The Nehor Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 I am well aware of that quote and have used it often. However, take note: That was not Joseph Smith. That was a man who admitted he was not nearly as good as Joseph Smith and who said he felt that compared to Joseph Smith he was not entitled to be called a prophet. In addition, I believe, he was taken by the Lord before he could lead the Church astray. He was so flamboyant and bombastic that its OK to say "OH... brother Brigham... sometimes I worry about him".Nevertheless... even this quote does not say that the Scriptures become LESS important with MORE Revelation. This is simply describing the relative values of each. The scriptures have the same value all along. Which is not what you are preaching.Yes, I'm sure speaking evil of the Lord's Anointed is authorized in this one case. Of course you would have to do the same about Joseph as he endorsed what Brigham said. I'm not preaching. I usually only preach on Sunday (this Sunday I'm teaching Elder's Quorum and Sunday School). I'm sharing amazing insights.
CASteinman Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 (edited) Part of the Temple Recommend interview involves acknowledging that President Monson is the only one on Earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys.Well... except for when Jesus is here. Or you think not?But anyway, that's our test. Not theirs. Not everyone has the same rules. For example, I once had a recommend without answering any questions at all. Edited August 4, 2012 by CASteinman
The Nehor Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 But anyway, that's our test. Not theirs. Not everyone has the same rules. For example, I once had a recommend without answering any questions at all.Exactly my point in regards to them.
CASteinman Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 (edited) Yes, I'm sure speaking evil of the Lord's Anointed is authorized in this one case.That would go a long way to explaining your posts. Of course you would have to do the same about Joseph as he endorsed what Brigham said.Yes, Joseph was a generous man. However, this is still irrelevant because it does not address the issue that you consider to be valid: That as you become more holy in the Gospel, you can increasingly disregard the Church, just as you can also leave the Scriptures behind.This is exactly the sort of thing that the Apostles recognized would be the thinking of some members -- and it would lead them astray. They wanted to avoid it. You want to relish it.I'm not preaching.Actually you are but I don't really mind if you don't think so. It is unimportant. Edited August 4, 2012 by CASteinman
CASteinman Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 Exactly my point in regards to them.You could have said it instead of dancing around. That would have avoided this detour from the main conversation.
Kerry A. Shirts Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 I believe it had to be revised because it contained some doctrine that was not really true and could easily lead to confusion. Of course some people prefer the confusion creating version that is disapproved by the Apostles and Prophets.Well, here is proof then that what is spoken of in conference can't be ascribed to revelation eh? 1
CASteinman Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 (edited) Well, here is proof then that what is spoken of in conference can't be ascribed to revelation eh?Bad example badly worded. Kerry, I know you feel you have a powerful mind that works great logic. But I sorta feel bad for you in the day that you see it for what it really is. These are not powerfully logical processes you are going through and giving vent to. Edited August 4, 2012 by CASteinman
Kerry A. Shirts Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 (edited) Bad example badly worded.Oh? How so? I have been taught fundamentally that when General Conference comes around we are hearing the Words and Will of God, BECAUSE God's spirit is leading the brethren what to say. It is OFFICIAL church doctrine. Now we see Poleman can't get it right (what was the Spirit napping or something?) so the brethren in their "inspiration" corrected the Word of the Lord?! Please do tell me how that works...... Edited August 4, 2012 by Kerry A. Shirts 1
The Nehor Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 That would go a long way to explaining your posts.Turning a straightforward jape around is the second-lowest form of wit after sarcasm.Yes, Joseph was a generous man. However, this is still irrelevant because it does not address the issue that you consider to be valid: That as you become more holy in the Gospel, you can increasingly disregard the Church, just as you can also leave the Scriptures behind.I said no such thing. I said that you rely on and need them less not that you would disregard them or leave them behind completely.This is exactly the sort of thing that the Apostles recognized would be the thinking of some weak members.Yes, mostly because weak members imagine they are much farther along then they are.Actually you are but I don't really mind if you don't think so. It is unimportant.Agreed.
The Nehor Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 You could have said it instead of dancing around. That would have avoided this detour from the main conversation.I did. You just don't pay attention and assume everything I say goes to the absolute extreme instead of taking me at my word. I think you are too busy trying to read between the lines of what I said that you missed the plain meaning. Pity scripture fails to warn against that.
