Follow F.A.I.R, They Know the Way

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not sure about that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Some of the Church leadership doesn’t appear to think we are in conflict (and we are not) given they allowed the Church website to link to us for further ‘offsite’ reading.  And we have said we will remove anything the Church leadership asks us to…as far as I know, they have never asked us to remove stuff and they have sent speakers to our conferences. Not saying that means they are stamping us as Truth, just means it shows they don’t see us as conflicted with them or in competition, but supportive.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Some of the Church leadership doesn’t appear to think we are in conflict (and we are not) given they allowed the Church website to link to us for further ‘offsite’ reading.  And we have said we will remove anything the Church leadership asks us to…as far as I know, they have never asked us to remove stuff and they have sent speakers to our conferences. Not saying that means they are stamping us as Truth, just means it shows they don’t see us as conflicted with them or in competition, but supportive.

Good points.

[CA Steve]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

Temple recommend questions in my view.

Not my point.

This is a discussion board.

Dismissing questions because they are "not essential to salvation" kinda defeats the purpose of ..., you know..., discussion. Someone who feels that way could choose not to participate, but in reality, what they are doing is trying to wave off a difficult question to which they have no answer. A similar thing happens when motivations are questioned. It's just a way of attacking the poster and not answering the question.

 

ETA.  A couple of years back I had a conversation with the husband of my niece, who had just recently become an institute teacher. In our conversation he specifically mentioned that one of the things they had been instructed to do was not dismiss questions by telling the person asking that it wasn't necessary to their salvation, that they were to take the questions seriously.

Edited July 13, 2022 by CA Steve

[CA Steve]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

truth, just means it shows they don’t see us as conflicted with them or in competition, but supportive.

Or, it could mean they have no better answer or want to avoid committing to one. I believe that is the case in many of the questions like the OP is asking.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

So sincere question:  Whom do I follow, the prophets or F.A.I.R.?

I am guessing you follow none of the above. That would make this concern trolling.

[Kenngo1969]

Just now, Obehave said:

Yes, but Joseph also talked about the importance of knowing the truth and climbing a ladder.

The point of many answers on this thread is that there are salvific truths, on the one hand, and truths that, however important, in other ways, they might be, have no bearing on salvation.  Whatever Joseph Smith said regarding knowing the truth and climbing a ladder has to do with the former rather than with the latter.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

The OP wasn't asking what was worth discussing, but who was worth following.

As for what is or isn't "essential to salvation" Christ had this to say when He was asked the same question:

17 ¶ And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?

18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none ^agood but one, that is, God.

19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit ^aadultery, Do not ^bkill, Do not ^csteal, Do not bear false witness, ^dDefraud not, ^eHonour thy father and mother.

20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.

21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and ^agive to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and ^bfollow me.

22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.

Mark 10 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/mark/10?lang=eng

So instead of asking for an official list perhaps one would ask themselves what they are willing, or unwilling, to give away for the sake of their own salvation.

In the grand scheme of things, prophets and apostles providing scientifically accurate and exact information about the geospatial parameters of the Flood does not have an impact on my salvation.  So if past and present prophets and apostles have erred on these particulars, I'm more than happy to cut them some slack.

It is the broad strokes of the Restored Gospel that paint the picture I find so appealing, and true.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited July 14, 2022 by smac97

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

So you are fine with so called prophets teaching falsehoods?

Evidently you believe it is clever to parlay “the prophets” and “wrong on something” from your original "sincere question" into “so-called prophets” and “teaching falsehoods." What a loser!

[bluebell]

59 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Or, it could mean they have no better answer or want to avoid committing to one. I believe that is the case in many of the questions like the OP is asking.

It seems like you just said the same thing as Calm did.

[Kenngo1969]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Evidently you believe it is clever to parlay “the prophets” and “wrong on something” from your original "sincere question" into “so-called prophets” and “teaching falsehoods." What a loser!

Now, Mr. Dinkum will proceed to lather himself into a huff, wondering how anyone could doubt his sincerity, swearing by all that is Holy that his questions and intent are sincere and not feigned.  Okay, now that everyone has had a chance to review the script ...

Lights ...

Camera ...

Action!

