When Conscience Conflicts with Prophetic Teachings

[Snodgrassian]

On 2/2/2023 at 12:58 AM, Calm said:

That is, imo, a very good point.  It might not be about the apostles and prophets being inherently superior in spiritual knowledge, but about opening ourselves up to receive instruction in the first place, first practicing with more accessible sources to prepare us to better receive from the ultimate source.  The prophets and apostles are probably among the safest group to risk obedience to due to the requirement of unanimity among them plus years of service means their overstepping and errors are typically kept to a minimum where the same can’t be said of other organizations.

I think this depends on time period, station in life, personal circumstances, familial issues/relationships, etc. There is no way that this group of men can provide instruction that will be the best for all of current humanity. 

I am of the mindset it is much easier to cut out the middle man and be obedient to the Father. So much confusion and pain could be eliminated. Looking back at the history of the Church and the Gospel teachings that I have learned over the course of my life, it resembles a game of Telephone. 

[The Nehor]

19 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

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!

I meant that literally. I am not strong enough to accept singleness in this life. I have largely given up of a relationship god would be okay with but still rage against it. Knowing I could very likely have someone or, knowing me during my wild sinful days, multiple someones if I would give up the gospel is a constantly twisting knife in my gut.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

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 - despite your belief that you think you can know the intentions of my actions. 

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.  

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:

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". 

...or lack of reason overtakes it - which was the case with my friend.  Without reason, faith cannot endure.

I was saying that where it is said, as you did, that “if reason is necessary...,” the proper modal verb in my construct is shall, not can… So, I challenge the use of “shall” with “necessary,” but not the use of “can” with, for example, “contemporaneous.” Reason is not necessary, it is contemporaneous with faith (and other processes such as digestion, sexual and romantic attraction, etc.), hence the proper modal is “can.” It is an aspect we work with, but not where we can say it is or how much is “necessary.” Sometimes we don't say (or post) what we really mean by the words we use.

On the other hand, only a particle of faith, or even less, a desire to believe, is necessary, and with promised results. This is why I don't question a premise about faith as much, such as: “if faith is also necessary, then it shall offer comfort and security in a faith crisis (except when reason [much or little, complex or simple, doesn’t matter; that has been my point all along] overtakes it).

I think more developed reasoning vis-à-vis the Perry Scheme is also subject to faulty reasoning.

Edited February 6, 2023 by CV75

[pogi]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I was saying that where it is said, as you did, that “if reason is necessary...,” the proper modal verb in my construct is shall, not can…

Right, in your construct, not mine.  In your words, not mine.  I said "can", and you repeat back "shall".  Straw man.  You are making a false conclusion (not me) and blaming me for propagating such nonsense.  That is not a healthy way to dialogue.    Reason "can" provide comfort, but is "required" for faith.  That is a true statement.   Reason is necessary for faith.  True.   Reason "can" provide comfort.  True.  Reason "shall" provide comfort - not necessarily, it depends on the circumstance and balance and condition of reason/faith of the individual.   

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

So, I challenge the use of “shall” with “necessary,” but not the use of “can” with, for example, “contemporaneous.”

Holly crap you are being insufferable.  I feel like you just have it out for me to be so relentless over semantic BS.   I never said "shall"!   If they are "contemporaneous" than they are "interdependent", as I said.   If they are "contemporaneous", then faith doesn't exist without reason - aka it is "necessary" .   I thought I might succeed in helping you understand my position, but it seems to me that you don't care to listen.  You love to entangle me in your word entrapments.  I am very close to putting you on ignore (that would be a first for me),  It feels like trolling at this point with thread, after thread, after thread of the same outrageous strawman attacks. 

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Reason is not necessary, it is contemporaneous with faith (and other processes such as digestion, sexual and romantic attraction, etc.), hence the proper modal is “can.”

