A Prophet of God

[california boy]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

No, that just re-states what I cannot comprehend- it makes no sense to me

What is the difference between "truth" and "dogma" and how do you make the distinction?  How do you know what the "basic message of Christ" even IS without "dogma"?  Why is the "basic message of Christ" NOT "dogma"?

How do you determine what is a "simple truth" and that you believe the correct "simple truths"?  You respect but challenge, supposedly yet state no reason for your beliefs so you allow no one to analyze the source of your beliefs so we can "respect and challenge" your beliefs.  Can truth be complicated?  Why or why not?

Seems to me all you do is criticize the LDS church and leave your opinions a mystery so that there is nothing there for anyone else to question.  Yes, we know you advocate gay marriage but what else and on what grounds?

I think all of these question are very interesting to discuss. So as not to derail this thread, why don't you open up a new thread. I would be more than happy to participate 

Edited September 23, 2017 by california boy

[mfbukowski]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think all of these question are very interesting to discuss. So as not to derail this thread, why don't you open up a new thread. I would be more than happy to participate 

You know private threads are not allowed.  I am just looking for consistency and I don't see any, I really don't care.

Start your own thread

All I see is smoke and mirrors and no answers.  That is my entire point.  Plenty of criticism and nothing substantial of your own views so we can "respect but challenge" you.

No challenges, no respect.  There's nothing there to respect OR challenge,  if there's no "dogma"

[california boy]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

No, that just re-states what I cannot comprehend- it makes no sense to me

What is the difference between "truth" and "dogma" and how do you make the distinction?  How do you know what the "basic message of Christ" even IS without "dogma"?  Why is the "basic message of Christ" NOT "dogma"?

How do you determine what is a "simple truth" and that you believe the correct "simple truths"?  You respect but challenge, supposedly yet state no reason for your beliefs so you allow no one to analyze the source of your beliefs so we can "respect and challenge" your beliefs.  Can truth be complicated?  Why or why not?

Seems to me all you do is criticize the LDS church and leave your opinions a mystery so that there is nothing there for anyone else to question.  Yes, we know you advocate gay marriage but what else and on what grounds?

Why do you accept the bible, for example, when it is clearly against homosexual behavior?   How do you pick and choose "truth" from "dogma"?

 

43 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You know private threads are not allowed.  I am just looking for consistency and I don't see any, I really don't care.

Start your own thread

All I see is smoke and mirrors and no answers.  That is my entire point.  Plenty of criticism and nothing substantial of your own views so we can "respect but challenge" you.

No challenges, no respect.  There's nothing there to respect OR challenge,  if there's no "dogma"

I though your questions were interesting enough to hear other peoples views on them. I rarely start threads.  The two recent once I have started were the first ones in about 5 years.  But if you want to make this personal, I will be glad to answer your questions.  I probably just won't respond to any of your follow up questions because I really don't intend this thread to be about me or feel the need to derail it.  That said, here are my thoughts.

The difference between truth and dogma.  From Wikipedia.

Quote

Dogma is an official system of principles or tenets of a church, such as Roman Catholicism,^[1] or a philosophy such as Stoicism.

Dogma is transliterated in the 17th century from Latin (Latin dogma) meaning "philosophical tenet", derived from the Greek 'dogma' (Greek δόγμα) meaning literally "that which one thinks is true" and 'dokein' (Greek dokeo) "to seem good.

So dogma is what people think or seems to them to be true. But you can't assume that dogma is true.  It is only a belief of truth, which is why so much dogma conflicts with each other.

Truth is that which never changes throughout eternity.  Dogma can change, as it has over time in the Mormon church.  Truth never changes.

 

  Christ was asked that very question.  He said. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.  This is the first and great commandment.  And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

And from James 1:27

Quote

 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

I have also written about this several times before.  But I think the last public sermon that is recorded of Christ is found in Matthew 25.

