's impossible to say
in advance whether any particular answer, feeling, etc. was valid.

One would have to tentatively adopt a belief system, and then within
it, use whatever method of determining 'truth' that belief system says
is valid. 

You can bring some basic assumptions to your alternate belief system, 
such as the assumption that all truth is self-consistent, so as soon 
as you see inexplicable inconsistencies in your new belief system, 
it's time to go shopping for another.

This is the *cognitive* reason I'm a Mormon. Because 1) everything
I've explored in Mormonism is entirely self-consistent and consistent
with my basic assumptions; 2) I look at other religions, including
traditional Christianity, and see a mass of confusion and
contradictions; and 3) the secular, atheistic world (to which I used
to subscribe), while seemingly self-consistent, has no explanation for
itself. 

So my answer to your question, 'what answer would you expect,' is 
'anything you want.'

Whew! I'm going to have to go lay down for a while.

:-)

/kevin

    In reading these notes I wonder if we should define some terms:
    
    Feelings = emotions, such as hate, love ,passion, fear, anger, joy,
               happiness, pain, etc.
    
             
    
    promptings of Holy Ghost = messages of inspiration/revelation received from
    God through the medium of the Holy Ghost; can be
    intellegince/understanding or knowing types of messages; sometimes
    can be spiritual feelings, such as peacefulness, spiritual comfort,
    feelings of self-worth, etc.
    
    The LDS concept of "testimony by feeling" is not "testimony by
    emotion", but rather a receiving of a witness of the Gospel's
    truthfulness through the medium of the Holy Ghost and his choice
    of communicating via knowledge/understanding (which is how I received
    my testimony) or via "spiritual feelings/promptings" that one knows
    in one's heart the truth.  
    
    I can empathize with Preston's suspicion of using feelings/emotion
    ONLY.  I had an encounter with the NEW AGE Movement and "felt" that
    I had encountered something truly Christian.  I had a sensational
    feeling of warmth and euphoric elation.  Through intelligible messages
    from the "still small voice"  I "felt" that as good as the New Age
    movement seemed there was something very wrong with it.  I "felt"
    this message with this spiritual receptor we all have.  Later, I
    LEARNED through study and investigation that the spiritual feeling
    was a true guide.
    
    So, yes, feelings can be misguiding!  But to discount them entirely
    as not a reliable guide seems to me unacceptable.  For I have feelings
    and emotions that enoble me, such as love, sacrifice, compassion,
    altruism, empathy, etc.  These feelings/emotions make me more
    Christ-like.
    
    Perhaps, what we need to do is to learn to capitalize upon Christ-like
    feelings/emotions (which he certainly displayed), and use the still
    small voice, our spiritual-feeling receptor, and our reason/intellect
    to discern truth.  
    
    I have know people who "feel" the Gospel is true, and just "know"
    from some sixth sense that it is right immediately upon hearing
    its message.  (my wife is like that).  I, on the other hand, had
    to study it, probe, prove, dissect it, and KNOW that it was true.
    
    That is what I love so much about Mormonism.  It is not afraid to
    study, investigate and search.  Our whole philosophy is based upon
    a concept of Eternal Progression through growth and development
    of more noble (read Christ-like here) characteristics.  
    
    To shut off my feelings as some kind of enemy to my soul seems to
    to somehow deny a part of my being.
    
    Paul 

This is in response to .7 by Ed Preston.  I had it all written before
getting back in and finding the excellent replies by Kevin, Steve, and
Paul, which replies contain many of the same points I was trying to
make... I decided to enter mine anyway.            
    
Ed,

I think you are not in as much disagreement with some of the respondents
to Leza's final note as you (and perhaps they) think you are.  For example:

>There is a shade of difference here. I do not argue that feelings may
>come in response to prayer; they often do, and often they do not. I argue
>that it is unscriptural to promote the practice of seeking a specific
>feeling in answer to prayer as a guide to truth.

This is correct.  The scriptures are replete with injunctions to pray and
to seek answers to prayers.  The point that seems to be causing confusion
and some apparent disagreement is the single instance in scripture (D&C)
where God *did* tell the person praying (Oliver Cowdery) *what* the answer
to his prayer would be: "a burning in [his] bosom."  Nowhere in scripture
does it ever say or even imply that this (burning in the bosom) would be
or would accompany the answer to every prayer.  In fact, even for Oliver
Cowdery himself this was not the case.  My office is being moved right
now, so my scriptures are packed up, but in the D&C there is a revelation
to Oliver through the prophet Joseph which states, in part (and paraphrased):

	"...if you desire a further witness, cast your mind upon the
	night when you cried unto me in your heart to know concerning
	the truth of these things.  Did I not speak peace to your mind?
	What greater witness can you have than from God?" 
						--Section 6?:22,23


>I believe it is
>especially misplaced to use it in such a sweeping manner as, "I prayed
>and asked if the Book of Mormon (or the LDS Church, or anything else)
>were true, and I got a terrific feeling (burning bosom), and now I *know*
>that they are true!" 

I haven't reread through any of the testimonies which have been entered into
this conference, but I don't recall anyone other than Leza (shakes and chills)
basing what they believe on a feeling.  Rich Kotter has written several times
various testimonies of the Book of Mormon, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the
prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, etc., and I don't think he ever once claimed
a "feeling" as a basis for those testimonies.  Many times he has mentioned that
it is by the power of the Holy Ghost that he *knows* these things are true. I
personally have had a "burning in my bosom" many times, but such feelings are
not the *bases* of my convictions.  I knew a man once who, when praying for
forgiveness of his sins after a trying and difficult period of repentance for
years of "waywardness", felt a "burning from the top of [his] head to the
tips of [his] toes."  Accompanying this feeling was a voice which spoke to his
mind that his sins were forgiven.  He said he will never forget the burning
feeling, but that the peace and love which filled his mind and heart are the
most wonderful things he has ever felt, and that the revelation that he was
then square with God was the greatest knowledge he could have had at that time
in his life.  So the feelings were there, but it was the revelation from God
upon which he based his testimony that he had been forgiven.

>I do not believe that God operates in such a manner as to have anyone
>suspend their critical faculties in favor of a "feeling".

I do not believe so either. I don't think any of those who have replied to
Leza's note believe so either.  The main thrust of what I understand the others
to be saying is that *Leza* has suspended *her* critical faculties in favor of
a feeling, and a feeling, in fact, which has even less scriptural support as
having God as its origin than the "burning" feeling (the discussion of which,
by the way, was introduced in this topic by her).  However, God does operate
in such a manner as to have people suspend their critical faculties in favor of
*Revelation from Him*, which, as you pointed out, may or may not be accompanied
by ("burning")  feelings.  Often, there is no evidence other than words on
which to base a critical decision.

>If God, His
>Word and His Church are true, He needs not hand out special feelings as
>proof - it can be "proved" well enough with the evidence at hand.

This is not necessarily true.  Many of the people who knew Christ better than
even his disciples had no idea of his Godhood: "Is this not the carpenter's
son?"  Yet Peter had the truth *revealed* to him without the aid of his critical
faculties; i.e., his critical faculties were not involved in the actual process
of the revelation he received from God, notwithstanding his faith, study, and
prayer.

As for your comments on the ability of satan to deceive: based on my personal
experience with revelation (to quote Elder Bruce R. McKonkie, "I know there is
revelation because I have received revelation"), I know that the source of the
revelation to me that Jesus Christ is the Son of God is the same as the source
of the revelation to me that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and that the
Book of Mormon is the word of God.  The feelings *I* have when I feel the power
of the Holy Ghost are not always uniform or the same, but the revelations
through which my testimony has been built have always included peace and the
assurance that they were of God.  Of course, I cannot speak for anyone else on
matters such as this.

In Love,

Dave

    Boy, this has been some good discussion!  :-)
    
    Steve

    RE: Note 118.10 by STING::PERM

    
    	Some good points you made:
    
    	If the LDS Church is false, and if as Christianity teaches that
    Satan is a deceiver, then what is there to keep Satan from deceiving
    people by giving them a 'burning bosom'?  If GOD is behind the burning
    bosom, then why do some get it and some don't?
    
>    This is the *cognitive* reason I'm a Mormon. Because 1) everything
>I've explored in Mormonism is entirely self-consistent and consistent
>with my basic assumptions; 2) I look at other religions, including
>traditional Christianity, and see a mass of confusion and
>contradictions; and 3) the secular, atheistic world (to which I used
>to subscribe), while seemingly self-consistent, has no explanation for
>itself. 

    I am not sure what you mean by self-consistent.  But Mormonism is
    definitely not without contradictions.*    On the other hand it is very
    difficult to nail down what traditional Christianity is. If you lump
    all non-LDS churches together, then certainly you will find differences
    in what each church teaches. But looking at the new testament church
    you'll not find any church called the ONE true church.  

    There are a lot of non-denominational churches that are very much like
    those setup by the disciples in the new-testament. 
    

    
    
    * Or what would seem to be contradictions, but a weak
    explanation could be given to explain the contradiction.
    

   RE: 'Burning bosom'

   I personally disagree with the 'burning bosom' idea. Not that this
   can't happen, but I don't see it as an objective measure of the 
   Holy Spirit's prompting in each and every case.

   In my personal conversion experience, there was an overwhelming
   presence of the Spirit into my life, yet there was never a burning
   bosom sensation. There was at once, both a great sadness as well
   as a great joyousness. While unable to explain the feeling at the
   time, the sadness was apparently due to the awareness of how
   far I had fallen in God's eyes and the joyousness was due to being
   redeemed. The interesting thing is that the Holy Spirit came upon
   me without my expecting it. This was not a church-setting type of
   conversion where I had just heard a sermon on my need to be saved
   and decided to accept, but rather it happened at home while in my
   kitchen.

   I have since prayed at various times pleading for knowledge on certain
   things and have received some wonderfully positive answers to my 
   requests, yet I have never experienced a 'burning bosom'. Does the
   'burning bosom' test only relate to the question of whether the 
   Mormon Church is the true Church? I also don't understand how I can
   be an apostate if I love Jesus Christ with my whole being. In other
   words, if I never feel prompted to join the Mormon Church will I
   be saved?

   Charlie

    Since I was out for a couple of days there was some great discussion on
    this topic! 
    
    Re: .7
    
    Ed, as someone else said, we may not be as far apart as it appears. You
    make a good point that one must not rely on feelings alone, to discover
    truth. We *should* use every capacity that we can to discern truth from
    error, including our intellectual capacity to study things out and to
    discover evidence of truths. 
    
    By the same token, we should not rely solely on our intellectual
    capacities to understand truth. I believe that God can and will
    communicate to us Spirit to spirit (His to ours). This form of
    communication can be solicited or unsolicited. It can be convincing and
    penetrating, if we are prepared to hear (feel) it, or we may miss it
    altogether, if we are not receptive.

    You also make a good point that the Spirit does not manifest itself in
    only one way, that is, a 'burning' feeling. That is only one way that
    it will manifest itself, as someone else has also said. It may come as
    pure knowledge or conviction communicated directly, or as 'feelings' of
    peace or of love. It may come as a 'still small voice' which will speak
    in our hearts and our minds of that which is true. I have received
    revelation in all of these ways, in ways that I dare not deny as being
    from the Holy Ghost. Sometimes I struggle to be 'in the Spirit'
    sufficiently to receive guidance I hope for, sometimes it comes without
    my bidding. 
                     
>I do not argue that feelings may
>come in response to prayer; they often do, and often they do not. I argue
>that it is unscriptural to promote the practice of seeking a specific
>feeling in answer to prayer as a guide to truth.     
    
    I think that it is scriptural to seek answers in prayer to vital
    questions. To seek a specific feeling is not necessary. We should leave
    it up to God to answer our prayers the way He sees fit. The answer may
    come in any of the ways that God may choose to speak to our Spirit.
    With some, He has even chosen to send heavenly messengers to proclaim
    this message. 
    
    My witness is that a person *can* know, for himself, if these things
    are true, *directly* from God. They need not take our word for it. We
    ask all people to thoroughly search out these things, and then
    diligently ask God, in the name of Jesus Christ, if they are true. What
    they do about it is then between them and God. I also assert that such
    communication from God, if and when it comes, must come in such a way
    as to thoroughly satisfy a person as to the truthfulness of these
    things. That is what I have experienced.
    
