Maxel

Another excerpt: Isn't Castro a former dictator and a plain ol' bad man? I'm confused. Maybe I'm one of those kids that need to go sit in the corner...And maybe this is another case of people calling evil good. I'd be interested to hear what other (more knowledgeable) people have to say about this.

The entire Democrat vs. Republican debate, when thrown in context of the Gospel, reminds me of a quote from C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity: "[The devil] always sends errors into the world in pairs; pairs of opposites, and he always encourages us to spend a lot of time thinking about which is the worse... He relies on your extra dislike of the one error to draw you gradually into the opposite one." I'm not versed in the origins or the fine details of each of the parties, but they both seem wrong: neither party grounds itself in principles that will actually work. I think some conservatives are too staunch, xenophobic and grounded in tradition as opposed to actual truth; some liberals are just too... open-minded to all the wrong things. In my mind, the greatest downfall of bipartisanship to this country is to shift the political energy and discussion subtly away from the issues at hand to mud-slinging contests and a desire to be different than one's opponent. I think Washington had the right idea when he suggested we don't adopt two major political parties.

Your position makes more sense to me now, Snow. I appreciate you taking the time to explain it. I now understand where my own hesitation to accept your logic stems from. Two big things. First- your explanations seem to discount the Holy Ghost (the great Testator) and place the feelings and knowledge it brings us somehow 'below' empirical evidence gained through the physical senses. I believe this idea subverts the very method in which God has revealed to us about how to gain a living testimony and returns the argument to the circular, never-ending attempts to (dis)prove God's existence based on external evidences. I see this as relying upon the arm of the flesh, and the wrong way to go about building faith. A faith based on temporal, empirical evidence will not uphold us through the extremes of life. Second, the hesitance to use the term 'knowing' when the prophets use the term (for instance, in Alma 32:34) to describe a person's state of knowledge about God after having tested His word. I believe that building a testimony requires the gathering of evidence from inside our own souls: how do we react to the good word of the Lord after we plant it in our hearts? Ultimately, building a testimony is just as arduous- and far more important- than any lab experiment proving a hypothesis, and the results are far more concrete. Also, it is through the process of the Holy Ghost infusing us with the intelligence of God that we are able to better discern between good and evil. A knowledge of good and evil doesn't come from the study of ethics or philosophy, but by living a godly life: ultimately, the evidence for what constitutes 'goodness' and 'wickedness' is intrinsic. One more thought: the difference between the Mormon 'knowing' and the 'knowing' of other religions is that we understand the process better, and through receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost we are given the right tools. While following a similar process might result in mere conviction for others about their religion, it produces real knowledge in someone seeking to learn about the LDS Church. Ultimately, the real deciding factor is: what's the truth? Also, I wouldn't prefer to trust my life to a doctor who just had a 'strong feeling'. However, I trust my own soul to the feelings and knowledge given me by God.

You reminded me of a quote from the esteemed C.S. Lewis:"Pride gets no pleasure out of having something- only by having more of it than the next man." The Gospel of Christ, on the other hand, gives pleasure simply by being possessed: whether person A has 'more' of that Gospel than person B is irrelevant and unimportant. I guess it's the difference between division and unification.

Come on, he wasn't gay bashing. He was stating a fact- one that is relevant to the situation. Can you stop turning everything portraying homosexuality in an even faintly negative light as 'gay bashing'? Slippery slopes are funny things: a person or country can be heading downhill in one area, and uphill in another. The wheat have to grow up with the tares. Saying that a slippery slope cannot exist anywhere in society based on one area that is improving doesn't hold water.

