On Elder Renlund's "Arrogant and Unproductive" Comment ("Demanding revelation from God is both...")

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, filovirus said:

I’m not following your line of reasoning here. I’ve never seen it mentioned even once that we are to pray to the Holy Ghost.

And I am not advocating that the Holy Spirit is Heavenly Mother. Just the usual speculation that goes around in the mission field among missionaries.

It seems that Fiona Givens got a slap on wrist about a year ago for pushing this line of reasoning a little too far, among other things.

I read Calm as saying that the same source that tells us not to pray to anyone but God the Father, also tells us that the Holy Ghost is male.

[filovirus]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I read Calm as saying that the same source that tells us not to pray to anyone but God the Father, also tells us that the Holy Ghost is male.

Perhaps you are right. The only instance in scripture where the Holy Spirit is gendered is in 1 Nephi. And I’m not so sure that it was actually the Holy Ghost walking him through the interpretation of Lehi’s dream. I guess that’s to be debated.

[HappyJackWagon]

"Demanding" anything from another person is rude and requires a level of arrogance or entitlement. I think if someone were to "demand" XYZ from God then, yes that would be arrogant and counterproductive. But that is a pretty negative way to describe some of the agitation that occurs in the church. Bringing something to the consciousness of those who have authority to ask and make decisions churchwide can be a very good thing and has yielded some good results in the past. No one ever seems to agree on what kind of agitation is "appropriate" and what isn't. For some, any agitation is appropriate and to other NO agitation is appropriate.

It's impossible to please everyone so IMO if a person feels called or inspired to raise issues, they should do it, hopefully in as respectful a manner as possible. But sometimes things need to be shaken up a little before the decision makers pay attention.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, filovirus said:

I’m not following your line of reasoning here. I’ve never seen it mentioned even once that we are to pray to the Holy Ghost.

And I am not advocating that the Holy Spirit is Heavenly Mother. Just the usual speculation that goes around in the mission field among missionaries.

It seems that Fiona Givens got a slap on wrist about a year ago for pushing this line of reasoning a little too far, among other things.

I am saying the same sources describing the Holy Ghost as male are the same ones saying we are not to pray to Heavenly Mother.

[Calm]

On 4/22/2022 at 12:36 PM, filovirus said:

Perhaps you are right. The only instance in scripture where the Holy Spirit is gendered is in 1 Nephi. And I’m not so sure that it was actually the Holy Ghost walking him through the interpretation of Lehi’s dream. I guess that’s to be debated.

There are modern leaders teaching he is male.  Is there anything in scriptures that tells us not to pray to Heavenly Mother?  I can only recall saying pray to the Father, but there is wiggle room for praying to Christ imo (Nephites doing it).  My memory is we only get definite instructions to pray only to the Father (as opposed to instruction to pray to the Father) from modern leaders.

Edited April 23, 2022 by Calm

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

"Demanding" anything from another person is rude and requires a level of arrogance or entitlement. I think if someone were to "demand" XYZ from God then, yes that would be arrogant and counterproductive. But that is a pretty negative way to describe some of the agitation that occurs in the church. Bringing something to the consciousness of those who have authority to ask and make decisions churchwide can be a very good thing and has yielded some good results in the past. No one ever seems to agree on what kind of agitation is "appropriate" and what isn't. For some, any agitation is appropriate and to other NO agitation is appropriate.

It's impossible to please everyone so IMO if a person feels called or inspired to raise issues, they should do it, hopefully in as respectful a manner as possible. But sometimes things need to be shaken up a little before the decision makers pay attention.

This is why I think it would be very useful for the Brethren to tells us if they have been seeking further instruction or knowledge on a subject.  That would stop people from spending so much time and effort being angry that the prophets are refusing to go to God about the issue, when they don't even know that they aren't.

When I heard Elder Renlund say that about not demanding, I assumed that he was speaking from a position of "we've asked for more but haven't gotten anything yet and it's inappropriate for us to demand an answer," but that's as much of an assumption as the "they refuse to ask, otherwise they would agree with me" crowd.

