rodheadlee Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 Same way you know when he is right. the Holy GhostOk then the Holy Spirit would be the one to tell you what to do about it. Each case or instance would be different.
SmileyMcGee Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 How would you know what a "false positive" would be, as opposed to a "success?"Exactly! So why in the world do we ever equate personal revelation with knowledge?
Hamba Tuhan Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 (edited) Rather than saying "I can tell the difference," please explain how you differentiate the two and how the "distinct difference" between the two feelings causes you to "know" that one is actually from God and not just a different feeling that you are having. If you never move past the realm of 'feelings', you'll never really know since spiritual impressions are the very beginning of understanding. Elder Christensen from this month's General Conference: 'This is often how a testimony begins: with sacred, enlightening, assuring feelings that demonstrate to us that the word of God is true. However, as wonderful as these feelings are, they are only the beginning ... In most cases, our testimonies will grow the same way a tree grows: gradually, almost imperceptibly, as a result of our constant care and diligent efforts' (emphasis added). Or as The Nehor put it: If you want to understand start obeying the commandments, fervently pray, and serve God as best you can. Or as the Saviour put it when the Jews questioned whether what He was teaching them really came from the Father or was just stuff Jesus was making up: 'My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself'. Edited October 13, 2014 by Hamba Tuhan 1
mfbukowski Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 (edited) Exactly! So why in the world do we ever equate personal revelation with knowledge?More semantic silliness. Call it what you want. I call it knowledge because knowledge is a word we use to express certainty that a statement is justified. I absolutely KNOW that it is wrong to kill babies for fun. I have no evidence for that, nor can I possibly have evidence for it. I know it in my gut. I call that "the Light of Christ" given to all mankind to KNOW right from wrong, it is for all practical purposes a "revelation" If you don"t "KNOW" that, then there isn't much to talk about. Your strange but unfortunately common metaphysical views derived from Descartes and company are getting you confused. You think that there are thoughts and ideas which are "true" are magically made such by corresponding to a state of unobservable "reality" beyond our experience. You also oddly believe that "KNOW" can only apply to statements so justified. Unfortunately that view has not been held by most epistemologists for at least a hundred years. Either the defender of the correspondence theory of truth offers some accompanying theory of the world, or he or she does not.If no theory of the world is offered, the argument is so vague as to be useless or even unintelligible: truth would then be supposed to be correspondence to some undefined, unknown or ineffable world. It is difficult to see how a candidate truth could be more certain than the world we are to judge its degree of correspondence against.On the other hand, immediately the defender of the correspondence theory of truth offers a theory of the world, he or she is operating in some specific ontological or scientific theory, which stands in need of justification. But the only way to support the truth of this theory of the world that is allowed by the correspondence theory of truth is correspondence to the real world. Hence the argument is circular.[8]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_theory_of_truth#Vagueness_or_circularity Even wikipedia knows that The only solution is the deflationary theory of truth, which is where we started this. Edited October 13, 2014 by mfbukowski
The Nehor Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 Exactly! So why in the world do we ever equate personal revelation with knowledge?Because it turns out to be correct. 2
Hamba Tuhan Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 (edited) Same way you know when he is right. the Holy Ghost My confidence in the Lord's prophets is based on a double foundation: what Pres. Eyring just referred to repeatedly as 'confirming revelation' + the personal experience of actually following them ... even when what they teach takes me far outside my preferred zone of comfort. Edited October 13, 2014 by Hamba Tuhan 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 Because it turns out to be correct. Bingo!
DBMormon Posted October 13, 2014 Author Posted October 13, 2014 Ok then the Holy Spirit would be the one to tell you what to do about it. Each case or instance would be different. but a 100% always follow even when he is wrong takes the HG out of the picture.
wenglund Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 (edited) To me, the topic of this thread boils down to issues of trust--i.e. should one trust more in oneself than in God's chosen leaders? This topic tends to get raised (some times repeatedly) and weigh more heavily on the minds of people who have trust issues with Church leaders and/or who in many instances trust more in themselves than Church leaders and who are looking to justify their seemingly inverted trust or pride. As I see it, the better question is: "What is behind the trust issues with Church leaders, and/or should one yield to personal pride?" Thanks, -Wade Englund- Edited October 13, 2014 by wenglund
wtrdog Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 Very good OP, disturbing answers. There are some very strange people on this forum, perpetuating what is obviously a pernicious false doctrine. It is a sad state we find ourselves in. The general theme of the answers to this thread reinforce to me that church is, unfortunately, not a safe place. It is not a place for people to engage in honest, humble inquiry, for they will be met with prideful accusations of pride. It feels more like a place for fostering spiritual slavery than growth, a form of spiritual peonage. Apparently all the busy work in the church exists for one and only one reason, to follow the leader. To me, the topic of this thread boils down to issues of trust--i.e. should one trust more in oneself than in God's chosen leaders? Your very question shows bias by implying the leaders are superior and more trustworthy with the phrase "God's chosen". This topic tends to get raised (some times repeatedly) and weigh more heavily on the minds of people how have trust issues with Church leaders and/or who in many instances trust more in themselves than Church leaders and who are looking to justify their seemingly inverted trust or pride. Classic. In other words, "If you feel the spirit is telling you that a leader is wrong, no, you are just PRIDEFUL." As I see it, the better question is: "What is behind the trust issues with Church leaders, and/or should one yield to personal pride?" Personal Revelation = Personal Pride ROFL!!!! Don't trust yourself, trust the leaders! I try so hard to be charitable with my fellow brothers and sisters in the gospel. Even when I completely disagree, and especially when I find their words to be truly insidious, I try to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they mean something other than what they actually said, something good, and that they just suck at forming sentences together. I don't want to assume malice in their hearts. Attitudes like this make it incredibly hard for me though. It's very difficult to react charitably to the complete lack thereof.
CV75 Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 but a 100% always follow even when he is wrong takes the HG out of the picture.There is no "when" in the quotes provided in the OP. The hypothetical in both quotes to follow "if" he is wrong teaches other truths.
JLHPROF Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 Personal Revelation = Personal Pride ROFL!!!! Don't trust yourself, trust the leaders! No, trust neither. Last I check both my leaders and I have pretty fleshy arms... Trust God and only God, whether he is speaking through our leaders or to me directly. And when there's conflict...well, I'd better be darn sure my answer is from God before I start rebelling against priesthood authority.
wenglund Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 (edited) Your very question shows bias by implying the leaders are superior and more trustworthy with the phrase "God's chosen". Yes. Obviously. Since I view God as superior to me in all ways, particularly in terms of who he determines is best to speak for him on earth, then logically I would view his choices (including who may speak authoritatively for him on earth) as superior to my own. For me to do otherwise, or be biased otherwise, would be to ultimately trust more in myself than in God--which, in my book would be the very essence of pride, if not folly. In other words, there is a rational link between trusting in God and trusting in his choices, including those he has chosen to speak for him on earth. By subordinating the later to oneself is to tacitly subordinate God to oneself. Do you have a problem with this rationally biased mode of trust? Thanks, -Wade Englund- Edited October 13, 2014 by wenglund 1
Recommended Posts