These are three grand keys ..

[jwhitlock]

6 hours ago, salgare said:

I keep hearing, across multiple threads the likes of ... "85% of what the GA's have told me, my personal revelation has validated and thus I'm good with considering them Prophets Seers and Revelators, authorized by Jesus Christ to lead me.  They are human and fallible and sometimes speak as men (15% of the time) but even more often they have a message for me from God (85%)"

Thus it is up to every member to utilize personal revelation to determine if any given statement from a GA is from God or simply from the man ... there is a 15% plus or minus error rate you know.

In one of these threads I mentioned I had recently seen this debate elsewhere... of determining who is a Prophet, which kept falling back to the responsibility of the individual to determine, with no expectations/evidences required of the messenger.  This message by message deciphering by personal revelation of the truth or error of each being required.  The critic kept asking about the "by their fruits yea shall known them" concept and the defender keep responding with the fallibility/individual's personal responsibility concept.

Of course I realize it is only the individual who can make this determination.  What I'm suggesting/questioning is why one would bother trying to discern individual messages (isolate out that 15%) without first applying the given test to see if they are even worth listening to in the first place.

In other places, I've seen this debate move to the questions of if it is even possible for a given evil tree to have a limb that happens to produce good fruit.  The President Dieter F. Uchtdorf example fits in here as what I would understand as a Christlike fruit, but also opening up the question of is this a mixed fruit tree?

Sorry about my scattered thoughts ... its partly from brain damage (and part falling off a nut tree).

You've stated that we can tell who's a prophet by their actions. I've given examples from the scriptures as to why that is problematic. You haven't addressed that except to post a picture of President Uchtdorf.

I've stated that we need to primarily use the Spirit to make such determinations since it's the only fully reliable guide. You still seem to be saying that we need to look at their actions before we bother using the Spirit, but you haven't provided any support for that claim.

The ball's in your court on this one.

[jwhitlock]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

I think it is more the screwed up perspective...the guy under the tray looks too far back for where Pres. Utchdorf is standing.  It looks photoshopped to me to and I am well aware that he has spent time helping out in similar locations:

https://www.facebook.com/lds.dieter.f.uchtdorf/posts/173029949534357

Yeah, the photo just looked strange from the depth perspective. Saw the KSL article, so he was helping out there.

It takes talent to take a real photograph and make it look fake... 

[salgare]

1 hour ago, jwhitlock said:

You've stated that we can tell who's a prophet by their actions. I've given examples from the scriptures as to why that is problematic.

JW,  The last time I came back here from being banned I realized it would be well for me to try and establish some personal connection with those I was communicating with here.  Trying to realize there are real people behind these posts. 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65217-who-are-you/?page=7

Tacenda has started a new one for what I assume is the same purpose (and for admins to pin it).  I reviewed that old thread to see if you had given me something to grab hold of, I did not find it.  This is also true for other posters here that I have historically had a hard time with.  I assume this is because many don't visit/post in the social and news forums.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66693-introductions-for-older-members-and-new/

Juliann's historically informative posts the other day on the FAIR thread caused me to reflect all the more on this.  Many of us have been about this for a very long time.  Maybe trying to establish any kind of personal contact among regulars is counter productive to our day jobs here (posting for lurkers, defending or fighting the faith).  But then again maybe maintaining boundaries and trying to quickly categorize new faces into the binary us or them classifications is counter productive to unknown audiences.  Khan voice on ... My old friend jlhprof illustrated this a few posts upthread.

I know I'm guilty of rapidly skimming posts/responses and maybe not reading really closely what others are saying here.  I want to try much harder to read, maybe re-read a couple times others posts before I rapid fire my responses.

Anyway ... in response to the above quote ... I've reviewed this thread and do not see where you have referred to any scriptures.  You've "put the ball in my court" to respond to something of which I have no reference.

You haven't addressed that except to post a picture of President Uchtdorf.

