Former Bishop Hunger Strike for Youth Interview Policy Change

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Joe said:

The church has made some important policy and doctrinal changes in its history that were the result of outside pressure or members challenging the prophet. Among these moral improvements:

• Ordaining blacks 

OD-2 was revelatory.  And I don't think it was the result of "outside pressure or members challenging the prophet" (at least not directly so).  If you feel otherwise, please CFR.

7 minutes ago, Joe said:

• Removing the creepiest parts of the endowment and initiatory ceremonies. 

Alas, we can't talk about temple content here.

7 minutes ago, Joe said:

• Acknowledging SSA is not a choice

The Church has acknowledged this for many years.  And, IIRC, this acknowledgment came from study and research, not "pressure."  If you feel otherwise, please CFR.

7 minutes ago, Joe said:

• Adam God doctrine. Thank you Orson Pratt!

Meh.  I decided long ago to cut the early leaders quite a bit of slack.  They were working under some pretty adverse circumstances.  They had a lot of things to worry about.  And "Apostleship for Dummies" hadn't been published yet.

7 minutes ago, Joe said:

• Stopping polygamy. 

OD-1 was revelatory.  And the "pressures" imposed on the Church were pretty appalling.

7 minutes ago, Joe said:

• Correcting historic inaccuracies in CES 

Don't know what you are referencing here.

7 minutes ago, Joe said:

• Women being allowed to pray in church meeting, teach seminary, etc

That seems to have come about through discussion and counsel, not "outside pressure or members challenging the prophet" (at least not directly so).  If you feel otherwise, please CFR.

7 minutes ago, Joe said:

There are many more examples.

Not really.  And the examples you have given are not very persuasive.

7 minutes ago, Joe said:

The point is, each of these changes came in response to pressure to change.

Well, okay.  But the source of that "pressure" matters.  The morality of it matters.  The ethics of it matters.

And in the end, what God wants is determinative.

7 minutes ago, Joe said:

In fact, I challenge you to think of a large change that was not motivated by outside pressure or  from the grass roots. 

The November 2015 policy changes.

The elimination of local-level quorums of seventy.

The elimination of local-level elders quorums.

The Proclamation.

External influences will always exist.  Sure.  But they are not the driving force in the Church.  Revelation is.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Joe said:

The church has made some important policy and doctrinal changes in its history that were the result of outside pressure or members challenging the prophet. Among these moral improvements:

• Ordaining blacks 
• Removing the creepiest parts of the endowment and initiatory ceremonies. 
• Acknowledging SSA is not a choice
• Adam God doctrine. Thank you Orson Pratt!
• Stopping polygamy. 
• Correcting historic inaccuracies in CES 
• Women being allowed to pray in church meeting, teach seminary, etc

There are many more examples. The point is, each of these changes came in response to pressure to change. In fact, I challenge you to think of a large change that was not motivated by outside pressure or  from the grass roots. 

I agree with Sam's goal to eliminate these one on one interviews of our youth. I'm not sure I  fully agree with his tactics, but at least he's getting us to talk about it. 

I believe decades from now church members will say something along the lines of, "Did you know that Bishops used to sit in a room alone with kids and ask them to describe their sexual transgressions?!" ... "WHAT?!  NO! Oh my gosh, I can't believe they did that!"

6

CFR that those changes only occurred because of public pressure.  Hint, it does not exist. Saying something is really just sharing your personal opinion, but it does not make it true or real. 

Nothing could be more stupid, imo, then eliminating personal interviews with bishops. Interviews are opportunities for both personal and spiritual growth. The stupidity comes when it is humans - i.e. parents that complain - who abuses more children than parents or family members?  No one.  Should we outlaw parents talking privately with their children? After all, one abuse victim is too much. You see how stupid this kind of logic and reasoning can be?  

No, little johnnie, papa never, as in not ever, questioned by a priesthood leader about sexual transgressions. Yes, johnnie, papa was asked if I was morally clean or did I observe the law of chastity. If there is a problem with the questions asked then address what is questions are acceptable. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is never a good solution. 

