Revelations come "after the manner of their language"

[stemelbow]

yep.  This whole concept of revelation and truth is a squirrely affair--not the type of scrape that Joseph and Fanny engaged.  That's why in some measures we're thousands of miles away from the concepts that Joseph Smith taught and tried to establish.  That's why we have tons of evolving yet to do.  That's why error was promoted as virtuous teaching established by God.  That's why God helps one find lost keys in a pinch but sits idly by as destruction comes among praying people.

None of it is foolproof.  None of it is absolute.  We're all over the board.  We need embrace that. 

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

Michael Ash's address in a nutshell:  The Creator can't adequately communicate with His creations.   

 

Perhaps in some ways this is the same as a mother not being able to communicate with her newborn child.  Yet with patience, practice, and growth the child develops and eventually is able to fully communicate with his mother and others.  Are we not in the same position with God as he tries to communicate with us through spiritual means?  We start as a child but as we have patience, gain experience, and are obedient we grow to understand more and more.

[stemelbow]

Just now, ksfisher said:

Perhaps in some ways this is the same as a mother not being able to communicate with her newborn child.  Yet with patience, practice, and growth the child develops and eventually is able to fully communicate with his mother and others.  Are we not in the same position with God as he tries to communicate with us through spiritual means?  We start as a child but as we have patience, gain experience, and are obedient we grow to understand more and more.

Makes ya wonder, the difference between a mother and new born is equivalent to the difference between a grown person and God?

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

Thinking about this a little more, these communication "limits" (hope_for_things word choice) if true, must have some implication for the understanding of faith in an LDS context.  I would hypothesize that a limited god (or gods) makes an LDS member's faith in the LDS Church and its leadership even more important (vis-a-vis faith in the LDS Jesus).  Because occasional moments of incoherence notwithstanding, the Church and its leaders can make themselves understood.  Then the faith that matters most--is your faith that their intentions are best. 

You recognize (for the reasons Ash gives--language barriers, the unsearchable judgments of God, etc.) that leadership may simply have no knowledge of the will of their Creator in any given matter.  But that becomes a secondary concern. 

Do others see implications for LDS faith in Ash's idea?      

--Erik

Interesting... I think for the LDS context, I would agree with you that many people put faith in leaders and that this is encouraged institutionally and culturally, but I don't think that is the right emphasis, and I think the ideas in the gospel message that are inspirational to me actually push back against this impulse that is predominant today.  

The gospel message that I find compelling is one of finding that inner authority and inner motivation for good, and acting upon those impulses to uplift and reduce the suffering in the world.  Certainly church leaders can encourage this behavior as well, and they have great opportunity for influence because of the deference and trust that members give their words.  Yet I think the gospel message is constantly pushing for individuals to become agents for themselves and to find inner authority and motivation for goodness, rather than just blindly following others.  

[Pete Ahlstrom]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Uh, did you miss that this is your time to figure out the answers?  Like for yourself and by yourself?  Time to put on the big boy pants!

Uh, my point is that religious leaders and magicians have more of a connection than you or others may care to admit. Mr. Ashe's presentation is just another justification as to why there is no communication except what we imagine.  You claim there are prophets that speak with God and Jesus but when it matters most, there is silence, but the missions in Argentina have leaders chosen by God?  Maybe you need to put away your desires to have a parent watching over you at all times and actually be the one to wear big boy pants?  I know the concept of totally being on our own is rough for some, but it is nice being an adult.

[Jeanne]

Just one question..and I apologize if this doesn't co-op with the OP...but we have been told that Prophets and apostles make mistakes..that they are just men..so why would anyone stake their entire life..I mean ENTIRE life..and monies..time ..and complete obedience to words of just men? ( And some disagree with each other..not to mention that certain doctrines that were supposed to be relatively eternal..have changed)

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Just one question..and I apologize if this doesn't co-op with the OP...but we have been told that Prophets and apostles make mistakes..that they are just men..so why would anyone stake their entire life..I mean ENTIRE life..and monies..time ..and complete obedience to words of just men? ( And some disagree with each other..not to mention that certain doctrines that were supposed to be relatively eternal..have changed)

No one would. I only pay attention to their words I think have a reasonable expectation of being inspired or are at least under their authority.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Just one question..and I apologize if this doesn't co-op with the OP...but we have been told that Prophets and apostles make mistakes..that they are just men..so why would anyone stake their entire life..I mean ENTIRE life..and monies..time ..and complete obedience to words of just men? ( And some disagree with each other..not to mention that certain doctrines that were supposed to be relatively eternal..have changed)

You never do, only fools do that

You stake your life and your fortune on what GOD tells YOU personally.  That is called a "TESTIMONY".