    Re: .14 by GENRAL::RINESMITH
    
>   On the other hand it is very
>   difficult to nail down what traditional Christianity is. If you lump
>   all non-LDS churches together, then certainly you will find differences
>   in what each church teaches. But looking at the new testament church
>   you'll not find any church called the ONE true church.  
    
    Yes, it is difficult to tell what 'traditional Christianity' is. But it
    shouldn't be. There really should be ONE true church, at least
    according to the Bible. 
    
         Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus
         Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be
         no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined
         together in the same mind and in the same judgment. (1 Cor
         1:10)
         
         One Lord, one faith, one baptism (Ephesians 4:5)
         
         And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; ...For
         the perfecting of the saints, ...Till we all come in the
         unity of the faith, ...That we we henceforth be no more
         children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every
         wind of doctrine... (Eph 4:11-14)
    
>   There are a lot of non-denominational churches that are very much like
>   those setup by the disciples in the new-testament.     
    
    Ok, please name one with living apostles and prophets that refers to
    its members as saints, without a paid ministry, that believes in
    continuing revelation from God, with spiritual gifts, the Melchizedek
    priesthood, etc., just as the New Testament church did. (I can think of
    one.) 
    
    Re: .15 by SEINE::CE_JOHNSON
    
    I do not disagree with your description of your conversion experience.
    The feelings you had were very valid spiritual feelings. As I stated
    before, I do not believe a 'burning' feeling is the *only* kind of
    spiritual answer. It is only *one* kind of answer from God. 
    
>  I also don't understand how I can
>  be an apostate if I love Jesus Christ with my whole being. In other
>  words, if I never feel prompted to join the Mormon Church will I
>  be saved?                         
    
    I don't think anyone would refer to *you* as an 'apostate', but rather
    a reference was made in an earlier note to 'apostate churches'. The
    people in the churches may not be apostate people, but may have a
    sincere love of Jesus Christ, and desire to follow Him. 
    
    You ask about salvation. *If* God really did command Joseph Smith to
    restore *His* church, then it would be important to know what that
    church teaches about salvation and what is meant by salvation. When we
    speak of salvation, we speak of receiving the reward of eternal life in
    God's presence, after this life. 
                                    
    To receive this reward, we believe that one must do more than simply
    acknowledge Jesus Christ as one's savior, although that is certainly
    *part* of what is needed. One must enter in at the strait gate (baptism
    by one having authority) and then remain on the narrow path (by
    enduring to the end of one's life in faithfulness to the commandments
    of Jesus Christ). 
    
    We believe the only way to be baptized by one having proper authority
    at the present time is in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
    Saints. It is up to each person to determine for himself if that claim
    is really true. 
    
    Witnessing of Christ,
    Rich

    P.S. There is a whole topic on this question of how to determine
    if these things are true, topic 51.

    51  RIPPLE::KOTTERRI     12-FEB-1988    18  Are These Things True?
        RIPPLE::KOTTERRI     19-FEB-1988   51.1  Seek, and ye shall find
        RIPPLE::KOTTERRI     20-FEB-1988   51.2  God Gives Liberally
        RIPPLE::KOTTERRI     20-FEB-1988   51.3  Trial of Our Faith
        RIPPLE::KOTTERRI     24-FEB-1988   51.4  Persevere!
        RIPPLE::KOTTERRI     24-FEB-1988   51.5  We must be in harmony
        RIPPLE::KOTTERRI     24-FEB-1988   51.6  Summary
        RIPPLE::KOTTERRI     24-FEB-1988   51.7  Witness of the Spirit
        MDVAX1::DULL         24-FEB-1988   51.8  Pray with Real Intent
        RIPPLE::KOTTERRI     24-FEB-1988   51.9  Is it not so?
        SLSTRN::RONDINA      25-FEB-1988   51.10  Knowing and Feeling
        ECADSR::SHERMAN      25-FEB-1988   51.11  I prefer to UNDERSTAND first, too ...
        RIPPLE::KOTTERRI     25-FEB-1988   51.12  A Rational Theology
        TOPCAT::ALLEN        25-FEB-1988   51.13  
          FAST::LEIGH        25-FEB-1988   51.14  Let's use note 39
        RIPPLE::KOTTERRI     28-FEB-1988   51.15  To Know for Yourself
        RIPPLE::KOTTERRI      8-MAR-1988   51.16  Be thou humble
        RIPPLE::KOTTERRI      8-MAR-1988   51.17  If your eye be single
        RIPPLE::KOTTERRI     16-AUG-1988   51.18  Real Intent

re: .14


The assertion that the Mormon church has contradictions that have
weak explanations is in my opinion a weak assertion at best.  The population 
of the Church tends to be among the most educated and are encouraged to test
all teachings for logical and spiritual soundness (search it out in
your heart and your mind).  I believe it highly unlikely that such a
population of educated people encouraged to put the teachings to constant
testing would not have come to such a conclusion long ago if this assertion
had credence.  In addition, experience has shown that those who are soundly 
and logically rebuffed after asserting that the Church is not true because 
of detected anomalies seldom retract their assertions.  So, if this 
assertion is made on the basis that critics of the Church continue to draw
attention to the same 'contradictions', then it is the result of faulty logic
and lack of research.  If one wants to find stronger explanations of 
apparent contradictions in the Church the chances are very good that
these explanations can be found within the writings of the leaders of 
the Church.  This is because much has been researched and written and 
because it is seldom that any critic of the Church comes up with something new.


Steve

    Re: Note 118.18 by CASV02::PRESTON 
    
    Hi Ed,
    
>Your reasoning is good, but I agree only partially with your answer,
>since you went a little too far and left God out of the picture. My
>question still assumes God is there, and He *could* give guidance, ie, 
>a warm or cold feeling, something else, or none at all. Let's just assume
>that He would give a feeling as guidance in this case. 
>
>With this in mind, let me ask again: If the LDS Church *is* false, what
>kind of feeling would you expect God to give? Also, what feeling would Satan 
>give?
    
    These are the questions I think you are asking:
    
    1) Suppose that God can and does answer questions on the truthfulness
    of things. Also suppose that the answer to the truth of a thing is that
    it is false. What would the answer be like, and how would one recognize
    a negative answer? 
    
    2) Suppose that Satan can attempt to answer questions asked of God
    about the truthfulness of things. Also suppose that the thing being
    asked about is false. What would the answer be like, and how would one
    recognize Satan's answer. 

    Question 1:
    
    God can and will answer questions in many ways, as has been said.
    However, *one* way that Latter-day Saints believe that such a question
    may be answered is as follows. We believe that those who will approach
    God with such a question carry a degree of responsibility. This
    responsibility includes making one's own best effort to search out the
    truth of a thing using his own capacities first. 'Study it out', if you
    will. To ask God frivolously, without any personal effort, is an
    example of 'faith without works', which is dead. Once you have done
    your best to come up with what you think is the correct answer, then
    ask God if your conclusion is correct. 
    
    In the case of the truthfulness of the LDS Church, the first thing we
    tell members and non-members alike to do is to read the Book of Mormon,
    sincerely wanting to know if it is true or not. Ponder it's teachings.
    Search your heart to see if what is there feels true. See if it bears a
    true witness of Jesus Christ and His gospel. If it feels true, then ask
    God, in the name of Jesus Christ if it is true, with faith, believing
    that He can answer. 
    
    If the answer is that your conclusion is correct, then there will come
    a strong personal confirmation that is undeniable. You will know that
    it is true. You will know that the answer is from God. It will come by
    the power of the Holy Ghost. This is what I have felt.
    
    If the answer is that your conclusion is incorrect, then there will be
    no such feeling. There will be stupor of thought, a feeling of
    confusion. This could also mean that you have not done your part, and
    you need to spend more time searching it out. At times I have also felt
    this. 
    
    Now let's say that you search out a thing, and come to a conclusion
    that it is not true. You then ask God, in the name of Jesus Christ,
    having faith, if your conclusion is correct. If it's actually not true,
    then God would send a confirmation that your conclusion is correct,
    that the thing is not true. You will then know that such a thing should
    not be accepted as truth. I have felt this, too. 
    
    Question 2:

    Your question assumes that Satan has the power to answer questions put
    to God in prayer. *If* a person has asked God, the Eternal Father, in
    the name of Christ, having faith in Christ, then I do not believe that
    Satan has any power to answer such a prayer. God has commanded us to
    pray, and has promised: 'Ask and ye shall receive'. Does it make sense
    that He would allow Satan to answer prayers to God? 
    
    I believe Satan does have power to try to come afterward, trying to
    confuse the answer. Consider the parable of the sower: 
                                               
         And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown;
         but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and
         taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts. (Mark
         4:15) 
         
    This is what I think may have happened in Leza's case. She got what
    sounded to me like a confirmation from the Spirit in answer to her
    question -- the Spirit filled her bosom with warmth. Then Satan caused
    her to question the feelings she had from the Spirit, and replaced them
    with feelings of cold and doubt. Let me hasten to say that I do not
    know for sure what Leza felt, but only what she has said about it. 
    
    I believe Satan can try to deceive in many ways. He will intermix truth
    with error, so as to make his counterfeit appear to be true. We must be
    wary of such deception, and constantly compare the answers that we feel
    we are getting to the words of the apostles and prophets. If we stay
    close to the scriptures, we will be able to recognize those things that
    appear to contradict them. We must then carefully search out the truth
    of such apparent contradictions, if they occur, to see if we have not
    understood the scriptures or if we have not understood God's answers to
    our questions. 
    
    We must also be trying to live in harmony with the scriptures, if we
    hope to receive God's spirit. I do not believe that a person who is not
    willing to repent will be able to receive truth from the Spirit, and
    will be more easily deceived by Satan. 

    Rich

<>With this in mind, let me ask again: If the LDS Church *is* false, what
>kind of feeling would you expect God to give? 

These are really good questions!  :-)  I agree with you that others would 
benefit by responding to these.  It's a good thought experiment.  I'll
answer for me based on the assumption that D.C. 8 and 9 are true.

I would expect to remain in a stupor of thought in response to a query as to 
whether the (false) Church is true.  I would experience 'burning in the bosom' 
in response to a query as to whether the (false) Church is false.  Note that 
according to D.C. 9:8, the Lord instills the 'burning in the bosom', and in 9:9
one is left in a stupor of thought if no affirmative answer is given.  In 
other words, without the Lord one is left in stupor of thought (a default
state).

>Also, what feeling would Satan give?

I think that if Satan could give a 'burning in the bosom' feeling, he would
do it when I asked if the (false) Church was true.

Now, according to these answers, if God lives, He will give me a 'burning in
the bosom' when I ask if the (false) Church is false, and if Satan lives he
will give me a 'burning in the bosom' when I ask if the (false) Chruch is 
true.  So, I will always get a 'burning in the bosom' in this hypothetical 
situation or I will never get it (since either the Lord and Satan both exist, 
or neither one exists).

The reality is that the 'burning in the bosom' occurs only when I ask if the
Church is true and it does not occur when I ask if it is false.  So, SOMEBODY 
is NOT giving me a 'burning in the bosom'.  Who is it?  The Lord or Satan?

Well, I notice that when I study the scriptures, pray, go to church, render
unselfish service and do things associated with a Christ-like life, I 
experience this same 'burning in the bosom'.  So, whoever is doing this is 
encouraging me to lead a Christ-like life.  This is contrary to the purposes 
of Satan, so it must be the Lord that causes these feelings.  It must therefore
also be that Satan does not cause these feelings.


Steve

   I'm glad that there seems to be so much interest in this topic...

   I just realized, however, that I could have saved some effort on 
   everyone's part by preserving the context in which I originally thought 
   up my question. The whole thing came about when someone claimed that Leza 
   'missed the boat' as it were, because her first witness (warm feeling,
   etc) was actually from God, the second, cold feeling, being from 
   Satan, and mis-interpreted by her.

   Just to preserve the focus of the discussion, and hopefully lead to some
   final conclusions, (and at the risk of belaboring the issue) I want to
   re-state in the simplest way possible teh question I really had in mind
   but didn't state explicitly: 

   "In the context of Leza's experience, assuming both God and Satan 'spoke'
   to her, *if* the LDS church is false, then which of the feelings she
   experienced was from God and which was from Satan?" 

