What Exactly Is This Meme Saying?

[Navidad]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I know exactly what you are talking about, and I often have a sense of absolute certainty when giving a blessing, that it will come to pass, even when I have started the blessing with a confused mind full of doubt and uncertainty.

It is not possible that that certainty could come, in a few seconds, from a confused and doubtful mind.

The words spoken are not mine.

When I heard those words during my confirmation it was as if someone had flipped a switch- like a warm shower filling my body with peace and infinite love.

But none of that could be to my credit or blame because it did not come from me.

Of that I am certain.

There is and was an intelligence outside of me doing it, and I was a passive and surprised recipient.

Ditto! There is nothing in your post that is any different than mine. I have given many blessings to folks in my own tradition. I have never been confirmed, so I can't speak to that. I have often been a passive and surprised recipient of the presence of the Holy Spirit and the grace of God. I appreciate everyone's testimony here. I can relate to each of them.

[Paloma]

36 minutes ago, Navidad said:

 ...One's church affiliation has nothing to do with what is on the inside. For every testimony of a member of the LDS church who has grown and matured in his relationship with God (spirituality) since joining the LDS church, there is a  testimony of the same thing in a person who has joined a Pentecostal church, the Catholic church, a Nazarene, or Baptist church. Lighting strikes of the soul are not unique to any one Christian group.

I also believe that God is ultimately in charge. He grants the power and presence of the Holy Spirit (Ghost) to whom he wills. That is His prerogative. I firmly believe that He has agency to do as He wills. This even extends to those who have never heard regardless of their affiliation. It is what is inside that counts.

I think it would be very helpful for my LDS friends to understand that today, these are the issues that non-LDS Christians are asking. The old debates about Joseph Smith, the BOM, plural marriage, are lessening in significance to the non-LDS Christian. Their questions now relate to whether or not LDS Christians believe that Christians are fully Christian?  Why are LDS Christians so arrogant in their belief about their own unique and special relationship to a God who is not a respecter of persons?

Are these not the questions I first brought when I came to this forum three years ago? Don't you remember? Am I not still asking them in one form or another? These are more important than the issues, questions, and challenges of the early and mid- twentieth centuries. Sometimes I respectfully think my LDS friends are stuck back there. Can LDS Christians believe that a non-member has the constant presence of the Holy Ghost based on what they see, sense and on what God says about belief and faith in the New Testament? "Thy faith hath made thee whole" is a fascinating verse. It is found in Luke 17. Christ has just healed (made physically whole) ten lepers. One returns to thank him and glorify God. Only one. This one was a Samaritan!!!!  An "unclean" one! Christ declares him whole. He is the only one of the ten who returned and whom Christ declared whole. This wholeness is a spiritual, not a physical wholeness. If Christ can declare a Samaritan leper spiritually whole on the spot; so He can a Mennonite child. God has agency! ...

 

The words above, written by Navidad (especially those I bolded), are of great interest to me as a non-LDS Christian.  They ring true.

I remember a time (going back almost 50 years in my own awareness) when we non-LDS Christians by and large were wondering whether LDS believers were truly Christians.  And now we've come full circle, and find that LDS believers do not consider us as true Christians.  (I know I'm greatly simplifying here, but I think that this stark statement is true in essence and import.)

And I find that I'd rather be on this side than that.  I'd rather be inclusive than exclusive.  My claim to all that the Father has to offer is solely based on the inheritance I have as a child of God through belief in what Jesus accomplished for me through His sacrifice on the cross, and through the power of His risen life.  I believe that for non-LDS Christians too, and have seen beautiful expressions of their faith, both on this discussion board, and in real life.

I don't care to compare my experience of the presence, power, guidance and comfort of the Holy Spirit to anyone else's.  It would be unseemly, but I can testify to His presence and power in my life.  As children and fellow heirs of Christ, we are equally chosen, loved and destined for everything that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit give.  Through our faith in Jesus (and the resultant grace-filled walk of obedience), we are each and every one of us in a covenant relationship with Him.  

