When Conscience Conflicts with Prophetic Teachings

[pogi]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

I got the idea from here: You posted, "That leads to a forced decision and is not something that can just be placed on a shelf.  Do I follow my conscience as I feel is directed by the spirit, or do I follow the counsel of the prophets and just endure the unwelcome comments and judgments of other members?" That last one can become a biggie for people, with or without prior personal revelation.

You are looking beyond the mark in what I am saying here.  Some of that  might be my fault because in typing this I seem to have said it backwards.   I was talking about enduring the unwelcome comments of members for following personal revelation to wait to have kids, and not for following the prophet.  We tried without success to have kids for 10 years, trust me, I know all about the unwelcome comments.   While I wasn't following personal revelation on the matter, I can see how it would be difficult for some people to do so given the expectations members often have.   That is a side comment though.  It is beyond the mark of what I am saying about how we are faced with unavoidable choices in life.  Sometimes that choice includes following personal revelation or following the prophet.  You seem to believe that is an impossible scenario.  You are free to believe that if you want, but I can testify that it happens. 

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

I was not forced to choose because I had already made the decision.

You were given an opportunity to reevaluate your previous choice, to reconsider it given the new counsel to you personally from a prophet.    You could have changed your mind upon considering the prophets counsel to you. You chose to stick with your previous choice.  Bravo!  But it was still choice you made. 

The Lord doesn't shelter us from being forced to make choices.  If you don't see that as the case in your situation, fine.  But it is still the case for many. 

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

I understand that you can read my experience as being forced, because you see others' experience that way too. That is your way of viewing and understanding things. I don't see these as examples of being forced to choose so much as of feeling the need to trust in the Lord with all our heart; and lean not unto our own understanding. and in all our ways acknowledge Him so that He can direct our paths.

Following that "feeling" is a choice.  No one is forcing us to do that.  We can choose not to follow that feeling if we want. 

I honestly don't know how you get to point B ("so much as of feeling the need to trust in the Lord...").  Trusting in the Lord is a CHOICE that we have to make.  We are placed in situations sometimes where we have to choose to follow and commit to that feeling or not.  We are forced to make a choice.  You don't like the word "force", but in the context of life, sometimes we are faced with choices that we have to make.  That's life!    Sometimes that choice is between trusting in what we believe the Lord is telling us personally on one hand, and what the prophet is telling us on the other hand.   If I didn't bring the "prophet" into the mix, I highly doubt that you would have a problem with what I am saying about forced choices.  

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

Cognitive health and development is a worthy pursuit, but it isn't a guarantee for Church activity, or the means of reconciling matters of faith and knowledge.

Look CV, my friend was struggling and confused and afraid.  Now she has a clear path forward in the faith and is recommitted.  She was on her way out, and now she is not.  What is true is what works - pragmatism.  It worked better than anything her ecclesiastical leaders tried.  You can disagree with my approach in this situation, but I can't deny the fruits, and it is hard for you to judge without knowing the situation as I do. 

Of course it is no guarantee. But neither is anything else.  What works for one way not work for all - relativism.  People have agency too.  It seems to be that whatever measures our ecclesiastical leaders are using, it clearly is no guarantee either.  Pretty poor track record as of late, it seems.  Everyone is different and may benefit from a different approach and perspective, but lets not close our eyes to the fruits of what is working for someone where nothing else was.  If anything, it is buying her time to apply other spiritual principles and to be more open and receptive.  If that's all it does, I call it a success.  

It is not just about cognitive health.  Cognitive perceptions can be spiritual in nature.  How we see things, how we believe, how we perceive ourselves and our relation to faith, how we interpret experiences we are feeling and going through - this is all very much spiritual in nature.  Helping people to see these experiences in a healthy way, instead of telling them that they must be doing something wrong spiritually or must be on a wrong spiritual path, is the more helpful way.  Because the later is often not true at all.  People often misinterpret these experiences as a sign of spiritual deviation form the faith, when often people are just in a natural and expected healthy state of transition from binary perceptions of faith to more nuanced and relative ones.  It can be confusing and cause natural distress.  Even the most righteous go through these experiences as they develop more nuanced views of the world and of faith.  They go through vulnerable moments of transition.  It doesn't mean they are less righteous or doing something wrong.  On the contrary, and sometimes they just could use a helping hand of non-judgment by someone who has been there and done that. 

 

Edited February 4, 2023 by pogi

[OGHoosier]

On 2/2/2023 at 3:40 PM, T-Shirt said:

Elder Oaks gave good instruction for this very thing:

 

I was a missionary when President Oaks came to my mission to give a devotional. He told us something along these lines before he opened up for a Q&A. It struck me very deep and has formed a core principle in my understanding of the nature of prophetic ministry in the latter days.

