Singing Songs and sung and stuff

[stemelbow]

Elder Holland gave a good talk this past conference.  I enjoyed it.  But it also was difficult for me.  nearly all of those who I am close to and have left the Church not because of doctrinal disputes, at least not from their perspectives, but because they have felt forced out.  Their voice was unappreciated and not welcome.  The Church was not diverse enough.  I realize members who hear the individual stories of my friends will say things like, "well they just didn't believe.."  or whatever.  But that's not the take, often, of those who leave.   

I'd argue and feel like I have for some many years now, that the Church need not be that way.  It should be open and loving--not exclusive and dogmatic.  "Truth" matters little if their is no love.  But I"d also disagree with President Monson by suggesting it is true, all we do need is love. 

This past Sunday In EQ we talked about this talk. I gave my concern much to the chagrin, it seems, to the rest of the quorum (honestly these days I rarely comment just so I don't upset anyone).  The teacher had me read this part and comment:

Quote

Now, this is not to say that everyone in this divine chorus can simply start shouting his or her own personal oratorio! Diversity is not cacophony, and choirs do require discipline—for our purpose today, Elder Hales, I would say discipleship—but once we have accepted divinely revealed lyrics and harmonious orchestration composed before the world was, then our Heavenly Father delights to have us sing in our own voice, not someone else’s.

I read it and the teacher asked, what does that mean?

Says I, "Well not all voices are welcome." 

"Go on" looking a bit perplexed and cautious.

"The Church has fixed boundaries and many of us aren't welcome to share with each other the welfare of our souls.  If we did, we'd offer unwelcome cacophony.  The reaction is, "we need to shut down this discomfort quickly."  Elder Holland is suggesting that differing points of view aren't diversity and I disagree.  That is diversity.  if the Church can't allow for differing points of view, then it lacks the ability to be diverse and be a welcoming place of diversity."

"but says the teacher" a bit sternly and speaking with authority in hopes to save the lesson, it seems, so he can move on, "When we get in Church we agree to be within those boundaries."

"I didn't.  I agreed to things like Jesus being the Savior, but I didn't agree to things like the priesthood ban, or the Church's involvement in same sex marriage laws". 

"But you can't disagree with the stated position of the Church because the Church is led by God"

"Well we're all supposed to be led by God.  being led by God leads to diversity, though.  Diversity of thought.  That has always been the case.  That's what's driven the diversity we see in the world.  The Church sadly doesn't have a very good sampling of the world's diversity, it seems to me."

"no that's not diversity.  Elder Holland tells us we need to accept true things and we do that by having faith in the Church's teachings.  And you're wrong because there is diversity in the Church.  God just wants us all to accept the Church's teachings and that's how we come to a unity.  We have to accept that the Church expects us only to believe the true stuff..."

He moved on at that point, but of course, there was plenty more to say on that, I'd say. 

So I ask, what elbow room do we allow in the Church to accommodate diversity? 

Edited June 1, 2017 by stemelbow

[JAHS]

I think we all have various degrees of diversity of thought and opinions on church doctrines and policies. And we are definitely diverse with regards to ethnicity and culture. But if what we believe contradicts the accepted official position the church has taken on doctrinal subjects and policy, we should keep it to ourselves and not try to advocate our positions to other members. Such activity would not represent the covenants we have made at baptism or in the temple to devote our time, talents, and abilities to build up the kingdom of God, rather it would tend to tear it down. 
"And he commanded them that there should be no contention one with another, but that they should look forward with one eye, having one faith and one baptism, having their hearts knit together in unity and in love one towards another." (Mosiah 18: 21)

[Jeanne]

12 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I think we all have various degrees of diversity of thought and opinions on church doctrines and policies. And we are definitely diverse with regards to ethnicity and culture. But if what we believe contradicts the accepted official position the church has taken on doctrinal subjects and policy, we should keep it to ourselves and not try to advocate our positions to other members. Such activity would not represent the covenants we have made at baptism or in the temple to devote our time, talents, and abilities to build up the kingdom of God, rather it would tend to tear it down. 
"And he commanded them that there should be no contention one with another, but that they should look forward with one eye, having one faith and one baptism, having their hearts knit together in unity and in love one towards another." (Mosiah 18: 21)

