Revelations come "after the manner of their language"

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 hour ago, Meerkat said:

That's a good question.  My thinking would be that God determines what is valid, and we will be judged on our sincerity, meekness and humility arriving at our conclusions.    Two scriptures:

Moroni 8:26 "And the remission of sins bringeth meekness, and lowliness of heart; and because of meekness and lowliness of heart cometh the visitation of the Holy Ghost, which Comforter filleth with hope and perfect love, which love endureth by diligence unto prayer, until the end shall come, when all the saints shall dwell with God."

And Moroni 7:42-44

"Wherefore, if a man have faith he must needs have hope; for without faith there cannot be any hope.
And again, behold I say unto you that he cannot have faith and hope, save he shall be meek, and lowly of heart. If so, his faith and hope is vain, for none is acceptable before God, save the meek and lowly in heart; and if a man be meek and lowly in heart, and confesses by the power of the Holy Ghost that Jesus is the Christ, he must needs have charity; for if he have not charity he is nothing; wherefore he must needs have charity."

If we have done those things and sincerely come to different conclusions, I believe God will honor that effort and help us understand what is actually true in due time.  I see no honest effort coming to loss.

Is there more than one right answer to the religious question in your mind? If so, doesn't that eliminate the need for missionary work? The ordinances?

[Meerkat]

26 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Is there more than one right answer to the religious question in your mind? If so, doesn't that eliminate the need for missionary work? The ordinances?

No, there is not more than one right answer.  We are each on our individual path to discover that answer.  If you ask a young child what equals 4, they may not know what you are talking about.  So you lay out 4 matchstick and count.  2+2, 1+1+2, 3+1, 1+1+1+1.  Then they practice, and learn.  4 is a fixed truth, the one right answer they are looking for.  Many paths will take us almost to where we want to go.  The final step is opening the door and going in.  That requires faith, repentance, and baptism by proper authority from God.  I believe all roads lead to Salt Lake City, headquarters of the Lord's Church.

[Meerkat]

47 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

How would you address the person who studied mormonism out in his/her mind, sought an answer through prayer, and said mormonism was wrong? Keep praying?

Try living it for awhile.  If they will do the thing, they will know the doctrine.  Study the Book of Mormon more, not commentaries on it.  And yes, pray more, with real intent.

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Not even the general authorities have ever told us to just obey the words of men

You know..I get what you and others are saying..but I spent 3/4 of my life "following the Prophet"...different ones..is there truth there or not?  Even if we follow the spirit and study with different conclusions, we are asked to follow the Prophet. 

[USU78]

Let's let Brother Brigham try to explain the problem:

Quote

Some of you may doubt the truth of what I now say, and argue that the Lord could teach him. This is a mistake. The Lord could not have taught him in any other way than in the way in which He did teach him. You believe Adam was made of the dust of this earth. This I do not believe, though it is supposed that it is so written in the Bible; but it is not, to my understanding. You can write that information to the States, if you please-that I have publicly declared that I do not believe that portion of the Bible as the Christian world do. I never did, and I never want to. What is the reason I do not? Because I have come to understanding, and banished from my mind all the baby stories my mother taught me when I was a child.

 

[Meerkat]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

You know..I get what you and others are saying..but I spent 3/4 of my life "following the Prophet"...different ones..is there truth there or not?  Even if we follow the spirit and study with different conclusions, we are asked to follow the Prophet. 

Hi Jeanne--

I agree that we are asked to follow the Prophet.  And in our family, we do with regard to principles of the Gospel.  But we need to weigh our important responsibilities and prayerfully order our lives.  Mosiah said in chapter 4:26 and 27 "

"....I would that ye should impart of your substance to the poor, every man according to that which he hath, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and administering to their relief, both spiritually and temporally, according to their wants.  And see that all these things are done in wisdom and order; for it is not requisite that a man should run faster than he has strength. And again, it is expedient that he should be diligent, that thereby he might win the prize; therefore, all things must be done in order.