If God confirms to you they are right, you follow.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Uh, my point is that religious leaders and magicians have more of a connection than you or others may care to admit. Mr. Ashe's presentation is just another justification as to why there is no communication except what we imagine.  You claim there are prophets that speak with God and Jesus but when it matters most, there is silence, but the missions in Argentina have leaders chosen by God?  Maybe you need to put away your desires to have a parent watching over you at all times and actually be the one to wear big boy pants?  I know the concept of totally being on our own is rough for some, but it is nice being an adult.

I have no such desire- I trust in what I feel in side and call it "the spirit".  I don't know where you get this stuff!!   But I have actually studied philosophy and have something to base it on.

Oh and I do not appreciate being told what I care to admit or not. You have ABSOLUTELY no understanding of how I see the world.

Religion and science have nothing to do with one another- positivism is dead.  Positivism is the BELIEF TAKEN ON FAITH that all propositions must have objective empirical evidence to make sense or be "true".  No serious philosopher has believed that in 50 years.  Read it for yourself https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Logical-positivism-a-dead-philosophy

Google "death of positivism" and see what you get.  The originators of positivism like Ayer have even pronounced it dead.

Religion gives you meaning and purpose in life, science tells you how things work.   Science tells you what makes rockets work while religion tells you what you should value in life and what is important to you.

Can you see the difference?   Religion is a faith-held position which tells you what is important to you and how to live your life.  Going on a ship to save the whales is an act of faith- that that will help the world in some way.  It is taking action on a position you hold in faith which you are convinced will have a positive result.  Dedicating your life to "social justice" is a religious position whether or not you believe in God

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2013/04/04/religion-without-god/

Quote

 

Rorty places himself in the company of pragmatic philosophers who see the main task of philosophy to be to dissolve problems rather than to go to work solving them, he said. Philosophical problems are caused by language games—about religion, science, assignment of moral responsibility, etc.—getting in each other's way, he said.

"There isn't a problem about getting the subject matter of these language games right, there is just the problem of letting the people who use the various language games get along with one another," he said.

Audience members were quick to question Rorty's assertions.

"My job as a scientist is to match my ideas in my head with what's out there," said one. "As a scientist, I'm addicted to thinking there is some reality out there that's really real."

The metaphysical question the Greeks "burdened" us with—Which among the things we talk about, among our intentional objects, are real objects?—"is a question that nobody has ever found any practical use for," Rorty said.

 

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2005/april13/rorty-041305.html

Quote

 

In "Anticlericalism and Atheism" Rorty discusses Vattimo's work Belief and argues that the end of metaphysics paves the way for an anti-essentialist religion. Rorty's conception of religion, determined by private motives, is designed to produce the gospel's promise that henceforth God will not consider humanity as a servant but as a friend. In "The Age of Interpretation," Vattimo, who is both a devout Catholic and a frequent critic of the church, explores the surprising congruence between Christianity and hermeneutics in light of the dissolution of metaphysical truth. As in hermeneutics, interpretation is central to Christianity, which introduced the world to the principle of interiority, dissolving the experience of objective reality into "listening to and interpreting messages."

 

https://cup.columbia.edu/book/the-future-of-religion/9780231134941

Sorry about the big words.

What they are saying is that Christianity has always been about interpretation of the scriptures, and that metaphysical truth has never worked well for Christianity.  The earth was not created in 6 days and Christianity never should have debated that.  The earth goes around the sun and Christianity never should have debated that.

