Have You Seen The Graphic? Here's The Story.

[wenglund]

Your just full of ridicule today. [Oh, the irony of what I just said]

 

You are confusing helpful insights with ridicule.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

You, along with others shout "anti-mormon mag, anti-mormon mag" from the roof tops because a reporter made a mistake or should be we say "supposed mistake". .

Maybe I've missed something reading with no sleep, but I don't remember the magazine being labeled antimormon...just inaccurate and therefore the quote itself is problematic to that extent since it is the only source of it.

The antimormon claim is being attached at least by me to the site where it would have been found. See Allen's blog on the provenance of the quote (I think that is the right term....something like line of custody).

"If you search for the quote on the Internet, you quickly find out that it wasn’t from a general conference address. In fact, you never find the original quote at all. Instead, you find references to the quote, primarily in anti-Mormon sources.

The oldest source I was able to find was in the Salt Lake City Messenger, published by Jerald and Sandra Tanner. It appeared in the July 1978 issue and later in the December 1979 issue. Here’s the quote as it appeared in the July 1978 issue:"

Edited April 18, 2014 by calmoriah

[rockpond]

Yes, but through humility and not pride, and through the channels God has established.

 

There is little hope of being an effective receiver if we lack faith and trust in the channels through with the "Comforter" is want to work, or where we place greater trust and faith in our own self as a receiver than we do the channels God has set up for us to develop to that end.

 

Said another way, we are supposed to become Gods, but we wont ultimately get to that lofty station by reliance more so on our own selves instead of upon the vehicle God has provided for us to make the journey.

 

Granted, metaphorically, there is an outside chance that we may be able to swim across the Atlantic ocean, but what would be the point when there is a proven and reliable 747 at hand?

 

It is not coincidental that in the grand scheme of things children have parents and teachers rather than being left to mature to adulthood on their own. Children not only need role models, but guides and helps and exemplars to reach the desired end.

 

And, even when children become parents, in their maturity they are better able to recognize and acknowledge their limitations and need for reliance and inter-dependence on others and the wisdom in deferring to those more experienced and in authority.

 

Same goes for Church members. Except we become as little children...

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

You have mistakenly concluded that I lack "faith and trust in the channels" when I have actually placed all my faith and trust in them.

[omni]

It isn't a fundamentalist extreme to allow for some measure of fallibility in church leaders, and even more so for the general membership. Rather, it is a part of spiritual maturation.

 

It is also not fundamentalist to put supposed mistakes of leaders into perspective along with all that they have gotten right. This, too, is a part of spiritual maturation.

 

Unlike with you, my faith hasn't experienced a crush blow, but has actual grown and strengthened in light of and perhaps in spite of the supposed mistakes of Church leaders.

 

Such is the test of faith--it can either be a crushing blow or a way of strengthening, with the difference oft resting on the pride or humility of person being tested. Faith is not crushed in humility.

 

And, while I am pleased that you found a way to stay in the Church, it isn't a particularly lasting and fulfilling way to stay, and it is yet at risk of being crushed again.

 

In order to have lasting and edifying faith, it requires shifting from pride to humility, or rather shifting trust and faith more to God's chosen leader than in oneself, which comes from maturing towards a more flexible and balanced perspective rather than a rigid and fundamentalist perspective.

 

In other words, it requires a default position of humility, where one of the struts of Christ's church is more inclined to defer to the foundation than to himself.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Wow, a lesson on humility from Wade.  Just when I thought I had seen it all...

[rockpond]

You are confusing helpful insights with ridicule.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

It's tough to separate the helpful from the ridicule.  Sorry.

[wenglund]

This is laughable.

You, along with others shout "anti-mormon mag, anti-mormon mag" from the roof tops because a reporter made a mistake or should be we say "supposed mistake".

Yet you bend over backwards to dismiss mistakes opps "supposed mistakes of leaders" and claim it is sign of your spiritual maturity. How utterly ridiculous. I can see now, why no one was willing to tackle the question I posed about the error of the reporter v the mistakes of the presiding authorities.

It appears I was correct in that dismissing the reporter it is a matter of convenience rather than a matter of principle.