 

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, Obehave said:

So much drama.  Why oh Why do we keep coming back here to talk like we do to each other?

That probably didn't help either.

Okay everybody let's just talk about Faith and Repentance from now on, and only those things, somehow or in some way or another.  Could be fun.  Maybe. I'm sure The Nehor could still find some way to be funny. 

The Nehor sure did, but not only on this thread.

[Vanguard]

FD! Great to 'read from you' again! I was sad to see you go and am glad to see you back. I always looked at your avatar and wondered what your Aussie voice would sound like as I read from your posts Trust me, you don't want to hear my stupid American version of an Aussie accent - something like, '...shrimp on the barbie' and that's the extent of it! ;o

Calm wrote - "FairDinkum, at this point in your life, are you a believing member?  I may have mixed you up with another, so please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe your past posts left me with the impression you did not believe anymore.  I ask because the question as framed, should you choose the prophets or FAIR is really irrelevant if you wouldn’t choose to follow the prophets in much of anything to begin with."

She beat me to it. What's your status with the church? Your classic way of framing questions is legendary in these parts! And to stay totally transparent, I agree with virtually everything everyone else has thus far said regarding your style.

Cheers. And welcome back. : )

Edited July 13, 2022 by Vanguard

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Since it's founding in 1830, LDS prophets have declared the reality of a Universal Flood and the reality of a literal Adam and Eve. 

What is the antecedent of “its”? The sentence as written suggests three possibilities: “LDS prophets,” “the reality of a universal flood,” and “the reality of a literal Adam and Eve.”

I doubt, though, that the writer meant any of those three things as the antecedent of “its”. 
 

He probably meant “its” to refer to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but that’s not given in the sentence. 

Edited July 14, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Not my point.

This is a discussion board.

Dismissing questions because they are "not essential to salvation" kinda defeats the purpose of ..., you know..., discussion.

Not really.  None of us is here compulsorily.  We can participate as little or as much as we want.

Some fellow may come along and demand a scientific explanation as to how Jesus turned water into wine, or how He arose from the dead.  While these are interesting questions, they are also A) broadly imponderable (we have no real means of answering them), and B) "not essential to salvation."

My Honda Pilot has a catalytic converter.  I only have the vaguest notion of how it works or why it is necessary.  That does not, however, preclude me from driving the car to get from Point A to Point B.  The particulars of how the converter works is "not essential" to my use of the vehicle.

So it is, I think, with things like the geospatial parameters of the Flood.  This is mostly an imponderable issue.  And it is not essential for me to understand.  I should therefore focus on the "weightier matters" that Jesus spoke of, and leave secondary and peripheral questions in my "Happy to learn more about, but not absolutely required for me to function" pile.

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Someone who feels that way could choose not to participate, but in reality, what they are doing is trying to wave off a difficult question to which they have no answer.

And that is wrong . . . how?  

Is it reasonable to require a person of faith to know the particulars of miraculous events, how they happened, etc.?   Particularly when they happened hundreds or thousands of years ago?  Aren't these usually by definition matters of "faith?"

Also, what if we don't have an answer to a difficult question?  Isn't an "I don't know" response superior to speculation?

Also, can you explain the processes wherein Jesus turned water to wine, multiplied the loaves and fishes, walked on water, raised the dead, healed a blind man with spittle mud, healed lepers of their disease, healed a woman of her blood issue, and so on?  If you can't should others fault you for "trying to wave off a difficult question to which they have no answer?"

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

A similar thing happens when motivations are questioned. It's just a way of attacking the poster and not answering the question.

Ad hominem is a logical fallacy.

"I don't know" is not.

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

ETA.  A couple of years back I had a conversation with the husband of my niece, who had just recently become an institute teacher. In our conversation he specifically mentioned that one of the things they had been instructed to do was not dismiss questions by telling the person asking that it wasn't necessary to their salvation, that they were to take the questions seriously.

At the front end of such a discussion, "not necessary for your salvation" can be problematic.  But at the back end of a discussion about an imponderable question . . . that may be where things end up.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

3 hours ago, CA Steve said:

And, can we just lock any threads where we suspect the Op of being a critic?  Obviously, there is no reason to discuss something coming from a critical source.

