Stuffing A Turkey Through The Beak: Leading With Doubt

[wenglund]

Yeah, you don't get to dictate what people believe, (and there's little use trying) but you can prefer that they use the word 'believe' when that's what they mean.

You can also prefer that they use the word "pistol" when the mean "gun." You can prefer that people say "six" rather than "half-a-dozen." You may even prefer to refer to dogs as cats. We are each entitled to our own personal preferences, even when we, in the case at hand, may not be in a position to actually "know" whether someone else "knows" or "believes."

However, our own personal preference may be quite meaningless to others, and are certainly not binding on them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 12, 2013 by wenglund

[PoisonWell]

This is probably not the right thread to discuss this, but my short answer would be: 1)Each of the revelations may be legitimate in their own right.

They're absolutely contradictory. They cannot coexist. The church is a completely separate way; Either God is real or God is not real. You can't have both.

[PoisonWell]

We are each entitled to our own personal preferences

Just as you are 'entitled' to tell them you think they're wrong to use the word know when they mean believe.

[wenglund]

They're absolutely contradictory. They cannot coexist. The church is a completely separate way; Either God is real or God is not real. You can't have both.

False. False. Debatable. Debatable. Fallacious.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Just as you are 'entitled' to tell them you think they're wrong to use the word know when they mean believe.

And, I am entitled to tell you that you are wrong when you don't mean what you just said.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[canard78]

Thanks for the info. Over the past few months, I haven't been able to clearly discern, to my own satisfaction, where Terry has been coming from of late. Given his strong defence of the Church over the years, I've even entertained the unlikely notion that he's been putting us all on or playing a bizarre mind game as some sort of social or psychological experiment. If it's true he no longer believes there is a God -- even in his heart of hearts -- it causes one to wonder why he would want to participate on a board like this one where most are strong believers, some are doubters, but where there are very few unbelievers? It would seem to me that passionate unbelievers who participate on boards like this one do so because they are either a. open to gaining or regaining belief, or b. they are hoping to destroy the belief of others, because misery loves company. Perhaps there are othe motivations as well, but I just woke up and I'm too sleepy to think deeply.

I'll take Volgadon's lead and agree that speculating on someone else's spiritual views is inappropriate. So I'll any further on Kerry's

One thing I would say though, is that while the is a Mormon board, it has always had its origins in being able to discuss Mormon matters a little more rigorously or even academically. I appreciate the participation here of several scholars and apologists.

While I appreciate many here have spiritual experiences that lead their convictions, I also think it often weakens the dialogue when one says "you're wrong because the spirit told me" or "what you say was not inspired by the spirit."

I personally consider it more productive to treat this a place to "study it out in my mind" and leave my spiritual witness for my "closet."

If one says "the spirit said yes" and the other says "the spirit says no" or even "the spirit is just a subjective emotional experience" it kills the conversation somewhat.

[canard78]

I, for one, won't speculate on Kerry's faith.

Thanks, it's a fair comment and I prefer it when people don't about me, so I'll avoid any further comment about Kerry. I've addressed this in my latest post before this one.

[wenglund]

While I appreciate many here have spiritual experiences that lead their convictions, I also think it often weakens the dialogue when one says "you're wrong because the spirit told me" or "what you say was not inspired by the spirit."

I rarely, if ever, see comments here of this sort. But, if they do occur, I agree with you that they aren't valid forms of negating argumentation.

I personally consider it more productive to treat this a place to "study it out in my mind" and leave my spiritual witness for my "closet."

While it may be fallacious to use one's spiritual witness to dismiss or negate another's argument, it may be perfectly appropriate to give one's spiritual witness in support of one's position or as an explanation for one's position, particularly on a board devoted to LDS topics. I, personally, see no real benefit in restricting discussions on spiritual topics solely to intellectual musings, though I can respect if others may prefer to do so for themselves.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[canard78]

I finally understood reliabilism when I encountered an ex-Mormon Catholic who had received a very powerful spiritual manifestation that led her out of the LDS church and into the Catholic church. Then I found there were many others just like her, and I asked myself, "wait a minute, isn't it supposed to happen the other way around?" You see, I thought the Holy Ghost only confirmed Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the reality of the restoration--and and other things that are compatible with those truths. I didn't think the Holy Ghost would suggest that those things were actually false. Then I found an agnostic who received the Holy Ghost, and then an atheist, of all people! These were all confirmed by a deep, sublime "remarkable epiphany" in their own, divergent paths. Whose revelation is legitimate? How can I know that my Holy Ghost was the real Holy Ghost without begging the question? If there is only one truth, then only one "knowledge" is justified, and there ought to be a reliable way to find out which it is.