"The kingdom of heaven is within"- THAT is what Christianity is about- forgiveness and love as an attitude toward life and others!  THAT is Christianity.  Interpreting the scriptures and likening them to us as parables- THAT is Christianity!  "Considering ourselves as if we are Adam and Eve" concerned about our own fall from grace- and how to fix it- THAT is what Christianity is about!!

Religion is about finding a message which unifies a person individually and helps them create a unified world view that gives them purpose in life, not facts about how old the earth is, or how it became to be populated.

We are here to create our own world views out of all the stuff that is out there- as a Mormon would say, to take "matter unorganized" and to create a world out of it for ourselves, not in slavish imitation of someone else.

On the other hand if someone HAS a world view you accept for yourself- like LDS prophets- you have a pre-fabricated code you can accept for yourself rationally, not taking them as infallible, of course.  God communicates to each of us in our own personal language, the path best suited for us to come back to him.

Guys like Ash get it.

You don't apparently.

I advise you to study up on it so you can get up to speed on what is happening in the world and in the church.  Your views of the church don't work anymore and people are noticing that.  It was never really about what you think it was about.

It has always been about testimony and an open canon, going all the way back to Joseph.

Edited August 15, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 8/13/2017 at 11:51 AM, USU78 said:

Paging MFB! Paging MFB!

Yo dude!

 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

59 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I have no such desire- I trust in what I feel in side and call it "the spirit".  I don't know where you get this stuff!!   But I have actually studied philosophy and have something to base it on.

Oh and I do not appreciate being told what I care to admit or not. You have ABSOLUTELY no understanding of how I see the world.

Religion and science have nothing to do with one another- positivism is dead.  Positivism is the BELIEF TAKEN ON FAITH that all propositions must have objective empirical evidence to make sense or be "true".  No serious philosopher has believed that in 50 years.  Read it for yourself https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Logical-positivism-a-dead-philosophy

Google "death of positivism" and see what you get.  The originators of positivism like Ayer have even pronounced it dead.

Religion gives you meaning and purpose in life, science tells you how things work.   Science tells you what makes rockets work while religion tells you what you should value in life and what is important to you.

Can you see the difference?   Religion is a faith-held position which tells you what is important to you and how to live your life.  Going on a ship to save the whales is an act of faith- that that will help the world in some way.  It is taking action on a position you hold in faith which you are convinced will have a positive result.  Dedicating your life to "social justice" is a religious position whether or not you believe in God

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2013/04/04/religion-without-god/

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2005/april13/rorty-041305.html

https://cup.columbia.edu/book/the-future-of-religion/9780231134941

Sorry about the big words.

What they are saying is that Christianity has always been about interpretation of the scriptures, and that metaphysical truth has never worked well for Christianity.  The earth was not created in 6 days and Christianity never should have debated that.  The earth goes around the sun and Christianity never should have debated that.

"The kingdom of heaven is within"- THAT is what Christianity is about- forgiveness and love as an attitude toward life and others!  THAT is Christianity.  Interpreting the scriptures and likening them to us as parables- THAT is Christianity!  "Considering ourselves as if we are Adam and Eve" concerned about our own fall from grace- and how to fix it- THAT is what Christianity is about!!

Religion is about finding a message which unifies a person individually and helps them create a unified world view that gives them purpose in life, not facts about how old the earth is, or how it became to be populated.

We are here to create our own world views out of all the stuff that is out there- as a Mormon would say, to take "matter unorganized" and to create a world out of it for ourselves, not in slavish imitation of someone else.

On the other hand if someone HAS a world view you accept for yourself- like LDS prophets- you have a pre-fabricated code you can accept for yourself rationally, not taking them as infallible, of course.  God communicates to each of us in our own personal language, the path best suited for us to come back to him.

Guys like Ash get it.

You don't apparently.

I advise you to study up on it so you can get up to speed on what is happening in the world and in the church.  Your views of the church don't work anymore and people are noticing that.  It was never really about what you think it was about.

It has always been about testimony and an open canon, going all the way back to Joseph.

