Do We Have Authority Or Not?

[mfbukowski]

And what is your true will?

I guess if you forgot to sign it or something, then people would not know what to do with your stuff after you died. 

 

On the other hand, I like to consider false will. False will is dong something you really don't want to do I guess, like work for a living?  Washing dishes? 

 

It is my false will to have a root canal and my true will is eating ice cream by the gallon every day.  Or maybe it's the other way around, I forget. 

 

My not so subtle point is that that phrase could mean just about anything.

 

And I am still too dumb to figure out what this thread is about.

Edited November 13, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

You obviously think there is no question of "fallibility." You believe it to be an absolute given, which would mean every prophet from Nephi to Moroni could have made a mistake in the Book of Mormon.

It seems that you believe Jesus Christ's prophet on the earth can err when revealing God's will to the Church and that God will reveal the error to you. Is that the case?

The way I see it, either Jesus Christ wants you to believe the prophet will err, or Satan wants you to believe the prophet will err. And by the same token, either Jesus Christ wants you to believe God will reveal the error to you, or Satan wants you to believe God will reveal the error to you.

You should bear in mind that while all prophets of God are always speaking for God that doesn't mean that all men are always speaking as prophets.

Not even the President of the Church is always speaking as a prophet of God.

Just make it a habit to check with God for yourself when you want to find out if a man is speaking as a prophet of God.

[mfbukowski]

 

You obviously think there is no question of "fallibility." You believe it to be an absolute given, which would mean every prophet from Nephi to Moroni could have made a mistake in the Book of Mormon.

 

It seems that you believe Jesus Christ's prophet on the earth can err when revealing God's will to the Church and that God will reveal the error to you. Is that the case?

 

The way I see it, either Jesus Christ wants you to believe the prophet will err, or Satan wants you to believe the prophet will err. And by the same token, either Jesus Christ wants you to believe God will reveal the error to you, or Satan wants you to believe God will reveal the error to you.

 

 

The only thing Tony needs to clarify is his infallibility quotient.

We don't need prophets, we have Tony.  Forget all official statements that prophets can make mistakes, Tony has straightened out those pesky Apostles on that one!

[mfbukowski]

At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.”⁵ President Clark, quoted earlier, observed:

“To this point runs a simple story my father told me as a boy, I do not know on what authority, but it illustrates the point. His story was that during the excitement incident to the coming of [Johnston’s] Army, Brother Brigham preached to the people in a morning meeting a sermon vibrant with defiance to the approaching army, and declaring an intention to oppose and drive them back. In the afternoon meeting he arose and said that Brigham Young had been talking in the morning, but the Lord was going to talk now. He then delivered an address, the tempo of which was the opposite from the morning talk. …

“… The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest.”⁶

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng

[Tsuzuki]

I guess if you forgot to sign it or something, then people would not know what to do with your stuff after you died.

On the other hand, I like to consider false will. False will is dong something you really don't want to do I guess, like work for a living? Washing dishes?

It is my false will to have a root canal and my true will is eating ice cream by the gallon every day. Or maybe it's the other way around, I forget.

My not so subtle point is that that phrase could mean just about anything.

And I am still too dumb to figure out what this thread is about.

That's not how "true will" works in Thelema. Your true will can sometimes feel like hard work, but you still have to do it.

[mfbukowski]

That's not how "true will" works in Thelema. Your true will can sometimes feel like hard work, but you still have to do it.

Oh.

Utilitarianism.

 

The maximization of pleasure or happiness is therefore the moral end. But this ought not to be taken in simplistic terms. Mill's is not a crude hedonism. In the first place, it is not crude sensual pleasure that is the aim. Rather, welfare consists in the satisfaction of desire, and the relevant pleasure is the pleasure that comes from satisfied desire. In the second place, when he insists that welfare consists in the experiencing of pleasurable states, he argues, in contrast to what Bentham implied, that quality, not simply the amount of pleasure, is to be taken into account. As Mill came to see in his own experience, reading Wordsworth is better as an experience than drinking ale. As he put it himself, better Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. Some experiences are qualitatively better than others, and in determining which line of action is better, this has to be part of the calculation. These pleasures are not merely the sum of more elementary pleasures; they are qualitatively different. These differences are a matter of the chemical nature of psychological processes. Among the qualitatively superior ends are the moral ends, and it is in this that people acquire the sense that they have moral intuitions superior to mere self-interest. And in the third place, Mill holds that it is possible to be content with life even though dissatisfied, provided that one has the proper balance of pleasure, reckoned both quantitatively and qualitatively. As he himself suggested, better Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. The pig may be satisfied, but Socrates' life, even with its dissatisfaction, is preferable. The person who has a good life has a reasonable balance of tranquility, on the one hand, and, on the other, moments of excitement and more intense pleasure.

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill/#MorUti

[Mystery Meat]

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like the God you believe in will punish those that do their best to seek and find truth, but reward those who violate their own conscience and best understanding of God's will in order to follow another? Could you clarify?