If you can't be who you are in the church...and stifle yourself..it inhibits growth and understanding.  One cannot be two people and sustain personal growth.  In a class. such as the OP describes..you should be open and welcomed to questions and input (IMO).  I can't imagine walking in a church and being one with God..and then returning home and dealing with the problems that are in your own mind.  Seriously.  It isn't even healthy..spiritually and mentally.  Edited to add:  Even if some are slightly out of tune in a choir..should we not still be allowed to sing?

Edited June 1, 2017 by Jeanne

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I think we all have various degrees of diversity of thought and opinions on church doctrines and policies. And we are definitely diverse with regards to ethnicity and culture. But if what we believe contradicts the accepted official position the church has taken on doctrinal subjects and policy, we should keep it to ourselves and not try to advocate our positions to other members. Such activity would not represent the covenants we have made at baptism or in the temple to devote our time, talents, and abilities to build up the kingdom of God, rather it would tend to tear it down. 
"And he commanded them that there should be no contention one with another, but that they should look forward with one eye, having one faith and one baptism, having their hearts knit together in unity and in love one towards another." (Mosiah 18: 21)

I disagree that the Church is a good place to try and control people from not being able to voice their point of view.  The church is much better off if it did not teach us to keep quiet if we disagree.  It is good for us to share freely and openly and the Church should be far more about that precept then about controlling the message, I'd say. 

[JAHS]

12 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

In a class. such as the OP describes..you should be open and welcomed to questions and input (IMO)

I can agree with the asking of questions and discussion of different views, but at the same time one must be willing to be corrected and accept established doctrines once they have been taught from one having authority; otherwise we cannot be "one in Christ" (Gal 3: 28). 
"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; (Eph 4: 11-1)

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

If you can't be who you are in the church...and stifle yourself..it inhibits growth and understanding.  One cannot be two people and sustain personal growth.  In a class. such as the OP describes..you should be open and welcomed to questions and input (IMO).  I can't imagine walking in a church and being one with God..and then returning home and dealing with the problems that are in your own mind.  Seriously.  It isn't even healthy..spiritually and mentally.  Edited to add:  Even if some are slightly out of tune in a choir..should we not still be allowed to sing?

I think it's a fine line and usually hard to manage-being who we are but also not using that as an excuse to stay someone that we don't want to be, or more importantly that Christ does not want us to be.  

The whole point of the gospel is not to be who we are but to be who Christ is.  To the extent that we often use the 'i'm just being me' excuse to embrace weaknesses or flaws in our character, the it's good to stifle that.  But to the extent that we are embracing our own uniqueness, then that should be welcome at church with no strings attached.

Here are some of my favorite articles (there is language in some of them) on why 'being who we are' and wanting others to 'accept us just as we are' might not be the best goal.

Philosopher's argument for not loving yourself just as you are

Why you should never accept yourself

If I can't accept you at your worst, then maybe you should stop being so horrible

The last one is really good, especially this quote-

"Being “accepted” should not be our relationship goal. Healthy relationships are loving, but also challenging, edifying, and even occasionally painful."

It's talking about relationships in general but as far as members have a relationship with the Christ and His church, I think it applies.  I think that real growth and understanding comes when we challenge ourselves to be more than who we are.  And I don't think that realizing that is the same as stifling ourselves.

But, as I said before, wanting to be better does not mean we have to all conform to someone else's ideal of what better is.  Christ should always be our standard.

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

"Well we're all supposed to be led by God.  being led by God leads to diversity, though.  Diversity of thought.  That has always been the case.  That's what's driven the diversity we see in the world.  The Church sadly doesn't have a very good sampling of the world's diversity, it seems to me."