   Ed

   P.S. For those who feel that they have already addressed this "who gave 
   what" question, please consider this just a clarification. Everybody 
   else, though, just for the sake of the discussion, tell me, who gave 
   which feeling to Leza?

    Re: 118.24 by CASV05::PRESTON 
    
    Ah! It always gets tougher when you have to get down to specifics,
    doesn't it! :^)
    
    My view? Such experiences are personal. Only Leza can be the accurate
    judge of the feelings she felt and who she thinks were the respective
    sources. Only I can be the judge of the answers that I claim to
    have received. Each person must apply the test himself and see if
    God will reveal to him or her personally the truth of such things.
    
    Having said that, based on my own experience base and the brief
    description that Leza gave of her experiences and my perception of
    them, (disclaimer, disclaimer, ad nauseum) I would say that she began
    to feel the warm confirmation of the Holy Ghost of the truthfulness of
    what she was asking about, and then, afterwards, Satan filled her with
    doubts and the cold sensation she spoke of, causing her to reject
    the original confirming feeling.
    
    Another disclaimer: It is not my right or intention to judge Leza
    in any way by these comments. That is between her and God, just
    as my judgement is between me and God.
                                    
    Rich

    II Corinthians 11 14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed
    into an angel of light. 

    Just because there was a warm feeling does not mean that it came from
    the HOLY SPIRIT.  Satan could have given her that feeling also. 

				Doing all for Christ Glory
    						Rob

    to Preston:
    
    Question:  Who gave Leza which feeling?
    
    My answer is similar to others:  Cold and shakes, IN MY EXPERIENCE,
    do not come from God.  RATHER, peace, comfort, calm, A FEELING OF
    WARMTH/WELL BEING, revelations/inspirations of understanding/knowledge,
    IN MY EXPERIENCE, are what I receive in answer to prayer.
    
    It is not for me to say whether Leza had her answer to her a prayer.
     I do not know her heart.
    
    I say this because I had a very good friend study Mormonism and
    ask to know of its truthfulness or not.  He told me that he had
    been told in answer to prayer that it was not true.  I was shattered
    because he SEEMED to be so sincere in his request.
    
    LATER, he confided in me that he wanted to be  Lutheran minister
    and that nothing would stand in his way of realizing this dream.
    Discovering the real "truth" about Mormonism would have gotten in
    his way.  Thus, how sincere was he?  His bias would allow only one
    answer.  So his answer was entirely consistent his bias.
    
    Does Leza have any biases?  What are they?  How strongly is she holding
    onto them?  Are these clouding her objectivity for discerning truth?
     ONLY SHE CAN ANSWER THESE QUESIONS?
    
    As for me, I respect the "burning bosom" principle and on occasions
    have had such a feeling.  BUT AS SAID, this method is only one of
    many ways for receiving a communication from God.  Generally speaking,
    my answers do not come from this method.
    
    Paul
                                                      

    RE: .27
    
    Hi Paul,
    
    So if I understand you correctly, the 'burning bosom' test is not
    an iron-clad indicator of the Holy Spirit's prompting. Is this correct?
    For instance, it may have only been given to Joseph Smith as an
    answer to his request and may or may not have universal application.
    Or did I miss something?
    
    Charlie

    Seconding what has been said that the only person that can judge
    the meaning of a spiritual experience is the person that recieved
    it. (and God too of course). Hence anything we say about another's
    experience is really just conjecture of what we think we might have
    believed if we were in that situation. If it has any value at all
    it is as a means to communicate our own experiences to others by
    means of projecting our experiences to apply to what is actually
    to us an hypothetical situation (obviously the actual situation
    is not hypothetical to the person that experienced it, but rather
    non-participants projections and prognosises are hypothetical).
    
    In that light I would also like to add, I sincerly believe that
    "Burning in the bosom" is a very real and effective means of recieving
    communication from God, especially as a means of confirming an analysis
    that one has made. Yet, this approach is still subject to
    misinterpretation. For myself, if I have a doubt as to the
    interpretation of such an experience, I present, in prayer, the
    issues as questions and look for the feeling/answer that comes with
    each to try to more acurately understand what is being communicated
    to me. 
    
    So If I were to recieve a feeling of warmth followed by a feeling
    of cold and insecurity, I would not consider that a definitive answer,
    but would actively persue an answer that I could consider less
    ambiguous.
    
    By the way, I also firmly believe in preparing oneself emotionally
    and spiritually before asking for an answer from God. Emotionally
    to be able to accept whatever answer one might get, and spiritually
    to be "in tune" with God.
    
    I also believe that one can live one's life so as to have a warm,
    reassuring feeling in one's heart most or all of the time. I have
    achieved it on occasion, but get so caught up in all my own worries
    and concerns that I can't normally maintain it for more than a day
    at a time.
    
    In summary, I believe above all that inspiration is a very personal
    matter, between one and one's "higher power". That if an individual
    continues to seek guidance from "on high" and to respond to it,
    that individual will get what is best for them. Conceptually one
    could be responding to "the wrong source" but I believe that if
    one honestly seeks God, that any deception from Satan will be temporary
    in God's scale of time.
    
    Your Brother,
    Len
    

    re: 28
    
    No the "burning" is not "Iron Clad" nor is any form of communication
    to or among this imperfect thing called a mortal person. Nor is
    is the only way. 
    
    I personally do find it quite useful and use it very often (typically
    more than once a day).
    
    Your Brother
    
    Len
    

    
    I have no doubt that Satan was the "COLD" and God the "WARMTH".
    
    SATAN is evil,hence darkness and cold,piercing cold,like a windy
    cold day.
    
    I believe if the answer from God was NO,then,there would be no feeling
    either way.
    
    Peace
    Michael
    

    to Charlie in .27
    
    You asked if the "burning bosom" was an iron clad indicator of a
    prompting from the Holy Spirit.  No, the burning bosom is not a
    prompting from the Holy Spirit.  It is an indicator of having received
    a message from God in response to an inquiry.
    
    Before we go any further, let me
    give you the whole text of this scripture as found in the Doctrine
    & Covenants 9:7-9.  This revelation was given to Oliver Cowdery,
    Joseph Smith's scribe for the writing of the Book of Mormon.  I
    believe Oliver was upset that he did not have the gift of translating
    as did Joseph.
    
    Verse 3:  Be patient my son (Oliver), for it is wisdom in me, and
    it is not expedient that you should translate at this present time.
    
    Verse 4: Behold the work which you are called to do is to write
    for my servant Joseph.
    
    NOW THE IMPORTANT VERSES: 7-9
    
    7.  Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would
    give it to you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.
    
    8.  But, behold I say unto you, that you must study it out in your
    mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and it is right I will
    cause that yu bosom shall burn within you;  therefore you shall
    feel that it is right.
    
    9.  But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but
    yu shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget
    the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which
    is sacred save it be given you  from me.
    
    10.  Now, if you had known this you could have translated; nevertheless,
    it is not expedient that you should translate now.
    
    AS YOU CAN SEE, the revelation/message was directed to Oliver in
    response to his desire to translate.  SO, one could then say that
    the burning bosom/stupor of thought answer was only for that specific
    situation.
    
    BUT, behind this revelation is something very key to Mormon philosophy,
    which is before approaching God for an answer we have to do our
    homework, i.e. study it out, ponder, search, question, analyse,
    come to a conclusion.  Then, after using our own faculties for
    searching and decision making, bring our decision to the Lord and
    ask for either his approval or not.
    
    So the D&C scripture mentions THE METHOD FOR OLIVER COWDERY TO USE
    TO TRANSLATE, BUT IS A "TYPE" (FORMAT) FOR OTHER INQUIRIES TO THE
    LORD.
    
    Now as you may or may not know, one of the central principles of
    the Gospel (and one held very dear by Mormons) is that of continuous
    revelation from God at the individual level.  Thus, the burning
    bosom process is only ONE of MANY ways to know/understand a
    communication from GOD.  Others can include insights, understandings,
    knowledge, through scripture study, dreams, promptings of the Holy
    Ghost, feelings of rigthness/goodness, still small voice, conscience,
    and on and on.
    
    So the burning bosom is for me a process I use to ask God about
    a decision I have made.  IN MOST CASES, I receive a "feeling that
    it is right" rather than that "my bosom shall burn within me". 
    If I do receive a burning bosom feeling (which is a literal burning
    in my chest/sternum area), as a result of asking the Lord about
    a decision I have made, I will also get a "feeling that it (the
    decision) is right.
    
    This is a very long note.  But I hope I have answered your question.
    
    
    Paul
    
                                         
    	

Ed, You asked us to answer the question, *if* the LDS Church is false,
which of the feelings Leza experienced is from God and which is from Satan.
Here are my thoughts.

If I felt the LDS Church were false, as a Christian, and assuming there was
no other Church that claimed modern revelation and scripture in addition to
the Bible, I would thus turn to the Bible to try and determine how people in
New Testament times recognized answers to prayer.  Here are some initial ideas
from Biblical scripture that I would consider.  I haven't made an exhaustive
study of this topic, and I hope others will post replies giving additional
Biblical examples of people recognizing answers to prayer.

    Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we
    gave them reverence:  shall we not much rather be in subjection unto
    the Father of Spirits and live?  (Hebrews 12:9)

From this verse, I would learn that God is in fact my father, that the term
"Father" which Christ told us to use in prayer to God is a literal term.

    But there is a spirit in man:  and the inspiration of the Almighty
    giveth them understanding.  (Job 32:8)

From this I would learn that my spirit has intelligence and can learn from
God.  This makes sense if we realize that God is the father of our spirits.

    The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the
    children of God:  (Romans 8:16)

This verse would help me learn that the "understanding" which I can receive
from the inspiration of God comes through the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost,
and that the Holy Spirit can communicate with my spirit and bear witness or
testimony to me.

    But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God:  for
    they are foolishness unto him:  neither can he know them, because they
    are spiritually discerned.  (1 Corinthians 2:14)

This verse would help me realize that knowledge of God comes through
spiritual discernment, a reinforcement of the previous scriptures.

These verses have established the Biblical concept that our spirits are
intelligent and receive understanding and testimony from the Holy Spirit.
Next, I would search the Bible for knowledge of how I as a mortal man who
learns via my physical senses can recognize when the Holy Spirit has given
me understanding and testimony.

    And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and
    blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.

    And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of
    their sight.

    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?
    (Luke 24:30-32)

This story has been referred to in previous replies to this note.  The two
disciples experienced a warm feeling in their body as they realized that
they had been talking with the resurrected Christ.  The phrase "their eyes
were opened" indicates that their realization that Christ had been with
them was not something which they deduced logically but was something that
was given to them.  Those verses do not say explicitly that the Holy Spirit
was the one who "opened" their eyes, but I believe that was the case.

    Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said
    unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, men and brethren, what
    shall we do?

    Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in
    the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall
    receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.  (Acts 2:36-38)

The people heard Peter and had a feeling in their bosom which was described
as a "pricking" of their heart, and they knew that what Peter had said was
true.

Paul talked of the feelings we have when we are enveloped with the Holy
Spirit.

    For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and
    peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.  (Romans 14:17)

Jesus taught.

    But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the father will send
    in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your
    remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

    Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you:  not as the world
    giveth, give I unto you.  Let not your heart be troubled, neither let
    it be afraid.  (John 14:26-27)

Peace of mind is a great sign of spiritual communication from the Holy
Spirit, not only for the solving of problems but also for witnesses of
truth.  Joy is another sign of communication with the Holy Spirit.

As mortals, we are limited to using our physical senses in learning and
understanding.  Even though our spirit can have direct communication with
the Holy Spirit, we can not directly recognize that communication.  In some
way, that communication must be translated such that our physical senses
can recognize and understand the information.  Apparently, the Lord uses
warmth, joy, and peace as ways for us to recognize spiritual communication.

I would answer your question, Ed, that when Leza experienced a warm feeling
as she studied and prayed about the LDS Church those feelings came from
God.  I don't recall any Biblical teachings that God gives cold feelings
and the shakes in answer to prayers, and I would deduce that those came
from Satan.  However, this is a personal matter between her and God, and I
am not trying to judge her relationship with Him.

If others believe that the Bible does teach that God does give cold
feelings, I would appreciate their posting the appropriate scriptures so
that we may study them.  As I mentioned at the beginning of this reply, I
have not made an exhaustive study of this topic.