It turns out that, if you seek with real intent (nothing wavering!) and fear not, only believe; you can get a testimony of the Mormon Church. And the Catholic Church. And the tenets of spiritual agnosticism. And whatever else you can think of! I've done it. These principles of "real intent" and so forth are very useful in establishing "plausibility structures" around allegedly true narratives. These are the strategies that hypnotherapists use, by the way. When we yield to those strategies, we can enter the narrative and it will become very real. In fact, realer than real. Even the empirical senses can participate in this reality that our stories create for us.

The human mind is tractable. Human experience is not reliable. This is the importance of reliabilism, and I should like very much to read some apologia that deals with these plausibility structures, narratives, mental states, evidentialism, and divergent spiritual experiences. After all, the witness of the Holy Ghost is our claim to knowledge. Reliabilism is a direct challenge to that. What is our answer to it?

Suppose we answer this question by first assuming there is a God who is able and willing to communicate/guide all of his children. A big presumption of course, but important for exploring the question of apparently conflicting "remarkable epiphanies."

A traditional Mormon view of your ex-Mormon now-Catholic example would perhaps assume that she had been deceived. The Holy Ghost would only lead towards more light, not away from it.

But there's a problem with this though, because it then makes every "remarkable epiphany" wrong if it contradicts yours. Some will say we should call on the scriptures for clarification, but even within the Mormon faith tradition there are divergent strands based on the same sources (scripture and spirit). Even the brethren disagree and reach conflicting conclusions.

So does that simply mean that the opening assumption is wrong? The fact that people receive "remarkable epiphanies" that contradict means it really is "all in our head" and there is in fact no God. Or at least not one that communicates with His creations. Are we little more than the apes, but with a little more intelligence. Perhaps still created by a supreme being, but left in isolation to work through our turn unaccompanied.

I can't accept that conclusion either (even though I recognise I reached that conclusion through my own personal, subjective "remarkable epiphanies").

So I reach a different one. I believe in a God that communicates and guides. I believe in a God that is such a perfect teacher that every one of His children has a personalised curriculum. Perhaps even personalised in part by the student not the teacher.

My children moved from an elementary school of 30 per class with one teacher and a fixed curriculum (optimised for the majority but imperfect for all of them) to a school with maximum class sizes of 12, 2 teachers per class and a personalised 'student lead learning' approach to the curriculum.

Given God's omnipotence, he goes one step further. While keeping us in a setting of interaction with other students he offers a ratio of 1 student:1 teacher and a fully personalised curriculum. Even within Mormonism we are reminded to not run faster than we have strength, line upon line etc. 'Cafeteria Mormonism' has become a dirty word. But I certainly see and embrace plenty of 'personally adapted Mormonism.' And it works beat that way.

My wife is not active and no longer considers herself Mormon. She would go as far to say she is a 'non-believer' in any interactive deity. Certainly Mormonisms understanding of such.

And here's the strange reality I've come to terms with and am trying to help her extended family to accept: she is tangibly better off that way. Emotionally, socially, spiritually. Her life has changed for the better because she has left Mormonism. She is certainly more able to be a 2+2 or 5+5 student and is more sheep than goat in her treatment of others (see Matt 25). Some may point out that there is another parable in the chapter and may assume she is foolish not wise. From my perspective her lamp is well trimmed and she is not short of oil. Although she may not use the same name, she still knows the master. And what, after all, is in a name.

So would God give people "remarkable epiphanies" that contradict? Yes, I'm very comfortable that he would.

[canard78]

I rarely, if ever, see comments here of this sort. But, if they do occur, I agree with you that they aren't valid forms of negating argumentation.