Because neither camp has any idea or evidence to support our conclusions.  A little more transparency on this kind of thing would be helpful.

[mrmarklin]

A speech like this, with some ambiguity of meaning, is why I really dislike the Conference talks used as lesson material for priesthood classes. We believers know what he meant, and I don’t get all the angst in this forum when even the slightest shade of meaning of every GA utterance is parsed out to the nth degree.  It’s quite ridiculous, and indicative that many of you need to get a life. 

BTW have you husbands out there have any serious degree of control over your wive’s actions?  My experience is that my wife does what she wants. I doubt even the Great Almighty controls what his wife does. 😉

[mfbukowski]

On 4/21/2022 at 3:55 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Sounds like a semantic problem. 

Nailed it!!

[mfbukowski]

On 4/21/2022 at 6:19 PM, Navidad said:

Do you know a truth such as this, or do you faith a truth such as this?

When God reveals something, you become absolutely certain.

There is no doubt or going back. 

Certainty IS truth

There is no other coherent measure of religious truth that any philosopher has defined in 2500 years of religious philosophy. The purpose of religion is to generate the comfort certainty brings; but of course it is also always based on hope for things unseen.

In revelation, experience which produces certanty IS truth. No other explanation works

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

When God reveals something, you become absolutely certain.

There is no doubt or going back. 

Certainty IS truth

There is no other coherent measure of religious truth that any philosopher has defined in 2500 years of religious philosophy. The purpose of religion is to generate the comfort certainty brings; but of course it is also always based on hope for things unseen.

In revelation, experience which produces certanty IS truth. No other explanation works

This is a wonderful answer. Thank you. It reveals however a huge difference between us, which may account for the majority of our differences in the past. It is very helpful.

Without suggesting in any way that you are wrong in your conclusions, I offer my own in the same spirit with which you offered yours:

I live by faith.

I believe that the vast majority of what we acknowledge as truth is our own personal and individual truth. Your truths are not mine. Mine are not yours.  In that, neither of us is right nor wrong, correct nor incorrect. We each cling to our truths when we strive for the certainty they provide us. That is most accentuated when we value certainty as a virtue.

I am an imperfect vessel - a clay pot. I cannot know, do, or be in full. Whatever good and positive that I am, it is only by God's grace which is that which tempers my humanity, willfulness, and self-deceit.

I strive to live by II Cor 1:12 - "Indeed, this is our boast: The testimony of our conscience is that we have conducted ourselves in the world, and especially toward you, with godly sincerity and purity, not by human wisdom but by God’s grace." The concept behind the words used for sincerity is sun tested - whole, pure, the same as - in the context of Rogerian mental health - having one's ideal self closely match one's phenomenological self with little variance between the two. Sincerity and purity are both aspirational goals for me and for any human. That is the goal and the striving for that goal for which the Apostle Paul reaches in Phil 3: 14-16.

Like Paul, I strive but I fall short. Therefore any certainty that I might own is tempered by my awareness of my own cracks, crevices, insincerity, blind spots, ego, and self-deceit. I value and appreciate the 2500 years of religious philosophy that you mention, but see it as falling into the category of "human wisdom." Any and all human wisdom is imperfect; therefore I can draw no certainty from it. I can draw provisional certainty, but nothing more. My hope, with you is for "things yet unseen." I would add and "unknown."

ThereforeI live by and with a passion to know and understand that which I do not currently know and understand. Hence all my questions. I am much more a seeker than a seer. 

I interpret and understand all that God reveals to me through the dark glass of my own reality - that I am more finite than definite.

Last, I often enjoy the wisdom of Erich Fromm - an oldtimer from the Frankfort School which gave us what today we call "critical theory."  Fromm is quoted as saying, "The quest for certainty blocks the search for meaning. Uncertainty is the very condition to impel man (humans)  to unfold his (their) powers."  I like that a lot!

Edited April 23, 2022 by Navidad

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

A speech like this, with some ambiguity of meaning, is why I really dislike the Conference talks used as lesson material for priesthood classes. We believers know what he meant, and I don’t get all the angst in this forum when even the slightest shade of meaning of every GA utterance is parsed out to the nth degree.  It’s quite ridiculous, and indicative that many of you need to get a life. 