[CV75]

15 hours ago, pogi said:

You are looking beyond the mark in what I am saying here.  Some of that  might be my fault because in typing this I seem to have said it backwards.   I was talking about enduring the unwelcome comments of members for following personal revelation to wait to have kids, and not for following the prophet.  We tried without success to have kids for 10 years, trust me, I know all about the unwelcome comments.   While I wasn't following personal revelation on the matter, I can see how it would be difficult for some people to do so given the expectations members often have.   That is a side comment though.  It is beyond the mark of what I am saying about how we are faced with unavoidable choices in life.  Sometimes that choice includes following personal revelation or following the prophet.  You seem to believe that is an impossible scenario.  You are free to believe that if you want, but I can testify that it happens. 

You were given an opportunity to reevaluate your previous choice, to reconsider it given the new counsel to you personally from a prophet.    You could have changed your mind upon considering the prophets counsel to you. You chose to stick with your previous choice.  Bravo!  But it was still choice you made. 

The Lord doesn't shelter us from being forced to make choices.  If you don't see that as the case in your situation, fine.  But it is still the case for many. 

Following that "feeling" is a choice.  No one is forcing us to do that.  We can choose not to follow that feeling if we want. 

I honestly don't know how you get to point B ("so much as of feeling the need to trust in the Lord...").  Trusting in the Lord is a CHOICE that we have to make.  We are placed in situations sometimes where we have to choose to follow and commit to that feeling or not.  We are forced to make a choice.  You don't like the word "force", but in the context of life, sometimes we are faced with choices that we have to make.  That's life!    Sometimes that choice is between trusting in what we believe the Lord is telling us personally on one hand, and what the prophet is telling us on the other hand.   If I didn't bring the "prophet" into the mix, I highly doubt that you would have a problem with what I am saying about forced choices.  

Look CV, my friend was struggling and confused and afraid.  Now she has a clear path forward in the faith and is recommitted.  She was on her way out, and now she is not.  What is true is what works - pragmatism.  It worked better than anything her ecclesiastical leaders tried.  You can disagree with my approach in this situation, but I can't deny the fruits, and it is hard for you to judge without knowing the situation as I do. 

Of course it is no guarantee. But neither is anything else.  What works for one way not work for all - relativism.  People have agency too.  It seems to be that whatever measures our ecclesiastical leaders are using, it clearly is no guarantee either.  Pretty poor track record as of late, it seems.  Everyone is different and may benefit from a different approach and perspective, but lets not close our eyes to the fruits of what is working for someone where nothing else was.  If anything, it is buying her time to apply other spiritual principles and to be more open and receptive.  If that's all it does, I call it a success.  

It is not just about cognitive health.  Cognitive perceptions can be spiritual in nature.  How we see things, how we believe, how we perceive ourselves and our relation to faith, how we interpret experiences we are feeling and going through - this is all very much spiritual in nature.  Helping people to see these experiences in a healthy way, instead of telling them that they must be doing something wrong spiritually or must be on a wrong spiritual path, is the more helpful way.  Because the later is often not true at all.  People often misinterpret these experiences as a sign of spiritual deviation form the faith, when often people are just in a natural and expected healthy state of transition from binary perceptions of faith to more nuanced and relative ones.  It can be confusing and cause natural distress.  Even the most righteous go through these experiences as they develop more nuanced views of the world and of faith.  They go through vulnerable moments of transition.  It doesn't mean they are less righteous or doing something wrong.  On the contrary, and sometimes they just could use a helping hand of non-judgment by someone who has been there and done that. 

 

I don’t know enough about her specific situation to comment on that. My comments about coaching people on matters of cognitive growth and development, the common bias to conflate these with spiritual processes, and conflating either of these with Church activity are general in nature.

[pogi]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I don’t know enough about her specific situation to comment on that. My comments about coaching people on matters of cognitive growth and development, the common bias to conflate these with spiritual processes, and conflating either of these with Church activity are general in nature.

Of course the only true and enduring anchor to the gospel is personal revelation.   But if a tool works to comfort and provide space and an open mind to be more receptive to things of the spirit, let it do its thing.  We have been taught that reason and faith are necessary companions that serve the same purpose.  They are interdependent principles like two wings of the same plane that help keep it in flight.  Apologist don't rely only on spiritual principle to help people stay in the faith, rather they use reason to influence cognitive perception to allow room for faith.  In combination, a plane can remain in flight.  Remove one and depend only on the other, and you will not be as successful in helping people stay in the faith.  Helping someone work through cognitive perception issues, as I did, can and does serve a spiritual purpose.  That is all I am saying.  

All spheres and principles of truth, secular, cognitive, or otherwise, are all spiritual in nature.   There is an element of conflation that circumscribes it all into one great whole. 

 

 

Edited February 4, 2023 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

Remember the church teaches - Moroni 10, James 1:5 and others, that God can and will teach us the truth.

Converts know!   I guess lifers have a problem with it.   Pretend you are a convert.  IF you get no answer- WHY would you join?  Because your girlfriend wants you to?  Because some old guy calling himself a prophet says you should?