Allen

  We can also read in the Bible in Galatians.

	Galatians 5:22-23

	  But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering,
        gentlness, goodness, faith       Meekness, temperance: 


	
  I do not associate cold, shiverings, etc. with love and joy and peace and
  gentleness.  Usually these feelings are associated with "warmth" and "good-
  feelings".

CHad

The original purpose in asking my hypothetical question was twofold -
one, to stimulate some thinking, and two, to see if anyone in this
conference would/could simply say that if Mormonism is false, then *any*
postive witness to its truth would be a lie itself, and that anyone
following such a lie would of course open the door to further deception. 
Some came closer than others to this, but none really said it.

There are numerous replies that go into great detail while actually never
directly addressing the simple question. Very little has been said that I
really disagree with, but nonetheless, the main thrust of the question
*seems* to have been sidestepped, altered, or avoided altogeter. 

Certainly if Mormonism *is* false, and one has made up their mind (as so
many in this conference apparently have) that God gives only nice
feelings and Satan only bad ones, then, even if someone is seeking the
truth about Mormonism, God cannot even warn them away, because by
definition He only gives positive leadings. He cannot even flash a
'danger, keep away' signal, because that would be interpreted as being from
Satan. In addition, it is a little unnerving to see just how many trust 
their sincerity to somehow save them from deception. Nothing could be 
further from the truth - Satan is more than capable of deceiving 
sincerely willing people, and in all manner if appealing ways. (See II 
Cor. 11:14-15)

If you actively seek guidance from the wrong source, you will surely be
accomodated. No matter how good-hearted and sincere you may be,
especially if you are trusting some kind of inner feelings to lead you, it is
possible to be mislead and be sincerely *wrong*. I am surprised at how
difficult this is for some people to realize. 

This is not an attack on Mormonism as much as it is a commentary on the
'religious rationale' back of it. If anyone can correct my impressions of
your thinking, please do so. I honestly think that some of you would be
quite easy to deceive, if only the deceiver were capable of providing you
with warm, positive feelings and just enough plausibility to keep you
mentally comfortable with your decision. A little group/peer pressure 
would help, too.

Some may think that I am attempting to negate the principle of personal
divine revelation, or confine it to something entirely calculating and
objective. Not at all. I am attempting to construct a case for the need 
of an objective standard for measuring truth, which I do not find in 
Mormonism. I do see a self-contained system of 'truth' that is consistent 
within its own assumptions, which, as near as I am able to determine, are 
based only on 'testimony' and specious parallel 'evidence'.

I know these are not flattering things to say, but so far I think I am
correct. If you do have an objective standard for measuring truth, please
tell me what it is. 

Ed
    

    To Preston:
    
     If Mormonism is false, then let someone come forward and present
    the rational, "objective" evidence you want to show its "falseness".
    
    That no one has been able to do this (Leza tried with her "cold
    shakes" and we all pretty much decided that her cold shakes were
    not from God) in the 20 years I have been a member tells me that
    proving the falseness of Mormonism by witness from God is not possible
    (therefore it must be true).
    
    In abandoning my previous Church, I am now, by their standards,
    condemned to hell. I have taken much time to prove, study, investigate
    Mormonism and do not take lightly any new information that might
    put a suspicious light on it.  So far, those trying to prove its
    falseness usually are either apostate Mormons with an axe to grind
    (usually from some bitterness in their hearts), or IN MY EXPERIENCE,
    other over zealous religious types who have a lot of biases and
    prejudices, and are not open enough to even study it.  Mormonism,
    unlike other Christian faiths, does not have this quantam leap of
    faith (give it to Jesus and he will take care of it), rather it
    asks the person to study, ponder, investigate, prove all things,
    with a SINCERE heart. In effect, Mormonism puts a lot of burden
    on the person to develop their own testimony.
                                                                    
    If you are trying to prove Mormonism by using Traditional Christianity,
    i.e. that which remains after 2000 years of political, cultural,
    philosophical, and theological pressures, you will always come up
    empty handed (as your note so clearly evidences).  My proof came
    after a visit to Rome and the Vatican (in search of a spiritual
    renewal) when I let all of my preconceived ideas and prejudices
    fall, and became truly open and receptive to divine guidance.  When
    I came to the Lord as a child simply asking to know where to find
    him and his Word, then and only then (it took me 14 years of searching)
    did I find his truth.
    
    I hope this answers your primary question.  Proving the falseness
    of Mormonism by a) a revelation from God  is, in my opinion, not
    possible; b)using an objective standard (like traditional Christian
    thought) is also not possible.
    
    
    Best regards,
    
    Paul
    

    Re: Note 118.35 by CASV05::PRESTON

    Hi Ed,
    
    You certainly do ask some thought provoking questions.
    
>If you do have an objective standard for measuring truth, please
>tell me what it is. 

    To one who has not experienced the powerful witness of the Holy Ghost
    bearing witness to the truth, it *would* appear that the beliefs of the
    Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are based merely on 'nice
    feelings'. But part of the problem here is in trying to describe
    something that is a very intensely personal experience. 
    
    How would you describe the taste of cherry pie to one who does not have
    the sense of taste? How would you describe the beauty of a rainbow to
    one who has never had sight? How would you describe the smell of
    freshly baked bread to one who has never smelled? These are very real
    experiences that are experienced by one's senses. 
    
    The testimony of the Holy Ghost is not felt by our natural senses, but
    rather by communication from the Holy Ghost to our own spirit. It is
    far more than just a 'good feeling', but rather a powerful witness. At
    times, it is stronger than at other times, and can even be over
    powering. It is very hard to describe in terms that sound very
    convincing to one who is skeptical. Even so, it is very real.  
    
    Now, the question can always be asked, 'but what if the witness is
    coming from Satan and not from God?'. Certainly God will not bear
    witness that a false thing is true, but it is possible that Satan could
    bear witness that that a true thing was true, or that a false thing was
    true, if it suited his purposes. 
    
    But the question goes beyond that. It also includes the question, if a
    person is praying to God in the name of Jesus Christ in faith for
    answers, does Satan have power to answer such a prayer and to deceive?
    The key here is 'in faith'. If one has put their faith in Jesus Christ,
    then I do not believe that Satan has power to answer such a prayer. If
    a person is just 'going through the motions', without being very
    sincere, then perhaps he or she is a candidate for deception. 
    
    In other words, Mormons take very seriously the injunction of Christ:
    'Ask and ye shall receive, knock and it shall be opened unto you, seek
    and ye shall find'. With all of our hearts we believe that God will
    keep this promise to those who seek truth. We ask no one to accept
    *our* word on the truthfulness of these things, but we ask all men to
    *seek* out the truth of it, and to *ask* God, who will reveal it to
    them in undeniable fashion. 
    
    Now, you have lamented the lack of 'objective' proofs of Mormonism, and
    have stated that Mormonism is a self contained system of 'truth'. In
    the first place, I think the witness of the Spirit can be a very
    objective test of truth. The witness of the Spirit may seem like a
    subjective experience, and in some ways it is, but in my opinion, it is
    far more reliable than any archaeological, historical, analytical, or
    logical evidence that can be constructed by man's feeble mind, since
    such revelation comes from God. 
    
    Man's theories and postulates are so easily swept aside by new
    discoveries that prove them false. For example, for many years, it was
    argued that the Book of Mormon must be false, since it asserts that
    there were horses in the Americas prior to Columbus. It was nearly
    universally accepted by learned men that this was not so. Not
    surprising to Mormons, however, have been more recent finds that prove
    horses predated the Spaniards in America. Other such example of
    science's sometimes false conclusions abound in history.
    
    Peter was able to say that Jesus was the Son of God, not because it had
    been told to him by any man, but because it had been revealed to him by
    God. In the same way, I can say that I have had many things revealed to
    me by God, including my own witness that Jesus is the Son of God, the
    truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and the fact that Joseph Smith was a
    prophet of God. 
    
    You ask for objective evidence, and I will give you some. If Mormonism
    is true, then it will not contradict God's revealed word as found in
    the Bible, and it does not. Christ said, 'by their fruits ye shall know
    [true prophets]', and I submit that the fruits of the Mormon prophets
    are there for all to see. 
    
    Eleven people bore witness that they saw and held the gold plates that
    were translated, and heard the voice of an angel bearing witness to the
    truthfulness of the book. Many people bore witness that they were
    present and beheld visions from God as they were revealed to Joseph
    Smith. The gifts of the Spirit, including healing, speaking in tongues,
    and prophesying and other miracles are evident in the Mormon church.
    The scriptures found in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and
    Pearl of Great Price bear powerful witness of Jesus Christ, and
    proclaim truths that are consistent with the Bible, and that will lead
    one to God. 
    
    Even Jesus gave an objective test of truth, when he said, 'If any man
    will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God,
    or whether I speak of myself'. We believe the same promise holds true
    in knowing if Mormonism is true. 
    
    None of these pieces of 'objective' evidence negates the need for faith
    in God, but rather to accept them, one must increase their faith in
    God. That is God's plan. He would have us develop faith in Him, and not
    put our complete trust in the reasoning of men. If you are looking for
    'proofs' that do not require faith, then you will probably not find
    them. But if you are willing to exercise your faith in God, then you
    can find the proofs you desire and beyond. 
    
    Perhaps we can understand your position even better if the question is
    turned around. What sort of 'objective' proof would you find
    acceptable? Does the same proof exist for 'traditional' Christianity,
    or are you asking for the same evidence there as well? 
    
    Witnessing of Christ,
    Rich
                                                          

Re .36
>  If Mormonism is false, then let someone come forward and present
> the rational, "objective" evidence you want to show its "falseness".
> 
> That no one has been able to do this (Leza tried with her "cold
> shakes" and we all pretty much decided that her cold shakes were
> not from God) in the 20 years I have been a member tells me that
> proving the falseness of Mormonism by witness from God is not possible
> (therefore it must be true).

Paul,

I'd find it easier to discuss things with you if you gave a little more
thought to your responses. First you say "let someone come forward and
present the rational, 'objective' evidence" to show Mormonism's
"falseness", and apply that to Leza'a admittedly *subjective* experience,
saying that she 'tried' thereby to 'prove' Mormonism false. She 'tried' no
such thing. She related her own personal, subjective experience with
spiritual feelings - that's all. Her earlier report, on the other hand,
*was* a presentation of evidence against the validity of Mormonism. Let's
keep a clear distiction between subjective and objective. 

> in the 20 years I have been a member tells me that proving the falseness
> of Mormonism by witness from God is not possible (therefore it must be
> true). 

Really? First we have established that *if* Mormonism is false, then no 
amount of 'witness from God' is going to make it true. The witness would
of course be from Satan, since only he gains by giving witness that false 
things are true. Therefore, *if* Mormonism is false, your 20 years of 
*false* witness proves nothing but that you have been deceived for 20 
years. Besides, I am not, as you seem to believe, attempting to prove 
that Mormonism is false by witness from God. I am trying to point out the 
error of "proving" the verity of anything by spiritual witness. I am 
trying to say that subjective, personal experience must be accountable to 
objective, provable evidence whenever appropriate. Mormons appear to take 
this too lightly, in spite of all that's been said about studying, 
investigating, etc.

> If you are trying to prove Mormonism by using Traditional Christianity,
> i.e. that which remains after 2000 years of political, cultural,
> philosophical, and theological pressures, you will always come up
> empty handed (as your note so clearly evidences). 

I really don't understand that last statement about my note. What does it
"clearly evidence"? I have used nothing of "Traditional Christianity" 
(whatever that is) in my notes, nor do I plan to. Please explain, if you 
think the point is worth making.

> Mormonism, unlike other Christian faiths, does not have this quantam leap
> of faith (give it to Jesus and he will take care of it). 

Please explain, too, what you mean by 'quantum leap of faith'.

> Proving the falseness of Mormonism by a) a revelation from God is, in my
> opinion, not possible; b)using an objective standard (like traditional
> Christian thought) is also not possible. 

I agree with (a), yet I'll take it a bit further. Proving the truth of 
Mormonism by a direct revelation from (?) is not possible, either. And 
I disagree with (b). If you have the right objective standard, you *can* 
make a strong case for accepting or rejecting Mormonism.

If you have decided that it is simply not possible for any objective
evidence to cause you to question the validity of your beliefs, then you
have made a 'quantum leap' of faith of your own, a much bigger one than
'give it to Jesus and He will take care of it.'

