Holy Ghost: Says Different Things To Different People?

[wenglund]

I had initially intended to start this thread for PoisonWell's benefit. However, since s/he has voluntarily left the building in a huff, I will use this thread to respond to a similar tangential question posed to me by bcuzbcuz on the other thread, and to explore more in-depth the tangential comments leading up to his question. He asked:

Then what is the first vision to Joseph Smith all about? Doesn't it state in Hebrews 13:8, Mormon 9:9 and DnC 20:12 that God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow? If so, how come he says different things to different people? Why should anyone pray and expect the Holy Ghost to respond with guidance when it appears that the advice leads in many directions?

The answer, I believe, was hinted at by Canard78 and perhaps others who spoke of "individualized curriculum," To me, God, in his infinite love and wisdom, knows what is best for each of his children and how we best may grow and develop towards our best selves, as we may be so inclined. He understands that his different children may have different learning styles, different aptitudes, different inclination, and different circumstances, etc.. And, as such, it may necessitate guiding some of his children onto different paths and at different rates of progression and so forth.

We, as parents and teachers, or as children and students, may see the wisdom in this. As one who has several mild/moderate learning disabilities, and who has taught special education, I have seen first-hand that not all students learn well under the somewhat one-size-fits-all approach of public education. My mind processes information differently and at a different rate than most other students, and so I didn't progress as well as them in at school, though I found ways to educate myself in order to compete.

And, not everyone is cut out for college and graduate school or corporate management. Believe it or not, some people these days are so much more happy and fulfilled in their homeless and beggarly lives than they would be working 8 - 5 and owning a palatial home.

In short, as I understand things, God has made his children the priority, and not his educational system (the sabbath is for man, and not man for the sabbath). As such, the path he guides them towards, is the path he believes is best for them and the best they may be willing and able to travel, which necessitates revealing different things to different people.

I view this as how God has always been, and he changes not in this respect. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

What think ye?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

Methinks you nailed it! I was going to say all that- but there it is! Nothing more to say!

[Nofear]

Isn't the different lessons adapted for the different capacity and/or purpose part of the purpose behind parables? That is to say, some parables may completely conceal truths for those unprepared while capable of being a medium for revealing profound and significant truths for those prepared.

If our Master taught so, is it at all surprising that the Spirit of Truth would do the same kind of thing?

Edited April 12, 2013 by Nofear

[wenglund]

Isn't the different lessons adapted for the different capacity and/or purpose part of the purpose behind parables? That is to say, some parables may completely conceal truths for those unprepared while capable of being a medium for revealing profound and significant truths for those prepared.

If our Master taught so, is it at all surprising that the Spirit of Truth would do the same kind of thing?

Yup...and then some.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Methinks you nailed it! I was going to say all that- but there it is! Nothing more to say!

But, you would have said it better, and in a way that others may have understood.

I hope you may yet offer some of your own precious insights.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

One need but read the Old Testament, and compare and contrast it with the New Testaments, to get a sense for the different approaches God may use in progressing his children.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bikeemikey]

Totally agree with that...

God says the same things to people differently...

That is he says be your best selves... each persons process for this is different.

[CASteinman]

I don't know. I suppose God could tell people different things. His ways are not our ways. I had someone tell me that they prayed about the Book of Mormon and the Holy Ghost told them not to join the Mormon Church.

I told them not to join then.

They said, "But why would God tell me one thing and you something else"

I said, "I don't know but for some reason God does not want you in His Church".

And there are some people over the course of the Restoration who did more good out of the Church than in it I suspect.

[Questing Beast]

Any religion or no religion, it isn't a yardstick to judge others by. All you can do, and it will keep you continually occupied, is direct your own steps according to what you feel is best. That is the common communication to everyone, the circumstances or scenario are peripheral to always following your best guess at what is "right". God asks no more of anyone....

[canard78]

Given you'd referenced it, here's what I said on the 'stuffing a turkey' in response to the question of conflicting revelations:

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.

