When we differ with the united voice of the Brethren

[Gray]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

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:

 

I'm not sure you're getting what I'm saying. To say that the BOM is in some way true is a long way from establishing that one of many churches that uses that book is THE true church, and even that would be a long way from establishing that this specific policy a good policy. Your assertion requires many unsupported leaps in logic, and also relies on your personal interpretation of scripture. You can't show from the BOM, even assuming it's true (whatever true means for you) that the LDS church is true, or that this policy is true. You might as well say that the truthfulness of the Bible proves that the Catholic policy on contraception is correct.

See:

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

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

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

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.

I think it's very clear, but if you do not, then I don't see how you would be in a position to provide any advice on the matter. But I think we've been in this situation before - we don't seem to communicate well with each other.

I don't believe that God communicates with people, but I feel what you would call the spirit in regards to the rightness of gay marriage, and the opposite of the spirit when contemplating the new policy. Rockpond has said he's had a spiritual confirmation that the current policy is wrong.

[consiglieri]

3 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?

And I would argue groups are just as likely to be wrong as individuals.

Especially when peer pressure is in play to go along with the more senior members of the group.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

Righteous and godly men and incapable of making mistakes when acting together? Isn't that defacto infallibility? 

I don't know Scott. Whenever people posit that norms of human psychology and social interaction don't count when it's something to do with the church, it strikes me as a bit superstitious. It reminds me of the idea that bishops can spend less time with their kids and somehow reap equivalent results as if they had spent the time being parents, because that time was spent in church service, and God will make up the difference.  

[consiglieri]

An excellent essay on the subject of councils as a sign of apostasy appeared in Rational Faiths earlier this year.

I recommend it highly!

http://rationalfaiths.com/is-the-lds-church-in-apostasy/

 

[Ahab]

11 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I see no evidence any of the Q15 are "experienced in seeking and receiving revelation."

Or that they are "divinely called."

What you don't see is just that. What you don't see.

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I see no evidence any of the Q15 are "experienced in seeking and receiving revelation."

Or that they are "divinely called."

When the choice is between them and an anonymous faultfinder on a message board, I'll cast my lot with the prophets.

 

[CV75]

56 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm not sure you're getting what I'm saying. To say that the BOM is in some way true is a long way from establishing that one of many churches that uses that book is THE true church, and even that would be a long way from establishing that this specific policy a good policy. Your assertion requires many unsupported leaps in logic, and also relies on your personal interpretation of scripture. You can't show from the BOM, even assuming it's true (whatever true means for you) that the LDS church is true, or that this policy is true. You might as well say that the truthfulness of the Bible proves that the Catholic policy on contraception is correct.

See:

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

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

I think it's very clear, but if you do not, then I don't see how you would be in a position to provide any advice on the matter. But I think we've been in this situation before - we don't seem to communicate well with each other.

I don't believe that God communicates with people, but I feel what you would call the spirit in regards to the rightness of gay marriage, and the opposite of the spirit when contemplating the new policy. Rockpond has said he's had a spiritual confirmation that the current policy is wrong.

Logic calls for interpretation and definition, especially in spiritual and religious applications (they really don't mix, but you made an appeal to "logic" on a religious message board and so we can oblige within the understood constraints for the sake of discussion--or so I tried! LOL). You are conflating a mistrust of your own spiritual discernment with the truthfulness of things that you seem to recognize call for your discernment, and you conflating both of those with others' positions on them. If you can't consider logic in proper context, better foryou to drop it.

So you feel something (and don’t presume that I would call it the spirit! Tell me straight what you would call it) indicating the rightness of gay marriage, and the opposite when contemplating the new policy. What area of advice would you like from me?

What area of advice are you asking in rockpond’s behalf?

[cinepro]

If Church leaders ever officially come out and say that members should follow them even if the members feel that the Holy Ghost has told them something different, then the Church will have officially jumped the shark and become no different than the other churches that we've made fun of for so many decades.

How much more impressive would it be if Church leaders said to the people "If the Holy Ghost tells you to do something, and you are living righteously and honestly seeking the will of the Lord in your life, then you need to be true to that voice, regardless of where it leads you.  It is my belief that the Holy Ghost will not ever lead in contradiction of the united Apostles and Prophet, but I would never tell you to disregard that revelation, for that is the very foundation upon which the Kingdom of God is founded, and if we were to neglect that in an effort to prop up the Church, all would be lost."

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Buckeye said:

I agree with you that a council is less apt to make bad decisions than an individual.

 

Good.
 

Quote

 

A council is also less apt than an individual to make an unusually good decision.

