How do you know that you know, and how do you prove it? And if I prove it, how do I know that I know that I prove it, and how can I prove that I know that I know to others, and how do we know that we know that we prove it the same way? Or can we know that we know? This is why, at a certain point: Can we even know?
I know in the same way that Peter knew that Jesus was the Christ. You can know, as Christ said, by the fruits and by doing the will of the Father to see if it is true. Further you are able to follow the admonition found in Moroni 10:3-5 and follow the experiment found in Alma 32.
Faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things, not a first. The proof comes only after the trial of faith and one must grow in knowledge and in truth not having the fullness a first and perhaps not until after this life. Being compelled through logic or reason to know the truth is certainly not the start of faith but it does bring knowledge and with knowledge comes greater responsibilities (see Alma 32:17-19).
Furthermore, the logical proofs of the Catholics depend on the Metaphysics of Aristotle, which further depend on the assumptions made by Aristotle. Aristotle never had theophany (I might need to do another post on this one), he never talked with God, so his reasoning was the reasoning of a natural man. Paul both warns against such, stating that "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14. To me this certainly seems to mean that the mixing of the philosophies of men with scripture is not true theology but something else entirely. Of course if such a mixing were dependent on the plain meaning of the scriptures then maybe they would have an argument. However when "the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend." is taken to mean that the Lord doesn't have a body or a face and isn't the form of a man then they are just being silly if they expect me to believe that their arguments are not primarily those of Aristotle but instead from the Apostles of Our Lord. Indeed many of scriptures and many of the very early Church Fathers appear to warn very strongly against the marriage of scripture and philosophy, and then many of the Church Fathers and Doctors very obviously throw out things they were taught by believing Christians in favor of the philosophy of men (ie. they say they are doing so and ridicule the simple faith of those that brought them to the faith).
To me it certainly seems true that the Catholics have mastered the art of drawing near to God with their lips, but having their hearts far from him, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof. That is precisely what was stated in the post I am responding to; that the still small voice of the Spirit, the voice of God, is to be quashed under the reasoning's of the Catholic Magestarium. They do not respond like Moses: "would God that all the LORD'S people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit upon them!" but instead appear to be saying that there can be and are no prophets.
There was an Apostasy, as the prophets and Apostles said.
There was a restoration, as the prophets and Apostles said.
Make sure to check out the more information and scriptural references and conference talks which will have more references including historic.
I invite the interested reader to research statistical studies on the subject of the fruits of the Chruch of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. For starters, one may wish to look at the recent Pew Study .