I'll comment further on the excellent OP in a separate post

[ksfisher]

Ok, so here's a question. How does our inherent biases effect, not what the Holy Ghost says to us, but what we understand it to say. If two people can hear the same conversation and come away with a different understanding, can two people receive the same message from the Holy Ghost, but understand that message differently. Especially when we are dealing with communication that often times comes to us in the form of feelings.

So if Investigator A and Investigator B both ask if Joseph Smith was a prophet and feel that they've received different answers, is it because the Holy Ghost is giving them a different message, or because they are biased for or against, knowingly or unknowingly the received message?

Edited April 12, 2013 by ksfisher

[Ahab]

I had initially intended to start this thread for PoisonWell's benefit. However, since s/he has voluntarily left the building in a huff, I will use this thread to respond to a similar tangential question posed to me by bcuzbcuz on the other thread, and to explore more in-depth the tangential comments leading up to his question. He asked:

The answer, I believe, was hinted at by Canard78 and perhaps others who spoke of "individualized curriculum," To me, God, in his infinite love and wisdom, knows what is best for each of his children and how we best may grow and develop towards our best selves, as we may be so inclined. He understands that his different children may have different learning styles, different aptitudes, different inclination, and different circumstances, etc.. And, as such, it may necessitate guiding some of his children onto different paths and at different rates of progression and so forth.

We, as parents and teachers, or as children and students, may see the wisdom in this. As one who has several mild/moderate learning disabilities, and who has taught special education, I have seen first-hand that not all students learn well under the somewhat one-size-fits-all approach of public education. My mind processes information differently and at a different rate than most other students, and so I didn't progress as well as them in at school, though I found ways to educate myself in order to compete.

And, not everyone is cut out for college and graduate school or corporate management. Believe it or not, some people these days are so much more happy and fulfilled in their homeless and beggarly lives than they would be working 8 - 5 and owning a palatial home.

In short, as I understand things, God has made his children the priority, and not his educational system (the sabbath is for man, and not man for the sabbath). As such, the path he guides them towards, is the path he believes is best for them and the best they may be willing and able to travel, which necessitates revealing different things to different people.

I view this as how God has always been, and he changes not in this respect. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

What think ye?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think you're off a bit, but still a bit on the right track. The problem I see with your idea is that there is room for individual career paths/learning styles even within the Church, so there is no comparison really to the way things are in the "world". You're also not stating whether or not when you say "different" things you're referring to "contradictory" things, so to clear that up I'll just state that at no time will God ever give someone a message which is contradictory to a message he has given to someone else in the same circumstances. He is always the same, but the circumstances are not always the same so when he gives a message it's always in relation to those particular circumstances. For example like how he once restricted the Aaronic order of priesthood to Aaron and his descendants while now that same order of priesthood is given to other people, as well.

Anyway, the main idea to keep in mind is that a message from God is in relation to particular circumstances, and no message from God will ever contradict a previous message given for the same circumstances.

[mfbukowski]

Ok, so here's a question. How does our inherent biases effect, not what the Holy Ghost says to us, but what we understand it to say. If two people can hear the same conversation and come away with a different understanding, can two people receive the same message from the Holy Ghost, but understand that message differently. Especially when we are dealing with communication that often times comes to us in the form of feelings.

So if Investigator A and Investigator B both ask if Joseph Smith was a prophet and feel that they've received different answers, is it because the Holy Ghost is giving them a different message, or because they are biased for or against, knowingly or unknowingly the received message?

Knowing the answer to this is impossible- how can I know what the Holy Ghost "really said" to someone else? What matters is how we interpret the message and bring (or don't bring) it into our lives

The interpretation IS the message in a case like this, so all we know is that people react differently to praying about the gospel- why that happens we really can't know.

But I think God leads us in the way which is best for us individually. If joining the church on the street corner brings us closer to Christ because there is someone there we need to meet, for example, and we feel we need to join that church- I say join it!

If you are a drunk on skid row, and never heard of Christ and you are found and taught by the Salvation Army- that can be as much God's plan for you personally perhaps more than being Mormon (for now)

As we grow and search though, I think the closer we approach the truth of the gospel we will eventually see the light. And that is the strength of the Mormon position- we believe our search will continue even beyond death if necessary.

