Why The Need To Classify Ideas, People, Groups, And Activities As "Evil".

[Ahab]

Well, I did use the word "faith."

Yes, but faith is something people can have in themselves, without God being the one to give it to them.

Usually in a religious context we're talking about faith from God, or at least that is a common underlying assumption, but the word "faith" simply refers to having an assurance or being sure about something, and not everything we're sure about is something we're sure about because God is the one who has given us his assurance to help us be sure about it. We may be sure that he did, but just because we are sure that he did doesn't necessarily mean that he did.

[CV75]

Yes, but faith is something people can have in themselves, without God being the one to give it to them.

I'm using 'faith" in a Stage 6 sense.

[Ahab]

I'm using 'faith" in a Stage 6 sense.

I'm not totally sure what you mean by that. Can you elaborate or think of another way to share [what] you mean? Edited August 8, 2013 by Ahab

[pmccombs1]

Yes, I know. People, in general, say all kinds of things, don't they. Now ask God what he has to say and accept what he says.

Um, you don't seem to understand. I asked God, and I received each of those witnesses. I received all of those things, personally. Me. Do you understand what I am saying? I'm not talking only about "people, in general." Numero uno here has a divine witness that the church is true. AND that it's false. I investigate many things and enter into many different narratives. You know what? God seems to confirm most of the ones I enter into in full faith! Or is it God?

You say to ask God and accept what He says. OK, done. Which of these answers shall I accept?

[Ahab]

Um, you don't seem to understand. I asked God, and I received each of those witnesses. I received all of those things, personally. Me. Do you understand what I am saying? I'm not talking only about "people, in general." Numero uno here has a divine witness that the church is true. AND that it's false. I investigate many things and enter into many different narratives. You know what? God seems to confirm most of the ones I enter into in full faith! Or is it God?

You say to ask God and accept what He says. OK, done. Which of these answers shall I accept?

All answers God gives you, in the way that God meant it, making sure to distinguish each person who is God, by a name.

Satan will chime in on occasion while giving the impression that he is God, too, don't cha know. The word "God" applies to more than just one person, and yes, each person who answers while considering himself/herself to be God has different answers, some of which contradict each other.

Again, there's no need to involve me in all of this. It's up to you to get to know each person who is God, personally.

[DBMormon]

How can anyone in either stage 3 or 4, having the power of such discernment, be neither evil nor good (in this case, in his asessment of others)?

People in stage 3 won't comprehend they are in stage 3 though Stage 4 will generally be able to see that as part of the reason for their anxiety and anguish. While people in a stage can have good or bad behavior, the stage itself is neither good or bad, simply a way to recognize a given point in the process of the development of their faith.

While Fowlers theory may be pointless or unhelpful in many instances, what it does do well, is help those in stage 4 ( a transition stage that can include a faith crisis) realize they are not alone, that it is a process, and that there is hope to come out the otherside with faith intact, though it will have to undergo an incredible change to get there.

Edited August 8, 2013 by DBMormon

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

On the whole, I feel no such "need," though I do think that some things (e.g., Pol Pot's "killing fields," Charles Manson's murders, and Jeffrey Dahmer's cannibalism) are, beyond reasonable dispute, evil.

You forgot Johnny Lingo

[kassie]

Intrinsic evil exists just as completely as the existence of absolute righteousness. Do you think one exists without the other?

Adolf Hitler is a perfect example. He chose to be evil. He had free agency. He was a wallpaper hanger for heaven's sake. Sadaam Hussein chose to be evil. There are repercussions in this life, and if not in this life, then in the next. I have a serious problem with some Christians who say "Well. if they accepted Christ on their deathbed they would be saved." I don't buy it.

[Ahab]

Adolf Hitler is a perfect example. He chose to be evil. He had free agency. He was a wallpaper hanger for heaven's sake. Sadaam Hussein chose to be evil. There are repercussions in this life, and if not in this life, then in the next. I have a serious problem with some Christians who say "Well. if they accepted Christ on their deathbed they would be saved." I don't buy it.

Salvation is a process, and it's never too late to get started. We can go from being as bad as we can be to as good as Jesus Christ is, and for some people it will take longer than it does for others. The biggest hurdle to overcome is when we don't even want to be saved, but for those who accept what is possible through the help Jesus Christ offers to us it can be an overwhelming transformation - even to the point where one would be inclined to refer to it as a miracle. The miracle of forgiveness through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.