I opened with a D&C scriptural reference, and referred to well known NT scriptures, given commentary on those scriptures and tried to provide a good example of the ideal that I was trying to present.  You seem to have summarily dismissed everything I have said concerning the OP.  Maybe that's for the audience, I don't know.  If so, that's ok and you and I can just let it be.  This can be a good understanding for us for any topic here.  As for me, I'm here for the discussion not the audience.

I've stated that we need to primarily use the Spirit to make such determinations since it's the only fully reliable guide. You still seem to be saying that we need to look at their actions before we bother using the Spirit

yes.

, but you haven't provided any support for that claim. The ball's in your court on this one.

I feel I have and you simply dismissed it as noted above.

I never did enjoy the game of tennis, to watch or play ... it's fine to leave it in my court ... point, set, match you win JW.

[jwhitlock]

9 minutes ago, salgare said:

Anyway ... in response to the above quote ... I've reviewed this thread and do not see where you have referred to any scriptures.  You've "put the ball in my court" to respond to something of which I have no reference.

I opened with a D&C scriptural reference, and referred to well known NT scriptures, given commentary on those scriptures and tried to provide a good example of the ideal that I was trying to present.  You seem to have summarily dismissed everything I have said concerning the OP.  Maybe that's for the audience, I don't know.  If so, that's ok and you and I can just let it be.  This can be a good understanding for us for any topic here.  As for me, I'm here for the discussion not the audience.

I list examples from the scriptures that contradict your claim that we know prophets by their actions, and because I haven't quoted chapter and verse, you tell me you "do not see where have referred to any scriptures?"

Come on.

You have yet to cogently address the scriptural examples I gave that contradict your claim that prophets are primarily known by their actions. This is the second time that made a false personal accusation against me instead of directly answering what I've posted. If you really want to have a discussion, as you claim, then do so.

[salgare]

11 minutes ago, jwhitlock said:

I list examples from the scriptures that contradict your claim that we know prophets by their actions, and because I haven't quoted chapter and verse, you tell me you "do not see where have referred to any scriptures?"

I'm sorry, yes you did reference a bunch of OT prophets and Saul/Paul.  I'm guilty of summarily dismissing all the OT Prophet examples as pertaining to an Angry God era and only addressing Paul noting that his misdeed viewed by windowed time periods, actually reflected good fruit.  I was looking for references you might have given in your defense i.e. ones that supported one should use personal revelation to identify Prophets.

Going back to the OT examples you gave ... if their was not a redeeming period of time displaying fruits worthy of Christ then the test stands, these men produced evil fruit.

It's like that first cup of coffee, only all these years later the same concept, different fear ... I've recently been following debates on atheism and one of the hardest hitting issues for me is the morality of the OT.  I've kind of decided to simply say ... ouch, pretty ugly stuff ... what is it that NT has to say?

[volgadon]

On ‎29‎/‎12‎/‎2015 at 3:41 PM, salgare said:

wow, that is really really sad dude.

A photoshopped hatchet job really is sad.

[salgare]

1 hour ago, volgadon said:

A photoshopped hatchet job really is sad.

Too funny, another one to whom the image is so foreign it must be a fake.

[Calm]

Somehow I doubt that is volgadon's problem.  It is strange to me that is where you are still going even after I told I thought the same thing even though I was well aware he had gone to soup kitchens to help out before.

It would not be the first time someone wanted a specific type of picture so they created their own even though similar ones were available.

Edited December 31, 2015 by Calm

[jwhitlock]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Somehow I doubt that is volgadon's problem.  It is strange to me that is where you are still going even after I told I thought the same thing even though I was well aware he had gone to soup kitchens to help out before.

It would not be the first time someone wanted a specific type of picture so they created their own even though similar ones were available.

I can't seem to find the photo he posted online or in the KSL article. Perhaps he could provide a link to it.

[salgare]

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

Somehow I doubt that is volgadon's problem.  It is strange to me that is where you are still going even after I told I thought the same thing even though I was well aware he had gone to soup kitchens to help out before.

It would not be the first time someone wanted a specific type of picture so they created their own even though similar ones were available.