So find a church which speaks to your spirit and continue searching for your life- that is what I think God wants us to do. I also think eventually one will come to believe the principles of the LDS- just because in fact this principle IS Mormon Doctrine.

The whole process is outlined in the BOM- Alma 32. No where else in scripture will you find this advice- THAT to me is what proves it as the Lord's word.

It is the only place one finds advice that actually works on this question

Edited April 12, 2013 by mfbukowski

[canard78]

I don't know. I suppose God could tell people different things. His ways are not our ways. I had someone tell me that they prayed about the Book of Mormon and the Holy Ghost told them not to join the Mormon Church.

I told them not to join then.

They said, "But why would God tell me one thing and you something else"

I said, "I don't know but for some reason God does not want you in His Church".

And there are some people over the course of the Restoration who did more good out of the Church than in it I suspect.

I like the attitude of accepting that someone got an answer to not join. Some might presume that it was simply a non-answer or even an evil spirit.

Given around 99.5% of God's children have not/will not be a Mormon in this life, it stands to reason that God is not simply "inefficient" (that's a lot of wastage otherwise) but happy with multiple customisations and personalisations for completing this life and looks to the long term for the next.

For me this puts a much more pleasant layer to the idea of the purpose of each life. Not wasted, but optimised. It allows me to look at and appreciate the merits of other philosophies for other people while also feeling grateful for my own. It makes D&C 1:30 a statement that applies to me. But not to someone else.

It also explains why so many religions and philosophies still have at their core the idea of "do unto others, as you would have done unto you." I think that's God's primary benchmark for the quality of people we become in our allocated time on earth.

[Ahab]

Ok, so here's a question. How does our inherent biases effect, not what the Holy Ghost says to us, but what we understand it to say. If two people can hear the same conversation and come away with a different understanding, can two people receive the same message from the Holy Ghost, but understand that message differently. Especially when we are dealing with communication that often times comes to us in the form of feelings.

Yes, and note that it's the "private interpretation" that will be in contradiction while the message from the Holy Ghost is the same.

So if Investigator A and Investigator B both ask if Joseph Smith was a prophet and feel that they've received different answers, is it because the Holy Ghost is giving them a different message, or because they are biased for or against, knowingly or unknowingly the received message?

Well, at the least you should be able to realize that the Holy Ghost wouldn't give a contradictory message to the same exact question. Each person could even have a different idea in their mind while they're asking that question, though, so in essence they would actually be asking 2 different questions.

For example, if one person is thinking of a time when Joseph wasn't speaking as a prophet but instead speaking only as himself, the Holy Ghost would say Joseph wasn't a prophet when he was giving that message, because at that time he only spoke as himself. If both of them ask if Joseph was EVER a prophet of God, though, or if he had EVER given a message which was inspired by personal revelation from God to him, then the Holy Ghost would answer in the affirmative because he truly was speaking as a prophet when sharing some messages, even though at some other times he wasn't.

Just as he said, a man is a prophet of God only when he is acting as such. So Joseph was both a prophet of God, and he wasn't, sometimes, depending on which times you are thinking about.

[wenglund]

Ok, so here's a question. How does our inherent biases effect, not what the Holy Ghost says to us, but what we understand it to say. If two people can hear the same conversation and come away with a different understanding, can two people receive the same message from the Holy Ghost, but understand that message differently. Especially when we are dealing with communication that often times comes to us in the form of feelings.

So if Investigator A and Investigator B both ask if Joseph Smith was a prophet and feel that they've received different answers, is it because the Holy Ghost is giving them a different message, or because they are biased for or against, knowingly or unknowingly the received message?

Excellent point. To me, it could be either or both. We just don't know. That is between them and God.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[KevinG]

While the parable of the blind men and the elephant is not scriptural I think it sheds a great deal of light on the issue of opposing revelations.

Even among those who agree on calling and doctrine it is critical we follow the Lord's plan of councils and individual revelation so that we can all grow in our ability to receive revelation and so we can all contribute our piece of the larger picture.