 

Quote

 

³¹ When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

³² And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

³³ And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

³⁴ Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

³⁵ For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

³⁶ Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

³⁷ Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

³⁸ When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

³⁹ Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

⁴⁰ And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

⁴¹ Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

⁴² For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

⁴³ I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

⁴⁴ Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

⁴⁵ Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

⁴⁶ And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

 

 

And I would add 1 Corinthians 13.

That is the basic truths of Christ.  They are eternal truths.  I don't consider them dogma.  The principle will never change.  And all other beliefs should put this basic message up as a litmus test. 

 

I listed what I think are the simple truths in my avatar.

I adhere to simple truths. Love God, love others, let God judge and worry about my own faults.

While I am very critical of some of the actions of the church, particularly in their desire to take away the civil rights of others and support discrimination, I try not to be critical of the church leaders and it's teachings.  I constantly stress that I believe that the church has the right to teach and believe anything it wants.  I do comment when I think someone is distorting historical facts.  But most often I am challenging someone's point of view to understand how they arrived at that belief.  Maybe you look at that as being critical.  That is not my intention.  As in my avatar, 

I try to respect those differences, but will also challenge those beliefs to sort out truth from dogma.

I certainly don't accept every word or teaching in the Bible.  NO ONE DOES.  I have no doubt that some of what is written came from God.  But by far, the majority of what is in the Bible are the beliefs of the person writing in his time.  

Perhaps I have stirred up more questions than answers for you in this post.  But like I said at the beginning, I don't plan on derailing this thread by talking about what I have written.  If you want to discuss this more, then you will have to start a thread.  Feel free to copy my entire post if that is where you want to start the discussion.

 

 

 

 

[Avatar4321]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You know Beck is LDS, right?

that so explains why he was teaching Sunday school all those years ago. And the fireside.;)

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

 

I though your questions were interesting enough to hear other peoples views on them. I rarely start threads.  The two recent once I have started were the first ones in about 5 years.  But if you want to make this personal, I will be glad to answer your questions.  I probably just won't respond to any of your follow up questions because I really don't intend this thread to be about me or feel the need to derail it.  That said, here are my thoughts.

The difference between truth and dogma.  From Wikipedia.

So dogma is what people think or seems to them to be true. But you can't assume that dogma is true.  It is only a belief of truth, which is why so much dogma conflicts with each other.

Truth is that which never changes throughout eternity.  Dogma can change, as it has over time in the Mormon church.  Truth never changes.

 

  Christ was asked that very question.  He said. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.  This is the first and great commandment.  And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

And from James 1:27

I have also written about this several times before.  But I think the last public sermon that is recorded of Christ is found in Matthew 25.

 

 

And I would add 1 Corinthians 13.

That is the basic truths of Christ.  They are eternal truths.  I don't consider them dogma.  The principle will never change.  And all other beliefs should put this basic message up as a litmus test. 

 

I listed what I think are the simple truths in my avatar.

I adhere to simple truths. Love God, love others, let God judge and worry about my own faults.

While I am very critical of some of the actions of the church, particularly in their desire to take away the civil rights of others and support discrimination, I try not to be critical of the church leaders and it's teachings.  I constantly stress that I believe that the church has the right to teach and believe anything it wants.  I do comment when I think someone is distorting historical facts.  But most often I am challenging someone's point of view to understand how they arrived at that belief.  Maybe you look at that as being critical.  That is not my intention.  As in my avatar, 

I try to respect those differences, but will also challenge those beliefs to sort out truth from dogma.

I certainly don't accept every word or teaching in the Bible.  NO ONE DOES.  I have no doubt that some of what is written came from God.  But by far, the majority of what is in the Bible are the beliefs of the person writing in his time.  

Perhaps I have stirred up more questions than answers for you in this post.  But like I said at the beginning, I don't plan on derailing this thread by talking about what I have written.  If you want to discuss this more, then you will have to start a thread.  Feel free to copy my entire post if that is where you want to start the discussion.

 

 

 

 

By your Wikipedia definition of "dogma," these are all dogmas. 

They are what YOU think are true and unchanging. You pick and choose what your own private truth is. 

"I don't consider them dogma"

You said you won't answer anyway, so why discuss anything?