Remember those days that we were told the Church is the scaffolding on the family, not the other way around.  Yet we were told to lengthen our stride, all callings are inspired.  Spruce up your yards.   Paint your fences.  Build a two year food supply.  Grind your wheat. Magnify your callings.  Get an education.  Get involved in the community.  Share the Gospel.  Work on your genealogy and family history. Attend the Temple.  Be a friend your neighbors, etc., etc.  We had a general authority come to our stake conference and tell a story about a woman who had several callings.  Her husband was in a demanding calling.  Then she was called to another responsible position on top of the other things she was doing.  Of course, she accepted because "She was a woman who knows."  I think some of the women in our hard working stake bristled at his comments.  What about the prophetic counsel "No success can compensate for failure in the home?"  

Yes, we need to follow the prophet, and our inspired leaders.  But we have responsibility for balance in our own lives.  It is too easy to follow leaders and friends who want or need our help.  I say give it, but in order.  Family fun, prayer, scripture study, FHE, etc. all important.  To stay on top of our most important responsibilities, and not forget about the others which are also important, we need the Spirit to be our guide.   There is no possible way to do everything that is asked of us.  Therefore, sometimes we will need to set a boundary and say "I have other demands." or "If I do this, it wouldn't be fair to my family."  It's all very personal, and at the same time very important.

My adult daughter once told me "I remember thinking when I was a teenager, if I had a flat tire, and someone else had a flat tire by the side of the road, you would help them first."  My priorities, while good, were not the best back then.  So in answer to your question "should I follow the different prophets?"  I say "Of course." But God isn't asking us to sacrifice our lives on the alter of the Church, which is our scaffolding.  He gave us minds to think things through.  He gave us the Holy Ghost and the ability to do things in an orderly manner.  I may be wrong, and this may not be addressing your comment.  But that's how I see it, for what it's worth. 

Edited August 16, 2017 by Meerkat

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

So would a testimony of mormonism that is completely opposite of what the brethren say mormonism is be a valid testimony in your opinion? What about Snuffer? What about Rock Waterman? What do you think the purpose of having leaders is if not to define the beliefs?

 

We believe in orthopraxis, not orthodoxy.

As long as you can honestly pass a temple recommend interview or a baptismal interview, there is no such thing as a "more faithful" Mormon than any other Mormon except in perhaps activity levels- but activity is another issue.  Some have more time to devote to church than others who might have to say, work on Sundays or 7 days a week, etc.

Asking about leaders in the church is like asking why the military has leaders.  Not a wise question.  Leaders guide and direct temporal affairs, give their instruction on scriptural interpretation, encourage "the troops", boost morale, and yes if necessary adjust and define doctrine as in the Proclamation on the Family and revelations on polygamy and the priesthood. 

This is a well-known principle in the church, I don't know why you don't know it.  How can you effectively criticize an organization when you don't even know how it works?  Quite obviously you can't. 

http://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2005/04/is-there-any-mormon-doctrine/

https://books.google.com/books?id=_4zcCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=orthopraxis+givens&source=bl&ots=VWB-tfRD6H&sig=L79FRPgTkg5HALht41-ga1DTueI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwid_Pvk69zVAhUO7WMKHdkwDtgQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=orthopraxis givens&f=false

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

So would a testimony of mormonism that is completely opposite of what the brethren say mormonism is be a valid testimony in your opinion? What about Snuffer? What about Rock Waterman? What do you think the purpose of having leaders is if not to define the beliefs?

 

Clearly the policy is to become less and less controlling over doctrinal matters and leave it to members to follow the spirit.  This has been going on for years and you have missed the boat- see this thread, now running.  People are running around with their heads cut off because they cannot sit in class and read the manuals and pretend they are teaching.  It is obvious that "defining the beliefs" is being left more and more to the individual.

Some how you have missed the message.

