When we differ with the united voice of the Brethren

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

False dichotomy. We have Prophets, Seers, and Revelators as counselors in the Church.

 

50 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Then shouldn't one be sufficient?

No one is infallible. (Isn't that what you and your ilk are constantly preaching?)

The council system (where all members of the council are subject to receiving revelation) is a check against individual fallibility.

It amazes me you would need to have this explained to you.

[Scott Lloyd]

43 minutes ago, Gray said:

That's like saying that if a Nephite got a revelation that Lehi was a true prophet, it follows that king Noah is also right in anything he did. Does not follow.

For those that know that the spirit is a reliable guide, what is your advice for those who have been told by the spirit that this policy is wrong?

Reconsider the source. What "spirit" are they listening to?

[Avatar4321]

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

IOW Sit down, shut up, and do as you're told. I've been a member of the Church for almost 45 years, and am as faithful as anyone else. I'm not a child, and I resent the Hell out of anyone, anywhere, at any time, who would even imply something like that.

That is pride speaking. We are children. Children of God being taught how to become like Him. We are all incredibly immature in our Divine nature and inheritance. This is precisely why the Lord does instruct us the way He does. And it is why we are told that we needs to put off the natural man and submit to all things our Father has for us.

[Avatar4321]

51 minutes ago, Gray said:

That's like saying that if a Nephite got a revelation that Lehi was a true prophet, it follows that king Noah is also right in anything he did. Does not follow.

For those that know that the spirit is a reliable guide, what is your advice for those who have been told by the spirit that this policy is wrong?

So Nephi, a prophet, being right means Noah, a non prophet, being right? With what logic?

[Gray]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Reconsider the source. What "spirit" are they listening to?

What spirit were they listening to before? And if it feels the same as when the spirit guided them in more orthodox ways, is the spirit a reliable guide? 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

That's like saying that if a Nephite got a revelation that Lehi was a true prophet, it follows that king Noah is also right in anything he did. Does not follow.

LOL, “No;” it’s like saying, “Since the whole book is true, the component testimonies of the record are true.” Since the Book of Mormon is true, its testament of the prophesied Restored Church and the Lord’s use of servants in His Church are also true.

1 hour ago, Gray said:

For those that know that the spirit is a reliable guide, what is your advice for those who have been told by the spirit that this policy is wrong?

If that is what a person claims to have taken place, and if he is asking my advice, my advice depends on what his particular question or issue is. Are you saying you have been told by the spirit that this policy is wrong and that you want my advice? Or are speaking in behalf of someone else who is seeking advice?

[Gray]

16 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

That is pride speaking. We are children. Children of God being taught how to become like Him. We are all incredibly immature in our Divine nature and inheritance. This is precisely why the Lord does instruct us the way He does. And it is why we are told that we needs to put off the natural man and submit to all things our Father has for us.

If the goal is to become like God, developing good moral reasoning should be a better preparation for that than just "OBEDIENCE"

[Gray]

15 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

So Nephi, a prophet, being right means Noah, a non prophet, being right? With what logic?

The reasoning I was responding to was that if you got a revelation that the BOM is true, it follows then that the current leaders of the LDS church must be correct in this matter. That conclusion does not follow, which is what I was trying to show with my King Noah example.

[Gray]

13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

LOL, “No;” it’s like saying, “Since the whole book is true, the component testimonies of the record are true.” Since the Book of Mormon is true, its testament of the prophesied Restored Church and the Lord’s use of servants in His Church are also true.

If that is what a person claims to have taken place, and if he is asking my advice, my advice depends on what his particular question or issue is. Are you saying you have been told by the spirit that this policy is wrong and that you want my advice? Or are speaking in behalf of someone else who is seeking advice?

It does not follow that if the BOM is an accurate historical record that teaches true principles, then Thomas S. Monson is right about gay marriage. There's a huge disconnect in your logic there. Might as well say it means that the CoC President is right about gay marriage. 

My other question is about how you deal with the spirit telling different things to different people. Many people feel that the spirit tells them the policy is wrong. 

Edited January 12, 2016 by Gray

[CV75]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

It does not follow that if the BOM is an accurate historical record that teaches true principles, then Thomas S. Monson is right about gay marriage. There's a huge disconnect in your logic there. 

"Historical record?" When did that enter the conversation? That's your disconnect. If you don't understand how it's your disconnect, then let's move on to your other question as that conversation can help you understand the connection between a witness of truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and by extension a witness of its contents, which connects to President Monson.

13 minutes ago, Gray said:

My other question is about how you deal with the spirit telling different things to different people

Your question was, "What is your advice for those who have been told by the spirit that this policy is wrong?" I answered that "it depends" and asked a couple of follow up questions so we can continue the conversation. Can you answer them? Or are you satisfied with entertaining yourself making lame retorts and one-liner responses?

