When we differ with the united voice of the Brethren

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Yes, they can trust others, whether certainly or not: if they have a testimony of the Book of Mormon, they have a testimony of heeding the Lord’s latter-day servants, which is taught in the Book of Mormon record.

Sorry to be picking on you, CV, but this is another point with which I strongly disagree and which I think is causing a lot of the problems in Mormonism today.

Contrary to what you have written, we are counseled in the scriptures not to trust others, but to place our trust solely in God.

I know I don't have to quote you the many scriptural passages warning against trusting in the arm of the flesh.

But that is exactly what you are promoting here.

[Ahab]

19 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I continue to hear the customary mantra that we must obey Church leaders regardless of what we think, what we feel, what our conscience tells us, or what the Holy Ghost testifies.

Though I do not agree with this approach, I think it is duplicitous to try and say that people really have the right to have the Holy Ghost confirm whether what the leaders say is true.

Because that is just an illusion.

As you have demonstrated.

Whether or not it is a "right" that everybody has, it is right to want God to confirm what Church leaders say instead of assuming they are right about everything they say.

That is how it should be, and God has no problem with letting me know when others agree with him.

 

[Russell C McGregor]

27 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I continue to hear the customary mantra that we must obey Church leaders regardless of what we think, what we feel, what our conscience tells us, or what the Holy Ghost testifies.

Though I do not agree with this approach, I think it is duplicitous to try and say that people really have the right to have the Holy Ghost confirm whether what the leaders say is true.

I think you are projecting.

27 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Because that is just an illusion.

As you have demonstrated.

No. He has not.

If in fact the brethren are teaching or enacting something that has been revealed to them by the Holy Ghost; and

Since the Holy Ghost is not going to actually inspire someone to oppose a teaching or action which He directed the brethren to teach or enact;

THEREFORE it follows quite logically that one or the other of those sources of inspiration must be wrong.

After that, it simply becomes a judgement call.

I don't even need to seek confirmation when I see that the united voice of the brethren is opposed only by anonymous critics of the Church.

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Obviously no one can prove that they've felt something. All I can tell you is I've experienced feelings normally described in church contexts as the spirit - and they were identical feelings that caused me to being to believe in the teachings of the church in the first place. You may accept that or not. 

What you would need to demonstrate your chain of inferences is that the Book of Mormon could not possibly be true (whatever true means) without the LDS church in 2016 also being the "one true church" (whatever that means), as opposed to one of the many other denominations that use the BOM as scripture, or as opposed to all of them being wrong. Then you'd need to demonstrate infallibility on the part of church leaders in making policy decisions, which is a claim that the church itself is not willing to make. Your task seems impossible. 

You are just re-framing something you used to call the Spirit (whether it was the Spirit or not) as some other entity or phenomenon that no longer carries spiritual significance.

You’ve already accomplished the task for me: If the LDS Church, which is mentioned in the Book of Mormon as true (as opposed to all the other denominations which are mentioned as not being true), is not true, the Book of Mormon would not be true. The role of fallible leaders of the Lord’s true Church in handling policy for the true Church, along with the role of the faithful to heed them, is described in 3 Nephi 11.

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

I continue to hear the customary mantra that we must obey Church leaders regardless of what we think, what we feel, what our conscience tells us, or what the Holy Ghost testifies.

Which leads me to wonder what the point is of having the Holy Ghost if its possession is immaterial to determining what is right.

Evidently you didn’t understand my remarks about blind obedience (or the rest of that post). If you continue to hear a mantra of blind obedience, it is likely be a function of the way you think and manage your agency.

Heeding the Lord’s servants (3 Nephi 12:1) isn’t blind obedience. It means paying attention with an attitude of trust. When we have the right qualities, we will know what to do in response to our heeding, whether we have to pray to find out what to do or take it on faith or receive an unsolicited prompting or witness. These qualities arise out of charity (as opposed to contention) and a determination to prioritize Church membership as a witness/sign/covenant to God of one’s relationship with Him.

Note that none of this has to do with whether the fallible leaders are correct or not, or how the policies they put forth strike us. None of these hold any power over the companionship of the Holy Ghost.

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Sorry to be picking on you, CV, but this is another point with which I strongly disagree and which I think is causing a lot of the problems in Mormonism today.

Contrary to what you have written, we are counseled in the scriptures not to trust others, but to place our trust solely in God.

I know I don't have to quote you the many scriptural passages warning against trusting in the arm of the flesh.

But that is exactly what you are promoting here.

Hopefully by now you have a better grasp of what “heed” means!

Don't you see how it practically screams "agency" and of trusting in the Lord first (He's the one telling us to heed His servants!)?

[canard78]

On 12 January 2016 at 6:00 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

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

If it's so difficult to tell the differ nice that you need to ask this question then clearly the spirit is an unreliable source. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

I agree with everything you have said here, Calm.

My issue is that this is not what the LDS Church proclaims to the world as part of its missionary message.

The missionaries teach that we have a prophet on the earth today who receives revelation directly from God.

The one does not exclude the other.