[Gray]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

Keep in mind that Brigham Young instituted the precursor to worthiness interviews during the Mormon Reformation. Your proof-text is stating a general principle, not a blanket statement showing Brigham Young was channeling Sam Young . . .  Elsewhere, he enjoins priesthood leaders determining worthiness of their flock. 

ETA: A common JoD phrase in reference to priesthood leaders being lax in being the gatekeepers of ordinances (i.e., in not enforcing standards as strictly as they should have) is "partakers of other men's sins." The principle is that leaders who are lax actually partake of the sins by doing so. There are many references to this, but here is one readily at hand because it's in a FAIR paper I wrote on blood atonement. It's in the section "destroyed in the flesh" (all references to this refer to being given up to the buffetings of Satan, not ecclesiastical execution):

---

That is the law. Can I change it? Can you? I speak now to Presidents of Stakes and Bishops. We are told that we are not to be partakers of other men’s sins. Now, you send men with recommends to me to have me pass upon them. I trust to you. I suppose you are acquainted with these things. I suppose you act intelligently and understandingly. But if people do not fulfill the requirements of the Gospel, you have no right to recommend them to the house of the Lord. They do not belong there. People who do not observe the laws of the Gospel and live their religion, should not receive recommends, and if you do recommend such you will be held responsible…I have known cases where wicked and corrupt men have gone into the house of God. The parties administering did not know it, but nevertheless it was a fact. And what has become of them? They have come to me feeling as though they were in hell. They wanted to know what they could do. I told them I did not know; perhaps the Lord would indicate by and by. I say to all, you had better, unless you determine to fear God and keep His laws, quit at once, for God expects us to do right, and will hold us to an account for our acts.

(John Taylor, June 24, 1883. Journal of Discourses 24:269.)

---

Quote mining and proof-texting Brigham Young against worthiness interviews is a fool's errand. It misrepresents how he felt about them, and the direct effect of his example, teaching, and administration regarding them. 

Prooftexts are those statements which don't support your views, is that how it works?

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

Prooftexts are those statements which don't support your views, is that how it works?

No. 

Simple question, Gray. Knowing what you know of Brigham Young, do you really think that he was opposed to worthiness interviews? That quote that gets bandied about by people who want interviews to be eliminated is mustered into service to paint him as being anti-interview on principle. Do you, Gray, really think he was?

Because he instituted the system of worthiness interviews, for one thing. 

I'm not selectively choosing and discarding proof-texts. That quote cannot credibly be used to paint him as siding with Sam Young. Not without considering the other factors.

[Gray]

21 hours ago, rongo said:

No. 

Simple question, Gray. Knowing what you know of Brigham Young, do you really think that he was opposed to worthiness interviews? That quote that gets bandied about by people who want interviews to be eliminated is mustered into service to paint him as being anti-interview on principle. Do you, Gray, really think he was?

Yes, I think he definitely would have been, at the time he spoke those words.

 

21 hours ago, rongo said:

Because he instituted the system of worthiness interviews, for one thing. 

I'm not selectively choosing and discarding proof-texts. That quote cannot credibly be used to paint him as siding with Sam Young. Not without considering the other factors.

Brigham Young instituted a lot of things, many of which have been abandoned today. That doesn't mean he didn't mean what he said when he said it.

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

Yes, I think he definitely would have been, at the time he spoke those words.

Even though he instituted worthiness interviews? Um, okay.

 Brigham Young instituted a lot of things, many of which have been abandoned today.

But he didn't discourage or preach against any of the things that he instituted.   Whether or not we have abandoned them today doesn't have anything to do with his views and practices. 

That doesn't mean he didn't mean what he said when he said it.

You keep on using that quote. I do not think it means what you think it meant to Brigham Young. --- Brother Inigo, ca. 1852.  

[SouthernMo]

On 8/16/2018 at 3:44 PM, smac97 said:

External influences will always exist.  Sure.  But they are not the driving force in the Church.  Revelation is.  

Can revelation and outside force co-exist?  Some could say that the Word of Wisdom came from pressure from Emma Smith before Joseph Smith received that revelation?

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Quote

External influences will always exist.  Sure.  But they are not the driving force in the Church.  Revelation is.  

Can revelation and outside force co-exist? 

