An Evening With A General Authority 2015

[wtrdog]

I do not appreciate your point and find you moronic in misunderstanding mine.

 

And here comes the name calling.  So, I'm a moron because your point makes no sense?  Let's try cooling this down a bit, you seem to be getting upset.  My remarks are not meant to convey a hostile tone.  Simple questions here

 

Let's try this.  Can you please describe for me the nature of these revelations that you have received? And as part of that, can you state what confidence interval you assign to them, why, and describe the epistemological basis for knowing whatever it is exactly that you think you know?  You really just aren't understanding the point.  You could also try taking a shot at explaining why The Proclamation got demoted from a revelation to a guide...?  You don't find it interesting that the "prophets" aren't spiritually confident enough to call it a revelation?  Has President Monson ever even claimed to be a prophet or revelator?  

[Avatar4321]

Maybe one day the Church will become inspired again and change into something new.

The church never ceases being inspired. I am inspired as I serve in my calling. As I study the scriptures and attend my meetings. In fact recently I've seen more inspiration in church than I ever have

[wtrdog]

So we should lie to make you happy?

 

No, you should stop lying.  If "we" genuinely believe that we are being led by revelation, that's fine, but in the interest of honesty the meaning of these words should be put in context.  The leaders should be very candid about what it actually is that they have or have not experienced, and then from there allow us to have the agency of making a pure choice about whether we trust their inspiration or not.

[canard78]

So we should lie to make you happy?

It wouldn't be a lie.

[bluebell]

It wouldn't be a lie.

 

According to what I believe, it would be.

[Avatar4321]

Really? The bretheren consistently change and evolve doctrine. As a young man I was taught in young men's group that Joseph had nothing to do with polygamy, it was all Brigham and they did it because no men were around to marry the single women.....LIE.  I was also taught by my bishop and father that blacks couldn't receive the priesthood because of what they had done in the pre-existance...LIE...that doctrine has changed too. The temple ceremony has change multiple times, garments have changed too. In fact the bretheren are taking suggestions for chaning temple garments again as of today. Here is the link. https://lds.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_1OdWPwwFV9o1qM5&cid=garmentfeedback

 

I guess doctrinal changes are all part of the "restoration"?

So you were taught something contrary to D&C 132 and because you dishonestly the scriptures yourself, the church lied?

The church has always taught that the priesthood would be extended to all men.

Neither the temple garment or the presentation of the endowment is doctrine.

Perhaps you should study the scriptures and learn the doctrine of christ. You will quickly realize it hasn't changed one iota. I recommend starting with the Book of Mormon.

[Avatar4321]

Really? The bretheren consistently change and evolve doctrine. As a young man I was taught in young men's group that Joseph had nothing to do with polygamy, it was all Brigham and they did it because no men were around to marry the single women.....LIE.  I was also taught by my bishop and father that blacks couldn't receive the priesthood because of what they had done in the pre-existance...LIE...that doctrine has changed too. The temple ceremony has change multiple times, garments have changed too. In fact the bretheren are taking suggestions for chaning temple garments again as of today. Here is the link. https://lds.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_1OdWPwwFV9o1qM5&cid=garmentfeedback

 

I guess doctrinal changes are all part of the "restoration"?

So you were taught something contrary to D&C 132 and because you dishonestly the scriptures yourself, the church lied?

The church has always taught that the priesthood would be extended to all men.

Neither the temple garment or the presentation of the endowment is doctrine.

Perhaps you should study the scriptures and learn the doctrine of christ. You will quickly realize it hasn't changed one iota. I recommend starting with the Book of Mormon.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/03/principles?lang=eng

 

 

Here's the problem, doctrine isn't supposed to change.  Doctrine is supposed to be based on truth, the immutable variety.  Unfortunately, often times what we call "doctrine" turns out to be "false doctrine."  So, yes, doctrine never changes, but how do we know today's doctrine isn't tomorrow's false doctrine?  Ultimately, what IS the doctrine?  We don't know, or, we don't know perfectly.  There is a confidence interval and we turn out to be wrong quite often.