I thought we were talking about the way things really are and not necessarily how they will be received in the court of law. I agree though: I got us a little off track with the mention of homosexuality. My apologies. However, the point still stands: it is a slippery slope, there are examples of it extant today. I think this is the wrong approach to the situation. Ultimately, the result is damned if you do, damned if you don't: both are abhorrent. It doesn't matter whether it's better to needlessly cut off a foot or a finger; to kill someone with a gun or a rusty spork- the real question is whether it is right or not. To me, your example is like getting a lawyer to determine whether extramarital sex with condoms or extramarital sex after the partner is sterilized is better. The lesser of two evils is still evil, and shouldn't be accepted in society. The thing is, people like Millner want to remove the stigma and make it acceptable and just another valid option for anyone who wants to die. It's not. Hiding behind the legality of the situation is akin to the people of Ammonihah who refused to listen to the advice of the prophet because he had no lawful jurisdiction over them, yet were at that very time were plotting to overthrow the government.Let me ask you this, though: do you believe that this would be bad if it were illegal? Does the legality of the operation make it okay? I'd like to point out that the controversy surrounding this article- a perfectly healthy woman wanting to die with her husband- finds its potency in the fact that the woman is perfectly healthy, but just wants to die. Ultimately, the current laws matter very little as a requirement of the slippery slope is that society degrades to match the degradation of the act allowed by the people. The upstanding ethics of today that uphold the law may not be in place tomorrow. Satan is subtle; he works in the hearts of the people to get them to accept sin today so that their children will be desensitized and all the worse for it tomorrow. I'm a little tired right now; let me restate and make sure I'm not talking past you or addressing straw men. We're talking about whether the widespread acceptance of third-party (that is, a party not associated with the treatment of the individual's ailment) assisted suicide situations can lead to the widespread 'culling' of the human race (that is, the forced euthanasia of the elderly and infirm, chronically ill, etc.). You're arguing that because of pithy differences between assisted, consensual suicide and murder that the one cannot lead to the other. I have claimed that it can because, morally, they are not too different in this situation (which is the example I look to as the kind of act that could lead to the 'culling'). Is that accurate?

You are mostly wrong, except you are correct that such feelings cannot be tested by others. However, they can be tested by me. My testimony is not based solely on feelings (which are always accompanied by profound spiritual insight) but also on visions and miracles. I should rephrase: my testimony is based on my feelings and insight, and is strengthened by visions and miracles. These feelings are not my own creations, nor are the visions and dreams and miracles I experience. You also fail to address how I explain that the Mormon-knowing is qualitatively superior to (what you presented as) the JW and Muslim-knowing. My answer to that deals directly with the situation of others believing the opposite of what I believe.One important factor is the source from which I learned how to gain my testimony. Like Alma has beautifully stated: a good seed will grow. I'm glad they wouldn't. However, you continually reduce the idea of Mormon testimony to merely feelings. It is more than that. Also, all your examples involve more than one person. My testimony is given to me because it affects my eternal soul and salvation: not anyone else's. We are each captain of our own soul, and a captain's job and learning is not transferred to the crew. I don't define knowledge as feelings, and saying I do is dishonest. Would you kindly offer a definition of knowledge and give an example on how one comes to really know something?Do you agree with Alma 32 and/or my aforementioned example of how belief, action, faith, and knowledge are all connected? I think if I knew where you're coming from- other than 'Mormons don't really know'- I would be able to discuss this better. EDIT: Just saw your reply to Dravin- thanks for giving a definition. It seems the hang up is that you want to equate the knowing that comes from receiving a witness from the Holy Ghost as the carnal knowing that comes from temporal interaction. The two are not the same- the knowing that is bred from the Holy Ghost's whisperings are firmer and more concrete than the latter kind. We may 'know' various facts about life and science, but if history has taught us one thing it is that humans have a knack for being scientifically wrong, but moving forward anyway. That is, the 'truth' that science presents us yesterday is not the same 'truth' that exists today, and is not the same 'truth' that will exist tomorrow. The kind of knowing that comes from the Holy Ghost is a witness of an absolute truth, and the knowing gleaned from study and earthly learning and interaction is a kind of 'transitory' knowing: it is the state of 'knowing' that we exist in until we learn a newer, more accurate truth. Also, one more question: which do you think is better, Snow: conviction or knowledge?

All righteous acts lead to the same end. Similarly, all wicked acts lead to the same end. As for the existence of the slippery slope, I suggest you look into the recent history of Sweden and its treatment of marriage. The previous generations pushed for the legalization of homosexuality, then homosexual marriage. Now the battle is over legalized polygamy. A slippery slope exists there, and they actually exist many places. The only reason the slippery slope is a logical fallacy is that the cause of the slippery slope- righteousness and wickedness- is beyond the explanation of mortal logic. I think it's safe to say that the slippery slope would also exist in the case of assisted suicide. How long it would take, I don't know, but the logic points in that direction (i.e., the moment human life is viewed as a commodity to be given up legally, all it takes is unhealthy government intervention to make the jump to some people being forced to give that commodity up).BTW, the mentioning of homosexuality being forced on others: the act wasn't forced on others, but the acceptance of it- and being forced to recognize it as a partnership equal to heterosexuality- is forced on others. And for the record, I'm not claiming that homosexual acts and suicide are related other than being immoral. I look at this as a moral issue, not just a legal one. If we are to believe that an act's legality is the deciding factor in its impact on society, then we are to be blown about by the winds of false doctrine. Legalizing and/or the acceptance of such a gross sin as suicide and assisted suicide is harmful to society, and is as much a symptom of degeneracy as it is a cause of grief.I also fail to see how this is mainly a legal issue. Sure, Minelli is couching his argument in legal terms (nowadays, what's more political and legal than human rights?) but that's not the real issue at hand. The face of legality is a red herring to draw attention from the elephant in the room: the moral implications of assisted suicide. Even though this article covers a little bit of the legal happenings of Minelli's work, the real impact is not its legality. By the way, I was under the impression that suicide is illegal in most countries? I have no backing for that though; I may be completely wrong.