Ed

P.S. As soon as we've exercised this point well enough, I'll get to my 
own idea of an objective standard. 

    To Preston:
    
    I guess I really left a lot unsaid, and your questions are good
    ones.  Let me see if I can clarify what I meant.  Remember your
    original question asked about proving the falseness of Mormonism
    through a revelation from God.
    
    Here goes:
    
    1. The rational evidence statement was a call for somewone to do
       just what you asked, i.e. come forward and do so.
    
    2. My statement about Leza was parenthetical.  I meant that we had
    pretty much discussed the source of her "shakes" and had come to
    a conclusion about its source.
    
    3. My 20 years experience as a Member is related to having seen,
    heard, or read of attempts to dispute Mormonism and having seen
    them pretty much discounted.  See Allen Leigh's notes and explanations
    to Leza's and other's attempts  to present information which
    at first seems to dispute Mormonism, but when put into context,
    does not dispute it at all.
    
    4. The quantum leap of faith I mentioned refers to MY EXPERIENCE
    with religious persons who "let go", "give everything to Jesus",
    in one giant gesture of supreme faith that he will handle it.  This
    leap is not wrong, no on the contrary!  What I meant is that a testimony
    of Mormonism is usually received in a different manner, by DILIGENT
    study, searching, pondering, questionning, FAITH IN A GOD THAT HE
    WILL ANSWER, and an ability to put aside BIASES and really seek
    HIS TRUTH, EVEN IF THAT TRUTH MAY SEEM APARENTLY DIFFERENT FROM
    CONVENTIONAL DOCTRINES.
    
    I like your statement that "personal experience must be accountable
    to objective, provable evidence, whenever appropriate.  I agree!
    That is why I mentioned that I often question and study to understand
    more about the Restored Gospel since "my personal experience" with
    Mormonism is measured against an excommunicated/damned state as
    determined by my previous religion. 
    
    Are you asking for proofs of Mormonism's trueness to come through
    the 2000 year filter that Christianity has passed?  (Example Mormons
    do not accept the Triune God doctrine (3 in 1), neither did First
    and Second Century Christians.  Current Christians do.  Therefore,
    I think that  the provable evidence you would want would require 
    Mormonism to somehow comply with this doctrine (as well as other
    Traditional Christian Beliefs). Is that correct?
    
    If that is what you would want, namely for Mormonism to comply with
    Traditional Doctrines, to "prove its trueness".  Then, that will
    never happen. For Jesus told Joseph that his teachings had been
    changed and corrupted over the years and for the last time Jesus
    would re-establish the truth.
    
    
    As previous notes have explained.  Mormonism is  the Restored Church
    of Jesus Christ, the original one having been changed and distored
    throughout history.  Therefore, one cannot try to prove Mormonism
    by comparing it to the changed/distorted version of Christianity
    that I believe we have in the 20th Century. 
    
    You agree with my statement that "proving the falseness of Mormonism
    by a revelation from (?) God is not possible."  Then, do you mean
    that one can ONLY  prove its trueness by a revelation from God? 
    If so, then that would mean the only answer God could give about
    Mormonism is that it is true.
    
    Yet, you say "Proving the truth of Mormonism by a direct revelation
    from God is not possible".  I am confused.  
                      
    TO THE MODERATORS:  HAVE I WANDERED OFF THE SUBJECT?
    
    PAUL
            

	I would submit that Latter-Day Saints consider the standard
	works of the Church to be the "objective standard" by which
	we can measure truth.  We are taught that all things we teach
	should be found in the scriptures; that they are to be used
	daily as the source of our spiritual understanding.

	Of course, our reliance on the standard works (the Bible,
	Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price)
	as a truthful source is based on faith.  We may be able to verify
	the historical aspects of the different works, but that says
	nothing about the theological doctrines taught therein.  A belief
	in the doctrines that these works teach must come from an outside
	source.

	It is conceivable that in its theological doctrines, the Bible, or
	the Book of Mormon, etc., could teach false doctrine.  Perhaps the
	claims of the Wiccans are correct, for example, and that the only
	value of the Bible, etc., is for its historical truths.  The only
	way to determine if the written word is correct is to gain a testimony
	from God that this is so.

	Latter-Day Saints claim to have such a testimony from the Lord
	regarding the standard works of the church.

  I would like to point out that it is impossible to prove that the
  Book of Mormon is false as pertains to spiritual matters without
  divine help.  The same is true of the Bible.  The same process of
  gaining a testimony of the Book of Mormon must be applied to the Bible 
  also or else those people are fooling themselves.

  More later.

Chad

  RE:< Note 118.42 by NORGE::CHAD >

>  I would like to point out that it is impossible to prove that the
>  Book of Mormon is false as pertains to spiritual matters without
>  divine help.  

    It depends upon how you judge what is true. If the Book of Mormon (or the
    Bible for that matter) were to state that Jesus drove from place to
    place in a corvette, would you have problems believing that the book
    was true?   I think you would still believe it was true anyway,
    wouldn't you.  The fact of the matter is, that you want to believe it
    is true, and that is why you believe that it is true. 

    To Chad in 118.43
    
    You say that "You want to  believe it is true that is why you believe
    it is true".
    
    Interesting thought, but in my seeking to learn of the truth of
    the Book of Mormon, I decided it wasnot true at first.  When I first
    came in contact with Mormonism, I decided that it was just too
    different from what I understood Christianity to be, and only had
    a mild intellectual interest in Mormonism. Through a series of events
    I had to shed this prejudice and bias against it before I could
    even judge it objectively. ONLY AFTER I let these biases fall was
    I able to approach God with the question if it was true or not.
    
    Perhaps the reverse of your statement is also true.  "If one approaches
    the Book of Mormon (or Mormonism) with a belief/expectation of it
    to be false, then you will believe it is false." 
    
    Note:  I hate the words false and true when applied to religious
    doctrines/beliefs because it seems harsh to say to someone that
    they believe in a FALSE RELIGION.  While INTREPRETATIONS MAY BE
    ERRONEOUS AND THUS ARRIVE AT STRANGE DOCTRINES, the sincere and
    faithful adherent believes their religion is true for them.
    
    (For example: My mother was a sincere, faithful member of the Church
    of Rome, a Church, IN MY OPINION, which has some erroneous
    interpretations of scripture.  Yet, for my mother her religion worked
    for her and was TRUE for her.  For me to say to her that she belonged
    to A FALSE CHURCH, seemed harsh and hurtful.)
    
     What I am trying to say through all this is that one's approach
    or motivation for receiving a testimony of the Restored Gospel (another
    name Mormons use for our religious beliefs) is probably the determining
    factor for a reception of a testimony of its truthfulness.  If one
    starts out with "It is not true, and nothing will convince me
    otherwise", then I would say that such a person would get just what
    they expected - no witness of its truthfulness.  If one starts from
    a position of openness and teachability to/by the Holy Spirit, then
    it is LIKELY they would get the witness they seek.  ( Remember
    my previous note about my friend who wanted to be a Lutheran minister)
    
    I seem to have wandered back to the question of how to prove the
    Book of MOrmon's truthfulness.  Perhaps we should return to the
    intent of this note which is PROMPTINGS OF THE HOLY GHOST.
    
    Regards to one and all,
    
    paul
    

    Oops!  I just re-read my 118.44.  I said it was for CHAD.  Wrong!
    It was really meant for RINESMITH in 118.43.
    
    To err is human, etc.
    
    Humanly yours,
    
    Paul     

    re .43
    
    I realize that this is off the subject but can't rsist a quick comment.
    
    The reference to a corvette obviously is to suggest that the truth
    of a historical document can be judged on the consistency of what
    that document says and what is currently believed about the time
    that it was written.  However I suggest that current belief about
    a time in the distant past is based on what documents and artifacts
    might have been preserved. Hence is subject to change over time,
    and certainly is not a *solid* proof of the validity of a document.
    
    Suppose that someone discovered, deep under Jerusalem, a chariot
    moderatly well preserved that had engraved in it's side "corvette
    chariot works inc.".......
    
    The real issue is learning from and about God. To do so, one must
    first allow the possibility that this entity (God) may exist, That
    (he/she/it) can communicate with mankind, that this communication
    could include "me", and that such communication might be able to
    be initiated by some action on "my" part.
    
    This set of concepts is something that can not be proven except
    by receiving such communication, and then the proof is only valid
    for the receipient. Anyone else can question the actual source of
    the communication. This then is what must be taken on "faith". There
    is simply no way to prove it through a science that only allows
    experienced based on the 5 senses.
    
    Once the basic assumptions are made, then the person might indeed
    recieve some form of communication, and that communication might
    include the indication that there are certain "manuals" to be accepted
    as if they came from this same godly entity. 
    
    How can the basic assumptions be made? Only by wanting to. If one
    wants to make those assumptions, then there are plenty of persons
    that will attest that for them those assumptions are valid. If one
    does not want to make those assumptions then of course the wittnesses
    of those persons are themselves invalid. One can then go on and
    argue the validity of many things, including whether or not there
    were corvettes in Jerusalem as about 0 AD. but in fact there is
    no strictly valid proof of any such things, and  most certainly
    not valid proof for or against the divinity of any person or thing
    through any standard "scientific" means.
    
    
    Or a different summary statement: Any Science can only validate
    things that are within the realm of that science. For example
    mathematics is a useful tool to model many things, but often a new
    form of math is needed to deal with a new science. Calculus is not
    well adapted to dealing with computer logic design, boolean algebra
    works much better, and neither has done well in explaining the
    intricacies of the human emotions.  Hence because present sciences
    do not deal well with matters of divinity says exactly nothing about
    whether or not they exist. Physicists have proposed the existence
    of an "anti-matter" that could not co-exist with the matter that
    we know. Does the fact that is was not proposed for many years mean
    that it did not exist? or does the fast that is is now concieved
    of and proposed mean that it exists? No, it either exists or does
    not exist and did so without regard to our human understanding,
    and will be proven only when there is some way to "observe" it.
    Similarly, spiritual and divine things either exist or do not exist
    and will be proven only as they are observed. That there might be
    a means of making those observations that is beyond the standard
    5 senses is perfectly plausible, and because some people are not
    aware of that sense, having never experienced it (or at least
    acknowledged such experience), does not make is any less true for
    those that have experienced it.
    
    in the end, religion is a purely personal matter, and will probably
    always remain so (for the duration of this mortal life at least).
    For me, I am as sure of spiritual communication as I am of any of
    my other 5 senses, and in fact a little bit more so. I do share
    with you all, my conviction that the Bible and the Book of Mormon
    are indeed communication from a divine source.
    
    your brother,
    Len
    
   
    
    

    
	Yes, these replies are getting a bit off the subject and may
    be digging a rathole...but let's not use that as an excuse for not
    addressing the questions.
    
    > However I suggest that current belief about a time in the distant past
    > is based on what documents and artifacts might have been preserved.
    > Hence is subject to change over time, and certainly is not a *solid*
    > proof of the validity of a document. 
    
		You are right about the *SOLID* proof, but what kind
    of proof is necessary.  The point is, that feelings are very, very
    very subjective.  Why do we need to ask God for a feeling, unless
    there is no other way to find out if something is true or not.
    
    As for my example, perhaps I should have said, 'went from place
    to place in a gasoline powered, six-cylinder automobile.'  Again, the
    point being, that you would believe the book to still be true, and
    that one day such a vehicle would be uncovered in archaeological
    digs.
    
    Answer me this - if, a new book, a book claiming to be Scripture, and
    the history of Massachusetts, and of Jesus visiting the people there,
    were to be discovered, how would you know if this book were real, or a
    phony? 
    

    > Similarly, spiritual and divine things either exist or do not exist
    > and will be proven only as they are observed. That there might be
    > a means of making those observations that is beyond the standard
    > 5 senses is perfectly plausible, and because some people are not
    > aware of that sense, having never experienced it (or at least
    > acknowledged such experience), does not make is any less true for
    > those that have experienced it.
    
	The Bible states that there will be 'lying signs and wonders'.
    People who are into the 'New Age Movement' see all sorts of
    supernatural things happen.  It is a religion.  I am not that
    familiar with it, but, as an example in meditation, you may be told
    to reach into your inner self, and you will raise out of you body,
    and you will see God.   Does it happen?  I believe that it is
    a 'lying sign and wonder'. 
    