I do know that LDS Christians disagree with me, and I'm not trying to argue or get them to see it as I do.  But for me, I take comfort in knowing that our faith (LDS and non-LDS Christians) is what makes us children of God ... what makes us whole.

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, Navidad said:

We have looked long and hard for the "more" that is the mantra of the Saints that they will offer us when we join.

Maybe someday we'll advance in technology to the point of making the truth more obvious to all people. 

At this point we can type words that are true and have the truth appear in books or on the internet, but that still isn't enough for some people.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

One might say that of Temple ordinances to, as our friend Navidad has shown many times. But in my opinion those are entirely different because they give us actual further symbolic knowledge about the gospel. They carry with them content which expands our knowledge.

I am not talking how about the spiritual advantages of ordinances. I am simply talking about the way they present the Paradigm of the Gospel.

I am a firm believer in ordinances. I think your term "symbolic knowledge" for them is terrific. I have experienced ordinances and learned much from them.

I also became a master mason. I went through all their "ordinances" and gained nothing from them. Nothing! Nada! It is not the mere formality that matters. Without the presence of the Spirit, it is all in vain.

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I am a firm believer in ordinances. I think your term "symbolic knowledge" for them is terrific. I have experienced ordinances and learned much from them.

I also became a master mason. I went through all their "ordinances" and gained nothing from them. Nothing! Nada! It is not the mere formality that matters. Without the presence of the Spirit, it is all in vain.

We have scripture from our Lord wherein he tells us that if we don't have the Spirit with us, "we shall not teach", and we have other scripture that tells us that we need the Spirit to convey the truth to us when we hear or read the words of those who teach with the influence of Spirit.  So I think it's reasonable to conclude that we need the Spirit with us to be able to learn truth and to teach the truth to others.  That without the Spirit nobody can learn or teach the truth.

So ordinances themselves won't necessarily teach us anything, because it is the Spirit that teaches us the truth.  Hmm.  Maybe that's why the Spirit is also called the Spirit of truth?

[Navidad]

49 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I do see your point and I believe that is very very reasonable.  The issue is, that I believe that our position, the position of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is also very very reasonable.  Both of us have reasonable beliefs, they just don't agree.  If it isn't fair to ask you to believe something different is it fair to ask that of us?

I am not asking you, nor have I ever asked anyone on this forum to agree with me. Neither of us are investigators!  On the other hand, you are demanding (a strong word I know, but that is how I feel) that I agree with you in order to be equal to you in spirituality - isn't that what the presence of the gift of the Holy Spirit creates in us? Your entire missiological system seems built on the "more" that you have to offer the investigator. I am not aware of the "more" that I would offer you if you agreed with me. I think you are fine just as you are in terms of your own personal relationship with Christ. You are insisting that if I am to experience eternal life - everlasting life with the Father and Son, I must agree with you and with you only or I am lost to a secondary or tertiary level of eternity without the presence of Christ. I think you all are fine regarding your eternal life with Christ just as you are. You cannot say that about me. That used to really grieve and bother me. Not so much any more. You ask much more of me than I do of you. All I want from you is some understanding and perhaps empathy for how hard it is to be a non-LDS Christian in an LDS-Christian world.

[Ahab]

11 minutes ago, Navidad said:

 All I want from you is some understanding and perhaps empathy for how hard it is to be a non-LDS Christian in an LDS-Christian world.

No harder than it is for an LDS Christian in an non-LDS-Christian world, I suppose.  I wouldn't worry about it too much though because I'm sure our Lord will reward us appropriately, based on our works and his grace.

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I am not asking you, nor have I ever asked anyone on this forum to agree with me. Neither of us are investigators!  On the other hand, you are demanding (a strong word I know, but that is how I feel) that I agree with you in order to be equal to you in spirituality - isn't that what the presence of the gift of the Holy Spirit creates in us? Your entire missiological system seems built on the "more" that you have to offer the investigator. I am not aware of the "more" that I would offer you if you agreed with me. I think you are fine just as you are in terms of your own personal relationship with Christ. You are insisting that if I am to experience eternal life - everlasting life with the Father and Son, I must agree with you and with you only or I am lost to a secondary or tertiary level of eternity without the presence of Christ. I think you all are fine regarding your eternal life with Christ just as you are. You cannot say that about me. That used to really grieve and bother me. Not so much any more. You ask much more of me than I do of you. All I want from you is some understanding and perhaps empathy for how hard it is to be a non-LDS Christian in an LDS-Christian world.