Because you suddenly intellectually through study buy the story of the golden plates and that God will answer you even if He did NOT answer you?

Because your parents bought the story or just joined for other reasons?

There is no sensible reason to even JOIN the church without your conscience telling you to do so.  To me, it's a no-brainer.

I frankly was shocked that I got a very clear "yes" answer.  Nothing else counts as "evidence" as far as I am concerned.

So now you join, and find some doctrine with which you disagree.   You pray about it and still don't like it.   NOW you study and pray but the conscience (spirit) (still small voice) always wins.

Never ever go against your conscience to do anything!!

Edited February 5, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Kenngo1969]

On 2/1/2023 at 4:47 PM, Raingirl said:

I participated on another forum where a woman claimed that she had prayed about whether or not she should have sex with her boyfriend.  Her story was that they were living together platonically because he wasn’t interested in marriage. But he didn’t want it to be platonic. She said that she prayed about it and God had told her it was okay to go ahead and have sex, since he was never going to marry her, and this would be her “only chance” to ever have sex. 
 

Color me skeptical. 

Oh, so that's the way it's supposed to work!    Perhaps I should find a semi-willing partner and* ... ?

_______________

*"Semi-willing" in the sense that she is willing to have s*x with me but not to marry me?

As important as I believe it would be (indeed, as I believe it is) to Become One With Someone, I don't think that Becoming One With Her in that (one) way is important enough that I should, essentially, sell my (Priceless?! Divine?!  Royal?!) Birthright for a mess of pottage, foregoing and forsaking all of the other ways in which it is important to Become One With Someone for the sake of Becoming One With Her in that way alone.

"But, Ken, isn't it said that 'It is not good for man [or, for that matter, for woman] to be alone'?  Doesn't the prospect of never Becoming One With Someone for the duration of mortality completely suck?!"  Yes, it is said that it is not good for man [or woman] to be alone, and yes, the prospect of never Becoming One with Someone for the duration of mortality does suck ... completely. 

But either:

(1) Eternal "Ministering Angelhood," as much better as the superior alternatives might be, still is far, far better than anything I ever could imagine; or

(2) There will be a recompense for every sacrifice made [at least, for every sacrifice made without b!tch!ng about said sacrifice (I'm still working on the "not b!tch!ng" part!   )].

Shakespeare's Puck had it exactly right: "Lord, what fools these mortals be!"  Indeed, we mortals are foolish because we are myopic souls who, somehow, are so convinced that any mortal experience is the apex of the whole premortal/mortal/postmortal drama that we are willing, essentially and quite literally, to sell our souls for that one experience.  As much as I might be able to understand how people in this often-bewildering mortal Second Act might make the mistake of concluding that it is the most important part of the whole drama, we ought not forget that there was a premortal First Act (even if, temporarily, we have forgotten what took place therein), and there will be a postmortal Third Act.

Would any of us who happen to attend a three-act play be content and feel that we had gotten our money's worth if we were to leave after the second act, just when all of the tension, conflict, and drama of the whole production has been set up, and we wonder how the whole thing is going to be resolved?  Would we tell ourselves, "Well, I may not have seen the whole thing, but I saw the most important part!"  Yet that's exactly what we do when we say, "Meh!  I know the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ is important (every principle of it is important), but there must be an exception for me, otherwise, never will I be able to experience [x] in mortality!"

I'm reminded of an episode of the television series M*A*S*H in which the almost-ever-unerringly-faithful Captain B.J. Hunnicutt nearly falls off of the fidelity wagon.  He tells the woman to whom he is attracted (and she to him) that she can afford to live for now because for her, there may be no tomorrow, while, conversely, he must live for tomorrow, because, being apart from his wife and child whom he loves dearly, for him, there is no now. 

In whatever way it seems that there may not be a "now" for any of us, in whatever way we may feel cheated over not getting the chance to experience some crucial part of this mortal experience, like B.J. Hunnicutt, still, we must live for an eternity of "tomorrows."  All of this is, perhaps, simply a long-winded way of saying "color me skeptical" as well, of the prospect that, somehow, there are "exceptions" to aspects of the Restored Gospel for any of us who may not get to experience some crucial, integral aspect of mortality in this life.

Also, in somewhat the same vein, for whatever it may be worth, consider this, that I wrote some time ago:

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2013/10/31/on-being-single-male-and-lds/

[Danzo]

I think we also need to distinguish between general commandments and personal commandments.

The church leaders, by necessity issue general commandments to all of the church. The Holy Ghost can issue specific commandments that sometimes contradict the general commandment. 

Interestingly enough, you generally have to be obedient to the general commandments before you get the specific directions that sometimes contradict them.

Example from my life: There is a General commandment to go to sacrament meeting every Sunday (which I try to do). One Sunday, got a call from someone I ministered to that her father passed away and she was in the hospital.  That Sunday  I felt inspired to  skip sacrament meeting to be with her in the hospital with her father.    The next Sunday, I continued attending Sacrament meeting. 

