kllindley Posted January 17, 2017 Posted January 17, 2017 3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: I'd rather not either, but as far as I can tell, the only people who quibble over the 'revelatory' bona fides of the family proclamation are those who strongly do not wish the document to be an accurate expression of the mind and will of the Lord on this specific matter. I agree it sure seems that way to me.
rockpond Posted January 17, 2017 Posted January 17, 2017 9 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: I'd rather not either, but as far as I can tell, the only people who quibble over the 'revelatory' bona fides of the family proclamation are those who strongly do not wish the document to be an accurate expression of the mind and will of the Lord on this specific matter. Oh, I guess I've broken your mold then because I would have no problem with it being the mind and will of the Lord. As I've already stated on this thread, I believe it to be truth and am committed to living by its precepts.
rockpond Posted January 17, 2017 Posted January 17, 2017 6 minutes ago, kllindley said: I agree it sure seems that way to me. Circular reasoning.
pogi Posted January 17, 2017 Posted January 17, 2017 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Gray said: The old rules where new revelation has to be presented to the body of the church for a sustaining vote. Or even the more recent rules where doctrine is not capital D doctrine unless it is taught frequently and by many. I guess we're just flying by the seat of our pants now! But perhaps the definition for revelation is changing as well. In the days of Joseph Smith it was a dramatic, audible and visible. God told you in precise language what He was thinking. In the absence of that sort of revelation, I think there has been some evolving on the issue of what revelation is. Now I think that whatever they decide is right is assumed to be revelation. That seems to be how Elder Bednar thinks of it. Possibly this is a somewhat recent shift, not present in the days when the Proclamation was being drafted, and now retroactively applied by President Nelson. That's one hypothesis, anyway. There is a distinction between revelation and canonization or capital D doctrine. Revelation does not require a sustaining vote. In regards to revelation, J. Reuben Clark Jr. said: “There are those who insist that unless the Prophet of the Lord declares, ‘Thus saith the Lord,’ the message may not be taken as a revelation. This is a false testing standard. For while many of our modern revelations as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants do contain these words, there are many that do not.” (Church News, 31 July 1954, p. 10.) Edited January 17, 2017 by pogi 2
rockpond Posted January 17, 2017 Posted January 17, 2017 5 minutes ago, pogi said: There is a distinction between revelation and canonization or capital D doctrine. Revelation does not require a sustaining vote. In regards to revelation, J. Reuben Clark Jr. said: “There are those who insist that unless the Prophet of the Lord declares, ‘Thus saith the Lord,’ the message may not be taken as a revelation. This is a false testing standard. For while many of our modern revelations as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants do contain these words, there are many that do not.” (Church News, 31 July 1954, p. 10.) I wonder why we stopped canonizing revelations.
pogi Posted January 17, 2017 Posted January 17, 2017 23 minutes ago, rockpond said: I wonder why we stopped canonizing revelations. There is no harm in wondering, but I would be cautious about inferring anything from it. The most recent such formal canonization was Official Declaration 2, added in 1978. The Proclamation on the Family could conceivably be submitted “for common consent” at some future date.
cinepro Posted January 17, 2017 Posted January 17, 2017 30 minutes ago, rockpond said: I wonder why we stopped canonizing revelations. Honestly, it's probably more a matter of logistics than anything else. When the Church was creating the first LDS edition of the Bible and triple combination, Elder McConkie was the one who suggested adding Sections 137 & 138 and OD 1 and OD 2. Had those editions of the scriptures not been published, those probably wouldn't have been "canonized". Maybe one day things will be more easily added to the online edition of the scriptures. But until then...?
california boy Posted January 17, 2017 Posted January 17, 2017 2 hours ago, mfbukowski said: No personal attacks in that post, and this is just another dodge because you cannot answer your own questions. You still haven't done so. Saying you need a class is a personal attack only in your mind. It is merely a suggestion to improve your arguments, and you are the one brought up the same old tired argument you had just admitted you could not justify. Bringing up the same argument after you have admitted that you could not justify it earlier damages credibility. Calling that a personal attack feels to me like you are just playing the victim to get out of arguing the point. This is not personal. If someone told me my argument was weak I would try to strengthen it, not play the victim. These dialogue boards are not the place for thin skin, and we are all defending points which are very close to our hearts. If I knew what offended you I would edit it out but I don't even know what offended you. Here is a hint. Quote Dude. You need some critical thinking classes. You are not addressing what I wrote. If you think my argument is weak, then address what you find weak about the argument. Don't tell me I need to go back to school. If you can eliminate the personal insult, I will be more than happy to address what you questioned. This board is set up as an exchange of ideas and viewpoints. It is not set up to belittle people and insult their education. You know nothing about my educational background. Just because you question something I wrote does not mean you have the right to direct your answer personally to me. This is not the first time you have decided to throw in an insult towards me. I have seem you do the same to others as well. Perhaps they are willing to put up with your rude behavior. I am not. You are free to do that if you feel the need to. But I am free to end a discussion with you over such tactics. Quite frankly, the choice is yours. Do what you want.