I'm not demanding anything of you Navidad.  (I say that with love and respect).  I haven't sought you out to tell you how your beliefs are wrong.  I haven't dogged you about needing to change so you can be as enlightened as I am.  I haven't stood in judgement of your personal relationship with Christ.  

You have come to us.  You've asked questions about my beliefs.  Answering those questions honestly doesn't make any demands on you.I realize that you disagree with the answers, which is your right and I haven't ever denigrated you for doing so, but neither will I apologize or feel badly about the answers that I believe.    

It seems like you are saying that it's wrong of me to believe that one must be baptized by someone holding priesthood authority to covenant with Christ.  That it's wrong to believe that the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can offer more than any other denomination or religion, and not just wrong but prideful and self righteous to believe such things. It seems like you are saying that in order for me to not be prideful, and not be self-righteous I need to believe as you do.  Am I misunderstanding you?

I can't apologize that I believe that priesthood authority is necessary to form covenants with God, even though I completely empathize with what that means to those that disagree.  I can't apologize for sincerely believing that the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does offer more (access to ordinances, for example, that we can't access through any other means) even though I do empathize with what that means for those who believe we are wrong about that.   

Could you apologize or change your beliefs if a Muslim said that it was wrong of you to teach that he must accept Jesus Christ as the Son of God and Savior in order to have the same relationship with God that you have?  What would you say to him if he said that when you answer his questions about what you believe you are demanding that he agree with you in order to be equal with you spiritually?

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Oh, fine. Let me bite.

The canonical (as it were) category of members who are not in communication with the Holy Ghost would seem to include those who have tossed the commandments down the rat hole and are living lives of such character that most people who know about the expectations held for members of the Church would be surprised to find out they were members of it.

I'm not going to go out on a limb and present specific examples of those who don't have the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost (who am I to judge?), but the concept seems to be real that there are some such folks:

"We can, if we live worthy of it, have the blessing of the Spirit to be with us, not only now and then ... but always" (emphasis added) says President Eyring (Oct 2015 GC: The Holy Ghost as Your Companion).

That's a big if, is it not?

President Eyring seems to believe that at least some members of the Church do not currently experience the Holy Ghost as a constant companion. I feel I can trust his insight into this.

You may disagree.  If so, what do you believe about it?

 

 

Well I don't believe much of this stuff to begin with, so I'm not seeing a reason to see many members as not having the constant companionship.  I always wondered as a member who had the constant and who did not.  It never seemed to me that anyone ever had the constant companionship so I figured we were all in the same boat.  But I thought Bluebeams position interesting in that she seems to know that many members do not have what perhaps some others do have.  I wouldn't know how anyone really knows any of that.  Or what it means really to have the constant companionship.  Figured I'd ask.  

It sure appears you have a low view of a number of members though.  I wonder how many other members look upon their fellow church goers with the same skepticism.  Seems rough.

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Well I don't believe much of this stuff to begin with, so I'm not seeing a reason to see many members as not having the constant companionship.  I always wondered as a member who had the constant and who did not.  It never seemed to me that anyone ever had the constant companionship so I figured we were all in the same boat.  But I thought Bluedreams position interesting in that she seems to know that many members do not have what perhaps some others do have.  I wouldn't know how anyone really knows any of that.  Or what it means really to have the constant companionship.  Figured I'd ask.  

One clue to tell you when someone doesn't have the companionship of the Holy Ghost is to see someone do or say something stupid.  Bad grammar or typos do not count.  The Holy Ghost is a revelator and when we feel him with us we feel a pure intelligence in us and flowing through us.  It's not as if we can't do something stupid when he is with us, but we won't be listening to him when or if we do and he won't be with us for long if we continue to do or say stupid things when he is trying to influence us to make better choices.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

We have scripture from our Lord wherein he tells us that if we don't have the Spirit with us, "we shall not teach", and we have other scripture that tells us that we need the Spirit to convey the truth to us when we hear or read the words of those who teach with the influence of Spirit.  So I think it's reasonable to conclude that we need the Spirit with us to be able to learn truth and to teach the truth to others.  That without the Spirit nobody can learn or teach the truth.