Certainly.  Look at OD-1, for example.  Pres. Woodruff's remarks about it expressly state that "outside force" was a major component of the abandonment of polygamy (emphasis added):

Quote

The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for … any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. A large number has already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit world by this people, and shall the work go on or stop? This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have.

The "outside force" was . . . the federal government of the United States.  

The cool thing here for me is that the Lord shows Pres. Woodruff a revelation of an alternative future, one that never materialized, but would have had we "not stop[ped] this practice."  How cool is that?

Anyway, the next paragraph is brings the point home (emphasis added):

Quote

… I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. …

So yes, "outside force" can be a factor.  But the decision itself was based on instructions from God.

In other words, it was God who authorized that the Church capitulate to an "outside force."

Thanks,

-Smac

[USU78]

35 minutes ago, rongo said:

You keep on using that quote. I do not think it means what you think it meant to Brigham Young. --- Brother Inigo, ca. 1852.  

Que?

[Gray]

On 8/17/2018 at 3:19 PM, rongo said:

Even though he instituted worthiness interviews? Um, okay.

 

 

But he didn't discourage or preach against any of the things that he instituted.   Whether or not we have abandoned them today doesn't have anything to do with his views and practices. 

 

 

You keep on using that quote. I do not think it means what you think it meant to Brigham Young. --- Brother Inigo, ca. 1852.  

Someone changing their position later is not evidence than they didn't hold a different position prior to changing it. You're trying to harmonize based on the latest statement, but the statements don't harmonize. Brigham Young believed different things at different times. It may seem hard to believe, but at one point in his life he was even opposed to polygamy.

[Jeanne]

On 8/17/2018 at 2:14 PM, Gray said:

Yes, I think he definitely would have been, at the time he spoke those words.

 

Brigham Young instituted a lot of things, many of which have been abandoned today. That doesn't mean he didn't mean what he said when he said it.

But he said he was speaking for God..How can a seer, even as a man....get things so wrong and call himself a prophet?   I really want to know how that works.

[Gray]

16 hours ago, Jeanne said:

But he said he was speaking for God..How can a seer, even as a man....get things so wrong and call himself a prophet?   I really want to know how that works.

Well I don't believe that God speaks words to people in a literal broadcast message kind of way. But even if He did, God's messages would have to pass through human conciousness, which is far from perfect. It's a sea of subjectivity and bias between our ears.

[Stargazer]

18 hours ago, Gray said:

Well I don't believe that God speaks words to people in a literal broadcast message kind of way.

I do.  Because it has happened to me.  I guess one can only believe what one has experienced?

18 hours ago, Gray said:

But even if He did, God's messages would have to pass through human conciousness, which is far from perfect. It's a sea of subjectivity and bias between our ears.

God doesn't need to speak in paragraphs or chapters.  My experience is that he speaks in short, easy to understand, and easy to remember sentences.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

I do.  Because it has happened to me.  I guess one can only believe what one has experienced?

You have experienced what you have experienced, which is entirely subjective to you and unverifiable as to its provenance. It if worked out well for you, then that's wonderful, truly.

 

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

God doesn't need to speak in paragraphs or chapters.  My experience is that he speaks in short, easy to understand, and easy to remember sentences.

Which explains why everyone's experiences with personal revelation never contradicts other people's experiences with personal revelation.

[Stargazer]

31 minutes ago, Gray said:

You have experienced what you have experienced, which is entirely subjective to you and unverifiable as to its provenance. It if worked out well for you, then that's wonderful, truly.

Never said it was probative, or objective.  I was just saying that my experience differs from yours.

31 minutes ago, Gray said:

Which explains why everyone's experiences with personal revelation never contradicts other people's experiences with personal revelation.

Not sure what you're saying here.  I guess it is true, that if you've not heard the voice of the Lord, it couldn't possibly contradict that which I have heard.  What of it?

In connection with that idea, I can report that during my mission, no investigator ever came to me to say that God told him that the Book of Mormon was false.  Or, for that matter, that God had told him that his current church was true.  The only negative response I ever heard about was silence, and that occurred only once, with an investigator who said he prayed about it and got zilch.  The rest eventually just stopped responding to us (did they pray about it? no idea), or told us outright that they weren't interested any longer, and presumably had not prayed about it.  Perhaps some of our investigators prayed and got a revelation from God telling them that the Book of Mormon was false -- but I never heard about it.  It would have been rather odd for our investigators who claimed to be members of a particular churches to claim they got such a revelation, because they belonged to churches that didn't believe in revelation, in any case.

