Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 10, 2014 Posted October 10, 2014 I have not read the rest of this thread yet, but JUST THINK OF THE LOGIC HERE. We believe that the only way we can know the "church is true" is by personal revelation, Right? Personal revelation can tell us the "truth of all things, right"? Do we believe that or don't we??? Isn't that basic to our entire understanding of the gospel? IF THEN OUR PERSONAL REVELATION TELLS US THAT SOME GENERAL AUTHORITY IS WRONG- WHAT SHALL WE FOLLOW? Obviously our personal revelation!! It is the only way we can know the truth!!! THAT IS WHAT THE CHURCH ITSELF TEACHES. So where's the issue here?? It's a no-brainer! THERE CAN BE NO WAY TO "VERIFY" THAT WE SHOULD FOLLOW A GENERAL AUTHORITY AGAINST PERSONAL REVELATION - BECAUSE TO VERIFY THAT PRINCIPLE WE WOULD HAVE TO USE PERSONAL REVELATION. which would be self-contradictory. and that's about all I have to say on the subject. Pardon the yelling but this has all been said before an been unnoticed. I will point out that there are rules regarding personal revelation. It cant trump that of the prophet. E.g., I had a revelation that smoking is no longer against the WoW. You can only receive revelation for your stewardship. I think some members that are no longer members didn't realize this when they received their "revelations".
JLHPROF Posted October 10, 2014 Posted October 10, 2014 I will point out that there are rules regarding personal revelation. It cant trump that of the prophet. E.g., I had a revelation that smoking is no longer against the WoW. You can only receive revelation for your stewardship. I think some members that are no longer members didn't realize this when they received their "revelations". And that is what this thread is REALLY about. "I don't want to agree with the prophet on XYZ. Do I have to?" 1
SmileyMcGee Posted October 10, 2014 Posted October 10, 2014 "no one should be reproved for openly disagreeing with or criticizing them. "That's fine if you don't want a temple recommend. Disagreeing is OK; it's the "openly" part that is not acceptable. Normally all 15 of the prophets will not agree on something that one of them says that is wrong and they will quickly make a correction if needed/ That's why there's 15 of them. Well, the church is welcome to do as it pleases, however stupid. Equating honest, open criticism with evil-speaking and then disciplining a member for it is, in my opinion, more characteristic of an oppressive regime than the church of an all loving God who is no respecter of persons.
mfbukowski Posted October 10, 2014 Posted October 10, 2014 And that is what this thread is REALLY about. "I don't want to agree with the prophet on XYZ. Do I have to?"If your personal revelation tells you not to follow the prophet, don't follow him. Period. It's all you have to go on- for YOURSELF. Should you tell others not to follow the prophet because YOUR personal revelation told you not to? No- why would you? Your personal revelation is for you not someone else. 4
omni Posted October 10, 2014 Posted October 10, 2014 If your personal revelation tells you not to follow the prophet, don't follow him.Period. It's all you have to go on- for YOURSELF. Should you tell others not to follow the prophet because YOUR personal revelation told you not to? No- why would you?Your personal revelation is for you not someone else.What if your personal revelation tells you to peach against the prophet to others?
