Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

1 Kings 13 Lesson: If you follow the Prophet INSTEAD of the Spirit, you will die.


Recommended Posts

Posted
Just now, Obeone said:

I tell all my friends, if you got one, do not get the next. The plan is to eject you every 6 month or so. 

Yes, because the Spirit told you. Right. 

So far, I haven’t been ejected anywhere. Kind of looking forward to it. 

Posted (edited)

Do we really want this to be just about the vaccine? I find this little story of two prophets to be quite interesting in trying to understand how I am supposed to relate to modern prophets and apostles.

Quick review of story. Prophet A from Judah is sent by God (an angel) to Israel with a message of condemnation and a specific command to not eat or drink until he gets back home. He journeys to the North Kingdom, delivers his message, refuses the kings food, and heads home. On the way home, he encounters prophet B who invites him to dinner. When A refuses, B claims that, because he, too, is a prophet, that it is okay for A to break his commitment to not eat until he gets home. I note here that most translations claim that B lied, but Joseph Smith altered the text to say that B did not lie, but he had really received a revelation from God as a test for A. A acquiesces, eats with B, is condemned for violating his initial commandment, and meets his demise upon resuming his journey home.

We can limit the discussion to vaccines, if we want, but I think there is a lot here we could really unpack:

1) Does God tempt man?
2) Will God give a "true" revelation to a prophet that is really "false" as a test for His people?
3) Can prophets lie (or make mistakes or misattribute) about what God has told them?
4) When a prophet claims revelation that runs counter to something we believe we have received by revelation, which revelation should we defer to?

I'm sure there are more questions that could be asked. The overall message I glean from this story is that God expects you to follow your own, personal revelation rather than any other prophet's revelation. However, I find that message contradicts the message the Church usually tries to send about following our modern prophets even when we disagree or don't have a testimony (Pres Oaks at the Be One celebration suggested it was more important to be loyal to the brethren than openly acknowledge a lack of testimony in the reasons given for the priesthood ban). So, how should we manage differences between personal revelation and revelation from the Q15? When a same sex couple believes they have received revelation that God accepts their monogamous romantic/sexual relationship (sometimes called "marriage"), does that supersede the Church's opinion? When a transgender person believes that God approves of their transitioning behaviors, should they abstain from following that revelation in favor of the Church's stance against transitioning? When someone believes that God wants them to avoid vaccines or other healthcare services, should they follow that instead of following a general pronouncement by church leaders? How do we navigate those situations where personal revelation is leading us in a different direction from where the Church is leading us?

Edited by MrShorty
Posted
2 minutes ago, Obeone said:

It says God did it to prove him.

 

Please do not be offended.  I do not have much experience of yourself on the board.  I do not accept interpretations of the Scriptures easily.  I have to read them over and over and then if they seem very important wait for revelation about that Scripture.

Posted
2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Yes, because the Spirit told you. Right. 

So far, I haven’t been ejected anywhere. Kind of looking forward to it. 

Yes, many people have a death wish. It is always an error.

(Also read corrected version of my post).

Posted
Just now, Obeone said:

Yes, many people have a death wish. It is always an error.

(Also read corrected version of my post).

I’m sorry, but not doing anything to prevent contracting a deadly disease is the real death wish. As BD put it, you are talking foolishness. 

Posted
21 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I still find it really odd that the issue that’s causing so many to speak out against the leaders of the church is something so minor. That it’s a vaccine seems reminiscent of the brazen serpent. 

Agreed.

Posted
17 minutes ago, Obeone said:

Not necessarily

  1. About 20% of injections are placebos, I heard. 
  2. If the Spirit tells you to get it, He has a plan how it will benefit you:
    a) maybe you will learn faster in the spirit world, or
    b) maybe He knows you will get a placebo, or
    c) maybe He has another way to protect you from the poison.

Either way, if you follow the Spirit you will be safe. 

The Spirit may tell one person to get the injection, and to another not to. But I am advising all my friends of the deadly danger here. 

What exactly is this deadly danger as you see it?

Posted
5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I’m sorry, but not doing anything to prevent contracting a deadly disease is the real death wish. As BD put it, you are talking foolishness. 