No, it doesn't.  Diversity of opinion does not come from people being led of God.
Diversity of personality may, but God doesn't have separate truths for separate people.  Something is either true or it isn't.

The original quote is correct:

• "Now, this is not to say that everyone in this divine chorus can simply start shouting his or her own personal oratorio! Diversity is not cacophony, and choirs do require discipline—for our purpose today, Elder Hales, I would say discipleship—but once we have accepted divinely revealed lyrics and harmonious orchestration composed before the world was, THEN our Heavenly Father delights to have us sing in our own voice, not someone else’s."
   

We must first be in harmony with the eternal truths before we get to express our unique voices.  There is a place for both harmony and diversity in the gospel.  Placing harmony first robs us of our unique God-given natures.  Placing diversity first robs us of our ability to conform to the will of God.  We MUST have both.

[stemelbow]

53 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No, it doesn't.  Diversity of opinion does not come from people being led of God.
Diversity of personality may, but God doesn't have separate truths for separate people.  Something is either true or it isn't.

All that is true is far beyond any one's or any groups ability to know.  So you're wrong.  We all get different truths, if you will, in dour deferent ways, thus this leads to diversity of thought.  We don't grow when we try to limit this stuff.  

53 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

The original quote is correct:

• "Now, this is not to say that everyone in this divine chorus can simply start shouting his or her own personal oratorio! Diversity is not cacophony, and choirs do require discipline—for our purpose today, Elder Hales, I would say discipleship—but once we have accepted divinely revealed lyrics and harmonious orchestration composed before the world was, THEN our Heavenly Father delights to have us sing in our own voice, not someone else’s."
   

We must first be in harmony with the eternal truths before we get to express our unique voices.  There is a place for both harmony and diversity in the gospel.  Placing harmony first robs us of our unique God-given natures.  Placing diversity first robs us of our ability to conform to the will of God.  We MUST have both.

Not at all.  You think everybody must first conform to some standard before they chime in.  I disagree.  We benefit from hearing other perspectives, letting challenges to standards help us develop and explore more thoughts and ideas. We're stuck when we expect the world to conform first to 19th century religious norms before they get to chime in.  

[CV75]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

So I ask, what elbow room do we allow in the Church to accommodate diversity? 

I think the imagery of Ephesians 4:16 addresses the diversity that is essential to achieve oneness. Verses 15-17: “But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love. This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind…”

1 Corinthians 12 teaches the same thing, and that this kind of diversity does not promote schism (verse 25).

I think that functional diversity promotes love and unity in Christ, and there are many ways (lots of elbow room) to do that.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think it's a fine line and usually hard to manage-being who we are but also not using that as an excuse to stay someone that we don't want to be, or more importantly that Christ does not want us to be.  

The whole point of the gospel is not to be who we are but to be who Christ is.  To the extent that we often use the 'i'm just being me' excuse to embrace weaknesses or flaws in our character, the it's good to stifle that.  But to the extent that we are embracing our own uniqueness, then that should be welcome at church with no strings attached.

Here are some of my favorite articles (there is language in some of them) on why 'being who we are' and wanting others to 'accept us just as we are' might not be the best goal.

Philosopher's argument for not loving yourself just as you are

Why you should never accept yourself

If I can't accept you at your worst, then maybe you should stop being so horrible

The last one is really good, especially this quote-

"Being “accepted” should not be our relationship goal. Healthy relationships are loving, but also challenging, edifying, and even occasionally painful."

It's talking about relationships in general but as far as members have a relationship with the Christ and His church, I think it applies.  I think that real growth and understanding comes when we challenge ourselves to be more than who we are.  And I don't think that realizing that is the same as stifling ourselves.

But, as I said before, wanting to be better does not mean we have to all conform to someone else's ideal of what better is.  Christ should always be our standard.

Thanks for taking the time to post all this info.  I will read up later.  I have to say that the titles are scary..