BTW have you husbands out there have any serious degree of control over your wive’s actions?  My experience is that my wife does what she wants. I doubt even the Great Almighty controls what his wife does. 😉

Amen.

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

BTW have you husbands out there have any serious degree of control over your wive’s actions?  My experience is that my wife does what she wants. I doubt even the Great Almighty controls what his wife does. 😉

I find more disturbing the implicit assumption that God would try to control Her. Also that God would want to.

Edited April 23, 2022 by The Nehor

[Maureen]

11 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

...BTW have you husbands out there have any serious degree of control over your wive’s actions?  My experience is that my wife does what she wants. I doubt even the Great Almighty controls what his wife does. 😉

Are you implying that it is Heavenly Mother who is choosing to have no contact with her own children? She's too busy doing heavenly things she's got no time for those pesky mortals? If it's her choice, why would she choose that?

M.

[Tacenda]

I don't think any of us even know a heavenly father let alone a heavenly mother do we? We get a feeling or a spiritual experience, or a second hand witness, but how many stood beside them? I do rely on those that have NDE's...but usually no mention of a heavenly mother. And the non LDS Christians don't believe in one do they?

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

This is a wonderful answer. Thank you. It reveals however a huge difference between us, which may account for the majority of our differences in the past. It is very helpful.

Without suggesting in any way that you are wrong in your conclusions, I offer my own in the same spirit with which you offered yours:

I live by faith.

I believe that the vast majority of what we acknowledge as truth is our own personal and individual truth. Your truths are not mine. Mine are not yours.  In that, neither of us is right nor wrong, correct nor incorrect. We each cling to our truths when we strive for the certainty they provide us. That is most accentuated when we value certainty as a virtue.

I am an imperfect vessel - a clay pot. I cannot know, do, or be in full. Whatever good and positive that I am, it is only by God's grace which is that which tempers my humanity, willfulness, and self-deceit.

I strive to live by II Cor 1:12 - "Indeed, this is our boast: The testimony of our conscience is that we have conducted ourselves in the world, and especially toward you, with godly sincerity and purity, not by human wisdom but by God’s grace." The concept behind the words used for sincerity is sun tested - whole, pure, the same as - in the context of Rogerian mental health - having one's ideal self closely match one's phenomenological self with little variance between the two. Sincerity and purity are both aspirational goals for me and for any human. That is the goal and the striving for that goal for which the Apostle Paul reaches in Phil 3: 14-16.

Like Paul, I strive but I fall short. Therefore any certainty that I might own is tempered by my awareness of my own cracks, crevices, insincerity, blind spots, ego, and self-deceit. I value and appreciate the 2500 years of religious philosophy that you mention, but see it as falling into the category of "human wisdom." Any and all human wisdom is imperfect; therefore I can draw no certainty from it. I can draw provisional certainty, but nothing more. My hope, with you is for "things yet unseen." I would add and "unknown."

ThereforeI live by and with a passion to know and understand that which I do not currently know and understand. Hence all my questions. I am much more a seeker than a seer. 

I interpret and understand all that God reveals to me through the dark glass of my own reality - that I am more finite than definite.

Last, I often enjoy the wisdom of Erich Fromm - an oldtimer from the Frankfort School which gave us what today we call "critical theory."  Fromm is quoted as saying, "The quest for certainty blocks the search for meaning. Uncertainty is the very condition to impel man (humans)  to unfold his (their) powers."  I like that a lot!

Thank you for your reply.

Your first few lines suggested to me that there would be something with which to disagree, but there wasn't any real issues with anything IMPORTANT.   Semantics and philosophy differences?   Yes but as always, "just semantics"

I suppose I will take it line by line.

Quote

I believe that the vast majority of what we acknowledge as truth is our own personal and individual truth. Your truths are not mine. Mine are not yours.  In that, neither of us is right nor wrong, correct nor incorrect. We each cling to our truths when we strive for the certainty they provide us. That is most accentuated when we value certainty as a virtue.

