“So, Mr. Q and A, Hawkgrrl, anyone else, how do you justify the feelings of JS III or Todd Whitaker or anyone else who states that their spiritual feelings are something that contradict yours?”

Swedenborg wrote of three degrees of glory, marriage being eternal and many other similarities to JS. however he also taught many things that don’t fit with modern revealed doctrine. My point is 1 Thessalonians. 5:21 – I’m happy with the difficult and laborious task of measuring teachings against my own conscience, there are policies that I don’t fully agree with however God’s time table is supreme and I do my little bit to influence opinions when I can.

Mr. Q and A said, “I don’t think McConkie felt ‘with the same strength’ the truthfulness of the BOM and the blacks never receiving the priesthood, or at least he did not sincerely ask God with the same earnestness.”

I think that is a pretty bold statement. I don’t know how you can answer my question with an assumption of how BRM felt or how earnest his prayers were. Further, it doesn’t answer my question. I said “if” BRM felt those things as strongly as he felt the BOM was true, what then? You answered by simply taking the “if” out of my hands. Let me illustrate, suppose we were on a softball team and I said, “if it rains, should we go to a movie?” You respond, “I don’t think it will rain.” That wouldn’t answer the question because I want to know what we will do IF it rains. Additionally, your opinion about the inner feelings of BRM doesn’t avoid the question either, because even if your assumption is true, there are countless other examples I could use.

For example, Joseph Smith III, Todd Whitaker, and many more.

Todd said he never felt the spirit so strong as he did regarding prop 8. Therefore, he felt the spirit just as strong regarding prop 8 as he did about his testimony of the BOM. My question is, how is a loved one who wants him to stay in the church going to tell him to rely on the spiritual feelings he had when he gained a testimony of the BOM and JS while at the same time telling him to disregard the spiritual feelings he had when he felt that the church is wrong about homosexual marriage?

Or Joseph Smith III. This was the revered prophet’s son. It would be difficult to lecture him on how to interpret and recognize the spirit considering the teacher he had. But he felt that God answered his prayer and told him to lead a different church.

But Mr. Q and A’s answer was very telling. He said BRM must not have prayed at all (or as hard) about the things he was wrong about or he must not have felt it as strong as he felt the BOM was true. This is interesting. Mr. Q and A took in some information, and made it fit logically with his belief system: the BOM IS true, therefore, BRM (and anyone else) really did feel that inspiration but things that don’t fit (the things they were wrong about) they did not feel as strongly. Personally, I think this is quite a stretch. Based on a personal testimony faithful members KNOW how strongly BRM (or Todd Whitaker, or Joseph Smith III and millions of others) prayed about a matter and how strongly they felt afterward? I’m sorry but there is no way you could know how they felt or how hard they prayed. It seems that some members are so willing to discount the experiences of others and say they misinterpreted this or that. Is this not arrogance? Perhaps one should look inward and wonder, am I misinterpreting? Who am I to say Joseph SMith III didn’t feel God command him to lead this other religion even stronger than any feeling I have ever had in my life? Who am I to say Todd Whitaker didn’t feel what he SAID HE FELT? Who am I to say BRM didn’t pray earnestly over this or that subject? Who am I to say BRM didn’t feel strongly about this or that subject? This is a core reason of why I no longer believe the church is true. I am not willing to define personal spiritual feelings in such a way as to arrogantly devalue the spiritual feelings of BRM, JS III, Todd Whitaker, and millions of people who have had similar feelings to what I had (from what I can tell-I admit it is impossible to know how exactly how someone feels) about different religions. Members seem so quick to scrutinize the spiritual experiences of others and label them as misinterpreted if they don’t fit into their belief systems, but they fully accept spiritual experiences that fit into their belief systems.

I believe we are all certainly looking through a glass, darkly, and we all see different things. And what I see is not better or more right than what anyone else sees. But it seems that members think they see a beautiful tree. And then anyone who doesn’t see a beautiful tree is wrong. And those who do see a beautiful tree will be welcomed to the fold.

So, Mr. Q and A, Hawkgrrl, anyone else, how do you justify the feelings of JS III or Todd Whitaker or anyone else who states that their spiritual feelings are something that contradict yours?

To put it another way, I’m not confident in my ability to sway your opinion, so at this point, I think it’s just better to disagree somewhat agreeably.