 

Edited August 17, 2017 by mfbukowski

[bluebell]

6 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

How would you address the person who studied mormonism out in his/her mind, sought an answer through prayer, and said mormonism was wrong? Keep praying?

I would tell them to do whatever they believed God was telling them to do.

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

How would you address the person who studied mormonism out in his/her mind, sought an answer through prayer, and said mormonism was wrong? Keep praying?

Clearly they must follow the spirit where it leads.

[Avatar4321]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Clearly they must follow the spirit where it leads.

It's hard to believe those who deny that the Spirit reveals anything has revealed something to them contrary to the gospel. But I completely agree that everyone has to follow the Spirit for themselves.

[mfbukowski]

53 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

It's hard to believe those who deny that the Spirit reveals anything has revealed something to them contrary to the gospel. But I completely agree that everyone has to follow the Spirit for themselves.

Well I think that God leads us to where we need to be to get closer to him.  The analogy I use is that usually one would not think that God would give us a testimony to join an Evangelical group, say.  But suppose you are a drunk on skid row and you feel that God calls you to the Salvation Army- I think that is perfectly reasonable. Or suppose you have no faith at all but suddenly feel called to ..... you name it, which is a theistic position which makes sense to you.  That is closer than you were and may be a stepping stone to other ways of seeing the world

So yes I have no problem with genuinely feeling the spirit to join a church other than ours.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Clearly they must follow the spirit where it leads.

There must be "real intent," though. If one is doing it with the purpose of showing up the Mormon missionaries, I don't think I would call that real intent. 

[mfbukowski]

36 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There must be "real intent," though. If one is doing it with the purpose of showing up the Mormon missionaries, I don't think I would call that real intent. 

Of course!  I made no presumption that they even knew about Mormonism much less missionaries- just a sincere person looking to get closer to God.

Edited August 17, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Of course!  I made no presumption that they even knew about Mormonism much less missionaries- just a sincere person looking to get closer to God.

I mention this because I was on a message board years ago that was infested with Protestant anti-Mormons. One woman came on one day to brag that she found out "it works." She had prayed to know that Mormonism is false and God had answered her prayer. 

This to me is a textbook example of not praying with real intent. 

[clarkgoble]

20 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

How would you address the person who studied mormonism out in his/her mind, sought an answer through prayer, and said mormonism was wrong? Keep praying?

Since I have no way of knowing what their experience was from that it's hard to answer. It'd depend a great deal on the particular circumstances. In general though, given my experiences, I'd assume they're misinterpreting things. But I have no problem with God leading people in different directions than an immediate conversion to Mormonism. People need to learn different things. I think many people may not yet be ready to join the Church and the Lord may direct them to experiences they need first. That's not a slam on them just an inherent issue in personal revelation. I wrote over at T&S on a related question. It's probably pertinent to quote it here:

 

 

Each person is responsible for their own experiences and interpreting them. As we act on our experiences we have to take up the risk associated with that act. Indeed I’d say that element of risk is important. To your hypothetical experience I can but say they have to pray and decide for themselves. I can only speak from my own experiences.

Of course we dismiss other peoples experiences in preference to our own as we have no other choice. How can we tell if someone else really had the experience or interpreted it correctly? Certainly we can’t simply dismiss out of hand people who disagree with us. Yet if it is grounded in private experience I have no real choice but to ultimately follow my own experience. What else could I do?

I have confidence that if there is a real God and if we continue to inquire in a sincere and devout way that God will lead us. If he for unknown reasons leads a person for a period down a different lane, who am I to criticize him? I can’t speak to his purposes for an other person if they aren’t self-evident. And, for all I know, they completely misinterpreted the experiences in question and then stopped inquiring. It’s that element of continual inquiry that’s so important. I’d be the first to admit that many LDS members themselves get into a comfort zone and stop inquiring. I think the language we usually use to describe that is that they’re losing their living testimony in preference for the memory of a testimony. That’ll keep people for quite a while but God has a way of testing us so we have to turn to him. Many people who don’t have a living testimony continually nourished by continuing revelation (see Alma 32:38) then typically one will fall away or in some cases will return to inquiring sincerely by asking God and enlivening their testimony.

