Is it sinful to operate any other way than to assume that everything the 12th says is from God

[manol]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

By my definition and perception, yes. I believe he likely filled in gaps where he lacked info or the ability to define at the very least.  

He may not have been aware of it, the brain compensates and adapts quickly.  Iirc, he did at times voice his struggles to share his divine experiences.

Joseph’s vision of the afterlife in D&C 76:  ”which surpasses all understanding….neither is man capable to make them known”.

Others have as well.  “Words cannot describe…” seems like it’s not uncommon to be attached to revelatory experiences even when the person then goes on to use words to describe them. I tend to accept the first valuation as accurate in those cases and treat what follows as an approximation and probably not that good of one. 

Paul (2 Cor 12:4):  heard “inexpressible things” (NIV)

Ineffability is, imo, to be expected when a limited being interacts with an unlimited one (at least in comparison).

That all makes sense to me.

 

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

Ants communicate.  We can see that by their behavior. How accurate in detail or even broad framing would be ants’ descriptions of human behaviour, not only what we did, but our ideas and feelings we express, our motivations?  Does their ‘language’ even have the capability to convey more than the broadest, the most basic bit of information about these with their use of pheromones, touch, taste, and sound?  While they might get the basics of alarm and territory with their signals of recognition and alarm, etc, gather a very limited understanding of family given their language includes signals to suppress and promote reproduction and care of ‘children’, could they even begin to convey the concepts of attending school, having bank accounts, shopping, recipes and cooking, dating and everything that follows, building homes and decorating them, collecting art, driving cars, having pets, etc.  There would be some very rudimentary parallels (they prepare food, build shelters, mate, use aphids), but any detail would be lost. 

Great example!

I have tried explaining to my cat that the sequence of events which ultimately results in cat food starts with him getting off my keyboard so that I can meet a deadline.  He just blinks at me.

 

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

Multiple people sharing their experiences presents us with a fuller picture than we would receive if we considered revelation more one and done.

Yes!  Great insight.  The context is different, but in my day job "multiple good looks at something complicated" has been shown to improve comprehension of that complicated something. 

When the day comes that we each get a good look at everything from every individual's angle, I think we'll be equipped for whatever the next stage is. 

 

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

This is one of the reasons I believe continuing revelation is necessary. 

I heard (and used) the phrase "continuing revelation" quite often when I was active LDS.  

Where and/or how do you see "continuing revelation" occurring?  

Edited March 25 by manol

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, telnetd said:

Paul's explanation is theological: people turn away from God, their thinking becomes 
disordered, and as a result they follow various desires, including same-sex relations.

So his cause is spiritual rebellion leading to moral and behavioral consequences.

Yeah, and yet somehow Christians and Jews have realized they were gay or queer and that Paul’s explanation is complete rubbish. It was probably around in the Jewish community at the time and probably a lot of other communities. So Paul wasn’t inspired while he was spouting this off. So why do some people think the rest of his discussion about homosexual behavior comes from God when it was *checks notes* also just the current Jewish take on it.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, manol said:

Where and/or how do you see "continuing revelation" occurring?  

Anywhere with anyone who encounters the divine.  I wish I could say anytime someone seeks for it, but I know that isn’t true since it occurred to me (at least I wasn’t consciously aware of it, probably due to the drug I was taking at that time as the sensation I identified as connecting with the spirit came back after 3 days being off it).  I trust many others when they say they aren’t receiving anything after sincerely asking, others not so much when they appear to have minds already made up and have ridiculed others’ claims of revelation.

How…depends on the person and purpose of the revelation.  I believe it’s happened to me by a voice telling me “your daughter has diabetes”, when a RS President showed up at our door minutes after we rose after praying about what we should do about two roommates that were making our llives miserable because of their feud, when two young women shared an experience with me that met my needs perfectly during that time mentioned above when my receiver was left off the hook (I think you are old enough to understand that reference), as well as the more obvious First Vision and lifting of the priesthood Ban, receiving of modern scripture and infinite number of variations.

Now binding revelation for the world (at least once individuals can actually receive it so they can make a choice to accept or reject)…that follows a more traditional, consistent path through prophets appointed by God so we don’t have to struggle with second guessing ourselves quite so much, though I think asking ourselves how sure we are that an interpretation is what we need to hear is always wise.

Edited March 25 by Calm

[3DOP]

On 3/24/2026 at 11:47 AM, manol said:

While neither informed nor Catholic, I am definitely curious...

Hi manol, 

It wasn't until 1870 that the First Vatican Council, defined the doctrine of papal infallibility. 

The pope when acting alone, is almost always fallible. There were some faithful observers of the Council who believed the teaching, but feared that as it was explained, would be misunderstood by non-Catholics and Catholics alike.

Sure enough. They had that right!

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 3/24/2026 at 11:47 AM, manol said:

 

 

Edited March 26 by 3DOP

[manol]

19 hours ago, Calm said:

["Continuing revelation" is] Anywhere with anyone who encounters the divine.  

Perfect.

 

19 hours ago, Calm said:

Now binding revelation for the world (at least once individuals can actually receive it so they can make a choice to accept or reject)…that follows a more traditional, consistent path through prophets appointed by God so we don’t have to struggle with second guessing ourselves quite so much, though I think asking ourselves how sure we are that an interpretation is what we need to hear is always wise.

When I was a home-study seminary student I was accustomed to getting 100% on the tests given in our weekly meetings.  The material was not difficult and I was intensely interested in the topics.  I recall being stunned to only get 90% on an easy-peasy true-false test.  Here is the question I got wrong (paraphrased from memory; this was about forty years ago):  "True or false, When the prophet speaks, we should pray to find out whether what he said is true."  As you've probably guessed I answered "true",  which was marked incorrect.   I never did agree with the teachers on that one.

Edited March 26 by manol

[MustardSeed]

32 minutes ago, manol said:

Perfect.

 

When I was a home-study seminary student I was accustomed to getting 100% on the tests given in our weekly meetings.  The material was not difficult and I was intensely interested in the topics.  I recall being stunned to only get 90% on an easy-peasy true-false test.  Here is the question I got wrong (paraphrased from memory; this was about forty years ago):  "True or false, When the prophet speaks, we should pray to find out whether what he said is true."  As you've probably guessed I answered "true",  which was marked incorrect.   I never did agree with the teachers on that one.

I can’t imagine that being marked incorrect, from any point of view.  
 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, manol said:

I never did agree with the teachers on that one.

And you were right.

[Rain]

10 hours ago, manol said:

Perfect.

 

When I was a home-study seminary student I was accustomed to getting 100% on the tests given in our weekly meetings.  The material was not difficult and I was intensely interested in the topics.  I recall being stunned to only get 90% on an easy-peasy true-false test.  Here is the question I got wrong (paraphrased from memory; this was about forty years ago):  "True or false, When the prophet speaks, we should pray to find out whether what he said is true."  As you've probably guessed I answered "true",  which was marked incorrect.   I never did agree with the teachers on that one.

It's a badly designed question. I think it can't be answered with true or false. There will be things he says you know is true, some things you are not sure of and some things you may think he is wrong on. If he says you should be kind to children do you really need to pray about it? However if he says something you're not sure of or feel is wrong why wouldn't you pray about it?  At the very least you could pray about having faith with the leader on this matter. So neither answer fits. I would have written in something like, "neither" and then explained why.

[telnetd]

On 3/25/2026 at 3:14 PM, Calm said:

This is one of the reasons I believe continuing revelation is necessary.

Can you provide some examples of continuing revelation from General Conference after 1978?