Fair Dinkum

Juliann has rightly called me out. I sincerely apologize. I respect your faith and have come here to test my own issues and appreciate each of your perspectives and the time you have given to entertain my various issues. You've been extremely patient with me and I sincerely appreciate it, perhaps I just need to take a break and catch my breath or find a splash pad to cool off. I just learned yesterday that 3 close relatives have recently left the church. Of course no one in my family dared share this information with me on fear that it would only embolden me and my issues that I have only in very simple terms even disclosed with these same family members. I honestly want the church to be everything it claims to be. I have given countless hours of service and based on that alone should probably be were many of you are instead of where I now find myself. I would never have ever believed I'd become a non-believer and yet here I am. Again I sincerely apologize for anything I might had posted the gave offence, it was not my intent. Cheers and G'day, I'm going to take a break

It's not my intent to mock, but yeah, I see what you're saying. I'll dial it back.

If the spirit is a measure of what is true and your ruler says that 15" = a foot and when I use it it says 8" = a foot and when someone else reads it it says that 18" = a foot we would all conclude that the ruler is not a reliable means to measure anything. If the spirit can confirm that non-truths are true, it can not be relied on as a reliable means to confirm truth.

The spirit or at least what I have interpreted as the "Spirit®" has born witness to me countless times in my life. I have generally interpreted those spiritual witnesses as confirmations of the truth. I no longer feel that having a spiritual witness from this "Spirit®" is a reliable witness of anything. My bosom would burn with the spirit when listening to the lies of Paul H Dunn, my bosom would burn when Spencer Kimball taught that Lamanites stretched from Tierra del Fuego to the artic and the islands of the Pacific. Pacific islanders are no more Lamanites than I am, a white man of English decent. In fact the spirit just bore witness to me that what I've just posted here is true. Weird huh.

Yup, we are in agreement. My question then and one of the sub-points to this why I started this thread is How can who tell when they are teaching correct principles or if they are teaching you principles the believe are true are actually actually human mistakes/errors or their best shot but actually speculation?

And had I lived in the late 19th century and had received a spiritual confirmation that Adam-God as taught by BY was true or in the early 1950's and received a spiritual confirmation that the Curse of Cain doctrine was true then what? Did the spirit lie to me? Did I not receive a true spiritual confirmation as I had believed? Certainly I would have had the full backing of LDS leadership with my spiritual confirmation and had I somehow gone against them and expounded my angst against the false doctrine they taught as eternal truths I would have been excommunicated. Which brings me to today. If I receive a spiritual confirmation that say some current doctrine is true that is in a few years disavowed by the church, why did the spirit give me a false confirmation? So why should I believe that anything that I receive a spiritual confirmation on can be relied on as a meaningful means to defining truth? At best anything the spirit confirms should be questioned. It is not a reliable means to detect and confirm truth and should not be the end of seeking truth, while it might be a road sign along the path to truth it should never be the end stopping place.

And yet it was a false doctrine that was part of the most sacred and highest rituals of the church for 27 years. Ummm. And again this is only one example. Here's another false doctrine even more pernicious than Adam-God: Ironically never formally disavowed over a pulpit, they took the chicken way and only disavowed through an unofficial essay so the majority of members do not even know that it has been disavowed. In fact the cure of Cain is still taught in seminary and often in Sunday school by unknowledgeable teachers. So it is essentially STILL CHURCH DOCTRINE until formally disavowed by the 1st presidency.

And yet it was a false doctrine that was part of the most sacred and highest rituals of the church for 27 years. Ummm. And again this is only one example.

And how to distinguish your personal confirmation bias and elevation feelings from those of the spirit? Which incidentally have been clinically duplicated and triggered in the science lab. I submit that you can't, therefore your best hope is to seek emperical evidence that is tangible and can be tested, everything else is just a unsupported hope that could or could not bare out.

I think calling an institution true is a bit silly. I prefer saying that there are valuable lessons that the church teaches that if practiced in ones life can add value for some while for others these same lessons may cause pain and should be avoided The church often also teaches doctrine that end up being not true. So can a church be called true if it teaches things that are not true, given the passage of time? To call the church true while at the same time knowing that they have and may be doing so now, we won't know until more time passes, taught doctrines at are false and some that the church itself has disavowed is silly. The church is probably, based solely on past performance, currently teaching doctrines that will be disavowed by some future 1st presidency and quorum of the 12.

Well I actually agree with this. We should NEVER take anything taught over a general conference pulpit as true or authoritative. Everything should be questioned, scrutinized and tested before ever allowing it to become a core belief. All too often these men are just plain wrong, as are all human beings, are speculating , while well intentioned they may be, their council is often not reliable nor true and should be rejected. That said much of their council should be heeded. The problem is knowing which parts to heed and which parts that were given as authoritative council from God should be rejected.

Actually this is not true. I could provide a multitude of examples when false doctrines were allow to persists within the church. But for the sake of this post I will provide one. Adam-God was part of the endowment depending on the source, at least 10 years and according to some witnesses up to 25. This is a blatantly false doctrine that was able to creep into the temple endowment and while not having the blessing of all 15, it did have the blessing of enough to get it in.

If a witness of Jesus Christ can’t teach true principles of an essential element of the plan of salvation aka plan of happiness that stands the test of time why should we believe anything they’ve taught will ? It’s all just hope and speculation

I'm merely sharing examples of straws being placed on the back of the camel that over time and with accumulation broke the back. I shared an example where McConkie taught false doctrine. If he can teach false doctrine so can current GA's. its a slippery slope.

You know there is help for your Grammatical Pedantry Syndrome condition. I suggest you seek it out