[CV75]

18 hours ago, pogi said:

Of course the only true and enduring anchor to the gospel is personal revelation.   But if a tool works to comfort and provide space and an open mind to be more receptive to things of the spirit, let it do its thing.  We have been taught that reason and faith are necessary companions that serve the same purpose.  They are interdependent principles like two wings of the same plane that help keep it in flight.  Apologist don't rely only on spiritual principle to help people stay in the faith, rather they use reason to influence cognitive perception to allow room for faith.  In combination, a plane can remain in flight.  Remove one and depend only on the other, and you will not be as successful in helping people stay in the faith.  Helping someone work through cognitive perception issues, as I did, can and does serve a spiritual purpose.  That is all I am saying.  

All spheres and principles of truth, secular, cognitive, or otherwise, are all spiritual in nature.   There is an element of conflation that circumscribes it all into one great whole. 

 

 

I am not an apologist. I gave a good chunk of change to feed the poor today.

Jesus’ miracles and teachings to minister to the basic temporal needs of the most vulnerable were not to get them to believe in Him, follow Him, or to keep them satisfied enough to continue going through the motions of devotion. They were to show His love and get them to a place where they could choose, with that hope and expectation that He possesses for rich and poor alike, to follow Him. Even when they didn’t. (e.g., “Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye desire to keep my sayings, neither because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves and were filled.” -- JST John 6:26). This is the connection between ministering with temporal and spiritual principles and why, for example, I pay fast offerings.

Whether with food or cognitive coaching, we follow Jesus’ command to relieve people of pain for the same intent He did, not to get them to act a certain way, or to cope with acting a certain way, but to open an opportunity for them to exercise their agency and faith, even though sometimes their decisions just ain’t the way we would rather have them go. An atheist could do what you did with no thought of Christ at all, and she might still stay in the Church (or not), just as they could give a starving man food and he might convert to the Church (or not). The connection between temporal relief and spiritual choice is offering (not imposing or forcing) a spiritual opportunity in a probational sphere, not belief.

[pogi]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I am not an apologist. I gave a good chunk of change to feed the poor today.

Jesus’ miracles and teachings to minister to the basic temporal needs of the most vulnerable were not to get them to believe in Him, follow Him, or to keep them satisfied enough to continue going through the motions of devotion. They were to show His love and get them to a place where they could choose, with that hope and expectation that He possesses for rich and poor alike, to follow Him.  Even when they didn’t. (e.g., “Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye desire to keep my sayings, neither because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves and were filled.” -- JST John 6:26). This is the connection between ministering with temporal and spiritual principles and why, for example, I pay fast offerings.

Whether with food or cognitive coaching, we follow Jesus’ command to relieve people of pain for the same intent He did, not to get them to act a certain way, or to cope with acting a certain way, but to open an opportunity for them to exercise their agency and faith, even though sometimes their decisions just ain’t the way we would rather have them go. An atheist could do what you did with no thought of Christ at all, and she might still stay in the Church (or not), just as they could give a starving man food and he might convert to the Church (or not). The connection between temporal relief and spiritual choice is offering (not imposing or forcing) a spiritual opportunity in a probational sphere, not belief.

Are you equating/conflating what I did with helping the poor, but from an apparently misguided motive of trying to get them to believe through temporal means?  If so, I suggest that you let this one go because   are judging this from a distance and not understanding.

I am no apologist either, but you seem to be disagreeing with any approach or motive that uses reason and other means that you seem to classify as non-spiritual, to help them maintain belief/faith.  That is exactly what apologists do.  They support the reason wing of the plane, while ecclesiastical/church leaders support the spiritual/faith wing of the plane.   Are you suggesting that you disagree with the approach of apologists to use reason or "temporal" means of ministering to support in helping people through faith crisis?  I think there is room for that approach and I wouldn't call it misguided, except where they take a confrontational/contentious approach. 

I was ministering to my friend who was suffering.  She clearly wanted to maintain faith, to maintain belief, but she was afraid that she was slipping down a slope with no grips or handholds to keep her from falling further.  This caused her great discomfort and fear.  All I did was show her a handhold that could offer her some stability in the faith if that is what she wanted to choose to maintain.  

Quote

Whether with food or cognitive coaching, we follow Jesus’ command to relieve people of pain for the same intent He did, not to get them to act a certain way, or to cope with acting a certain way, but to open an opportunity for them to exercise their agency and faith, even though sometimes their decisions just ain’t the way we would rather have them go.

You seem to be preaching to a straw-man.  If what I did was not what Jesus would intend, then I don't know Jesus at all. 

Edited February 5, 2023 by pogi

[CV75]

42 minutes ago, pogi said:

Are you equating/conflating what I did with helping the poor, but from an apparently misguided motive of trying to get them to believe through temporal means?  If so, I suggest that you let this one go because   are judging this from a distance and not understanding.