Nothing to respect or challenge if you won't discuss it.

It's smoke and mirrors and heaps of criticism while you won't discuss what you think is dogma.

You say dogma is "what people think seems to them to be true" AND then give a list of what seems to you to be true, including a definition of truth!

You quote the Bible as if it is true and unchanging, but then say "it was the beliefs of someone writing at the time" but yet I guess that does not include the parts you like. You pick the alleged words of Jesus you like and the rest is "what people believed at the time"

There's nothing there. No firm foundation of unchanging truth that you say you seek. It's contradictory doublespeak. You decide what's true without any foundation but your feelings.

That's fine with me, for me that is what truth by testimony is, and that changes as our lives change, but you say you want unchanging truth.

But then you criticize the church for changing while your own idea of what is true has obviously changed!!

Totally inconsistent. Nothing there.

Stick to gay marriage because theology ain't your schtick. There is still certainly no basis here for anything like a justification for SSM. 

You want the church to change but then criticize it for changing.

Blatant contradictions.  You say you won't answer, that is probably best.

 

 

[california boy]

25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

By your Wikipedia definition of "dogma," these are all dogmas. 

They are what YOU think are true and unchanging. You pick and choose what your own private truth is. 

"I don't consider them dogma"

You said you won't answer anyway, so why discuss anything?

Nothing to respect or challenge if you won't discuss it.

It's smoke and mirrors and heaps of criticism while you won't discuss what you think is dogma.

You say dogma is "what people think seems to them to be true" AND then give a list of what seems to you to be true, including a definition of truth!

You quote the Bible as if it is true and unchanging, but then say "it was the beliefs of someone writing at the time" but yet I guess that does not include the parts you like. You pick the alleged words of Jesus you like and the rest is "what people believed at the time"

There's nothing there. No firm foundation of unchanging truth that you say you seek. It's contradictory doublespeak. You decide what's true without any foundation but your feelings.

That's fine with me, for me that is what truth by testimony is, and that changes as our lives change, but you say you want unchanging truth.

But then you criticize the church for changing while your own idea of what is true has obviously changed!!

Totally inconsistent. Nothing there.

Stick to gay marriage because theology ain't your schtick. There is still certainly no basis here for anything like a justification for SSM. 

You want the church to change but then criticize it for changing.

Blatant contradictions.  You say you won't answer, that is probably best.

 

 

Actually I was quite clear that I would love to talk about this.  But I am not going to derail this thread.  If you are really interested in discussing it, open a thread.

[mfbukowski]

27 minutes ago, california boy said:

Actually I was quite clear that I would love to talk about this.  But I am not going to derail this thread.  If you are really interested in discussing it, open a thread.

Nothing there to discuss but contradictions

[Robert F. Smith]

Was just reading Pres Henry Eyring's April 2017 Conference address, and found these gems from his personal revelatory experience:

Quote

. . . when I was a new Aaronic Priesthood holder with an assignment to pass the sacrament. Terrified that I would make a mistake, I went outside the chapel before the meeting started and prayed in desperation that God would help me. An answer came. I felt that the Lord was with me. I felt His confidence in me, and so I felt confidence in my part in His work.

It happened again while I was serving as a bishop. I received a phone call from a woman who had made a serious mistake and now faced a difficult, life-changing decision. As I visited with her, I felt I knew the answer to her problem, but I also felt strongly that I should not give her that answer—she needed to obtain it for herself. My words to her were “I believe God will tell you what to do if you would ask Him.” She later reported that she did ask Him and He did tell her.

On another occasion a phone call came when I was a bishop—this time from the police. I was told that a drunk driver had crashed his car through the glass into the lobby of a bank. When the bewildered driver saw the security guard with his weapon brandished, he cried, “Don’t shoot! I’m a Mormon!”

