Conflicting Answers To Personal Revelation

[Damien the Leper]

No. That would make God a liar.

Not necessarily. God reveals to us what we can handle and what we are ready for. The 1978 revelation is a good example in light of McConkie's own fallible understanding.

Edited January 27, 2012 by Valentinus

[selek1]

Not necessarily. God reveals to us what we can handle and what we are ready for. The 1978 revelation is a good example in light of McConkie's own fallible understanding.

Actually, this statement is patently false.

The 1978 statement was a fulfillment of prophecy and revelation, rather than a contradiction of it.

It was always expected that "blacks" would one-day receive the Priesthood.

That McConkie, et al, speculated (based upon their own prejudices and assumptions) in no way implicates revelation as the source or cause of that speculation.

[Damien the Leper]

Actually, this statement is patently false.

The 1978 statement was a fulfillment of prophecy and revelation, rather than a contradiction of it.

It was always expected that "blacks" would one-day receive the Priesthood.

That McConkie, et al, speculated (based upon their own prejudices and assumptions) in no way implicates revelation as the source or cause of that speculation.

Selek...please point me in the direction of the prophecy so that i may correct myself.

So when McConkie stated that blacks would not hold the priesthood, as an absolute statement (more than likely misquoted) it was only speculation?

Thanks, Selek.

[altersteve]

Selek...please point me in the direction of the prophecy so that i may correct myself.

So when McConkie stated that blacks would not hold the priesthood, as an absolute statement (more than likely misquoted) it was only speculation?

Thanks, Selek.

Brigham Young prophesied that "the time will come when blacks will have all that we have and more." I don't have the exact source for that and it's quoted from memory so it might not be entirely accurate, but he said something to that effect.

[Storm Rider]

I brought up something as an aside in the Book of Abraham post to explain where I was coming from and it seems to derail the thread, so I'm starting it here and hoping to get back to the point in the Abraham thread.

Basically... I expressed my struggle becuase it seems to me that the methodology of a personal witness from God that something is true or untrue seems to be unreliable because multiple people using that same methodology can come up with different answers.

I immediately got responses that other religion don't use that methodoloy, which seemed odd. I used a Islamic terrorist as an example and that's all that was talked about, so I'll bring it a little closer to home, really close to home.

Do not members of fundamentalist sects of Mormonism that still believe in Polygamy believe they are receiving personal revelation from God that they are doing what God wants and that their current prophet is the prophet?

What about a faithful member of the church who prays and feels that the Church's policy on Homosexuality is wrong?

These are great questions, but I don't have a clear answer. I do not think or believe that truth is relative; if it is an eternal truth, it will be so whether one believes it or not. The Holy Ghost is not a sponsor of "feelings", but itis he who witnesses to the soul of humanity eternal truths. I believe there are far fewer eternal truths revealed in this life than we think and that many confuse feelings and thoughts with revelation.

When someone claims that they have been led to believe something because the Holy Spirit told them so, I can respect their position. For some, additional questions are needed in order to understand what exactly they are really saying. I believe that more often than not inidividuals belong to a certain church, denomination, or congregation because it is acceptable to God than alternatives. His Will is not delayed or affected by a church affiliation more often than not. In fact, I know LDS who have left the Church and joined other churches and I think it is acceptable, at the present time, for this to happen. They are at peace, they have found a stronger relationship with God, and a better understanding of how to serve their fellow man. They are following the Spirit, but they are not growing in eternal truths. God simply uses them where they are at to fulfill his WIll.

One book that I found of value is John Paul II's Fides et Ratio. He does an excellent job of explaining the value and importance of faith and reason. They are eternal companions that walk hand-in-hand. They are not meant to be seperated and attempts to do so will only result in stunted growth.

Acknowledged ignorance is one of the great first steps to enlightenment. It is the beginning of a great journey if one is willing to continue to take one more step. Such humility is something to be respected and encouraged in ourselves and in others.

As an aside, I only focus on one thing, which echos your own, my relationship with God. I use the Church as a lens through which I serve God, but not the lens through which I experience him. That old dicotomy of church and gospel still exists for me because man exists. Man will always fail and fall short; God will always pick up the pieces and in our weakness fulfill his wonderous Will.

[CV75]

What to make of someone who truly feels that God has let them know for them, in their life, that taking part in a homosexual lifestyle is okay?

There is nothing really to make (judge) of anyone else in any matter of personal revelation, no matter where it came from. As long as there is mutual respect of agreed-upon boundaries, there is no reason for the topic to even be an issue beyond the definition of boundaries.

