Tacit Notions/Expectations of Prophetic Infallibility: A Key Ingredient in Faith Crises?

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Wrong answer but I'll give you credit for giving your own personal opinion anyway.

 

Any man who shares the mind and will of God, when he is actually doing that, is infallible when he is speaking for God because it is as if God is speaking himself, which he is through that man he has inspired.

This isn't rocket science.  The question of WHAT a prophet of God is should be one you should be able to answer correctly, and the correct answer to WHEN a man is speaking as a prophet is simply when he actually is.

Joseph Smith taught that a prophet is a prophet when acting as such.  If I understand you correctly, the prophet is only acting as a prophet (and thus only a prophet) when he is actively sharing the mind and will of God.  Is that correct?

[Ahab]

On 8/22/2019 at 3:56 AM, california boy said:

Do you think the president of the Church has ever acted as a Prophet in your lifetime?  

Yes, many times, even when they were (I've liked during the lives of many prophets) were simply repeating what other prophets of God had already said.  Keep in mind how I defined what a prophet of God really is.

On 8/22/2019 at 3:56 AM, california boy said:

If so, can you list 3 or 4 times and what they were about?  Or is this all just theory?

I don't memorize as much as internalize what I hear from prophets of God but in genera it is anytime God has helped me to know when other men were speaking through the power of the Holy Ghost.  Too many times to remember but during at least some of most of the times I have ever heard them say something, even during some times when they were being funny.

[changed]

On 8/21/2019 at 9:59 AM, Amulek said:

If we are talking about faith crises in general, then I would suggest that one common underlying issue is an (often) unrecognized reliance on someone other than Christ - be they prophets, local leaders, family members, etc. 

If there is no need to rely on someone other than Christ, then there is no need for the church.  That said, many emerge from the dark night of the soul with more general religious/spiritual beliefs that extend beyond even Christianity.  When re-defining oneself outside the confines of cultural and family beliefs, one must recognize the experiences and wisdom within all faith traditions, and find something that explains and works with those from all walks of life - hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, agnostic.  One core belief that everyone seems to hang onto is that of a loving God who is no respecter of persons, rather than seeing any single chosen group (making the rest unchosen).

Once someone sees themselves as not being chosen - not being any better than anyone else - they better understand and relate to everyone else.  Previous prejudices disappear, there is less cognitive dissonance.  When conversations and cultural education is approached with a mindset which expects to find truth, rather than from a mindset of "I already have the truth and know they are wrong, but it is interesting to read about them all the same" - from a new more open mindset comes deeper understanding and great appreciation for the diverse paths of all our human brothers and sisters.  There is no more need to "have the truth", no more need to seek to be chosen or better than anyone else, no more need to save anyone else, there is greater trust that a loving power (which most call God) is directing the lives of everyone on earth - not just the lives of one small group of people. 

In short, it is a whole new world, an entirely new perspective, a new life, a re-birth and re-connection to everyone and everything.   

Respect and acknowledgement for our own personal journey translates into respect and comfort for everyone's journeys, with confidence that our wise Spiritual Guide - God - Allah - Tao - is directing everyone's paths in the unique and individual way in which each individually need.

Edited August 23, 2019 by changed

[Ahab]

On 8/22/2019 at 8:37 AM, rockpond said:

And, @Ahab says that the man holding the calling of prophet is fallible but whenever he is acting as prophet then he is infallible.

If church members have too high an expectation of the prophet, we should work to fix whatever it is in our culture and teachings that is creating that expectation.

I expect a man to act as a prophet of God only when he is acting as prophet of God.  I don't think that is too much to expect.  At any other time that man is simply acting as a man.  Probably still a pretty good man, but not perfect when he is not acting or speaking as God would.

[Ahab]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Joseph Smith taught that a prophet is a prophet when acting as such.  If I understand you correctly, the prophet is only acting as a prophet (and thus only a prophet) when he is actively sharing the mind and will of God.  Is that correct?

Yes, you now seem to have a correct understanding of what I have been saying. I would prefer to say a "man" is acting as a prophet only when he is acting as a prophet, though, because when that man is not acting as a prophet I would not be referring to him as a prophet.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I expect a man to act as a prophet of God only when he is acting as prophet of God.

Circular definition.

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

  I don't think that is too much to expect.

Of course not... you've literally stated that he should act as a prophet when he is acting as a prophet.  It's about as low a standard as you could have.

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

  At any other time that man is simply acting as a man.  Probably still a pretty good man, but not perfect when he is not acting or speaking as God would.