You seem to have an inflated view of yourself. Maybe you ought to go over to the other board and try to explain how your views comport with what mormonism really says and not what you think it should say? I don't think your views mesh well with mormonism's 19th century views. But I could be wrong. My guess is that you would be silenced once you had a following but here again I no longer believe in seer stones or other magic so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about.

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You never do, only fools do that

You stake your life and your fortune on what GOD tells YOU personally.  That is called a "TESTIMONY".

If God confirms to you they are right, you follow.

Thank you.  This is kind of how I live my life.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

You seem to have an inflated view of yourself. Maybe you ought to go over to the other board and try to explain how your views comport with what mormonism really says and not what you think it should say? I don't think your views mesh well with mormonism's 19th century views. But I could be wrong. My guess is that you would be silenced once you had a following but here again I no longer believe in seer stones or other magic so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about.

You are not getting this.

MY Mormonism is MY Mormonism as I interpret it. What "my" Mormonism says is what I say it says.  It is my interpretation backed by testimony and every word is compatible with all the scriptures- according to my interpretation of the scriptures.  I affirm and treasure them all.

 I will never be silenced because I have a philosophical foundation for every statement I make forged out of 40 years of study.  I have an excellent reputation with my fellow local leaders and hardly am considered as a "marginal" Mormon in any way.  I treasure that with all my heart.  I heartily believe in the 9th Article of Faith, that revelation is on going.  The Restoration has just begun- we are less than 200 years into this.

Others may disagree- totally, but there is nothing for me to be "silenced" about.  I don't care about Mormonism's 19th century views- I do not believe in many of those views. I came to Mormonism from philosophy and as Sterling McMurrin said- "I was never disillusioned because I was never illusioned in the first place".

The basis of Mormonism is testimony.  That means that one believes that one has received revelation from God.  That cannot be debated.  If that is their belief, that is their belief.  I personally know that I have received communications from God.  I am certain.  If you understand contemporary philosophy - the deflationary theory of truth, Phenomenology, Pragmatism , Rorty, Dewey, even Derrida to some extent, Nagel or Wittgenstein, there is simply no way to debate that.  None of these were "religious" figures in a conventional sense, in fact nearly all were atheists, who affirmed that religious views are independent of scientism or the need for "evidence" other than internal intepretation.  Throw in Gadamer or Habermas for that matter.  "Hermeneutics".  Look it up.

This is essential Ash's point as well.

Your interpretation of what you think Mormonism is irrelevant to anything.  Frankly I find you beliefs rather uninformed.

And yes I have been at the "other board".  They have no better understanding, unfortunately, than you do.

And yes, my views are respected and have a place in Mormonism as confirmed by many, more knowledgeable than you in Mormonism.  I will let the readers and future readers of my stuff decide that.  You need to read more Ash, more Mason, more Givens, more Paulsen, more Peterson, Bushman and others.

Edited August 16, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Meerkat]

14 hours ago, Five Solas said:

You recognize (for the reasons Ash gives--language barriers, the unsearchable judgments of God, etc.) that leadership may simply have no knowledge of the will of their Creator in any given matter.  But that becomes a secondary concern. 

Do others see implications for LDS faith in Ash's idea?      

--Erik

The implications I see are that a loving Heavenly Father is able to communicate with anyone who will listen, based on the confines of their own life experiences and their willingness to learn.  I like what the Lord said to Nephi in 2 Ne. 28:30:

"30 For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have."

This is another one of those things that a person can test over time to determine if it is true, then live accordingly.

[USU78]

Would a G-d Who respected our freedom communicate in any other way? 

In His kindness, He leaves communication up to us for the most part. He stands at our door and knocks.

[Five Solas]

7 hours ago, Meerkat said:

The implications I see are that a loving Heavenly Father is able to communicate with anyone who will listen, based on the confines of their own life experiences and their willingness to learn.  I like what the Lord said to Nephi in 2 Ne. 28:30:

"30 For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have."

This is another one of those things that a person can test over time to determine if it is true, then live accordingly.

It appears you either disagree with Ash or you didn't read Scott's summation very carefully, Meerkat.  But I'm not sure which. 