[ERayR]

Valentinus you said "I am not worried about being 'right'. I probably should but I'm not. I'm more worried about whether I'm right with God. I mean no disrespect but being right with God does not directly corellate to being right with the church. The church is a little lower on the list to be right with...with God being at the top."

I firmly beleive you can not be right with God until you recognize and accept the Prophets (including the apostles) as God's spokesmen. As Selek1 has pointed out they are the appointed gatekeepers. Whether you are homosexual or not is irrelevent. It is whar you do that matters.

I don't mean not argue against me but may be ask me why I arrived at my thought process and or conclusions before arguing against them and i will do my best to grant you the same courtesy.

Don't give up on me, Selek. I'm human, I'm young and I'm still learning.

We all have come to the point we are at by our thought processes and it is the same for each of us, if we are wrong then it is irrelevent how we got there. The thing we have to do is go back to the gatekeepers and enter in at the gate.

You wrote of being uneasy with who you are and where you are at. If that were me I would be reevaluating and reexamining how I got there. When one is right with God it becomes peaceful and not uneasy.

[wenglund]

It is simple.

The (usually inchoate) epistemology implicit in the notion of a private inner witness from the Holy Ghost just can't be made to work.

Knowledge has to make reference to publically available evidence and norms of rationality--at least in principle. You have to have good reason to say you know something.

It is no wonder that contradictions arise between different people's revelations. The number of religions and diverse metaphysical beliefes that arise because some body somewhere had a kind of inner mystical experience is huge.

Good methods converge. Bad methods diverge.

Thus we do have some good reasons to deny this notion of personal revelation as it is normally concieved.

In some sense then, what we know is that it doesn't work.

It is amazing that people just can't apply this lesson to their own relgion.

I appreciate you demonstrating that some secularists can be as narrow-minded, fundamentalist, and dogmatic as some religionists.

It isn't unexpected that some people who flunk spiritual tests will blame the test. From what I can tell, the tendency in this regard seems to correspond increasingly with the size of one's ego.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Tarski]

It isn't unexpected that some people who flunk spiritual tests will blame the test.

I love that you think that getting a personal revelation and not seeing the epistemological problems in it is a spiritual test?

Did you pass it? Are your sure?? Really sure? LOL

One can only guess but I would be willing to bet that in your case you are bluffing and deep down are not even sure if you passed this so called test. My guess is that your are willing to believe that other people like general authorities have past it solidly but (could it be that) you struggle privately with doubts and only have questionable miniture revelations (feelings and thoughts) that you yourself quite often wonder about.

Am I right?

Wait!

Before you answer, think about it a bit. Try to catch yourself rationalizing. Then, take that honesty entry on your list of priorities (and I am sure it is on the list) and move it from its already high location up one notch above the entry about saying faith promoting things in public.

Edited January 27, 2012 by Tarski

[Tarski]

It isn't unexpected that some people who flunk spiritual tests will blame the test. From what I can tell, the tendency in this regard seems to correspond increasingly with the size of one's ego.

I gather that this ego thing also ruins the effectiveness of seances and ouija boards.

Aren't you embarrassed to trot out this tired old trope?

Is it so surprising that one must be meek, passive, and childlike before magic starts to seem real?

[ebeddoulos]

Is it so surprising that one must be meek, passive, and childlike before magic starts to seem real?

"But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 19:14

[The Nehor]

I love that you think that getting a personal revelation and not seeing the epistemological problems in it is a spiritual test?

Did you pass it? Are your sure?? Really sure? LOL

Good point. I will ask God for a letter grade.

Right now I'm at a B-. I'll take that to mean I am generally getting it right but not all the specifics are perfected.

Thanks for your help.

Edit: On reflection I am going to give myself some leeway due to not getting a perfect grade. I could have a B or a C+ instead as I might be a little off.

Edited January 28, 2012 by The Nehor

[CV75]

I love that you think that getting a personal revelation and not seeing the epistemological problems in it is a spiritual test?

Did you pass it? Are your sure?? Really sure? LOL

One can only guess but I would be willing to bet that in your case you are bluffing and deep down are not even sure if you passed this so called test. My guess is that your are willing to believe that other people like general authorities have past it solidly but (could it be that) you struggle privately with doubts and only have questionable miniture revelations (feelings and thoughts) that you yourself quite often wonder about.

Am I right?

Wait!

Before you answer, think about it a bit. Try to catch yourself rationalizing. Then, take that honesty entry on your list of priorities (and I am sure it is on the list) and move it from its already high location up one notch above the entry about saying faith promoting things in public.