So ordinances themselves won't necessarily teach us anything, because it is the Spirit that teaches us the truth.  Hmm.  Maybe that's why the Spirit is also called the Spirit of truth?

I agree with that but I think there are other ways as well. The holy spirit is the spirit of Truth.

Words cannot convey the truth of all things. We see through a glass Darkly.

The only way we can learn the truth is through direct nonverbal experience which can include nonverbal communication with a force Beyond ourselves. 

Once words are included we are stuck in the communications of men. Essentially we are stuck in the philosophies of men and not direct experience of God.

It is the difference between the letters r-e-d and the rich experience of the color itself which communicates human passion, the beauty an awe of a sunset or the riveting glow of a bouquet of roses.

Three squiggles, 

r.     e     d.

cannot possibly contain the richness of the glorious experience of what the word allegedly "represents"

Edited June 30, 2020 by mfbukowski

[stemelbow]

14 minutes ago, Ahab said:

One clue to tell you when someone doesn't have the companionship of the Holy Ghost is to see someone do or say something stupid.  Bad grammar or typos do not count.  The Holy Ghost is a revelator and when we feel him with us we feel a pure intelligence in us and flowing through us.  It's not as if we can't do something stupid when he is with us, but we won't be listening to him when or if we do and he won't be with us for long if we continue to do or say stupid things when he is trying to influence us to make better choices.

um...wow.  So who do we go to when we question whether something said or done is stupid or not?  Whose the arbiter?  

[Ahab]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I agree with that but I think there are other ways as well. The holy spirit is the spirit of Truth.

Words cannot convey the truth of all things. We see through a glass Darkly.

The only way we can learn the truth is through direct nonverbal communication with a force Beyond ourselves. 

I am wondering why you thought you were talking about some other way than the way I was talking about.

Without the Holy Spirit, aka the Spirit of Truth, communicating with us, (I believe) there is no way we can know what the truth is.

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

um...wow.  So who do we go to when we question whether something said or done is stupid or not?  Whose the arbiter?  

The person observing someone else doing something stupid would need to somehow know for themselves that what was being done was a stupid thing to do.  Otherwise they wouldn't know, either, that that was a stupid thing to do.

There was once a time when I liked to use the sense of humor as an analogy to having the sense of knowing what intelligence is, but over time I have learned that some people have a very strange sense of humor.

[Ahab]

25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I agree with that but I think there are other ways as well. The holy spirit is the spirit of Truth.

Words cannot convey the truth of all things. We see through a glass Darkly.

The only way we can learn the truth is through direct nonverbal experience which can include nonverbal communication with a force Beyond ourselves. 

Once words are included we are stuck in the communications of men. Essentially we are stuck in the philosophies of men and not direct experience of God.

It is the difference between the letters r-e-d and the rich experience of the color itself which communicates human passion, the beauty an awe of a sunset or the riveting glow of a bouquet of roses.

Three squiggles, 

r.     e     d.

cannot possibly contain the richness of the glorious experience of what the word allegedly "represents"

Language uses symbols, and once you know what is being represented by those symbols you also know (I believe) the truth that is being represented by those symbols.

Like the word red, for example.  Once you know what the word "red" represents, to the extent that you know what that word represents, you also know (I believe) that much truth about what the word "red" is.

Truth is as something is, and truth in the past was what something was then. It is all relative, and yet it is also absolute.  Truth in the future will be what something is then, and the something could be anything or everything.

I like knowing the truth because I like knowing what things are or were or will be in the future.  Truth as opposed to what is not even though some people may think things are true when they really are not.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Well I don't believe much of this stuff to begin with, so I'm not seeing a reason to see many members as not having the constant companionship.

