The Bottom Line

[_subgenius]

The example I gave of establishing the truth about the Church (and the Book of Mormon was connected with that) was the first proper time I had applied Moroni's promise to anything. Subsequent to that time it has become blatantly obvious that identifying and 'listening' to internal promptings is totally unreliable.
Subgenius is correct in raising therefore, the dilemma that I was then faced with. If the method is unreliable (a position I don't believe subgenius holds personally) then perhaps my learning of the falsity of the Church is also unreliable. I agree. Where we part company is that I then apply other methods of establishing wether the Church is true - like science, consistency, fact checking etc whereas subgenius/the Church would advise ignoring all that and continue applying for Moroni's promise until you get the 'right' answer.

Drifting's steps to the simple truth:
When one is confronted with a question of apparent (or alleged) significant consequence proceed with the following steps in order.

1. Do not study it out in your mind
2. Knowingly utilize at least one incorrect method over several instances.
3. Incorporate frustration and self-desire
4. Revise the method in #2 as correct while denouncing that same method by virtue of step #3
5. Receive result desired (note
6. Take predisposition from step #5 and apply to other methods
7. Proclaim results as a simple truth, a conclusion, a deduction of the highest order.
8. Go forth and denounce the reliability of steps 1 through 7

note: when this method is discovered as self-imploding, simply provide another "revision" that reconstructs the method to fit whatever desired result is intended. Contradiction to actual events in one's life should never be an obstacle to any attempt to inflate one's status on an internet forum. Being perceived as insincere is not a severe enough consequence to cause one to abandon a futile and illogical position.

[_subgenius]

Yeah, I really like this one. They seem to repeat this non-sense over and over. The premise is that the Devil is more powerful than God.

Right On!

[_malkie]

How can you tell the answers come from God rather than some supernatural imposter?

clearly the answer, again, has been offered to you, and quite succinctly.....your unwillingness to accept it because you are predisposed for another answer does not deny that simple fact.

Yeah, I really like this one. They seem to repeat this non-sense over and over. The premise is that the Devil is more powerful than God.

Other than by definition, and assuming that there exist supernatural (or even natural) entities "Devil" and "God", how would you establish:

1. that the supernatural entity who is communicating with you is "God" and not "Devil"?
2. that "God" is more powerful than "Devil"?

[_Tobin]

Other than by definition, and assuming that there exist supernatural (or even natural) entities "Devil" and "God", how would you establish:

1. that the supernatural entity who is communicating with you is "God" and not "Devil"?
2. that "God" is more powerful than "Devil"?

And as I've stated, by most religious understandings (unless you worship the Devil), God by definition is the most powerful being in the universe. If you wish to hand that title to the Devil and label him God there is nothing stopping you. Most religious people that are Mormon, Christian, Islamic, Jewish and so on would find that assertion patently absurd and completely unacceptable. As do I.

[_malkie]

Other than by definition, and assuming that there exist supernatural (or even natural) entities "Devil" and "God", how would you establish:

1. that the supernatural entity who is communicating with you is "God" and not "Devil"?
2. that "God" is more powerful than "Devil"?

And as I've stated, by most religious understandings (unless you worship the Devil), God by definition is the most powerful being in the universe. If you wish to hand that title to the Devil and label him God there is nothing stopping you. Most religious people that are Mormon, Christian, Islamic, Jewish and so on would find that assertion patently absurd and completely unacceptable. As do I.

Can you show me where I made such an assertion?

I asked two questions, and, except by invoking "by definition", in spite of the request not to do so, you have not answered either question.

If you had not quoted my post I would have been hard pressed to know that you were answering me, and not some other unrelated post.

[_Tobin]

Can you show me where I made such an assertion?

I asked two questions, and, except by invoking "by definition", in spite of the request not to do so, you have not answered either question.

If you had not quoted my post I would have been hard pressed to know that you were answering me, and not some other unrelated post.

I know. Your supposition bars the use of the definition that most religions abide by. I was simply pointing out to you that you can do anything you want if you discard people's understandings and definitions. It doesn't mean they'll find your position or assertion acceptable. And they probably will agree with me that the assertion that the Devil is more powerful than God is absurd given their own religious views.

Basically, there is no point to discussing the Devil being more powerful than God. I view it as completely absurd as would most other religious people. It is like postulating that gravity works by using invisible, incorporeal elastic bands. Sure you can propose it, but it isn't likely to be true and completely uninteresting. And it certainly isn't true that position puts the religious person in a hard-pressed position. They simply view the assertion as bizarre and ridiculous and not worth discussing.