    Can we put God to the test for a feeling? And if so what God do
    we pray to?  Is it the God of the Trinity.  Is it Jesus, a God,
    but not God Almighty?   Who, and how long do I wait for a feeling?
    Can I pray to feel it within a certain amount of time - say 15 minutes?
    

Re .45 Steve Sherman to Ed Preston:
>  C'mon, Ed.  Do you also feel that you want to believe the Book of Mormon 
>  is false and that this is why you believe it to be false?  And, that if 
>  something in the Book of Mormon is true you will believe it all to be 
>  false anyway?  

118.46 S. Sherman to R. Rinesmith:
> How about if we use the excuse of keeping to the topic of the note as
> reason not to dig a rathole?  The questions I posed to you are in
> keeping with the topic of this note, but they are as yet unanswered.

Steve, make sure you know who you are talking to! I believe you are 
still confusing me with Roger Rinesmith and vice versa. You posed some 
questions to me and others to Roger. 

I think you responded to Roger's point that people tend to believe what
they *want* to believe, and vice versa. My main thrust had been in
regards to the role of one's personal, subjective experiences as a
reliable guide to truth. I am not about to throw that out the window by
changing direction like that. Roger's point is relevant and can be
responded to as you like, but please don't come after me for it. I have
attempted to be very careful and deliberate in my arguments, and it
doesn't help being confused with someone else.

> This is an obvious rathole and I don't expect an answer.  I don't know
> about you, but I'm pretty tired of having to read/repeat arguments. 
> Let's get some more uplifting responses here. 

Ratholes and read/repeat arguments would be less frequent if arguments 
were read and responded to more carefully. I always wonder how many 
iterations I'm going to have to go through to make even my original points 
clear. I find it frustrating to have someone *think* he understands my 
arguments and *think* he has responded adequately, only to hear him come 
back later and say, "I thought I dealt with that already, Rathole Alert!"
It's fine with me if someone's own specious answers to tough questions
are satisfying to him. I will not attempt to convince him against his
will, yet, if I persist in trying to make my original point clear
(because I see that someone didn't really get it) I don't want to be shut
off by this same character if I feel I still have something of value to
contribute. This happened with my topic on refuting the Book of Mormon. I
felt that I was wasting my time; not because I didn't feel the Book of
Mormon couldn't be refuted, but because of the quality of responses I
received. 

In this conference, we take opposite sides, as in a debate. I hope we all 
agree to disagree agreeably, and that usually is the case. I received 
some off-line communication letting me know that I was compromising my 
credibility by my apparent antagonistic attitude. Although I hadn't felt 
the same way, I tried to "clean up" my approach, so as not to muddy the 
issues further.

> How about sharing with us your personal experiences with prayer?  That
> bit of insight would really help us understand where you're coming from
> since the link between spiritual promptings and prayer has already been
> established through numerous personal testimonies.  And, it would
> probably be more uplifting then rehashing arguments. 

I don't know how helpful it would be to this discussion, since, as far as 
I'm concerned, we're not yet done with the personal testimony issue. If 
all you see is rehashing of the same arguments, perhaps you are missing 
something. I'll try to be more explicit and clear - and please give me 
the benefit of the doubt if I *seem* to step on a toe or two in the 
process - my purpose is not to step on toes, but to get to the truth of 
things. If I have no choice but to step on *someone's* toes to accomplish 
that, I will say "Excuse me but..." and them step on them. Please extend 
the same courtesy to me (to step on my toes if it will advance the 
argument) I'm a big boy and I can take it - I'm sure you can to, if it's 
in the interest of arriving at truth. At least we'll understand one 
another better in the process.

As far as "uplifting" goes, I'm sorry, but I can't enter into "uplifting"
topics with people who I have such fundamental disagreement with. You
claim that all our doctrines are false and all our ministers are corrupt
- or something to that effect - and as long as that blanket belief
remains, we are at odds. (I hasten to add, however, that in matters of
social, cultural and political nature, I am very much in agreement with
Mormons, but the other distinctions must remain. Also, I have nothing 
personal against any Mormon, and in fact, have liked every one I have 
met and have some Mormon friends, too.)

Respectfully,

Ed

Ooops.  Sorry.  I will delete and rephrase my original responses to comply
more appropriately.

Steve

    Re: Note 118.50 by CASV04::PRESTON

>In this conference, we take opposite sides, as in a debate. I hope we all 
>agree to disagree agreeably, and that usually is the case. 
                                                      
    By all means. While I may disagree with what you say, I do appreciate
    the calm and considered approach that you generally take, Ed.
    
>You claim that all our doctrines are false and all our ministers are corrupt 

    Well... I don't think that we would say that all the doctrines are
    false and that all the ministers are corrupt. Certainly much of what is
    believed by 'traditional Christianity' (whatever that is :^) ) is true
    and in agreement with Mormon doctrine. It may be of interest to look at
    what Joseph Smith said happened. When he asked God the Father and Jesus
    Christ which church he should join, he was told to join none of them,
    for: 
         
         They draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are
         far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandmennts of
         men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power
         thereof. (Joseph Smith - History 1:19) 

    We believe that there are many sincere ministers and members of these
    churches. But we do believe that, while they have much truth, it is
    intermixed with much error, and that they lack the power of God, or the
    priesthood. In other words, they have a form of godliness, but they do
    not have the authority to minister in God's name. Sort of like a
    civilian who puts on a police uniform and acts like a policeman, but is
    not a duly authorized policeman, may be mistaken for one, but he does
    not have the authority to enforce the laws of the land. 

    I can understand how this would put many people at odds with the
    Mormon church. If it's not true, it's slander. If it is true, then
    they have to become Mormons, if they wish to embrace truth. Either
    way you look at it, there is the potential to offend. On the other
    hand, we who believe it is true have been commanded to go out and
    proclaim it, regardless of who it may offend (not that it should
    be done in an offensive way, mind you). Kind of reminds me of when
    the Savior proclaimed his truths, which offended many of the people
    of his day.
    
    Rich       

To Ed Preston,
--------------

RE: .7

Your original thought-provoking question was

> ... If the LDS Church *is* false, what kind of feeling would you expect 
>God to give?

I assume this is in response to the question, 'Is the Mormon Church false?'
given that the Church is false and asked concurrently with study, prayer, etc.

RE .24: 

Your question here was 'who gave which feeling to Leza?'.

RE .35: 

In this response you indicated that the answer you were looking for was

> ... if Mormonism is false, then *any*
>postive witness to its truth would be a lie itself, and that anyone
>following such a lie would of course open the door to further deception. 
>
>There are numerous replies that go into great detail while actually never
>directly addressing the simple question. ...

To review, Leza wrote in note 2.13:

> I sought the Lord, and I will admit there was a burning sensation
> in my bosom.  Following that was what I am feeling now, I have the
> shakes, as if I am cold, but I am not, it is the power of the Holy
> Ghost and I was firmly told that Mormonism was not the correct religion
> and that it was contradictory to basic Christian beliefs.

The first simple question as posed has only 9 responses possible:

	Feeling from God	Feeling from Satan	Feeling from Leza
	----------------	------------------	-----------------

1.	Warm and Cold		-			-		
2.	Warm			Cold			-	
3.	Warm			-			Cold		
4.	Cold			Warm 			-
5.	-			Warm and Cold		-
6.	-			Warm			Cold
7.	Cold			-			Warm
8.	-			Cold			Warm
9.	-			-			Warm and Cold


Mormons start out by eliminating options 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9 by studying and
approaching the Lord in a prayerful state and then listening carefully and
with an open mind and heart for spiritual promptings.  To do otherwise would 
invalidate the response, which is what happens when one is biased.  Option 1 
is immediately eliminated if one believes the scriptures because God will not 
lie.  This leaves options 2, 4 and 5.  

In order for 4 and 5 to be true, Satan would have to be capable of generating 
warm feelings within us.  At this point, I feel one needs to better define
what these feelings really are.  That's where things have gotten wordy and one
must rely on personal experience.  My own is that Satan can generate 
comfortable feelings but that these do not encourage me to do good or to have 
Christ-like attitudes as described in the Bible.  I will call even such 
comfortable feelings 'cold'.  But, I have experienced another kind of feeling 
which has never encouraged me to do anything that is in conflict with Christ's 
teachings - which have, in fact, encouraged me to live a Christ-like life.  
For this reason, my personal experience teaches me that these feelings are not 
from Satan.  I will call these feelings from God, 'warm'.  Thus, based on my 
personal experience, options 4 and 5 are invalid.

Reading over Leza's response again, I am of the opinion that she had a witness
via a spiritual prompting, but chose not to act on it, so the witness departed. 
I think it is her assumption that she now receives spiritual promptings of the 
form of option 4.

I believe that for her and for Mormons, option 2 is the only option that
accurately describes the nature of spiritual promptings.  Key to this is
personal experience with spiritual promptings, prayer, study of the 
scriptures, etc.

Much of this has more or less already been said, but probably not as concisely.
As to your assertion, obviously if someone starts taking false feedback as 
truth, they are on the path to deception.


RE .38: 

We need to be somewhat careful about Leza's reports.  They do cause one to
think, which is good.  But, nearly every point she has made has been answered
from a logical viewpoint.  There are even points she has asserted that have
been proven false.  However, there have been no retractions or corrections.

If one false thing can be proven about Church doctrine, then it is a false
church.  This is enticing to those who would like to prove the Church false
from a logical viewpoint.  But all assertions have a logical answer, thus 
there has as yet been no such proof.  What is remarkable about this is that
the same can be said about any Church not comprised of idiots.  Thus, from a 
more logical point of view, it is unreasonable to try to prove most churches
false.

In the end, we are left with having to appeal to God to find His Church.  And,
we come back to spiritual promtings, prayer, study, etc.  We won't be able to
'prove' Mormonism (or any Christian church) absolutely and logically until 
Christ returns.  Ironically, that will be when the Church as we know it will 
cease.

RE .50:

I apologize for my previous lack of quality response and have repented.  And,
as always, it is never my intent to offend.  If I have written any notes which
offend anyone that I have not already deleted, I will be happy to try to make 
ammends.

>I don't know how helpful it would be to this discussion, since, as far as 
>I'm concerned, we're not yet done with the personal testimony issue. ...

Actually, it would be quite helpful because as has been pointed out in several
notes, you usually need to try before you can get any sort of spiritual 
prompting.  And, it's not enough to feign an effort because this is something
that is intensely personal, requires effort and is between each of us and God.  
If you have never done this, then I and others can understand why you would 
feel doubtful.  If you have done this and forsaken the response, then I and 
others can understand why you might feel antagonistic.  This could help us 
understand a little better your motivations and how to respond to your queries.

Not all doctrines taught in other churches are false.  It is that 'all their
creeds' (each churches collection of beliefs) are an abomination, probably
because of the commandments of men found within them.  Those who profess these
creeds are corrupt, because in addition to truth they teach falsehood.  Those
who draw near to the Lord with their lips but not their hearts are far from 
the Lord.  Those who draw near with their hearts can come nearer to the Lord.
They can also come to know truths that only the Lord can reveal to them.  It
is on this premise that we approach others who are not yet members.  (I find
this is pretty much what Rich said, but it's a little different, so I'll
leave it in.)

Ed, I think that you operate on the basis that all truth can be proven.  If it
can't be proven, then it can't be accepted as truth.  I agree with that if that
is your position.  Where we differ may be in that I am willing to accept, as
Len pointed out, feelings as input to discerning truth.  By themselves, I agree
that these feelings would be untrustworthy.  However, coupled with a list of
personal experiences where these feelings have corresponded with truth on a 
consistent basis, there are grounds for using these feelings in my 
determination of what I will accept as truth.





To Roger Rinesmith, 
-------------------

RE .43: 

  Do you also feel that you want to believe the Book of Mormon 
  is false and that this is why you believe it to be false?  And, that if 
  something in the Book of Mormon is true you will believe it all to be 
  false anyway?  

  Is it your hope that you can prove one thing to be wrong and thus show it 
  all to be wrong?  (If so, you would probably have an easier time proving 
  the Bible to be wrong than the Book of Mormon, due to the numerous (though 
  insignificant) inconsistencies in the Bible.)  Do you have any kind of 
  testimony about the Bible?  If so, how did you get it?  By logic alone?  
  Or, do you just want to believe it to be true?