The Savior sums up His doctrine quite succinctly in 3 nephi

[Avatar4321]

Great question, how do we KNOW today's doctrine isn't tomorrow's false doctrine? I guess that is my point. It seems to me the current "prophet" trumps prior ones. So we got rid of polygamy (at least in the mainstream LDS faith) but was that doctrine or not? It is still in D and c 132 so where does that fit? And for the blacks and the priesthood, I don't understand how that would not be considered a doctrinal change, were all those prophets wrong until 1976?

The doctrine on polygamy is the same as it was when the Lord first mentioned it this dispensation. When he commands it do it. Otherwise don't. What changed was the command not the doctrine.

The priesthood was long prophecied to go to every people. Now that the prophesy was fulfilled you are complaining about it.

Did Peter change doctrine when he obeyed the command to take the gospel to the gentiles when he was previously commanded to go only to the Jews?

Commands can be given and can be revoked. Doctrines and principles have not changed

[teddyaware]

The LDS church leadership should simply acknowledge that the church is being being led by tradition and cultural values and not revelation. They are well-meaning men who receive no more divine inspiration than the Pope or the Dalai Lama.

 

The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not.

[Avatar4321]

No, you should stop lying.  If "we" genuinely believe that we are being led by revelation, that's fine, but in the interest of honesty the meaning of these words should be put in context.  The leaders should be very candid about what it actually is that they have or have not experienced, and then from there allow us to have the agency of making a pure choice about whether we trust their inspiration or not.

We are lead by revelation. From the general authorities to local leaders. I've seen it. I've received my own revelations. In fact you are encouraged to seek out your own.

That's the beauty of the gospel, you don't have to take our word for it. You can get your own revelation. In fact you are commanded to.

I'm not going to pretend something I've seen with my own eyes is false just to make you happy. Talk with the Lord and learn from Him. Study the Book of Mormon

[Avatar4321]

It wouldn't be a lie.

I'm a witness otherwise.

[CA Steve]

So are we to assume that any actual physical or historical evidence for the Book of Mormon and its message is also unimportant or is it just the negative that should be overlooked?

[wtrdog]

We are lead by revelation. From the general authorities to local leaders. I've seen it. I've received my own revelations. In fact you are encouraged to seek out your own.

That's the beauty of the gospel, you don't have to take our word for it. You can get your own revelation. In fact you are commanded to.

I'm not going to pretend something I've seen with my own eyes is false just to make you happy. Talk with the Lord and learn from Him. Study the Book of Mormon

 

Were we led by revelation when blacks were banned from the church, when BY urged the UT territorial legislature to legalize slavery, or when blacks were described as "necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God?"  With all due respect, if you're going to actually participate in a discussion, would you mind actually participating? This isn't primary, we're having an adult conversation.

 

 

I'm not going to pretend something I've seen with my own eyes is false just to make you happy. Talk with the Lord and learn from Him. Study the Book of Mormon

 

Nobody is asking you to.  Would you care to be candid and describe, specially, what you're talking about?  What have you seen with your own two eyes, exactly?

[CV75]

Can you name a single apostle who has claimed to have a face-to-face interview with the Lord?

 

So you're saying that "special witness" is a title that has no real meaning whatsoever?  Interesting argument. Clearly this is not what we're taught to believe about apostles.  If that's the truth of the matter then a paradigm shift is warranted.

I've taken from the things I've heard and read from them over the years that their experiences with the Lord have ranged from spiritual feelings to face-to-face encounters. That is my personal take from what they have said. But the point I was trying to make above is that my testimony and my experience is not dependent on how simple or grand I think their experience has been.

I do think the term "special witness" carries tremendous meaning an significance. The Lord's restoration of the office they hold has blessed my life.

[Duncan]

I do not appreciate your point and find you moronic in misunderstanding mine.