Edited August 17, 2017 by clarkgoble

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Since I have no way of knowing what their experience was from that it's hard to answer. It'd depend a great deal on the particular circumstances. In general though, given my experiences, I'd assume they're misinterpreting things. But I have no problem with God leading people in different directions than an immediate conversion to Mormonism. People need to learn different things. I think many people may not yet be ready to join the Church and the Lord may direct them to experiences they need first. That's not a slam on them just an inherent issue in personal revelation. I wrote over at T&S on a related question. It's probably pertinent to quote it here:

 

 

Each person is responsible for their own experiences and interpreting them. As we act on our experiences we have to take up the risk associated with that act. Indeed I’d say that element of risk is important. To your hypothetical experience I can but say they have to pray and decide for themselves. I can only speak from my own experiences.

Of course we dismiss other peoples experiences in preference to our own as we have no other choice. How can we tell if someone else really had the experience or interpreted it correctly? Certainly we can’t simply dismiss out of hand people who disagree with us. Yet if it is grounded in private experience I have no real choice but to ultimately follow my own experience. What else could I do?

I have confidence that if there is a real God and if we continue to inquire in a sincere and devout way that God will lead us. If he for unknown reasons leads a person for a period down a different lane, who am I to criticize him? I can’t speak to his purposes for an other person if they aren’t self-evident. And, for all I know, they completely misinterpreted the experiences in question and then stopped inquiring. It’s that element of continual inquiry that’s so important. I’d be the first to admit that many LDS members themselves get into a comfort zone and stop inquiring. I think the language we usually use to describe that is that they’re losing their living testimony in preference for the memory of a testimony. That’ll keep people for quite a while but God has a way of testing us so we have to turn to him. Many people who don’t have a living testimony continually nourished by continuing revelation (see Alma 32:38) then typically one will fall away or in some cases will return to inquiring sincerely by asking God and enlivening their testimony.

This is Bukowski version of Pascal's wager:

If God exists and he is evil we're all messed up anyway.

If God is good he does not need us so he must have a purpose for us.

If he has a purpose for us he must have some way of communicating that purpose to us, or creating us was purposeless.

Therefore it's up to us to find out that purpose and how he communicates, and live accordingly.

On the other hand if God does not exist and we still seek our purpose in life and live it, we still will have a happy and purposeful life.

It's a total win-win situation.

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This is Bukowski version of Pascal's wager:

If God exists and he is evil we're all messed up anyway.

If God is good he does not need us so he must have a purpose for us.

If he has a purpose for us he must have some way of communicating that purpose to us, or creating us was purposeless.

Therefore it's up to us to find out that purpose and how he communicates, and live accordingly.

On the other hand if God does not exist and we still seek our purpose in life and live it, we still will have a happy and purposeful life.

It's a total win-win situation.

 

So the bottom line is, if the above makes sense to you, we are the only church that teaches that we should follow what God has communicated to us to find our purpose in life.

Therefore we are the one true and living church.  It's not our fault- we are just the one that makes sense.

 

That is exactly the thought process that drew me to Mormonism, but when I got a testimony- whammy- it was all over.   Stick a fork in me- I'm done.  I surrender.

TBM forever.  

I don't care what old guys said what to whom or what they did right or wrong, or  whenever - it is the above logic that keeps me here.  

Of course there are steps missing and I just have presented the bottom lines here in each step.   But I have justified each step for myself.  I can see no way out of that logic, and if anyone wants to try me, go for it.  I am always looking for flaws in my ideas and have been for 40 years and have made some adjustments.  Always happy to do that.

Edited August 17, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Pete Ahlstrom]

21 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Clearly the policy is to become less and less controlling over doctrinal matters and leave it to members to follow the spirit.  This has been going on for years and you have missed the boat- see this thread, now running.  People are running around with their heads cut off because they cannot sit in class and read the manuals and pretend they are teaching.  It is obvious that "defining the beliefs" is being left more and more to the individual.