You actually raise a valid point. In fact, we cannot know anything merely by learning about it from an external source: we must experience the phenomenon to know. I think in cases where information can be accepted as factual information- such as Obama being elected president- the word 'knowledge' is used differently than when it is applied to spiritual matters (especially in regards to testimony).And for the record, I doubt anything I was taught in school was the absolute truth. Like all beings, children are taught line upon line. I distinctly remember the moment I learned about atoms and that molecules are not the smallest particles in existence- although my 4th grade teacher had said so the previous day. The lesson has not been lost on me. And, if a factual relay of information from person A to person B can be counted as a legitimate source of knowledge, then many Mormons who have not yet received a testimony but who are given the gift of believing on another's words would also know that the Church is true. Ultimately, the crux of the argument is whether or not the Church is true. It is the ultimate circular line of reasoning, but one that is based on testimony- the one thing in existence that is able to prove the truth of a situation beyond the shadow of a doubt. Of course, to one who does not have that testimony it all seems foolishness. No wonder that Paul said "the foolishness of God is wiser than men" (1 Corinthians 1:25).

Yet humans make those huge logical leaps all the time because they don't understand the actual reality of things. Suicide is a serious issue, and the moment it becomes socially acceptable as an escape, the next step is forcing it on others. I don't want to beat a dead horse, but look at the state of homosexuality in various nations. When one generation just wants to be accepted and not persecuted, the next one wants to force others to accept their definition of sexuality and marriage through legal means. A decline in righteousness- in any area- always leads to a moral decline in all areas. Bad things happen and people kill themselves- that doesn't mean there should be businesses assisting said bad things. That's like saying "Person A is going to use heroine anyway, so we should legalize the distribution of it".Oh wait.. people are saying that. Try this: "Person A is going to kill person B anyway, so we should legalize the murder and hand person A a gun". The only difference here is that person A and B are the same person. Suicide is a serious sin that affects more than just the person committing the act.