Ash's whole point here is that the LDS Heavenly Father is limited in his ability to communicate, for various reasons.  He is unable to reliably, consistently and clearly communicate with his prophets and the rest of us.  And several LDS on this thread appear to agree with Ash (one even likened it to the communicative relationship of a mother and a newborn). 

Never mind for a moment what I wrote, what do you think of Ash's idea, Meerkat?

--Erik 

[Meerkat]

4 hours ago, Five Solas said:

It appears you either disagree with Ash or you didn't read Scott's summation very carefully, Meerkat.  But I'm not sure which. 

Ash's whole point here is that the LDS Heavenly Father is limited in his ability to communicate, for various reasons.  He is unable to reliably, consistently and clearly communicate with his prophets and the rest of us.  And several LDS on this thread appear to agree with Ash (one even likened it to the communicative relationship of a mother and a newborn). 

Never mind for a moment what I wrote, what do you think of Ash's idea, Meerkat?

--Erik 

Five Solas, I know this post is too long and apologize In advance.  I like your questions.  They make me think.

In summary, I believe you are misunderstanding Ash.  I agree with Ash, but for the exact opposite reason you do. I would be interested in your response.

Your comment illustrates the limitation of words to communicate.  We each have a different context. I believe you missed Ash's point and gave it the opposite meaning.

He said:

"Another layer of complication is added in recording the words of God in the weakness of human language, Ash explained. “Words do not have a plain meaning. They only have meaning in context of a language, culture, time frame and so forth.”

Readers in turn automatically recontextualize the words according to their own culture and context, he said, and some ambiguity is inevitable."

This is clearly true, based on your take of his premise.  

“Heavenly Father is aware of our limitations and knows the factors that contribute to our limitations,” he said “Despite our deficiencies, however, He also knows how to communicate important directives as we are able to receive them.”

He cited the passage in Doctrine and Covenants 1:24, “Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.”

Thus, Ash said, “God must descend to our level and speak our language in order for us to comprehend.”

Take Korihor, for example.  "after this manner did he preach, saying:
            13 O ye that are bound down under a foolish and a vain hope, why do ye yoke yourselves with such foolish things? Why do ye look for a Christ? For no man can know of anything which is to come.
            14 Behold, these things which ye call prophecies, which ye say are handed down by holy prophets, behold, they are foolish traditions of your fathers.
            15 How do ye know of their surety? Behold, ye cannot know of things which ye do not see; therefore ye cannot know that there shall be a Christ."

God was able to communicate with him.  Read this exchange between Alma and Korihor:

"40 And now what evidence have ye that there is no God, or that Christ cometh not? I say unto you that ye have none, save it be your word only.
            41 But, behold, I have all things as a testimony that these things are true; and ye also have all things as a testimony unto you that they are true; and will ye deny them? Believest thou that these things are true?
            42 Behold, I know that thou believest, but thou art possessed with a lying spirit, and ye have put off the Spirit of God that it may have no place in you; but the devil has power over you, and he doth carry you about, working devices that he may destroy the children of God.
            43 And now Korihor said unto Alma: If thou wilt show me a sign, that I may be convinced that there is a God, yea, show unto me that he hath power, and then will I be convinced of the truth of thy words.
            44 But Alma said unto him: Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator."

The discussion comtinues:

"48 Now Korihor said unto him: I do not deny the existence of a God, but I do not believe that there is a God; and I say also, that ye do not know that there is a God; and except ye show me a sign, I will not believe.
            49 Now Alma said unto him: This will I give unto thee for a sign, that thou shalt be struck dumb, according to my words; and I say, that in the name of God, ye shall be struck dumb, that ye shall no more have utterance.
            50 Now when Alma had said these words, Korihor was struck dumb, that he could not have utterance, according to the words of Alma.
            51 And now when the chief judge saw this, he put forth his hand and wrote unto Korihor, saying: Art thou convinced of the power of God? In whom did ye desire that Alma should show forth his sign? Would ye that he should afflict others, to show unto thee a sign? Behold, he has showed unto you a sign; and now will ye dispute more?
            52 And Korihor put forth his hand and wrote, saying: I know that I am dumb, for I cannot speak; and I know that nothing save it were the power of God could bring this upon me; yea, and I always knew that there was a God.
            53 But behold, the devil hath deceived me; for he appeared unto me in the form of an angel, and said unto me: Go and reclaim this people, for they have all gone astray after an unknown God. And he said unto me: There is no God; yea, and he taught me that which I should say. And I have taught his words; and I taught them because they were pleasing unto the carnal mind; and I taught them, even until I had much success, insomuch that I verily believed that they were true; and for this cause I withstood the truth, even until I have brought this great curse upon me."