Wow--who ARE you? White Goodman from Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story!

[Damien the Leper]

I firmly beleive you can not be right with God until you recognize and accept the Prophets (including the apostles) as God's spokesmen. As Selek1 has pointed out they are the appointed gatekeepers.

First, thanks for replying.

I suppose I don't fully know how to respond or approach the position of the GAs. For me, God is not enough...He is beyond more than enough. I see His annointed, I suppose, as guidance counselors (not to be interpreted negatively).

We all have come to the point we are at by our thought processes and it is the same for each of us, if we are wrong then it is irrelevent how we got there. The thing we have to do is go back to the gatekeepers and enter in at the gate.

Or just go straight to God. Arm of flesh appointed by God or God Himself? But some may fallaciously argue that I'm not trusting God by trusting in His annointed...more poor reasoning. God will ALWAYS be more than enough for me.

You wrote of being uneasy with who you are and where you are at. If that were me I would be reevaluating and reexamining how I got there. When one is right with God it becomes peaceful and not uneasy.

I agree. On to more introspection and deep prayer...

[Calm]

Or just go straight to God. Arm of flesh appointed by God or God Himself? But some may fallaciously argue that I'm not trusting God by trusting in His annointed...more poor reasoning. God will ALWAYS be more than enough for me.

I can accept what you say in one sense. In another though.....this reasoning could be used to reject Christ himself as he was sent as the mediator between Man and the Father. By your reasoning, surely the Father is beyond being enough so why not just go straight to Him?

I would say that if God has told us to listen to his prophets, then it is not trusting God if one chooses to not listen to his prophets just as it is not trusting God the Father if we refuse to listen to Christ who the Father sent to us. The scriptures talk about how if one loves God, they will do what he says.

Edited January 30, 2012 by calmoriah

[Damien the Leper]

I can accept what you say in one sense. In another though.....this reasoning could be used to reject Christ himself as he was sent as the mediator between Man and the Father. By your reasoning, surely the Father is beyond being enough so why not just go straight to Him?

I'm saying that Jesus is God but not in a Trinitarian sense. Yesterday, in Sacrament meeting, the Bishop stated that as we partook of the Sacrament, that we remember that it's about Christ whom we worship and serve. I'm good with this statement. But based on your reasoning, it could be seen as problematic. It begs the question of who do we worship? Jesus or the Father? Do we worship only one and exemplify the other? These are tough questions for me. Because this is difficult, I make it simple for myself. I go straight to God.

I would say that if God has told us to listen to his prophets, then it is not trusting God if one chooses to not listen to his prophets just as it is not trusting God the Father if we refuse to listen to Christ who the Father sent to us. The scriptures talk about how if one loves God, they will do what he says.

This is the textual and redaction criticism that I have a love hate relationship with. Who said it? Why? Who did they say it too?

"So and so says that God or Jesus says this..." Hearsay for dessert anyone?

But still, no matter my criticism...I still don't know.

Edited January 30, 2012 by Valentinus

[Calm]

I'm saying that Jesus is God but not in a Trinitarian sense. Yesterday, in Sacrament meeting, the Bishop stated that as we partook of the Sacrament, that we remember that it's about Christ whom we worship and serve. I'm good with this statement. But based on your reasoning, it could be seen as problematic. It begs the question of who do we worship? Jesus or the Father? Do we worship only one and exemplify the other? These are tough questions for me. Because this is difficult, I make it simple for myself. I go straight to God.

This is the textual and redaction criticism that I have a love hate relationship with. Who said it? Why? Who did they say it too?

"So and so says that God or Jesus says this..." Hearsay for dessert anyone?

But still, no matter my criticism...I still don't know.

I can understand the issue. One has to trust that the scriptures are an accurate representation of God's word. For that you have to go to God, imo. At that point, if he gives you a witness that the scriptures are his Word, then I think you must then accept that one should be listening to the prophets even if one chooses to test all they say through the Spirit (I have no problem with that concept and in fact would promote it for the most part....though I would not insist on having that confirmation prior to following them in every case). If you do not have confirmation that the scriptures are his Word, then I have no problem with being reluctant to follow any man.

However, you have at least in part accepted scripture as God's Word by believing that Christ is God the Son (unless you have received a personal vision or revelation detailing this for you independent of the scriptures...ie. not in confirmation of what you have read in scripture).

----

Do you believe that God the Father is beyond enough or is he incomplete in some way as God?

Edited January 30, 2012 by calmoriah