All right. Let me recreate the flow chart.Belief ==> Action ==> Faith ==> Knowledge 1) Belief We choose to believe something. Why we do so varies: I may believe an idea because it is convenient or easy for me to do so; I may believe because the idea seems to be rooted in fact; I may believe because I feel it to be true. 2) Action We act on that belief. If I believe I can fly, I may choose to jump off the couch and fly around the house. 3) Faith The step between action and faith is not as direct as the step between belief and action. While a belief may be equated to a hypothesis and an action may be an experiment, we do not arrive at 'faith' until our experiment's conclusions support our hypothesis. Thus, it may be required to re-evaluate our belief or change our action. If I believe I can somehow move my body to the center of the room, but I cannot do so by walking on my hands, I will have to approach the situation in a different manner and try a different experiment based on the belief. If, however, my belief/hypothesis is that I can magically transport to the center of the room, my action/experiment must accurately reflect the nature of the belief: I must honestly be able to move from point A to point B without ever occupying the space between the two points. 4) Knowledge Knowledge is arrived at after faith has been tried and tested. Our faith is tried when we are faced with a situation where we are forced to make a choice: exercise the principles our faith is built on or not exercise those principles. When our faith is tested and tried often enough and we receive enough external evidences of our faith's validity, it transforms into knowledge. In spiritual matters- such as the existence of God- faith cannot become knowledge without the influence of the Holy Ghost, which helps mold our spirits to more accurately reflect Christ's. ------- Now, let's take two examples: one that is not based in spiritual matters, and one based in them. 1) A little boy wants to learn to sing a certain song. First, he must believe he is currently able to make the physical actions required for singing and that he can learn how to do so better than he currently can- if he did not believe he could, then he would not try. Because he believes he can, he must act on that belief or he will never learn how to sing, and his belief will stay merely a belief. The little boy sets out to sing. He has failings and setbacks, but he continues on, undaunted by failure. His general blanket belief- that he is physically able to sing and that he is physically able to learn to sing better- must be supported by smaller beliefs (e.g., if he thinks he is singing note A he is actually singing note A and not note C). Through a series of actions that either support or do not support individual beliefs, the child slowly becomes more proficient at singing and more able to sing the desired song. Eventually, that continuing interaction of belief and action leads to faith. Before he has sat down to sing the song all the way through he slowly begins to have faith that he can do it. At this point, he now has faith that he can accomplish his original goal encompassed by his belief. Once he has sung the song all the way through, and can repeat the process on command, his faith is dormant (Alma 32:34) because it is replaced by knowledge that he can sing the song. 2) A person wants to know if the Book of Mormon is true. They must first believe that it is possible to receive an answer from God. They must believe that if they go to God in faith and follow the process set forth in Moroni 10:4-5, they will receive an answer one way or the other. Then, they must translate that belief into action: this person must read the Book of Mormon, ponder it in his/her heart, and then ask God the Father, in the name of Christ, if it is true. An answer is received. A person receives a witness- borne by the Holy Ghost- that the Book of Mormon is true. However, this person does not have a firm knowledge yet. Their faith must be acted upon and tested. It must be subjected to trials and testing and withstand opposition. Building and maintaining such knowledge is a lifelong endeavor, and in times of trial, if the person keeps a broken heart and contrite spirit, (s)he will receive the external evidence needed to keep that faith alive. ----- Does that make sense? And any faithful, God-fearing Mormon's knowledge is based on more than knowing because "they just do". You don't seem to understand the argument. They are more convinced? How do you judge exactly how convinced a person is of something? No I wasn't, although now that you've put the words in my mouth I guess it is- if the JW or Muslim-knowing is the 'just knowing' that you described earlier. Our knowledge is the result of the interaction of the Holy Ghost and our own souls; our knowledge is born of experience and not a lack thereof.EDIT: I just saw LittleWyvern's quotation of Alma 32. The process I'm describing is the same one described therein; I appreciate the posting of it.

I was so shocked by the mere fact that this existed that I didn't think of where it could lead. You're right, I fear: if this idea is ever popularized or accepted, the next phase will be to 'weed out' the 'inferior' human specimens.

Yes. It means a lot. It all depends on the situation. Since this example is all in your mind, perhaps you could explain just how this imaginary situation proves anything.If you have an actual example, perhaps we could peruse that for pertinent details to discover more. I have never come across a member of another religion (Christian or non-Christian) who claims to have followed the general process outlined in Moroni 10:4-5 (about how to ask and receive in faith) and received an answer that their religion is true. The only example I can think of is a former member (now atheist) who facetiously claims he received a witness (saying it felt like a 'fiery hot habanero burrito in his stomach!') that Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet to ridicule members.

I think D&C 95:1 accurately summarizes the grand purpose of disciplinary councils: 1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you whom I love, and whom I love I also chasten that their sins may be forgiven, for with the chastisement I prepare a way for their deliverance in all things out of temptation, and I have loved you

Faith becomes knowledge after it is acted upon.Belief ==> Action ==> Faith ==> Knowledge ==> Belief (in another, deeper doctrine) ==> Action ==> Faith ==> Knowledge And the process continues ad infinitum. Like I said, signs follow them that believe. Those external signs provide the evidence you claim there is a dearth of. The faithful receive enough evidence to solidify their faith and turn it into knowledge.

I got a message from this guy as well. I find it helps to pre-empt the conversation: when Alaskancoho mentioned the King Follet discourse, I mentioned Lorenzo Snow's couplet and blatantly stated that I believe the doctrine of eternal progression. Taking the initiative when someone is trying to deceive you turns the tables- he ended up sputtering away and never replied to my last message.

So, suicide is a human right? *Puts this on his 'Signs of the times' list* All semi-joking aside- this makes me sick. Suicide is a serious issue, and anyone offering 'assisted suicides' is little more than a murderer. I'm not surprised this Minelli is masquerading this as a human rights issue. It seems nowadays you can make any deviance or evil popular or accepted if you label it a 'right'.