RE .48:

>    Answer me this - if, a new book, a book claiming to be Scripture, and
>    the history of Massachusetts, and of Jesus visiting the people there,
>    were to be discovered, how would you know if this book were real, or a
>    phony?

I would first check to see if the book was pretty much in agreement with the 
things that I already knew (via spiritual prompting and so forth) were true.  
If so, then I would study, pray and so forth in pursuit of a confirming 
spiritual prompt.  

Would I get the answer in 15 minutes?  I don't know.  But, I will get within a 
'reasonable' time some kind of answer, perhaps even as to whether I will get 
an answer.  The companionship of the Holy Ghost/spiritual promptings (for those 
who have been baptized and confirmed) do not come every once in a while, but 
are a constant thing if one strives to remain worthy.  This is why it is so 
necessary that such be done by those called of God to do so.  Otherwise, there 
is no promise of such companionship.


Steve

    

       Personal revelation is

       	  1. an opportunity for God to reaffirm to us as individuals
       	     that He exists, and is as interested in today's
       	     people as He was in the Biblicial era people

       	  2. channel for God to provide confirmation/reinforcement
       	     of research that we have done to resolve/investigate a
       	     question/issue.

       Personal revelation isn't a panacea intended as a substitute
       for diligent research, objective evaluation, or the
       frustration that comes with working difficult issues. But the
       personal elation that comes from a job well done pales before
       the powerful spiritual witness from God that indeed you are
       on the right track.

       Never to be out done, Satan will do his best to complicate
       and confuse the issue. Good and evil have the ability to
       communicate both positive and negative messages. God can
       reinforce a good decision or action with a positive feeling
       and warn against a poor decision/action by withdrawing the
       comfort/security that comes with his spirit. Satan will
       create counterfeit feelings where ever he is allowed to do so.
       The exhilaration and energy that come from drug use or
       inappropriate sexual activity are positive reinforcement of
       inappropriate behavior. Satan can obscure his true purpose
       with 'good' feelings.

       When the confusion sets in, I return to a single fundamental,
       in a battle, God will always best Satan, if we let Him.


       Reed
    
    

  RE:< Note 118.53 by MIZZOU::SHERMAN "socialism doesn't work ..." >


  > Do you also feel that you want to believe the Book of Mormon 
  > is false and that this is why you believe it to be false?  And, that if 
  > something in the Book of Mormon is true you will believe it all to be 
  > false anyway?  

	I, like you, just want to establish the truth.  I believe it
    is false only because the book itself leaves me little choice.

  > Is it your hope that you can prove one thing to be wrong and thus show it 
  > all to be wrong?  (If so, you would probably have an easier time proving 
  > the Bible to be wrong than the Book of Mormon, due to the numerous (though 
  > insignificant) inconsistencies in the Bible.)  
  
	The difference, between the Bible, and the Book of Mormon, is
    that in the Book of Mormon, the 'things wrong' are not insignificant.
    
	My hope is not to prove the Book of Mormon wrong, but rather
    to present the problems that I have encountered, and to find out
    how they are explained.  In doing so, I will either come to appreciate
    the Book of Mormon, or I will know for sure that it is false.
    

    
>	My hope is not to prove the Book of Mormon wrong, but rather
>    to present the problems that I have encountered, and to find out
>    how they are explained.  In doing so, I will either come to appreciate
>    the Book of Mormon, or I will know for sure that it is false.
    
I thank you for responding and I appreciate that you feel that you do not 
yet know for sure whether the Book of Mormon is false.  I hope that we will 
continue to be able to address your concerns as they arise.  And, I hope that 
eventually you may feel inclined to take the book to the Lord and with an open 
mind and heart experience a spiritual confirmation of each of the truths 
within it.


Steve

Before we pursue this topic further, I'd like a little clarification on 
this statement: 

> Mormons start out by studying and approaching the Lord in a prayerful
> state and then listening carefully and with an open mind and heart for
> spiritual promptings. To do otherwise would invalidate the response... 

First, is this something that is 'taught', or is it just your way of
explaining the way Mormons approach - or ought to approach - prayer?
And what do you mean by study? What is a 'prayerful state'? What is meant 
by 'response'?

Also, someone referred to a certain individual who "gave several 
testimonies" regarding Christ, the Book of Mormon, etc. Just what is
meant by "giving a testimony"? Is it a sort of religious proclaimation
somehow endowed with a special status above a mere statement of belief?
Is it a public exercise of piety, loyalty or devotion? Is it's purpose to 
re-inforce fealty to the Mormon church/faith in some way?

This is not nit-picking, I just want to make sure we all understand your 
terminology.

Thanks,

Ed

Here are a few references concerning Mormon teachings on study and prayer:

	James 1:5-8, 4:8
	2 Nephi 9:28-29, Alma 37:35, 
	D.C. 1:37, 9:7-9, 26:1, 88:118
	
It is from these that it is taught that one should study from the scriptures
and the from best of sources, directing thoughts to the things of the Lord and 
approaching the Lord as to the truthfulness of spiritual things.  Also, that
learning is to be through study and through acts of faith.  Prayer is 
emphasized here as key in this learning.

The needs to cleanse the mind of bias and to exercise patience so as to allow 
the knowledge of spiritual things to take root and spiritual confirmation to
occur are emphasized in James and in these references:

	Matthew 7:7-8
	Mark 4:2-20
	Alma 32:21,26-43
	Moroni 10:3-6

As to the term 'response', I used this term in my note to refer to the 'cold'
or 'warm' feeling one gets, but it might extend to whatever one can feel or
experience as a result from study and prayer.  

By the way, in James 1:7 I believe that James is referring to those who seek
signs of the Lord.  By signs, I mean the outward and faithless manifestation
of God's power sought by some before they will believe (Matthew 12:38-39, for 
example).  I believe that James is also emphasizing the single-mindedness and
patience required when anyone faithfully seeks an answer from the Lord 
(Luke 11:5-13, for example).  This plus some of the references below may shed 
some light as to what is meant by a 'prayerful state' (a constantly prayerful 
attitude):

	Luke 18:1 
	Alma 34:17-27
	D.C. 10:5, 20:33, 31:12, 61:39, 93:49	

>Also, someone referred to a certain individual who "gave several 
>testimonies" regarding Christ, the Book of Mormon, etc. Just what is
>meant by "giving a testimony"? Is it a sort of religious proclaimation
>somehow endowed with a special status above a mere statement of belief?
>Is it a public exercise of piety, loyalty or devotion? Is it's purpose to 
>re-inforce fealty to the Mormon church/faith in some way?

Mormons usually refer to a public proclamation of belief in the Gospel and
in the Church as the true Church of Christ as 'bearing testimony':

	D.C. 58:6,47, 84:61
	D.C. 76:79-82

We 'bear testimony' partly because we believe we are commanded of God to do
so.  And, those who hear or read these testimonies can apply the same
tests involving study, prayer and spiritual confirmation to see if they
are true and of God.

>This is not nit-picking, I just want to make sure we all understand your 
>terminology.

Hey, no problem!  :-)


Steve

    Update - I haven't given up on this topic, I'm just incredibly busy,
    and probably will get MORE busy before I get LESS busy. I'm taking
    a grad course in which the work load will increase greatly very
    soon, my wife is home with our first little one and will not be
    going back to work at all for a while, and I'm trying to put in
    a room downstairs - at least I'm not bored!
    
    I will delete this note before long, since it has no direct bearing
    on the topic. Just thought I'd let you know I haven't gone away.
    I did, however, make (what I thought was) a relevant reply to the
    New Age topic, because I see a connection.
    
    Ed
    

    Re: Note 118.59 by CASV05::PRESTON

    Good to hear from you again in here, Ed. God Bless you in all the
    responsibilities you're juggling right now (work, school, new child,
    remodeling). I assume you even take a few minutes for eating and
    sleeping once in a while? :^) 
    
    Rich

    In this topic we have discussed the subject of the Holy Ghost revealing
    truths. At Christmas time, I came across an Biblical example of this
    that caused me to reflect, and I wanted to share it here. 
         
         And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon;
         and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation
         of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him. And it was revealed
         unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before
         he had seen the Lord's Christ. 
         
         And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents
         brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom
         of the law, 

         Then took he him up in his arms and blessed God, and said, Lord,
         now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy
         word: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast
         prepared before the face of all people; A light to lighten the
         Gentiles and the glory of thy people Israel. 
         
         And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were
         spoken of him. And Simeon blessed then, and said unto Mary his
         mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of
         many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against;
         (Luke 2:25-34)
    
    This passage struck me for it is a beautiful example that The Holy
    Ghost can and does reveal truth to those who are "just and devout",
    that it will guide us with its promptings in our daily walk, and that
    the Holy Ghost bears witness of Jesus Christ.
    
    May we all seek to be just and devout as was Simeon, and seek the
    revelation and guidance of the Holy Ghost in our lives!
    
    Rich

	RE: Note 286.13 ILLUSN::SORNSON 

>    	May I cut in here and ask, what exactly do you mean when you say
>    that you have "a personal testimony that it is the word of God"?  Are
>    you simply saying that you have been convinced of the merits and
>    inspiration of LDS scriptures by reading them (and presumably seeing
>    how they apply in your life), or have you received a "personal
>    testimony" of some kind (perhaps of a supernatural sort) that has in
>    turn caused you to believe so?
    
	Mark,
		I have received a "personal testimony" of the LDS scriptures
	in exactly the same way Peter received his testimony that Jesus Christ
	is the Son of the living God.  (I also believe same.)

		I do not attribute it to "supernatural" as I deem that to be
	something beyond man's understanding, whereas God is not. Also, see 
	my reply of 10.62.

	Charles

    re .14 (BSS::RONEY)
    
    Charles,
    
    	Thanks for your answer:
    
>		I have received a "personal testimony" of the LDS scriptures
>	in exactly the same way Peter received his testimony that Jesus Christ
>	is the Son of the living God.  (I also believe same.)
    
    We know that God "revealed" to Peter that Jesus was God's Son because
    Jesus told him so, evidently to indicate that God's influence was
    involved in the process that led Peter to that conclusion.  If instead
    of telling him that God was involved, Jesus had asked him how he came to
    that conclusion, do you suppose that Peter would have answered that God
    had revealed it to him?  Somehow, I doubt it, since Jesus would not,
    then, have had to tell him.
    
    	Since you don't appear to be claiming that your knowledge was
    supernaturally induced (by a vision, or an angel telling you, or
    something along those lines), your answer still sounds a bit vague to
    me, since Jesus didn't say exactly in what way God revealed Jesus'
    identity to Peter.  Can you be more specific, or are you simply
    confident that because you believe the way you do, that God must have
    helped you come to those conclusions (and thus "revealed" the truth to
    you by very subtle means)?
    
>		I do not attribute it to "supernatural" as I deem that to be
>	something beyond man's understanding, whereas God is not. Also, see 
>	my reply of 10.62.
    
    	I see that I was also being vague in my use of the term
    "supernatural."  As my comments above indicate, I used to term to
    catagorize things like angelic visits, induced visions (visual and/or
    auditory), and things of that sort.  I see from your reply that you
    aren't claiming an experience of that sort.  (Sorry about being
    unclear, though.)
    
    	To some extent, I agree that we aren't able to "understand" HOW
    such supernatural revelations are made possible, but that doesn't mean
    that we can't understand the revelation (i.e., the information) itself.
    I haven't read 10.62 yet, but I'll get around to it soon.
    
    								-mark.

	RE: Note 286.18 ILLUSN::SORNSON 

	Mark,

>    We know that God "revealed" to Peter that Jesus was God's Son because
>    Jesus told him so, evidently to indicate that God's influence was
>    involved in the process that led Peter to that conclusion.  

		The point I was trying to make was that "flesh and blood
	hath not revealed it", but the Holy Ghost.  This is how Peter got
	his testimony.  This is the basis for Christ's church - revelation.
	Not Peter.  The rock of revelation is what will stand up against
	the gates of hell.
	
>    If instead
>    of telling him that God was involved, Jesus had asked him how he came to
>    that conclusion, do you suppose that Peter would have answered that God
>    had revealed it to him?  