[probablyHagoth7]

6 hours ago, JAHS said:

I think we all have various degrees of diversity of thought and opinions on church doctrines and policies. And we are definitely diverse with regards to ethnicity and culture. But if what we believe contradicts the accepted official position the church has taken on doctrinal subjects and policy, we should keep it to ourselves and not try to advocate our positions to other members. Such activity would not represent the covenants we have made at baptism or in the temple to devote our time, talents, and abilities to build up the kingdom of God, rather it would tend to tear it down. 
"And he commanded them that there should be no contention one with another, but that they should look forward with one eye, having one faith and one baptism, having their hearts knit together in unity and in love one towards another." (Mosiah 18: 21)

There's a fine (but easily-maintained) balance between having different views and having all things in common.

One *can* offer to share, without insisting that others accept what is offered, and without taking offense if they decline, or even if they try and it doesn't suit their tastes. Tree of life - variety - healing of nations. A buffet, where I don't make a fuss if you've filled your plate a bit differently than me.

(Now where's that short video of the food fight?)

In the essentials unity. In the non-essentials liberty. In all things charity.

Edited June 1, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I read it and the teacher asked, what does that mean?

Says I, "Well not all voices are welcome." 

All voices are welcome. It is what the voice says that can make them discordant. Elder Holland is clear that first we have to accept the divine orchestration and lyrics.

Some people will not become comfortable in our Church. Sometimes that is their choice, sometimes it is in their nature, sometimes it is blatant pride. It is not something we take joy in but it is the reality. When Jesus taught crowds would often tell him to go away. If the Savior with his infinite love and brilliance in teaching the gospel could not make it palatable and pleasant to all the idea that we can would be hubris of the worst kind. Can we do better? Probably. Can we "fix" the problem entirely? No. 

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I disagree that the Church is a good place to try and control people from not being able to voice their point of view.  The church is much better off if it did not teach us to keep quiet if we disagree.  It is good for us to share freely and openly and the Church should be far more about that precept then about controlling the message, I'd say. 

So if someone were to advocate for worshipping Lucifer in a Promethean context everyone should kindly listen and accept that viewpoint as valid? The Church is not a Free Speech area nor is free expression of views one of our primary precepts.

I have said before that I have views on the LDS faith I do not share in church and should not share. I think they are correct but I could easily see a bishop wanting to have a long talk with me for espousing them in church and the bishop would be right to do so. They would not be conducive to faith. They would confuse instead of enlighten. They would cause people to look at me askance instead of listening to the gospel. It would serve no purpose.

[stemelbow]

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

All voices are welcome. It is what the voice says that can make them discordant. Elder Holland is clear that first we have to accept the divine orchestration and lyrics.

What it boils down to to me is I disagree, most likely, with Elder Holland about what one first must accept, or what is meant by the divine orchestra and lyrics.

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Some people will not become comfortable in our Church. Sometimes that is their choice, sometimes it is in their nature, sometimes it is blatant pride.

Most times it's a large combination of things.  No one is perfect of course, so many players contribute to difficulties.  This may suggest sometimes members of the ward contribute to these difficulties, other times, the Church structure is a contributor.  But, the part I'm concerned about here is the part wherein those who come from different perspectives than the Mormon norm of 19th century American church rules, traditions and culture, have a tough time adjusting.  It's not he members nor the people themselves, so much as the strict social, and doctrinal conservativism that the Church follows--as we are led by American evangelicalism, or past American evangelicalism. 

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is not something we take joy in but it is the reality. When Jesus taught crowds would often tell him to go away. If the Savior with his infinite love and brilliance in teaching the gospel could not make it palatable and pleasant to all the idea that we can would be hubris of the worst kind. Can we do better? Probably. Can we "fix" the problem entirely? No. 

of course.  WE'll always come up short in some ways.  The church will.  The people will.  I think most can accept the people will.  But when you point out how the Church is, some members get all worked up and ready to do battle.  Kind of cute in a way. 