Anyway, that's what people like me believe. For some it seems the power of the atonement has some limitations.

[kassie]

Salvation is a process, and it's never too late to get started. We can go from being as bad as we can be to as good as Jesus Christ is, and for some people it will take longer than it does for others. The biggest hurdle to overcome is when we don't even want to be saved, but for those who accept what is possible through the help Jesus Christ offers to us it can be an overwhelming transformation - even to the point where one would be inclined to refer to it as a miracle. The miracle of forgiveness through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.

Anyway, that's what people like me believe. For some it seems the power of the atonement has some limitations.

So what exactly are you saying? Do you believe someone like Adolf Hitler would go into the presence of Heavenly Father if he accepted Christ "at the last minute of his life?????"

[pmccombs1]

All answers God gives you, in the way that God meant it, making sure to distinguish each person who is God, by a name.

Satan will chime in on occasion while giving the impression that he is God, too, don't cha know. The word "God" applies to more than just one person, and yes, each person who answers while considering himself/herself to be God has different answers, some of which contradict each other.

How does one know "the way that God meant it?" How does one distinguish each person? How does one know that there are even different persons to distinguish? If there is a Satan, and if this Satan can counterfeit the Spirit of God, then how does one ever feel confident that one has come to know God and not Satan?

Again, there's no need to involve me in all of this. It's up to you to get to know each person who is God, personally.

I hope you recognize that the questions I put to you in this comment, and in those above, are largely rhetorical in nature, in order to make this very point that you have made. There are no answers to these questions beyond the one that says "these things are between a man and God." You are absolutely correct that there is no need to involve you, or anyone else, in spiritual matters. There are no external benchmarks that can be universally and reliably tested. People are bound to get different answers to the same questions, and the only thing we can go by is our own sense of the matter. Yes, by our own journey of "getting to know God personally." The simple fact is that these things are entirely subjective in nature and are therefore not binding on anyone but the one who has the experiences. Each man is his own prophet.

Because there is no possibility (in the mortal world) of a universal, incontrovertible, and externally objective sign that binds everyone equally to Truth and to God, there can be no such thing as religious "authority" that does not arise wholly from the consent of those governed by it. That includes definitions of good and evil. This is why I am an anarchist: because often those who say they have religious authority make the illogical claim that it arises from God, when such a thing would be unjust in view of the preceding argument which you have made. As with my own experiences with God, there is nothing at all about the experiences of others that justify them as more authoritative. If anyone follows such a "prophet," it is only by consent.

[CV75]

People in stage 3 won't comprehend they are in stage 3 though Stage 4 will generally be able to see that as part of the reason for their anxiety and anguish. While people in a stage can have good or bad behavior, the stage itself is neither good or bad, simply a way to recognize a given point in the process of the development of their faith.

While Fowlers theory may be pointless or unhelpful in many instances, what it does do well, is help those in stage 4 ( a transition stage that can include a faith crisis) realize they are not alone, that it is a process, and that there is hope to come out the otherside with faith intact, though it will have to undergo an incredible change to get there.

This is where it gets tricky. The stages are classifications for people’s assumptions about the people and the world around them and how, as a result, they relate to others and the world (which includes religion) in a psychological sense. So from a psychological standpoint, none of the stages are good or evil, just developmental steps (a child cannot sin, and any Stage is just a “child” to the next one above it).

This is where classification gets tricky: crossing a psychological classification system into a spiritual system. For example, when Christ invites us to become as little children, I don’t think He means to adopt Stages 1 and 2, or to even pass from whatever Stage we are at to the next and the next until we arrive at Stage 6. Also, good or evil deeds and the Stage one is in impact each other regardless of what comes first (the Stage or the deed).

But in those instances where psychological factors are the prime cause of contention over religion (as in your example of Stage 3 and Stage 4 seeing evil in each other), this seems to be a potentially useful classification system (for those who are receptive) for framing the situation and hopefully getting the warring parties to look to Christ for a spiritual solution.

Edited August 8, 2013 by CV75

[CV75]

I'm not totally sure what you mean by that. Can you elaborate or think of another way to share [what] you mean?

It was a joke; it has to do with the posts about stages of faith development from a psychological perspective.

[Stone holm]

All answers God gives you, in the way that God meant it, making sure to distinguish each person who is God, by a name.

