[T. P. Pole]

***Did I state the first to your satisfaction? [Yep.] Can you accept that we believe the second, without being forced to believe it yourself? [Yep.] Can you also accept that we are using Bible verses to support our belief, even if you disagree with the conclusion? [Nope, see above[below]. You are misusing the Bible and abusing the Bible itself.]

Hey, we are making good progress. Thanks for the agreements.

Let's talk about the third issue.

But LDS place the BoM, PGP, D&C in principle on a par with Scripture and in practice ahead of the Bible. This is a whole different matter than the answer to prayers or whether 2+2=4. At the same time they say the Bible is the Word of God as far as the KJV is translated accurately. Then they argue that since we don't have the original manuscripts we can not know if any of it is translated accurately. See, TPP, I find in reality anything in the Bible can be swept aside by LDS folk yet the BoM and PGP & D&C are guaranteed by Joe & Brigham's prophetic office. This is not a biblical religion in reality. It only appears to be such to the LDS believer and the naive.

I agree with you that LDS use the BoM, PGP, and D&C on a par with (and in many ways ahead of) the Bible. But that is not the question on the table right now.

This is: using the Bible, and only the Bible, would you agree with the premise at hand - that I have pointed out several passages that could support the concept of the Holy Spirit using a burning heart/bosom to testify of truth?

We LDS would certainly point out that our other scriptures can clarify the issue, and the passage in D&C 9 does this, as well as Moroni 10:5. And I would understand your objection if I did bring that into the discussion, considering the objection noted above. However, I am not using these other sources. All I doing is using the Bible.

I think these last questions are really the issue: What if an "accepted" Christian presented this idea? Would it be handled differently? Is the real problem here the fact that it is a LDS that is asking?

And if that is the case, what does that say about any of our other discussion threads on LDS issues?

[drstevej]

***to testify of truth?***

Define your phrase. And then show how Luke 14 meets this definition. I grant illumination in the case of the disciples. I don't see where this verse even establishes the norm for illumination much less the LDS doctrine of the BB.

***What if an "accepted" Christian presented this idea?***

Any Christian that used a burning bosom to declare the canon needed expansion, especially one who had visions of personages and golden plates and a seer stone (AND THESE ARE THE CASE with JS), I would reject as a fraud. I don't care if his name were Chuck Swindol or Rael.