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Never said it was probative, or objective.  I was just saying that my experience differs from yours.

Yes, that's fair enough.

 

Quote

Not sure what you're saying here.  I guess it is true, that if you've not heard the voice of the Lord, it couldn't possibly contradict that which I have heard.  What of it?

My basis for not thinking that that God literally speaks to people is not based on my own experience with revelation alone, but a lifetime of observation that revelations people think they are getting are highly inconsistent across multiple individuals (even within the same faith). It bears all the hallmarks of the subjective, internal-only experience.

That is not to say that wisdom cannot come from revelation, even if God didn't put the words in your brain. There is some intersubjectivity that comes out in the form of universal principles that seem to transcend any particular tradition: charity, forgiveness, compassion, and so forth. In my observation it's not that we're getting divine messages beamed into our skulls, it's that sometimes we can open ourselves up to divine truths that are already there for the taking. Like briefly waking up from a deep sleep and noticing the sunshine.

 

Quote

In connection with that idea, I can report that during my mission, no investigator ever came to me to say that God told him that the Book of Mormon was false.  Or, for that matter, that God had told him that his current church was true.  The only negative response I ever heard about was silence, and that occurred only once, with an investigator who said he prayed about it and got zilch.  The rest eventually just stopped responding to us (did they pray about it? no idea), or told us outright that they weren't interested any longer, and presumably had not prayed about it.  Perhaps some of our investigators prayed and got a revelation from God telling them that the Book of Mormon was false -- but I never heard about it.  It would have been rather odd for our investigators who claimed to be members of a particular churches to claim they got such a revelation, because they belonged to churches that didn't believe in revelation, in any case.

Have you considered that most people may be too polite to tell missionaries that they got a revelation that Mormonism was false? That might account for some of those people who stopped responding to you.

Most conversion stories that I've heard are very similar in nature, even without the LDS pre-exercise of reading and praying. People experience personal revelation all the time that their particular path is the path that will lead them to God.

Edited August 20, 2018 by Gray

[jkwilliams]

When this all started, I kind of rolled my eyes and thought a hunger strike was more than a bit melodramatic and over the top. But, obviously, Brother Young feels very strongly about this, and so far as I can see, he certainly has people talking about the issue, so maybe he was right, after all. 

Many people have had bad experiences in bishop's youth interviews, including me. The idea that an adult should be talking to children about these issues and pronouncing one way or another about their worthiness is very strange. When my kids were teenagers, I was in my full apostate stage, and I just told them that they were under no obligation to answer questions that made them uncomfortable. I told them that, if the bishop asked such questions, they should stop the interview, tell the bishop that he could talk to me about it instead of them, and then walk out of the bishop's office. My youngest son told me that he did that once, though he didn't walk out. He just told the bishop that the question made him uncomfortable and that if the bishop had questions, he could take it up with me. He said the bishop was a bit startled but moved on. 

To me, the issue isn't so much the potential for bishops to abuse children (though that is a possibility, however remote) but that it unnecessarily puts shame and guilt on young children, which can have lasting effects. I know it did for me, and apparently, I'm not alone:

https://kutv.com/news/local/victims-speak-shame-haunts-woman-for-decades-after-bishop-interview

But, say what you will about Sam Young, he's at least managed to get people talking about this. That's not a bad thing, IMO. 

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

When this all started, I kind of rolled my eyes and thought a hunger strike was more than a bit melodramatic and over the top. But, obviously, Brother Young feels very strongly about this, and so far as I can see, he certainly has people talking about the issue, so maybe he was right, after all. 

Many people have had bad experiences in bishop's youth interviews, including me. The idea that an adult should be talking to children about these issues and pronouncing one way or another about their worthiness is very strange. When my kids were teenagers, I was in my full apostate stage, and I just told them that they were under no obligation to answer questions that made them uncomfortable. I told them that, if the bishop asked such questions, they should stop the interview, tell the bishop that he could talk to me about it instead of them, and then walk out of the bishop's office. My youngest son told me that he did that once, though he didn't walk out. He just told the bishop that the question made him uncomfortable and that if the bishop had questions, he could take it up with me. He said the bishop was a bit startled but moved on. 

