You're talking about something other than what I was discussing with RevTestament, so it doesn't really apply. I was replying to RT's claim that the Lord "spoke to his soul" and told him that the LDS "church" is the true Church. You're off on something else entirely.
You're making the common mistake of assuming that God's normative means of communicating his truth with lay believers is the same as his unique means of delivering his word to patriarchs, prophets, and apostles. Of course, that's simply not the case. So comparing yourself with Abraham on this particular issue just doesn't work.
Ah. You mean the way that you so carefully and thoroughly studied the sources I provided in my previous post? Sources that you admitted you wouldn't "waste your time" taking seriously because you're simply unwilling---unable---to honestly evaluate your own present assumptions and beliefs? You might want to read your own statement just above.
I am simply relaying some personal experiences, and some stories of other people in my church. It's obvious that to believe them would disturb your apple cart - I can actually understand that. But there is always the do-it-yourself approach. Ultimately, that is the only way to achieve a lasting testimony. I am certainly not suggesting to expect an audible voice from God for anyone who decides to investigate the LDS church. I don't believe the way God communicated with His prophets was the same as being told a simple phrase - after all, the prophets delivered His word, word for word. I am stating however, that God still does speak to followers.
I did look at the links, and then stated I wouldn't waste my time "copying them" as you suggested. If I read something I liked I would have downloaded a copy. I have reams of religious material, and simply do not copy everything I run across... If it makes you feel better, I did copy one of the links you gave in response to the Boettner list in another thread
As stated in post #279...
From the introduction to the Book of Mormon:
Hebrews 1:1-2, definitively inform us that there will be no more divine revelation revealed after the teaching by the Word of GOD, Jesus Christ, to His Apostles. Divine revelation ended when the last Apostle died.*
Tell that to the LDS who say in their INTRODUCTION to the bom....
You don't believe your own churches statement here?...
Like I said it is not actually from the Book of Mormon itself but was added as a Forward later.
No, your interpretation is in error.
It says nothing of the kind and Rev 11 directly refutes such an interpretation.
As I indicated it is a statement of Joseph Smith about the book and is not in the Book itself - it is added to some versions later as a part of a Forward or Introduction.
That is not really my "church's statement." It was Joseph Smith's statement. It seems to be his opinion. I'm sure he had lots of opinions. It doesn't change my love of the Bible, and it's many precepts. Although having studied the Bible intently for years, I have to agree that The BoM is more accurate - especially as compared the the Catholic Bible. Scribal errors, poor translation, and outright additions and omissions have affected the Bible. Even your own Catholic Encyclopedia admits to ancient addition in what's known as the Johanine Coma from a manuscript margin note, etc.
You have given no reason to believe any of them. Sorry, but unsubstantiated assertions that "the Lord told me so in my heart" simply fail to compel belief, as they must for any Christian who is committed to loving God with all of his mind.
The odd thing is, he does not need to provide you a reason, it is a matter of faith. All you can do, all any of us can do, is share the Truth of the Gospel. It is not up to us convince anybody that we are right. We share the Truth, our reason for hope, and then its between them and God. In the end, the reason we believe is entirely experiential. If ones faith is empirical than they have no faith at all.
Sharing the Gospel is, once again, a different issue from what RT and I have been discussing, which is RT's claim that "the Lord told him" that the LDS "church" is the true Church of Jesus Christ. My point has been that one needs more than bare subjective claims if one expects others to take him at all seriously. My statement in Post #306 therefore stands.
My point is that all one has for faith are subjective claim. Faith in God is a subjective experience that differs from each one of us. When people begin to accept extra biblical writings as equally authoritative to scripture then real problems begin to set in.
Yet again, the topic of discussion was not "faith," but knowledge. The subject was epistemology. If you want to discuss the nature of faith, you'll have to start another thread.
...declares the guy who himself holds to any number of extra-biblical notions and beliefs.
"Scripture alone" (sola scriptura) is certainly not "every word that God has spoken to us," as even the Scriptures themselves plainly testify. Sola scriptura is itself an extra-biblical notion invented by mere men. Thus, you've merely proven my point.
Post #312.
Not at all. The only Scriptures accepted by Catholics are those that comprise the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. Mormons, by contrast, accept additional supposed Scriptures, such as the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. Catholics affirm only the Bible as "Scripture."
And yet you see the Catechism as functionally equivalent to scripture. You have stated so in the past.
Non Sequitur Fallacy.
Yes, I read your sources. I've been reading Mormon literature---BOM, Robert Millet, Terryl Givens, etc.---for years.
No.