Satan will chime in on occasion while giving the impression that he is God, too, don't cha know. The word "God" applies to more than just one person, and yes, each person who answers while considering himself/herself to be God has different answers, some of which contradict each other.

Again, there's no need to involve me in all of this. It's up to you to get to know each person who is God, personally.

Yep, like I said turns out a lot like herding cats or being a ball bearing in a pinball machine.

[DBMormon]

This is where it gets tricky. The stages are classifications for people’s assumptions about the people and the world around them and how, as a result, they relate to others and the world (which includes religion) in a psychological sense. So from a psychological standpoint, none of the stages are good or evil, just developmental steps (a child cannot sin, and any Stage is just a “child” to the next one above it).

This is where classification gets tricky: crossing a psychological classification system into a spiritual system. For example, when Christ invites us to become as little children, I don’t think He means to adopt Stages 1 and 2, or to even pass from whatever Stage we are at to the next and the next until we arrive at Stage 6. Also, good or evil deeds and the Stage one is in impact each other regardless of what comes first (the Stage or the deed).

But in those instances where psychological factors are the prime cause of contention over religion (as in your example of Stage 3 and Stage 4 seeing evil in each other), this seems to be a potentially useful classification system (for those who are receptive) for framing the situation and hopefully getting the warring parties to look to Christ for a spiritual solution.

I would only insert one comment into what you said. If you read and understand Fowler, Christ is the perfect example of stage 6. I do believe it is the goal to progress towards stage 6 where one lives by the spirit, to live righteously in a nuanced world, and one places his will last to God and others. Just the other day someone connected this idea to the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve were happy, in the garden, naive to a higher understanding. Partaking the fruit opened their eyes and they now better understood at a higher level, or a progressive stage of faith. The goal is to progress and to have our eyes opened.

Edited August 9, 2013 by DBMormon

[Storm Rider]

O ho! We're not reading now, are we? Or just not comprehending? Hmm? What is it about the phrase, "my own varied and sometimes contradictory witnesses" that you don't seem to understand?

I see the problem here. Let us examine your words, "from God." The witness isn't the problem at all, you see. It's the proposition that the witness actually came from God.

I have a number of witnesses, including:

1. That Joseph Smith was a prophet
   
2. That the Church is true
   
3. That the Church is not true
   
4. That really the Catholic church is definitely true
   
5. Actually, that the gospel, which is not the Church, is really the true thing
   
6. But surely, it's nihilism that is clearly most beautiful and true at the same time as these other things, somehow
   
7. And that God, embodied in a can of cooked sausages, once delivered me from harm
   
8. That Sam Keen is also a prophet
   
9. As was Will Campbell
   
10. And Tripp York
    
11. And the pope!
    

Do you have any idea how my bosom has burned over these things? Oh, I have heard the voice of God and been in His presence. Which of these holy ghosts shall I deny, pray tell? Which of them is from God as you say, and which are not? They all seemed qualitatively the same to me at the time.

And if what's-her-name, who witnessed through the Holy Ghost same as me, could later discover that it was actually Not-of-God, might I not also discover the same thing about my own experience? That what I thought was "from God" (as you say) really wasn't? You mean I shouldn't investigate that? I shouldn't question my own experiences? I shouldn't seek for some measure to measure my own experience by in order to determine if it is from God? I'm looking for the ground truth here. Tell me: How is it that I know God is talking to me when I witness these things? What is the benchmark? That's all I ask of you.

Without a reliable benchmark (ha!), there is absolutely no justification at all for any religious authority outside of one's own self.

Do people who think they have something "from God" get to march about, telling the whole world what is evil and what is not? Do they get to tell us who is authorized to stand in for God and who is not?

Before receiving these spiritual witnesses, exactly what drugs were you on pray tell? Sam Keen? As I contemplate my own experiences I realize that the vast majority have been witnesses to gospel truths. The rest have been those focused on the Godhead and my relationship to them. I don't think there is anything wrong in recognizing some individuals as prophets or teachers of truth. John Paul II was that type of prophet to me.

Getting back to the OP, the reason we label something's as evil is because some things ARE evil. It is foolish indeed to assume there is no evil in the world.

[ERayR]

Getting back to the OP, the reason we label something's as evil is because some things ARE evil. It is foolish indeed to assume there is no evil in the world.

Yup that's what I said too.

[Ahab]

How does one know "the way that God meant it?" How does one distinguish each person? How does one know that there are even different persons to distinguish? If there is a Satan, and if this Satan can counterfeit the Spirit of God, then how does one ever feel confident that one has come to know God and not Satan?

