FAIR: A Prophet Doesn't Speak For God

[_beastie]

I answer you the same I did then. You have to ask what is the source of the conviciton?

1. God appeared in vision, as to Joseph Smith.
2. God sent a witness of the Holy Ghost. As with many of us.
3. God sent some mortal person to give you a personal message. Oral Roberts and his "give me money or God will kill me" sermon.
4. Some pre-determined event will mean that God is telling you something. The finding the $10 bill.
5. The source of the "revelation" could be Satan.

A person in conditions #3, #4, and #5 could be 100% convinced. But that would not be the same as #1 and #2.

Of course, for people who have a different idea the person who says they are right is going to seem arrogant. But it isn't arrogance if you really are right. And I am not going to say that I think I am wrong just to please any of you. We aren't talking about appetizer spread recipes. If I were to say, "I make the best Philadelphia cheese spread" that would be hubris. I could be wrong because that is a matter of opinion only. A person who doesn't like olives and green onions mixed in with Phily cheese wouldn't like mine.

But, while I have not had a vision, I can still put myself in the position of Joseph Smith when he quoted Paul. "I knew I had seen a vision, and I knew God knew I knew it. And I could not deny it." I have had a spiritual witness of the truthfulness of the Gospel. God knows I have, and I can't deny it. That's why I won't admit to you that maybe, just maybe, I could be wrong.

And as I told you then, the question is not the actual SOURCE of the "revelation", but rather whether or not the level of conviction in the particular individual that his or her revelation was from God has any correlation to whether or not they are actually correct, and it did come to God.

While it is not possible for us mere human beings to know exactly what does come from God, we can draw some justified conclusions based on what God "told" the individuals. You agreed that, without a doubt, there are times when human beings are absolutely convinced God told them something, and they are actually mistaken.

That is the point, Charity - all you have is your utter conviction, your certitude, that God told you something. This is what you're offering as evidence - your certitude God spoke to you.

Perhaps if you take a moment to consider all the human beings who have been completely convinced God spoke to THEM, too, and were obviously wrong, you'll understand why we consider it fatally flawed as far as serious evidence.

And once again, I'm not asking you to abandon your beliefs, but to remember that it's possible you're wrong, and that possibility to bestow some caution in using this, in particular, as serious evidence.

[_Mercury]

What is the purpose of prayer if there will be no change in the supposed fact after one prays? God sure is poor on the whole process-driven approach. Sounds like Elohim needs to get an MBA.

Prayers and confirmations aren't about facts. They are about faith.

If you think the universe would be in better hands with a Ken Lay you have a weird idea about eternity!

The nature of the Book of Mormon as an accurate account of Mesoamerica is a Fact I asked people to examine through prayer. The reality of the first vision is a fact. Once again your semantics are skewed and you need to go back to your dictionary. If someone needs faith in order to establish a reality in their mind then one can do this with anything.

I am perplexed why someone such as yourself can claim repeatedly that white is black and up is down just so their dumbass cult can keep sucking the prosperity out of the culture said cult relies on. You are culpable in this and if there is a hereafter then I do not envy the judgment that will be levied upon you. Shame and regret is what I would feel in your place, as I do for the people I lied to on my mission in order to get them baptized.

As you are still unable to discern the differences between "Principal" and "Among", I will not be holding my breath for your clarification on Faith vs Fact..

[_Scottie]

Of course, is a member prays and receives CONTRADICTORY information than the prophet, we all know who's wrong. They must not have prayed right, or maybe weren't worthy.

So the bit about praying for confirmation is nothing but frill.

The reason we pray for confirmation is that then we KNOW and not just think that the words are from God. A person can sometimes be talked out of a position they only think maybe is right. When you KNOW then you can't be deceived or deluded away from the truth.

Oh, yes, and just to clarify something. The Holy Ghost does not give CONTRADICTORY information. The Holy Ghost confirms or does not confirm. Beastie, I am sure you taught "the stupor of thought" concept.

And you miss the entire point, Charity. If a Prophet says "multiple earrings are wrong", and a member doesn't get that special sensation under their nipples, well, it is the member's fault.

The Cult will never be at fault.

Your philosophy is as off base as your anatomy.

So personally attack me, why? And I would spank you so hard with my anatomy.

I think she was referring to your nipples comment when talking about your anatomy.

[_Scottie]

I answer you the same I did then. You have to ask what is the source of the conviciton?

1. God appeared in vision, as to Joseph Smith.
2. God sent a witness of the Holy Ghost. As with many of us.
3. God sent some mortal person to give you a personal message. Oral Roberts and his "give me money or God will kill me" sermon.
4. Some pre-determined event will mean that God is telling you something. The finding the $10 bill.
5. The source of the "revelation" could be Satan.