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

So if someone were to advocate for worshipping Lucifer in a Promethean context everyone should kindly listen and accept that viewpoint as valid? The Church is not a Free Speech area nor is free expression of views one of our primary precepts.

So what do you do?  If someone who wants to worship Lucifer comes to Church with you do you shout him out each time?  Do you ask him kindly to not participate?  I mean this is a silly extreme example.  Most likely if such a worshipper comes to an LDS Church he/she is doing so to understand or get an idea of where we're coming from.  But of course, I'm speaking, in context, about those who are LDS, want to stay in the Church and have ideas and concerns that trouble the welfare of their souls. 

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I have said before that I have views on the LDS faith I do not share in church and should not share. I think they are correct but I could easily see a bishop wanting to have a long talk with me for espousing them in church and the bishop would be right to do so. They would not be conducive to faith. They would confuse instead of enlighten. They would cause people to look at me askance instead of listening to the gospel. It would serve no purpose.

I'm not advocating you just start trying to advocate for teachings contrary to Church doctrine and policy.  I'm advocating for open dialogue wherein people can state ideas (granted doing so would require the person to state it in a non confrontational way).  Where challenges are welcome.  While there is some room for this, I've noticed there is not much.  For me the principle that people should be able to express themselves openly is far greater than the need for the Church to control information and make people fall in line so some divine, make believe, song can be sung in unison. 

We're all pretending, do dee dee...

I'm so happy can't you see? 

Believe believe, the Church is so true...

don't forget, we can't suffer no foo'...

I memorized the pretty words

that are told to me, it ain't absurd

If I say them right to everyone

People love me the most a ton...

This sounds about like the song that is being pushed for to me. 

 

[Jane_Doe]

"Songs Song and Unsung" is possibly my favorite conference talk of all time.  Upon hearing it, I immediately literally rewinded to the beginning and listen to it again right there on the spot.  And again a third time later that day.  And I don't know how many times since then.   And so many tears in rejoicing.  

I'm a person who has Asperger's and can be "very weird" by other people's norms.  My voice is literally different than anyone else's, and at points I can feel quite alienated because of things.  Sometimes it's stupid dumb stuff- like people (not just church people) get freaked out because I refuse to shave my legs.  Sometimes my explanations, laced with math and computer logic, are so different that people scratch their heads and say "well, changing subjects now....".  I've had a very painful history with temple policies forbidding writing in the Celestial Room, because when I pray I do so in ink.  My voice is very different.  

As others have pointed out though, there is a difference between lyrics and the voice we sing in.  For an extreme example, you may not stand in the Lord's choir and shout "There's no such thing as God or sin!" and not have the director (the Lord) correct you on the matter.  If you continue to insist on pelting out "there is no Christ!" despite His urging, yes you will be asked to leave the choir. Now, does that mean that someone who doesn't know that there is Christ is automatically kicked out?  NO!!  Elder Holland makes it quite clear that those who still struggle with faith are welcome in the choir, even if their voice does not sing that song today (the songs unsung).  But there's a Grand Canyon difference between not being able to sing, versus shouting out against the director.  

But I can sing "Jesus is the Christ" vocally, in ink, in computer code, in any voice that I have at that moment. 

It is some lyrics that are not welcome.  All voices are welcome. 

And many times... to over extend Elder Holland's analogy, we're not always sitting in choir seats.  Sometimes there is down time.  Sometimes lyrics are not clearly revealed to us, and yes there can be disagreement on those- that's 100% fine.  But it's the lyrics that *have* been undoubtably revealed that you may not pelt out against (back to "there is no Christ!").  

[RevTestament]

18 hours ago, stemelbow said:

All that is true is far beyond any one's or any groups ability to know.  So you're wrong.  We all get different truths, if you will, in dour deferent ways, thus this leads to diversity of thought.  We don't grow when we try to limit this stuff.  

Not at all.  You think everybody must first conform to some standard before they chime in.  I disagree.  We benefit from hearing other perspectives, letting challenges to standards help us develop and explore more thoughts and ideas. We're stuck when we expect the world to conform first to 19th century religious norms before they get to chime in.  