Calm Posted January 18, 2017 Posted January 18, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Jeanne said: I believe that it is thought this way because it wasn't called a revelation to begin with. Who puts revelations in a church handbook???? Anyone who has asked for or received revelation on policies for the Church, imo. Do you mean why would it be announced that way? Assuming there is continuity between how the Church operates now and how it did back in the early days, the D&C has similar policy information that is identified in some cases (all?, haven't studied the D&C that much) as revelation. If they had a handbook back then, I think it would have ended up there as well. I vaguely remember a date for the first handbook in the 1890s but could be way, way off. Even if placed in handbook, such things could also be publicly announced. I would love to know if how the policy appeared was how it was intended to be announced or if a mistake was made and they decided to just go with that for some reason. Edited January 18, 2017 by Calm
Teancum Posted January 18, 2017 Posted January 18, 2017 On 1/16/2017 at 3:16 PM, mfbukowski said: This article is not bad, and the series itself looks pretty good. In this terminology, Coyne would be a "realist" and I would be an "antirealist". Check out the rest of the series and ask questions me questions if you like Maybe I can discuss correspondence this way- suppose everything you see and hear is a movie- perhaps you were born with virtual reality imputs instead of eyes etc. You go through life and then someone tells you you are seeing virtual reality but that's ok because it "corresponds" to REAL REALITY. You never had any reason to doubt that you ARE seeing real reality every moment of your life. How do you check to see if your reality feed is "real" or "TRUE"? How do you check to see if your feed "corresponds to reality"? You cannot get outside of your feed to check that? Then someone changes the feed. The feed has told you that the sun goes around the earth but now they say that "reality" is that the earth goes around the sun? How do you check that?? All you see is the sun rising and setting! Coyne says that science is "true" but it is actually a set of theories which experience SHOW to be true through experiment and further observation. They are paradigms NOT "reality as we experience it" I SEE those as "just paradigms" like religion is also just "a paradigm". I feel God as truly as I see the sun going around the earth- THOSE are my direct experiences. Yet science wants me to see THEIR paradigm instead of what I actually feel. Why should I do that? Since I cannot get out of my "virtual reality feed" there is no sense in trying because it is impossible. MY world does not "correspond" to anything but MY WORLD, it is impractical to think so. YET science works, my car works even if I do not understand it. I ACCEPT that science works because scientific paradigms work. I do not jump off cliffs because I know I will die. There is a real cliff in my reality feed in front of me and I cannot get outside of the feed- so it is real for me. It is nonsense to talk about anything outside the feed, because i can only know what i know. https://explorable.com/realism-and-antirealism This one is more advanced, perhaps too advanced, but page down the the "correspondence" section. Coyne is a correspondence theory promoter. If you google "correspondence theory of truth" you will find many entries and understand that NONE are favorable to the theory any more. Perhaps that will be enough to make you question it even if you do not fully understand the arguments. http://www.iep.utm.edu/truth/#H3 http://spiritual-minds.com/easternrelgions/knowledge/Ebook_Alpha Books - Complete Idiots Guide to Philosophy.pdf This last one is ok too as a general intro to philosophy though not much here on truth! Thank you. I will link and bookmark these and take a look. Traveling on business this week so time is slim. But I will read them.