 

I didn't dismiss the reporter, nor did I dismiss the supposed mistakes of leaders. Speaking of laughable, your lack of accurate grip on the facts is exceeded only by your complete lack of comprehension of my position.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 18, 2014 by wenglund

[Senator]

You are confusing helpful insights with ridicule.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wow!

 

Well, to use your own words:

 

"I will note that you will invariably see it that way."

Edited April 18, 2014 by Senator

[wenglund]

That isn't what he said.

 

Actually, it was what he said. In fact, he went so far as to emphatically proclaim that he was "commanded of God not to trust."  Thus, it is, by definition, distrust, if not also rejection..

 

Had he said that he was commanded to reserve final judgment until confirmed by the Spirit, that would have been an entirely different matter all together.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

It's tough to separate the helpful from the ridicule.  Sorry.

 

The separating can easily be accomplished through humility.

 

Thank, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

You have mistakenly concluded that I lack "faith and trust in the channels" when I have actually placed all my faith and trust in them.

 

Were you not aware that Church leadership, particularly via Conference talks, is one of the channels?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

The separating can easily be accomplished through humility.

 

Thank, -Wade Englund-

 

No comment.

[rockpond]

Were you not aware that Church leadership, particularly via Conference talks, is one of the channels?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Which is, of course, why I listen and study the conference talks.  As I have noted.

[wenglund]

Wow, a lesson on humility from Wade.  Just when I thought I had seen it all...

 

It may seem ironic to those who don't understand the important difference between "pride in oneself" and "strength of conviction in God and his chosen leaders."

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

Actually, it was what he said. In fact, he went so far as to emphatically proclaim that he was "commanded of God not to trust."  Thus, it is, by definition, distrust, if not also rejection..

 

Had he said that he was commanded to reserve final judgment until confirmed by the Spirit, that would have been an entirely different matter all together.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Calmoriah is correct.  You have grossly misquoted me.  Here is what I said, copy/paste directly from my post:

 

"My position is that I feel commanded to not "trust in the arm of the flesh" but to seek personal spiritual confirmation of their words.  So my default position is not that they are speaking the will & mind of God but that they are speaking as men until the Spirit tells me otherwise."

[wenglund]

Do you really believe that when a prophet speaks it as if God is speaking? When? How often?

 

I accept in full faith what Christ has said: "...whether by mine own ^cvoice or by the ^dvoice of my ^eservants, it is the ^fsame." (D&C 1:38)

 

As for when and how often, I presume it to be the general rule when they are acting in their capacity as Church leaders (as opposed to deciding what to have for dinner), with the exceptions to be made manifest if and when God sees fit.

 

Revolutionary, I know, but there it is.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 18, 2014 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Calmoriah is correct.  You have grossly misquoted me.  Here is what I said, copy/paste directly from my post:

 

"My position is that I feel commanded to not "trust in the arm of the flesh" but to seek personal spiritual confirmation of their words.  So my default position is not that they are speaking the will & mind of God but that they are speaking as men until the Spirit tells me otherwise."

 

The only difference between what I quoted of you and the bolded portion of the cut and paste above, is the addition of the word "God." I presumed that you felt commanded by God. If I was wrong in that presumption, then that is the only a minor mis-quote on my part. However, If I was correct in my presumption, then there was not misquote at all on my part.

 

With this having been said, I will accept that you didn't mean to say what you actually did, but really meant to say what Cal suggested.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

The only difference between what I quoted of you and the bolded portion of the cut and paste above, is the addition of the word "God." I presumed that you felt commanded by God. If I was wrong in that presumption, then that is the only a minor mis-quote on my part. However, If I was correct in my presumption, then there was not misquote at all on my part.

 

With this having been said, I will accept that you didn't mean to say what you actually did, but really meant to say what Cal suggested.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

You cut off "in the arm of the flesh" which was significant to the context.

 

It would be nice if you could accept that you don't know me as well as you seem to presume that you do.

[CV75]

There is not requirement that a promise of a specific revelation has to exist before the revelation can be given.