To me, the issue isn't so much the potential for bishops to abuse children (though that is a possibility, however remote) but that it unnecessarily puts shame and guilt on young children, which can have lasting effects. I know it did for me, and apparently, I'm not alone:

https://kutv.com/news/local/victims-speak-shame-haunts-woman-for-decades-after-bishop-interview

But, say what you will about Sam Young, he's at least managed to get people talking about this. That's not a bad thing, IMO. 

I agree..and ya know, if there is something that anyone feels strongly about, it's time that we speak up about it, because there are so many that aren't able to do that. Sam spoke for thousands. I give him a lot of credit for doing this. I had no idea the harm that it has caused, some of these interviews. 

I only remember one when I was turning 12 I believe, and it was indeed creepy, but always thought it was the person and where it took place, in a classroom with only him and sitting next to each other knee to knee. 

It was really the only one that I felt creepy in, and then later when maybe I was supposed to have more one on ones, was when my family moved and I became inactive in high school. 

But I do remember a good one on one, and it was when I made the appointment to meet with the singles' ward bishop, it actually helped me return to full activity in the church. So that's why I've been on the fence on eradicating these interviews.

I hope something can be done to better serve everyone, even adults. Because through the years I've heard of scenarios when they haven't worked out so well, even with adults, I guess certain questions or advice given. 

 

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I agree..and ya know, if there is something that anyone feels strongly about, it's time that we speak up about it, because there are so many that aren't able to do that. Sam spoke for thousands. I give him a lot of credit for doing this. I had no idea the harm that it has caused, some of these interviews. 

I only remember one when I was turning 12 I believe, and it was indeed creepy, but always thought it was the person and where it took place, in a classroom with only him and sitting next to each other knee to knee. 

It was really the only one that I felt creepy in, and then later when maybe I was supposed to have more one on ones, was when my family moved and I became inactive in high school. 

But I do remember a good one on one, and it was when I made the appointment to meet with the singles' ward bishop, it actually helped me return to full activity in the church. So that's why I've been on the fence on eradicating these interviews.

I hope something can be done to better serve everyone, even adults. Because through the years I've heard of scenarios when they haven't worked out so well, even with adults, I guess certain questions or advice given. 

 

Thankfully, I can't remember ever having a creepy interview, but now that I'm no longer orthodox, I think the idea that a church leader believes they have power from God to stare into your soul and discern whether you are lying or not about very intimate topics, seems creepy to me now.  Its sad that the superstitions of religion (ability of discernment) make people believe they have special powers from God to read someone's mind or tell if someone is lying or not.  That alone is creepy to me now.  

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

My basis for not thinking that that God literally speaks to people is not based on my own experience with revelation alone, but a lifetime of observation that revelations people think they are getting are highly inconsistent across multiple individuals (even within the same faith). It bears all the hallmarks of the subjective, internal-only experience.

So, you've noticed that people are getting contradictory revelations?  Like doctrinal revelations that seem to contain false doctrine?  Or stewardship revelations that contradict what others who have similar stewardship are getting?  I've been banging around in this church for 48 years as an adult, I don't recall a single instance of either.  

Have you been in a position to observe many instances of people getting revelations, including non-LDS folks? I don't quite understand this.  You were there at the time for these?  I'm going to assume that what you really mean is that many people have told you about their revelations.  And even then I am a bit perplexed.  In 48 years, I have occasionally heard members of the LDS church describe personal spiritual encounters that could be described as personal revelations, but to the best of my recollection none of these descriptions were inconsistent or contradictory compared to any others. That included when I was in some authority, such as branch president or elders quorum president.

Were you in some church calling that put you in a position to hear a lot of people describing personal revelations? Such as being the bishop over a ward having particularly frequent outbreaks of would-be prophets?  Or are you in communication with a General Authority who gets frequent letters from members informing him that the Lord has called them to run the church instead of President Monson, or Nelson?  Or did you operate in some kind of clearinghouse for such things as a research institute devoted to documenting supernatural events?  And if so, do you have statistics for the phenomenon?