As I pointed out in my post I said that I do not believe the assertion that the prophets and apostles get no revelation and are just making it up as they go. I then said that if I was a cynical skeptic and did not believe the prophets and apostles received revelations that the prescription they gave would destroy the church. The demanded admission would also destroy the church if it is what it was meant to be. Of course if the church were a fraud the sooner it dies the better but for better or worse that is not the case.

If I did come before God and he tried to argue that I was supposed to disbelieve I would ask him what the hell was up with all that revelation I got. If he countered that it came from my brain then I would argue that I must be God, the source of all truth and provide a follow-up to Satan's coup. Mine would be more successful.

As to the people of earth being sheeple too weak-minded to handle all the truth that is pretty much church doctrine. Or did you think all that talk about how foolish man is only applies to the past. While I do not believe God lies he does withhold truths that would destroy many.

 

 

I hear what you are saying but I think the timing of these Temples has a lot to do with. I may be way off but the idea of smaller temples wasn't a new concept with Pres. Hinckley but the brethren had been discussing it for years. The Temples built in the mean time were bigger or smaller but the idea of smaller type Temple that we see now started with Pres. Tanner and Pres. Hinckley got the revelation/inspiration in the 1990's to do go ahead with it. That's my understanding anyways. I don't know what would have happened if they built all these in the 1950's or '70's but not my call! So, I see it as more of the timing was as far as I know right. I have another interesting tidbit of info but I have to leave!

 

Sorry, I responded to the wrong post!!!! I corrected it now

Edited February 12, 2015 by Duncan

[Duncan]

This reminds me of when Pres. Hinckley announced the construction of small temples. I kept hearing others mention how inspired he was to come up with that. While I kept thinking, does it require inspiration from God to know that if you build smaller inexpensive temples you can build more of them?

 

 

I hear what you are saying but I think the timing of these Temples has a lot to do with. I may be way off but the idea of smaller temples wasn't a new concept with Pres. Hinckley but the brethren had been discussing it for years. The Temples built in the mean time were bigger or smaller but the idea of smaller type Temple that we see now started with Pres. Tanner and Pres. Hinckley got the revelation/inspiration in the 1990's to do go ahead with it. That's my understanding anyways. I don't know what would have happened if they built all these in the 1950's or '70's but not my call! So, I see it as more of the timing was as far as I know right. I have another interesting tidbit of info but I have to leave!

[stemelbow]

The church never ceases being inspired. I am inspired as I serve in my calling. As I study the scriptures and attend my meetings. In fact recently I've seen more inspiration in church than I ever have

That's cool but that's no different than amany in other churches. As it is anyone can be so inspired

[rongo]

Whether or not apostles have seen the Lord is a major sticking point with a lot of people in faith crisis, in my experience. Most recently, I was asked by a local bishop to meet with a member of his ward. Basically, we spent three hours going through the Letter to a CES Director. But, again and again, he told me that if none of the apostles have seen the Lord, that would be a deal-breaker for him. I shared my personal belief that some have and some haven't, but that it isn't a prerequisite. He asked how they could be "special witnesses" without a visitation, and we talked about that. I think I did help him to at least examine his assumptions and whether or not they are arbitrary or essential. 

 

I showed him where at least two modern apostles, Orson Pratt and Heber C. Kimball, specifically said that they had *not* had a visitation. This didn't make him feel much better, but it at least showed that it's not a deliberate "con" (i.e., they considered themselves to be be fully-authorized apostles without a visitation, and they shared this publicly). I also shared some who are on record as having visitations. In the end, it isn't a personal visitation that makes apostles "special witnesses" -- it's the special endowment of the Spirit that accompanies their witness.  

[Avatar4321]

Were we led by revelation when blacks were banned from the church, when BY urged the UT territorial legislature to legalize slavery, or when blacks were described as "necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God?"  With all due respect, if you're going to actually participate in a discussion, would you mind actually participating? This isn't primary, we're having an adult conversation.

 

 

 

Nobody is asking you to.  Would you care to be candid and describe, specially, what you're talking about?  What have you seen with your own two eyes, exactly?

We've been lead by revelation from the beginning. We still are.

Is there any reason to suspect that Brigham young was acting as the prophet or the church in his political duties?