[Gray]

32 minutes ago, CV75 said:

"Historical record?" When did that enter the conversation? That's your disconnect. If you don't understand how it's your disconnect, then let's move on to your other question as that conversation can help you understand the connection between a witness of truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and by extension a witness of its contents, which connects to President Monson.

 

You would need to establish a logical argument connecting the truthfulness of the BOM (however you define that) that with the rightness of TSM's position on gay marriage. So far you have not, so it remains a strange non-sequitur. 

 

32 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Your question was, "What is your advice for those who have been told by the spirit that this policy is wrong?" I answered that "it depends" and asked a couple of follow up questions so we can continue the conversation. Can you answer them? Or are you satisfied with entertaining yourself making lame retorts and one-liner responses?

What I was saying was, what is your advice for anyone who has received a spiritual confirmation that policy is wrong. Is that clear? 

[Buckeye]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

No one is infallible. (Isn't that what you and your ilk are constantly preaching?)

The council system (where all members of the council are subject to receiving revelation) is a check against individual fallibility.

It amazes me you would need to have this explained to you.

 

You're correct that the council system is a check against individual fallibility. It certainly slows things down and leads to more measured changes (for good and ill). But any council - whether of 3 or 15 or 70 - is not an infallible check against individual fallibility. Groups can be wrong too, would you not agree?

[Gray]

24 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

 

You're correct that the council system is a check against individual fallibility. It certainly slows things down and leads to more measured changes (for good and ill). But any council - whether of 3 or 15 or 70 - is not an infallible check against individual fallibility. Groups can be wrong too, would you not agree?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

 

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints, by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.

 

ETA: I'm not suggesting that this is necessarily applicable to the Q12/FP, just saying that having councils doesn't automatically prevent bad decisions.

Edited January 12, 2016 by Gray

[RevTestament]

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Loved that book.
Anyone who thinks Adam-God was just one of Brigham's whims should give it a read and see which other apostles agreed with his ideas.
It also contains some of the best apostolic teachings against McConkie's silly "heresy" concerning a progressing God.

Interesting. I view McKonkie as right and wrong. I don't view the Father Most High as a "progressing God." He has "made it" so to speak. He is the "Most High"  never to enter the world again. But interestingly, McKonkie himself says in his last talk that Christ became "like His resurrected Father." So when was His Father resurrected? Did this represent a progression? I believe that it did. It made Him the God of the whole earth - something Christ will inherit. Christ inherits the holy mountains of the Father. Christ as His only begotten Son, is His only inheritor as Isaiah 42 says He will give His glory to no other. As YHWH Elohim with the Father (see Gen 3:18) Christ is God, but clearly He progresses to receive the omnipotence of the Father, whilst before this point the Father tells Him all things that will happen at some point before they do. In my view Yahoshua Christ is clearly the "progressing" aspect of "God."

[CV75]

48 minutes ago, Gray said:

You would need to establish a logical argument connecting the truthfulness of the BOM (however you define that) that with the rightness of TSM's position on gay marriage. So far you have not, so it remains a strange non-sequitur.

Yours is is the non-sequitur. I was describing the connection between the Spirit bearing witness to someone of the truthfulness of the Book or Mormon, and hence (for the purposes of this thread) of the truthfulness of the prophecies concerning the Restored Church and the principles the Lord instituted for the relationship between His servants and His people. If you trust your witness of the Book of Mormon, you can trust these things.

I was accommodating your own “logic” wherein you concluded that, if people can't trust their discernment of the spirit, then they can't trust others’ discernment--even though B doesn’t follow A (people can mistrust their own spiritual discernment and yet trust others’). Interestingly, B does follow A in the case where people can trust their spiritual discernment that the Book of Mormon is true, and so trust that its teachings on the Restored Church and their relationship with her appointed leaders are also true.

We can discuss the relationship between one’s trust in the spiritual correctness of the Lord’s definition of our relationship with the Church leaders and trusting in the revelatory source of new CHI policy (does it really need discussing?), but first:

50 minutes ago, Gray said:

What I was saying was, what is your advice for anyone who has received a spiritual confirmation that policy is wrong. Is that clear? 

No, it is not clear and hasn't been since the first time (and subsequent times) you asked it; that is why I asked you to clarify whether you have been told by the spirit that this policy is wrong, and to lay out what it is specifically you want advice on with regard to that. Or, if you are asking for someone else, what his specific request for advice is about. "Anyone" doesn't cut it -- "a spiritual confirmation" doesn't cut it -- too many variables, and as you proved with your "historical record" post, too much wiggle room for moving the goal posts! Let's talk specifics.

[Ahab]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Here's a timely blog post by Greg Smith that has just gone up on the FairMormon web site. It is titled "What Should I Do If I Think I've Received Revelation Different from Apostles and Prophets."

This matter has come up implicitly or explicitly in the "Policy on Same Sex Couples Was Revelation from God" thread. Also in the "How Can Anyone Stand without Revelation" thread. 