You've created a bulletproof definition:  The prophet is acting as a prophet and therefore infallible when he is sharing the mind and will of God.  If anything he says turns out to not be the mind and will of God, then he wasn't acting as a prophet.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Yes, you now seem to have a correct understanding of what I have been saying. I would prefer to say a "man" is acting as a prophet only when he is acting as a prophet, though, because when that man is not acting as a prophet I would not be referring to him as a prophet.

It's like your local weatherman saying that his forecasts are 100% perfect.  Then when you point out that last week he predicted rain and there was no rain he says, well, at that time I was speaking as your neighbor.  I am only speaking as your weatherman when I give forecasts that are correct.

[changed]

16 minutes ago, Ahab said:

anytime God has helped me to know when other men were speaking through the power of the Holy Ghost. 

I have very much appreciated sharing the spiritual experiences of those from different faiths.  

http://www.theamateurthinker.com/2011/02/how-can-we-find-truth-part-4/

How well are you able to do on the above quiz Ahab?

Edited August 23, 2019 by changed

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm not quite sure what you mean in your first sentence. Who on earth hopes others suffer? I suppose there's a kind of retributative instinct where people hope people who harm them suffer - particularly victims of violence. But that's hardly a Christlike attitude and seems precisely what he called upon us to elevate ourselves from. Ideally we should be hoping that even people like Hitler repent and turn to Christ. However for sins which aren't as directly harmful for others I honestly have never met someone who hopes they suffer. Far from it. Suffering is usually brought up as a warning to keep people from sinning because they don't want them to suffer. One can debate whether people really will suffer, but I can't see ascribing it as a hope to believers.

I'm not sure why anyone would ever wish others suffer other than for those who think perpetrators for various things deserve it.  i suppose viewing it from the position of being one who believers tend to say will suffer, it's a bit different.  I can't imagine suffering in eternity.  Sounds awful  would much rather obliterate my own existence I think.  It's precisely why I couldn't maintain belief, as much as anything.  God suggests according to mormonism that people will suffer if they chose not to repent.  The problem is everyone repents, and even accoridng to Mormonism everyone will bow the knee confessing...you know.  

7 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

While we don't know the details of the next life, we have been given some general ideas in the scriptures. Eventually everyone has to follow Christ. This seems pretty standard doctrine. "I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; but if they would not repent they must suffer even as I." (D&C 19:16-17)

This doesn't make much sense.  We're supposed to be like God.  If God suffers for eternity then so should we.  That is if God finds sadness and pain in those who don't believe in him, then so should we.  And it must be, there will always be those who don't believe.  Thus, suffering is eternal for God.  If for God, then it should be for us.  

7 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Typically the suffering most describe as the immediate consequence of sin is the breaking of ones relationship with God and losing the companionship of the spirit. While that's a relative suffering I suppose, it is still real.

no it's not.  That's just your perception of what's real.  There's nothing real about it--it's all subjective perception.  

7 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Does it result in immediate obvious mental anguish? No. But I'm not sure that's the issue at hand.

It might be.  Whose mental anguish is worse a mormon mother who loses a small child or an atheist mother who loses a small child?  How would we know?  What's the point of claiming the person without the gift of the Holy Ghost must be blessed less than he who has been given it?  

7 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

That's not what I'm saying though and not, I think, what most Mormons in the early 70's thought.

What do you mean?  That's exactly what they thought.  You said, "Even some people who might have believed things that were wrong in that regard were quite different in their behaviors to people they met. What's worse, a person who believed because of tradition that blacks shouldn't have the priesthood and marry white people but treated with charity all the blacks they met, "

That's not charity.  I'm pointing out the very thing you claimed about Mormons in the early 70s as them possibly being charitable is not charitable at all.  If you say "hello" and "how are you doing?" to someone who you think is a lesser person in the eyes of God, then your minute of decency doesn't turn your decency into charity for that person.  

7 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

So you're tilting against a scarecrow. So your presentation is the exact opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying people might not think through the largely political vote issues yet in day to day dealings act charitably. Now you can say to not pay attention to politics is uncharitable, despite the fact one has no influence there. That seems a different debate though.

My point is simply you can't be said to be charitable if you hold negative biases.  even if you go mow their lawn, that's not charity.  That's being somewhat decent in spite of your uncharitable position towards the person.  

7 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Honestly my impression is you're projecting my views rather than understanding my views here.

Maybe, but I don't see it.  It seems I'm sticking to what you're saying.  

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Circular definition.