I think Stephen Marsh explains it very well in his blog;

Joseph Smith, On His Own Terms

Q&A: “my point is I don’t believe BRM, BY and others check and confirm there views are always in line with Gods will, they form opinions based on there environment and “attempt to steady arks” or gratify their pride. if they did we might have different storyline’s to church history”

We’re not talking about views and opinions here, we’re talking about the revelation to practice and then stop practicing polygamy. But if an opinion is what your calling revelation, then (once again) what is the point? As I said to MH (who failed to answer) it is the blind leading the blind.

“For example, if Bruce R. McConkie felt that the Catholic Church was the whore of all the earth and that blacks would never have the priesthood with the same strength that he felt the BOM was true how can we discount the feelings about the catholic church and the blacks but validate his original feelings about the BOM?”

I’ll try to answer the question (it’s in my nature).

I don’t think McConkie felt ‘with the same strength’ the truthfulness of the BOM and the blacks never receiving the priesthood, or at least he did not sincerely ask God with the same earnestness. JS was comfortable with theorising, sadly a trait of some GA’s is not to ratify personal opinions and to teach them as truth with equal zeal as they would testify.

In a letter to Eugene England, BRM identified false teachings of Brigham Young and explained that Prophets can err and it is our personal responsibility to compare what’s taught to the scriptures. This highlights the value of correlation.

my point is I don’t believe BRM, BY and others check and confirm there views are always in line with Gods will, they form opinions based on there environment and “attempt to steady arks” or gratify their pride. if they did we might have different storyline’s to church history.

Hawkgrrl, Paul’s vision on the road to Damascus was certainly an instance where he talked with Jesus face to face. But are you trying to say that after this vision this was a common occurrence? I don’t think so, and I don’t recall any scriptures where Paul saw Jesus again after this vision. The visions of Peter, Paul, Moses, Joseph Smith are rare events, which is why we talk about them so much in scripture. I don’t think Pres Monson, or President Young sat down with Jesus on a weekly basis, nor did Enos, or Amos, or Obadiah. Even Pres Snow’s revelation on tithing in The Windows of Heaven isn’t portrayed as a face to face chat. I think too many people act like the prophet sits down in the Holy of Holies and they just shoot the breeze about Prop 8, Main Street Plaza, pornography, or whatever the issues of the day are, and I just don’t buy that.

Clearly, an important issue that doesn’t really answer the question but makes it perhaps somewhat inconsequential is the fact that a member’s inspiration to believe the BOM does not affect other members lives but a bishop’s “inspiration” to condemn this or that (perhaps something a member deems harmless) would have a strong impact on a member of the ward and cause the member to analyze whether the bishop’s inspiration was truly inspired or misguided.

I find it curious that so many members “inspirations” are criticized when they may be feeling the same exact feelings they had when they believed they came to a knowledge of the truth of the gospel. So how can we blame them for believing in their inspiration just as strongly? For example, if Bruce R. McConkie felt that the Catholic Church was the whore of all the earth and that blacks would never have the priesthood with the same strength that he felt the BOM was true how can we discount the feelings about the catholic church and the blacks but validate his original feelings about the BOM?

If that’s the case, then what’s the point? It’s not an issue of my being “satisfied” with it, this just seems pointless. It’s the blind leading the blind of prophets have no more access to god then you or I.

“Paul said, “For now we see through a glass, darkly;”

This doesn’t apply to prophets/apostles. Paul had a pretty clear image when jesus appeared to him.

“This is not satisfactory for non-believers. Some people (both believers and non-believers) seem to believe the prophet is a fortune-teller”

They don’t have to predict the future, but when they prophecy, it better be spot on. They are called the mouthpiece of god for a reason.

“God can’t be the same, and keep offering new revelation.”

Exactly! Spot on.

“Some will say, “isn’t that convenient?” Well, I suppose it is.”

Awesome. Now you’re getting it!

“But what other option is there?”

ummm, apostasy?

“At this point, we risk failing to follow the prophet when we should have. Some people take this risk, others do not. ”

what? where is prayer fitting into this? Is your testimony based on risk analysis? Please tell me you don’t believe in god just in case he does exist.

“But I believe that God is merciful toward those who truly try to seek his will, and he does know the intents of our hearts.”

road to hell is paved with ^^^

BTW, thanks for coming back to the discussion!

the d&c 132 also talks not only about wives, but concubines as godly too. while think could apply to hagar rather than a full wife, I just don’t think concubines are godly. abraham is an example of righteousness regarding polygamy which seems to ignore his treatment of hagar, which I find reprehensible.

