When Conscience Conflicts with Prophetic Teachings

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

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. 

Get that fire going then, because many believe that with good reason, and no I am not going to argue with you.  They believe it is you who are uninformed. Some say Mother is the Holy Spirit, some The Holy Ghost.  Lotsa good people with lotsa good reasons for both views.  

https://www.deidrehavrelock.com/womanimageoftheholyspirit/wisdom/

Edited February 11, 2023 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

9 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

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. 

So you don't disagree that there are different interpretations (yours being just one), but your solution to that problem is to blame people who disagree with your interpretation of being disingenuous?  They can't possibly genuinely believe their interpretation, and if they do, then their IQ is less than that of a child?

[Grug the Neanderthal]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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

What changes?

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I actually meet educated people who do not believe as I do daily! Should I burn them at the stake as apostates?

Is anyone suggesting that you should?

[Grug the Neanderthal]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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. 

You misquoted me. I said that 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." 

These are not two inconsistent thoughts that invalidate each other. We all face different circumstances in life that we need to apply the clear and plain teachings in the scriptures to.

 

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 

 

Edited February 11, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[Grug the Neanderthal]

28 minutes ago, pogi said:

So you don't disagree that there are different interpretations (yours being just one), but your solution to that problem is to blame people who disagree with your interpretation of being disingenuous?  They can't possibly genuinely believe their interpretation, and if they do, then their IQ is less than that of a child?

You sure love to make straw-man arguments. I didn’t say any of this.

[pogi]

9 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

You sure love to make straw-man arguments. I didn’t say any of this.

So, you didn't say that the scriptures are so "clear and plain on many points" that "even a child can understand them"?  Does this not imply that those who hold a different interpretation from your own must be disingenuous in their interpretation - as if they intentionally "mangle it to fit their own desires"?   The only other conclusion I can think to make given your premise is that they have an IQ less than that of a child.  Please enlighten me, what other conclusions could I make?

Here are your exact words on the matter:

10 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

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. 

 

10 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

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. 

"Ridiculous"!!!  How could they be so stupid?  Even a child can understand this!  Either that or they are intentionally mangling it in a very disingenuous and dishonest way, right?  Because no person with a genuine and honest approach could possibly interpret it differently, right?  

 

[MustardSeed]

I’ve never heard the idea that the Holy Ghost is a woman.  I’m trying to think why that couldn’t be true. 
 

I recall being 18 and asking missionaries and my bishop how I’m supposed to interpret scripture.  No one gave me a useful answer.  Maybe when I’m more righteous I’ll find them more clear-as-day 😃

[Grug the Neanderthal]

48 minutes ago, pogi said:

So, you didn't say that the scriptures are so "clear and plain on many points" that "even a child can understand them"?

Yes, and I stand by this statement.

48 minutes ago, pogi said:

Does this not imply that those who hold a different interpretation from your own must be disingenuous in their interpretation - as if they intentionally "mangle it to fit their own desires"?

No, it doesn’t imply that they must be disingenuous. They could be disingenuous or they could just be blinded by their own desires, false teachings of others, or even just misconceptions of reality. 

52 minutes ago, pogi said:

The only other conclusion I can think to make given your premise is that they have an IQ less than that of a child.  Please enlighten me, what other conclusions could I make?

No, the only other conclusion is not that they have an IQ less than that of a child. Again they could simply be blinded by their own desires, false teachings of others, or even just misconceptions of reality. 

Another possibility is that they just haven’t studied the scriptures enough and don’t actually know all of the teachings on a particular subject, and then reach incorrect conclusions based on partial information. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

You misquoted me. I said that 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." 

These are not to inconsistent thoughts that invalidate each other. We all face different circumstances in life that we need to apply the clear and plain teachings in the scriptures to.

 

 

To, two, and too.

Language is too ambiguous. That is the problem.

Edited February 11, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Grug the Neanderthal]

In regards to the belief that some people apparently have that the Holy Ghost is out Heavenly Mother, this contradicts scripture. 

President Marion G. Romney said:

Jesus referred to the Holy Ghost as a male person. Speaking to his disciples, he said:

“… It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.” (John 16:7. Italics added.)
And further,
“… when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
“He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.” (John 16:13–14. Italics added.)
“That the [Holy Ghost] is capable of manifesting Himself in the form and figure of man,” wrote Dr. James E. Talmage, “is indicated by the wonderful interview between the Spirit and Nephi, in which He revealed Himself to the prophet, questioned him concerning his desires and belief, instructed him in the things of God, speaking face to face with the man. ‘I spake unto him,’ says Nephi, ‘as a man speaketh; for I beheld that he was in the form of a man; yet nevertheless, I knew that it was the Spirit of the Lord; and he spake unto me as a man speaketh with another.’” (Discourses on the Holy Ghost, comp. N. B. Lundwall, Bookcraft, Inc., 1959, p. 13.)
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1974/04/the-holy-ghost?lang=eng

[Grug the Neanderthal]

18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

To, two, and too.