Reason is not necessary for faith to exist?  Serious?  So they are not necessarily contemporaneous then?  How does that work exactly?  If they are absolutely contemporaneous, then reason is "required', it is "necessary" for faith to exist.  I don't think they exist in perfect balance though.  There can be deficiencies on one side or the other that can cause unsteady flight and discomfort and troubles with belief. 

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

On the other hand, only a particle of faith, or even less, a desire to believe, is necessary, and with promised results.

And this leads to false judgments of people who may be struggling to believe.   They must not have a particle of faith!  False!   BS! Totally wrong!  

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I think more developed reasoning vis-à-vis the Perry Scheme is also subject to faulty reasoning.

And I think the "pray and obey" mantra is subject to faulty faith where reason is lacking.  Look around!  It isn't working.  Must be that they are sinners, right?  They must not have a particle of desire to believe , right?  Not even a particle of faith, right?  They must not be reading their Book of Mormon and praying with sincerity of heart, right?  They must not be doing their best to follow all the counsel of their ecclesiastical leaders in attending their church meetings, going to the temple, paying tithing, fulfilling their callings, obeying the law of chastity, WoW, and every other commandment as best they can right?    

As the pattern seems to go, as you will not relent until you have the last word...you have the last word...again. 

Edited February 6, 2023 by pogi

[CV75]

45 minutes ago, pogi said:

Right, in your construct, not mine.  In your words, not mine.  I said "can", and you repeat back "shall".  Straw man.  You are making a false conclusion (not me) and blaming me for propagating such nonsense.  That is not a healthy way to dialogue.    Reason "can" provide comfort, but is "required" for faith.  That is a true statement.   Reason is necessary for faith.  True.   Reason "can" provide comfort.  True.  Reason "shall" provide comfort - not necessarily, it depends on the circumstance and balance and condition of reason/faith of the individual.   

Holly crap you are being insufferable.  I feel like you just have it out for me to be so relentless over semantic BS.   I never said "shall"!   If they are "contemporaneous" than they are "interdependent", as I said.   If they are "contemporaneous", then faith doesn't exist without reason - aka it is "necessary" .   I thought I might succeed in helping you understand my position, but it seems to me that you don't care to listen.  You love to entangle me in your word entrapments.  I am very close to putting you on ignore (that would be a first for me),  It feels like trolling at this point with thread, after thread, after thread of the same outrageous strawman attacks. 

Reason is not necessary for faith to exist?  Serious?  So they are not necessarily contemporaneous then?  How does that work exactly?  If they are absolutely contemporaneous, then reason is "required', it is "necessary" for faith to exist.  I don't think they exist in perfect balance though.  There can be deficiencies on one side or the other that can cause unsteady flight and discomfort and troubles with belief. 

And this leads to false judgments of people who may be struggling to believe.   They must not have a particle of faith!  False!   BS! Totally wrong!  

And I think the "pray and obey" mantra is subject to faulty faith where reason is lacking.  Look around!  It isn't working.  Must be that they are sinners, right?  They must not have a particle of desire to believe , right?  Not even a particle of faith, right?  They must not be reading their Book of Mormon and praying with sincerity of heart, right?  They must not be doing their best to follow all the counsel of their ecclesiastical leaders in attending their church meetings, going to the temple, paying tithing, fulfilling their callings, obeying the law of chastity, WoW, and every other commandment as best they can right?    

As the pattern seems to go, as you will not relent until you have the last word...you have the last word...again. 

Since you coupled “necessary” with “can,” I chose to figure how this would work within the paradigm of “forced decision” which you vigorously defend, and so assumed you must have meant “shall.” Granted, maybe you now mean to pair “contemporaneous” with “can.” Semantics are useful and important.

I wrote that reason “is contemporaneous with faith (and other processes such as digestion, sexual and romantic attraction, etc.).” I wouldn’t say that any of these, other than faith, is necessary for offering comfort and security in a faith crisis such as the one you generally described. Faith can be expressed and conveyed in many ways, ideally through charity.