 

 

 

 

I don't see how this follows, not where divine revelation is involved.

Quote

By nature, councils are more conservative.

But, you see, we are not talking here about ordinary councils. We are talking about councils where divine revelation is sought, received and followed.
 

Quote

 

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?

 

I've already responded. It depends on setting and circumstances. Where they seek and receive divine revelation, they won't go wrong if they follow it.

Is it possible they don't receive revelation, or they let themselves be deceived? Or that they receive it and don't act on it? Sure. But this brings us back to what I said before (don't remember if it was here or on another thread). I trust the prophets and apostles to be able and willing to receive and act according to divine direction.

 

Quote

You (and Smith) seem to suggest as much, but the truth is seen by your refusal to take a definite stance. 

I don't know what you want from me. I've been as definite as I can while trying to be accurate.

Edited January 13, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

If Church leaders ever officially come out and say that members should follow them even if the members feel that the Holy Ghost has told them something different, then the Church will have officially jumped the shark and become no different than the other churches that we've made fun of for so many decades.

I think that point has already come, Cinepro.

Some time back, in fact.

Most of your one or two line jabs have been deleted and will continue to be.

[Storm Rider]

I do not believe that truth is relative.  I know the Spirit and when he speaks or has spoken then there is no further need for reflection, doubt, or to reconsider if he really spoke or not.  This assumes that Spirit has spoken and I recognized his direction.  

After having received direction form the Lord I know that when I hear those bearing contradictory "revelation" or teaching conflict that those individuals are not led or inspired by God.  That they are in fact being used by the evil one either voluntarily or not.  

On this policy, when I hear someone contradicting it I assume that they are emotionally committed to a specific line of thinking and will not tolerate anything that conflicts with their chosen standard.  I do not think they are inspired or are being led, directed by the Spirit to take their preferred stand.  

[Sleeper Cell]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

I don't believe that God communicates with people, but I feel what you would call the spirit in regards to the rightness of gay marriage, and the opposite of the spirit when contemplating the new policy. Rockpond has said he's had a spiritual confirmation that the current policy is wrong.

Perhaps CV75 believes that “feeling what …[he] would call the spirit” is a communication from God.  If you don’t believe that God communicates with people, then you and he mean two very different things by the phrase “feeling the spirit.” No wonder you and he don’t seem to be receiving the same spiritual message.

BTW, why is it surprising that those on one side of this issue claim that the spirit is telling them one thing, while those on the other side are claiming that the spirit is telling them the opposite? They cannot even agree on the meaning of standard English words, let alone the definition of such basic LDS concepts as “chastity.”   

[Sleeper Cell]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

If Church leaders ever officially come out and say that members should follow them even if the members feel that the Holy Ghost has told them something different, then the Church will have officially jumped the shark and become no different than the other churches that we've made fun of for so many decades.

How much more impressive would it be if Church leaders said to the people "If the Holy Ghost tells you to do something, and you are living righteously and honestly seeking the will of the Lord in your life, then you need to be true to that voice, regardless of where it leads you.  It is my belief that the Holy Ghost will not ever lead in contradiction of the united Apostles and Prophet, but I would never tell you to disregard that revelation, for that is the very foundation upon which the Kingdom of God is founded, and if we were to neglect that in an effort to prop up the Church, all would be lost."

 

 

It is a pity that many of those who feel the Holy Ghost has told them that the church leaders are wrong about the current “hot button” issue seem somewhat reluctant to extend them the same courtesy.  

[Russell C McGregor]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Ill-considered, knee-jerk reaction/trite cheap shot/well poisoning

Clearly there are some who live in some kind of weird binary world in which anyone who takes notice of the brethren can only be operating on "blind obedience."

I wonder how much better "blind disobedience" really is.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

If Church leaders ever officially come out and say that members should follow them even if the members feel that the Holy Ghost has told them something different, then the Church will have officially jumped the shark and become no different than the other churches that we've made fun of for so many decades.

How much more impressive would it be if Church leaders said to the people "If the Holy Ghost tells you to do something, and you are living righteously and honestly seeking the will of the Lord in your life, then you need to be true to that voice, regardless of where it leads you.  It is my belief that the Holy Ghost will not ever lead in contradiction of the united Apostles and Prophet, but I would never tell you to disregard that revelation, for that is the very foundation upon which the Kingdom of God is founded, and if we were to neglect that in an effort to prop up the Church, all would be lost."

I've said that but I usually also warn them to expect the Church to excommunicate them and everyone to ignore their "revelation" but if you are CONVINCED God told you to do something then do it.

