Avatar4321 Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: If it were confirmed to me by revelation that it was the will of the Lord, I would still have a huge problem with it. And I would have a huge problem with the Lord. And I still wouldn't go along with it. pride is a dangerous sin my friend
mnn727 Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) The Tanners material is part of the reason I am in the Church today: their claims were so off the wall I had to check them out for myself (and found their claims had zero credibility for someone actually willing to do honest research and study for themselves) I have not read Fawn Brodie's work on the Prophet, but I do know she has little respect among other historians for her work on Thomas Jefferson. Edited December 31, 2015 by mnn727 1
salgare Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: pride is a dangerous sin my friend Ron and Dan Lafferty say: Right on Brother! Edited December 31, 2015 by salgare
consiglieri Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 20 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: pride is a dangerous sin my friend Unlike marrying 14-year old girls?
ttribe Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: God cannot ask us to do anything wrong. If you feel something God asks is wrong, you are wrong. Just that simple. Assuming of course you are positive it comes from God (which is the really tricky part). That's the real problem, and I think you know that. Many horrible things have been done by people who were "positive [the command] comes from God." The only way I know how to resolve that problem at this point is to let my conscience be a guide. If I am being asked to do something I find to be wrong by a Church leader or a thought/impression/feeling that might be interpreted as revelation, I can only choose to follow my conscience. Everything else is subject to too much error and variability of interpretation.
Avatar4321 Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 35 minutes ago, mnn727 said: The Tanners material is part of the reason I am in the Church today: their claims were so off the wall I had to check them out for myself (and found their claims had zero credibility for someone actually willing to do honest research and study for themselves) I have not read Fawn Brodie's work on the Prophet, but I do know she has little respect among other historians for her work on Thomas Jefferson. I had the same experience. It was the fact that the tanners and others had to misrepresent quotes and rip them out of context to attack the church that convinced me I needed to look into it more. If you have the truth you dont have to do that to make your points
JLHPROF Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 18 minutes ago, ttribe said: That's the real problem, and I think you know that. Many horrible things have been done by people who were "positive [the command] comes from God." The only way I know how to resolve that problem at this point is to let my conscience be a guide. If I am being asked to do something I find to be wrong by a Church leader or a thought/impression/feeling that might be interpreted as revelation, I can only choose to follow my conscience. Everything else is subject to too much error and variability of interpretation. It's true. But if you truly believe, that is, you are CERTAIN, that a revelation came from God what sort of arrogance would it be to assume you knew better. If you had any doubt it was from God, then conscience has to be a guide. But if you are positive (not just a funny feeling, but actual manifestation from God, like the first vision) then ignoring it would be stupid.
ttribe Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 Just now, JLHPROF said: It's true. But if you truly believe, that is, you are CERTAIN, that a revelation came from God what sort of arrogance would it be to assume you knew better. If you had any doubt it was from God, then conscience has to be a guide. But if you are positive (not just a funny feeling, but actual manifestation from God, like the first vision) then ignoring it would be stupid. But, who actually has such certainty? Many claim it, for sure, but when subjected to scrutiny most of their stories collapse.
JLHPROF Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 2 minutes ago, ttribe said: But, who actually has such certainty? Many claim it, for sure, but when subjected to scrutiny most of their stories collapse. That is up to the individual. I am the only one accountable to act or not act on any revelation I receive.
The Nehor Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 2 hours ago, consiglieri said: Why do you think they bought it and squirreled it away? To study it. It is not an admission of authenticity to buy it.
The Nehor Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 39 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Unlike marrying 14-year old girls? Critics always throw this out when they think they are losing. So predictably dull. 1
carbon dioxide Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 41 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Unlike marrying 14-year old girls? Can you cite in the scriptures where an age limitation is established for how old someone needs to be before they can be married? What law of God is broken when a 14 year old gets married?
ttribe Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 13 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: That is up to the individual. I am the only one accountable to act or not act on any revelation I receive. Then it seems folly to judge someone else's position on these issues (consig, for example).
JLHPROF Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 17 minutes ago, ttribe said: Then it seems folly to judge someone else's position on these issues (consig, for example). I would not attempt to judge Consig's position on his personal revelations. I would judge anyone's judgment on Joseph Smith's and other prophetic revelations. It is just as much folly for anyone to assume Joseph's revelation false as it would be for me to judge their revelation as false.