5 hours ago, Gray said:

That is not to say that wisdom cannot come from revelation, even if God didn't put the words in your brain. There is some intersubjectivity that comes out in the form of universal principles that seem to transcend any particular tradition: charity, forgiveness, compassion, and so forth. In my observation it's not that we're getting divine messages beamed into our skulls, it's that sometimes we can open ourselves up to divine truths that are already there for the taking. Like briefly waking up from a deep sleep and noticing the sunshine.

What you seem to be describing is a kind of plenum where ideas are floating around free for the sensing, and sometimes we sense them?  If so, what drives this sensing?

Again, this is something you have observed.  How do you do this observing?  Do you have some kind of special sense that allows you to see these kinds of thing take place?  Or, have you been in a position that compelled people to come to you to share what they had sensed of divine truths?  I should point out that if divine truths were being sensed, presumably these were consistent with each other.  But earlier you spoke of  "...revelations people think they are getting are highly inconsistent across multiple individuals...", which doesn't seem consistent, ironically, with divine truths floating around for the taking.  Or are you talking about two distinctly different kinds of situations?  Or just talking theory?

5 hours ago, Gray said:

 

Have you considered that most people may be too polite to tell missionaries that they got a revelation that Mormonism was false? That might account for some of those people who stopped responding to you.

I considered it possible that an investigator might have gotten some vague negative feeling about the church, or were afraid of change if it happened to be true, and chose to gracefully bow out.  One of my first investigators, for what it's worth, apologized to us and said that whether the church was true or not, he didn't feel that could deal with the socially awkward act of leaving his church, so thanks but no thanks.  Another of my first investigators told us in our third visit with her, after I explained that she could find out if the Book of Mormon was true by praying about it, told us that she had already done so and discovered it was true.  She did not join the church because her sister talked her out of it. 

However, there are a large number of investigators out there who have been and are being taught by the missionaries.  You think that most of them who didn't join the church prayed about it, got a revelation that it was false, and were too polite to tell the missionaries?  If so, there are an awful lot of people getting totally unexpected revelations who never felt like reporting this marvelous event to anyone, except that virtually all other Christian churches accept as an article of faith that revelation ceased a couple of thousand years ago, and God doesn't do this kind of thing any longer.  So, if God revealed to them that the Book of Mormon were false, they'd have to draw the inescapable conclusion that it was Satan who told them it was false, because God doesn't do this any longer.  

I just asked my stepson, who served his mission in South Africa just a few years ago, if he had ever had an investigator tell him he prayed about the Book of Mormon and got a revelation that it was false.  He said it hadn't happened to him personally, although one person he contacted while looking for people to teach told him that he had worked with the missionaries previously and God told him at that time it was false.  But that's the only instance I've been able to come up with, either from my own experience or that of others. 

5 hours ago, Gray said:

Most conversion stories that I've heard are very similar in nature, even without the LDS pre-exercise of reading and praying. People experience personal revelation all the time that their particular path is the path that will lead them to God.

You may not be wrong about this.  I think it is possible, even likely, that some people are not ready for the fullness of the Gospel, and so are legitimately led along a different path.  It is certain that persons active in other faiths are doing a great deal of good out there in the world, and if they can't be with us, at least they are working for many of the same goals.

But this does not mean that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not the only church or religious organization upon the earth that has the full authority of God in respect of the doctrines and ordinances of salvation.

[Jeanne]

I have to give Sam some huge points here.  For many of us that have sat in church in different meetings for years and years...who sometimes have thoughts of "what we shoulda done..or what we coulda done"...he got up and did something.  I admire him. 

Edited August 20, 2018 by Jeanne

[Hamba Tuhan]

14 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I do.  Because it has happened to me.  I guess one can only believe what one has experienced?

This. I've long suggested that people's responses to prophetic revelation is a pretty good proxy for their own. In other words, I think we project our personal experiences with revelation onto prophets (and others).

Quote

God doesn't need to speak in paragraphs or chapters.  My experience is that he speaks in short, easy to understand, and easy to remember sentences.