The very fact that you have to start with the insults tells me you aren't serious about an adult conversation. Irony.

[Danzo]

Were we led by revelation when blacks were banned from the church.

 

If you want your arguments to have credibility, you should at least take the time get your facts straight.

 

Blacks were never banned from the church.

 

If you think otherwise, please provide a reference.

[The Nehor]

And here comes the name calling. 

 

Better then the veiled disingenuous sniping you seem to prefer.

 

So, I'm a moron because your point makes no sense? 

 

If it made no sense then you were a moron for trying to rebut it by talking drivel. If you misunderstood and it did make sense you are still a moron. Either way you are a moron.

 

 

Let's try cooling this down a bit, you seem to be getting upset.  My remarks are not meant to convey a hostile tone.  Simple questions here   

 

I don't believe you.

 

 

Can you please describe for me the nature of these revelations that you have received?

 

I could but I see no reason to. Pearls and swine and all that.

 

 

And as part of that, can you state what confidence interval you assign to them, why, and describe the epistemological basis for knowing whatever it is exactly that you think you know? 

 

Of of course. I keep detailed records of them all and how confident I feel percentage-wise. I don't believe for a second that you honestly believe I have all this recorded and no one else does either. If you claim not to be disingenuous we can pull this up as proof otherwise. I submit this as exhibit B that you are a moron.

 

 

You really just aren't understanding the point.  You could also try taking a shot at explaining why The Proclamation got demoted from a revelation to a guide...?  You don't find it interesting that the "prophets" aren't spiritually confident enough to call it a revelation?  Has President Monson ever even claimed to be a prophet or revelator?  

 

Having heard Apostles and Prophets declare real revelation with full surety I do not doubt their confidence in any way.

 

No, you should stop lying.  If "we" genuinely believe that we are being led by revelation, that's fine, but in the interest of honesty the meaning of these words should be put in context.  The leaders should be very candid about what it actually is that they have or have not experienced, and then from there allow us to have the agency of making a pure choice about whether we trust their inspiration or not.

 

Our leaders are under no obligation to share every revelation or spiritual experience they have with us. They never claimed they had such an obligation. It is amazing that only critics and enemies of the church seem to demand it. Almost as if they are not acting in good faith......

 

 

It wouldn't be a lie.

 

Yeah it would.

[Danzo]

when BY urged the UT territorial legislature to legalize slavery

 

 

 

Have you read the Utah slave code?

[DBMormon]

The subset of what is doctrine vs. what has been called doctrine is probably very small.  However, You are pretty safe going with the standard works and the latest General Conference talks for what is current doctrine and practice.

 

Now there remains the sticky issue of correct understanding of doctrine...

 

But again this is all theoretical and hypothetical.

 

Can anyone actually show a modern example of someone being disciplined for having an opinion where they were not contradicting the basic church doctrines, or leading people away from the church over controversies?

How do you define the word Doctrine

[teddyaware]

That's cool but that's no different than amany in other churches. As it is anyone can be so inspired

 

When Latter-day Saints with living testimonies attempt to dialogue with unbelievers it almost invariably devolves into a theater of the absurd. The Apostle Paul warned the saints against such fruitless endeavors when He said:

 

4 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? (2 Corinthians 6)

 

In light of of Paul's warning, and with an acute awareness of just how rarely bitter unbelievers -- or ex-believers -- ever come around to see the light, I'm seriously beginning to wonder about the advisability of futilely going "t-t for tat" with those embittered souls who have gone over to the dark side. I believe that from now on I will severely limit my postings to those who wear their lost testimonies like badges of honor. Thank you for helping me see the light, even though you surely didn't intend for that to happen. Let's call it an epiphany. All the best...

Edited February 13, 2015 by teddyaware

[TOmNossor]

I suspect this has little place here, but since the Internet is like the Wild Wild West, I will put it here anyway.

There are two very tired statements that I usually think should be avoided in discussions like this.