Language is ambiguous. That is the problem.

No, language is not ambiguous. I made a typo. It’s now corrected so there’s no confusion about what I meant. 

Two: equivalent to the sum of one and one; one less than three; 2.

Nothing ambiguous about the meaning of two. 

Edited February 11, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Yes, and I stand by this statement.

No, it doesn’t imply that they must be disingenuous. They could be disingenuous or they could just be blinded by their own desires, false teachings of others, or even just misconceptions of reality. 

If they are genuinely "blinded" by "false teachings" or with "misconceptions of reality (now you have really opened a can of worms)", then they are not always "plain and easy to understand" for everybody, are they?  If an otherwise intelligent adult can misinterpret it based on their life experience and learning (or lack thereof), then so too could a child.   The "plainess" and "easiness" becomes subjective, doesn't it? Clearly the plainness you see is not a universal experience.

If it is as plain as telling the difference between a stop sign and a yield sign (so plain and easy that even a child can identify), how could any deception due to desires be truly "genuine."   How could anyone be genuinely deceived in a matter that is so easy and plain and objectively clear?  That would be like trying to argue to a judge that I was genuinely deceived into believing the stop sign was really a yield sign, because of my desire to not stop.  I think any judge would consider that argument disingenuous given the plain and easily deciphered nature of the sign.

16 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

No, the only other conclusion is not that they have an IQ less than that of a child. Again they could simply be blinded by their own desires, false teachings of others, or even just misconceptions of reality. 

Another possibility is that they just haven’t studied the scriptures enough and don’t actually know all of the teachings on a particular subject, and then reach incorrect conclusions based on partial information. 

So, it seems that you are suggesting that understanding of the scriptures is relative to our position, desires, and previous learning.  I agree.  Our relationship and interpretation of scripture is entirely relative and subjective.   If it was as absolute and objective as you make it seem, then there could be no genuine deception of an intellectually honest person with an IQ of that greater than a child.   

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

So, it seems that you are suggesting that understanding of the scriptures is relative to our position, desires, and previous learning.  I agree.  Our relationship and interpretation of scripture is entirely relative and subjective.   If it was as absolute and objective as you make it seem, then there could be no genuine deception of an intellectually honest person with an IQ of that greater than a child.   

Exactly!

And in fact this discussion would not exist!

It would be like arguing about the validity of mathematics!

Is 8x4= 32 correct?

Let's go on that one! 

A posteriori vs a priori 

https://marketbusinessnews.com/financial-glossary/posteriori-definition-meaning/

 

Edited February 11, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Grug the Neanderthal]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

If they are genuinely "blinded" by "false teachings" or with "misconceptions of reality (now you have really opened a can of worms)", then they are not always "plain and easy to understand" for everybody, are they?  If an otherwise intelligent adult can misinterpret it based on their life experience and learning (or lack thereof), then so too could a child.   The "plainess" and "easiness" becomes subjective, doesn't it? Clearly the plainness you see is not a universal experience.

I don't think you're actually listening to what I'm saying.

Many, many things in the scriptures are plain. Many things are so plain that even a child can understand them. People often mangle and twist what the scriptures say in order to justify themselves in their current beliefs, desires, and actions. This doesn't mean that they are necessarily being disingenuous, but it often does mean that they aren't really serious about knowing the truth and what God actually expects. Instead they would rather believe in a God who confirms their current beliefs, desires, and actions to be right or justified. That's human nature. We want our beliefs to be correct and even when our beliefs are shown to be wrong, we often find ways of employing mental gymnastics to try and justify ourselves. Satan is also really good at blinding people by mingling the philosophies of men with scripture.   

 

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I don't think you're actually listening to what I'm saying.

Many, many things in the scriptures are plain. Many things are so plain that even a child can understand them. People often mangle and twist what the scriptures say in order to justify themselves in their current beliefs, desires, and actions. This doesn't mean that they are necessarily being disingenuous, but it often does mean that they aren't really serious about knowing the truth and what God actually expects. Instead they would rather believe in a God who confirms their current beliefs, desires, and actions to be right or justified. That's human nature. We want our beliefs to be correct and even when our beliefs are shown to be wrong, we often find ways of employing mental gymnastics to try and justify ourselves. Satan is also really good at blinding people by mingling the philosophies of men with scripture.   