I am no apologist either, but you seem to be disagreeing with any approach or motive that uses reason and other means that you seem to classify as non-spiritual, to help them maintain belief/faith.  That is exactly what apologists do.  They support the reason wing of the plane, while ecclesiastical/church leaders support the spiritual/faith wing of the plane.   Are you suggesting that you disagree with the approach of apologists to use reason or "temporal" means of ministering to support in helping people through faith crisis?  I think there is room for that approach and I wouldn't call it misguided, except where they take a confrontational/contentious approach. 

I was ministering to my friend who was suffering.  She clearly wanted to maintain faith, to maintain belief, but she was afraid that she was slipping down a slope with no grips or handholds to keep her from falling further.  This caused her great discomfort and fear.  All I did was show her a handhold that could offer her some stability in the faith if that is what she wanted to choose to maintain.  

You seem to be preaching to a straw-man.  If what I did was not what Jesus would intend, then I don't know Jesus at all. 

As I said previously, I don’t know enough about her specific situation (or your involvement and use of the Perry Scheme) to comment on that.

But in general principle, our discussion proceeds from the poll on choosing between sources of spiritual guidance under the premise that such decisions are forced upon us, under the additional premise that cognitive development brings happiness, under the additional premise that happiness is manifest by balancing personal and others’ expectations for Church activity. I am simply challenging the premises.

Alleviating others’ pain is a general principle, and I am all about doing that without the other premises, except that some kinds of pain are sometimes forced upon us. The alleviation of pain does not translate into discipleship, as it can also contribute to walking away and quite independently.

[pogi]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

As I said previously, I don’t know enough about her specific situation (or your involvement and use of the Perry Scheme) to comment on that.

But in general principle, our discussion proceeds from the poll on choosing between sources of spiritual guidance under the premise that such decisions are forced upon us, under the additional premise that cognitive development brings happiness, under the additional premise that happiness is manifest by balancing personal and others’ expectations for Church activity. I am simply challenging the premises.

Alleviating others’ pain is a general principle, and I am all about doing that without the other premises, except that some kinds of pain are sometimes forced upon us. The alleviation of pain does not translate into discipleship, as it can also contribute to walking away and quite independently.

You misunderstand the premises from which I speak and are thus preaching to a straw man.   I don’t care to carry on further. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

You misunderstand the premises from which I speak and are thus preaching to a straw man.   I don’t care to carry on further. 

It must be my cognitional stage that drives me to misunderstand your premise, despite the lengths you took to convince me of my "forced decision," posted here: Posted Thursday at 02:09 PM 

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

It must be my cognitional stage that drives me to misunderstand your premise, despite the lengths you took to convince me of my "forced decision," posted here: Posted Thursday at 02:09 PM 

 

You are being relentless. If it makes you feel better to think you have me pegged, that is fine, you can keep preaching to a strawman. Carry on you two, I’m gone.

Edited February 6, 2023 by pogi

[The Nehor]

22 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Oh, so that's the way it's supposed to work!    Perhaps I should find a semi-willing partner and* ... ?

_______________

*"Semi-willing" in the sense that she is willing to have s*x with me but not to marry me?

As important as I believe it would be (indeed, as I believe it is) to Become One With Someone, I don't think that Becoming One With Her in that (one) way is important enough that I should, essentially, sell my (Priceless?! Divine?!  Royal?!) Birthright for a mess of pottage, foregoing and forsaking all of the other ways in which it is important to Become One With Someone for the sake of Becoming One With Her in that way alone.

"But, Ken, isn't it said that 'It is not good for man [or, for that matter, for woman] to be alone'?  Doesn't the prospect of never Becoming One With Someone for the duration of mortality completely suck?!"  Yes, it is said that it is not good for man [or woman] to be alone, and yes, the prospect of never Becoming One with Someone for the duration of mortality does suck ... completely. 

But either:

(1) Eternal "Ministering Angelhood," as much better as the superior alternatives might be, still is far, far better than anything I ever could imagine; or

(2) There will be a recompense for every sacrifice made [at least, for every sacrifice made without b!tch!ng about said sacrifice (I'm still working on the "not b!tch!ng" part!   )].

Shakespeare's Puck had it exactly right: "Lord, what fools these mortals be!"  Indeed, we mortals are foolish because we are myopic souls who, somehow, are so convinced that any mortal experience is the apex of the whole premortal/mortal/postmortal drama that we are willing, essentially and quite literally, to sell our souls for that one experience.  As much as I might be able to understand how people in this often-bewildering mortal Second Act might make the mistake of concluding that it is the most important part of the whole drama, we ought not forget that there was a premortal First Act (even if, temporarily, we have forgotten what took place therein), and there will be a postmortal Third Act.