If you've not experienced it, you're hardly in a position to judge. Not trying to be judgmental by saying this. Just that your understanding might be lacking. And if you don't "believe much of this stuff to begin with" I guess to you it is as if a flat-earther is trying to explain his position to you.  <=== just trying to look at it from your POV.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

 I always wondered as a member who had the constant and who did not.  It never seemed to me that anyone ever had the constant companionship so I figured we were all in the same boat.  But I thought Bluebeams position interesting in that she seems to know that many members do not have what perhaps some others do have.  I wouldn't know how anyone really knows any of that.  Or what it means really to have the constant companionship.  Figured I'd ask.  

"Bluebeams"?  LOL.

I've never given it much thought as to who has it and who doesn't. It's never really occurred to me to try to judge.  And then we come down to the definition of "many".  Ultimately, the definition of "many" is "more than one."  If there are a million people in a city, then what is "many"?  It almost depends upon point of view and/or context.  Ten people out of a million might seem to be very few, objectively, but it's "too many" if that's how many drowned in the lake last year.  In my opinion, if out of 15 million members of the Church, one million don't have the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost, that's not just "many", but "too many". But then again, one hundred is also "too many" -- in another context it is "few".  Considering the activity level in the Church overall (number attending sacrament meetings per month), perhaps there are waaaay too many who aren't taking advantage of their privileges (see below).

And your not ever having experienced it at all is "too many".

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

It sure appears you have a low view of a number of members though.  I wonder how many other members look upon their fellow church goers with the same skepticism.  Seems rough.

No, I don't have a low view of members.  You're projecting, I think.  I might have the view that many members are living beneath their privileges, as Elder Joseph Wirthlin spoke of it:

Quote

 

I fear that some members of the Lord’s Church “live far beneath our privileges” with regard to the gift of the Holy Ghost. Some are distracted by the things of the world that block out the influence of the Holy Ghost, preventing them from recognizing spiritual promptings. This is a noisy and busy world that we live in. Remember that being busy is not necessarily being spiritual. If we are not careful, the things of this world can crowd out the things of the Spirit.

Some are spiritually deadened and past feeling because of their choices to commit sin. Others simply hover in spiritual complacency with no desire to rise above themselves and commune with the Infinite.

If they would open their hearts to the refining influence of this unspeakable gift of the Holy Ghost, a glorious new spiritual dimension would come to light. Their eyes would gaze upon a vista scarcely imaginable. They could know for themselves things of the Spirit that are choice, precious, and capable of enlarging the soul, expanding the mind, and filling the heart with inexpressible joy.

-- The Unspeakable Gift, Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin, April 2003 General Conference. [Emphasis added]

 

"Many" are "hovering in spiritual complacency" -- which describes me accurately from time to time, too. This is not having a "low view of members". "Too many" of us hover far too much and need to correct the status quo.

The interesting thing about this is your "not believing much in this stuff" and yet worrying about how low a view you think I have of church members. From your point of view, if they do feel they have the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost, then they are delusional. Or a pack of liars.  That, dear Stemelbow, is a definite "low view", wouldn't you think?

 

 

[Stargazer]

55 minutes ago, Ahab said:

over time I have learned that some people have a very strange sense of humor.

LOL, perhaps you've also learned that some people think YOU have a very strange sense of humor.  Just going from the times you've said things on this forum in all earnestness and gotten some very strong reactions when perhaps you weren't expecting them!

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm not demanding anything of you Navidad.  (I say that with love and respect).  I haven't sought you out to tell you how your beliefs are wrong.  I haven't dogged you about needing to change so you can be as enlightened as I am.  I haven't stood in judgement of your personal relationship with Christ.  

You have come to us.  You've asked questions about my beliefs.  Answering those questions honestly doesn't make any demands on you.I realize that you disagree with the answers, which is your right and I haven't ever denigrated you for doing so, but neither will I apologize or feel badly about the answers that I believe.    

It seems like you are saying that it's wrong of me to believe that one must be baptized by someone holding priesthood authority to covenant with Christ.  That it's wrong to believe that the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can offer more than any other denomination or religion, and not just wrong but prideful and self righteous to believe such things. It seems like you are saying that in order for me to not be prideful, and not be self-righteous I need to believe as you do.  Am I misunderstanding you?