People in faith crisis still have at least a particle of faith, otherwise there would be no crisis. Not performing the list of personal religious observances that you mention here is no indicator of a faith crisis; it may well be an indicator of its resolution, or simply a lapse of some kind.

You’ve used quite a bit of pejoratives toward me in the past several posts; I don’t find that necessary or reasonable. Yet you eased someone through a faith crisis using what you consider to be “necessary reason.” Grace is certainly part of the equation, ain’t it!

[pogi]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Since you coupled “necessary” with “can,” I chose to figure how this would work within the paradigm of “forced decision” which you vigorously defend, and so assumed you must have meant “shall.” 

Yes, that is the choice you made - and then badgered me over these conflations and nonsensical conclusions that I NEVER made.  Bad choice.  Not fair.  Not friendly.  I don't even know how you could conflate one within the other in any way that makes a tiny bit of sense.   Totally unrelated.  I told you that over and over, yet you persisted.  Now you are FINALLY admitting that is what you indeed did.  You make up something utterly nonsensical to criticize me over as if I came up with the idea.  Then you are relentless about it.   You then insist that reason is not "necessary" for faith but is "contemporaneous" with it.  What the what?!!!   They are practically synonymous in this context.  If it is contemporaneous with faith, it is necessary!!!!    Give me a frigging break.  You don't seem to be this obsessively and relentlessly pedantic with other posters, which leads me to believe I am being trolled by you.   Congrats you get the last word, again, just like last time, and the time before that, and the time before that, and the time before that, because if I don't stop, you just keep coming after me endlessly.  Even when I express a desire to move on multiple times, instead of agreeing to disagree and move on, you persistently badger me with more bait.  Perhaps I am a fool for biting, but somewhere deep down I held out hope that communication was possible between us and I gave you the benefit of the doubt. You are officially on ignore.  This is the first time I have ever done such a thing in over a decade of posting here, and hopefully the last.    

 

Edited February 7, 2023 by pogi

[Grug the Neanderthal]

"What would/should one do when your answer to prayer conflicts with the prophets teaching?"

As has been suggested by others on this thread, a lot depends on the situation. 

If it's doctrinal issue or moral issue, then I refer to what the scriptures, Joseph Smith, and to a lesser extent his contemporaries have to say about the subject. If these are in agreement with my answer to prayer, then I have a second witness that my answer is from God and that I should set aside the current teachings of the church on the matter. 

But even in this case, I believe that one must be cautious, because God may have changed his expectations to fit current circumstances. Take the Word of Wisdom for example. Just because it wasn't strictly enforced 170 years ago, doesn't mean that God doesn't want it strictly enforced today. And I don't think that an individual would be justified in consuming alcohol or tobacco in moderation, just because early church leaders did this. 

If it's a practical issue that isn't addressed in the scriptures or early church teachings, then that is a different story. One glaring example comes to mind. And that is President Nelson making a blanket statement that the COVID vaccine is "safe and effective " and "godsend," and telling all of members to get the vaccine.

My wife and I gave the matter a lot of thought, study, and prayer and we felt very strongly that this was wrong and that we should not get the vaccine and neither should our children. Many members of our family, friends, and fellow ward members had the same feeling. Some decided to get the vaccine anyway, because they believe that they had to in order to follow the prophet or they decided to put their trust in President Nelson over their own research and what they believed was an answer to prayer from God. Many others, my wife and I included, did not get the vaccine. We both still feel very good about this decision and believe that we made the correct decision for our ourselves and for our family. 

We still sustain President Nelson as president of the church and we made no attempt to publicly undermine his teachings, but privately we told a number of people that we believe that it was wrong for President Nelson to make these statements about the vaccine and that he should have instead told everyone that he believed that it was safe and effective and that the members should pray about it and decide for themselves if they should get the vaccine or not based on their individual circumstances and risk factors. 

 

 

[CV75]

12 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

"What would/should one do when your answer to prayer conflicts with the prophets teaching?"

As has been suggested by others on this thread, a lot depends on the situation. 