What leads to diversity of thought - at least in religion - is not God, but different interpretations of scripture. That is a primary reason why there are so many different Christian sects - they all read the scriptures a little differently. For instance the Calvinists apply a very literal reading of certain sections of Paul, while ignoring other scriptures which contravene their view. God chooses those who try to best understand and apply His law. There is a single truth and we are all trying to find it - in our own imperfect ways. God didn't ordain our imperfection, but does hope we will learn to overcome it, and rely on Him.

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

What leads to diversity of thought - at least in religion - is not God, but different interpretations of scripture. That is a primary reason why there are so many different Christian sects - they all read the scriptures a little differently. For instance the Calvinists apply a very literal reading of certain sections of Paul, while ignoring other scriptures which contravene their view. God chooses those who try to best understand and apply His law. There is a single truth and we are all trying to find it - in our own imperfect ways. God didn't ordain our imperfection, but does hope we will learn to overcome it, and rely on Him.

You are stuck explaining in a very small sampling--bible believing sects.  There's a vast array of different perspectives in the world. 

It's not interpretation of scripture as much as people's inspiration that comes as they read the scriptures.  Mormons, as it is, can't claim to be the only one's inspired by God as they read the Bible.  Much as it is God inspires those who both read the Bible and those who don't.  He's inspiring feelings and thoughts.  With such a system in place no wonder we find diversity of thought.  Perhaps it is just as God has intended, in terms of individual ideas, diversity of thought. 

[pogi]

29 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It's not interpretation of scripture as much as people's inspiration that comes as they read the scriptures. 

Do you truly believe that God would inspire two polar opposite and conflicting interpretations of scripture?

 

[stemelbow]

Just now, pogi said:

Do you truly believe that God would inspire two polar opposite and conflicting interpretations of scripture?

 

You tell me.  Did God inspire Nephi to kill an unarmed unconscious person?  Did it seem to give Nephi some conflict?

 

[RevTestament]

59 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You are stuck explaining in a very small sampling--bible believing sects.  There's a vast array of different perspectives in the world. 

It's not interpretation of scripture as much as people's inspiration that comes as they read the scriptures.  Mormons, as it is, can't claim to be the only one's inspired by God as they read the Bible.  Much as it is God inspires those who both read the Bible and those who don't.  He's inspiring feelings and thoughts.  With such a system in place no wonder we find diversity of thought.  Perhaps it is just as God has intended, in terms of individual ideas, diversity of thought. 

Well, I agree with you somewhat. I think the Holy Spirit does "inspire" or confirm thoughts which lean towards truth or in the right direction. It is mho, that doesn't make our thought completely correct. Some people feel inspired by what a preacher said, or a SS lesson to join X church. To me that doesn't necessarily mean that is God's one true Church - but maybe that is the best source of truth they have at the time, and God will continue to lead them to more truth in the future should they hear it or see it. So in this sense I sort of agree with you, but I just see that initial inspiration as being incomplete. It's a step in the right direction, so they got confirmation or a feeling of being directed. The Spirit is leading them in the right direction so to speak. To debate tho that that church is God's one true church is a different matter tho.

[pogi]

29 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You tell me.  Did God inspire Nephi to kill an unarmed unconscious person?  Did it seem to give Nephi some conflict?

No, I am asking you what you believe.  As far as I can tell, you don't even believe the BoM to be historical so...

But since you asked, I do believe that God does give exceptions to the rule, but they are not the rule. 

[stemelbow]

58 minutes ago, pogi said:

No, I am asking you what you believe.  As far as I can tell, you don't even believe the BoM to be historical so...

But since you asked, I do believe that God does give exceptions to the rule, but they are not the rule. 

I think it's clear God will give contradicting ideas to different people.  As far as calling whatever God inspires us to do and think truth?  Well, I'm not so sure.

