dastardly stem wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 4:26 am
I don’t think the process to which you refer is a reliable one. And the bill of Mormon claims are unreasonable when viewing the evidence which suggests the inward process that has rewarded you, in whichever way that may be, is quite likely a prolonged case of confirmation bias. But if not I’d be interested in an explanation that demonstrates to one degree or another how the process can be tested.
Confirmation bias is unavoidable to varying degrees, no matter what epistemological or developmental methods are employed, be they secular or religious.
However, functional methods (processes) will naturally include elements to help minimize or surmount confirmation bias where possible.
Since confirmation bias merely confirms what is already known or believed, and represents the status quo, an epistemological or developmental methodology that includes the element of growth in knowledge and faith, can reasonably be considered as functional because it surmounts the confirmation bias.
The process outlined in Alma 32, particularly when used in conjunction with Moroni 10, and as employed in relation the restored gospel of Christ, contains an element of growth (it is actually THE key element), and thus may be considered functional.
Said another way, epistemological and developmental methodologies (processes) can reasonably be considered as functional if they produce the intended growth, development, and progress. The continued progression of millions of faithful members of the restored gospel of Christ attest to the functionality of Alma 32, Moroni 10, and the gospel.
In terms of reliability, it helps to understand that Alma 32 et. al, is more of tests of the "testers" (i.e. the testing of people who have employed Alma 32 and Moroni 10 in relation to the gospel) than it is a test of spiritual things. And, these tests of the "testers" are ongoing throughout each stage of development unto maturation in the gospel.
As would be expect of any functional epistemological and developmental process in which multiple humans are involved, the results of the testing and development will be varied. This is self-evident in secular education systems and businesses throughout the world.
Likewise, to varying degrees within the church, many members continue to pass or even ace their series tests, or have sought to improve when their scores have been less than desired, and as such, they continue to progress in faith; while others end up failing or flunking at various stages of development, and over various length of time they may end up just going through the motions and stagnating. Some even drop out of the process.
Given the functionality of the process, it is reasonable to conclude that the varied results aren't indicative of the lack of reliability of the process, but rather the lack of reliability of those being "tested" by the process.
As I see it, there are at least two key differentiators between those who continue to develop as contrasted with those who stagnate or drop out. They include: 1) varied levels of awareness that the "testers" are the ones being tested (some mistakenly assume that it is God, and His existence, that is being tested, whereas, ironically, they are the ones being tested by God); and 2) diverse understanding as to the intended objective or end result of the process (some mistakenly assume that "truth", or their understanding thereof, is the intended end result, whereas, coming to Christ and becoming like him, is the actual objective).
Thanks, Wade Englund
And since I am “the ultimate expert and authority” on what your statement sounded like to me, “then I would know best, if not solely, what was the 