Of course not... you've literally stated that he should act as a prophet when he is acting as a prophet.  It's about as low a standard as you could have.

You've created a bulletproof definition:  The prophet is acting as a prophet and therefore infallible when he is sharing the mind and will of God.  If anything he says turns out to not be the mind and will of God, then he wasn't acting as a prophet.

Correct.  It is simple, isn't it.  Only when a man acts as a prophet of God is he truly a prophet of God. Anybody should be able to understand that.

Now the question becomes:  HOW can YOU tell when a man is acting as a prophet of God?

The method that has been encouraged by most if not all of the leaders of the Church, past and present, is that each of us should obtain a personal testimony from God to assure us when and if a man has acted or is acting as a prophet of God, with that assurance coming to us from God through the power of the Holy Ghost.  Some have said things like: Follow the Prophet, or "when the prophet speaks, obey" or something like that but that kind of encouragement helps only if we already know who and what a prophet of God really is.

Of course we should follow prophets!  That's basically the same as follow God, himself, since it is God who is speaking through his prophets, when and if God chooses to speak through another man.

The real work is in finding out when a man is speaking as a prophet, and if you correctly understand WHAT a prophet is, and HOW TO FIND OUT when and if a man is speaking as a prophet of God, isn't not too terribly hard to do that kind of work

[Ahab]

28 minutes ago, changed said:

I have very much appreciated sharing the spiritual experiences of those from different faiths.  

http://www.theamateurthinker.com/2011/02/how-can-we-find-truth-part-4/

How well are you able to do on the above quiz Ahab?

No captioning and few words.  I prefer text with no sound when I peruse the net while at my job.  I watched the first 2 minutes of it and was not impressed. That video is not something I am interested in.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

God suggests according to mormonism that people will suffer if they chose not to repent.  The problem is everyone repents, and even accoridng to Mormonism everyone will bow the knee confessing...you know.  

Doesn't D&C 76 answer this? First while everone will confess not everyone will repent. The sons of perdition (who hopefully won't number a lot) suffer. However as people continue to reject (the terrestrial and telestial peoples) there is a kind of suffering. Now how to interpret that isn't clear. I think the typical interpretation is that it's a relative suffering and not the fire and brimstone style of 19th cenutry conservative Protestantism. But clearly the Book of Mormon uses that as a kind of metaphor in places, suggesting a kind of anguish as people look back on their life choices. There's been various attempts to flesh that out, particularly with people making use of NDE claims. However by and large we don't know beyond there being some type of suffering.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

That's just your perception of what's real.  There's nothing real about it--it's all subjective perception.  

Honestly not quite sure what you are saying here. Clearly I'm communicating my beliefs about what is real. My beliefs could indeed be wrong, but that seems a trivial and uninteresting point.

Certainly I believe that in certain ways sin is its own punishment. But also clearly I believe that not everyone at the time might see that. To use an extreme example a heroin user may really enjoy the experience for quite a while. When I talk about what is real I'm talking about my beliefs about what is a mind-independent state of affairs. i.e. my belief about what is non-subjective

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

This doesn't make much sense.  We're supposed to be like God.  If God suffers for eternity then so should we.

That critique doesn't make much sense in terms of Mormon theology. Now there were some like probably Heber C. Kimball who thought becoming like God meant literally doing everything he did. Thus part of development is becoming a Christ on an other world. However that's a pretty out of the mainstream believe and nearly universally rejected. For everyone else Christ suffered so we could be like him without suffering. i.e. becoming like him means having his capacity and virtues not having the same history. 

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

That's not charity.  I'm pointing out the very thing you claimed about Mormons in the early 70s as them possibly being charitable is not charitable at all.  If you say "hello" and "how are you doing?" to someone who you think is a lesser person in the eyes of God, then your minute of decency doesn't turn your decency into charity for that person.  

Again I can but say that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying one could vote Republican in the 1960's, oppose the Civil Rights Act, while still go out of ones way to sacrifice and serve individual African Americans. If I'm reading you right you seem aghast at that and think one can't be charitable while having those political views. My point of view is that (1) ones political views have insignificant impact on the world in a practical way and (2) one can be wrong about politics yet still in ones engagements with particular individuals deal with them in love and charity. 

It's of course fine if you disagree with that but I'm rather surprised you find it so inconceivable. To me it's an example of the very process I've critiqued in a few threads - the elevating of the political above the practical. However from my perspective it is very characteristic of this recent era.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

It might be.  Whose mental anguish is worse a mormon mother who loses a small child or an atheist mother who loses a small child?  How would we know?  What's the point of claiming the person without the gift of the Holy Ghost must be blessed less than he who has been given it?  