I as well provided the link to the news article proving its validity.  Obviously volgadon did not actually read much of this thread, only saw the big picture and we got a knee-jerk reaction.  I wonder if 10 TBM's given two pieces of information:

1. a critic posted this

2. the image

What percentage would have the same first glance reaction?

Edited December 31, 2015 by salgare

[Calm]

Was the picture in the article?  I don't remember seeing it.

 

Given the common claim that LDS want to see their leaders as perfect men, it seems contradictory to the claim that believers would just dismiss the picture as photoshopped for no reason.

The main reason this photo is being questioned imo is because its perspective looks really, really weird.  That is the only reason I have to question it.  I would question it if the most faithful person in the world posted it until I knew where s/he got it.  That you assume others are questioning it primarily because you are a critic...seems to me you are the only one making assumptions about others' reasons for judgment and just over a weird picture.  You seem overeager to condemn people (as opposed to pictures) to me just because they are believers.

It comes across as an ego thing to me...we have to dislike the picture not because it is an awkward, poorly composed shot if real that no editor should have allowed, but because it was you who posted it.  Sorry, my gut response to art and photojournalism depends on what I see, not the person giving me access to it.  I would never assume that I had enough influence over people that I could change visual impressions just by pointing it out to them.

Edited December 31, 2015 by Calm

[salgare]

27 minutes ago, jwhitlock said:

I can't seem to find the photo he posted online or in the KSL article. Perhaps he could provide a link to it.

JW, I'm starting to see why others complain that you have nothing to add to a discussion.  Seems you do nothing but parrot the company line with no bother of even reading what others are posting.

Where's waldo?

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66694-these-are-three-grand-keys/?do=findComment&comment=1209572951

[mfbukowski]

13 minutes ago, salgare said:

JW, I'm starting to see why others complain that you have nothing to add to a discussion.  Seems you do nothing but parrot the company line with no bother of even reading what others are posting.

Where's waldo?

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66694-these-are-three-grand-keys/?do=findComment&comment=1209572951

In defense of jw- to me he is always right on the mark

On the other hand I am quite confused with this thread.  Sorry.

Three keys? Trick on someone named Russel?  He does not "parrot the company line", that much i know.

Prophets?  Photoshop?  I would like to participate but don't even quite understand what the question is.

The only "evidence" for prophets is testimony, period, end of story.  You speak of fruits but then can't decide if the fruits are good or bad.  All you have done is transferred the question of good prophets to good fruits and still can't tell which is which.   And the percentages?  85?  15?  What is that about?

Go ask the spirit.  Go with your gut.  Experiment with the fruit as it says in Alma 32.  Stay away for a while, see how it feels.  Come back for a while and see how it feels.  Pick which feels best.

That's about all anyone can do.  Alma 32 all the way.

Edited December 31, 2015 by mfbukowski

[salgare]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

Was the picture in the article?  I don't remember seeing it.

 

Given the common claim that LDS want to see their leaders as perfect men, it seems contradictory to the claim that believers would just dismiss the picture as photoshopped for no reason.

The main reason this photo is being questioned imo is because its perspective looks really, really weird.  That is the only reason I have to question it.  I would question it if the most faithful person in the world posted it until I knew where s/he got it.  That you assume others are questioning it primarily because you are a critic...seems to me you are the only one making assumptions about others' reasons for judgment and just over a weird picture.  You seem overeager to condemn people (as opposed to pictures) to me just because they are believers.

What .... still disbelief? Maybe if Salgare photoshopped it, then that will prove he is a deceiver, thus all this knee jerk talk about foreign concepts can be dismissed out of hand? 