One of the wisest Bishops I have ever worked with routinely asked me and his other counselor (two wet behind the ears BYU students) what we thought on a particular matter before he added his own insights. In several cases he changed his mind after hearing what we felt about a situation.

The wisdom in this plan is that it not only helps people reach the right decisions but it also grows the people making the decisions.

[pmccombs1]

Thanks for starting this thread, wenglund. Over in the other thread (and in other places on this forum), I had brought up the problem of epistemic reliabilism which includes some discussion of conflicting spiritual evidences.

Reliabilism is a system of knowledge that claims that the mere possession of evidence is insufficient for justifying knowledge. There must also be some level of "reliability" around the source of that evidence. We must be able to verify the source. Typically this means that the evidence must be subject to some external test under the auspices of an "impartial spectator," to use Adam Smith's language. This spectator would ideally not bring any human prejudices to its judgments of the evidence and simply provide us with the qualitative and quantitative information about it. Things not subject to this sort of investigation therefore cannot be justified in the realm of knowledge.

I frequently use the example of the colorblind. Those who share colorblindness all have evidence to make the same erroneous claim about certain colors that they can't sense reliably. Their witness is at odds with those who are not colorblind and who make opposing claims about those colors. How can we tell who is right? We have to go to the source and use an impartial spectator to measure the information coming from that source. A spectrometer is just such an instrument. It can classify the source wavelengths according to definitions and reveal the "truth" of the matter. It isn't swayed by arguments or appeals, or by having lived in a culture with a certain color narrative.

There is analogy to be made with the Holy Ghost.

Does the "truth" that the Holy Ghost communicated to a person represent actual reality?

If another person (or even the same person) receives an opposing witness, how can his or her witness also represent reality?

Or is one wrong and one right?

Are the two witnesses qualitatively similar?

How can we know?

How can we know the source of these witnesses?

Could different sources produce the same quality of witness? E.g. Under hypnosis, a person can experience religious feelings that are similar to feelings felt in Church or in other religious contexts. In one case, the source of this feeling is a hypnotherapist, and in the other case it is allegedly from God... or is it?

I'm not opposed to the ideas that wenglund has suggested, but I realize that it is a faithful response to the problem that does not consider another, more parsimonious and wholly faithless possibility: That in fact the spiritual "sense" is not a sense as such, but rather a natural product of the emergent system that is the human brain. We can reliably verify sources of other "empirical" senses, but not the source of the spiritual sense. The fact that this sense does not reliably convey the same view of reality to adherents of different religions suggests that it is more a reflection of their cultural and religious narratives than of objective reality. The upshot of this is that the spiritual sense cannot justify knowledge because it is purely subjective and unreliable in a broad context (I agree with a comment Ahab made about its reliability in an individual context. Well, mostly agree--I happen to be one who receives conflicting witnesses, a situation which I ascribe to my propensity for doubt and skepticism).

But even within a faithful context, I think the argument needs to be developed. I understand that sometimes parents will give a different story to their children, depending on the capacity to receive and understand. Perhaps we tell very small children about the stork who visits parents with new babies, but older children must learn about the "birds and the bees." In some cases, we're providing a story that simply fills the need for information while withholding a reality that one is not prepared to comprehend. Let us admit that these myths we traditionally use with children do not represent what we understand to be objective reality. Some critics who do not use such stories call them "lies." Are they lies? Does God tell his very immature children lies that help them to develop to their full potential?

We all want the honest truth at some point. Presuming the existence of God, how do we know if we are the children who are getting the Santa-Clause myths, or if we are the grown-up who are getting the straight story? Does Mormonism represent "growing up," or does Catholicism or some other religion tell a more "adult" story that is in line with the way things really are? Would conveying certainty about a certain viewpoint and encouraging others in that same narrative by traditions and expectation be a sort of injustice because it prevents their development along

other potential lines to greater truth?

[canard78]

I had initially intended to start this thread for PoisonWell's benefit. However, since s/he has voluntarily left the building in a huff, I will use this thread to respond to a similar tangential question posed to me by bcuzbcuz on the other thread, and to explore more in-depth the tangential comments leading up to his question. He asked:

The answer, I believe, was hinted at by Canard78 and perhaps others who spoke of "individualized curriculum," To me, God, in his infinite love and wisdom, knows what is best for each of his children and how we best may grow and develop towards our best selves, as we may be so inclined. He understands that his different children may have different learning styles, different aptitudes, different inclination, and different circumstances, etc.. And, as such, it may necessitate guiding some of his children onto different paths and at different rates of progression and so forth.