Would any of us who happen to attend a three-act play be content and feel that we had gotten our money's worth if we were to leave after the second act, just when all of the tension, conflict, and drama of the whole production has been set up, and we wonder how the whole thing is going to be resolved?  Would we tell ourselves, "Well, I may not have seen the whole thing, but I saw the most important part!"  Yet that's exactly what we do when we say, "Meh!  I know the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ is important (every principle of it is important), but there must be an exception for me, otherwise, never will I be able to experience [x] in mortality!"

I'm reminded of an episode of the television series M*A*S*H in which the almost-ever-unerringly-faithful Captain B.J. Hunnicutt nearly falls off of the fidelity wagon.  He tells the woman to whom he is attracted (and she to him) that she can afford to live for now because for her, there may be no tomorrow, while, conversely, he must live for tomorrow, because, being apart from his wife and child whom he loves dearly, for him, there is no now. 

In whatever way it seems that there may not be a "now" for any of us, in whatever way we may feel cheated over not getting the chance to experience some crucial part of this mortal experience, like B.J. Hunnicutt, still, we must live for an eternity of "tomorrows."  All of this is, perhaps, simply a long-winded way of saying "color me skeptical" as well, of the prospect that, somehow, there are "exceptions" to aspects of the Restored Gospel for any of us who may not get to experience some crucial, integral aspect of mortality in this life.

Also, in somewhat the same vein, for whatever it may be worth, consider this, that I wrote some time ago:

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2013/10/31/on-being-single-male-and-lds/

You are stronger than I am.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

You are being relentless. If it makes you feel better to think you have me pegged, that is fine, you can keep preaching to a strawman. Carry on you two, I’m gone.

I am just one poster. My comments have nothing to do with "pegging" you but with how I read your posts and my thoughts about them. 

I know enough people -- and I do not mean you! -- who justify their rejection of the restored gospel and subsequent choices as an outgrowth of cognitive maturation, appeals to science, etc. None that attribute their testimony-based decisions to such things. Or having enough to eat, etc.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

You are stronger than I am.

Okay.  If averring that one should live the Law of Chastity even if one has no chance of Becoming One with someone in this life is "strange" (and yet, silly me, here I thought that such a proposition simply is bedrock, "black letter," uncontroversial, incontrovertible Latter-day Saint doctrine) I suppose I have no choice but to plead guilty. 

My bad.

Don't mind me!  Carry on!

[pogi]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I know enough people -- and I do not mean you! -- who justify their rejection of the restored gospel and subsequent choices as an outgrowth of cognitive maturation, appeals to science, etc. None that attribute their testimony-based decisions to such things. Or having enough to eat, etc.

And I have seen people crash and burn when they don't properly utilize the other wing of reason to keep them afloat in the gospel.  My friend was nose to the ground, now she is not.  Why you are making an issue out of this is beyond me.   

Again, you are preaching to a straw-man.    I am not proposing that anyone fly on the wing of reason alone.  I have made that abundantly clear, this is a weird thing to say after all I have said.  I know many who have attributed reason and new cognitive perspectives offered by apologists to continued flight in the gospel, including myself.  We need help with that wing too. 

You don't know my intentions, you don't know my friends situation, you don't know what else we have discussed, all you know is that I gave my friend a reason to hang onto hope and keep moving forward in faith and you seem to really have a problem with that.  Its really bizarre to me unless you are making insinuations and judgments about me and my friend, because I simply can't find one single good reason to find a problem in what I did and how I did it.  Not one.  

Be frank, what did I do wrong? What is troubling you so bad in what I did that is making you so relentless in your approach with me?  If you are not going to own up to criticizing my approach, then you are preaching to a straw man as I have said.   What a waste! 

 

 

 

Edited February 6, 2023 by pogi

[CV75]

11 hours ago, pogi said:

And I have seen people crash and burn when they don't properly utilize the other wing of reason to keep them afloat in the gospel.  My friend was nose to the ground, now she is not.  Why you are making an issue out of this is beyond me.   

Again, you are preaching to a straw-man.    I am not proposing that anyone fly on the wing of reason alone.  I have made that abundantly clear, this is a weird thing to say after all I have said.  I know many who have attributed reason and new cognitive perspectives offered by apologists to continued flight in the gospel, including myself.  We need help with that wing too. 

You don't know my intentions, you don't know my friends situation, you don't know what else we have discussed, all you know is that I gave my friend a reason to hang onto hope and keep moving forward in faith and you seem to really have a problem with that.  Its really bizarre to me unless you are making insinuations and judgments about me and my friend, because I simply can't find one single good reason to find a problem in what I did and how I did it.  Not one.  

Be frank, what did I do wrong? What is troubling you so bad in what I did that is making you so relentless in your approach with me?  If you are not going to own up to criticizing my approach, then you are preaching to a straw man as I have said.   What a waste! 