Try this;

1. Right click on the image I posted upthread.

2. click "email image" (I find this the best way to capture the smallest url's)

3. contact the source and demand an appology for them photoshopping the picture.

http://www.sltrib.com/csp/mediapool/sites/dt.common.streams.StreamServer.cls?STREAMOID=G96kNlWy9P7j1YN2FFYY7s$daE2N3K4ZzOUsqbU5sYvuwt9zNcmRBaypGUqt_m9HWCsjLu883Ygn4B49Lvm9bPe2QeMKQdVeZmXF$9l$4uCZ8QDXhaHEp3rvzXRJFdy0KqPHLoMevcTLo3h8xh70Y6N_U_CryOsw6FTOdKL_jpQ-&CONTENTTYPE=image/jpeg

Can we get back to the OP now?

[salgare]

 

Quote

 

On the other hand I am quite confused with this thread.  Sorry.

 

 

I tried to restate the purpose here: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66694-these-are-three-grand-keys/?do=findComment&comment=1209572976

 

Quote

 

Three keys? Trick on someone named Russel?  He does not "parrot the company line", that much i know.

 

 

 

Three keys for Angels, By their fruits for Disciples, poorly delivered analogy of the physical nature of the evidence of that highest Angel encounter to the fruits test, a good visual example of the type of physical evidences I was talking about, total derail by people implying I was fraudulently trying to trick them or some such, my assurance (worthless apparently) that I post honestly, still no belief, hopefully sufficient proof has been given, and here we are!

 

Quote

The only "evidence" for prophets is testimony, period, end of story.

 

Point of this thread, scriptures sited/referred to contradict this statement.

 

Quote

 

You speak of fruits but then can't decide if the fruits are good or bad.  All you have done is transferred the question of good prophets to good fruits and still can't tell which is which.  

 

 

Where in the world did you come up with this?

 

Quote

 

And the percentages?  85?  15?  What is that about?

 

 

 

Was it not you in another thread that originated this???? Like jw, it appears you really have not actually spent any time actually reading my posts in this thread ... I believe I elaborated on this in the post linked above which attempted to restate the purpose.  If after reading that post if things are still unclear I will try some other way.

 

Quote

 

Go ask the spirit.  Go with your gut.  Experiment with the fruit as it says in Alma 32.

 

 

Alma 32 is about faith, which is off topic.  Going with your spirit/gut is exactly what I'm challenging here.

 

Edited December 31, 2015 by salgare

[jwhitlock]

37 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

On the other hand I am quite confused with this thread.  Sorry.

Three keys? Trick on someone named Russel?  He does not "parrot the company line", that much i know.

Prophets?  Photoshop?  I would like to participate but don't even quite understand what the question is.

I think you hit it on the head. The OP was pretty incoherent to begin with.

The photo / photoshop discussion has actually been the most interesting thing about it. I was glad to see that I wasn't the only one who thought the perspective looked odd. It looks like it was a Tribune photo; the perspective problem may be due to having been taken from a distance.

And I still have no idea what posting the photo was supposed to prove - especially since sal doesn't seem to think the leaders of the church are prophets in the first place.

[salgare]

27 minutes ago, jwhitlock said:

I think you hit it on the head. The OP was pretty incoherent to begin with.

To hopefully help get this back on track.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66694-these-are-three-grand-keys/?do=findComment&comment=1209572976

Does the above linked post bring enough coherency? Should I try and reword it's intent another way?

I believe the last on topic posts are these:

jw gives examples of negative fruits, thus suggesting the given test is not reliable.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66694-these-are-three-grand-keys/?do=findComment&comment=1209572817

my suggesting the given list/test might well prove true

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66694-these-are-three-grand-keys/?do=findComment&comment=1209573034

Response to mfbukowski joining

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66694-these-are-three-grand-keys/?do=findComment&comment=1209573531

Can we continue from here?

 

 

Edited December 31, 2015 by salgare
painful editing software, lost a link

[theplains]

On 29/12/2015 at 2:39 PM, salgare said:

Apparently the deceivers (3rd key, intentional or not) can be pretty darn tricky for our spirits to decipher and trust.  We have been given the keys to identify the messengers, are we using them or resorting to struggle with individual messages, one by one?

Your thoughts?

D&C 129:1 says, "There are two kinds of beings in heaven, namely: Angels, who are resurrected 
personages, having bodies of flesh and bones."