If it's doctrinal issue or moral issue, then I refer to what the scriptures, Joseph Smith, and to a lesser extent his contemporaries have to say about the subject. If these are in agreement with my answer to prayer, then I have a second witness that my answer is from God and that I should set aside the current teachings of the church on the matter. 

But even in this case, I believe that one must be cautious, because God may have changed his expectations to fit current circumstances. Take the Word of Wisdom for example. Just because it wasn't strictly enforced 170 years ago, doesn't mean that God doesn't want it strictly enforced today. And I don't think that an individual would be justified in consuming alcohol or tobacco in moderation, just because early church leaders did this. 

If it's a practical issue that isn't addressed in the scriptures or early church teachings, then that is a different story. One glaring example comes to mind. And that is President Nelson making a blanket statement that the COVID vaccine is "safe and effective " and "godsend," and telling all of members to get the vaccine.

My wife and I gave the matter a lot of thought, study, and prayer and we felt very strongly that this was wrong and that we should not get the vaccine and neither should our children. Many members of our family, friends, and fellow ward members had the same feeling. Some decided to get the vaccine anyway, because they believe that they had to in order to follow the prophet or they decided to put their trust in President Nelson over their own research and what they believed was an answer to prayer from God. Many others, my wife and I included, did not get the vaccine. We both still feel very good about this decision and believe that we made the correct decision for our ourselves and for our family. 

We still sustain President Nelson as president of the church and we made no attempt to publicly undermine his teachings, but privately we told a number of people that we believe that it was wrong for President Nelson to make these statements about the vaccine and that he should have instead told everyone that he believed that it was safe and effective and that the members should pray about it and decide for themselves if they should get the vaccine or not based on their individual circumstances and risk factors. 

 

 

To be fair, President Nelson and the Church qualified the general recommendation to vaccinate in terms of percentages of immunization and expert recommendations, consistent with the Handbook, leaving room for individual cases where vaccination would not be competently recommended. Or personal revelation as the case may be. Even strong opinion.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

To be fair, President Nelson and the Church qualified the general recommendation to vaccinate in terms of percentages of immunization and expert recommendations, consistent with the Handbook, leaving room for individual cases where vaccination would not be competently recommended. Or personal revelation as the case may be. Even strong opinion.

The statements I'm referring to were later qualified and softened, but originally, when the COVID vaccine issue was at its height, they were unqualified blanket statements. 

[CV75]

24 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

The statements I'm referring to were later qualified and softened, but originally, when the COVID vaccine issue was at its height, they were unqualified blanket statements. 

I guess I'll have see those statements again, if you have them. I'm sure I can find a good amount of wiggle room in the text and Handbook recognizing individual agency and exceptions to any general counsel, and which the later statements likely reinforced.

[pogi]

16 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

"What would/should one do when your answer to prayer conflicts with the prophets teaching?"

As has been suggested by others on this thread, a lot depends on the situation. 

If it's doctrinal issue or moral issue, then I refer to what the scriptures, Joseph Smith, and to a lesser extent his contemporaries have to say about the subject. If these are in agreement with my answer to prayer, then I have a second witness that my answer is from God and that I should set aside the current teachings of the church on the matter. 

But even in this case, I believe that one must be cautious, because God may have changed his expectations to fit current circumstances. Take the Word of Wisdom for example. Just because it wasn't strictly enforced 170 years ago, doesn't mean that God doesn't want it strictly enforced today. And I don't think that an individual would be justified in consuming alcohol or tobacco in moderation, just because early church leaders did this. 

If it's a practical issue that isn't addressed in the scriptures or early church teachings, then that is a different story. One glaring example comes to mind. And that is President Nelson making a blanket statement that the COVID vaccine is "safe and effective " and "godsend," and telling all of members to get the vaccine.