I don't think we could make a generalized statement and, like you, I'm not even sure how we can compare such things. 

To your last sentence I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Could you rephrase that? I am saying that being in the spirit with a connection to God is better than not having the spirit and not having that connection to God. That is, I'm saying a connection to God has practical real world benefits to our psychology and behavior. That doesn't seem like a terribly controversial point, but perhaps you are indeed objecting to that. An atheist (not saying you are one) might dismiss it all, but that's simply because they dismiss the very notion of a God one can engage with. A deist or agnostic might believe there's a God but deny he's got any practical influence on our lives. But it seems to me a theist rejects both those positions although they may differ over how God interacts with us.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

My point is simply you can't be said to be charitable if you hold negative biases.  even if you go mow their lawn, that's not charity.  That's being somewhat decent in spite of your uncharitable position towards the person.

And I'm rejecting that view of charity. I think one can be charitable while having incorrect beliefs.

Allow me an example with less cultural baggage. I think my neighbor stole from me. It turns out they didn't but that doesn't affect my incorrect views of them nor my feelings. Yet one day my neighbor is sick. I want to help them so I mow their lawn, take them dinner, and otherwise try to help them. Under your use above that's not charity but is simply being decent. Under my use that's charity even if I am wrong in my views and feelings towards them. 

The problem with your view is that since it seems we almost always have incorrect views (biases to your term) towards others, we can never be charitable except to those we like. That seems fundamentally problematic on a semantic level of how we use the term. More to the point I think it incompatable with New Testament use. The whole point of the good samaritan was that the Samaritans and Jews were long term enemies going back to the building of the second temple. That is Jesus uses it as an example precisely because of the biases both had.

Now my guess, which I've stated, is that you will distinugish between these narrow beliefs about individuals and political beliefs involving classes or groups. But to me that's just the problem of elevating the political so it's the most important thing about people. The problem with that is that it means people only have charity when they have the right political beliefs. It also means no one is charitable who disagrees with the individual over big name political topics. So someone might say no one who rejects single payer healthcare can be charitable. There's at minimum a slippery slope problem here and (I think) the problem of an absurd conclusion since it seems to entail that most people historically can't be charitable since they don't have the right political beliefs about political laws.

Edited August 23, 2019 by clarkgoble

[rockpond]

45 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Correct.  It is simple, isn't it.

No, a circular definition is not the same as a simple definition.

45 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Only when a man acts as a prophet of God is he truly a prophet of God. Anybody should be able to understand that.

Now the question becomes:  HOW can YOU tell when a man is acting as a prophet of God?

The method that has been encouraged by most if not all of the leaders of the Church, past and present, is that each of us should obtain a personal testimony from God to assure us when and if a man has acted or is acting as a prophet of God, with that assurance coming to us from God through the power of the Holy Ghost.  Some have said things like: Follow the Prophet, or "when the prophet speaks, obey" or something like that but that kind of encouragement helps only if we already know who and what a prophet of God really is.

Of course we should follow prophets!  That's basically the same as follow God, himself, since it is God who is speaking through his prophets, when and if God chooses to speak through another man.

The real work is in finding out when a man is speaking as a prophet, and if you correctly understand WHAT a prophet is, and HOW TO FIND OUT when and if a man is speaking as a prophet of God, isn't not too terribly hard to do that kind of work

I agree that we must each seek personal confirmation of counsel received from the prophet.  But that is not the same thing as knowing when the prophet is acting as a prophet.  You're confounding two principles.

[Ahab]

Just now, rockpond said:

No, a circular definition is not the same as a simple definition.

What I said was not what you said I said and called a circular definition but I let  your incorrect labeling pass thinking you knew had understood what I said.  Now I'm not so sure if you correctly understand what a prophet of God really is.

Just now, rockpond said:

I agree that we must each seek personal confirmation of counsel received from the prophet.  But that is not the same thing as knowing when the prophet is acting as a prophet.  You're confounding two principles.

"knowing when the prophet is acting as a prophet" .does not mean the same thing as "knowing when a man is acting as a prophet"... so if you don't know when a man is speaking as a prophet then why on Earth would you call that man a prophet? 

You seem to have 2 different ideas in your mind while you think they mean the same thing.

[stemelbow]

36 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Doesn't D&C 76 answer this? First while everone will confess not everyone will repent.