I find this a little confusing.  I agree that ALL truth that we can know is truth that WE - personally, are capable of knowing.  I see that as clearly as A=A.  All the truth we can know is truth we can know.   I agree with the notion of having one's "own personal truth".   That is a relativism that I did not bring up, because I thought that perhaps you were an enemy of relativism, and would not advance communication.

The problem are the words "correct and incorrect" in that context.   If all of us have our own truth, then we cannot know anything BEYOND our own truth.   A=A!   So in that sense "correctness" does not exist and so it becomes, for me, irrelevant.   So right there we give up the idea of "correctness" and end up with the pragmatic standard of "what works best", because that is the only standard that works!!     B=B!   Best is best!

Yes we cling to what we call "true" and some of those "truths" we accept with certainty.   The earth is "round" with certain exceptions, because its appearance pretty much defines what we describe AS "round".   A=A!  I think technically there are more precise definitions as a certain kind of "spheroid" but even in analyzing that definitition, the words are designed to describe the EXPERIENCE- phenomenologically- of measuring the earth.  Fancy A=A but a=a nevertheless!!

So in this sense I am certain that the "earth is round" simply because the word is designed to represent that shape- and the very IDEA of "shape" itself is a human defintion and activity.  Perhaps it is only because I am not a squirrel, but I have never heard of squirrels discussing the shape of the earth.    Maybe I need to learn to speak squirrel!

So we have that kind of certainty- alleged linguistic "correspondence" to the experience of being in the "world".   Again, this is where my Rorty siggy quotes come in.  A=A !  I am certain that "pi" = 3.14 etc because that number DEFINES the symbol.   

All of science is built upon defining words, though people don't think of it that way.  One way of describing "boiling water" IS "212 degrees F"

Certainty because A=A and those squiggles have the same significance to us in our cultural context.

But there is another kind of certainty that has nothing to do with language, and that is direct experience, non-verbal, "this is happening right now" kind of certainty.

I am absolutely certain that I am now performing an activity that we could verbally describe as "typing a reply to Navidad". 

 No doubt.  I am doing it- absolute certainty!

I know I love my wife.   No doubt absolute certainty.   Direct experience.

AND I know that I have heard the "voice" of God- a feeling, not a literal voice, that ran through my body and let me know I was having a "Moses" experience, that made me want to remove my shoes, because I was on sacred ground.

As absolutely as I know I am writing this, in stupid human language that does not even come close to "describing" the experience.

Yes it is given by grace- God did not have to do that for me, but he did and I testify that he did and I am certain that I am about God's business in the path he led me to.

Certain.   As sure as I know my fingers are leaving squiggles on a page that may or may not be intelligible to squirrels.  MORE certain than A=A because that is just the certainty of men.

This is direct, I am here right now kind of certainty. 

[mfbukowski]

49 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Are you implying that it is Heavenly Mother who is choosing to have no contact with her own children? She's too busy doing heavenly things she's got no time for those pesky mortals? If it's her choice, why would she choose that?

M.

Do you ever have a sense of unity with someone where you are the other and the other is you to the point where "other" makes no sense?

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

Last, I often enjoy the wisdom of Erich Fromm - an oldtimer from the Frankfort School which gave us what today we call "critical theory."  Fromm is quoted as saying, "The quest for certainty blocks the search for meaning. Uncertainty is the very condition to impel man (humans)  to unfold his (their) powers."  I like that a lot!

Surely Fromm was certain he was writing that.   Poof!. 

He was talking about something else, not THIS, right now, right here, who you are and what you are doing certainty.

Doubting that has another name we call "psychosis" 

 

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Surely Fromm was certain he was writing that.   Poof!. 

He was talking about something else, not THIS, right now, right here, who you are and what you are doing certainty.

Doubting that has another name we call "psychosis" 

 

Great replies. Thanks. I don't have too much more to offer. Just perhaps two things: I believe that as humans with a divine spark in us. We have great power and potential that can and should be unlocked via our day by day sanctification and the added potential of the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Not the authority kind of power, but the potential to become, to understand and to "rightly divide" our own experiences kind of power. I think that confidence in our certainty can close down the growth of becoming and rightly dividing our own experiences and actions and those which come to us from others. 