My wife and I gave the matter a lot of thought, study, and prayer and we felt very strongly that this was wrong and that we should not get the vaccine and neither should our children. Many members of our family, friends, and fellow ward members had the same feeling. Some decided to get the vaccine anyway, because they believe that they had to in order to follow the prophet or they decided to put their trust in President Nelson over their own research and what they believed was an answer to prayer from God. Many others, my wife and I included, did not get the vaccine. We both still feel very good about this decision and believe that we made the correct decision for our ourselves and for our family. 

We still sustain President Nelson as president of the church and we made no attempt to publicly undermine his teachings, but privately we told a number of people that we believe that it was wrong for President Nelson to make these statements about the vaccine and that he should have instead told everyone that he believed that it was safe and effective and that the members should pray about it and decide for themselves if they should get the vaccine or not based on their individual circumstances and risk factors. 

So, according to you we should follow the prophets when it is a moral issue, but follow personal answers to prayer when it is a practical issue.  Who gets to decide when it is a practical issue or a moral one, you or the prophets?   Because the prophets clearly framed the vaccine as a moral issue - as they have always done with vaccines. 

What if you believed the vaccine was safe and effective (lets please not debate the overall efficacy and safety - I am talking about beliefs), would you frame it as merely a "practical" issue, or would it become a moral one for you?  The brethren clearly framed it as a moral issue as our obligation to protect the vulnerable, and to protect our own lives.  They called it a civic duty of being good citizens for the greater good of society.   Elder Renlund went as far as to say that doing our part in this pandemic is a fulfillment of the second great commandment to love our neighbors.  That is a moral issue. 

Curious though, why wouldn't you follow your conscience and answers to prayer in matters of morality?  That doesn't sound like a cultish mindset to you to ignore your conscience and what you believe God is telling you in answer to prayer, and instead place your blind faith in men?  It would be blind faith in this particular case, because even though you may have had answer to prayer that they are prophets of God, you have not received an answer to prayer that they are right in this particular instance.  In fact you received an answer contrary to what they teach - so to follow them over that answer and what your conscience speaks, how is this not blind, cult-like, faith? 

 

Edited February 9, 2023 by pogi

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

The statements I'm referring to were later qualified and softened, but originally, when the COVID vaccine issue was at its height, they were unqualified blanket statements. 

Yes, they called it a "Godsend", aka a moral issue.  According to your own standards, you are supposed to follow them on moral issues, no? 

Their position has not softened.  We were and are encouraged to be vaccinated.  They have not softened their position that the vaccine is "safe and effective", nor have they softened their position on it being a "Godsend". 

Edited February 9, 2023 by pogi

[Grug the Neanderthal]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

So, according to you we should follow the prophets when it is a moral issue, but follow personal answers to prayer when it is a practical issue.

No, this is not what I said. 

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Curious though, why wouldn't you follow your conscience and answers to prayer in matters of morality?  That doesn't sound like a cultish mindset to you to ignore your conscience and what you believe God is telling you in answer to prayer, and instead place your blind faith in men?  It would be blind faith in this particular case, because even though you may have had answer to prayer that they are prophets of God, you have not received an answer to prayer that they are right in this particular instance.  In fact you received an answer contrary to what they teach - so to follow them over that answer and what your conscience speaks, how is this not blind, cult-like, faith? 

First of all, I did not say that you shouldn't under any circumstances follow what you believe is right on moral issues after praying about it. However, have you ever heard about being deceived or misled? Revelation, thoughts, impressions, etc. can come from several different sources, and most of them aren't from God. Which is why one needs something to measure one's own personal conclusions or impressions against. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

No, this is not what I said. 

First of all, I did not say that you shouldn't under any circumstances follow what you believe is right on moral issues after praying about it. However, have you ever heard about being deceived or misled? Revelation, thoughts, impressions, etc. can come from several different sources, and most of them aren't from God. Which is why one needs something to measure one's own personal conclusions or impressions against. 

Sorry if I misunderstood.