Edited January 14, 2016 by Calm

[Russell C McGregor]

2 hours ago, canard78 said:

If it's so difficult to tell the differ nice that you need to ask this question then clearly the spirit is an unreliable source. 

So, we should listen to -- you, instead?

 

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Quote

If the LDS Church, which is mentioned in the Book of Mormon as true (as opposed to all the other denominations which are mentioned as not being true), is not true, the Book of Mormon would not be true.

You do realize that the LDS Church is not the only church that cherishes and uses the Book of Mormon as scripture, right? Your organization not being correct does not preclude another one from being correct. And it most certainly wouldn't make the Book of Mormon false.

 

Edited January 14, 2016 by BookofMormonLuvr

[6EQUJ5]

On 1/12/2016 at 10:12 PM, 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.

That you continually promote this heresy despite the clear teachings of Elder McConkie is quite telling.

A living prophet always outweighs a dead one.  Especially when it comes to speculative unscriptural unrevealed nonsense like Adam-God.

[Ahab]

7 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

That you continually promote this heresy despite the clear teachings of Elder McConkie is quite telling.

A living prophet always outweighs a dead one.  Especially when it comes to speculative unscriptural unrevealed nonsense like Adam-God.

Er, um, nevermind.

Just saying this to get it out of my que here.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 1/12/2016 at 3:28 PM, Gray said:

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? 

Everyone has the right to be wrong, and to take responsibility for it.  Should someone remove that right?  That was Satan's method.  We are all fallible, and we must live with that courageously.  Should we all go out, not with a bang, but with a whimper?

[thesometimesaint]

9 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Unfortunately, whenever He does reveal such things, people find excuses to reject them if they run counter to their preferences.

See my sig.

 

I play second fiddle to no mortal. I've only had one major disagreement with the Church in my nearly 45 years as a member and that was the Ban on blacks holding the Priesthood. I have never pulled my punches when I feel something is wrong. I not about to start now. I am glad that the Lord finally directed the Church to lift the Ban.

[JLHPROF]

59 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

That you continually promote this heresy despite the clear teachings of Elder McConkie is quite telling.

A living prophet always outweighs a dead one.  Especially when it comes to speculative unscriptural unrevealed nonsense like Adam-God.

No,  false is false and true is true, regardless of time of day.

[6EQUJ5]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No,  false is false and true is true, regardless of time of day.

Then you deny the need for living prophets.  

Prophets tell us what is true *for us.*  They speak the mind and will of the Lord *today.*  Elder Nelson has confirmed as much. 

And lets not forget the fact that BY was speculating openly.  His ideas were deemed unscriptural and nonsensical then and they were labeled as such by Elder McConkie.  

[JLHPROF]

Just now, 6EQUJ5 said:

Prophets tell us what is true *for us.* 

Wow, that is so not how it works.  Eternal truth doesn't change.

I want no part of any religion that operates with that kind of inconstant view.  That is not the God I worship.

Fortunately, the true restored gospel doesn't teach that either.

[6EQUJ5]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Wow, that is so not how it works.  Eternal truth doesn't change.

I want no part of any religion that operates with that kind of inconstant view.  That is not the God I worship.

Fortunately, the true restored gospel doesn't teach that either.

Don't you believe that Elder McConkie taught the true Gospel?  He could not have been more clear on this point.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 1/12/2016 at 2:48 PM, Buckeye said:

 

Quote

 

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. 

The LDS Church is certainly a conciliar church, and any council can be fallible in its decisions.  That is the human condition, which is what we are here to experience.  However, councils are the means by which God Himself makes decisions, the Heavenly Council being the prime exemplar of a proper council -- in which true free agency is exercised, and in which there can be true disagreement (even 1/3 of the host of heaven disagreed and were cast out of the Kingdom of Heaven).  Council decisions need not be unanimous, even though we all hope for unanimity, and history teaches that many of the most important councils have not been unanimous.  Moreover, God's conciliar system is not a Mormon invention:

E. Theodore Mullen, Jr., The Assembly of the Gods: The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature, Harvard Semitic Monographs 24 (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1980).

E. Theodore Mullen, Jr., "Divine Assembly," in D. N. Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, II:214-217.

Michael S. Heiser, "The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Non-Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature," doctoral dissertation (Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison, 2004), online at http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1092&context=fac_dis .

Edited January 14, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[JLHPROF]

25 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Don't you believe that Elder McConkie taught the true Gospel?  He could not have been more clear on this point.

No.  I don't.  Not on every subject.  I believe he taught false doctrine on things like progression and Adam/God.

I fail to see why he should be right and Brigham wrong?  One of them was God's mouthpiece, the other was not.
Remind me again who President Nelson said gets "the mind and will of the Lord" for the others to sustain?

Did Elder McConkie have that position?  How about President Young?

Edited January 14, 2016 by JLHPROF

[6EQUJ5]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

No.  I don't.  Not on every subject.  I believe he taught false doctrine on things like progression and Adam/God.

I fail to see why he should be right and Brigham wrong?  One of them was God's mouthpiece, the other was not.