While it may be fallacious to use one's spiritual witness to dismiss or negate another's argument, it may be perfectly appropriate to give one's spiritual witness in support of one's position or as an explanation for one's position, particularly on a board devoted to LDS topics. I, personally, see no real benefit in restricting discussions on spiritual topics solely to intellectual musings, though I can respect if others may prefer to do so for themselves.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I agree with you on both points. That's two in two days. Either you're becoming more liberal or this board is having an effect on me

You're right that it rarely happens. I'd specifically mentioned it because teddyaware had challenged (goaded?) Kerry to say what he really thinks and then asked him whether the spirit had told him the things he was avoiding saying.

I also agree though that discussing things of a spiritual nature will inevitably lead to people discussing things which were born of spiritual experiences. Fine with that, and even with people saying that's how they reached their conclusion. But I'm glad that, as you say, this board tends to avoid using that as a point of leverage in a dialogue.

[Questing Beast]

..

Finally, I have a question for you; and I ask it with all due respect: Do you believe the Spirit of God has ever revealed truth to you?

All the time. How else is truth known? Your point is taken. But your point, as applied by anyone to their own religious world view, and as such being legion they cannot ALL be exclusively true, and as the fruits of righteous lives are equally good no matter where they originate from: how, please explain, is anyone making exclusive claims to be in possession of the truth, in possession also of the "authority" to make such exclusivity truth claims? I refer for example to the ages-old assertion "they are all going to hell". Only the "true believers" ultimately get saved in heaven. Those who do not "get it" go to some other place. Mormonism is rather charitable about it, but still only the CK is God's home, everywhere else is "hell" if heaven is defined as being in the literal, full-time presence of God: cushy "hell", to be sure, but lower than fully saved nevertheless. So Paul's assertion that his religion possesses access to the mind of God, to the deep, mysterious, fully meaningful things, is in contrast with everybody else, including the Jews that he just came from, and especially all "gentiles", not to leave out heathens. Nobody else but converts to Christianity get to know all those revealed things. Mormonism comes along lately and makes the same claims. The "Holy Ghost" only resides with Mormons. It can visit individuals to reveal the truth of Mormonism but it does not reside with anyone but converted Mormons. Yet the world of examples of good lives hardly supports such an assertion. Mother Teresa was as godly as a human being gets. Gandhi ditto. Millions of religious and non religious people strive to live the best they can according to their lights, and many of them are every whit as righteous as the best Mormons, yet they do not hold any interest in converting to the LDS faith. The evidence is clear: Paul was speaking dogmatically for Christians about Christians, the rest of the world could go elsewhere and be damned, to use B Young's phraseology....

Edited April 12, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Lol. Given Kerry has, I understand, declared a belief that there is no God, why would he consider his comments inspired by the spirit (apologies if I've mischaracterised your views Kerry)?

Yes you misunderstand me. I have nowhere declared that I don't believe there is a God. I am doing the honest and rational thing of giving the atheists their due and sincerely and honestly studying THEIR writings, logic, and analysis, kinda like Mormons want outsiders to study Mormonism by studying MORMONS, so I do so with atheists. I have read within the last year about 15 books on atheism and find their arguments to be incredibly more interesting, powerful, and analyzed than any apologist has ever admitted. I have seen apologists say atheists just whine, others, like Daniel C. Peterson recently merely labels the arguments as "sloganeering" in condescending tones, etc. So having read the most recent book I got my hands on by Douglas E. Kreuger, What is Atheism? A Short Introduction," I can only conclude that if Mormons are honest and willing to actually engage in the arguments and analysis (I would recommend Riskas, but his flippin book is astronomically priced these days at over $400!!!!), it would lend far greater credibility against atheists than the smear campaign or simpleton silly labeling I see happen. I have learned through an honest analysis of as MUCH as I can, not minimally, that theology is more assertion than fact, more wishful thinking than actuality. Hence the silly notion of claiming the importance of faith as opposed to knowledge or analysis. I now see the atheists point of view far more clearly than when I simply took other Mormons claims about atheists. Honesty, it seems, is not the best policy. To keep my head in the mud, I should have simply had "faith" in what I was told about atheists instead of finding out for myself eh?

I gave Mormonism some serious decades of effort, why not the other side and see which is stronger? That, after all, is what John A. Widtsoe advocated, using or reasoning to find truth. Unfortunately, the truth does not end up being what organized religions love to present as real. It is far different.