I guess it says that.  But as I see it I doubt anyone aside from a select few psychopaths repent.  We all feel bad when we do something mean or selfish and work to correct that most often.  

36 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The sons of perdition (who hopefully won't number a lot) suffer. However as people continue to reject (the terrestrial and telestial peoples) there is a kind of suffering. Now how to interpret that isn't clear. I think the typical interpretation is that it's a relative suffering and not the fire and brimstone style of 19th cenutry conservative Protestantism.

Sure.  The fire and brimstone is impossible.  how to hurt immortal beings with fire and brimstone?  I figured the fire and brimstone was merely sybmollism, representing the relative suffering you speak of.  

36 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

But clearly the Book of Mormon uses that as a kind of metaphor in places, suggesting a kind of anguish as people look back on their life choices. There's been various attempts to flesh that out, particularly with people making use of NDE claims. However by and large we don't know beyond there being some type of suffering.

Honestly not quite sure what you are saying here. Clearly I'm communicating my beliefs about what is real. My beliefs could indeed be wrong, but that seems a trivial and uninteresting point.

Certainly I believe that in certain ways sin is its own punishment. But also clearly I believe that not everyone at the time might see that. To use an extreme example a heroin user may really enjoy the experience for quite a while. When I talk about what is real I'm talking about my beliefs about what is a mind-independent state of affairs. i.e. my belief about what is non-subjective

 

36 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

That critique doesn't make much sense in terms of Mormon theology. Now there were some like probably Heber C. Kimball who thought becoming like God meant literally doing everything he did. Thus part of development is becoming a Christ on an other world. However that's a pretty out of the mainstream believe and nearly universally rejected. For everyone else Christ suffered so we could be like him without suffering. i.e. becoming like him means having his capacity and virtues not having the same history. 

I can't imagine being saved into the Celestial realm knowing loved ones and others were not, left to suffer eternally.  that feels to me like suffering eternally, much like God and Christ must suffer for each person who doesn't believe...and people will be coming for eternity, so they'll continue to suffer...if they do, then I can't imagine the rest of the saved not also suffering in the same way.  

36 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Again I can but say that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying one could vote Republican in the 1960's, oppose the Civil Rights Act, while still go out of ones way to sacrifice and serve individual African Americans. If I'm reading you right you seem aghast at that and think one can't be charitable while having those political views. My point of view is that (1) ones political views have insignificant impact on the world in a practical way and (2) one can be wrong about politics yet still in ones engagements with particular individuals deal with them in love and charity. 

You're speaking of politics while I'm speaking of individual beliefs.  If one believes a race is lesser than another, then there is no charity in that belief.  Such an one could obviously be nice to and do an act of service for one of the lesser people, but I'd suggest their uncharitable belief about them makes the nice act merely that...a nice act and not an act of charity.   Pre-'78 Mormons held uncharitable views for those of another race, for the most part.  Granted there might have been a few members who completely rejected the Church's teaching, but I don't know there were many, at least not many that were active.  Holding uncharitable views towards another is exactly the opposite of charity.  

36 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It's of course fine if you disagree with that but I'm rather surprised you find it so inconceivable. To me it's an example of the very process I've critiqued in a few threads - the elevating of the political above the practical. However from my perspective it is very characteristic of this recent era.

I don't think we could make a generalized statement and, like you, I'm not even sure how we can compare such things. 

To your last sentence I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Could you rephrase that? I am saying that being in the spirit with a connection to God is better than not having the spirit and not having that connection to God.

I'm asking how you know that?  If an atheist and a Mormon suffer to the same extent then what benefit or blessing does the Mormon have?  

36 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

That is, I'm saying a connection to God has practical real world benefits to our psychology and behavior. That doesn't seem like a terribly controversial point, but perhaps you are indeed objecting to that. An atheist (not saying you are one) might dismiss it all, but that's simply because they dismiss the very notion of a God one can engage with. A deist or agnostic might believe there's a God but deny he's got any practical influence on our lives. But it seems to me a theist rejects both those positions although they may differ over how God interacts with us.

I've been asking how you know that?  I've asked if a Mormon or atheist woman would suffer greater when losing a child.  You don't know if we can even gauge that.  So why is belief in God better?  Let's say a mormon steals an apple and an atheist does.  They both feel bad.  Who receives the greater condemnation?  Who suffers for their sin more?  On the flip.  Let's say a Mormon feels blessed and has a happy life, family is doing good, work/career is on the up, friends:  good.  Compare that to an atheist who also feels blessed--a happy life, family is doing good, work/career on the up, friends doing good.  How is the mormon given better practical real world benefits with better psychology and behavior than the atheist?  