 

I think the issue I have here is where in scripture do we get any statement that confirms the reliability of our own individual consciences? Yes, there is the light of Christ, but I don't think that is the same think as a "conscience" at least not in this context. If our consciences were reliable measures of truth and goodness, Paul would have been able to see the purity and loving expression in a homosexual encounter (assuming folks are right that it is "good"). But a conscience is a completely unreliable source of truth. My conscience tells me that homosexuality is repulsive and sinful. Others have said the exact opposite. So which is it? The undeniable truth is that our "conscience" is influenced by the world and culture in which we live, and to be fair I think that goes both ways: it is just as likely that a TBM like myself is influenced on homosexuality the same way a politically liberal person with a gay child would be. The trick to discovering God's truth, or eternal truth, is to clear our mind of influences that are not divine.

 

So in that sense I do not think God will hesitate to curse someone who acts in accordance with their conscience if their conscience is contrary to His word and truth, and simultaneously bless someone who acts contrary to their conscience if their actions are in sync with God's truth (see Nephi decapitating Laban, many (most, or all?) of the early Saints who practiced polygamy, or the early Christians who were given a new "Word of Wisdom").

 

In fact I think that is the great test. We are meant to align our will (or conscience) with God's. That never comes without cost or without a lot of discomfort.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Mystery Meat

[Tony Frank]

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like the God you believe in will punish those that do their best to seek and find truth, but reward those who violate their own conscience and best understanding of God's will in order to follow another? Could you clarify?

 

I thought my explanation/clarification should get its own thread.

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66435-consequences-for-choices-choosing-dead-prophets-over-living-prophets/

[Tsuzuki]

Oh.

Utilitarianism.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill/#MorUti

No, not utilitarianism.

http://hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib2.html

[Robert F. Smith]

You obviously think there is no question of "fallibility." You believe it to be an absolute given, which would mean every prophet from Nephi to Moroni could have made a mistake in the Book of Mormon.

False.  Once again, you didn't even bother to read the book:

Book of Mormon Title Page by Moroni, " And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ."

Mormon 8:17, "And if there be faults they be the faults of a man."

 

It seems that you believe Jesus Christ's prophet on the earth can err when revealing God's will to the Church and that God will reveal the error to you. Is that the case?

All humans err.  That is in their nature.  As Joseph Smith Jr said, "A prophet is only a prophet when acting as such."  He is human as other men, and can err.  Our only option is to pray to know for ourselves whether a prophet speaks for God, or is merely expressing a personal opinion.

 

The way I see it, either Jesus Christ wants you to believe the prophet will err, or Satan wants you to believe the prophet will err. And by the same token, either Jesus Christ wants you to believe God will reveal the error to you, or Satan wants you to believe God will reveal the error to you.

All black and all white, with no shades of gray, huh?  Welcome to fantasy land.

 

[MiserereNobis]

I am unsure whether this is the real thing, or a placebo.

 

Maybe volgadon was right to term it "Mormongelical."

 

In any case, it gives new meaning to grotesquerie.

 

TonyFrank offers a fun perspective to banter with on the board.  Truly Mormongelical.

 

Now, we need to find some Cathomens? Mormolics?

[MiserereNobis]

In fact I think that is the great test. We are meant to align our will (or conscience) with God's. That never comes without cost or without a lot of discomfort.

 

Amen.  Aye.  And yikes.  Christianity is a tough path to follow because it seems like God and Christ are always asking us to do something that costs and causes discomfort.  It seems to me that the moment we are comfortable in our spirituality we've somehow disconnected from Christ and put our cross down...

[The Nehor]

No religion on the planet has exclusive authority to God. 

 

What does that even mean? Do you mean exclusive access to god? If so LDS agree. We are the only ones with authority to act in his name.

[The Nehor]

TonyFrank offers a fun perspective to banter with on the board.  Truly Mormongelical.

 

Now, we need to find some Cathomens? Mormolics?

 

Or Morlocks?

 

[MiserereNobis]

Or Morlocks?

 

 

Yes! That's what I imagine a Mormon-Catholic crossbreed would look like!

[The Nehor]

Yes! That's what I imagine a Mormon-Catholic crossbreed would look like!

I have Catholics in my ancestry. Better keep an eye out for the Innsmouth Look.

[Robert F. Smith]

...............................................................................

Now, we need to find some Cathomens? Mormolics?

I met some Cathicosticals once years ago.  They consisted of a priest and a couple of nuns with guitars in the basement of a Roman Catholic Church, along with parishoners and a scattering of Protestants.  I was there with a friend who desired healing from his Multiple Sclerosis.

[Scott Lloyd]

Let me be more explicit:

If we have authority from God to baptize, then we should submit to that authority to be baptized on the Lords term. It doesn't matter when we want to be baptized we need to wait until we've been authorized to be baptized.

If we don't have any authority, then who cares what restrictions those with the keys place on it? Without the authority baptism is absolutely irrelevant

So it boils down to a matter of people not wanting it for themselves but demanding to dictate the terms under which we offer it to others? Is that quintessential arrogance or what?

[Tsuzuki]

Now, we need to find some Cathomens? Mormolics?

I was baptized and confirmed Cafeteria Catholic while simultaneously practicing Mormonism and the occult. Does that count? I'm still partial to the Catholicism of Eliphas Levi.