Does this make me an atheist? Of course not. But it has adjusted several assumptions I have incorrectly adhered to in ignorance. I am learning, as we all should. Just because I am not learning the same thing other Mormons are doesn't mean I am an atheist. I will say though, without hesitation, the atheist arguments are far stronger and more logical than anything in theology. I would discuss it here, but I KNOW (it's my testimony, yer just gonna have to have faith in my assertion) that I WILL get banned, because the logical conclusions do NOT lead to a good end for Mormonism. Thomas Riskas' book is absolutely devastating in that regard, the singular strongest arguments I have ever read. I am working my way through it yet again and find it even stronger than I did the first time. It's not cookie cutter anti-Mormonism, but seriously determined analysis to find if anything is actually real or coherent in theology. It's not looking good for theology.

By atheists I don't mean the weaklings that apologists love to twit. I mean the real deal. The ones most religious scholars simply will not engage, because the end result does not promote faith. I would love to actually see an Apostle answer the atheist claims of Kreuger.... for REAL, one by one. Mind you that's just one atheist book, there are literally HUNDREDS, most of them very highly argued and strongly logically analyzed showing theology is not what religion pretends it is, or thinks it is. That would go a long way to showing that perhaps organized religion can stand up to actual reason, and truly strong analysis of theology's assertions. It would be utterly FASCINATING to see Terryl Givens start writing refutations of the atheists logic, analysis, and evidences, rather than the blather he keeps writing. Jeffrey Holland would do much more valuable teaching were he to actually discuss the *REAL* doubts, objections, and reasons why atheists don't believe a god exists. I know, I will wait in vain however. No biggie, it doesn't stop me from honestly assessing the state of the union, as it were.

Edited April 12, 2013 by Kerry A. Shirts

[Questing Beast]

...(I would recommend Riskas, but his flippin book is astronomically priced these days at over $400!!!!), it would lend far greater credibility against atheists than the smear campaign or simpleton silly labeling I see happen....Thomas Riskas' book is absolutely devastating in that regard, the singular strongest arguments I have ever read. I am working my way through it yet again and find it even stronger than I did the first time. It's not cookie cutter anti-Mormonism, but seriously determined analysis to find if anything is actually real or coherent in theology. It's not looking good for theology....

So you don't see a morally deprived motivation here? A guy has tremendously important conclusions he has made and he charges big bucks to share them? You can have the lot of them. Nobody's mind is worth that much money!

We all have a direct, inseverable connection to "God", so nobody's "conclusions" are worth a dam to anybody else, so they might as well be free.

Did you ever ask an atheist why or how existence Is instead of nothing? That fact is called the Necessary Cause. I like to call the NC "God", but YMMV. Nevertheless, it doesn't take any theology, any dogma, to get the inescapable logic that Existence requires a Necessary Cause....

Edited April 12, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Duncan]

Yes you misunderstand me. I have nowhere declared that I don't believe there is a God. I am doing the honest and rational thing of giving the atheists their due and sincerely and honestly studying THEIR writings, logic, and analysis, kinda like Mormons want outsiders to study Mormonism by studying MORMONS, so I do so with atheists. I have read within the last year about 15 books on atheism and find their arguments to be incredibly more interesting, powerful, and analyzed than any apologist has ever admitted. I have seen apologists say atheists just whine, others, like Daniel C. Peterson recently merely labels the arguments as "sloganeering" in condescending tones, etc. So having read the most recent book I got my hands on by Douglas E. Kreuger, What is Atheism? A Short Introduction," I can only conclude that if Mormons are honest and willing to actually engage in the arguments and analysis (I would recommend Riskas, but his flippin book is astronomically priced these days at over $400!!!!), it would lend far greater credibility against atheists than the smear campaign or simpleton silly labeling I see happen. I have learned through an honest analysis of as MUCH as I can, not minimally, that theology is more assertion than fact, more wishful thinking than actuality. Hence the silly notion of claiming the importance of faith as opposed to knowledge or analysis. I now see the atheists point of view far more clearly than when I simply took other Mormons claims about atheists. Honesty, it seems, is not the best policy. To keep my head in the mud, I should have simply had "faith" in what I was told about atheists instead of finding out for myself eh?