Kerry A. Shirts Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 Bad example badly worded. Kerry, I know you feel you have a powerful mind that works great logic. But I sorta feel bad for you in the day that you see it for what it really is. These are not powerfully logical processes you are going through and giving vent to.And um, would it be illogical of me to say your response is virtually a non-response, logically evading the point? Am I logical here? If not, then how is your response meaningful or truth in any way? I'm just honestly logically curious here. It isn't my logic you ought to be worried about, truly.
CASteinman Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 Turning a straightforward jape around is the second-lowest form of wit after sarcasm.I was not joking. I said no such thing. I said that you rely on and need them less not that you would disregard them or leave them behind completely.A difference without a distinction. Wordsmithing. But even using your words, your example with Brigham Young does not fit because that is not what he was teaching.Yes, mostly because weak members imagine they are much farther along then they are.I edited that because I did not think I said it correctly. Rather than weak members I really meant to say any members -- who believed it -- would be lead astray. It is a false doctrine in that it leads to destruction. Yet, some people would like to undermine the efforts of the Apostles by teaching that they are in error. Those people might well be -- as you say -- people who imagine that they are much further along than they are.
CASteinman Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 (edited) I did. You just don't pay attention and assume everything I say goes to the absolute extreme instead of taking me at my word. I think you are too busy trying to read between the lines of what I said that you missed the plain meaning. Pity scripture fails to warn against that. I am not reading between any lines. You did not say it. I am taking your words directly and not trying to imagine something. If you think so, explain what it is that I have imagined you are saying but which you are not saying. Please don't get into the detailed wordsmithing stuff.. because it is irrelevant to the point. Edited August 4, 2012 by CASteinman
volgadon Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 Well, here is proof then that what is spoken of in conference can't be ascribed to revelation eh? Blast, there goes our doctrine of infallibility... Oh, wait, what doctrine? 1
rongo Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 Part of the Temple Recommend interview involves acknowledging that President Monson is the only one on Earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys. They are on earth at least some of the time.It's an interesting question as to whether the three Nephites, John the Revelator, et. al. are under the current President's keys. There was a duly constituted First Presidency in Jerusalem, but Jesus ordained twelve in the New World. Were they under Peter's keys?Joseph Smith taught that a major portion of John's ministry is among the ten tribes. Elder Wirthlin taught us in Hamburg (in the Wartenau chapel) in November 1994 that John was instrumental in the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Soviet Union's regime, and the opening up of Eastern Europe for the gospel. I definitely wanted more information on the details there, but was too timid as a brand new missionary to ask. 1
The Nehor Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 A difference without a distinction. Wordsmithing. But even using your words, your example with Brigham Young does not fit because that is not what he was teaching.Ignoring something completely and relying on it less are not the same thing and I contend that it is a difference with a distinction.I edited that because I did not think I said it correctly. Rather than weak members I really meant to say any members -- who believed it -- would be lead astray. It is a false doctrine in that it leads to destruction. Yet, some people would like to undermine the efforts of the Apostles by teaching that they are in error. Those people might well be -- as you say -- people who imagine that they are much further along than they are.I've believed it for a decade and seem to be okay. I do not see how this undermines the apostles. I follow the Apostles. I crave what they teach. I've been reading one session of conference a day every weekday for the last long while starting in 1974. I'm in 1978 now.If you are implying that I imagine myself at such a high level you would be wrong. I am not and do not think I am.
The Nehor Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 I am not reading between any lines. You did not say it. I am taking your words directly and not trying to imagine something. If you think so, explain what it is that I have imagined you are saying but which you are not saying. Please don't get into the detailed wordsmithing stuff.. because it is irrelevant to the point.If I can't go into details then there is no point at all in trying to explain it to you. You will accuse me of wordsmithing (which seems to mean communicating details).