36 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

And I'm rejecting that view of charity. I think one can be charitable while having incorrect beliefs.

Me too.  i think you misunderstood me.  

36 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Allow me an example with less cultural baggage. I think my neighbor stole from me. It turns out they didn't but that doesn't affect my incorrect views of them nor my feelings. Yet one day my neighbor is sick. I want to help them so I mow their lawn, take them dinner, and otherwise try to help them. Under your use above that's not charity but is simply being decent. Under my use that's charity even if I am wrong in my views and feelings towards them. 

The problem with your view is that since it seems we almost always have incorrect views (biases to your term) towards others, we can never be charitable except to those we like. That seems fundamentally problematic on a semantic level of how we use the term. More to the point I think it incompatable with New Testament use. The whole point of the good samaritan was that the Samaritans and Jews were long term enemies going back to the building of the second temple. That is Jesus uses it as an example precisely because of the biases both had.

 

I'm not sure where you get the idea that my position is if someone has an incorrect view they can't have charity.  I'm saying if someone has an uncharitable view towards another, that view means they are being uncharitable.  It's as simple as that.  Mormons, for the most part (leaving room for possible exceptions), held uncharitable views towards black people.  It seemed to me you disputed that by suggested it is possible a Mormon before 1978 could have done something of service for someone who was black.  But that deed doesn't do away with their uncharitable view.  It just means Mormons could be decent in spite of their uncharitable view.  

36 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Now my guess, which I've stated, is that you will distinugish between these narrow beliefs about individuals and political beliefs involving classes or groups. But to me that's just the problem of elevating the political so it's the most important thing about people. The problem with that is that it means people only have charity when they have the right political beliefs. It also means no one is charitable who disagrees with the individual over big name political topics. So someone might say no one who rejects single payer healthcare can be charitable. There's at minimum a slippery slope problem here and (I think) the problem of an absurd conclusion since it seems to entail that most people historically can't be charitable since they don't have the right political beliefs about political laws.

Yeah...I'm not saying what you think I'm saying.  I'm not sure where you got that.  If it was my mistake, then I apologize for the confusion.  Hopefully I've cleared up the point.  

[california boy]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

@california boy I got the email for this post and it wasn't a double post.  You had several paragraphs responding to Anijen and sharing an experience with your sister and her marriage.  It was a good response.  If you don't have what you wrote, I have it in my email and will copy and paste it back to this thread if you'd like.  Just let me know.

Thanks. sometimes I just don't want to comment on everything gay that comes up.  I decided the post I did post was probably more important of point.  I do stand by what I originally wrote.  If you want to post it, I have no objection. 

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I guess it says that.  But as I see it I doubt anyone aside from a select few psychopaths repent. 

But by then it may be too late.  

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Sure.  The fire and brimstone is impossible.  how to hurt immortal beings with fire and brimstone?  I figured the fire and brimstone was merely sybmollism, representing the relative suffering you speak of.  

I am curious how you account for D&C 19:

Quote

15 Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.
16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;
17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;
18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—
19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men.
20 Wherefore, I command you again to repent, lest I humble you with my almighty power; and that you confess your sins, lest you suffer these punishments of which I have spoken, of which in the smallest, yea, even in the least degree you have tasted at the time I withdrew my Spirit.

And D&C 76:

Quote

98 And the glory of the telestial is one, even as the glory of the stars is one; for as one star differs from another star in glory, even so differs one from another in glory in the telestial world;
99 For these are they who are of Paul, and of Apollos, and of Cephas.
100 These are they who say they are some of one and some of another—some of Christ and some of John, and some of Moses, and some of Elias, and some of Esaias, and some of Isaiah, and some of Enoch;
101 But received not the gospel, neither the testimony of Jesus, neither the prophets, neither the everlasting covenant.
102 Last of all, these all are they who will not be gathered with the saints, to be caught up unto the church of the Firstborn, and received into the cloud.
103 These are they who are liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie.
104 These are they who suffer the wrath of God on earth.
105 These are they who suffer the vengeance of eternal fire.
106 These are they who are cast down to hell and suffer the wrath of Almighty God, until the fulness of times, when Christ shall have subdued all enemies under his feet, and shall have perfected his work.

Plenty of further references about the Telestial Kingdom here.

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I can't imagine being saved into the Celestial realm knowing loved ones and others were not, left to suffer eternally. 

I can't really imagine it, either.  But it apparently will happen.