The second is that I was forever changed by my year's internship at Camarillo State Hospital back in 1975. Being from SOCAL, you may be familiar with that place, now a state university. I worked in Ward 18 for chronically psychotic (to use your word) females. I have never met or been around a more certain group of people. Their certainty about everything was absolute and rarely changeable. There was little insight or desire to change. Somedays I left shaking and shook all the way back to Montebello where we lived. That experience and my mission in Africa both impacted my life in ways I cannot still completely understand. However, yes I am certain I am sitting here keyboarding as I reply to you. However I am also constantly uncertain about what I am going to type next! Take care.

[mfbukowski]

23 hours ago, Calm said:

There are modern leaders teaching he is male.  Is there anything in scriptures that tells us not to pay to Heavenly Mother?  I can only recall saying pray to the Father, but there is wiggle room for praying to Christ imo (Nephites doing it).  My memory is we only get definite instructions to pray only to the Father (as opposed to instruction to pray to the Father) from modern leaders.

In science and everywhere else, we make "paradigms" which are ideas which we use to make cars go, fly to the moon, predict the weather to some degree etc.   We can predict if a beam will have enough strength to perform its function of holding up a given portion of the roof of a house, etc.

We have stories we make up to teach us lessons which will make life better for us.   We pretend we were born with "human rights" simply based on the fact that we ARE humans, that we should all be free.  That is a useful paradigm because it makes for a society which benefits the peaceful progression of mankind in producing children, taking care of them etc.

One of the paradigms which I find extremely useful is to worship the idea of an ideal, and eternal family.   Anyone or group can create their own family structure, but I think that even most gay folks acknowledge that sociologically the "nuclear family" is the best IDEAL.

http://magadhmahilacollege.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Advantages-of-Nuclear-Family.pdf

I think the purpose of an "ideal" anything gives us something to strive for, and represents the "best" model that humans have found.   THAT itself is part of the paradigm I have found best for me.   Yes others should be with people they love, yes you can have a happy well adjusted healthy family which is NOT the "Ideal" human nuclear family- yet such an ideal is..... the ideal for practical pragmatic reasons as those noted in the above quote.

Our Proclamation on the Family details such a paradigm that provides for humanity, an IDEAL for us to live up to.

And so, in modeling God as an Ideal, we construct the idea that He and Mother exist in an ideal family, which in itself is worthy of worship.

We do not worship the worst in society, mistakes and evil- we worship what we consider the "best" model of human existence and behavior.

And so in the paradigm we construct God living in a human family that is ideal, that He is male and Mother is female.

That is the construction, and we can have that confirmed AS the best by examining our hearts and applying the principles in our lives

There is no need to question if "human rights" exist in some sense, as floating around in space- we know that these are ideal principles.   There is no need to wonder about the bodies of God or members of the ideal family- they are IDEAL.

That does not mean they are NOT REAL in any sense, to me it implies that they ARE real but that is my personal paradigm, and that of millions of others, who believe similarly.

It is the paradigms that count, because as with belief in human rights,- that humans SHOULD have rights- there are nothing but paradigms

But it is the BELIEF, that changes lives, the hope for things yet unseen.

I know you know all this

[mfbukowski]

14 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Great replies. Thanks. I don't have too much more to offer. Just perhaps two things: I believe that as humans with a divine spark in us. We have great power and potential that can and should be unlocked via our day by day sanctification and the added potential of the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Not the authority kind of power, but the potential to become, to understand and to "rightly divide" our own experiences kind of power. I think that confidence in our certainty can close down the growth of becoming and rightly dividing our own experiences and actions and those which come to us from others. 