Well then, that also shoots down the comparison of a revelation to ordain women with OD-2. OD2 was a revelation in fulfillment of prior promises.

[CV75]

There was no scriptural basis to deny the priesthood & temple access to blacks (all of those theories have been disavowed) and yet we still did it.  Was it the Lord's will?  Official answer:  We don't know.  So how do we *know* now that we are doing the Lord's will?

We do know that priesthood power, blessings etc. and temple access are not denied women; I explained how ordination and conferral are not "withheld" (don't you read all the posts?).

[canard78]

I accept in full faith what Christ has said: "...whether by mine own ^cvoice or by the ^dvoice of my ^eservants, it is the ^fsame." (D&C 1:38)

As for when and how often, I presume it to be the general rule when they are acting in their capacity as Church leaders (as opposed to deciding what to have for dinner), with the exceptions to be made manifest if and when God sees fit.

Revolutionary, I know, but there it is.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Umm, given the words of that section were delivered via a prophet you does need confidence the prophet is speaking for The Lord before you can accept the statement in 1:38 that a prophet is speaking for The Lord.

When the 1947 First Presidency said inter-racial marriage was "repugnant" and against God's doctrine did D&C 1:38 apply? Or can you selectively dismiss things like that as mistakes?

[CV75]

I allow them that hope without judging them to be double-minded or spiritually unstable.  If they choose to prove they are unstable (such as the OW antics), then I will allow them to prove that instability to me and hope that they find peace somehow within the Church and the gospel.  I will allow equal opportunity for people to have such hopes and also prove they are stable, by focusing of responsibilities and drawing near to Christ, by serving faithfully within the priesthood authority they are already given and being grateful for the priesthood blessings they currently enjoy and seek out.

I'm not judging anyone, including OW (why are you?). No one has to prove anything to me (why do you look for it?). I am in no position to allow (or disallow) anyone their hopes; why do you?.

 

I am stating a true principle as it applies to this subject. Hope amiss is false hope, asserting rights over responsibility is unrighteous dominion, and asserting presumed rights as a means of carrying out one's responsibility is double-minded. That's not judging anyone (but if the shoe fits, wear it).

 

How come nothing you say in this post has to do with the rightness of petitioning the Brethren to allow ordination for women, or for them to pray about it, or for them to acknowledge that they have received a fresh, recent revelation one way or the other about it? I'm glad you haven't mentioned it, but I thought that was the point you were defending.

[CV75]

OK, CFR. Show me the actual reference that says women can never be ordained to a priesthood office. There's nothing in the references in your previous post.

All these references which you can find as a result of the word search I suggested show that only men are conferred the priesthood and ordained to priesthood office. I take that to mean that women are not.

[rockpond]

Well then, that also shoots down the comparison of a revelation to ordain women with OD-2. OD2 was a revelation in fulfillment of prior promises.

 

But, as I said, you can receive a revelation without prior promises.

 

And OD2 fulfilled some promises while contradicting the promise of Brigham Young (the man who instituted the ban that was being reversed).  Also, since everything said about the ban has been disavowed with a big 'ol "we don't know", then there really wasn't much in the way of promises to fulfill.

[rockpond]

We do know that priesthood power, blessings etc. and temple access are not denied women; I explained how ordination and conferral are not "withheld" (don't you read all the posts?).

 

Yeah -- you should explain that to the OW group.  

[CV75]

But, as I said, you can receive a revelation without prior promises.

 

And OD2 fulfilled some promises while contradicting the promise of Brigham Young (the man who instituted the ban that was being reversed).  Also, since everything said about the ban has been disavowed with a big 'ol "we don't know", then there really wasn't much in the way of promises to fulfill.

Now that I think of it, no revelation can be received without a prior promise of some kind (Moroni 10:3-5 is a prime example)--show me one that has been!

 

OD2 fulfilled at the very least fulfilled the promise made to Abraham, but it also goes back to Noah, Enoch and Adam and all the patriarchs.

 

 

Yeah -- you should explain that to the OW group.  

LOL--I have every confidence that they have heard it all before from a source far more appropriate than me!