So, FS, we see that God was able to communicate with Korihor in a language he could understand.  I believe that was Ash's point.  God is not limited in His ability to communicate.  In my opinion, we are limited in our desire or worthiness, etc. and therefore limit our own ability to receive it.  But God can still communicate with us when He needs or wants to.  

Ash also said  “He knows they will get things wrong, describe things inaccurately, point to non-existent evidence while rejecting very real evidence. … Knowing all the challenges, God also knows that the only way we can understand the important and basic principles of discipleship is by having His teachings revealed in the manner of our language, so that the weak things will become strong enough to put us on a course to bring us back home to the Father.”

He closed by citing Ether 12:27, that if men humble themselves before God, He will show them their weaknesses and make weak things become strong unto them."

Ash does have a sentence here and there that can be ambiguous.  To focus on them is to ignore the overall point of his article. God can and does communicate with man.  He has communicated with me, and probably you also.  Sometimes it may take a long time to understand what He is telling us in order for our context to catch up with what He has communicated.  The problem is on our end, not His.  He gives us time to understand, imo, because He will not, under normal circumstances, override our responsibility to exercise faith or our freedom to choose whether or not to believe.

Edited August 16, 2017 by Meerkat

[Pete Ahlstrom]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You are not getting this.

MY Mormonism is MY Mormonism as I interpret it. What "my" Mormonism says is what I say it says.  It is my interpretation backed by testimony and every word is compatible with all the scriptures- according to my interpretation of the scriptures.  I affirm and treasure them all.

 I will never be silenced because I have a philosophical foundation for every statement I make forged out of 40 years of study.  I have an excellent reputation with my fellow local leaders and hardly am considered as a "marginal" Mormon in any way.  I treasure that with all my heart.  I heartily believe in the 9th Article of Faith, that revelation is on going.  The Restoration has just begun- we are less than 200 years into this.

Others may disagree- totally, but there is nothing for me to be "silenced" about.  I don't care about Mormonism's 19th century views- I do not believe in many of those views. I came to Mormonism from philosophy and as Sterling McMurrin said- "I was never disillusioned because I was never illusioned in the first place".

The basis of Mormonism is testimony.  That means that one believes that one has received revelation from God.  That cannot be debated.  If that is their belief, that is their belief.  I personally know that I have received communications from God.  I am certain.  If you understand contemporary philosophy - the deflationary theory of truth, Phenomenology, Pragmatism , Rorty, Dewey, even Derrida to some extent, Nagel or Wittgenstein, there is simply no way to debate that.  None of these were "religious" figures in a conventional sense, in fact nearly all were atheists, who affirmed that religious views are independent of scientism or the need for "evidence" other than internal intepretation.  Throw in Gadamer or Habermas for that matter.  "Hermeneutics".  Look it up.

This is essential Ash's point as well.

Your interpretation of what you think Mormonism is irrelevant to anything.  Frankly I find you beliefs rather uninformed.

And yes I have been at the "other board".  They have no better understanding, unfortunately, than you do.

And yes, my views are respected and have a place in Mormonism as confirmed by many, more knowledgeable than you in Mormonism.  I will let the readers and future readers of my stuff decide that.  You need to read more Ash, more Mason, more Givens, more Paulsen, more Peterson, Bushman and others.

So would a testimony of mormonism that is completely opposite of what the brethren say mormonism is be a valid testimony in your opinion? What about Snuffer? What about Rock Waterman? What do you think the purpose of having leaders is if not to define the beliefs?

 

[Meerkat]

2 hours ago, Five Solas said:

It appears you either disagree with Ash or you didn't read Scott's summation very carefully, Meerkat.  But I'm not sure which. 