[_malkie]

Can you show me where I made such an assertion?

I asked two questions, and, except by invoking "by definition", in spite of the request not to do so, you have not answered either question.

If you had not quoted my post I would have been hard pressed to know that you were answering me, and not some other unrelated post.

I know. Your supposition bars the use of the definition that most religions abide by. I was simply pointing out to you that you can do anything you want if you discard people's understandings and definitions. It doesn't mean they'll find your position or assertion acceptable. And they probably will agree with me that the assertion that the Devil is more powerful than God is absurd given their own religious views.

Basically, there is no point to discussing the Devil being more powerful than God. I view it as completely absurd as would most other religious people. It is like postulating that gravity works by using invisible, incorporeal elastic bands. Sure you can propose it, but it isn't likely to be true and completely uninteresting. And it certainly isn't true that position puts the religious person in a hard-pressed position. They simply view the assertion as bizarre and ridiculous and not worth discussing.

I did not assert any such thing! I asked some questions.

Let me make a concession for the sake of argument: let's assume that God is more powerful than the Devil - by definition.

You apply the labels "G" and "D" to two supernatural entities (you could call them "X" and "Y" if you prefer)

How can you tell which of "G" and "D" is more powerful?

How can you know that the entity you call "G" is God?

How can you tell which entity was talking to you (God, or Devil)?

[_Tobin]

I did not assert any such thing! I asked some questions.

Let me make a concession for the sake of argument: let's assume that God is more powerful than the Devil - by definition.

You apply the labels "G" and "D" to two supernatural entities (you could call them "X" and "Y" if you prefer)

How can you tell which of "G" and "D" is more powerful?

How can you know that the entity you call "G" is God?

How can you tell which entity was talking to you (God, or Devil)?

And as I've said, it's a ridiculous set of questions given that definition. If one assumes that the person you are asking believes that God is less power (or equal to the Devil) and that we therefore are unable to determine which is which - then ok. But, if you accept God is more powerful than the Devil, then there is no reason to believe that God is unable to prevent the Devil from overwhelming our senses, reason, and abilities to perceive which is which. If God is all powerful, then God should be able to honestly answer the otherwise unencumbered individual unless God is the Devil and evil (which is unacceptable). It is absurd to consider that the Devil (who is less powerful), would be able to so completely fool an individual, who is not otherwise disabled, from being able to tell the difference. By definition, since God is more powerful and good, God would not allow that.

[_malkie]

I did not assert any such thing! I asked some questions.

Let me make a concession for the sake of argument: let's assume that God is more powerful than the Devil - by definition.

You apply the labels "G" and "D" to two supernatural entities (you could call them "X" and "Y" if you prefer)

How can you tell which of "G" and "D" is more powerful?

How can you know that the entity you call "G" is God?

How can you tell which entity was talking to you (God, or Devil)?

And as I've said, it's a stupid, absurd, ridiculous set of questions. It assumes that the person you are asking believes that God is less power (or equal to the Devil) and that we therefore unable to determine which is which. If you accept God is more powerful than the Devil, then there is no reason to believe that God is unable to prevent the Devil from overwhelming our senses, reason, and abilities to perceive which is which. If God is all powerful, then God should be able to honestly answer the otherwise unencumbered individual unless God is the Devil and evil (which is unacceptable). It is absurd to consider that the Devil (who is less powerful), would be able to so completely fool an individual, who is not otherwise disabled, from being able to tell the difference. By definition, since God is more powerful, it is silly to believe otherwise.

Final comment then, since it seems that we cannot have a reasonable discussion:

I am not saying that God is less powerful than the Devil - I'm saying that you cannot guarantee to be able to tell which is which.

You seem to be saying that, because God, by definition, is able to "prevent the Devil from overwhelming our senses, reason, and abilities to perceive which is which", and should be able to "honestly answer the otherwise unencumbered individual unless God is the Devil and evil (which is unacceptable)", he will always do so.

I think that the scriptures indicate otherwise.

You also seem to be saying that God is not evil. I am not convinced that you can be certain that that is true - other than by definition, and always assuming that such an entity exists.

[_Drifting]

How can you tell the answers come from God rather than some supernatural imposter?

clearly the answer, again, has been offered to you, and quite succinctly.....your unwillingness to accept it because you are predisposed for another answer does not deny that simple fact.

No. You have avoided being specific about how YOU can tell communication comes from God. You always fudge, wriggle, duck, dive.