Knowing the Gospel to be true is a fruit of asking God in faith. A person can know- really know, and not just have conviction. Signs follow those that believe for a reason. I know because I have had spiritual witnesses, visions, and witnessed miracles. However, these are all personal experiences and are not subject to the same outside scrutiny that other facts of nature are. No once can prove it one way or another to you. It has to be learned personally.

People are people. There are as many cultural Mormons as there are cultural Christians, cultural Atheists, etc. Cultural <enter religion/philosophy here> adhere to their religion or philosophy because it is cool and/or the norm. In the case of Mormons, most of the time cultural Mormon = hypocritical Mormon. The one place in the world where it's cool to be a Mormon- Utah- will also be the one place in the world where you'll find the highest concentration of hypocritical Mormons. That being said, sometimes it's easier to see the faults in others when they reflect our own shortcomings.

Modesty isn't just about clothing, but one's clothing falls under the 'jurisdiction', if you will, of one's own modesty. Modesty is more than skin deep. I agree with pam: oftentimes one of the first things a person notices about another is their clothing- especially artistic and visually-based people. And I'm curious, Fiannan: would you explain how the nudists you know are also modest? And how they are, in fact, some of the most modest people you know?

Man, I love these books too! My dad introduced them to me. Good times. I've never read Papa Married a Mormon though.

Well, between your two choices, Snow- teaching a child about faith vs. turning them into mindless testimony-bearing automatons- the obvious answer is that we should teach the child about faith. Which is the right answer. But it doesn't rule out encouraging a child to bear their testimony, even if that encouraging includes coaching. Such semi-mindless coaching shouldn't become the regular occurrence for young children, but I feel they need to become comfortable bearing testimony- for a child, that might mean having mommy and daddy coach them and/or go up with them and whisper what to say in their ear a few times. In the end, what's most important (when it comes to bearing testimony) to teach a child is initiative and experience. Teaching a child to bear testimony and fostering faith are two different things.

You might want to direct your mother to 2 Corinthians 11:14:14 "and no wonder, for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light." And Doctrine and Covenants 129:8: 4 "When a messenger comes saying he has a message from God... 8 If it be the devil as an angel of light, when you ask him to shake hands he will offer you his hand, and you will not feel anything; you may therefore detect him." Of course, if you are attempting to discern between the fruits of the spirit of the Holy Ghost versus the spirit of Satan, I suggest following the advice given by others preceding this comment. One note: occasionally, we are given insights into the workings of the devil through studying the Gospel of Christ. It's not bad to ponder and understand more about those insights, but do not make it a consuming pastime. I have learned that Satan cannot create anything of his own volition: his power is deception and perversion. Through human agents, Satan can twist natural laws and truths to appear different than what they really are, but the presence of the Priesthood and Christ's influence will force Satan to disperse and begin to undo his diabolical handiwork.