	Jesus verified the source and then taught his disciple the need
	for revelation in His church.  In fact, Jesus DID say exactly
	how God "revealed" that truth to Peter.  In saying it He used that
	word - revealed.  This is one of the missions of the Holy Ghost.
	One can not know God or His Son without the Holy Ghost, whose
	purpose is to testify and witness to our spirits the things of God.
	The witness of God is through the Holy Ghost.

	Charles
    

    re .19 (BSS::RONEY)
    
    Charles,
    
    	Thanks again for the reply, but your answer still leaves me with
    the same question, namely, what do you mean when you say that you have
    a "personal testimony" that the LDS writings are God's word?
    
    	In your reply title, you say, "Witness is through the Holy Ghost". 
    If I tell you I work in MK2 (which I do), I've just 'given you a
    witness" about a fact of my employment.  Jesus bore "witness to the 
    truth" (John 18:37) by actively telling it to other people.  A "witness" 
    (in my understanding) is more than just a mental leap or grasp of some
    previously unknown conviction; it's an experience of some sort, in
    which information (or testimony) is conveyed from one party to another.
    
    	Can you (or anyone else, for that matter) be more specific in
    describing what you mean when you say that you have had "witness" born
    to you that your beliefs are true?
    
    								-mark.

Hi Mark,

Your question to Charles has been discussed quite a bit in the following
notes:

    4.7  Answers to prayer
   51    Are these things true?
  118    Promptings of the Holy Ghost

Just as a suggestion, perhaps you could review those notes and then ask
particular questions that you still have.

Allen

    Re: Note 286.20 by ILLUSN::SORNSON

    Hi Mark,
    
>   	Can you (or anyone else, for that matter) be more specific in
>   describing what you mean when you say that you have had "witness" born
>   to you that your beliefs are true?

    I don't know if this helps, but if I might interject... 
    
    Our soul consists of two parts: our body and our spirit. A person can
    bear witness to our body through our senses. God may also, through
    visions or heavenly messengers sent to us. However, God may also bear
    witness directly to our spirit, through the power of the Holy Ghost, if
    we are prepared to receive such communication, which is direct
    communication from spirit to spirit. 
    
    This is an actual "experience", as you put it, but it is a spiritual
    experience. It involves the transfer of pure knowledge to our mind and
    to our heart, sometimes through a "still small voice", sometimes
    through thoughts and feelings that are communicated. Sometimes it is
    powerful and sometimes it is subtle. 
    
    Note that Christ taught that he would send the Holy Ghost to lead men
    unto all truth, and many examples exist in the Holy Bible of such
    communications. I tell you through my physical witness to you that I,
    too, have received such spiritual witnesses, which I know to be true. 
    
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich

    re .21 & .22
    
    	First, thanks for the pointers to 4.7, 51, and 118.  Although I
    haven't finished reading 118, several replies in those notes basically
    address my questions (so you're off the hook, Charles :-).
    
.22> Our soul consists of two parts: our body and our spirit. A person can
>    bear witness to our body through our senses. God may also, through
>    visions or heavenly messengers sent to us. However, God may also bear
>    witness directly to our spirit, through the power of the Holy Ghost, if
>    we are prepared to receive such communication, which is direct
>    communication from spirit to spirit.
    
    	I believe that the Bible teaches that there IS a distinction
    between body and spirit, but only in a very literal sort of way (since
    a body without "spirit", i.e., the animating "breath of life" is dead,
    and is therefore just unliving matter).  There are also figurative
    meanings to the word "spirit" which pertain to our thought processes
    and our feelings, but I don't believe that the Bible teaches that
    humans exist with a "spirit" that co-resides in (or with) their living
    bodies.  As even a few "orthodox" scholars in Christendom admit, the
    distinction between body and spirit -- which treats both as entities
    capable of rational or conscious experience -- is a pagan idea
    (popularized by the Greeks) that has been imported into Christian
    theology over the centuries.
    
    	For what it's worth (since this conference isn't supposed to be a
    forum for debating what is and is not true Christian doctrine), I don't
    believe that the "Holy Ghost" is a personalized being, either, but I do
    understand what you mean.  I agree that God can convey or transmit
    information by miraculous means, such as by (waking) visions, dreams,
    or even by direct implantation (e.g., knowledge of another language),
    thus communicating "spirit to spirit", as you say.
    
>    This is an actual "experience", as you put it, but it is a spiritual
>    experience. It involves the transfer of pure knowledge to our mind and
>    to our heart, sometimes through a "still small voice", sometimes
>    through thoughts and feelings that are communicated. Sometimes it is
>    powerful and sometimes it is subtle.
    
    	Not that I'm seeking such an "experience" myself, mind you ... but
    descriptions of those experiences were exactly what I was looking for. 
    (Some of the "burning bosom" replies in previous notes seem to hit the
    mark.)
    
    	Tell me, do you sometimes actually hear a "still small voice," or
    are you just speaking figuratively?
    
    	Gotta go.  Thanks again to both of you (Allen and Rich) for the
    replies.
    
    								-mark.

	I can't speak for others, and it rarely has occured to me,
	but on three different occasions in my life I have heard a
	distinct voice which prepared me for something that was just
	about to happen to me.  Each time would have been a very
	difficult situation for me to handle had I not been forwarned.

    Re: Note 286.23 by ILLUSN::SORNSON

    Hi Mark,
    
>   I don't believe that the "Holy Ghost" is a personalized being, 

    For what it's worth, Latter-day Saints do.

>   	Tell me, do you sometimes actually hear a "still small voice,"
    
    Yes.

	RE: Note 286.23 ILLUSN::SORNSON 

    
>    but I don't believe that the Bible teaches that
>    humans exist with a "spirit" that co-resides in (or with) their living
>    bodies.  
    
		This is where I feel you are wrong.  The Bible does indeed 
	teach that there is a separation between spirit and body.  The spirit
	would have to co-reside with the body because that is the only way
	they could exist until the resurrection when the are inseparably
	joined for all eternity.  Now the Bible has many a case of evil
	spirits co-residing within one persons body, but I will not use them.
	The best example in my mind is Christ himself.  In Luke 24 we find

	36. And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them,
	    and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
	37. But they were terrified and affrighted, and they supposed that
	    they had seen a spirit.
	38. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts
	    arise in your hearts?
	39. Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me,
	    and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

	Here is the fact that we have spirits that look like ourselves;
	else why would the disciples be afraid in the first place?
	Second we can see that Christ also says that spirits do not have a
	body of flesh and bones.  These scriptures indicate to me that there
	are spirit bodies and there are fleshly bodies.  When Christ's 
	fleshly body lay in the tomb for three days, what happened to his 
	spirit?  That is found in 1 Peter 3.

	18. For Christ also hath once suffer for sins, the just for the
	    unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in
	    the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
	19. By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
	20. Which sometime were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of
	    God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing,
	    wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

	Here the spirits of the people killed by the flood in Noah's day
	were kept in a prison of spirits.  Note that the flesh can be killed
	but not the spirit.  Lastly, there is again in Luke 24 verse 46
	where Christ told his disciples "Thus it is written, and thus it 
	behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:".
	Now what rose - his fleshly body - and what made it rise - his
	spirit body.

	The resurrection of Christ is discussed very well by Paul in
	1 Cor. 15:12-29.  In verses 42-58 Paul talks about the different
	states of mankind and points out the spiritual and fleshly bodies.
	There are so many more references in the Bible about our spirit
	bodies.  Maybe Allen has already covered some of these and can point
	you to the right places.

    
>    	Tell me, do you sometimes actually hear a "still small voice," or
>    are you just speaking figuratively?
    
	Yes, there have been times when I did indeed "hear" a voice.

	Charles
    

>	Maybe Allen has already covered some of these and can point
>	you to the right places.

Some background reading from the Bible would be:

    Note 4.2      The Holy Ghost is a personage
         4.7      Our spirits are intelligent
         4.50-53  Our spirit existence before birth
         4.57     The Spirit World after death

    re .27 (MOVING::LEIGH)
    
    	Thanks for the pointers, again.  I didn't originally intend to drag
    this discussion farther off the base-note topic than it already is; I
    was just interested in hearing your experiences.  I know I'm a bit
    short on time these days to sustain the pace of a good knock-down,
    drag-em-out, doctrinal debate ;-).  What say we leave this other
    sleeping dog lie for now?
    
    								-mark.

Note 286 fragmented into a discussion of testimonies from the Holy Ghost, and
I have moved those replies to this note.

Note 286.13        God's Doctrine Will Stand the Test of Time           13 of 34
ILLUSN::SORNSON "They stamp them when they're small" 15 lines  29-NOV-1989 12:55
                        -< how personal is "personal"? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    re .12 (BSS::RONEY)
    
>	I accept "latter-day scripture/revelation" because I have a personal 
>	testimony that it is the word of God, and not because the LDS church
>	says it is.  You seem to have a problem with that.  
    
    	May I cut in here and ask, what exactly do you mean when you say
    that you have "a personal testimony that it is the word of God"?  Are
    you simply saying that you have been convinced of the merits and
    inspiration of LDS scriptures by reading them (and presumably seeing
    how they apply in your life), or have you received a "personal
    testimony" of some kind (perhaps of a supernatural sort) that has in
    turn caused you to believe so?
    
    								-mark.

Replies .63 through .81 were moved from note 286.  Thus, the "RE .xx"
references in those replies pertain to note 286.  I hope it will be obvious
which replies in this note are being referenced.

>    I think that if we study the context of 'salvation' in both the 
>    Bible and the Book of Mormon, we will that see that in general 
>    it is referring to being with God in Heaven, i.e. exaltation.  

    Allen, shouldn't that read "a God in heaven?" As I understand the
    Mormon concept of exhaltation, I think that would be more correct.
    
    Ed
    

Ed,

I've already explained in 4.1 that even though there are three divine
personages in the Godhead, it is proper to refer to them collectively as
God, and it is also proper to refer to each one as God.

Allen

>>   I think that if we study the context of 'salvation' in both the 
>>   Bible and the Book of Mormon, we will that see that in general 
>>   it is referring to being with God in Heaven, i.e. exaltation.  

    Allen, I didn't mean by "a God in heaven" to single out one "God"
    over another, but that the Mormon concept of exhaltation teaches that 
    a person can *become* a god in heaven, not merely be *with* God in
    Heaven. Isn't that correct?
    
    Thanks,
    
    Ed
    

Hi Ed,

Thanks for the clarification; when you spoke of "a God in heaven" I
wasn't sure if you were referring to our use of the singular "God"
when we believe there are three in the Godhead, or to our concept of
exaltation in which we do believe those who receive that can become
like God.

LDS would never speak of being in Heaven with "a God".  It is true that
we believe that those who receive exaltation become like our Heavenly
Father and receive all that He has (see notes 4.67-68), but there is
an important difference between the Godhead and those who become exalted.
We worship the Godhead but we do not worship other exalted beings.

As an analogy, I might speak of going home to visit my mother.  Now,
there there are many women there who are mothers, but there is only one
who is my mother, the distinction being my relationship with her.  I could
say, "I am going home to visit mother", or, "I am going home to visit my
mother", but I would never say, "I am going home to visit a mother".

We do believe there will be many exalted beings in the Celestial Kingdom, but
we will only worship the three in the Godhead.  As I explained in note 4.2,
it is proper to use the singular word "God" to refer to the Godhead as a
group as well as to each member of that divine group.  Thus, we speak of
one God, or God in Heaven, or similar expressions, and it is clear from
context of the Gospel and our Latter-day scriptures what we mean by "one"
God.  

I think that in general, Most LDS use the word "god" when referring to
exalted personages who are not part of the Godhead, the lowercase "g"
denoting that even though those persons are exalted, they are not God,
i.e. not in the Godhead and we do not worship them. 

We are criticized for believing that we can become like God, and if I
understand the people who criticize us, they seem to think that this
belief detracts from God.  We do not believe that our concept of exaltation
detracts from God, because we believe that the greatest complement we
can give to God is that we want to be like Him.  My understanding of the
Bible, as well as our LDS scriptures, is that Christ has told us to follow
him, that he is the way to God, and that we should emulate him in our lives.
His challenge, "Be ye therefore perfect..." is our ultimate goal.  The
topic of exaltation should be continued in a new note (there isn't one
dedicated to that topic at the present time).

Allen

The replies that are discussing resurrected bodies have been moved to
note 297.