[Russell C McGregor]

4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

And I would argue groups are just as likely to be wrong as individuals.

Especially when peer pressure is in play to go along with the more senior members of the group.

Interesting that you should raise that point. One of the intriguing details about the deliberations of the presiding quorums is that views are sought in reverse seniority, i.e. the most junior members speak first. This is deliberately done to avoid that "peer pressure."

Just so you know.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

21 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.

Disagreements among the Brethren, both ancient and modern, are legendary, and we are not only dealing with Judas as an outlier -- who is not indicative of lack of unity among Jesus and the other apostles, even if they are scared . . .  Later disagreements among the leaders in Jerusalem and Paul should disabuse us of the notion of automatic harmony.

That Elder McConkie was out of harmony with the other Brethren merely tells us that he was being bull-headed and unrepentent.  In Orson's case, he was repeatedly punished by Brigham, and he took his punishment like a man -- only to find that his (Orson's) views (on race, Adam-God, etc.) later became normative within the LDS faith.  Hard to tell who is really out of harmony at any given time, without greater perspective.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

.................................................... and become no different than the other churches that we've made fun of for so many decades.

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

What are these "other churches that we've made fun of for so many decades"?  Who is "we," and have we in fact been doing that?  What would Rory say?  I don't know about you, but I have been very respectful of other churches and their members for many decades.  On those rare occasions when I have heard a Mormon deride another faith, I have been merciless in calling him to account.  I think that we need to be fair and kind to all churches, including our own.

[Robert F. Smith]

23 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 reminds me of the demanding status of the guru in Eastern thought and traditional practice:  One cannot hope to learn anything if one is not humble and teachable.  The neophyte typically advances on the religious path only to the extent that he subordinates his own unschooled thoughts to the demands of the master.  It is not meant to be an easy process, but there does eventually come a time when the student must think for himself.  Milk before meat.

Edited January 13, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What are these "other churches that we've made fun of for so many decades"?  Who is "we," and have we in fact been doing that?  What would Rory say?  I don't know about you, but I have been very respectful of other churches and their members for many decades.  On those rare occasions when I have heard a Mormon deride another faith, I have been merciless in calling him to account.  I think that we need to be fair and kind to all churches, including our own.

Methinks cinepro projecteth too much. 

[volgadon]

13 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Because the council system worked so well for the Catholic Church?

I disagree with you, Scott.

The reason the council system is currently in place in the LDS Church is as a substitute for the revelation from God it once had but now only claims.

I think that the system has been working rather well for them and for us.

[volgadon]

7 hours ago, consiglieri said:

An excellent essay on the subject of councils as a sign of apostasy appeared in Rational Faiths earlier this year.

I recommend it highly!

http://rationalfaiths.com/is-the-lds-church-in-apostasy/

 

Not one of your finer pieces.

[sunstoned]

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

Or for those who's employment isn't predicated on church activity:  Pray for guidance and have the courage to follow the answers you receive from the spirit without second guessing.

[thesometimesaint]

13 hours 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.

God can treat me any way he wants. Mortals not so much. So far God has said to me "Come let us reason together". I take him at his word.

[CV75]

14 hours ago, cinepro said:

If Church leaders ever officially come out and say that members should follow them even if the members feel that the Holy Ghost has told them something different, then the Church will have officially jumped the shark and become no different than the other churches that we've made fun of for so many decades.

How much more impressive would it be if Church leaders said to the people "If the Holy Ghost tells you to do something, and you are living righteously and honestly seeking the will of the Lord in your life, then you need to be true to that voice, regardless of where it leads you.  It is my belief that the Holy Ghost will not ever lead in contradiction of the united Apostles and Prophet, but I would never tell you to disregard that revelation, for that is the very foundation upon which the Kingdom of God is founded, and if we were to neglect that in an effort to prop up the Church, all would be lost."

They wouldn’t say it because it isn’t the way to lead people to Christ.

President Uchtdorf and others have said something that could be misconstrued as being similar statements, such as: “In this Church that honors personal agency so strongly, that was restored by a young man who asked questions and sought answers, we respect those who honestly search for truth. It may break our hearts when their journey takes them away from the Church we love and the truth we have found, but we honor their right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience, just as we claim that privilege for ourselves.” https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/come-join-with-us?lang=eng

They will acknowledge the sanctity of agency of conscience, but they will not encourage people to confuse the Holy Ghost with either of these by suggesting that someone can hold to the iron rod and stay on the path while mixing them up.

As special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world, they will not encourage us to put the Church or her leaders before the Lord and the companionship of the Holy Ghost, or before the family.