CASteinman Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 (edited) And um, would it be illogical of me to say your response is virtually a non-responseYes it would be. It was obviously a response.how is your response meaningful or truth in any way? I'm just honestly logically curious here.My words were all taken out of the English language and the sentence was constructed in a non-random grammatically sufficient manner to convey meaning. That you have to ask this question is an illustration of the very point I was making. This is not a powerfully logical response to what I said, though it seems to be an attempt.It isn't my logic you ought to be worried about, truly.Did it seem I was worried about your logic? If you notice, I was not. I expressed concern about the feelings you will have when you recognize the things you believe to be profound and sharp, for what they really are. I feel bad for you, because I have been that stupid in my life at times -- thinking I was smart -- and I know how it feels to look back on your supposed wisdom and realize it was like the mentality of a person on drugs or a small child. It is embarrassing even when it is only you that sees it. That has been my personal experience and I feel bad for when that will happen to you. The only way I think it might be worse though, is if I had never awakened to that sense of things. You can know the image if you have watched even one episode of "The Office" (American version). The Manager is oblivious to his problems. I may still be oblivious to some and do not relish the idea of seeing them exposed some day. But I have seen some already and had a chance to repent. I believe that your words will come back to you some day and you will regret them for you will see them as they really are. Not so clever and logical as you now think that they are. At least, I suppose I hope that happens. I do not want to pursue this further though. It is actually painful to me.(I want to add: I cannot really watch the Office. I do not find it funny because I find it too painful to see someone like that. I believe I am different in that regard than most people). Edited August 4, 2012 by CASteinman
The Nehor Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 It's an interesting question as to whether the three Nephites, John the Revelator, et. al. are under the current President's keys. There was a duly constituted First Presidency in Jerusalem, but Jesus ordained twelve in the New World. Were they under Peter's keys?Joseph Smith taught that a major portion of John's ministry is among the ten tribes. Elder Wirthlin taught us in Hamburg (in the Wartenau chapel) in November 1994 that John was instrumental in the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Soviet Union's regime, and the opening up of Eastern Europe for the gospel. I definitely wanted more information on the details there, but was too timid as a brand new missionary to ask. I believe that the translated beings operate under the authority of their own dispensation independent of ours. So John would report to Peter and the Three Nephites would report to Nephi. Interesting stuff from Elder Wirthlin. I suspected that was the kind of thing John was doing but it is nice to have confirmation.
CASteinman Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 Ignoring something completely and relying on it less are not the same thing and I contend that it is a difference with a distinction.Whatever. I retract that you said the former and assert the latter is the false doctrine that the Apostles did not want to have taught. Regardless of the distinction you see, it has absolutely no bearing on this discussion. I've believed it for a decade and seem to be okay. In your judgment. I don't really care if you believe it on your own -- you are an agent to do as you will. It is the teaching of it that is of concern to me. And if you have taught it, you are not doing Okay.I do not see how this undermines the apostles.There you go.
CASteinman Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 I believe that the translated beings operate under the authority of their own dispensation independent of ours. So John would report to Peter and the Three Nephites would report to Nephi. Interesting stuff from Elder Wirthlin. I suspected that was the kind of thing John was doing but it is nice to have confirmation.I don't know exactly about "dispensation" -- what that means -- but I agree that they are part of the Church under a different aegis and have an alternative authority under Christ and the Father.
CASteinman Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 If I can't go into details then there is no point at all in trying to explain it to you. But you can go into details. I am not going to stop you. The problem that I have is the words you have typed that I quoted previously in blue. If you think some other paraphrase of those has been used to misrepresent your views.. I renounce them now. And yet.. the problem still remains. So.. what have I read between the lines, now that I have renounced these wordsmithing problems and yet still completely reject your notions as unsupported by the apostles and also unsupportive of the apostles?
rongo Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 I don't really care if you believe it on your own -- you are an agent to do as you will. It is the teaching of it that is of concern to me. Genuine question here ----- I'm confused. The teaching of what? That apostles and prophets can say things that aren't true, even in GC, and even when they say they're speaking in the name of the Lord?I was confused about what was being disagreed with in the rapid give-and-take with Nehor and Kerry.
CASteinman Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 Genuine question here ----- I'm confused. The teaching of what? The teaching that as you advance in the gospel you need the Church less. Which is not even as far as Elder Poelman went in his talk but it is, I believe, the sort of extension that the Apostles were concerned would arise from his rather shaky wording. It has been expressed here directly and is a doctrine that will if fully developed will lead people to openly rebel against the Prophet and Apostles -- and moreover, they will believe that they are exceptionally righteous to do so.
CASteinman Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 So, I am going to leave this thread for a while.. for 3 reasons that I can think of:1. I am tired and I think when I get tired, I don't say things well.2. I have to pack to get on an airplane early tomorrow.3. I'm not enjoying this exchange.I wish I had some power to supernaturally bless everyone here. I don't. Still... God bless you all.
Recommended Posts