Very short, very easy to understand, and very easy to remember. I can still quote many of these utterances verbatim years later.

Edited August 21, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Gray]

17 hours ago, Stargazer said:

So, you've noticed that people are getting contradictory revelations?  Like doctrinal revelations that seem to contain false doctrine?  Or stewardship revelations that contradict what others who have similar stewardship are getting?  I've been banging around in this church for 48 years as an adult, I don't recall a single instance of either.  

Have you been paying attention?

Quote

Have you been in a position to observe many instances of people getting revelations, including non-LDS folks? I don't quite understand this.  You were there at the time for these?  I'm going to assume that what you really mean is that many people have told you about their revelations.  And even then I am a bit perplexed.  In 48 years, I have occasionally heard members of the LDS church describe personal spiritual encounters that could be described as personal revelations, but to the best of my recollection none of these descriptions were inconsistent or contradictory compared to any others. That included when I was in some authority, such as branch president or elders quorum president.

Yes. When people get personal revelations they often talk about them. When they talk, I listen. Further, people also write about their personal revelations on the internet. Have you ever heard of Denver Snuffer or Rock Waterman? Many LGBT Latter-day Saints have also gotten personal revelation that God approves of their same-sex relationships.

 

Quote

Were you in some church calling that put you in a position to hear a lot of people describing personal revelations? Such as being the bishop over a ward having particularly frequent outbreaks of would-be prophets?  Or are you in communication with a General Authority who gets frequent letters from members informing him that the Lord has called them to run the church instead of President Monson, or Nelson?  Or did you operate in some kind of clearinghouse for such things as a research institute devoted to documenting supernatural events?  And if so, do you have statistics for the phenomenon?

You act as if this is some kind of fantastical claim. Perhaps you've been shutting yourself off from your fellow ward members your whole life? Do you never listen during F&T meetings?

For that matter, have you been paying attention to revelation from LDS prophets over the years?

Quote

What you seem to be describing is a kind of plenum where ideas are floating around free for the sensing, and sometimes we sense them?  If so, what drives this sensing?

Not in a literal sense, as if truths were physical objects. But when we open ourselves up to compassion and to oneness, we can come to some pretty profound realizations that seem to keep happening across a wide variety of faith traditions (or even outside of faith). 

 

Quote

Again, this is something you have observed.  How do you do this observing?  Do you have some kind of special sense that allows you to see these kinds of thing take place?  Or, have you been in a position that compelled people to come to you to share what they had sensed of divine truths?  I should point out that if divine truths were being sensed, presumably these were consistent with each other.  But earlier you spoke of  "...revelations people think they are getting are highly inconsistent across multiple individuals...", which doesn't seem consistent, ironically, with divine truths floating around for the taking.  Or are you talking about two distinctly different kinds of situations?  Or just talking theory?

It's called processing data. You know, cognition. The data are the myriad of spiritual and revelatory experiences that people share. I've tried to find a conclusion that fits with the data. I can't make literal divine communication work with the data, although others may not see an issue.

When I say divine truths, I mean simply sacred truths that help us to be our best selves. I don't mean there's some kind of book floating around out there in the cosmos that literally has this written down.

 

Quote

I considered it possible that an investigator might have gotten some vague negative feeling about the church, or were afraid of change if it happened to be true, and chose to gracefully bow out.  One of my first investigators, for what it's worth, apologized to us and said that whether the church was true or not, he didn't feel that could deal with the socially awkward act of leaving his church, so thanks but no thanks.  Another of my first investigators told us in our third visit with her, after I explained that she could find out if the Book of Mormon was true by praying about it, told us that she had already done so and discovered it was true.  She did not join the church because her sister talked her out of it. 

However, there are a large number of investigators out there who have been and are being taught by the missionaries.  You think that most of them who didn't join the church prayed about it, got a revelation that it was false, and were too polite to tell the missionaries?  If so, there are an awful lot of people getting totally unexpected revelations who never felt like reporting this marvelous event to anyone, except that virtually all other Christian churches accept as an article of faith that revelation ceased a couple of thousand years ago, and God doesn't do this kind of thing any longer.  So, if God revealed to them that the Book of Mormon were false, they'd have to draw the inescapable conclusion that it was Satan who told them it was false, because God doesn't do this any longer.  

