Former Bishop Hunger Strike for Youth Interview Policy Change

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

  You seriously think all these people had real revelations?  .... Just because someone claims ...

And here’s the crux of your problem. All revelation is self consistent because any revelation that is not consistent with my world view isn’t real. Circular reasoning at its finest. 

[Stargazer]

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And here’s the crux of your problem. All revelation is self consistent because any revelation that is not consistent with my world view isn’t real. Circular reasoning at its finest. 

There is no revelation then?  That's the only take-away here.  If that floats your boat, then go for it.  We might as well posit that God doesn't exist.

I can only go with my own experiences.  He exists, and He interacts with not only me, but others who have had similar experiences.  And if there are some who make claims that are not true, or who are deceived, well then there we are.

Edited August 22, 2018 by Stargazer

[changed]

On 8/16/2018 at 2:44 PM, smac97 said:

The November 2015 policy changes.

The Nov change came after the June of 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges  I will not be allowing my kids to go to the upcoming seminary class using this as an example of revelation.  

The priesthood ban should have never been a ban in the first place, cannot believe it took the church until 1978 to figure that one out.

Edited August 22, 2018 by changed

[changed]

3 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I can only go with my own experiences.  He exists, and He interacts with not only me, but others who have had similar experiences.  And if there are some who make claims that are not true, or who are deceived, well then there we are.

I can only go with my own experiences as well, and will not follow the experiences or revelation of anyone else until I get personal confirmation on it.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

16 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

There is no revelation then?  That's the only take-away here.  If that floats your boat, then go for it.  We might as well posit that God doesn't exist.

I can only go with my own experiences.  He exists, and He interacts with not only me, but others who have had similar experiences.  And if there are some who make claims that are not true, or who are deceived, well then there we are.

Or we can take other's and their experience with the divine at face value. And we can realize that perhaps God works with us where we are at. Perhaps revelation is complicated and not as simple as we would like it to be. But to say there have been no contradictory revelation in a world like ours needs a major asterisk. I mean how do you explain Adam God for starters?

Edited August 22, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Stargazer]

24 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And here’s the crux of your problem. All revelation is self consistent because any revelation that is not consistent with my world view isn’t real. Circular reasoning at its finest. 

Reflecting upon this further, I think the same thing could be said for any human endeavor where understanding is not consistent across persons.  In science history we find that certain theories were challenged by other theories, and the proponents of the current status quo regarded the challengers as not real because they were not consistent with what they believed.  And sometimes the challengers were vindicated, and sometimes they were not.  Circularity was in those situations not really a "thing" because sometimes the status quo, or the then accepted theory was in fact the correct theory and the challenger was dead wrong.  Just because an argument appears circular does not mean it is wrong.

23 hours ago, Gray said:

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.

The odd thing about all this is that I am gaining a greater understanding of why some members get wrapped around the axle in regards to the Church truth claims and the acquiring of a personal testimony.

I have a friend who says he has a strong testimony of the Book of Mormon, but is disturbed by the fact that there are so many people out there who seem to have alternate views on the subject, and wonders if his testimony of the BoM is actually valid.  I was like, "What's there to doubt, if you know its true?", but I think I understand the problem much better now.

My experiences with the Spirit (or, with God) are difficult for me to deny.  Some of you in the "doubting choir", as it were, seem not to have had any such experiences, or have had them but are or have become skeptical of them, and so you are naturally questioning.  Gray has said (I hope I understand this correctly) that he has had no personal revelations (or none that he trusts anyway) that leads him to a conviction of the truth claims made by the LDS church.  And others of his acquaintanceship are having lots of contradictory revelations, apparently, so that is problematic, too.

But I cannot escape the fact that I have had some very special experiences with the Spirit, in connection with my membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I must speak and act accordingly.  The nature of my experiences leads me strongly to the conclusion that the LDS Church is true.  If your experiences teach you otherwise, then there we are.  I hope that you eventually change your mind, or have experiences that lead you closer to the path I have found, and hope that if my arguments do not help you do so, that others may do so in time.  

[Stargazer]

29 minutes ago, changed said:

I can only go with my own experiences as well, and will not follow the experiences or revelation of anyone else until I get personal confirmation on it.  

Amen.

[Stargazer]

18 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Or we can take other's and their experience with the divine at face value. And we can realize that perhaps God works with us where we are at. Perhaps revelation is complicated and not as simple as we would like it to be. But to say there have been no contradictory revelation in a world like ours needs a major asterisk.

To quote Mr. Spock, "That much is certain."

But considering, as one must, that there is an Adversary, just because there is a revelation, it need not have come from God.