Critic says: It is because I know too much that I have left the CoJCoLDS. If others knew the facts, possessed adequate reasoning faculties, and were WILLING to consider the church might not be true they would leave too.

Believer says: Apostate xyz wasn't a faithful committed member of the church so that is why they left.

(I have always and continue to think this is something believers say to give them comfort because it is hard to think that something they hold dear could dissolve in response to further knowledge).

As a believer, it is clear to me that the simplistic "critic says" above is just wrong. The first or second most knowledgeable person on any Mormon issue is a true believing Mormon. D. Michael, Brent M., and Dan V. have me and many of us beat, but not every faithful LDS when it comes to KNOWING things. So while I cannot speak of the path of the #1 or #2 person, I can say that my path has been willing to consider that the church might not be true and I suspect theirs has too.

The "Believer says" seem to clearly be wrong too. Some of the most committed members of the church cease to be members. These folks did the mission, FHE, ... until they got to that breaking point that they didn't quite believe and stopped.

That being said, as I read Elder Holland's words, I hear a version of "the believer says." It seems clear to me that Elder Holland is speaking about what he has experienced through the Spirit. Much of this thread has become about how special of a "special witness" he has, but his words rang as special to me. He is saying that the crap (I read here because I like the crap so do not misunderstand me) we debate and discuss on this board is the thick of thin things when set beside his "special witness." And of course he is also saying that his special witness is really the same witness he expects and hopes all members have (regardless of what additional content is or is not contained in his "special witness.")

I do not think there is MUCH to the idea that Elder Holland has read the essays and knows the facts he knows, but somehow forgot how to doubt. I find it extraordinarily unlikely that Elder Holland has not had profound "aha" moments as he was exposed to facts about post-manifesto Polygamy or Fanny Alger or .... But these "aha" moments didn't overwhelm him and he doesn't think it should overwhelm others, especially when those others so loudly proclaim how good, conservative, spiritual , ... they were before they decided it was all something to be discarded in favor of truth.

I am increasingly left with a version of the "believer says" impression. There is a walk with God (not being good, not doing the right things, not ..., but a walk with God) that many LDS participate in and it is different than the walk with God that can be disbelieved when the evidence so-weighed becomes strong enough. Elder Holland has walked with God, not only as a "special witness," but as a special witness. This is why he calls the BOA issue the thick of thin things. I suspect, fear, guess, think, postulate, ... that if you think the BOA is not the thick of thin things when compared with your walk with God, it is your walk not the BOA issue that is different for you as compared to Elder Holland (and numerous other faithful knowledgeable LDS). As one who does not consider his "walk with God" particularly extraordinary I have little or no prescription for this issue, but I suspect, fear, guess, think, postulate, ... that it is more than just something I tell myself because my faith is too weak to deal with the real messiness.

I also might note that "evidence so-weighed" is even more unrelated to this thread, but it conforms more to my experience as a 98-pound Spiritual weakling. As best I can tell my commitment to the gospel is that of an intellect that weighs positive and negative evidence assessable to all (ie not my personal spiritual witness which is only accessible to me) and for whatever reason finds the positive to outweigh the negative. Post manifesto polygamy and BOA production issues are countered by reviewing the witnesses of the BOM, Nahom, and other positive points in favor of the CoJCoLDS. This spiritual weakling suspects there is something to the "believer says" but as best I can tell my personal commitment has little to do with the Spiritual witness as compared to the "thick of thin things." Rather it is the fact that my thick of thin things (BOA production) never sit on a scale without other thick of thin things. When I from my own prideful ignorant tower say negative things about the unbeliever (in my head), it Is not that they lack the spiritual strength that I have but that they fail to hold volumes of evidence for and against the gospel in their puny heads and then assign proper (the weight I assign) weight to these volumes; for some reason they fail intellectually before they even get around to failing spiritually. I seldom let this thought out of my head, because it is arrogant and prideful; but if I can be disillusioned of this thought for more reasons than that I know it is a product of arrogance and pride, perhaps I can understand the non-believer better. So I offer this thought so it can be critiqued.

Charity, TOm