I gave Mormonism some serious decades of effort, why not the other side and see which is stronger? That, after all, is what John A. Widtsoe advocated, using or reasoning to find truth. Unfortunately, the truth does not end up being what organized religions love to present as real. It is far different.

Does this make me an atheist? Of course not. But it has adjusted several assumptions I have incorrectly adhered to in ignorance. I am learning, as we all should. Just because I am not learning the same thing other Mormons are doesn't mean I am an atheist. I will say though, without hesitation, the atheist arguments are far stronger and more logical than anything in theology. I would discuss it here, but I KNOW (it's my testimony, yer just gonna have to have faith in my assertion) that I WILL get banned, because the logical conclusions do NOT lead to a good end for Mormonism. Thomas Riskas' book is absolutely devastating in that regard, the singular strongest arguments I have ever read. I am working my way through it yet again and find it even stronger than I did the first time. It's not cookie cutter anti-Mormonism, but seriously determined analysis to find if anything is actually real or coherent in theology. It's not looking good for theology.

By atheists I don't mean the weaklings that apologists love to twit. I mean the real deal. The ones most religious scholars simply will not engage, because the end result does not promote faith. I would love to actually see an Apostle answer the atheist claims of Kreuger.... for REAL, one by one. Mind you that's just one atheist book, there are literally HUNDREDS, most of them very highly argued and strongly logically analyzed showing theology is not what religion pretends it is, or thinks it is. That would go a long way to showing that perhaps organized religion can stand up to actual reason, and truly strong analysis of theology's assertions. It would be utterly FASCINATING to see Terryl Givens start writing refutations of the atheists logic, analysis, and evidences, rather than the blather he keeps writing. Jeffrey Holland would do much more valuable teaching were he to actually discuss the *REAL* doubts, objections, and reasons why atheists don't believe a god exists. I know, I will wait in vain however. No biggie, it doesn't stop me from honestly assessing the state of the union, as it were.

good points! for expensive books, use the library! or inter-library loan!! (in case you don't do so already. That's how I was able to watch most of seasons of Law and Order haha!)

Edited April 12, 2013 by Duncan

[Glenn101]

Kerry, maybe you could start a thread and provide some of those arguments for us. Then we would be able to ascertain for ourselves just how devastating those argumentsreally are or are not. I do not think you will be banned if you present your arguments rationally without disparaging what the remarks that others make.

Those arguments need to be made against LDS theology.

Glenn

Edited April 12, 2013 by Glenn101

[PoisonWell]

And, I am entitled to tell you that you are wrong when you don't mean what you just said.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Exactly lol

[PoisonWell]

False. False. Debatable. Debatable. Fallacious.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Your superb logic has convinced me. /s

Just saying that they're false, then providing no reasoning is ludicrous. They're obviously contradictory. X exists and X does not exist are contradictory. I can't even comprehend how you think you can argue this.

Edited April 12, 2013 by PoisonWell

[volgadon]

I am doing the honest and rational thing of giving the atheists their due and sincerely and honestly studying THEIR writings, logic, and analysis, kinda like Mormons want outsiders to study Mormonism by studying MORMONS, so I do so with atheists.

Nothing at all wrong with that.

[teddyaware]

I'll take Volgadon's lead and agree that speculating on someone else's spiritual views is inappropriate. So I'll any further on Kerry's

One thing I would say though, is that while the is a Mormon board, it has always had its origins in being able to discuss Mormon matters a little more rigorously or even academically. I appreciate the participation here of several scholars and apologists.

While I appreciate many here have spiritual experiences that lead their convictions, I also think it often weakens the dialogue when one says "you're wrong because the spirit told me" or "what you say was not inspired by the spirit."

I personally consider it more productive to treat this a place to "study it out in my mind" and leave my spiritual witness for my "closet."

If one says "the spirit said yes" and the other says "the spirit says no" or even "the spirit is just a subjective emotional experience" it kills the conversation somewhat.

Using one's spiritual witness as a rhetorical bludgeon or as an implement to force polemical checkmates is most certainly counterproductive to dialogue and discusions on religion; in some ways it defeats the whole purpose of a forum like this one. Even so, there is no denying that lying at the very heart of the religion of the Latter-day Saints is the principal of divine revelation. Revelation is everything in Mormonism, with living apostles and prophets at the foundation, and revelation considered an absolute necessity at every level of ministration and administration -- yet it is considered poor form to appeal to personal revelation when validating the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on this board. I wonder what Paul, Nephi and Joseph Smith would have to say on the subject?