18 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I mean how do you explain Adam God for starters?

I'd rather not try!  I expect the mystery will be cleared up eventually, but until then I will carry on as I have been.

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, changed said:

The Nov change came after the June of 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges 

Yes.  And?

30 minutes ago, changed said:

I will not be allowing my kids to go to the upcoming seminary class using this as an example of revelation.  

So a revelation is not a revelation if it is given as a consequence to events in the world?

Consider Matthew 2 (emphases added):

Quote

1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judæa in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.
3 When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.
4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.
5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judæa: for thus it is written by the prophet,
6 And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.
7 Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, inquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.
8 And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.
9 When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.
10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.
11 ¶ And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.
12 And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.
13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
14 When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:
15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
16 ¶ Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.
17 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,
18 In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.
19 ¶ But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt,
20 Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child’s life.
21 And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel.

God gave guidance (revelation) to Joseph through a dream to take his family and flee into Egypt.  Because Herod was a threat.

God later gave further guidance (revelation) to Joseph through another dream in which an angel appeared and told Joseph to return to Israel.  Because Herod was no longer a threat.

These revelations were given as a consequence to events in the world.  Many similar instances of such revelations are found throughout the scriptures.

So if God can give revelation responsive to events in the world, isn't it possible that He gave a revelation responsive to a profound change in the law, as found in Obergefell v. Hodges?

30 minutes ago, changed said:

The priesthood ban should have never been a ban in the first place, cannot believe it took the church until 1978 to figure that one out.

If you study the matter, you will find that the Church was looking at that issue for decades.

Moreover, the cessation of the ban was also a revelation.

Of course, these are matters of faith.  I understand and respect that reasonable minds can disagree about them.

Thanks,

-Smac

[changed]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

Of course, these are matters of faith.  I understand and respect that reasonable minds can disagree about them.

yes, "reasonable minds" find racism and any type of bigotry to be against anything a loving God would do.  I have faith in a loving God, faith in a Savior who ate with publicans and sinners, faith in a Savior who would not allow anyone to "forbid children" to come unto him.  That is who I have faith in.

[pogi]

I haven't been following this thread.  Does anyone know how long his hunger strike lasted?  The policy is still in place, so...

[HappyJackWagon]

Just now, pogi said:

I haven't been following this thread.  Does anyone know how long his hunger strike lasted?  The policy is still in place, so...

I think he went for 23 days. Pretty impressive.

Though people disagree with his cause and his tactic, can anyone discount his resolve and commitment to the cause he feels strongly about? I sure can't.

[pogi]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think he went for 23 days. Pretty impressive.

Though people disagree with his cause and his tactic, can anyone discount his resolve and commitment to the cause he feels strongly about? I sure can't

Wow!  That is impressive.  He beat Gandhi by 2 days.  Do you know if it was total starvation like Gandhi (with only occasional sips of water), or did he fully hydrate himself?  Either way, you are right, we can't discount his resolve and commitment. 

[smac97]

44 minutes ago, changed said:

yes, "reasonable minds" find racism and any type of bigotry to be against anything a loving God would do.  I have faith in a loving God, faith in a Savior who ate with publicans and sinners, faith in a Savior who would not allow anyone to "forbid children" to come unto him.  That is who I have faith in.

I agree.  I am not sure why you would think I do not.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think he went for 23 days. Pretty impressive.

Though people disagree with his cause and his tactic, can anyone discount his resolve and commitment to the cause he feels strongly about? I sure can't.

Nor can I.

But Romans 10 came to mind:

Quote

1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

Sam Young totally lost me when he began publicly lionizing himself while simultaneously disparaging the Brethren.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, pogi said:

Wow!  That is impressive.  He beat Gandhi by 2 days.  Do you know if it was total starvation like Gandhi (with only occasional sips of water), or did he fully hydrate himself?  Either way, you are right, we can't discount his resolve and commitment. 

He took supplements, some described it a liquid diet, but I have no clue if supplements meant a handful of vitamins and minerals along with the usual amounts of water or calorie replacement/protein/whatever drinks.  IRC he had lost almost 30 lbs a few days ago.

add-on:  skimming through google, I see vitamins and water, so no smoothies, etc.

Edited August 22, 2018 by Calm

[changed]

On 8/22/2018 at 5:48 PM, smac97 said:

I agree.  I am not sure why you would think I do not.

Thanks,

-Smac

The Nov15' "proclamation" forbids innocent children to come to church and be baptized.  Anyone who agrees/supports excluding innocent children??  I have a problem with that.