Teancum Posted January 18, 2017 Posted January 18, 2017 19 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Gosh man, if it doesn't matter how you define it why are you ARGUING THE POINT? Go play tiddly winks with your kids or something! It MUST matter to you how it is defined! You missed the point. It is MY revelation- that's all that is important. If they said it was a "revelation" that in itself is irrelevant. Anyone can say anything is a revelation. Nice to know you place so much confidence in the Q of 12 to accept their word for anything they say is a "revelation" while disagreeing with them on many other things. You actually think that makes sense? If they told you that this policy on gay marriage- the wait til 18 thing for baptism- was a "revelation" you would accept it because they said so? What are you thinking?? I KNOW it is a revelation because I have had the same one. That's all that matters. And yes I support the policy as well in case anyone questions that, as if anyone would care. It makes perfect sense to me But what if someone claims revelation the opposite of what you claim yours is. That the proclamation is not revelation and the policy is not as well.
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 18, 2017 Posted January 18, 2017 3 hours ago, rockpond said: As I've already stated on this thread, I believe it to be truth and am committed to living by its precepts. You have indeed stated such. You have also stated in this same thread that you find it 'comforting' that someday your adult grandchildren will look back on what is taught in the family proclamation 'with horror', so I hope you'll forgive some of us for thinking that what you mean by your first statement is a bit different to what we would mean with those same words. 1
mfbukowski Posted January 18, 2017 Posted January 18, 2017 5 hours ago, rockpond said: Let's jump back to 1995 when President Hinckley introduced the Proclamation. Emphasis added: With so much of sophistry that is passed off as truth, with so much of deception concerning standards and values, with so much of allurement and enticement to take on the slow stain of the world, we have felt to warn and forewarn. In furtherance of this we of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles now issue a proclamation to the Church and to the world as a declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history. I now take the opportunity of reading to you this proclamation: THEY felt to warn and forewarn. THEY issue a proclamation. No comment of the Lord instructing them or the Lord warning/forewarning. President Hinckley did not attempt to credit the Lord with what he was about to read. If there was inspiration it seems that it was to prompt them to warn, forewarn, and proclaim. But they are clearly claiming the words for themselves. I hate to disillusion you but every single word of the Lord that has been published in scripture came out of a human mouth. If you do not understand that this discussion is based on semantics and is useless, then there is not much I can say more. I know that will be heartbreaking for you, but that's the way it is. Honestly, I find the whole alleged distinction pretty absurd Humans receive inspiration- words perhaps, feelings, strong or weak which they may be certain are "from the Lord" and indeed they may be, or may not be. In each case individually we need to come to our own conclusions. Yes the Lord speaks to people- he has spoken to me in my heart. But if I were to write what I thought the Lord has said to me- it would be coming from a human mind interpreting feelings. Even if I heard words, which I have not, it would be a report from a human mind THAT the person had heard the "voice of the Lord" Fortunately the 15 are fully aware of that. I know that they receive revelation daily- heck even I do. I am darn sure their revelations are stronger than mine because I have experienced that the more I work in the church and obey the commandments those revelations get stronger and more "correct". Just yesterday I had a strong impression to call someone and just kind of brushed it off. It came again and again. Why would I call that person now? It will wait. But I called anyway. It proved to be very important that I called at that moment. I think that it is very wise of the Brethren in today's world to NOT say "Thus sayeth the Lord" when they receive revelations. In today's world those words sound absolutely looney and I think they would result in ridicule for whomever said them. I am reticent even to make this post in this friendly context because I know it could end up on another board ridiculing me to say the Lord has spoken to me There is absolutely NO reason the 15 need to use this kind of language in today's world except for fundamentalists who want to hear those words because they do not understand the nuances of revelation. If I told you that the Lord revealed to me how to change my life and said "Thus sayeth the Lord- marry this person" you would think it absurd, but in my life that decision was far more important than doctrine on the family which simply affirmed what the church had taught for years. For me that "thus sayeth the Lord" was the most important single thing that has happened to me in my life. I KNOW it was the Lord who arranged it all. But will I tell people that? No way. That language does not fit a contemporary context. Enough. More than enough.
mfbukowski Posted January 18, 2017 Posted January 18, 2017 32 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: You have indeed stated such. You have also stated in this same thread that you find it 'comforting' that someday your adult grandchildren will look back on what is taught in the family proclamation 'with horror', so I hope you'll forgive some of us for thinking that what you mean by your first statement is a bit different to what we would mean with those same words. Dang you're good! I owe you a couple of reps just for this!