 

You make a good argument, and I'll add that men create scripture to fulfill their wants. So the dilemma is if they even came from God. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

men create scripture to fulfill their wants

False prophets and other deceivers or deceived individuals have produced fake  "scripture" which often fits what you’re saying. But I reject the notion that this applies to the four standard works.

[Peacefully]

5 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I don't think you're actually listening to what I'm saying.

Many, many things in the scriptures are plain. Many things are so plain that even a child can understand them. People often mangle and twist what the scriptures say in order to justify themselves in their current beliefs, desires, and actions. This doesn't mean that they are necessarily being disingenuous, but it often does mean that they aren't really serious about knowing the truth and what God actually expects. Instead they would rather believe in a God who confirms their current beliefs, desires, and actions to be right or justified. That's human nature. We want our beliefs to be correct and even when our beliefs are shown to be wrong, we often find ways of employing mental gymnastics to try and justify ourselves. Satan is also really good at blinding people by mingling the philosophies of men with scripture.   

 

Couldn’t the same thing be said for how you are interpreting the “plain” things in the scriptures? It sounds like you want your beliefs to be correct just like everyone else. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

25 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

Couldn’t the same thing be said for how you are interpreting the “plain” things in the scriptures?

With all due respect, no. 

I have had this conversation with Pogi and co twice now, and both times I have pointed to specific things that are plain or concrete. If anyone would like to discuss the things I’ve pointed to and show me how they are unclear they are welcome to do it. 

[CV75]

18 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

With all due respect, no. 

I have had this conversation with Pogi and co twice now, and both times I have pointed to specific things that are plain or concrete. If anyone would like to discuss the things I’ve pointed to and show me how they are unclear they are welcome to do it. 

I find it interesting that we have plain according to the Lamb (1 Nephi 13:29), which is understood by the unreceptive (2 Nephi 1:26) and the righteous alike (2 Nephi 9:47) because “the Lord doeth nothing save it be plain unto men (2 Nephi 26:33).” Yet, “men will not understand great knowledge when given them in plainness (2 Nephi 32:7).”

Nephi and Joseph Smith were not faced with a revelation that conflicted with another living prophet’s when dealing with three plain commandments: “Thou shalt not kill (Exodus 20:13)”; “Slay him… (1 Nephi 4:12),” and “Thou shalt… not …kill, nor do anything like unto it.”

Personally, I don’t think such conflicts can occur because the two kinds of divine revelation serve two different purposes, one general for community commitment, and one situational to address individual barriers not generally faced by the community, especially as the community expands globally and the dominions of saints upon the face of the earth (1 Nephi 14:12) are subject to such varying cultural forces.

I think battles of conscience can only be satisfactorily resolved through personal revelation and we care called to be a light for that. But many of these are prevented proactively as the Lord guides us with personal revelation. At the same time, the Lord has also asked us to help relieve those other types of challenge the individual cannot control so that they can exercise their agency for either.

[pogi]

19 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

With all due respect, no. 

I have had this conversation with Pogi and co twice now, and both times I have pointed to specific things that are plain or concrete. If anyone would like to discuss the things I’ve pointed to and show me how they are unclear they are welcome to do it. 

I’ve mentioned several areas where people interpret things differently, but you seem to brush it off in self-righteous judgement of anyone who disagrees with your interpretation.   Others, you completely ignore, like “the one true church”.  Many interpretations on that.  But of course, only yours is correct.

 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

“the one true church”.  Many interpretations on that.

What’s confusing about this in the four standard works?

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

What’s confusing about this in the four standard works?

Accepting it.

I do but I fully understand why many see the very idea as absurd.

They erroneous see it scientifically 

Edited February 13, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

What’s confusing about this in the four standard works?

For one thing “one true church” is not in any of the four standard works.

My favorite discussion on the topic, starts page 132.

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/

Edited February 13, 2023 by Calm

[Grug the Neanderthal]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

For one thing “one true church” is not in any of the four standard works.

Okay, let’s ditch the shorthand and use the scriptural phrase: 

What's confusing about the "only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth?"

 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Accepting it.

My point exactly. The language in the scriptures on this is plain and easy to understand.

The problem is that people find it difficult to accept what the plain language in the scriptures says about "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth" and then employ mental gymnastics to try and explain away the plain language in the scriptures.