Ash's whole point here is that the LDS Heavenly Father is limited in his ability to communicate, for various reasons.  He is unable to reliably, consistently and clearly communicate with his prophets and the rest of us.  And several LDS on this thread appear to agree with Ash (one even likened it to the communicative relationship of a mother and a newborn). 

Never mind for a moment what I wrote, what do you think of Ash's idea, Meerkat?

--Erik 

I agree with Ash, per my last post.  Some things that help me zero in on things that I find relevant are habits of daily sincere prayer and scripture study.  I read other books, blogs, articles and discussions, but scripture study fortifies my faith and confidence like nothing else.  The more I do those things, the more I feel God's approval and influence in my life.  I am searching for a word that describes this core of, for lack of a better description, peaceful confidence and assurance that all is well. I think the word may be love.

[Avatar4321]

On 8/13/2017 at 0:42 PM, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I don't know why God just doesn't appear and communicate. It sure would silence all the competing religions. It also could have prevented the priesthood ban derail and mountain meadows.

Listening to the Prophet would have prevented mountain meadows.

 

[Avatar4321]

On 8/13/2017 at 1:48 PM, theplains said:

God did appear and communicate to the Israelites during their exodus. They still fell into disbelief.

Jim

 

And He has appeared to the saints in this dispensation and we do likewise

[Avatar4321]

On 8/14/2017 at 9:27 AM, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I would call it blame shifting when the "answer" doesn't come.  It is part of the ruse.  It's like when the missionaries tell an investigator to keep praying when the investigator comes back and says he/she didn't get an answer.  Just keep flipping that coin until it comes up heads ..... then stop .... and for heaven's sake don't think about the many times the coin came up tails.

Why wouldn't an investigator who hasn't received an answer be encouraged to continue seeking one?

Where would the world be if after Edisons first attempt at the light bulb he thought "hey I tried. Its obviously not possible to make an electrical light source"

[Avatar4321]

20 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Just one question..and I apologize if this doesn't co-op with the OP...but we have been told that Prophets and apostles make mistakes..that they are just men..so why would anyone stake their entire life..I mean ENTIRE life..and monies..time ..and complete obedience to words of just men? ( And some disagree with each other..not to mention that certain doctrines that were supposed to be relatively eternal..have changed)

Not even the general authorities have ever told us to just obey the words of men

[Meerkat]

42 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

So would a testimony of mormonism that is completely opposite of what the brethren say mormonism is be a valid testimony in your opinion? What about Snuffer? What about Rock Waterman? What do you think the purpose of having leaders is if not to define the beliefs?

 

That's a good question.  My thinking would be that God determines what is valid, and we will be judged on our sincerity, meekness and humility arriving at our conclusions.    Two scriptures:

Moroni 8:26 "And the remission of sins bringeth meekness, and lowliness of heart; and because of meekness and lowliness of heart cometh the visitation of the Holy Ghost, which Comforter filleth with hope and perfect love, which love endureth by diligence unto prayer, until the end shall come, when all the saints shall dwell with God."

And Moroni 7:42-44

"Wherefore, if a man have faith he must needs have hope; for without faith there cannot be any hope.
And again, behold I say unto you that he cannot have faith and hope, save he shall be meek, and lowly of heart. If so, his faith and hope is vain, for none is acceptable before God, save the meek and lowly in heart; and if a man be meek and lowly in heart, and confesses by the power of the Holy Ghost that Jesus is the Christ, he must needs have charity; for if he have not charity he is nothing; wherefore he must needs have charity."

If we have done those things and sincerely come to different conclusions, I believe God will honor that effort and help us understand what is actually true in due time.  I see no honest effort coming to loss.

Edited August 16, 2017 by Meerkat

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

Why wouldn't an investigator who hasn't received an answer be encouraged to continue seeking one?

Where would the world be if after Edisons first attempt at the light bulb he thought "hey I tried. Its obviously not possible to make an electrical light source"

How would you address the person who studied mormonism out in his/her mind, sought an answer through prayer, and said mormonism was wrong? Keep praying?