[volgadon]

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/04/believe-it-or-not Walker recommended this article, I think it does a great job of explaining some problematic aspects of recent atheist thought.

[canard78]

I'm really enjoying this topic. But could certain people (naming no names) please use their 'return/enter' key a little more frequently? It hurts my eyes.

[wenglund]

Kerry, with all his decades of serious efforts with Mormonism, seems not to have grasped the essential intents and purpose of Mormonism, or even LDS apologetics for that matter. The gospel isn't about building strong intellectual argumentation, but about building strong spiritual character and relationship and joy. It isn't about trusting in man, but in God. It isn't about attacking and challenging opposing belief systems or disbelief system (we allow them the same right as us to worship how, where, or what they may), but about spreading the good news and bringing people to Christ. How he was so unable to see this with all his seeking, and get it so wrong, is a mystery for the ages. Perhaps one of his towering giants in Atheism can explain it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[teddyaware]

Thomas Riskas' book is absolutely devastating in that regard, the singular strongest arguments I have ever read. I am working my way through it yet again and find it even stronger than I did the first time. It's not cookie cutter anti-Mormonism, but seriously determined analysis to find if anything is actually real or coherent in theology. It's not looking good for theology.

By atheists I don't mean the weaklings that apologists love to twit. I mean the real deal. The ones most religious scholars simply will not engage, because the end result does not promote faith. I would love to actually see an Apostle answer the atheist claims of Kreuger.... for REAL, one by one.

Kerry, Would you kindly take a moment and give me a sample of Riskas' and Kreuger's strongest and most devastating arguments against the existence of God. Give it your best shot and we'll see how well I respond. The Lord has said, "The weak things of the world shall come forth and break down the mighty and strong ones, that man should not counsel his fellow man, neither trust in the arm of flesh." Since I'm most definitely one of "the weak things of the world" the Saviour describes, let me take a shot at answering the wisdom of these two "mighty and strong ones," and we'll see if little old me can "break down the mighty and strong."

Edited April 12, 2013 by teddyaware

[canard78]

Using one's spiritual witness as a rhetorical bludgeon or as an implement to force polemical checkmates is most certainly counterproductive to dialogue and discusions on religion; in some ways it defeats the whole purpose of a forum like this one. Even so, there is no denying that lying at the very heart of the religion of the Latter-day Saints is the principal of divine revelation. Revelation is everything in Mormonism, with living apostles and prophets at the foundation, and revelation considered an absolute necessity at every level of ministration and administration -- yet it is considered poor form to appeal to personal revelation when validating the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on this board. I wonder what Paul, Nephi and Joseph Smith would have to say on the subject?

I accept revelation to be important (both prophet and personal). But it's not 'everything.' We're given a two part process. Study it out and then pray. Even after that, Mormons' revelation can conflict. A stake president and bishop both want to call someone in the same week. Both prayed but have different callings. A man prays and gets a witness to marry a woman but the woman's prayed for answer is no.

Those may be very simplistic examples, but your revelation is very important. To you. But may be of little importance to someone else. And it does little to further a dialogue. Especially when some people in the conversation don't even accept your spiritual sources. Do you simply not talk to those people or do you find common ground to talk from.

[teddyaware]

I accept revelation to be important (both prophet and personal). But it's not 'everything.' We're given a two part process. Study it out and then pray. Even after that, Mormons' revelation can conflict. A stake president and bishop both want to call someone in the same week. Both prayed but have different callings. A man prays and gets a witness to marry a woman but the woman's prayed for answer is no.

Those may be very simplistic examples, but your revelation is very important. To you. But may be of little importance to someone else. And it does little to further a dialogue. Especially when some people in the conversation don't even accept your spiritual sources. Do you simply not talk to those people or do you find common ground to talk from.

My style on this board is to only rarely refer to my own revelations. Rather, the vast majority of the time I quote the revelations from the Lord as found in the Standard Works and General Conference addresses. Those revelations hold more weight than mine. Who's gonna listen to little old me anyway?