[changed]

On 8/22/2018 at 5:51 PM, smac97 said:

Nor can I.

But Romans 10 came to mind:

Sam Young totally lost me when he began publicly lionizing himself while simultaneously disparaging the Brethren.  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

The "righteousness of God" and the "righteousness of the church" are two very different things.  If someone called out Judas and tried to stop Peter from denying Christ, would you also consider that person to be puffing themselves up?

For evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.... what have you done to support those who have been abused in the church?  

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, changed said:

Quote

Nor can I.

But Romans 10 came to mind:

Sam Young totally lost me when he began publicly lionizing himself while simultaneously disparaging the Brethren.  

Thanks,

-Smac

The "righteousness of God" and the "righteousness of the church" are two very different things. 

I quite agree.  We are all imperfect beings.  And yet Christ loves His Church.  "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it."  (Ephesians 5:25).

I am reminded here of Mormon 9:31:

Quote

Condemn me not because of mine aimperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.

I think the same can be said our assessment of other members of the Church.

2 minutes ago, changed said:

If someone called out Judas and tried to stop Peter from denying Christ, would you also consider that person to be puffing themselves up?

Sorry, but I do not understand your question.

2 minutes ago, changed said:

For evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.... what have you done to support those who have been abused in the church?  

Let's not personalize this thread.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, changed said:

The Nov15' "proclamation" forbids innocent children to come to church and be baptized. 

It postpones baptism, yes.

The Church also postpones baptism for "innocent children" whose parents do not consent to baptism.  Do you object to that?

24 minutes ago, changed said:

Anyone who agrees/supports excluding innocent children??  I have a problem with that.

Understood.  I hope you give it some additional thought and consideration.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

On 8/22/2018 at 5:25 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

I think he went for 23 days. Pretty impressive.

Though people disagree with his cause and his tactic, can anyone discount his resolve and commitment to the cause he feels strongly about? I sure can't.

Unless there was someone monitoring it I doubt it went that smoothly. But then I am a cynical jerk.

[Gray]

On 8/22/2018 at 8:37 AM, Stargazer said:

Uh, yes?

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.

Over the last 30 years ago since I've been old enough to pay attention in church? Dozens of times, multiple wards. Pretty typical stuff. No, I don't live in a hotbed of supernatural activity. I've just been an active Mormon and paying attention at church for multiple decades. You don't hear it every week, but you do hear this stuff a few times a year.

 

On 8/22/2018 at 8:37 AM, Stargazer said:

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.  

If you're going to discount every revelation that disagrees with your revelations or contradicts current orthodoxy, that goes a long way to explaining your skepticism. But that's simply a reflection of your own bias, not an argument against my position. It's just the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy at work.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy

 

On 8/22/2018 at 8:37 AM, Stargazer said:

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

Many people have had dramatic and sincere personal revelation that God does approve of it. What makes you think God ever disapproved?

 

On 8/22/2018 at 8:37 AM, Stargazer said:

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?

Perhaps you're just discounting incongruous revelation as "fake", so you don't even register it as personal revelation.

 

On 8/22/2018 at 8:37 AM, Stargazer said:

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.

No offense, but I would suggest again that you pay closer attention. And leave out the straw man stuff ("every General Conference" and "every time")

 

 

[Gray]

On 8/22/2018 at 8:37 AM, Stargazer said:

 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.

I will add one more thing - a personal experience. While walking and meditating one day three years ago I received a personal revelation that the LDS Church is not uniquely true, just one church of many, with good and bad things about it like most other churches, and that there was no divine authority, only divine principles. The character and feel of this revelation was no different from any of the other times I'd felt personal revelation in my more orthodox years. And at the time I received it, I didn't believe that God literally broadcasts revelations into our brains, and I still don't believe it. Yet, the revelation itself was meaningful and important to me. A deeply spiritual and comforting experience.

We speak of artists being inspired, and for the most part we don't seem to think any third party is actually broadcasting that inspiration into them, as if from a spiritual ham radio. Why not the same principle for personal revelation? Revelation is a kind of spiritual art form. If you tune yourself to a spiritual wavelength you may feel inspired with insights that are deeply meaningful to you, insights that have a transformative and numinous quality.  I even feel the spirit as I type this.

[Tacenda]

Looks like Sam's membership might be coming to an end. 

https://invisiblescubit.wordpress.com/2018/08/29/excommunication-notice/

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Looks like Sam's membership might be coming to an end. 

https://invisiblescubit.wordpress.com/2018/08/29/excommunication-notice/

This is a mistake. Sam has done and continues to do God's work.