Although I personally think future predictions would be far more interesting and exciting than simple changes and policies, (Darren Brown Style), I do agree they are less important, my only wish is that these simple changes would be more proactive than reactive, the church has struggled with this for a long time. Revelation such as WoW, Perpetual education fund, building of Temples, paying for church programs out of tithes, and many more have been proactive. The Manifesto sadly seems to be a reactive change.

However, I also agree conceptually that future-prediction type prophets are less interesting and less important than ones making simple changes and policies. It’s easy to be Nostradamus. Make a few cryptic statements or write a few lines of bad poetry, and let people spin it for the next thousand years.

Then what’s our next example? Jacob, given Leah before the woman he truly desired, Rachel. That didn’t go so well either, except of course, Jacob had like five kids with her! And then some servant or slave, and then finally Rachel. Weren’t Joseph and Benjamin his only kids with the woman he truly loved? And how about the other kids? How did they turn out? Well, Dinah goes out and has sex outside the covenant, and her brothers think she was raped, so they go and murder everybody in the town, against their sister’s wishes. Lovely.

What’s next? David? I can’t remember, maybe someone else can help, how many wives he had before he laid his eyes on the lovely Bathsheba. The silly man apparently didn’t get enough.

Solomon? Didn’t he have like 600 wives and concubines? Wow. Can’t get those these days can you?

Are there any examples from the Old Testament of polygamy done by any standard of right?

For believers, God says he “will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept.” (1 Ne 28:30.) This means God doesn’t reveal things in their entirety, not even to prophets or apostles. Paul said, “For now we see through a glass, darkly;” (1 Cor 13:12)

This is not satisfactory for non-believers. Some people (both believers and non-believers) seem to believe the prophet is a fortune-teller, who can foresee perfectly in the future, without mistakes. Such an opinion does not seem to square with the scriptures above, or real life, IMO. I will admit that church leaders don’t seem to discourage this “fortune-teller” type belief, as it is easier to lead when nobody questions a leader. However, I think my previous paragraph is a more accurate depiction of revelation.

So how do we square “God is the same yesterday, today, and forever” with “continuing revelation?” Conceptually those two concepts are paradoxical. God can’t be the same, and keep offering new revelation. So, I think this is where one has to be pragmatic. As I said before, “the OT says the test of a true prophecy is to view it after the fact.” We know from scripture that God doesn’t offer everything to the prophet. Once we have data, it is much easier to know true prophecy.

Some will say, “isn’t that convenient?” Well, I suppose it is. I understand that this is a bit of Monday Morning Quarterback. But what other option is there? We can choose to benefit from the data before us, or we can ignore it and continue on in the same direction blindly without course corrections. It seems much more reliable to use the data, IMO.

Certainly, people in the here and now are at a disadvantage when a prophet speaks, because they are without data. We have a few options. (1) We can choose to follow the prophet, right or wrong. That works for some people. We risk following the prophet when we shouldn’t have. (2) We can question the prophet, as the RLDS did. At this point, we risk failing to follow the prophet when we should have. Some people take this risk, others do not.

In statistics, this is analogous to Type 1 and Type 2 error. Neither error can be eliminated, but we like to make these errors as infrequently as possible. Usually we are forced to choose one of the other. In a medical study, we balance not telling a person when they have cancer (type 1), vs falsely telling a person they have cancer, when they do not (type 2). Whether a person chooses Type 1 error vs Type 2 error depends on the ramifications of the error. Losing a non-cancerous body part is generally preferable to dying from a cancerous tumor. If it turns out the body part was non-cancerous, some people sue the doctor, while others are relieved it was benign. Religion can offer the same dilemmas, as well as the sue/relieved reactions.

We are told to gain our own testimony of every principle. Most people would rather rely on a church leader. It is easier to be told what to do, because if it’s wrong, one can then blame the leader. It is much harder to work for a testimony. Even when one does work for a testimony, one can be mistaken, once again because “we see through a glass, darkly.” It’s a hard decision to make–I grant that. But I believe that God is merciful toward those who truly try to seek his will, and he does know the intents of our hearts. We will make Type 1 or Type 2 errors in regards to following prophets. It is not foolproof. We still have to make decisions on incomplete information, just as a cancer doctor does. God is the ultimate judge, and I’m sure we will all second-guess him just as we second-guess each other down here, though I expect he is a better judge than any of us. Believers believe a prophet type 1 error is small, non-believers don’t.

