Tobin wrote:... we HAVE talked with God.
If I say 'I have talked with Thomas S. Monson', then people have a range of ways for coming to a consensus as to whether or not they are willing to treat that statement as true. If, for instance, I was seen by millions in a live broadcast conversing with Monson while sitting next to him at General Conference, it is unlikely that anybody who claimed to doubt my story would be thought to be in good faith.
The same goes (with appropriate changes in details) for claims to have spoken with any human being alive today. I am speaking of course from the point of view of the practical judgements we make every day: It is always possible to go the 'Simon Belmont' route of radical (though highly selective) skepticism, and say things like 'how do you know you were not having a hallucination rather than watching a live feed from General Conference?'. Let us leave that aside, since it applies to every claim whatsoever, and thus gets us nowhere in deciding in practical terms what kind of claim we might reasonably treat as plausible.
If however I said, in March 2012 (rather than in, say, March 1812), "I have talked with Napoleon Bonaparte" the case would be very different. Napoleon is not generally believed to be present in our universe as it is today, at least not in any detectable form capable of talking or listening to a living human being in the normal way. So the response to such a claim would, quite reasonably, be 'What on earth do you mean by that?'.
If I persisted and said things like 'I hear his voice speaking just as clearly as I do yours', then I would risk being diagnosed as delusional, possibly schizophrenic. And there would be good reason for that. Extraordinary evidence would be needed to shake our skepticism: something like, for instance, a message from 'Napoleon' telling us of a secret cache of documents buried by Napoleon in a location covered by a building erected during his lifetime and not since disturbed, a cache which excavation then located. But even then we would want to consider seriously the possibility that the person claiming to have received the messages knew that the cache was there on the basis of normal historical research rather than communications from a 'Napoleon' who was somehow still in contact with us two centuries after his death.
In the end, however, there might come a stage where the communications from 'Napoleon' were so on the button, as well as perhaps being shared by more than one person or even being publicly audible, that we would say "Well! It looks like we were quite wrong that people - or at least people like Napoleon - cease to be effectively present and able to communicate when their bodies have died biologically".
Thus if Tobin writes a sentence saying "I HAVE talked with <X>", our reaction will very reasonably determined by what he writes in the space marked <X>.
If it is something like "Thomas S. Monson", we all know how to test the truth value of the sentence, although our initial estimate of that will depend on whether Tobin is a GA living in SLC, or a non-Mormon hunter-gatherer from the Kalahari desert.
If <X> is "Napoleon', we would require much more to convince us, although we do have fairly definite ideas about what might convince us that the claim was true.
But in Tobin's claim, the space marked as <X> is filled by the common English term for the deity formerly known as Yahweh (TDFKAY). We have absolutely no way of knowing how to assign a likely truth-value to that claim. Indeed, it is not even clear how Tobin can be sure that any communications that he believes have been addressed to him come from that source rather than (say) from the entity commonly known as 'Satan'. Quite a few people who say they get messages from TDFKAY are commonly held to be either insane or self-deceiving, or intent on deceit - Tobin himself does not, I suspect, take Warren Jeff's claims in that regard very seriously.
So when Tobin says:
Tobin wrote:... we HAVE talked with God.
I think it is reasonable to respond by asking not only:
1. How can anyone else tell whether that claim is true? We have no way of knowing how to test a communication so as to tell that it is really from TDFKAY, unlike the case of Napoleon.
but also:
2. How do you, Tobin (or anybody trying to repeat your experience) know that you are not simply deluded in your belief?
Assurance claimed by Tobin that he really is talking to TDFKAY is not admissible evidence here, since such assurance is also claimed (and claimed very strongly) by people Tobin and the rest of us would agree are insane.