I can't apologize that I believe that priesthood authority is necessary to form covenants with God, even though I completely empathize with what that means to those that disagree.  I can't apologize for sincerely believing that the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does offer more (access to ordinances, for example, that we can't access through any other means) even though I do empathize with what that means for those who believe we are wrong about that.   

Could you apologize or change your beliefs if a Muslim said that it was wrong of you to teach that he must accept Jesus Christ as the Son of God and Savior in order to have the same relationship with God that you have?  What would you say to him if he said that when you answer his questions about what you believe you are demanding that he agree with you in order to be equal with you spiritually?

Hi bluebell: I have always appreciated you very much. I do think you are misunderstanding me. Of course, that may very well be my fault. I do not mean to say you are wrong. There are times I explain what I believe, but it is not for the purpose of condemning or converting you to my way of thinking. I offer you no condemnation at all. I often try and explain how I feel. That is different than explaining what I believe. I am not one who is here to discuss and debate. Notice please I never enter into the discussions about the BOM, or the church and its funds, or the arrest of this or that person, or anything of the like. That is none of my business. If I spoke negatively about any of that I am sure anyone on this forum could and would find two articles about Mennonites who did this or that terrible thing.

My wife and I, in some ways by our own choice and in some ways by the very reality of where we live have come to find ourselves in an LDS ward for worship and fellowship. We have no alternatives. We have no other options for spiritually rewarding option. It is so difficult! I don’t expect you to understand. You do not live in our shoes. You do not live in our environment. You never will. I simply ask you to consider a world very different than what you know and have always known. That is our world! Thanks.

[bluebell]

38 minutes ago, Navidad said:

My wife and I, in some ways by our own choice and in some ways by the very reality of where we live have come to find ourselves in an LDS ward for worship and fellowship. We have no alternatives. We have no other options for spiritually rewarding option. It is so difficult! I don’t expect you to understand. You do not live in our shoes. You do not live in our environment. You never will. I simply ask you to consider a world very different than what you know and have always known. That is our world! Thanks.

I don't know what it's like to have the trials that you do, you are right.  I can imagine that it must be so hard.  I'm sorry that it's so hard when you are just trying to do what you sincerely believe is right.  I admire you and your desire and commitment to worship, even when it's not ideal and causes you some pain.  

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, Ahab said:

One clue to tell you when someone doesn't have the companionship of the Holy Ghost is to see someone do or say something stupid.  Bad grammar or typos do not count.  The Holy Ghost is a revelator and when we feel him with us we feel a pure intelligence in us and flowing through us.  It's not as if we can't do something stupid when he is with us, but we won't be listening to him when or if we do and he won't be with us for long if we continue to do or say stupid things when he is trying to influence us to make better choices.

Well, that is bad for some church leaders..

[RevTestament]

On 6/29/2020 at 3:13 PM, CA Steve said:

At any rate, I am sure you can understand how the notion that members are entitled to a superior form of the HG based on membership might be a bit off putting for a non believer. The notion that God might communicate better with a worthy member over a similar behaving nonmember is  problematic to say the least.

Why should God talk to someone who has not shown commitment to Him? Why should God talk to those "darn" prophets? How did those prophets become foreordained?

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, Ahab said:

The person observing someone else doing something stupid would need to somehow know for themselves that what was being done was a stupid thing to do.  Otherwise they wouldn't know, either, that that was a stupid thing to do.

There was once a time when I liked to use the sense of humor as an analogy to having the sense of knowing what intelligence is, but over time I have learned that some people have a very strange sense of humor.

if we each individually are deciding does that make the measure of what is or who is stupid subjective and inconsistent?  If you suggest, though, for instance, that the smart will surely recognize the stupid by use of the HG, then there remains a couple of problematic possibilities.  The stupid might actually think they are the smart, using the HG to guide them.  It may be that these stupid are the ones whom God never gets to know, thinking, apparently, that they are too stupid to really try to help.  Or the problem could be the smart could temporarily be stupid thus losing their guidance and then going on to mislead a number of other smarties, finding ways to drag them into the stupid realm, thus giving satan opportunity to tie up some chains and continue to pull them to down to the H E double hockey sticks.  It sounds like the latter is what the Church leaders are most fearful of.  As Nelson suggests, on this line of reasoning you've provided, the smart need a constant companionship, and if they fail or start to fail, even temporarily, they will surely die spiritually.  Unfortunately, as has been shown throughout our people's history, everyone temporarily fails.  