Some how you have missed the message.

 

I guess I couldn't get passed the obedience and correlation obsession that seemed to prevail when I attended. If that has truly changed then good for the church. Do primary kids still sing the follow the prophet song? That really bothered me especially when my son became primary age.

[mfbukowski]

25 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I guess I couldn't get passed the obedience and correlation obsession that seemed to prevail when I attended. If that has truly changed then good for the church. Do primary kids still sing the follow the prophet song? That really bothered me especially when my son became primary age.

They do. I'd give that one another 50 years, but we are moving forward. Big ships don't turn on a dime. That song is actually becoming a bit of an issue in some circles.

http://rationalfaiths.com/follow-the-prophet-redux/

The point us, that there are true believing Mormons today who are respected and who totally agree with you on this point

Edited August 17, 2017 by mfbukowski

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I guess I couldn't get passed the obedience and correlation obsession that seemed to prevail when I attended. If that has truly changed then good for the church. Do primary kids still sing the follow the prophet song? That really bothered me especially when my son became primary age.

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

They do. I'd give that one another 50 years, but we are moving forward. Big ships don't turn on a dime. That song is actually becoming a bit of an issue in some circles.

http://rationalfaiths.com/follow-the-prophet-redux/

The point us, that there are true believing Mormons today who are respected and who totally agree with you on this point

I confess I love that Follow the Prophet song especially with the Yiddish music. I don't see what's the big deal about it. It's all OT prophets discussed. It seems about as innocuous as saying, follow the scriptures or follow the commandments. That Rational Faiths post seems a bit much. Although I will agree that the Jonah verse is a bit problematic. Jonah is suicidal in the story and then gets mad when Babylon repents. Not exactly a great guy. However his prophecy was correct. But calling it a Soviet tune? Geeze talk about tone deaf to music.

 

 

Edited August 17, 2017 by clarkgoble

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I confess I love that Follow the Prophet song especially with the Yiddish music. I don't see what's the big deal about it. It's all OT prophets discussed. It seems about as innocuous as saying, follow the scriptures or follow the commandments. That Rational Faiths post seems a bit much. Although I will agree that the Jonah verse is a bit problematic. Jonah is suicidal in the story and then gets mad when Babylon repents. Not exactly a great guy. However his prophecy was correct. But calling it a Soviet tune? Geeze talk about tone deaf to music.

Well ok but I never really listened to the words, honestly.  I have never sung it, and the usual cuteness of the kids and lack of distinct pronunciation probably went over my head.  Honestly my mind wanders at times like that and is usually plugging in to other things.  I am not expecting to learn doctrine when kids are singing- which is probably a flaw.  I need more humility, unquestionably!

It says "He knows the way" which is obviously present tense.  I suppose if you were raised with it, it would not be creepy.  I am also bugged by "Praise to the Man" which has been discussed here before.  I invited some investigators once and man did they have questions about "mingling with gods he can plan for his brethren".  "Multiple gods?  Planning with Joseph?  Like some kind of committee meeting talking about strategy?  For what? Taking over the world in cahoots with false gods?"  They took it as pretty Satanic, and I never really got them back.

I am so glad the church changed the policy about whispering in a child's ear for them to repeat a "testimony".   To an insider it is cute and a teaching moment; for an outsider it looks like brain washing in progress.

Sorry, but I think it is time for those raised in the church to understand how really "weird" it sounds to outsiders.   I love the weirdness because I understand the culture and what is under it, there are solid principles there.  But the presentation- the PR aspects of it just do not communicate to outsiders and it seems life members do not get that because it never was even slightly weird to them, being raised in the culture.