I think that certainly some of them have gotten a revelation that the church was false. I know some who said so themselves. It's also quite possible that a number of them got no revelation at all, which can certainly be interpreted as a negative result.

 

Quote

I just asked my stepson, who served his mission in South Africa just a few years ago, if he had ever had an investigator tell him he prayed about the Book of Mormon and got a revelation that it was false.  He said it hadn't happened to him personally, although one person he contacted while looking for people to teach told him that he had worked with the missionaries previously and God told him at that time it was false.  But that's the only instance I've been able to come up with, either from my own experience or that of others. 

You may not be wrong about this.  I think it is possible, even likely, that some people are not ready for the fullness of the Gospel, and so are legitimately led along a different path.  It is certain that persons active in other faiths are doing a great deal of good out there in the world, and if they can't be with us, at least they are working for many of the same goals.

But this does not mean that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not the only church or religious organization upon the earth that has the full authority of God in respect of the doctrines and ordinances of salvation.

That's one interpretation. It's just as easy to say that the people who are lead to join the LDS Church are being lead toward a temporary stepping stone on their way toward some other more permanent and more true path.

But that's just the problem with using revelation for sectarian ends. It's all a jumble of self-contradiction. The true revelation is in the commonalities among faith traditions, not the differences.

Edited August 21, 2018 by Gray

[Stargazer]

22 hours ago, Gray said:

Have you been paying attention?

Uh, yes?

22 hours ago, Gray said:

Yes. When people get personal revelations they often talk about them. When they talk, I listen.

I'm a little puzzled by this, actually.  How many people do you know who are having personal revelations and that talk about this with the kind of frequency that makes it remarkable?  Can you give me an informal count?  Is everyone in your ward having divergent personal revelations that get aired every month in F&T meeting?  You make it sound like you live in a hotbed of supernatural activity.

22 hours ago, Gray said:

Further, people also write about their personal revelations on the internet. Have you ever heard of Denver Snuffer or Rock Waterman?

You can find anything you like on the internet.  Including piles of what amounts to low-grade BS.  Yes, I've heard about Denver Snuffer, but so what?  You ever hear of the Great Apostasy?  Or for that matter Sidney Rigdon going off on his own tangent, and many others like Strang and Co?  You seriously think all these people had real revelations?  There are plenty of people out there who try to gain fame or fortune professing all kinds of garbage.  Just because someone claims to have a revelation doesn't mean they had a revelation.  

22 hours ago, Gray said:

Many LGBT Latter-day Saints have also gotten personal revelation that God approves of their same-sex relationships.

You really think that after thousands of years disapproving of homosexual acts, God has suddenly had a change of heart about it?   

22 hours ago, Gray said:

You act as if this is some kind of fantastical claim. Perhaps you've been shutting yourself off from your fellow ward members your whole life? Do you never listen during F&T meetings?

I've been listening in F&T, but perhaps I've been living in the most boring wards in the world?  Or do you live in the most psychic?  Is this a monthly occurrence for you, ward members coming out with new personal revelations every time it's Fast Sunday?  Or, for that matter, every week during Sunday School?  And they're all having valid revelations?

22 hours ago, Gray said:

For that matter, have you been paying attention to revelation from LDS prophets over the years?

Yes, and just what is your point?  That the LDS prophets are coming up with new revelations every General Conference, and they're contradicting themselves and the scriptures every time?  Have not seen this happening.

Well, all I can say is that your experience is completely different from mine.  If you're seeing what you seem to be seeing, then perhaps I can't fault you for coming to the conclusions you've come to.  But the ferment you seem to  believe is out there is not, as far as I can tell, happening.  

[Tacenda]

On 8/18/2018 at 5:55 PM, Jeanne said:

But he said he was speaking for God..How can a seer, even as a man....get things so wrong and call himself a prophet?   I really want to know how that works.

And speaking for God and getting it wrong is breaking a serious sin of taking the Lord's name in vain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_take_the_name_of_the_Lord_thy_God_in_vain  Not what the usual meaning taught in church is. I wish it was taught correctly in the LDS church or the full meaning, maybe more people would watch what they say when saying what God told them to do.