Bob Crockett Posted October 10, 2014 Posted October 10, 2014 (edited) Well, the church is welcome to do as it pleases, however stupid. Equating honest, open criticism with evil-speaking and then disciplining a member for it is, in my opinion, more characteristic of an oppressive regime than the church of an all loving God who is no respecter of persons.I know that I would much prefer the Church to be like all the rest and not care much or anything at all about criticism of the Brethren. But unfortunately both the NT and the D&C compel the Church to take action against membership. To a large extent, bishops and stake presidents do it because they are told to do it, and the apostles and seventy who write the procedures manual believe that the scriptures require it. Although it is really rather foolish to compare the Church to other organizations, the sports fan that I am notes that being openly critical of management will get you kicked off the Yankees and the Patriots, get you fined as a player or coach in the NBA, NFL and MLB. I'm not sure people think the Yankees are oppressive because they have a "no beard" policy. The concept of "oppressive regime" really applies to organizations where you have very little choice, such as compulsive government, or being a member of a union in a state which supports unions with the force of law. The Church doesn't qualify as an "oppressive regime" because of the sheer illogic of such a statement. Its like me saying my father isn't really my father if me makes me pick up the dog poop in the yard. Edited October 11, 2014 by Bob Crockett 1
JLHPROF Posted October 11, 2014 Posted October 11, 2014 What if your personal revelation tells you to peach against the prophet to others? Then I would definitely check it's source - did the angel that gave it to you have sandy hair and refuse to shake your hand? Because God has also been clear as to what happens when a prophet does go astray - he will either be removed or be forced to name a successor or both. Until that time, you would be preaching AGAINST God's representative - so I say again, check the source of any such revelation. I'm thinking it's not from the right place. 2
SmileyMcGee Posted October 11, 2014 Posted October 11, 2014 I know that I would much prefer the Church to be like all the rest and not care much or anything at all about criticism of the Brethren. But unfortunately both the NT and the D&C compel the Church to take action against membership. To a large extent, bishops and stake presidents do it because they are told to do it, and the apostles and seventy who write the procedures manual believe that the scriptures require it.Although it is really rather foolish to compare the Church to other organizations, the sports fan that I am notes that being openly critical of management will get you kicked off the Yankees and the Patriots, get you fined as a player or coach in the NBA, NFL and MLB. I'm not sure people think the Yankees are oppressive because they have a "no beard" policy. The concept of "oppressive regime" really applies to organizations where you have very little choice, such as compulsive government, or being a member of a union in a state which supports unions with the force of law. The Church doesn't qualify as an "oppressive regime" because of the sheer illogic of such a statement. Its like me saying my father isn't really my father if me makes me pick up the dog poop in the yard.Perhaps my original statement was a bit hyperbolic. I really think that most leaders who discipline open critics do it out of concern for the soul of the critic. But at the end of the day I'm uncomfortable with such strong aversion to criticism (mockery is a different beast). But the church is free to do as it pleases and should always be free to respond as it desires.
why me Posted October 11, 2014 Posted October 11, 2014 Perhaps my original statement was a bit hyperbolic. I really think that most leaders who discipline open critics do it out of concern for the soul of the critic. But at the end of the day I'm uncomfortable with such strong aversion to criticism (mockery is a different beast). But the church is free to do as it pleases and should always be free to respond as it desires.I don't think that it is just the soul of the person. But also the soul of the membership who may be influenced by the wayward member. Even in the NT, the concern was for the other members. There is nothing wrong with being critical. However, there may be something wrong with spreading the criticism. The unity of the church is very important because it avoids factions and schisms. Too many heads going this way and that way creates a pandora's box.
Popular Post The Nehor Posted October 11, 2014 Popular Post Posted October 11, 2014 What if your personal revelation tells you to peach against the prophet to others?Then do it!!!!!Just don't expect the prophets and the church to nod sagely at you while you do it or to not excommunicate you. If you are convinced God wants you to be a lone voice in the wilderness you are on your own. Don't expect the Church to back you up. Look to God for that and I am sure he will support unless he didn't actually give the revelation.....in which case I recommend repentance at that point. 5
mfbukowski Posted October 11, 2014 Posted October 11, 2014 What if your personal revelation tells you to peach against the prophet to others?I would follow the example of Joseph Smith- he already answered that question. He preached that all other churches were an abomination.If you don't do what you believe God wants you to do, what kind of person would you be? 2
Robert F. Smith Posted October 11, 2014 Posted October 11, 2014 .................................................................Lord's anointed- I agreeThe "Lord's anointed" generally refers first to the Prophet, and then to those who are of apostolic rank. In ancient Israel it referred to the king.