My headache has for now subsided, but it might come back depending on your behavior in this thread. I'm not afraid to pull out cats if this becomes a Mormon-bashing thread, although right now it's about Calvinism and agency. The crux of your argument lies on the idea that Calvinism is biblical- and any theology being 'biblical' relies largely on one's own interpretation of the Bible (unless you're willing to think that by reason alone you have come to the correct conclusion). Sola scriptura is not true doctrine, and is contrary to the actual methods and purposes of God. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible alone is sufficient to interpret itself- sola scriptura is circular reasoning based in falsehood, although the intention that bred its origin- an attempt to break away from the unrighteous dominion caused by men in power misinterpreting the Bible through pretended prophetic authority- wasn't bad. However, the time for belief in sola scriptura and other like doctrines is past- it is no longer the most true doctrine to be found on the earth (if it ever was).Personally, I think Calvinism has some true doctrine but it does not have other crucial doctrine- thus it offers an unbalanced view of God and His nature. Is it good that Calvinism is emerging more? In my opinion, yes and no. Some of Calvinist doctrine is utterly distasteful; other doctrine is good. More than this. I need examples of charitable work (of any kind) being sparked by Calvinism. In the article, the only result listed of Calvinism's reemergence has been "kirmishes among the Southern Baptists... and online flame wars". Judging solely from the article and my own (very scant) knowledge of Calvinist theology, its comeback seems to breed more ill than good. Perhaps you missed Peterson's words explaining his stance and why he said what he said? Frankly, I'm inclined to agree with him: if the idea that 'God just doesn't like certain groups of people' is a natural fruit of Calvinist belief, then the system is false and repugnant. The question then becomes 'is the idea that God doesn't like certain people a natural fruit of Calvinism'?Furthermore, you should have told us why you couldn't link a direct quotation when you used Dr. Peterson's exact words. The fact that you've been banned from another LDS forum speaks volumes- although it is a legitimate reason for not being able to link the source. You could have done it less disingenuously. We are all well aware some Mormons find Reformed theology appalling. You don't have to wave the most acrimonious example you can find like a martyr's banner. After rereading Dr. Peterson's quote and hearing his own explanation, I don't think he was out of line. What is out of line is ripping his quote from its context and explanation without at least a worthy suggestion of where we could find it (no, your comment about finding more about his views on Calvinism at the MADB boards doesn't count, as someone without an account has no idea how to find the right post).Are we to believe that you just copy/paste damming quotes into your personal Word files without copying the URL too? If so, that's dishonest on your part, as the only point of saving them is times like these- to use them as ammunition (or to mull over them and contemplate how evil the Mormons are for hating their Christian brothers). If you did copy the URL, then not posting it here is dishonest on your part. Good; those teachers were echoing the General Authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. First of all, Calvinism was only one system of Christian doctrine that was born from the Reformation. Secondly, neither Catholicism nor Protestantism had the whole truth. Yes, the Reformers were inspired, but that doesn't mean they were inspired to bring about the correct doctrine of Christ in their time. No one will deny that the impact of the Reformation reached far beyond the theological world: it helped to shake the Catholic Church's vice grip on the governments of the day and was the first step towards real religious liberty. Only men inspired of God could have spearheaded that reform. You are wrong. Protestantism was a step forward in many ways, including politically- however, it wasn't the final destination. Perfectly. You've concealed yourself in a circular room and are content to run along the walls, laughing at those outside. Of course I don't expect you to see the bigger picture. You overlook the fact that there are many cultural Christians who aren't converted in their hearts. Someone saying 'I'm a Christian!' doesn't mean much. They may or they may not actually believe.However, that's not the main reason I would bear my testimony of Christ (which means, by the way, to testify that Christ is the Savior of mankind and God- you should know that if you were truly ever "formidable in Gospel Doctrine" classes). When a person bears testimony through the power of the Holy Ghost, the Holy Ghost affirms the truth of it in the listeners if they are susceptible to the message (that is, if they are prepared and their hearts are softened enough). The power of testimony is that it transcends the normal process of symbolic communication and speaks directly from one soul to another. Bearing testimony of Christ's divinity and the Book of Mormon is bearing my own testimony of some of my most precious spiritual feelings and the sharing of God's truth in the way that He has prescribed. ErikJohnson, you are one of the most underhanded people I know. This is undoubtedly an attack on my own belief system (and me) that found full fruition in this post of yours (which I never had the chance to respond to). I do not do this to persuade others I am a Christian- I am a Christian, despite what naysayers such as yourself may attempt to label me as. I must admit, I had forgotten exactly how good you are at deceitful interaction. Unless you fix the problem, you're a prime candidate for a professional anti-Mormon.Feel free to use my words as you feel fit ErikJohnson (as you have with Dr. Peterson's); I have spoken what I feel to be the truth and am not ashamed. No doubt this will go into your Word file alongside Dr. Peterson's words, but I do not care: I can no longer stomach your hypocrisy. For those that ErikJohnson will direct to this thread: I pray you look over his other attempts on this site (1, 2, 3) to discredit Mormons and set himself up as an authority, and judge for yourself what the underlying agenda is. Ephesians 4:14: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive

I don't know if I'm being reprimanded here or not. Regardless, I apologize if I came off as rude, condescending, and/or haughty. If I were to apply your own test of finding one flaw or inconsistency within a religion meaning that religion is false, then this right here is enough to 'prove' Buddhism false (FYI, I don't think Buddhism is 'false'; this kind of example was one reason I rejected your earlier idea about how to find if a religion is true or not). I would like to know what Buddhism presents as a test of its truth, if there is such a test extant in Buddhist doctrine. It is good that you feel so strongly about your faith! I can join you in that I have found no evidence against my own faith; in fact every search into Mormonism's history and theology presents more evidence that it is true.Personally, I believe one can know of the truth of any matter- including (nay; especially) religious matters- through the power of the Holy Ghost. Throughout my life, I have found it a constant companion and testator that has taught me and guided me on the right path.