We, as parents and teachers, or as children and students, may see the wisdom in this. As one who has several mild/moderate learning disabilities, and who has taught special education, I have seen first-hand that not all students learn well under the somewhat one-size-fits-all approach of public education. My mind processes information differently and at a different rate than most other students, and so I didn't progress as well as them in at school, though I found ways to educate myself in order to compete.

And, not everyone is cut out for college and graduate school or corporate management. Believe it or not, some people these days are so much more happy and fulfilled in their homeless and beggarly lives than they would be working 8 - 5 and owning a palatial home.

In short, as I understand things, God has made his children the priority, and not his educational system (the sabbath is for man, and not man for the sabbath). As such, the path he guides them towards, is the path he believes is best for them and the best they may be willing and able to travel, which necessitates revealing different things to different people.

I view this as how God has always been, and he changes not in this respect. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

What think ye?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I love this whole concept of personalised teaching. I read on another forum that we are like stain glass windows. Lots of different pieces of glass making up our window and when we let God shine through our personal glass panes it makes us more beautiful.

There is so much in the gospel teachings to point towards this idea of God giving the right shade/amount/brightness of light to each child to work with.

I never thought it was right to call up a man and try him because he erred in doctrine... I want the liberty of believing as I please, it feels so good not to be tramelled.

----

“The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/01/i-have-a-question?lang=eng

------------------------

“We recognize the good in all people. We recognize the good in all churches, in their efforts to improve mankind and to teach principles that lead to good, stable, productive living. To people everywhere we simply say, ‘You bring with you all the good that you have, and let us add to it. That is the principle on which we work’” (interview with Philippines Television, 30 April 1996).

http://www.lds.org/liahona/1997/06/words-of-the-living-prophet?lang=eng

[canard78]

While the parable of the blind men and the elephant is not scriptural I think it sheds a great deal of light on the issue of opposing revelations.

Even among those who agree on calling and doctrine it is critical we follow the Lord's plan of councils and individual revelation so that we can all grow in our ability to receive revelation and so we can all contribute our piece of the larger picture.

One of the wisest Bishops I have ever worked with routinely asked me and his other counselor (two wet behind the ears BYU students) what we thought on a particular matter before he added his own insights. In several cases he changed his mind after hearing what we felt about a situation.

The wisdom in this plan is that it not only helps people reach the right decisions but it also grows the people making the decisions.

It might not be scriptural, but it has been quoted by Elder Uchtdorf. What's the verse about 'whether by my voice or the voice of my servants...'

Anything Elder Uchtdorf says is scripture in my book:

http://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/ces-devotionals/2013/01/what-is-truth?lang=eng

Well over one hundred years ago, an American poet put to rhyme an ancient parable. The first verse of the poem speaks about:

Six men of Indostan

To learning much inclined,

Who went to see the Elephant

(Though all of them were blind),

That each by observation

Might satisfy his mind.

In the poem each of the six travelers takes hold of a different part of the elephant and then describes to the others what he has discovered.

One of the men finds the elephant’s leg and describes it as being round and rough like a tree. Another feels the tusk and describes the elephant as a spear. A third grabs the tail and insists that an elephant is like a rope. A fourth discovers the trunk and insists that the elephant is like a large snake.

Each is describing truth.

And because his truth comes from personal experience, each insists that he knows what he knows.

The poem concludes:

And so these men of Indostan

Disputed loud and long,

Each in his own opinion

Exceeding stiff and strong,

Though each was partly in the right,

And all were in the wrong!1

We look at this story from a distance and smile. After all, we know what an elephant looks like. We have read about them and watched them on film, and many of us have even seen one with our own eyes. We believe we know the truth of what an elephant is. That someone could make a judgment based on one aspect of truth and apply it to the whole seems absurd or even unbelievable. On the other hand, can’t we recognize ourselves in these six blind men? Have we ever been guilty of the same pattern of thought?