[Scott Lloyd]

22 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Since I have no way of knowing what their experience was from that it's hard to answer. It'd depend a great deal on the particular circumstances. In general though, given my experiences, I'd assume they're misinterpreting things. But I have no problem with God leading people in different directions than an immediate conversion to Mormonism. People need to learn different things. I think many people may not yet be ready to join the Church and the Lord may direct them to experiences they need first. That's not a slam on them just an inherent issue in personal revelation. I wrote over at T&S on a related question. It's probably pertinent to quote it here:

 

 

Each person is responsible for their own experiences and interpreting them. As we act on our experiences we have to take up the risk associated with that act. Indeed I’d say that element of risk is important. To your hypothetical experience I can but say they have to pray and decide for themselves. I can only speak from my own experiences.

Of course we dismiss other peoples experiences in preference to our own as we have no other choice. How can we tell if someone else really had the experience or interpreted it correctly? Certainly we can’t simply dismiss out of hand people who disagree with us. Yet if it is grounded in private experience I have no real choice but to ultimately follow my own experience. What else could I do?

I have confidence that if there is a real God and if we continue to inquire in a sincere and devout way that God will lead us. If he for unknown reasons leads a person for a period down a different lane, who am I to criticize him? I can’t speak to his purposes for an other person if they aren’t self-evident. And, for all I know, they completely misinterpreted the experiences in question and then stopped inquiring. It’s that element of continual inquiry that’s so important. I’d be the first to admit that many LDS members themselves get into a comfort zone and stop inquiring. I think the language we usually use to describe that is that they’re losing their living testimony in preference for the memory of a testimony. That’ll keep people for quite a while but God has a way of testing us so we have to turn to him. Many people who don’t have a living testimony continually nourished by continuing revelation (see Alma 32:38) then typically one will fall away or in some cases will return to inquiring sincerely by asking God and enlivening their testimony.

Elder Neal A. Maxwell said that even prophets and apostles are subject to having their faith tested, just like the rest of us. 

I don't have time right now to find a citation for the statement, but it was quoted in Part 1 of the Boyce article on the Interpreter web site, the one that was so loudly lambasted but that I quite like. 

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Well ok but I never really listened to the words, honestly.  I have never sung it, and the usual cuteness of the kids and lack of distinct pronunciation probably went over my head.  Honestly my mind wanders at times like that and is usually plugging in to other things.  I am not expecting to learn doctrine when kids are singing- which is probably a flaw.  I need more humility, unquestionably!

It says "He knows the way" which is obviously present tense.  I suppose if you were raised with it, it would not be creepy.  I am also bugged by "Praise to the Man" which has been discussed here before.  I invited some investigators once and man did they have questions about "mingling with gods he can plan for his brethren".  "Multiple gods?  Planning with Joseph?  Like some kind of committee meeting talking about strategy?  For what? Taking over the world in cahoots with false gods?"  They took it as pretty Satanic, and I never really got them back.

I am so glad the church changed the policy about whispering in a child's ear for them to repeat a "testimony".   To an insider it is cute and a teaching moment; for an outsider it looks like brain washing in progress.

Sorry, but I think it is time for those raised in the church to understand how really "weird" it sounds to outsiders.   I love the weirdness because I understand the culture and what is under it, there are solid principles there.  But the presentation- the PR aspects of it just do not communicate to outsiders and it seems life members do not get that because it never was even slightly weird to them, being raised in the culture.

Just curious how you explained to the investigators the line in "Praise to the Man." 

I know we have to be careful to give milk before meat to the uninitiated, but I hate to think that means dumbing down the doctrine for the rest of us.

Also, the thing about whispering a "testimony" in a child's ear (which bugs me as well) I don't think ever was codified as policy. It is just something that was tolerated for a while -- like closing s talk in the name of "Thy Son" is tolerated now even though it doesn't make sense.

In truth, I haven't seen an instance of the ear whispering for a long time, blessedly. 

Edited August 18, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 like closing s talk in the name of "Thy Son" is tolerated now even though it doesn't make sense.

 

Whenever I hear a speaker end this way I wonder which one of my sons is being referred to.