Because Elder McConkie came after Brigham Young.  So until a living prophet renounces the teachings of Elder McConkie -- just as Elder McConkie did the teachings of Brigham Young on Adam-God -- his teaching overrides anything taught by Brigham Young.  Recall what he said about the Priesthood policy?  It was right one day and wrong the next.  But the important thing was to fall in line behind President Kimball and the united Quorum of the Twelve.

We have living prophets for a reason.

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Because Elder McConkie came after Brigham Young.  So until a living prophet renounces the teachings of Elder McConkie -- just as Elder McConkie did the teachings of Brigham Young on Adam-God -- his teaching overrides anything taught by Brigham Young.  Recall what he said about the Priesthood policy?  It was right one day and wrong the next.  But the important thing was to fall in line behind President Kimball and the united Quorum of the Twelve.

We have living prophets for a reason.

Nah...

I don't believe that.  That is not part of MY religion.  I don't think it's part of Mormonism either.  That would make any part of the gospel subject to elimination.  The next prophet could ordain women, allow SSM, eliminate the garment, switch to baptism by sprinkling, remove the Book of Abraham from Canon, and implement indulgences.

That's not the gospel.  That's relativism run amok.  Living prophets are to guide us through life and times in which we live, not to put their own spin on God's eternal gospel and ordinances.

[volgadon]

7 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Sorry to be picking on you, CV, but this is another point with which I strongly disagree and which I think is causing a lot of the problems in Mormonism today.

Contrary to what you have written, we are counseled in the scriptures not to trust others, but to place our trust solely in God.

I know I don't have to quote you the many scriptural passages warning against trusting in the arm of the flesh.

But that is exactly what you are promoting here.

Isn't this a simplistic reduction that is contradicted not only by specific passages but by the very model of transmission which it presumes?

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Sorry to be picking on you, CV, but this is another point with which I strongly disagree and which I think is causing a lot of the problems in Mormonism today.

Contrary to what you have written, we are counseled in the scriptures not to trust others, but to place our trust solely in God.

I know I don't have to quote you the many scriptural passages warning against trusting in the arm of the flesh.

But that is exactly what you are promoting here.

Trusting Priesthood leaders is trusting the Priesthood and God who rules over it. It is not trusting in the arm of flesh. You do not get a lot of scripture with God warning the people to be careful of the teaching of Adam or Enoch or Abraham or Moses or Nephi or Peter or Alma or Mormon or Joseph Smith. So either God only picks people who are self-interested enough to hold that counsel back and hide it from the people (in which case God has a bad track record in picking prophets) or God thinks it is not a big concern and this is not something we should worry about. I take the latter conclusion. I have much more important things to do in the gospel then worrying about President Monson. If God needs me to worry he knows how to get in touch.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Nah...

I don't believe that.  That is not part of MY religion.  I don't think it's part of Mormonism either.  That would make any part of the gospel subject to elimination.  The next prophet could ordain women, allow SSM, eliminate the garment, switch to baptism by sprinkling, remove the Book of Abraham from Canon, and implement indulgences.

That's not the gospel.  That's relativism run amok.  Living prophets are to guide us through life and times in which we live, not to put their own spin on God's eternal gospel and ordinances.

Some parts of the gospel are unchanging and some are not. I expect major changes in the church and how it functions in the next few decades. I have no idea if it will involve ordaining women or changing the garment or whatever. I do expect a lot of members to struggle with it. I am trying to limber up so I can be ready for it.  

[CV75]

11 hours ago, BookofMormonLuvr said:

You do realize that the LDS Church is not the only church that cherishes and uses the Book of Mormon as scripture, right? Your organization not being correct does not preclude another one from being correct. And it most certainly wouldn't make the Book of Mormon false.

 

Yes, I do understand that non-LDS churches, groups and individuals consider the Book of Mormon to be scripture. But the Book of Mormon only speaks of one church being correct (as in established by Christ)*, so any others are not. If this is incorrect, then so is the Book of Mormon.

* 2 Nephi 3 (in light of 2 Nephi 9:2), the church Joseph Smith established in connection with the publication of the Book of Mormon; 3 Nephi 16:6-7, “the fullness of these things” includes the church set up under Christ’s authority in 3 Nephi 11, which is brought forth again through Joseph Smith in the latter-days.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, I do understand that non-LDS churches, groups and individuals consider the Book of Mormon to be scripture. But the Book of Mormon only speaks of one church being correct (as in established by Christ)*, so any others are not. If this is incorrect, then so is the Book of Mormon.

* 2 Nephi 3 (in light of 2 Nephi 9:2), the church Joseph Smith established in connection with the publication of the Book of Mormon; 3 Nephi 16:6-7, “the fullness of these things” includes the church set up under Christ’s authority in 3 Nephi 11, which is brought forth again through Joseph Smith in the latter-days.

To be fair, the LDS Curch isn't the only one that meets your definition.  Many groups claim direct lines back to Joseph Smith and the church Christ established through him. CoC being the most famous other group.

But there is just one true Church.