Robert F. Smith Posted October 11, 2014 Posted October 11, 2014 For those who have taken a sacred temple oath not to speak ill of the Brethren, the problem is not the negative speech, but the violation of one's sacred oath. It is an excommunicable offense.I think you misunderstand what evil speaking of the Lord's annointed means. We do not covenant to that we will not disagree or voice opposing views to the brethren. We must define what is "evil speaking" and who are the "lord's annointed."I did not say that we cannot "disagree or voice opposing views." I specifically referred to speaking ill of the Brethren. Orson Pratt disagreed publicly with President Brigham Young, and Brigham disciplined him for it. Yet the POV of Orson is now normative, and Brigham's is abandoned. Disagreeing can be done without being disagreeable, and without speaking ill of the Brethren. And (as we heard in this Conference) the Brethren sometimes disagree among themselves as to the correct path to follow. Yet their formal decisions are made unanimously. You are right to want to define terms like "evil speaking" and the "Lord's anointed."
Robert F. Smith Posted October 11, 2014 Posted October 11, 2014 I have read comments by the two I know who were excommunicated for speaking out against the ban, talk about intolerance! They are great examples of that.Jerald Tanner was very intolerant of LDS attitudes toward Black People and made it a matter of public criticism beginning in 1959. However, I'm not sure when or under what circumstances he left the Church. I do know that he and his wife were baptized in a Whitmerite church in Independence, Missouri, in the early 1960s. I trust you are not speaking of those two, cal.
DBMormon Posted October 11, 2014 Author Posted October 11, 2014 Well, thanks! Feel fortunate that I don't take it personally although it was probably meant to be.it wasn't personal. Your post assumed to know who the anonymous guy was that was talking to you. that seemed strange. Don't take it personally.. The Post was weird.... didn't say you were
DBMormon Posted October 11, 2014 Author Posted October 11, 2014 To that I can not speak. The local folk have all been loving and kind to me. I do not think the church has a good oversight mechanism. That is only my opinion and I will not be starting a movement to protest. I was disgusted that they did not obey their own operating documents, but the issue has burned out and lacks fuel now. I suppose I could write a letter to SLC, but who would I send it to, and the existence of said letter would be proof that I do not believe in the power of prayer. And, I never interact with anyone but the local folk and they are kind to me, so what is there to complain about?My experience in the Church since I joined 17 years ago has been awesome. But One person who was leadership did some things on several occasions that undermined my trust and faith.
DBMormon Posted October 11, 2014 Author Posted October 11, 2014 I'll spill the beans. His real name is fletch. Mine is Shaun ... the sheep. Edit to add: More to the point, if you dislike anonymous posting so much, why do you bother with boards like this where the majority are anonymous?yeah and I am not really Bill Reel the podcast host, he just lets me assume his identity. My name is really Norman. I work for the Salt Lake Mariott downtown. People call me Norman "the Mormon Doorman"
DBMormon Posted October 11, 2014 Author Posted October 11, 2014 Timorous? You're really smart. Even if you mistake me for someone I'm not it sounds like a really good story brewing with this cop frenemy of yours in the stake. I'd ask you to share but I'm a little to fearful. PS- my name isn't really Fletch. I just play him on TV. Shhhh. Also, next time you see this guy in the stake, you should just go ahead and mention this conversation. I'm sure that will go really well.he was caught floodleing in the farthmore and he has never gotten past it. I am using anonymous words.