The way is through mind to mind communication as God shares his thoughts and feelings with us, and we with him, to the point where we know/think/feel what God knows/thinks/feels and he knows/thinks/feels what we know/think/feel. It is amazing, and it is in fact real.

And yes, we can also get to know Satan, as well as anyone else, while distinguishing which person is which.

I hope you recognize that the questions I put to you in this comment, and in those above, are largely rhetorical in nature, in order to make this very point that you have made. There are no answers to these questions beyond the one that says "these things are between a man and God." You are absolutely correct that there is no need to involve you, or anyone else, in spiritual matters.

I was talking about how there is no need for you to involve me in your "getting to know God" process. It is between you and God, but I can also be involved if you want me to be, with your consent. There is still no need for me to be involved, though, because you don't need me to get to know God.

There are no external benchmarks that can be universally and reliably tested.

Yes there are, with external benchmarks being anything other than each individual person. Do your own experiments and see what you can come up with. I'm doing well with getting to know God and many other things that are not me.

People are bound to get different answers to the same questions, and the only thing we can go by is our own sense of the matter. Yes, by our own journey of "getting to know God personally." The simple fact is that these things are entirely subjective in nature and are therefore not binding on anyone but the one who has the experiences. Each man is his own prophet.

Yes, and in that context, some prophets are getting to know God better than some others, apparently, because many prophets don't know much of what I already know.

Because there is no possibility (in the mortal world) of a universal, incontrovertible, and externally objective sign that binds everyone equally to Truth and to God, there can be no such thing as religious "authority" that does not arise wholly from the consent of those governed by it. That includes definitions of good and evil. This is why I am an anarchist: because often those who say they have religious authority make the illogical claim that it arises from God, when such a thing would be unjust in view of the preceding argument which you have made.

There is religious authority that arises from God despite the fact that not everyone consents to be governed by it, which is why each person must do something to be included in his kingdom and not end up living outside of it.

As with my own experiences with God, there is nothing at all about the experiences of others that justify them as more authoritative. If anyone follows such a "prophet," it is only by consent.

Yes, and with our consent we can come to know the truth of all things, including what God considers good and evil.

Edited August 9, 2013 by Ahab

[Ahab]

Yep, like I said turns out a lot like herding cats or being a ball bearing in a pinball machine.

Herding cats is easy if you lead from the front and they know the sound of your voice when you call them for dinner.

And those ball bearings can do what they were designed to do, too.

[pmccombs1]

Before receiving these spiritual witnesses, exactly what drugs were you on pray tell?

LOL! Well, once I tried some anti-narcoleptic drugs, but they didn't work. They just made me weird. Ok, weirder.

Getting back to the OP, the reason we label something's as evil is because some things ARE evil. It is foolish indeed to assume there is no evil in the world.

Well, I happen to agree with you, personally.

But in true Vulcan fashion, I am forced to inquire: Why? Is this evil an intrinsic absolute, because if so, it certainly cannot be demonstrated or proven; or does it arise only from a point of view?

I mean, what if it turns out that human beings are intrinsically evil? Like, we're a disease or something, and the Earth has caught us.

[pmccombs1]

The way is through mind to mind communication as God shares his thoughts and feelings with us, and we with him, to the point where we know/think/feel what God knows/thinks/feels and he knows/thinks/feels what we know/think/feel. It is amazing, and it is in fact real.

And yes, we can also get to know Satan, as well as anyone else, while distinguishing which person is which.

Yeah, but you aren't justified in making those claims outside of your own personal experience. Like I said before, I can find people who will claim some other story entirely, and their claims are no more nor less valid than yours.

I was talking about how there is no need for you to involve me in your "getting to know God" process. It is between you and God, but I can also be involved if you want me to be, with your consent. There is still no need for me to be involved, though, because you don't need me to get to know God.

True, true.

Yes there are, with external benchmarks being anything other than each individual person. Do your own experiments and see what you can come up with. I'm doing well with getting to know God and many other things that are not me.

You don't appear to understand epistemic reliabilism at all. If there were reliable universals, we'd all (mostly) be of one faith. Just as we all stick to the earth, most of the time. Doing one's "own" experiments and coming up with one's "own" private evidence is epistemic evidentialism, precisely the opposite of reliabilism and not at all what I am talking about.