Yes, I understand the concept of being deceived - I addressed the importance of acknowledging our own fallibility in the OP.  Ultimately, how do you decide?  You are fallible, the prophets are fallible, the scriptures are a matter of interpretation...

You seem to have some kind of formula that you are hinting at, but I can't decipher how you ultimately decide anything, or why you defer to that formula (which is not doctrinal).  In what circumstance, and why, would you defer to someone/some thing else over what you believe the Spirit to be telling you?  

Edited February 9, 2023 by pogi

[Grug the Neanderthal]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

the scriptures are a matter of interpretation

I disagree with this. Some things are open to interpretation, but many things aren't. 

3 hours ago, pogi said:

You seem to have some kind of formula that you are hinting at, but I can't decipher how you ultimately decide anything, or why you defer to that formula (which is not doctrinal).  In what circumstance, and why, would you defer to someone/some thing else over what you believe the Spirit to be telling you?

I think I've already explained this pretty well, but basically I don't believe that there is a formula that works for every type of situation. If I felt that the Spirit was telling me to do something that the scriptures clearly say is sinful, I would seriously question that and would have to be 100% certain that it was from God, and not some other source, before proceeding. 

Other situations, like the Covid Vaccine, aren't addressed in the scriptures. There is no scripture which says that we must follow the medical advice of the president of the church, when given without a revelation from God, against our own conscience. There is no scripture that is clearly for or against vaccines in general. So this is an area where each person must decide for themselves what they believe is right and do that.

[mfbukowski]

On 2/1/2023 at 10:33 AM, Eschaton said:

I figure if you don't have enough moral judgement to be able to reliably follow your own conscience, then you don't have enough moral judgement to reliably choose someone else to make those decisions for you. 

YES! That is exactly it, thanks for putting it that way.  You vote yes on the leaders by simply being a member, or joining the church.   If you don't have a testimony then.... follow your conscience which apparantly does not include believing in the church.

Moroni 10 says as much- no testimony?  The alternative is clear. Follow Moroni 10 either way.

[Bernard Gui]

On 2/2/2023 at 12:51 AM, Pyreaux said:

No. I just find it far more constructive and virtuous to risk being considered an obedient ideologue as opposed to a contrarian, nihilist or dogmatist, especially in the military. If you were the one who signed up to serve your country in the military, it doesn't matter if you were correct to disobey the military leaders. A single act of disobedience renders you useless to the military, and so useless to your country, as no one can depend on you to do anything important. If I want to serve God, and I chose to serve through his church which I believe is true, I should try to obey its leaders, even it if I thought they were incompetent or flawed. I can serve better in the church than outside it. What good is it to cause God's true church nothing but strife, just because I think I know how it should best operate, when God never put me in charge? If the bishop took my tithing and literally flushed it, told one of my confessions during a talk on Sunday, and asked me not to wear my ugly ties to church, as difficult it would be to endure that, I will sustain my Bishop.

I might draw a line in the sand when it comes to ugly ties.

[pogi]

21 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I disagree with this. Some things are open to interpretation, but many things aren't. 

Thanks for your interpretation. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Thanks for your interpretation. 

I didn't give an interpretation.

But I am sorry that you find the scriptures to be so unclear and confusing. For me they are as plain as day on many, many points. 

[pogi]

20 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I didn't give an interpretation.

But I am sorry that you find the scriptures to be so unclear and confusing. For me they are as plain as day on many, many points. 

Yes, that is your interpretation of scripture in general.  Many don't agree with your interpretation.  In fact, I am willing to wager that you can't find one other living soul on the face of the entire planet who will agree with your understanding of scripture on the points that you consider to be "not open for interpretation", and "plain as day".   

I don't find them confusing. I find that they clearly speak to me personally - plain as day.  I find them quite edifying, actually.   

[Grug the Neanderthal]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am willing to wager that you can't find one other living soul on the face of the entire planet who will agree with your understanding of scripture on the points that you consider to be "not open for interpretation", and "plain as day".   

Well I can prove you wrong in 5 seconds. 