The inebriated driver was discovered to be a member of my ward, baptized only recently. As I waited to speak to him in the bishop’s office, I planned what I would say to make him feel remorseful for the way he had broken his covenants and embarrassed the Church. But as I sat looking at him, I heard a voice in my mind say, just as clearly as if someone were speaking to me, “I’m going to let you see him as I see him.” And then, for a brief moment, his whole appearance changed to me. I saw not a dazed young man but a bright, noble son of God. I suddenly felt the Lord’s love for him. That vision changed our conversation. It also changed me.

 

Edited September 24, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Foreigner]

On 22.09.2017 at 12:55 PM, california boy said:

This is what I find as a paradox in Mormon belief.  The church clearly claims revelation.  What it doesn't do any more is declare revelation.

All churches claim to receive answers from God.  None declare revelation.  That was what was unique to Mormonism. 

That is interesting point. I am afraid that people here claim various things about other churches while lacking deeper knowledge. Surely, when considering revelation, do not ask Baptists, Presbyterians, JW etc. Look at great pentecostal movement and you will find everything. They declare and (sometimes)  practice all nine spiritual gifts as listed, not only in the Bible, but also in Moroni 10. Some pastors declared and described the highest revelations possible, face to face conversations with Jesus, travels to heavens and hell, and many more. There is huge literature about this everything. I cannot count even books I have gathered since my youth. What important in this context - that all is personal, and pentecostal anointing does not act according to church/denomination borders. A man can create his ministry, sometimes called before was born, what ends when he departs. Today Christians declare revelation, you can find interesting monographs on theory and practice in this field. Yet the hierarchical point of view, typical for Mormons, does not suit here.

At the other hand, as far as I know, the LDS church is the one created with direct assistance of God (here the word “unique” could apply). Yet direct revelation faded away quite quickly. There were reasons for that. This is not physical necessity. Inspiration does not equal revelation. Whatever vivid inspirations people can describe, there is qualitative gap to revelations.

[thesometimesaint]

8 hours ago, Foreigner said:

That is interesting point. I am afraid that people here claim various things about other churches while lacking deeper knowledge. Surely, when considering revelation, do not ask Baptists, Presbyterians, JW etc. Look at great pentecostal movement and you will find everything. They declare and (sometimes)  practice all nine spiritual gifts as listed, not only in the Bible, but also in Moroni 10. Some pastors declared and described the highest revelations possible, face to face conversations with Jesus, travels to heavens and hell, and many more. There is huge literature about this everything. I cannot count even books I have gathered since my youth. What important in this context - that all is personal, and pentecostal anointing does not act according to church/denomination borders. A man can create his ministry, sometimes called before was born, what ends when he departs. Today Christians declare revelation, you can find interesting monographs on theory and practice in this field. Yet the hierarchical point of view, typical for Mormons, does not suit here.

At the other hand, as far as I know, the LDS church is the one created with direct assistance of God (here the word “unique” could apply). Yet direct revelation faded away quite quickly. There were reasons for that. This is not physical necessity. Inspiration does not equal revelation. Whatever vivid inspirations people can describe, there is qualitative gap to revelations.

In LDS thought that is a distinction without a difference.

[wtrdog]

On 9/22/2017 at 8:17 AM, Avatar4321 said:

My faith in Christ is demonstrated by actually listening to what Christ teaches instead of trying to prove it in activities He has told us to avoid: gambling and Temping the Lord.

I've seen no evidence that any of the leaders are lying. Just a couple months ago Elder Holland went out of his way to correct a story he was misinformed about. That doesn't seem like someone trying to low.

They have far more spiritual experiences than the rest of us. They are trying to teach us the basics of getting revelation for ourselves. Boasting about grand visions when the Lord says otherwise and when most revelations don't come in that matter seems contrary to the plan heavenly Father has for us. Most revelation comes though the whisiperings of the Spirit. Teaching the saints how to hear and recognize the Spirit is far more valuable than sharing grand experiences for the sake of sharing grand experiences.

I invite you to prayerfully listen to conference next week and seek the Lords guidance.