I don't know that you did anything bad; I doubt it. I am happy when pain is alleviated and with helping to alleviate it. I am not criticizing your approach, but I do question the 3 or 4 premises as determinants of spiritual health and well-being, particularly as measured by Church activity. Pain and relief, depending on the choices of the one experiencing them, can contribute to discipleship or not, and can be used to justify either discipleship or rejection.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

 don't know that you did anything bad; I doubt it. I am happy when pain is alleviated and with helping to alleviate it. I am not criticizing your approach, but I do question the 3 or 4 premises as determinants of spiritual health and well-being, particularly as measured by Church activity. Pain and relief, depending on the choices of the one experiencing them, can contribute to discipleship or not, and can be used to justify either discipleship or rejection.

The Premise I operated from and am discussing here derived from my personal experience and personal story with my friend.  So, you can't pretend like you can criticize my premise without criticizing my approach.   The one derived from the other.    Here is the premise I am offering, again - reason is a necessary wing for flying in the gospel and that it can offer comfort and security by offering needed lift when someone feels like they are spinning out of control due to lack of lift from that wing.  Don't conflate the forced choice premise with my friends story. 

While faith/hope doesn't require absolute certainty, it does require reason.  It can't fly without it.   Without the lift of reason, many crash and burn with that singular reliance on the pray/obey model that most ecclesiastical leaders offer.  I have seen too many give their all to that method and spiral out of control when they don't have reason to support their spiritual experiences/desires.  The two wings work in conjunction.  They both serve the same purpose of ultimate spiritual flight.  They are both interdependent on each other.  That is my premise.  If you want to engage with me further, engage with THAT premise.   

Sometimes the answers to prayer come in the form of reason.  Who knows, maybe I was an answer to her prayer. 

Instead of addressing that premise, you are arguing with the following strawmen.  I am curious, what premise that you imagine derived from me are you rebutting here? 

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Pain and relief, depending on the choices of the one experiencing them, can contribute to discipleship or not, and can be used to justify either discipleship or rejection.

That's a rather vague, general, and mysterious thing to say in relation to my premise.  It doesn't seem to address my premise at all.  Have I suggested otherwise?

And what premise are you rebutting here?  Again, sounds like a strawman.

15 hours ago, CV75 said:

I know enough people -- and I do not mean you! -- who justify their rejection of the restored gospel and subsequent choices as an outgrowth of cognitive maturation, appeals to science, etc. None that attribute their testimony-based decisions to such things. Or having enough to eat, etc.

You seem to be neglecting what I have said here:

Quote

Of course the only true and enduring anchor to the gospel is personal revelation

I have now thoroughly explained my premise several times now.   Are you going to address it, or are you going to keep preaching to imaginary premises and strawmen?  If you misunderstood the premises I was operating from before, there should be no question now...or you can keep trying to tell me what I believe and what I meant to say and argue with that if you want. 

 

Edited February 6, 2023 by pogi

[Chum]

On 2/1/2023 at 11:39 AM, pogi said:

when you think about the teaching of the prophet you feel a stupor of thought.

As far as spiritual flags go, stupor is a difficult one for me to evaluate. Especially when my ADHD meds wear off.

On 2/1/2023 at 11:39 AM, pogi said:

when you think about the teaching of the prophet you feel a stupor of thought.  Elder Richard G Scott said that can come as "an unsettling, discomforting feeling".  

I've gotten anxiety when pondering good things and bad. It's another tricky spiritual flag for me.

It's a good thing the holy spirit can translate spiritual teachings into PTSD usable terms.

On 2/1/2023 at 11:39 AM, pogi said:

Elder Dallin G. Oaks suggests that the "burning" signifies a feeling of comfort and serenity. 

 In which I realize how brandy could interfere with spiritual discernment. Okay. No brandy.

[pogi]

10 minutes ago, Chum said:

As far as spiritual flags go, stupor is a difficult one for me to evaluate. Especially when my ADHD meds wear off.

I've gotten anxiety when pondering good things and bad. It's another tricky spiritual flag for me.

It's a good thing the holy spirit can translate spiritual teachings into PTSD usable terms.

 In which I realize how brandy could interfere with spiritual discernment. Okay. No brandy.

It is true, words fall inadequately short in describing the actual ineffable experience.   It is something that one has to learn by experience, like learning what "salty" means - no linguistic descriptors fully capture what the taste of salt is really like. 

[Chum]

On 2/1/2023 at 11:39 AM, pogi said:

Let's say that you have tried to interpret their words in other ways and from different angles/perspectives to try to make their words better correlate with what your conscience whispers, but it feels too strained and dishonest given the context and supporting quotes from other prophets.  It simply doesn't line up with your conscience no matter how you look at it.   On top of that, you have sought input from your Bishop, friends, family and other associates and they all agree with your interpretation of the prophets words.

My broad answer is wisdom teaches me to resist being strong-armed.  If I'm the above situation, I'll consider the forces in play and disregard whichever one is pushing me to act on insufficient information.