Millions of Latter-day Saints believe that baptism by immersion using the prayer from 3 Nephi and D&C 20 is required to become a member of Christ’s one true church and be saved in the Celestial kingdom. And there are many, many more points like this.

[pogi]

36 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Well I can prove you wrong in 5 seconds. 

Millions of Latter-day Saints believe that baptism by immersion using the prayer from 3 Nephi and D&C 20 is required to become a member of Christ’s one true church and be saved in the Celestial kingdom. And there are many, many more points like this.

Sigh. We have already been over this.
The baptism prayer speaks of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.  I guarantee you that while we use the same words, they mean different things to different people.  Some Latter-day Saints think the Holy Ghost is our mother in heaven, for example.  We all perceive of and interpret God in different ways.  Compound that with corruptible human language and the problem is only exacerbated.  

You also brought up “the one true church”, I have seen first hand different interpretations of what that means from different Latter-day Saints.  No where close to unified understanding.  Again, we may all use the same words, but that doesn’t mean we understand them the same.  That is impossible. 

The scriptures attempt to capture the ineffable.  It is a paradox.  They do not and cannot capture some objective and absolute truth as you seem to believe.

You are bringing up one passage, my challenge is that all the passages that you claim are not up for interpretation will not all be understood the same.

Edited February 11, 2023 by pogi

[Grug the Neanderthal]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

Sigh. We have already been over this.
The baptism prayer speaks of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.  I guarantee you that while we use the same words, they mean different things to different people.  Some Latter-day Saints think the Holy Ghost is our mother in heaven, for example.  We all perceive of and interpret God in different ways.  Compound that with corruptible human language and the problem is only exacerbated.

Yes, sigh indeed. I don't know why you are working so hard to undermine the clear and plain language of the scriptures. I think your view that pretty much nothing in the scriptures is plain, clear, or concrete pretty much renders the scriptures meaningless. Sure people can find personal meaning in the scriptures using your approach, but they would be absolutely worthless in determining the truth or God's will about anything. And this is something that I cannot accept.

For one thing, I know that the scriptures are clear and plain on many, many points. People can choose to take the plain and clear language and mangle it to fit their own desired views, but this doesn't change the fact that what the scriptures have to say on many, many subjects are plain and clear. So clear in fact that a child can understand them. 

Another issue is that I refuse to accept the notion that God didn't intend the scriptures to be a universal guidebook that applies to all people on many issues and that gives all people the same plain and clear guidance on his general will for mankind. The scriptures still need to be applied to fit individual circumstances, but the overall message and will of God is quite plain and clear and universally applicable to all of mankind. 

And the idea that the Holy Ghost is our mother in heaven is one of the most ridiculous ideas I have ever heard. It is in direct contradiction to scripture and the teachings of the restoration. 

Edited February 11, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Sure people can find personal meaning in the scriptures using your approach, but they would be absolutely worthless in determining the truth or God's will about anything. And this is something that I cannot accept.

That's a problem then.

How do you even know the scriptures are God's word? Testimony.

How do you know the changes are or are not God's word?

Same way.

Yet again, do we live in a simple very traditional agrarian community where reading is rare, and nothing ever changes? Horses and the wheel for thousands of years of subsistence living off the land? 

I don't live in such a community, and I need answers which are just a tad more complex.  I actually meet educated people who do not believe as I do daily! Should I burn them at the stake as apostates?

We really are not Neanderthals any more, please accept that.  

Edited February 11, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Another issue is that I refuse to accept the notion that God didn't intend the scriptures to be a universal guidebook that applies to all people on many issues and that gives all people the same plain and clear guidance on his general will for mankind. The scriptures still need to be applied to fit individual circumstances, but the overall message and will of God is quite plain and clear and universally applicable to all of mankind. 

Two inconsistent thoughts.

Even you try to strike a balance between universal unchanging law for all and "fitting them to individual circumstances".

Which is it?  If even only slightly the latter, the former is violated.