When the point of the thread as presented is “who shall I follow, A or B” and we know from past experience the person has no intention of following either A or B, why should we invest time in answering that question?

If there are other questions that could be useful to discuss, I would have no problem discussing them in a context that is not set up to be inherently lose/lose from my perspective. 

BTW, FAIR will always say follow the prophet in the ways of the Gospel, so if you actually listen to/follow FAIR and want to emulate the members, you will be following the prophet.

And please, never ever look on us FAIR members as some sort of spiritual or church authority. Framing the question as between following a spiritual leader and following a group that is researching and analyzing and presenting non-spiritual information for the most part in a more academic manner is confusing two categories, the latter one of which is not meant to be followed in any sense beyond watch if interested, but only used as a springboard for personal study. 

Edited July 14, 2022 by Calm

[OGHoosier]

I agree that I don't see an essential contradiction between FAIR and the teachings of the prophets. 

I think the real question, though, is the one @Fair Dinkum closes with. Why should we follow these prophets if they can't get something so simple right? 

Well, it's not so simple. 

I really love 1 Corinthians. It's one of the earliest extant Pauline epistles, and is written in the heyday of Paul's ministry before the reality of the oncoming apostasy hits him. There's some real gems in there. I refer specifically to the latter half of the Hymn to Charity, 1 Corinthians 13.

Quote

8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

Note that Paul is saying this when the church is as fully established as ever it will be in his lifetime. Christ has come and given His gospel. He has just as much reason as we might have to say that "the perfect is come"...which is none. Clearly Paul believes that it hasn't. Neither should we. We continue to see through a glass darkly, and our prophecy remains "in part." I see in this a scriptural rebuke of exhaustive prophetic infallibility in the Christian church. Instead, there is the mature understanding that reliability and perfection are not the same, that if all prophecy were 100% identical to ultimate truth (in a concordist sense) on even the minutest matters than the gospel would be uniformly unintelligible to every society. Paul comprehends that the Church as he had it was "in part," and the most important thing is the general trajectory of the Church, does it instill Christlike virtues, possess proper authority, etc. 

For one of my more controversial takes, I read D&C 19:6-12 and Matthew 19:7-9 to establish that the Lord is not a nitpicker when it comes to His religious establishments on Earth. 

Quote

6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.

7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.

8 Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery, for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles.

9 I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest.

10 For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore—

11 Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.

12 Endless punishment is God’s punishment.

Quote

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

If the Church (be it in whatever form) has a belief which is incorrect, but it advances His ultimate purposes and/or correcting it would entail unacceptably high losses, then He won't correct it. This is apparently true even when the belief comes from an erroneous interpretation of His own prior teachings. It's a moot point in this case because the Church does not consider belief in a local or metaphorical Flood to be heretical. However, the personal beliefs of past prophets and apostles in a global Flood are not anomalous given this framing. God is not, apparently, an aggressive Inquisitor of erroneous (as opposed to outright antagonistic) beliefs. 

Edited July 14, 2022 by OGHoosier

[Fair Dinkum]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

You've lost me.

Someone asked FAIR if members are required to believe in the global flood and they answered "no it's not a requirement for salvation" and you decide that that means that we either have to follow FAIR or the prophets?

I'm not following the process of thought you used to get from one to the other.

To the bold question though, that's a testimony issue.  Someone should follow them because they believe God has asked them to.  Any other reason and it'll always come up short in the end.

 

No.  You’re mischaracterizing what I said. I’m merely suggesting that on this subject, FAIR is on a more truth based foundation than the prophets

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

No.  You’re mischaracterizing what I said. I’m merely suggesting that on this subject, FAIR is on a more truth based foundation than the prophets

FAIR's position is that the particulars of the Flood don't really matter.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Fair Dinkum]

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

It's always entertaining to have you around, Mr. Dinkum.  I was disappointed when, essentially, you swore off the board and said you were moving on.  (It's like Crack.  You may say you're quitting for good, buuuuut ... )

Miss me?