"And now, it came to pass that after Abinadi had spoken these words he stretched forth his hand and said: The time shall come when all shall see the salvation of the Lord; when every nation, kindred, tongue, and people shall see eye to eye and shall confess before God that his judgments are just."  (Mosiah 16:1)

"O the pain, and the anguish of my soul for the loss of the slain of my people! For I, Nephi, have seen it, and it well nigh consumeth me before the presence of the Lord; but I must cry unto my God: Thy ways are just."  (2 Nephi 26:7)

Moreover, just as I cannot presently fully grasp the justice of God, nor can I presently grasp His mercy.  That is one of the great comforting truths I have found in the Restored Gospel.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JulieM]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

Spencer didn't call what Brigham said false doctrine.  Spencer was referring to misrepresentations of what Brigham said by people who didn't correctly understand what Brigham meant when he said what he said.

He stated:

”We denounce the Adam-God theory and hope that everyone will be cautionary against this and other kinds of false doctrine.’

[Ahab]

19 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I can't imagine being saved into the Celestial realm knowing loved ones and others were not, left to suffer eternally.  that feels to me like suffering eternally, much like God and Christ must suffer for each person who doesn't believe...and people will be coming for eternity, so they'll continue to suffer...if they do, then I can't imagine the rest of the saved not also suffering in the same way.  

I've had some insights into that, having a Dad and Mother who do not as yet accept what they need to accept to receive Celestial blessings.

First of all, nobody suffers eternally if they are willing to repent to progress, and just as soon as someone chooses to repent they are forgiven as long as they are in a covenant relationship with Jesus Christ.  And if anyone isn't they can choose to be as soon as they hear about him.

For those who will forever refuse to repent, however, they will simply get what is coming to them as a result of doing bad things that they should not be doing.  As I said, if they would stop doing those bad things they would be forgiven for their past behavior, but there are people who will choose to be bad (even though they may refer to the bad as good) and will prefer to be as bad as they want to be.  And while it may seem like we should be sad to think of how they will be missing out on some good things they will never get to experience because they have chosen to reject what would help them to have a better quality life, from their point of view they will be choosing to do whatever it is they are doing that is preventing them from living a better quality life while they are thinking it's worth it!

I still hope my Mom and Dad will someday choose to accept what they need to accept to have a better quality life, and I plan to do whatever I can to help them learn what that is all about, but if they don't ever accept what I know they need to accept I will just regard them as a brother and sister who made poor choices and continued to refuse to make better choices, thus getting whatever degree of glory, or not, according to the choices they chose to make.

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But by then it may be too late.  

What is too late?  For what?  If I steal an apple and feel bad and decide to pay for it the next time, what's too late?  Is God going to say, "well, you should have felt bad before you ate it.  It is too late.  Suffer eternally, he whom I never knew".  

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am curious how you account for D&C 19:

We've discussed it above.  I don't know that it really works in application.  As I see it, if Mormonism is true, and say, I get exalted for some damn reason, I would suffer eternally, I imagine, as loved ones were condemned eternally to something lesser, and as people continue to exist and continue to disbelieve.  So if I have to suffer as God suffered in that I bleed from every pore and tremble and stuff.  He did for but a short time.  If we have to do that for a short time, great.  But D&C 19 says it's endless and eternal for not repenting.  I don't know what's worse.  Suffering because so many people are suffering eternally and more and more will cotninue to suffer eternally because of some arbitrary sounding reasons, or suffering because I didn't feel bad for my misdeed soon enough in God's judgment.  I'm sure there remains some misdeed in my life that I can't be sure I've felt bad for, so I'm not sure what that means in light of this stuff anyway. Does this tough talk to martin in D&C apply to me too?  if so, I'm not sure he did anything worse than I have done at some point in my life and perhaps have forgotten about.  

"well just repent and you'll be safe".  I don't know if that's true.  Who wants to feel exalted above another?  I don't.  Some likely do.  Good for them I guess.   

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And D&C 76:

Plenty of further references about the Telestial Kingdom here.

I can't really imagine it, either.  But it apparently will happen.

"And now, it came to pass that after Abinadi had spoken these words he stretched forth his hand and said: The time shall come when all shall see the salvation of the Lord; when every nation, kindred, tongue, and people shall see eye to eye and shall confess before God that his judgments are just."  (Mosiah 16:1)

"O the pain, and the anguish of my soul for the loss of the slain of my people! For I, Nephi, have seen it, and it well nigh consumeth me before the presence of the Lord; but I must cry unto my God: Thy ways are just."  (2 Nephi 26:7)

Moreover, just as I cannot presently fully grasp the justice of God, nor can I presently grasp His mercy.  That is one of the great comforting truths I have found in the Restored Gospel.