Did I say "do nothing?" I actually gave a link to a powerful alternative. (MMS) And I walk the talk. I have not felt so good in years! Highly recommend it. 

Posted
28 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Pres Oaks at the Be One celebration suggested it was more important to be loyal to the brethren than openly acknowledge a lack of testimony in the reasons given for the priesthood ban

Did he really?  Have a link please?

Posted
28 minutes ago, Obeone said:

 

  1. About 20% of injections are placebos, I heard. 

"I heard" is not evidence and weakens any argument.

That said, I don't believe taking or not taking the vaccine is a spiritual measuring stick in any way.

It's a new(ish) medical treatment for a recent pandemic.  Nothing more or less than that.  Take it if you're comfortable, refrain if you aren't.

But don't pretend it's a test of faith in either direction.

Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Yes. The very one.  Find something that triggers vitriol from official medical community, and you most likely have found a super cheep and effective cure. 

This is it. I have tested it on myself, and results are miraculous. 

Edited by Obeone
Posted
1 hour ago, Obeone said:

1. God did it in 1 Kings 13. Why not again? It is an important lesson for the Church to learn.

2. Savior Himself was considered a "stranger", yet the Spirit confirmed He was right. 

1. No, he didn’t. It was a case of an explicit revelation one man received against a hearsay one another had. That situation is comparable in no way to vaccines.

2. The Savior was not a deranged loon ranting about how the Romans were deliberately poisoning the water in all the aqueducts. That would be the equivalent.

Posted
52 minutes ago, Obeone said:

I tell all my friends, if you got one, do not get the next. The plan is to inject you every 6 month or so. 

Also keep in mind all cause mortality is up across the world after the introduction of the shots. They are designed as a "slow kill."

Death rates went up around the whole world in the midst of a pandemic and your takeaway is the vaccines must be the killer?

Posted
27 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Do we really want this to be just about the vaccine? I find this little story of two prophets to be quite interesting in trying to understand how I am supposed to relate to modern prophets and apostles.

Quick review of story. Prophet A from Judah is sent by God (an angel) to Israel with a message of condemnation and a specific command to not eat or drink until he gets back home. He journeys to the North Kingdom, delivers his message, refuses the kings food, and heads home. On the way home, he encounters prophet B who invites him to dinner. When A refuses, B claims that, because he, too, is a prophet, that it is okay for A to break his commitment to not eat until he gets home. I note here that most translations claim that B lied, but Joseph Smith altered the text to say that B did not lie, but he had really received a revelation from God as a test for A. A acquiesces, eats with B, is condemned for violating his initial commandment, and meets his demise upon resuming his journey home.

We can limit the discussion to vaccines, if we want, but I think there is a lot here we could really unpack:

1) Does God tempt man?
2) Will God give a "true" revelation to a prophet that is really "false" as a test for His people?
3) Can prophets lie (or make mistakes or misattribute) about what God has told them?
4) When a prophet claims revelation that runs counter to something we believe we have received by revelation, which revelation should we defer to?

I'm sure there are more questions that could be asked. The overall message I glean from this story is that God expects you to follow your own, personal revelation rather than any other prophet's revelation. However, I find that message contradicts the message the Church usually tries to send about following our modern prophets even when we disagree or don't have a testimony (Pres Oaks at the Be One celebration suggested it was more important to be loyal to the brethren than openly acknowledge a lack of testimony in the reasons given for the priesthood ban). So, how should we manage differences between personal revelation and revelation from the Q15? When a same sex couple believes they have received revelation that God accepts their monogamous romantic/sexual relationship (sometimes called "marriage"), does that supersede the Church's opinion? When a transgender person believes that God approves of their transitioning behaviors, should they abstain from following that revelation in favor of the Church's stance against transitioning? When someone believes that God wants them to avoid vaccines or other healthcare services, should they follow that instead of following a general pronouncement by church leaders? How do we navigate those situations where personal revelation is leading us in a different direction from where the Church is leading us?

1) I think God can tempt man and probably has tempted some men/women.  But I would expect those to have been "special" men/women.  As in, they already have a close connection with God.  They are prophets or equivalent.  I don't think God tempts us normal mortals.  He does allow us to be tempted but doesn't directly tempt us.