mfbukowski Posted January 18, 2017 Posted January 18, 2017 1 hour ago, Teancum said: But what if someone claims revelation the opposite of what you claim yours is. That the proclamation is not revelation and the policy is not as well. No problem. I do not live their lives, they do not live mine. What we think is in our minds You have to get over this idea that there are hard "facts" that are independent of the human mind especially in religion "Facts" are words that someone thinks are "true". NO "facts" capture the world because no words capture the world. Not mine, not scripture, not yours not the god of scientists. Everything changes- nothing stays unchanging. Words are not experiences, descriptions do not capture the world. Words are not reality. 2
Popular Post pogi Posted January 18, 2017 Popular Post Posted January 18, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Teancum said: But what if someone claims revelation the opposite of what you claim yours is. That the proclamation is not revelation and the policy is not as well. When all is said and done Teancum, you will be held accountable to God for what you have done with the light you have received. You are accountable for searching out truth and ight in complete humility and integrity of purpose, being willing to submit to the mind and will of the Lord. If you can do that in all honestly and humility, you will be held blameless for following your own conscience to the best of your ability. No matter where your light leads you - FOLLOW IT. All light, in the end, will be reconciled into one great whole, so I don't worry about differing testimonies. They all fall short of the TRUTH. It is important to recognize that our own testimonies will evolve line upon line. They are not stagnant and lifeless, but are alive and growing into better understanding. Don't expect your "knowledge" of spiritual things to be the same tomorrow as it is today. If it is, you are doing something wrong. Because my perspective is my own, I don't expect my understanding to align perfectly with all of the teachings and revelations of the Lord. My perspective is still greatly limited, and as such I will not cast aside the revelations of the prophets carelessly. Because I have been assured by the Lord with no ambiguity that I am on the right path, I give more weight to the revelations of the prophets. I do not accept them blindly, but neither do I disregard them, even when I disagree. I keep those ones in the "mysteries" box for later consideration. I cannot speak to the "personal revelations" of other members. I am not accountable for the personal revelation of other's, and I cannot know their inner heart. I can only speak for myself, and what God speaks to me, so I don't give too much weight to differing testimonies. Even if I feel uncomfortable with parts of a revelation, I hold out judgement until I can understand more fully their perspective. I only do this because I have good reason to believe from previous experiences that they do speak for the Lord. Edited January 18, 2017 by pogi 5
rockpond Posted January 18, 2017 Posted January 18, 2017 3 hours ago, pogi said: There is no harm in wondering, but I would be cautious about inferring anything from it. The most recent such formal canonization was Official Declaration 2, added in 1978. The Proclamation on the Family could conceivably be submitted “for common consent” at some future date. Possibly. OD2 was submitted for common consent within months of being received, right? Do you know how much time passed between when the other recent additions to the canon were received vs when they were submitted for common consent?
rockpond Posted January 18, 2017 Posted January 18, 2017 3 hours ago, cinepro said: Honestly, it's probably more a matter of logistics than anything else. When the Church was creating the first LDS edition of the Bible and triple combination, Elder McConkie was the one who suggested adding Sections 137 & 138 and OD 1 and OD 2. Had those editions of the scriptures not been published, those probably wouldn't have been "canonized". Maybe one day things will be more easily added to the online edition of the scriptures. But until then...? Changes were made to the LDS version of the scriptures a few years back. That might have been a good time.
rockpond Posted January 18, 2017 Posted January 18, 2017 1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said: You have indeed stated such. You have also stated in this same thread that you find it 'comforting' that someday your adult grandchildren will look back on what is taught in the family proclamation 'with horror', so I hope you'll forgive some of us for thinking that what you mean by your first statement is a bit different to what we would mean with those same words. I never said that! Not at all. You need to re-read what I wrote. I don't think my grandchildren will look back on what is taught in the family proclamation "with horror". Please delete or correct your post.
rockpond Posted January 18, 2017 Posted January 18, 2017 53 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Dang you're good! I owe you a couple of reps just for this! A couple of reps for misquoting me?