DBMormon Posted October 11, 2014 Author Posted October 11, 2014 I have not read the rest of this thread yet, but JUST THINK OF THE LOGIC HERE. We believe that the only way we can know the "church is true" is by personal revelation, Right? Personal revelation can tell us the "truth of all things, right"? Do we believe that or don't we??? Isn't that basic to our entire understanding of the gospel? IF THEN OUR PERSONAL REVELATION TELLS US THAT SOME GENERAL AUTHORITY IS WRONG- WHAT SHALL WE FOLLOW? Obviously our personal revelation!! It is the only way we can know the truth!!! THAT IS WHAT THE CHURCH ITSELF TEACHES. So where's the issue here?? It's a no-brainer! THERE CAN BE NO WAY TO "VERIFY" THAT WE SHOULD FOLLOW A GENERAL AUTHORITY AGAINST PERSONAL REVELATION - BECAUSE TO VERIFY THAT PRINCIPLE WE WOULD HAVE TO USE PERSONAL REVELATION. which would be self-contradictory. and that's about all I have to say on the subject. Pardon the yelling but this has all been said before an been unnoticed. I am sorry did you say something? lol
DBMormon Posted October 11, 2014 Author Posted October 11, 2014 sorry about my last 5 posts... I can't stop chuckling, I am having a funny morning! 1
EllenMaksoud Posted October 11, 2014 Posted October 11, 2014 My experience in the Church since I joined 17 years ago has been awesome. But One person who was leadership did some things on several occasions that undermined my trust and faith.Yes, well he was a slacker perhaps? I'm an expert in knowledge of the consequences of brooding on old hurts. We should both just move on? As to trust and faith? Two inexplicable things happened to bring me to the church and in times of faltering faith, they are either my anchor or a shackle. It is my choice to choose which. 1
mfbukowski Posted October 11, 2014 Posted October 11, 2014 I am sorry did you say something? lolI guess not lol
SmileyMcGee Posted October 11, 2014 Posted October 11, 2014 (edited) I have not read the rest of this thread yet, butJUST THINK OF THE LOGIC HERE.We believe that the only way we can know the "church is true" is by personal revelation, Right?Personal revelation can tell us the "truth of all things, right"?Do we believe that or don't we??? Isn't that basic to our entire understanding of the gospel?IF THEN OUR PERSONAL REVELATION TELLS US THAT SOME GENERAL AUTHORITY IS WRONG- WHAT SHALL WE FOLLOW?Obviously our personal revelation!!It is the only way we can know the truth!!! THAT IS WHAT THE CHURCH ITSELF TEACHES.So where's the issue here?? It's a no-brainer!THERE CAN BE NO WAY TO "VERIFY" THAT WE SHOULD FOLLOW A GENERAL AUTHORITY AGAINST PERSONAL REVELATION - BECAUSE TO VERIFY THAT PRINCIPLE WE WOULD HAVE TO USE PERSONAL REVELATION.which would be self-contradictory.and that's about all I have to say on the subject. Pardon the yelling but this has all been said before an been unnoticed. let's not speak of personal revelation like it's a robust process for acquisition of truth. You have no way of distinguishing between your own thoughts and feelings and revelation. The proposed revelatory process is so impaired by bias that it is difficult to justify relying on it. False teachings from prior prophets and apostles suggests that even the Lord's anointed struggle at times in distinguishing their own thoughts from revelation. In the end, not following a priesthood leader comes down to giving preference to your thoughts and feelings over their's. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with that, but don't attribute your disagreement to your revelation being superior to their's. Edited October 11, 2014 by SmileyMcGee
omni Posted October 11, 2014 Posted October 11, 2014 Then I would definitely check it's source - did the angel that gave it to you have sandy hair and refuse to shake your hand? No angelic visitors for me, however that reminds of a funny story of when I was a child and I was genuinely concerned that an angel would visit me and I would forget the proper method of detecting of whether he was from God or Satan. I couldn't believe we as a church didn't make this a higher priority and thought it should have been some sort of "pass off" similar to memorizing all of the Articles of Faith before you were allowed to graduate from Primary. Because God has also been clear as to what happens when a prophet does go astray - he will either be removed or be forced to name a successor or both. Until that time, you would be preaching AGAINST God's representative - so I say again, check the source of any such revelation. I'm thinking it's not from the right place. And if I receive confirmation it's from God...?
DBMormon Posted October 11, 2014 Author Posted October 11, 2014 Yes, well he was a slacker perhaps? I'm an expert in knowledge of the consequences of brooding on old hurts. We should both just move on? As to trust and faith? Two inexplicable things happened to bring me to the church and in times of faltering faith, they are either my anchor or a shackle. It is my choice to choose which.I am with you. I wish to do so bad. It as you know is a process of ebb and flow
Recommended Posts