Greg Smith has given it a thoughtful treatment with six points worth considering. And some appropriate quotes from Church leaders, including Marion G. Romney:

 

Edited to add:

Forgot to include the link. I've now added it above.

Basic common sense. And I'm not agreeing just because Greg Smith or those he is quoting say so. Not on their word but after finding out for myself that their word is (also) God's word. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

What spirit were they listening to before? And if it feels the same as when the spirit guided them in more orthodox ways, is the spirit a reliable guide? 

People are subject to deception, including self-deception. As I mentioned before, if one has ever been in love, it is easy to see how easy and tempting it would be to confuse one's own ardent infatuation, powerful as it is, with personal revelation.

Critics keep reminding us that Church leaders are fallible. If that is the case, then rank-and-file members are definitely fallible.

Edited January 12, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

 

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints, by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.

 

ETA: I'm not suggesting that this is necessarily applicable to the Q12/FP, just saying that having councils doesn't automatically prevent bad decisions.

Among righteous and godly men divinely called to their positions and experienced in seeking and receiving revelation, it does. You might disagree, but I don't see that you have compelling reasons to do so.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Buckeye said:

 

You're correct that the council system is a check against individual fallibility. It certainly slows things down and leads to more measured changes (for good and ill). But any council - whether of 3 or 15 or 70 - is not an infallible check against individual fallibility. Groups can be wrong too, would you not agree?

I think it depends very much on the nature, make-up and dynamics of the council in question.

It had been suggested here that, as it pertains to the Church, a council is just as apt to make bad decisions as is an individual. I think that's nonsense particularly as it pertains to the higher councils in the Church.

Edited January 12, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[BookofMormonLuvr]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

You didn’t pose a question. You offered the premise and conclusion that someone who can’t trust his own discernment can’t trust the discernment of others. B doesn’t follow A. Aside from that, you not knowing whether the Spirit is a reliable guide doesn’t affect the knowledge of those who know that He is. For those who know that the Spirit is a reliable guide, and possess His testimony of the Book of Mormon, it follows that the prophecies of the Restoration and the Lord’s servants are reliable.

The fact that the following organizations exist shows the logical fallacy of your position:

The Church of Christ (Temple Lot)
The Church of Jesus Christ (Monongahela, PA)
The Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite)
The Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of LDS
The Restoration Church of Jesus Christ of LDS
The Righteous Branch of the COJCOLDS
The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS (Strangite)
etc...

The only thing a testimony of the Book of Mormon proves is that the Book of Mormon is true.

[Senator]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think it depends very much on the nature, make-up and dynamics of the council in question.

It had been suggested here that, as it pertains to the Church, a council is just as apt to make bad decisions as is an individual. I think that's nonsense particularly as it pertains to the higher councils in the Church.

Is it then your position that the unanimous voice of the top council of the Church is infallible?

Not trying to put words into your mouth, but that is what your last two posts imply to me.

[Buckeye]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think it depends very much on the nature, make-up and dynamics of the council in question.

It had been suggested here that, as it pertains to the Church, a council is just as apt to make bad decisions as is an individual. I think that's nonsense particularly as it pertains to the higher councils in the Church.

I agree with you that a council is less apt to make bad decisions than an individual. A council is also less apt than an individual to make an unusually good decision. By nature, councils are more conservative.

But you're avoiding the real issue (which Senator also notes): Do fallible individuals somehow become infallible because they are acting in a council situation? You (and Smith) seem to suggest as much, but the truth is seen by your refusal to take a definite stance. 

 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

People are subject to deception, including self-deception. As I mentioned before, if one has ever been in love, it is easy to see how easy and tempting it would be to confuse one's own ardent infatuation, powerful as it is, with personal revelation.

Critics keep reminding us that Church leaders are fallible. If that is the case, then rank-and-file members are definitely fallible.

If it's so easy to deceive yourself into thinking you've had a spiritual confirmation, is using this method of determining truth reliable or responsible? Should we be asking investigators to do so, knowing they could decieve themselves into thinking they've had a spiritual confirmation when they have not? 

[consiglieri]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

No one is infallible. (Isn't that what you and your ilk are constantly preaching?)

The council system (where all members of the council are subject to receiving revelation) is a check against individual fallibility.

It amazes me you would need to have this explained to you.

What amazes me is you cannot see that a check against one of the Q15 getting it wrong is an admission that one of the Q15 could get it wrong.

And that includes the president of the Church.

That would be the one that Elder Nelson said it was the rest of the Q15's "privilege to sustain" after President Monson allegedly received this revelation.

So much for checks against individual fallibility.

[consiglieri]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Reconsider the source. What "spirit" are they listening to?

This is what it always comes back to, isn't it?

If you receive a revelation different than what Church leaders have said, you must question the reliability of your revelation.

It is obviously from a wrong "spirit."

Only the Q15 can get the "right" spirit all the time.

Except when one of them gets it wrong.

Which is why we have 15 of them.

Right, Scott?