[stemelbow]

14 hours ago, Stargazer said:

If you've not experienced it, you're hardly in a position to judge. Not trying to be judgmental by saying this. Just that your understanding might be lacking. And if you don't "believe much of this stuff to begin with" I guess to you it is as if a flat-earther is trying to explain his position to you.  <=== just trying to look at it from your POV.

Well let me walk my comment back some.  I was once a believer and now I am free.  So I'm kind of familiar.  

14 hours ago, Stargazer said:

"Bluebeams"?  LOL.

Sorry.  I work with a software named Bluebeam, so I mixed it up.  Bluebell.  

14 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I've never given it much thought as to who has it and who doesn't. It's never really occurred to me to try to judge.  And then we come down to the definition of "many".  Ultimately, the definition of "many" is "more than one."  If there are a million people in a city, then what is "many"?  It almost depends upon point of view and/or context.  Ten people out of a million might seem to be very few, objectively, but it's "too many" if that's how many drowned in the lake last year.  In my opinion, if out of 15 million members of the Church, one million don't have the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost, that's not just "many", but "too many". But then again, one hundred is also "too many" -- in another context it is "few".  Considering the activity level in the Church overall (number attending sacrament meetings per month), perhaps there are waaaay too many who aren't taking advantage of their privileges (see below).

Perhaps.  THanks for the explanation.  I'd say as a member I think the whole not really thinking about it was my take too.  

14 hours ago, Stargazer said:

And your not ever having experienced it at all is "too many".

No, I don't have a low view of members.  You're projecting, I think.  I might have the view that many members are living beneath their privileges, as Elder Joseph Wirthlin spoke of it:

I guess that's what I mean by a low view.  It appears many are lost and or fallen from the Church.  

14 hours ago, Stargazer said:

"Many" are "hovering in spiritual complacency" -- which describes me accurately from time to time, too. This is not having a "low view of members". "Too many" of us hover far too much and need to correct the status quo.

Maybe that's the great fears here.  Nelson has said that if you don't have the constant companionship of that HG, then you will surely die, spriritually.  HOw does one maintain a constancy?  Is his message to suggest without the ordinance of confirmation people won't survive, or is he specifically telling members that it is their duty to always have the spirit, if they have a moment of complacency, as you put it, then they will surely die, spiritually?  

14 hours ago, Stargazer said:

The interesting thing about this is your "not believing much in this stuff" and yet worrying about how low a view you think I have of church members. From your point of view, if they do feel they have the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost, then they are delusional. Or a pack of liars.  That, dear Stemelbow, is a definite "low view", wouldn't you think?

 

The either/or may be accurate or at least appear to be.  But I think to see things in less black and white ways.  It's not either delusional or liars...its always somewhere on a spectrum of misled, misunderstood and all of that.  

[CA Steve]

6 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Why should God talk to someone who has not shown commitment to Him? Why should God talk to those "darn" prophets? How did those prophets become foreordained?

Why should I believe you know better what God wants and does than Navidad or vice versa?

I think you are begging the OP question here. I believe that the concept of priesthood authority in Mormonism sometimes obscures our ability to understand how non-Mormon Christians view God.

And as far as I am concerned, an Infinitely loving God would communicate with His children in whatever way was best for them regardless of their behavior. 

[RevTestament]

16 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Why should I believe you know better what God wants and does than Navidad or vice versa?

I think you are begging the OP question here. I believe that the concept of priesthood authority in Mormonism sometimes obscures our ability to understand how non-Mormon Christians view God.

And as far as I am concerned, an Infinitely loving God would communicate with His children in whatever way was best for them regardless of their behavior. 

He did through prophets who are foreordained. Starting from the ground of preconceived notions doesn't get you very far in understanding God. His word is a much better source.