Which resurrected angels did Joseph Smith had in mind?

Verse 2 says, "For instance, Jesus said: Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and 
bones, as ye see me have."

Wouldn't a god be the third type of being in heaven or are gods and angels the same nature
(assuming of course you omit all the spirits sons and daughters of Heavenly Father who rebelled
and became 'angels' of the devil)?

Verse 9 says, "These are three grand keys whereby you may know whether any administration is 
from God."

Why were these three grand keys not given prior to 1843?  What did people use instead?

Thanks,
Jim

[salgare]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

Which resurrected angels did Joseph Smith had in mind?

Interesting question.  The only possibly would be those that rose with Jesus at this resurrection ... right??? i.e. even JS is currently in Paradise right?

 

Quote

Wouldn't a god be the third type of being in heaven or are gods and angels the same nature(assuming of course you omit all the spirits sons and daughters of Heavenly Father who rebelled and became 'angels' of the devil)?

The pattern taught in the Temple would be that God the Father and even God the Son don't visit, they send messangers, right?

Edited January 1, 2016 by salgare

[salgare]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

On the other hand I am quite confused with this thread.  Sorry.

mfb, This edit software keeps winging me out .... I quoted you up thread and you would not have gotten notice of it:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66694-these-are-three-grand-keys/?do=findComment&comment=1209573531

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, salgare said:

mfb, This edit software keeps winging me out .... I quoted you up thread and you would not have gotten notice of it:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66694-these-are-three-grand-keys/?do=findComment&comment=1209573531

Well thank you for the invitation to the thread, from another post.

The only "evidence" "that one can have for a belief that someone is a prophet is spiritual evidence.  Objective evidence doesn't convince me.  Scriptural evidence does not convince me because scripture itself can only be known to be "true" by the spirit.

I question everything, I believe no one about anything unless I can prove every principle for myself.  I have a testimony that Joseph was a prophet. Joseph was a visionary and totally brilliant as a religious leader.

Brigham had that spark as well.

For me there is nothing to debate.  It is not a question of evidence of any kind.

That's about all I have to say.   This is a religious question and must be answered by religious means, not by "evidence". 

[volgadon]

10 hours ago, salgare said:

Too funny, another one to whom the image is so foreign it must be a fake.

It is the tray and its angle, not any supposed foreign quality to the image. Serving in a soup kitchen is entirely consistent with both his character and the church's humanitarian efforts. He has shown considerable kindness to my brother and sister on the separate occasions when he has met them, so I don't doubt the service. You must, however, admit that the image is odd. The specific image also is not in your link.

[salgare]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

That's about all I have to say.   This is a religious question and must be answered by religious means, not by "evidence". 

Is "evidence" the wrong word here?  When Christ instructs "by their fruits ye shall know them", what would you call this?  Is Christ not instructing us to examine something?

[volgadon]

And I have read the thread through, but your line of reasoning is opaque to me.

[salgare]

hmm, enough have noted this ... so the problem is with me here somehow ....

Let's try this, I searched lds.org for "by their fruits" ... this talk pops up first

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1985/10/by-their-fruits-ye-shall-know-them?lang=eng

type "<cntrl-f> fruit" and way lower left hit the re-search a couple times

read up down and around this area for full context:

"In any case, the Lord’s test is the only one that will stand with the passage of time and reveal the truth about those who claim to do his work.

The Savior acknowledged that there would be imposters who would attempt to pass themselves off as his authorized representatives. He warned of false prophets who would come in sheep’s clothing but who would have their own selfish motives to fulfill. “Ye shall know them by their fruits,” he said.

“Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?”

“Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruits; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

“A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit; neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

“Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” (Matt. 7:15–20.)"

Now ... I'm hearing all over MDDB that people are relying on their own personal inspiration as the only way they need and use for a sure determination of true messengers from God.

I'm suggesting that we give our own leaders the test.

Does this clear up what I'm driving at?

 

Edited January 1, 2016 by salgare