So Avatar, what's the outcome?  I didn't watch conference.  From the talks can you point me to anything in the realm of what I asked for?  Any member of Q15 referring to himself in the first person as a prophet, unambiguously claiming to have received and be sharing/presenting a revelation, prophecy, etc?  This is not a troll, I am being sincere.  Point me to an example and I'll go back to church for a year.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, wtrdog said:

So Avatar, what's the outcome?  I didn't watch conference.  From the talks can you point me to anything in the realm of what I asked for?  Any member of Q15 referring to himself in the first person as a prophet, unambiguously claiming to have received and be sharing/presenting a revelation, prophecy, etc?  This is not a troll, I am being sincere.  Point me to an example and I'll go back to church for a year.

Matthew 16:4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed

[wtrdog]

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Matthew 16:4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed

Yeah, I don't know what that means.  It's unreasonable for me to expect a prophet to actually claim to be a prophet?  My standard is pretty low here.  I'm not asking for a booming voice or chorus of angels to drop from the sky.  I'm not asking for PROOF the church is true.  Isn't that what is meant by a "sign," proof?  I'm not asking for signs.  I literally am just asking for any one of the 15 men sustained as a "prophet," going by this title, to actually get up and say "I am a prophet."  

[wtrdog]

Bump. Things are quiet. I didn't watch conference. I guess from the lack of response not even one sustained "prophet" lived up to his title? Not a single prophet testified that he is in fact a prophet? 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, wtrdog said:

Bump. Things are quiet. I didn't watch conference. I guess from the lack of response not even one sustained "prophet" lived up to his title? Not a single prophet testified that he is in fact a prophet? 

Prophets rarely ever declare themselves to be prophets.  The  examples of such are few.  That is not their duty.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 10/3/2017 at 2:51 PM, wtrdog said:

Yeah, I don't know what that means.  It's unreasonable for me to expect a prophet to actually claim to be a prophet?  My standard is pretty low here.  I'm not asking for a booming voice or chorus of angels to drop from the sky.  I'm not asking for PROOF the church is true.  Isn't that what is meant by a "sign," proof?  I'm not asking for signs.  I literally am just asking for any one of the 15 men sustained as a "prophet," going by this title, to actually get up and say "I am a prophet."  

 

3 hours ago, wtrdog said:

Bump. Things are quiet. I didn't watch conference. I guess from the lack of response not even one sustained "prophet" lived up to his title? Not a single prophet testified that he is in fact a prophet? 

As Mary Magdalene said to Clavius, the fictional Roman Tribune:  "You look for the wrong thing."  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlIV8lMvz6I .

Since you don't know the Bible and therefore don't know anything about prophets, naturally you make false assumptions about what prophets are supposed to do and say.  Additionally, you know little of Mormon history, or current practice.  If you did, you would see that you only imagine what you assert.  You have accepted grievous falsehoods as norms, Waterdog.  You might want to see the three-part series in Interpreter 26 on prophets and revelation, online starting at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-lengthening-shadow-is-quality-of-thought-deteriorating-in-lds-scholarly-discourse-regarding-prophets-and-revelation-part-one/ .

 

[Atheist Mormon]

On 9/20/2017 at 3:48 AM, california boy said:

I personally don't care one way or another. I wish the church would just be more clear whether church policy is coming by committee or declared by revelation through a spokesman from God. And no they are not the same thing.  If they have become the same thing thing then the claims of Mormonism is just like every other thing organized religion. 

 

Knowing what I know of running an enterprise I'd do nothing differently, and why should I? If my leadership is satisfactory enough for majority of faithful nothing will change. Not only LDS Church Catholic Church is running is running under the same infallible precepts......

[Avatar4321]

On 10/3/2017 at 1:26 PM, wtrdog said:

So Avatar, what's the outcome?  I didn't watch conference.  From the talks can you point me to anything in the realm of what I asked for?  Any member of Q15 referring to himself in the first person as a prophet, unambiguously claiming to have received and be sharing/presenting a revelation, prophecy, etc?  This is not a troll, I am being sincere.  Point me to an example and I'll go back to church for a year.

Listen to conference.

Elder Oaks in particular testified to the revelation they received that lead to the Proclamation on the Family.