I must emphasize that I am quite the experimenter indeed. Do you have a sense of what I have come up with? I think you do, but you seem to take it as evidence that I am lacking in some sort of relationship with God. Do you think that I'm not experimenting? That I'm not getting to know God?

Yes, and in that context, some prophets are getting to know God better than some others, apparently, because many prophets don't know much of what I already know.

Ah, you see, there it is. There it is! You suppose that if a prophet doesn't know the same thing that you know about God, then that prophet is apparently not getting to know God very well. How do you justify that statement? It could be just the other way round, for all you know.

There is religious authority that arises from God despite the fact that not everyone consents to be governed by it, which is why each person must do something to be included in his kingdom and not end up living outside of it.

Illogical.

Authority that is received from a higher power must be demonstrated in the most reliable way possible for our limited subjectivity. The holder of that authority must be able to bestow proof of it upon those over whom he presides. When I'm pulled over by an officer, he doesn't ask me to take his Authority on faith and to find out for myself in the meantime whether or not he has it. He gives me the signs, which are universal for his office--given and received in the same way for everyone--and away we go. There is no arguing about whether or not the fellow has jurisdiction, regardless of whatever other arguments may arise.

But the hypnotist and storyteller first ask for consent before "authoring" a story in which I am to be woven. I find my own reasons for allowing them to shape my reality and give me truths. Perhaps it is desire or need.

As a prophet can bestow no reliable signs upon anyone, his role is that of the storyteller relating his own experiences with God. It is up to the hearer to decide whether or not to enter into that narrative and become subjected to it. For the prophet to claim a higher authority other than this is an injustice, unless he can provide a reliable sign that will not be mistaken. It is not the prophet who provides spiritual witnesses; he cannot command the Holy Ghost. Because the Spirit confirms him to some, and denies him to others, there is no justification for claiming authority from God.

Yes, and with our consent we can come to know the truth of all things, including what God considers good and evil.

God isn't here to give us the details. People have to seek Him out for themselves, and they often come to quite different conclusions about good and evil. Conclusions that are, interestingly enough, uncannily congruent with the cultural and religious narratives that they have inherited from their traditions. What is good to one is evil to another, and vice versa. No authority on the matter can be reliably vetted, only through personal consent; and yet authority (typically God's) is almost always asserted regardless of the system. I point to the long history of the world for evidence of this: we have argued about these matters since the dawn of written history.

Granted, we all have a tradition of being human; therefore there is a shared perspective on a basic level. That is perhaps why there is a rather small cross-section of things that we almost universally agree upon when it comes to good and evil.

Edited August 9, 2013 by pmccombs1

[CV75]

I would only insert one comment into what you said. If you read and understand Fowler, Christ is the perfect example of stage 6. I do believe it is the goal to progress towards stage 6 where one lives by the spirit, to live righteously in a nuanced world, and one places his will last to God and others.

Yes, and that is Fowler’s understanding of Christ’s psychology. It is still a psychological model for a psychological approach. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, as long as the approach addresses the actual source of the problem at hand. Most problems tend to be multi-dimensional.

Using the old "Personal and Family Preparedness" model as an example of approaching the problem (in this case, of lacking self-reliance, which is also a contributor to the stressors underlying faith crisis), “Stages” could have been assigned within any of the six areas: Literacy and Education; Career Development; Financial and Resource Management; Home Production and Storage; Physical Health; Social-Emotional and Spiritual Strength. We can easily see how people at different stages could use such classification to compare, compete and contend one with another, or otherwisse disassociate themselves from each other. Many of these areas were the sources of contention among the Nephites during their “pride cycle.”

I think using stages or hierarchy where “higher” stages are characterized by a tendency to contend with “lower” stages (and vice-versa), some other system needs to be used to classify ourselves in a way that brings people together. “He drew a circle that shut me out… We drew a circle and took him in!” (Edwin Markham).

[aspire]

We don't but God does.

But unfortunately it's not God himself that is saying so. It's another falaible human saying God said so.

[CV75]

You say to ask God and accept what He says. OK, done. Which of these answers shall I accept?

God's answers always have a common thread. I would say that you should choose any one or more of them based on what that common thread is or means to you.

[Ahab]

Yeah, but you aren't justified in making those claims outside of your own personal experience.

L

Yes I am, based on what God has told me.

ike I said before, I can find people who will claim some other story entirely, and their claims are no more nor less valid than yours.