 

You're correct about my position on the historicity of the BoM, though.  the Nephi story seems silly.  I recommend Bokovoy's blog post from years ago:

Nephi's a propogandist

Edited June 2, 2017 by stemelbow

[stemelbow]

59 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Well, I agree with you somewhat. I think the Holy Spirit does "inspire" or confirm thoughts which lean towards truth or in the right direction. It is mho, that doesn't make our thought completely correct. Some people feel inspired by what a preacher said, or a SS lesson to join X church. To me that doesn't necessarily mean that is God's one true Church - but maybe that is the best source of truth they have at the time, and God will continue to lead them to more truth in the future should they hear it or see it. So in this sense I sort of agree with you, but I just see that initial inspiration as being incomplete. It's a step in the right direction, so they got confirmation or a feeling of being directed. The Spirit is leading them in the right direction so to speak. To debate tho that that church is God's one true church is a different matter tho.

Sure.  I think you get what I'm saying.  But I question the resolute word truth in all of this.  We're still trying to build to truth. 

[pogi]

25 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think it's clear God will give contradicting ideas to different people.  

It doesn't seem so clear to me, can you explain?  I can see how man might interpret God's word and inspiration in different ways, but I don't see how you can be sure that the message itself is contradicting.  I think the parable of the blind men and the elephant applies here. 

28 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

As far as calling whatever God inspires us to do and think truth?  Well, I'm not so sure.

Are you saying that there is a possibility in your mind that God may inspire us to do something that is contrary to truth?

[stemelbow]

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

It doesn't seem so clear to me, can you explain?  

I hope so.  In the case of Nephi, God commanded he kill an unconscious defenseless person.  In other cases, with other people, God has not so commanded.  You may suggest "well that's just a special case wherein God made an exception to the general rule" to which I say.  Ok.  But it shows contradictory commands from God.  We could definitely take this in a different direction too.  We're all running around on inspiration from God in some sense.  Often we're inspired to do certain things.  One could feel inspired by God to not help a someone, because doing so may not in the end benefit such an one, and at another time inspire a different person (or perhaps the same person) to help that same someone.  Or let's say a homeless person who is in need approaches two people.  Perhaps both at the time are good enough off to help the homeless person by giving them money.  God inspires one to give the homeless person 10 grand and inspires the next person to not give him anything.  That second person, you see, might have a catastrophic event coming ont he morrow.  God realizes he needs the extra moneys. 

These are just silly examples.  But in the end, I'd say truth is just too big for us to really understand.   We're all running around proclaiming our own truth and most likely we're all doing so while not realizing the error of our messages.  None of us sees the big picture and as such one thing that really seems like truth, that we really truly feel is completely true, may not be.  But it often seems God winks at our foolishness a bit, knowing the end result. 

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

I can see how man might interpret God's word and inspiration in different ways, but I don't see how you can be sure that the message itself is contradicting.  I think the parable of the blind men and the elephant applies here. 

Are you saying that there is a possibility in your mind that God may inspire us to do something that is contrary to truth?

Well, in a sense, sure.  Why not?  What we call true is most likely just foolishness to God.  We simply wouldn't know.  Apparently God can inspire us to kill an unconscious defenseless person, after all. 

[pogi]

40 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

But in the end, I'd say truth is just too big for us to really understand.   We're all running around proclaiming our own truth and most likely we're all doing so while not realizing the error of our messages.  None of us sees the big picture and as such one thing that really seems like truth, that we really truly feel is completely true, may not be.  But it often seems God winks at our foolishness a bit, knowing the end result. 

I agree with this to a certain extent.  However, in order to trust God, we have to accept some unassailable truths such as 1) God is good. 2) God loves us 3) God cannot lie to us or tell us untruths.  Otherwise, what is the point of obeying a God that is not good, does not love us, and who leads us into darkness?

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Well, in a sense, sure.  Why not? 

Because I would lose all faith in Him if he did...even if He does indeed exist. 

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Apparently God can inspire us to kill an unconscious defenseless person, after all. 

I thought you don't believe that?