The second is that I was forever changed by my year's internship at Camarillo State Hospital back in 1975. Being from SOCAL, you may be familiar with that place, now a state university. I worked in Ward 18 for chronically psychotic (to use your word) females. I have never met or been around a more certain group of people. Their certainty about everything was absolute and rarely changeable. There was little insight or desire to change. Somedays I left shaking and shook all the way back to Montebello where we lived. That experience and my mission in Africa both impacted my life in ways I cannot still completely understand. However, yes I am certain I am sitting here keyboarding as I reply to you. However I am also constantly uncertain about what I am going to type next! Take care.

That's the rest of it

Personal revelation DEPENDS on the idea that God is the Ideal Tutor as we move through the stages necessary for US as individuals to develop- using your words- " potential that can and should be unlocked via our day by day sanctification and the added potential of the guidance of the Holy Spirit."

We all literally start our lives in different "places" and move up the road to our own- and possibly same- destinations.   BECAUSE we are individuals we require an individual curriculum to reach where God wants us to be, which may lead us down side-paths so that we learn what we need to learn to get us farther on the TRUE path for us.

If I had never been, in this order, Catholic, agnostic, atheist, communist, buddhist, existentialist, neo pragmatist, ordinary language philosophy, I could never have become a member of the COJCLDS.   Odd that Wittgenstein made me a Mormon.

I would not understand the value of direct human experience over words, that sometimes a duck can be a rabbit and a human can be a god.

I would not know that God creates humans because He himself is human and humans therefore also create and are Gods.   That, right there IS the essence of what I believe and have experienced directly.   Elevated humanism becomes Christianity because Christ is human AND God!

But I don' think that idea would fly in a Baptist context, would it? 

But yes, God leads us on our own paths, not anyone else's.   So we don't decide that someone else's path is wrong because it is different than ours- it may be the path that indiviual needed to be on to finally "get" it.

That's why we can believe that the "fall" of Adam was actually an advance in understanding agency.  Eve was following her heart and had an experience that both advanced and set back our progression toward the tree of life, but without which none of us would have agency.   That is the meaning of the story.   Sometimes we progress by going 'wrong".

All roads LEAD to Rome but that does not guarantee that everybody succeeds in the journey.

But for me I am back in Rome again, where I started , it's just not Rome like it was 2000 years ago.   

In this bizarro world, Rome is now in Utah, but Utah does not realize they are in Rome.

Go figure!!

Hope some of this made sense for you, but I sense there still is some space there that I cannot put my finger on.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Do you ever have a sense of unity with someone where you are the other and the other is you to the point where "other" makes no sense?

No

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Maureen said:

Are you implying that it is Heavenly Mother who is choosing to have no contact with her own children? She's too busy doing heavenly things she's got no time for those pesky mortals? If it's her choice, why would she choose that?

M.

This planet is daddy’s favorites. Mommy’s favorites are on a planet on the opposite side of the solar system hidden by the sun. I hear it is much nicer there.

[Maureen]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Do you ever have a sense of unity with someone where you are the other and the other is you to the point where "other" makes no sense?

No.

[Maureen]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

This planet is daddy’s favorites. Mommy’s favorites are on a planet on the opposite side of the solar system hidden by the sun. I hear it is much nicer there.

That's a better answer than @mfbukowski's.

M.

[mrmarklin]

11 hours ago, Maureen said:

Are you implying that it is Heavenly Mother who is choosing to have no contact with her own children? She's too busy doing heavenly things she's got no time for those pesky mortals? If it's her choice, why would she choose that?

M.

I think heavenly Mother does as She pleases. I have no opinion about what or why She does as She does. I’m sure that She and our Heavenly Father are in total agreement with one another. 
 

As a hypothetical, I can easily surmise what my wife would be doing. Upon waking she’s served breakfast in bed. Upon dressing, she immediately starts communicating with her special  friends about where to go for lunch. After that, shopping. Later on, if not too tired, she may check on what’s happening with temple work. It’s a pet hobby horse of hers. Of course in late afternoon, dinner with family. She’ll be selective who she invites, of course, because the family is likely to be large. After dinner, if nothing better offers she will enjoy TV or the heavenly equivalent. Then after a long eventful day, to bed. 
I personally think she could do this for millennia.  Eternity is good. 

Edited April 24, 2022 by mrmarklin