Calm Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 2 hours ago, ttribe said: Most likely that Metcalfe was in a unique position - 1) he worked for Church Security and saw many of the events from his position of working various General Authorities involved in the matter; and 2) he allegedly knew Hofman quite well also. there are some serious claims; not really comfortable with using "most likely" as a reason to accept them as firsthand. Perhaps a summary of the podcast's claims for Brent's sources would be in order. I don't think pointing to a podcast works any more than pointing to a book and saying go read it rather than presenting quotes. 1
salgare Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 42 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: It's true. But if you truly believe, that is, you are CERTAIN, that a revelation came from God what sort of arrogance would it be to assume you knew better. Believe and certain are contradictory right? I would suggest there would only be one way to be certain and that would be for an embodied Angel of Light appeared to you and was proven per the scriptural and Temple taught method. Do you agree?
JLHPROF Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 7 minutes ago, salgare said: Believe and certain are contradictory right? I would suggest there would only be one way to be certain and that would be for an embodied Angel of Light appeared to you and was proven per the scriptural and Temple taught method. Do you agree? It would certainly be one of the most accurate, especially in our day when revelation has been replaced by "inspired confirmation".
rodheadlee Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 16 hours ago, Sanpitch said: You probably shouldn't spend your valuable time reading their stuff you seem satisfied where you are now. They have spent decades researching church history and probably know many times more about it than you do. I think Sandra is a granddaughter of Brigham Young and Gerald is related to the Tanner who was in the leadership of the church. They started out as church members and started studying church history which didn't seem to go well with them, or rather the history didn't seem to match what they had learned as church members. Gerald died a few years ago, Sandra is still living in SLC as far as I know and running a book store of mostly Mormon history items. Ed: Sandra is probably a great-grand daughter of BY, not granddaughter, looking at it time wise. Your'e right, I'm just not that interested in Church history. I like world history, US history, any history that deals with crossing oceans and migrations. I like mysterious histories. I just don't see the point in rooting through everyone's personal life that belonged to the church before me. I have read the Church's own 7 volume history set and I got bored to tears before the end. People are fallible, there are bound to be mistakes. For me the Truth of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints relies on a witness of the Holy Spirit. Once I had that witness there is NO reason to doubt whether or not Christ runs the Church through His Prophet and Apostles. If I doubt step one of this witness from the Holy Spirit How can I move forward? How can I expect further light and knowledge through the Holy Spirit? If mistakes have been made that are critical to His Church do you think Jesus Christ is not capable enough to take care of it? Do you think the Creator, the Alpha, the Omega, the great I am cannot find a prophet to do His will?
CA Steve Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 23 minutes ago, salgare said: Believe and certain are contradictory right? I would suggest there would only be one way to be certain and that would be for an embodied Angel of Light appeared to you and was proven per the scriptural and Temple taught method. Do you agree? Sorry to intrude in an interesting discussion between you and JLHPROF but for me even such an appearance would be not be proof. Having witnessed first hand how firmly someone dealing with schizophrenia believes what he is seeing is real, my first thought of an Angel commanding me to do something I knew to be morally wrong would be I was suffering from a mental illness. About 1% of the American population (or 2.5 million people) are affected by this disease. So if I think an angel has appeared to me and is telling me to do something wrong, which is a greater likelihood, that it really is an angel or I am one of those 2.5 million people?