In the same talk he also says:

We seek for truth wherever we may find it. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “Mormonism is truth. … The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or … being … prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men.”

Yes, we do have the fulness of the everlasting gospel, but that does not mean that we know everything. In fact, one principle of the restored gospel is our belief that God “will yet reveal many great and important things.”

... So we continually seek truth from all good books and other wholesome sources. “If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.” In this manner we can resist the deceit of the evil one. In this manner we learn the truth “precept upon precept; line upon line.” And we will learn that intelligence cleaves unto intelligence, and wisdom receives wisdom, and truth embraces truth.

[Ahab]

Knowing the answer to this is impossible- how can I know what the Holy Ghost "really said" to someone else?

You may not know the exact words the Holy Ghost used, or the exact idea that was being conveyed, but you can compare it to what the Holy Ghost has said on previous occasions and then see if that message is contradictory to another message in the same circumstances.

What matters is how we interpret the message and bring (or don't bring) it into our lives.

Right, and there is a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it, with one way being contradictory and the other way not.

The interpretation IS the message in a case like this, so all we know is that people react differently to praying about the gospel- why that happens we really can't know.

No, the interpretation is not necessarily the same as the message, with some people "assuming" the Holy Ghost is saying something he's not really saying. You shouldn't need an example of this other than what you've already seen in how some people interpret some messages. I could say something to you right now which you might interpret in some way that isn't in harmony with what I actually mean.

[KevinG]

I could say something to you right now which you might interpret in some way that isn't in harmony with what I actually mean.

How offensive! I am a good singer and rarely out of tune. Don't impune my harmony!!!

[wenglund]

What matters is how we interpret the message and bring (or don't bring) it into our lives

To me, this is key. And, here, in part, is why:

I suspect that what you and I and others have been expressing, may be difficult for some to accept, and may even strike them as disquieting, because they assume that "truth" is the end towards which we should be striving, rather than the means to the end. If "truth" is the end, then it just wont do for one person to be told one "truth" by the Holy Ghost, and another person to be told a different or seemingly conflicting "truth." I get this.

Whereas, if the end is actually the betterment of ourselves and growing in meaningfulness and fulfillment in our relationships with others (the epitome of which is divinity/eternal families), then it makes perfect sense that there would be different "truths" for different people, and this given that different "truths" will progress different people differently at different times and different circumstances, etc.

What matters, then, as you suggest, isn't that there are divergent messages from heaven, but "...how we interpret the message and bring (or don't bring) it into our lives."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Damien the Leper]

I think that what the Spirit of God dictates and leads is dependent on how we each individually respond to God in our personal relationships with Him. A friend of mine put it well, I think. His General Manager for his job said in a meeting that he has to adjust to each person and their personality as means to best provide direction and advice. I'm not a parent but I assume that the same scenario can be applied.

[Ahab]

To me, this is key. And, here, in part, is why:

I suspect that what you and I and others have been expressing, may be difficult for some to accept, and may even strike them as disquieting, because they assume that "truth" is the end towards which we should be striving, rather than the means to the end. If "truth" is the end, then it just wont do for one person to be told one "truth" by the Holy Ghost, and another person to be told a different or seemingly conflicting "truth." I get this.

Whereas, if the end is actually the betterment of ourselves and growing in meaningfulness and fulfillment in our relationships with others (the epitome of which is divinity/eternal families), then it makes perfect sense that there would be different "truths" for different people, and this given that different "truths" will progress different people differently at different times and different circumstances, etc.

What matters, then, as you suggest, isn't that there are divergent messages from heaven, but "...how we interpret the message and bring (or don't bring) it into our lives."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You keep saying different rather than contradictory, so what you are saying is true in some sense. If you had said or meant contradictory instead, though, then you'd be wrong and I hope you already realize that. I know God uses different methods to teach each one of us what he wants us to learn, but none of those different methods he uses are contradictory to any of his other means. The truth will be consistent and in harmony throughout all of it, with no contradictory messages from him.