[Chum]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

It is true, words fall inadequately short in describing the actual ineffable experience. 

The brandy thing was tongue-in-cheek but the rest applies.

Speaking to the rest, decades have yielded their share of ineffable experiences. I found that whispers do not often travel well in fog, nor do they reliably calm wildly chaotic seas. This isn't to say I was left on my own. Adderall is my truck/boat/helicopter.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

The Premise I operated from and am discussing here derived from my personal experience and personal story with my friend.  So, you can't pretend like you can criticize my premise without criticizing my approach.   The one derived from the other.    Here is the premise I am offering, again - reason is a necessary wing for flying in the gospel and that it can offer comfort and security by offering needed lift when someone feels like they are spinning out of control due to lack of lift from that wing.  Don't conflate the forced choice premise with my friends story. 

While faith/hope doesn't require absolute certainty, it does require reason.  It can't fly without it.   Without the lift of reason, many crash and burn with that singular reliance on the pray/obey model that most ecclesiastical leaders offer.  I have seen too many give their all to that method and spiral out of control when they don't have reason to support their spiritual experiences/desires.  The two wings work in conjunction.  They both serve the same purpose of ultimate spiritual flight.  They are both interdependent on each other.  That is my premise.  If you want to engage with me further, engage with THAT premise.   

Sometimes the answers to prayer come in the form of reason.  Who knows, maybe I was an answer to her prayer. 

Instead of addressing that premise, you are arguing with the following strawmen.  I am curious, what premise that you imagine derived from me are you rebutting here? 

That's a rather vague, general, and mysterious thing to say in relation to my premise.  It doesn't seem to address my premise at all.  Have I suggested otherwise?

And what premise are you rebutting here?  Again, sounds like a strawman.

You seem to be neglecting what I have said here:

I have now thoroughly explained my premise several times now.   Are you going to address it, or are you going to keep preaching to imaginary premises and strawmen?  If you misunderstood the premises I was operating from before, there should be no question now...or you can keep trying to tell me what I believe and what I meant to say and argue with that if you want. 

 

I do focus on the premises for the poll more than the details of your friend’s story, which are minimal and which I take to be illustrative of helping others using the Perry Scheme. I don’t think these premises change your approach to helping her, despite your belief that they do, and I have nothing to say on that.

Because pain and relief (including the pain sometimes associated with transition and resistance to transition between cognitive stages) can contribute to both discipleship and rejection, and used to justify either discipleship or rejection, I challenge (maybe “question” is more palatable) each of your premises (as I summarized them a few posts above) equally – and apart from any good you may have done – as correct absolutes. You just demonstrated the problem again: If reason is necessary, then it shall, not can, offer comfort and security in a faith crisis, so I question that premise. I don't question the premise about faith as much: if faith is also necessary, then it shall offer comfort and security in a faith crisis (except when reason overtakes it).

[pogi]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I do focus on the premises for the poll more than the details of your friend’s story, which are minimal and which I take to be illustrative of helping others using the Perry Scheme. I don’t think these premises change your approach to helping her, despite your belief that they do, and I have nothing to say on that.

They are totally unrelated.  The poll and the premise of forced decisions has nothing to do with the premise of the two wings.  I acted on the premise I mentioned, so yes, it did affect my approach.

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

Because pain and relief (including the pain sometimes associated with transition and resistance to transition between cognitive stages) can contribute to both discipleship and rejection, and used to justify either discipleship or rejection, I challenge (maybe “question” is more palatable) each of your premises (as I summarized them a few posts above) equally – and apart from any good you may have done – as correct absolutes.

Dude, I have said like a thousand times THAT IS NOT MY PREMISE.  I don't disagree that it could go either way.  That is in no way a challenge to ANYTHING I have said.  Again, a strawman.  

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

You just demonstrated the problem again: If reason is necessary, then it shall, not can, offer comfort and security in a faith crisis, so I question that premise.

No, you just demonstrated our problem - you are trying to tell me what I believe.  You are not processing my words.  I  Never said or insinuated such nonsense.  That is a false conclusion and one that I never made or even insinuated.  

Here is what I actually said:

4 hours ago, pogi said:

 reason is a necessary wing for flying in the gospel and that it can offer comfort [not "shall" - your putting words in my mouth] and security by offering needed lift when someone feels like they are spinning out of control due to lack of lift from that wing. 

Notice how you made a conclusion that I didn't make?

I said as plain as day that it "can" (not "shall") offer comfort...   Sometimes a faith crisis is not based in reason, but may be due to lack of lift on the other wing, therefore it "can" offer support, not "shall". 

Quote

I don't question the premise about faith as much: if faith is also necessary, then it shall offer comfort and security in a faith crisis (except when reason overtakes it).

...or lack of reason overtakes it - which was the case with my friend.  Without reason, faith can struggle for some.

Edited February 6, 2023 by pogi