JLHPROF Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) 12 minutes ago, CA Steve said: Sorry to intrude in an interesting discussion between you and JLHPROF but for me even such an appearance would be not be proof. Having witnessed first hand how firmly someone dealing with schizophrenia believes what he is seeing is real, my first thought of an Angel commanding me to do something I knew to be morally wrong would be I was suffering from a mental illness. About 1% of the American population (or 2.5 million people) are affected by this disease. So if I think an angel has appeared to me and is telling me to do something wrong, which is a greater likelihood, that it really is an angel or I am one of those 2.5 million people? When did we as a Church cease to believe in heavenly manifestation? When did it become the LAST option on the list of sources? I think that speaks volumes about the spiritual condition of us as a people. When we doubt God communicates directly (vision, appearance, direct word) and everything becomes an issue of interpreting each others feelings on subjects it should be no surprise we have people losing testimony, questioning our leaders, leaving, or that there are areas that the Church may have taken a wrong turn. Either God is speaking directly to his prophets or he isn't. When even the members doubt that is cause for concern. If the best we can hope for is that they are inspired that is not much of a selling point for the Church. If President Monson stood at the pulpit in General Conference and claimed Moroni appeared before him in the Holy of Holies in the Salt Lake Temple and told him to do something, what percent of members would actually believe Moroni appeared? What percent would think President Monson only "felt" his presence? What percent would doubt any heavenly message? Edited December 31, 2015 by JLHPROF 1
carbon dioxide Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 12 minutes ago, CA Steve said: Sorry to intrude in an interesting discussion between you and JLHPROF but for me even such an appearance would be not be proof. Having witnessed first hand how firmly someone dealing with schizophrenia believes what he is seeing is real, my first thought of an Angel commanding me to do something I knew to be morally wrong would be I was suffering from a mental illness. About 1% of the American population (or 2.5 million people) are affected by this disease. So if I think an angel has appeared to me and is telling me to do something wrong, which is a greater likelihood, that it really is an angel or I am one of those 2.5 million people? Those with schizophrenia have a history of it. It is not something that comes suddenly for a moment and then does not come back. That might occur with drug use but one knows if they took drugs or not. In the case of Joseph Smith, one more than one occasion that he had a visitation, there was someone else with him to witness it as well so it would not apply to him. As to whether one being told to do something wrong, I guess one would have to take the message and look in the scriptures to see how morally wrong it is before acting on it or rejecting it.
CA Steve Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: When did we as a Church cease to believe in heavenly manifestation? When did it become the LAST option on the list of sources? I think that speaks volumes about the spiritual condition of us as a people. When we doubt God communicates directly (vision, appearance, direct word) and everything becomes an issue of interpreting each others feelings on subjects it should be no surprise we have people losing testimony, questioning our leaders, leaving, or that there are areas that the Church may have taken a wrong turn. Either God is speaking directly to his prophets or he isn't. When even the members doubt that is cause for concern. If the best we can hope for is that they are inspired that is not much of a selling point for the Church. If President Monson stood at the pulpit in General Conference and claimed Moroni appeared before him in the Holy of Holies in the Salt Lake Temple and told him to do something, what percent of members would actually believe Moroni appeared? What percent would think President Monson only "felt" his presence? What percent would doubt any heavenly message? What has that got to do with my comment about a personal manifestation commanding me to do something I would otherwise consider morally wrong?
JLHPROF Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 1 minute ago, CA Steve said: What has that got to do with my comment about a personal manifestation commanding me to do something I would otherwise consider morally wrong? The idea that we as a society are more inclined to believe a heavenly manifestation that contradicted our traditions would indicate that "my first thought of an Angel commanding me to do something I knew to be morally wrong would be I was suffering from a mental illness." Our first thought in instance of Heavenly appearances now goes to mental illness, not divine intervention. That's very sad.
ttribe Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: When did we as a Church cease to believe in heavenly manifestation? When did it become the LAST option on the list of sources? I think that speaks volumes about the spiritual condition of us as a people. When we doubt God communicates directly (vision, appearance, direct word) and everything becomes an issue of interpreting each others feelings on subjects it should be no surprise we have people losing testimony, questioning our leaders, leaving, or that there are areas that the Church may have taken a wrong turn. Either God is speaking directly to his prophets or he isn't. When even the members doubt that is cause for concern. If the best we can hope for is that they are inspired that is not much of a selling point for the Church. If President Monson stood at the pulpit in General Conference and claimed Moroni appeared before him in the Holy of Holies in the Salt Lake Temple and told him to do something, what percent of members would actually believe Moroni appeared? What percent would think President Monson only "felt" his presence? What percent would doubt any heavenly message? 4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: The idea that we as a society are more inclined to believe a heavenly manifestation that contradicted our traditions would indicate that "my first thought of an Angel commanding me to do something I knew to be morally wrong would be I was suffering from a mental illness." Our first thought in instance of Heavenly appearances now goes to mental illness, not divine intervention. That's very sad. How did you leap from one person (CA Steve) suggesting he would give thought to mental illness as the source of the vision to the entire Church defaulting to that line of thought?
Tacenda Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said: I had the same experience. It was the fact that the tanners and others had to misrepresent quotes and rip them out of context to attack the church that convinced me I needed to look into it more. If you have the truth you dont have to do that to make your points I may be going to a meeting with Sandra speaking, any questions for her you'd like me to ask? Of course, as polite as possible ones please. 1
Recommended Posts