Says you, and probably them too, but so what? What God has told me is still true regardless of what anyone else says about it.

True, true.

I'm glad you agree, but even if you didn't agree it would still be true.

You don't appear to understand epistemic reliabilism at all. If there were reliable universals, we'd all (mostly) be of one faith. Just as we all stick to the earth, most of the time. Doing one's "own" experiments and coming up with one's "own" private evidence is epistemic evidentialism, precisely the opposite of reliabilism and not at all what I am talking about.

You seem to think everyone would arrive at the same answers as if the right answers are the only options. People can be wrong, bro. People can choose to believe an idea which isn't correct. What is is, independent of subjective ideas or interpretations.

I must emphasize that I am quite the experimenter indeed. Do you have a sense of what I have come up with? I think you do, but you seem to take it as evidence that I am lacking in some sort of relationship with God. Do you think that I'm not experimenting? That I'm not getting to know God?

No, I don't think you're not getting to know God. I think all of us are, including those who claim to believe God doesn't exist.

Ah, you see, there it is. There it is! You suppose that if a prophet doesn't know the same thing that you know about God, then that prophet is apparently not getting to know God very well. How do you justify that statement? It could be just the other way round, for all you know.

I know what I know about God based on what God has taught me about what he knows/thinks, and feels, so when someone claims God has taught them something contradcitory to what God has taught me, then I know they don't know what I know which God has taught me. Like when people who say Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God. God has told me he was, so he was, regardless of their contradictory statement.

Illogical.

No, it's both logical and true, regardless of your statement to the contrary. I said:

There is religious authority that arises from God despite the fact that not everyone consents to be governed by it, which is why each person must do something to be included in his kingdom and not end up living outside of it.

Authority that is received from a higher power must be demonstrated in the most reliable way possible for our limited subjectivity.

Must be? Nope. Can be, yes, but not must be. And for me it has been.

The holder of that authority must be able to bestow proof of it upon those over whom he presides.

Maybe right, depending on what a person would consider to be proof. Authority is what someone gives you to enable you to do something for them, on their behalf, and all it takes for you to receive it is for you to accept the word of a person if or when he gives it to you. Like when Jesus said our Father had given him authority over all of the world in regards to proclaiming the gospel when he authorized certain people to proclaim what he had taught them. What proof do you think Jesus had that our Father had given him the authority he claimed to have received from our Father? Do you think his apostles saw our Father give it to him?

When I'm pulled over by an officer, he doesn't ask me to take his Authority on faith and to find out for myself in the meantime whether or not he has it. He gives me the signs, which are universal for his office--given and received in the same way for everyone--and away we go. There is no arguing about whether or not the fellow has jurisdiction, regardless of whatever other arguments may arise.

My point is that the police officer has the authority he has regardless of whether or not you consent to his authority, and that if you were to refuse to accept the fact that he has the authority he has you could end suffering from the consequences of not accepting his authority. Not everybody pulls over when a car with a flashing light follows them, don't cha know. It could be an unmarked police car, or it could be just some guy who bought a light to put on his car to try to get ladies to pull over so he can rape them. Just because you make certain assumptions in certain situations doesn't mean everyone thinks the same way.

But the hypnotist and storyteller first ask for consent before "authoring" a story in which I am to be woven. I find my own reasons for allowing them to shape my reality and give me truths. Perhaps it is desire or need.

A con man or impersonator usually wants you to willingly follow along too, rather than trying to force you to do something. Not everyone who claims to have authority from God really has it, but that doesn't mean there aren't people who do.

As a prophet can bestow no reliable signs upon anyone, his role is that of the storyteller relating his own experiences with God. It is up to the hearer to decide whether or not to enter into that narrative and become subjected to it. For the prophet to claim a higher authority other than this is an injustice, unless he can provide a reliable sign that will not be mistaken. It is not the prophet who provides spiritual witnesses; he cannot command the Holy Ghost. Because the Spirit confirms him to some, and denies him to others, there is no justification for claiming authority from God.

Your thinking is messed up, and I'm not sure what is the best way for me to be able to straighten you out. My point is that God still has authority to do what he does and he can authorize other people to do things for him. It really doesn't matter if you don't believe that, because your disbelief doesn't make that not true. It's still true regardless of what you believe, or whether or not you consent to what someone can do for you with God's authority. And what God considers to be good and evil is still what he considers to be good and evil, even if you don't consent or agree with the thoughts he can give you.