Finally, to answer your question about the “7ft tall men live on the moon that dress like the quaker oats guy”, that sounds like a fortune-teller type prophet, which I think is an unsophisticated view of prophets. In cases where such pronouncements are made by a prophet, we seek our testimony, and we can use our benefit of 20/20 hindsight to evaluate things. I don’t think God cares about such issues nearly as much as he cares how we treat each other. I can be a hypocrite sometimes, as we all can be. I’m sorry when I fall short. But I strive to be an improver, and not too optimistic or pessimistic. (See Andrew A’s post–I highly recommend it.) Yet I still fall short often, just as current prophets do. When prophets tells us they have weaknesses, we still want to ignore those pronouncements in favor of a more romantic, perfect fortune-telling prophet. Pragmatism isn’t romantic, but it is realistic and incorporates both healthy optimism and healthy skepticism, IMO.

He points out, that whenever a “revelation” falls into the category of “right” (according to the beholder’s perspective) it was inspired. But when revelation is considered “wrong” it was uninspired. So basically a prophet could say he had a revelation that 7ft tall men live on the moon that dress like the quaker oats guy, and it can be “right” at the time, but a hundred years or so later it can be “wrong”. it’s a flawed way of looking at things, and (as dexter points out), many people hold this view, including you MH. So, please, if this is a false assessment of your beliefs, explain the error instead of writing him off as bitter. thanks.

But you are the saint here, right? You are doing the Lord’s work when you say that I have “never” contributed anything positive. I applaud your tact. You are a fine example of it.

And I meant every word when I said, “May you all have love and joy in your lives. Thank you.” If you don’t want to believe me that is up to you.

And although I am offended at your little homework assignment to produce a post where I wasn’t bitter, 18 is one, and I love how you label it as a set-up for bitterness later. You see the future! Amazing. How about when I said this?

Dexter
Sep 29th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
I would not want my teenage daughter being asked about what she is or isn’t doing with boys. And I’m pretty sure I would feel that way whether I were active in the church or not. Just my personal view.

Who was I being bitter towards there?

Who sounds more bitter? Me or you?

I said if it looks ridiculous it is ridiculous.

You said I have never contributed anything postive. Never is a strong word.
You said no one has ever learned from any comment I have ever made. Wow, you can read minds?!?!?!?!?
You said I am always patronizing and bitter and it seems every post is to pick a fight. Always ia another strong word, one I often hear teenage girls use, along with never, when they are throwing a fit.
You said I have nothing nice to say about anything.
You said I enjoy conflict and biterness. Interesting. I don’t remember meeting you.
You said I sidetrack into personal attacks? That is hilarious. I made a general comment. But you constantly attack me personally.
You said I obviously struggle with interpersonal communication. Wow.
You said I can’t communicate tactfully.

But again, let me remind all of what I said. I said if it looks ridiculous it is ridiculous.

So who is the one guilty of personal attacks here? Who is the master of tact?

Truth is truth, to the end of reckoning. I am here to speak the truth, sought through reason and logic, if you take it to be hard, that is your choice. I will leave the niceties to the wonderful examples of kindness, like you, MH, a truly Christ like gentleman.

And thanks for the readiong recommendation!

You don’t have to be bitter–just make comments like Andrew in #26, instead of picking fights. Please. You’ll gain respect and friends if you do. Until then, you’re just a bitter person who has nothing nice to say about anything. Really, please point me to your last positive comment. #18 was close–at least not bitter by itself, but it was just a setup for later bitterness, wasn’t it?

I’d love for you to contribute REAL, honest compliments (yes plural) towards Mormonism, in the way Andrews’ or Cowboy does. They don’t believe, yet they don’t antagonize. It’s TRULY a skill I wish you would develop. Their comments don’t drip of bitterness like yours do. May you learn not to be bitter.

And if compliments are just too difficult for you, I’d love for you to comment on posts without picking a fight with someone. Really. Give it a try. You’ll find pleasant responses from me. From our interactions, it seems you enjoy the conflict and bitterness, and sidetracking the discussion into personal attacks. Then you feign not to understand why people react negatively to you. For someone who prides himself as a “logical and rational” person who “stick[s] to making arguments based on the issue”, you sure haven’t learned tact. Perhaps you should read “How to Win Friends and Influence People” since you’re obviously struggling so much with interpersonal communications. I think the author would easily recommend making comments like “If it looks ridiculous, maybe that’s because it is ridiculous” is a poor choice of words.

It is ridiculous that you still can’t communicate tactfully, after so much feedback from others. If you really don’t want to pick a fight, choose your words more carefully, or follow the advice, “If you don’t have anything nice to say, keep your [keyboard] shut.” If you want to complain and belittle, there are plenty of DAMU boards that enjoy that thing. This isn’t a DAMU board, if you haven’t noticed by now.