[Fair Dinkum]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

 

Edited July 14, 2022 by Fair Dinkum

[Fair Dinkum]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

FairDinkum, at this point in your life, are you a believing member?  I may have mixed you up with another, so please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe your past posts left me with the impression you did not believe anymore.  I ask because the question as framed, should you choose the prophets or FAIR is really irrelevant if you wouldn’t choose to follow the prophets in much of anything to begin with. 

I believe in TRUTH.  A lot of what Prophets teach is frankly not true. A universal flood and a literal Missouri living Adam and Eve are just 2 of the mistruths they have taught. 

[Calm]

Just now, Fair Dinkum said:

I believe in TRUTH.  A lot of what Prophets teach is frankly not true. A universal flood and a literal Missouri living Adam and Eve are just 2 of the mistruths they have taught. 

Are you a believing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

No.  You’re mischaracterizing what I said. I’m merely suggesting that on this subject, FAIR is on a more truth based foundation than the prophets

And does that mean you will actually follow FAIR? Or does it just mean you agree with them in this small way, but disagree with them in toms of other ways?

[mrmarklin]

5 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Oh they massage the reality of Adam, Eve and Noah by peeling away the provable falsehoods such a universal flood or excusing death before the fall by now allowing for evolution as God's tool to create mankind. But that is in direct conflict with prophetic announcements on the subject

Use your common sense.  There is obviously a lot about which we know nothing, ie pre Adamic life here on earth. Those facts are not pertinent to our salvation. The Church takes no position on evolution for example. 
 

Whenever the Flood, or Adam and Eve are referred to, it’s as an example of how to live our lives.  Some of the prophets refer to the flood, but give them credit for not parsing out what it really means. They only quote the Bible record for simplicity. Parsing would ruin the gospel points they are trying to make. 

[Kevin Christensen]

20 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

So you are fine with so called prophets teaching falsehoods?

This kind of thinking is exactly why D&C 1 so carefully defines the expectations we ought to have of prophets:

Quote

6 Behold, this is mine authority, and the authority of my servants,...

24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

The assumption that once a person has spotted a falsehood from a person who has any connection to LDS leadership it is game over, check and mate, nothing to see here folks, (and we of course can be infallibly sure that the critic could not possibly have made a mistake, because after all, it stands to reason, as critics their authority IS that of God), and their understanding transcends human weakness, and suits one whose humanity as disapated under the transforming power of infallible logic and strongly held opinions and sincere conviction that if a person claims to have ever received inspiration at all, they must, therefore, have received all possible and all necessary inspiration at once, and become nothing more, nor less, than God's own sock puppet.

And because they can never err, there is nothing more to know,

And if there were any wisdom to find they will instruct us on what matters,

And they cannot sin because as chasteners, they are beyond repentance,

And they have no need of humility because of the strength of their infallibility,

And they have no need to receive further knowledge because it came all at once, and is at hand on their shelves in a Big Book of What to Think

(sigh)

D&C 1 is, I think, a rather remarkable document, in the way that the tolerant and robust and realistic expectations that it sets for us can be so easily ignored by people who would just love to be absolutely certain about everything, to have on their shelf, a Big Book of What to Think and the authority to shove its pages and their unquestionably correct interpretations down the throat of all who come in range.

"Oh that I were an angel," Alma says, ... and then repents and recognizes that "But behold, I am a man, and do sin in my wish; for I ought to be content with the things which the Lord hath allotted unto me." and continues that "For behold, the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have" and NOT "all that I think that they should have and would certainly provide if I were God."

As an excercise years ago, I went through Alma, and noted all the places where he qualifies his knowledge.  Some things he got by revelation, some by study, some by nothing more nor less than his own personal opinion and speculation.  What kind of God would leave us at the mercy of that limited a prophet, who has more than one input, God's omniscience, and one output, the same, but rather, a combination of occasional inspiration and human limitations?

Personally, I think, a loving and merciful God would do exactly that.  The guarentee on prophets that appears in the Doctrine and Covenants is "expedience," which at the cost of leaving room for humans to be humans, leaves us room to develop greater understanding and faith over our lifetimes, and also happens to guarentee that over time, as Isaiah 55: plainly states, the Lord's will and purposes will be done.

Quote

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:

11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited July 14, 2022 by Kevin Christensen
typos