Thanks,

-Smac

Good for you.  That which you have found comfort in I was extremely uncomfortable with, so much so I don't know how anyone does it.  But all the best to you anyway.  

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, JulieM said:

He stated:

”We denounce the Adam-God theory and hope that everyone will be cautionary against this and other kinds of false doctrine.’

I've researched what Spencer referred to as the Adam-God theory and it wasn't what Brigham actually taught, so you might want to give some more thought to what Brigham actually taught to see how it is different than what he referred to as the Adam-God theory.

[mfbukowski]

22 hours ago, stemelbow said:

What kind of suffering are you imagining?  Suffering in the world to come, as they say?  Or suffering in the here and now?  that is if you don't keep a year's supply of food or pay your tithing you'll suffer things like starvation, or bankruptcy?  What suffering happens to those who reject the prophet?  

Worse as in God's view of us?  Meaning we're only worse because God is less pleased with us than he was with leaders and members in the 60s.  Curious because leaders back then opposed obviously good things like civil rights legislation, the mixing of races, and were far harsher in rhetoric and position on LGBT...were less prone to hear women, it seems, and opposed vehemently as I understand it, things like birth control.  

So now you are an absolutist?

Today's values are perfect, and those ignorant people in the past were just stupid? Morals never change and we've got the best possible ones now?

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

What is too late?  For what? 

Too late to repent:

Quote

29 O ye wicked and ye perverse generation; ye hardened and ye stiffnecked people, how long will ye suppose that the Lord will suffer you? Yea, how long will ye suffer yourselves to be led by foolish and blind guides? Yea, how long will ye choose darkness rather than light?
...
32 And in the days of your poverty ye shall cry unto the Lord; and in vain shall ye cry, for your desolation is already come upon you, and your destruction is made sure; and then shall ye weep and howl in that day, saith the Lord of Hosts. And then shall ye lament, and say:
33 O that I had repented, and had not killed the prophets, and stoned them, and cast them out. ...
...
38 But behold, your days of probation are past; ye have procrastinated the day of your salvation until it is everlastingly too late, and your destruction is made sure; yea, for ye have sought all the days of your lives for that which ye could not obtain; and ye have sought for happiness in doing iniquity, which thing is contrary to the nature of that righteousness which is in our great and Eternal Head.
39 O ye people of the land, that ye would hear my words! And I pray that the anger of the Lord be turned away from you, and that ye would repent and be saved.

(Helaman 13)

There are plenty of scriptures warning us against procrastinating the day of repentance.  The opportunity to repent is not infinite.

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

As I see it, if Mormonism is true, and say, I get exalted for some damn reason,

"For some damn reason?"  It's not like throwing darts at a board while blindfolded, Stem.  Salvation is not a random thing.  It is a choice.

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I would suffer eternally, I imagine, as loved ones were condemned eternally to something lesser, and as people continue to exist and continue to disbelieve. 

The Lord suffers in the same way.

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So if I have to suffer as God suffered in that I bleed from every pore and tremble and stuff. 

A person who rejects the Savior's Atonement must suffer for his own sins, yes.

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

He did for but a short time.  If we have to do that for a short time, great.  But D&C 19 says it's endless and eternal for not repenting.  I don't know what's worse.  Suffering because so many people are suffering eternally and more and more will cotninue to suffer eternally because of some arbitrary sounding reasons, or suffering because I didn't feel bad for my misdeed soon enough in God's judgment. 

I encourage you to give this matter some further thought.  God's judgment is not arbitrary.  It's not random.  It is both infinitely just and, if one is willing, infinitely merciful.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So now you are an absolutist?

Today's values are perfect, and those ignorant people in the past were just stupid? Morals never change and we've got the best possible ones now?

No.  Far from it.  I don't think today is perfect. I also don't think US society in the 60s was perfect either.  I was confused by Clark claiming things were better in the 60s.  I couldn't tell in what sense he meant that...and am not sure I understand the sense after his clarification.  

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I've researched what Spencer referred to as the Adam-God theory and it wasn't what Brigham actually taught, so you might want to give some more thought to what Brigham actually taught to see how it is different than what he referred to as the Adam-God theory.

Brigham Young wasn't acting as a prophet when he taught the Adam-God doctrine.  Nor was he acting as a prophet when he said that every sermon he gave was scripture.  Bam!  Problem solved.