2) I don't think that is what this story is about.  It is a tempt of another prophet, not His people.  Also, the scripture is ambiguous to me.  Here's the KJV:

Quote

18 He said unto him, I am a prophet also as thou art; and an aangel spake unto me by the word of the Lord, saying, Bring him back with thee into thine house, that he may eat bread and bdrink water. But he lied unto him.

Here's with JST (if you want to see the manuscript, it can be seen at https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/old-testament-revision-2/84)

Quote

18 He said unto him, I am a prophet also as thou art; and an aangel spake unto me by the word of the Lord, saying, Bring him back with thee into thine house, that he may eat bread and drink water, that I may prove him; and he lied not unto him.

What exactly did the second prophet tell the first prophet?  Was it "I am a prophet also as thou art; and an angel spake unto me by the world of the Lord, saying, Bring him back with thee into thine house, that he may eat bread and drink water"?  Or did it include the "that I may prove him"?  If it has the last part, then the second prophet knows that he is being proved.  The comma and semicolon placement makes me feel like it did include the last part.

But even if it didn't include the last part, the prophet isn't commanding him to follow him.  He isn't telling him to ignore his previous instructions.  He is just saying that he had an angel tell him (the second prophet) to tell the first prophet to come home and eat.  So, I don't see that as a "true" revelation that is "false".  It is true, in all cases.  The second prophet is supposed to go and bring back the first prophet.

3) Yes.  I think Jonah is a better example of this.  He went to Ninevah and told them they would be destroyed - "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown."  There was no "unless you repent".  It was just a simple "40 days, you die".  But the people did repent and the people were saved.  It then says "But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was very angry."  Why is Jonah angry?  Because his revelation didn't come to pass.  Jonah was definitely mistaken about what he was sent to do.

4) If a prophet tells us a revelation that is counter to our personal revelation, the first thing is to double check our personal revelation.  It could be that there is new information and we'll receive confirmation of the new revelation from the prophet.  This basically happened during both the beginning of polygamy and the ending of polygamy.  Lots of people had previous revelations that polygamy was wrong.  Some of them asked for additional revelation after learning from Joseph Smith about polygamy.  Some of those received confirmation that they should practice polygamy.  Some of those received confirmation that they should NOT practice polygamy.  What happened to the later group?  Were all of them "condemned" or "thrown out" or "punished"?  No.  Some were but not all, though we don't have the total numbers so we can't say if it is a majority or minority.

For all of your examples, you could also include some more obvious questions/answers.  If a person believes they receive a revelation to kill someone, does that supersede the church's teachings (such as the Laffertys)?  I think the answer to all of those questions is: If you have a revelation that is contra the teachings of the church, double check, triple check, quadruple check.  But in the end, your personal revelation is what you should follow.

Posted
24 minutes ago, Obeone said:

Tucker Carlson the endlessly asking questions guy with his perpetually confused face? The guy who won the defense in a case for defamation where his lawyers successfully argued that no rational person would take his show seriously?

Posted
3 minutes ago, Obeone said:

Tell it to John.

Your vague remembering of stuff you read on the web is somehow on the same level as an apocalyptic vision?

My, don’t we think highly of ourselves?

Posted
5 minutes ago, Obeone said:

Tell it to John.

John heard trumpets and angels declaring things from God.  He bore witness of things happening he saw and heard.

You said you heard vaccines were placebos.  What did you witness?

Apples and oranges mate.

Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, Calm said:

Did he really?  Have a link please?

From the Church News copy of his complete address

Quote

 

I studied the reasons then being given and could not feel confirmation of the truth of any of them. As part of my prayerful study, I learned that, in general, the Lord rarely gives reasons for the commandments and directions He gives to His servants. I determined to be loyal to our prophetic leaders and to pray — as promised from the beginning of these restrictions — that the day would come when all would enjoy the blessings of priesthood and temple.

https://www.thechurchnews.com/2018/6/2/23221509/president-oaks-full-remarks-from-the-lds-churchs-be-one-celebration

 

 

Edited by MrShorty
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...