rockpond Posted January 18, 2017 Posted January 18, 2017 56 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: I hate to disillusion you but every single word of the Lord that has been published in scripture came out of a human mouth. If you do not understand that this discussion is based on semantics and is useless, then there is not much I can say more. I know that will be heartbreaking for you, but that's the way it is. Honestly, I find the whole alleged distinction pretty absurd Humans receive inspiration- words perhaps, feelings, strong or weak which they may be certain are "from the Lord" and indeed they may be, or may not be. In each case individually we need to come to our own conclusions. Yes the Lord speaks to people- he has spoken to me in my heart. But if I were to write what I thought the Lord has said to me- it would be coming from a human mind interpreting feelings. Even if I heard words, which I have not, it would be a report from a human mind THAT the person had heard the "voice of the Lord" Fortunately the 15 are fully aware of that. I know that they receive revelation daily- heck even I do. I am darn sure their revelations are stronger than mine because I have experienced that the more I work in the church and obey the commandments those revelations get stronger and more "correct". Just yesterday I had a strong impression to call someone and just kind of brushed it off. It came again and again. Why would I call that person now? It will wait. But I called anyway. It proved to be very important that I called at that moment. I think that it is very wise of the Brethren in today's world to NOT say "Thus sayeth the Lord" when they receive revelations. In today's world those words sound absolutely looney and I think they would result in ridicule for whomever said them. I am reticent even to make this post in this friendly context because I know it could end up on another board ridiculing me to say the Lord has spoken to me There is absolutely NO reason the 15 need to use this kind of language in today's world except for fundamentalists who want to hear those words because they do not understand the nuances of revelation. If I told you that the Lord revealed to me how to change my life and said "Thus sayeth the Lord- marry this person" you would think it absurd, but in my life that decision was far more important than doctrine on the family which simply affirmed what the church had taught for years. For me that "thus sayeth the Lord" was the most important single thing that has happened to me in my life. I KNOW it was the Lord who arranged it all. But will I tell people that? No way. That language does not fit a contemporary context. Enough. More than enough. I agree... the discussion is about semantics. Was that ever in doubt? (Hint: not on my end.)
kllindley Posted January 18, 2017 Posted January 18, 2017 On 1/16/2017 at 10:45 AM, rockpond said: it occurred to me that my grandchildren, as adults, will look at any inequality with which gay couples were treated with the same horror. Both sad and comforting You're right you didn't say "with horror." You said "with the same horror."
rockpond Posted January 18, 2017 Posted January 18, 2017 (edited) 18 minutes ago, kllindley said: You're right you didn't say "with horror." You said "with the same horror." Hamba stated that I said: "someday your adult grandchildren will look back on what is taught in the family proclamation 'with horror'". That's completely different than what I said. I believe a correction is in order. Edited January 18, 2017 by rockpond
mfbukowski Posted January 18, 2017 Posted January 18, 2017 57 minutes ago, pogi said: When all is said and done Teancum, you will be held accountable to God for what you have done with the light you have received. You are accountable for searching out truth and ight in complete humility and integrity of purpose, being willing to submit to the mind and will of the Lord. If you can do that in all honestly and humility, you will be held blameless for following your own conscience to the best of your ability. No matter where your light leads you - FOLLOW IT. All light, in the end, will be reconciled into one great whole, so I don't worry about differing testimonies. They all fall short of the TRUTH. It is important to recognize that our own testimonies will evolve line upon line. They are not stagnant and lifeless, but are alive and growing into better understanding. Don't expect your "knowledge" of spiritual things to be the same tomorrow as it is today. If it is, you are doing something wrong. Because my perspective is my own, I don't expect my understanding to align perfectly with all of the teachings and revelations of the Lord. My perspective is still greatly limited, and as such I will not cast aside the revelations of the prophets carelessly. Because I have been assured by the Lord with no ambiguity that I am on the right path, I give more weight to the revelations of the prophets. I do not accept them blindly, but neither do I disregard them, even when I disagree. I keep those ones in the "mysteries" box for later consideration. I cannot speak to the "personal revelations" of other members. I am not accountable for the personal revelation of other's, and I cannot know their inner heart. I can only speak for myself, and what God speaks to me, so I don't give too much weight to differing testimonies. Even if I feel uncomfortable with parts of a revelation, I hold out judgement until I can understand more fully their perspective. I only do this because I have good reason to believe from previous experiences that they do speak for the Lord. See now- why didn't I say that?? Great answer- thanks
Calm Posted January 18, 2017 Posted January 18, 2017 (edited) 10 minutes ago, rockpond said: Hamba stated that I said: "someday your adult grandchildren will look back on what is taught in the family proclamation 'with horror'". That's completely different than what I said. I believe a correction is in order. Did you not say something along the lines of 'on all the inequality'? (Going off memory as I looked about an hour ago and too lazy to do it again) Do you believe the Family Proc does not have any inequality with in it? (Trying to understand what you mean) Edited January 18, 2017 by Calm
Recommended Posts