A person in conditions #3, #4, and #5 could be 100% convinced. But that would not be the same as #1 and #2.

Of course, for people who have a different idea the person who says they are right is going to seem arrogant. But it isn't arrogance if you really are right. And I am not going to say that I think I am wrong just to please any of you. We aren't talking about appetizer spread recipes. If I were to say, "I make the best Philadelphia cheese spread" that would be hubris. I could be wrong because that is a matter of opinion only. A person who doesn't like olives and green onions mixed in with Phily cheese wouldn't like mine.

But, while I have not had a vision, I can still put myself in the position of Joseph Smith when he quoted Paul. "I knew I had seen a vision, and I knew God knew I knew it. And I could not deny it." I have had a spiritual witness of the truthfulness of the Gospel. God knows I have, and I can't deny it. That's why I won't admit to you that maybe, just maybe, I could be wrong.

And as I told you then, the question is not the actual SOURCE of the "revelation", but rather whether or not the level of conviction in the particular individual that his or her revelation was from God has any correlation to whether or not they are actually correct, and it did come to God.

While it is not possible for us mere human beings to know exactly what does come from God, we can draw some justified conclusions based on what God "told" the individuals. You agreed that, without a doubt, there are times when human beings are absolutely convinced God told them something, and they are actually mistaken.

That is the point, Charity - all you have is your utter conviction, your certitude, that God told you something. This is what you're offering as evidence - your certitude God spoke to you.

Perhaps if you take a moment to consider all the human beings who have been completely convinced God spoke to THEM, too, and were obviously wrong, you'll understand why we consider it fatally flawed as far as serious evidence.

And once again, I'm not asking you to abandon your beliefs, but to remember that it's possible you're wrong, and that possibility to bestow some caution in using this, in particular, as serious evidence.

I'm going to play apologist for a minute here.

Yes, it may be possible for us to get a revelation wrong once in a while. But when something is witnessed over and over and over again, THAT is when it becomes a spiritual truth.

What you seem to be saying is that since a prophet was wrong about one thing once, Charity could be wrong about something that has been reinforced probably hundreds of times to her.

[/apologist]

My whole problem with this is that many different faiths have convictions of the spirit. Even the FLDS. They use Moroni's promise as well. They have just as firm a conviction that Warren Jeffs is God's true prophet and that they are in the one true church. If anything, the FLDS church didn't succumb God's commandments to the pressures of man.

Isn't it funny that when Warren Jeffs is put in jail for his crimes, the LDS faithful speak about what a horrible man he is, but when the exact same thing happened to Joseph Smith, it was the wicked men of the world that placed the beloved prophet in there?

Sorry for the derailment...

[_charity]

The nature of the Book of Mormon as an accurate account of Mesoamerica is a Fact I asked people to examine through prayer.

In this instance, the purpose of the Book of Mormon is not to accurately place archeological sites on a map. The purpose of the Book of Mormon is to testify of the Savior. That is what a prayer for confirmation is about.

The reality of the first vision is a fact.

confirmation is not about where in a grove of trees it could have happened or on what specific date in early spring. It is about the heavens opening.

Once again your semantics are skewed and you need to go back to your dictionary. If someone needs faith in order to establish a reality in their mind then one can do this with anything.

It isn't to establish a reality. It is to confirm!

I am perplexed why someone such as yourself can claim repeatedly that white is black and up is down just so their dumbass cult can keep sucking the prosperity out of the culture said cult relies on.

Are you referring to tithing? I get more than my money's worth out of that tithing. A Church I can go to where they don't stick a colleciton plate in your face and stare at you until you stick a wad of bills in the plate. Temples I can attend. NO entrance fee. Programs, activities, all cost free. My kids had a prviate school education I couldn't have afforded at one of the other private schools. A back up welfare system that is the best in the world. It is cheap at the price.

You are culpable in this and if there is a hereafter then I do not envy the judgment that will be levied upon you. Shame and regret is what I would feel in your place, as I do for the people I lied to on my mission in order to get them baptized.

Culpable in what? People join the Church because they want to. They chose. Does that bother you that people can freely chose? Guess who else was bothered by choice?

As you are still unable to discern the differences between "Principal" and "Among",

I know what the two words mean and what they say. They don't say what your fevered brain has hallulcinated.

I will not be holding my breath for your clarification on Faith vs Fact..

What? Use a dictionary if you don't know the difference between faith and fact. Shsssssshhh.

[_malkie]

...

by the way, Charity, you already admitted to me, on a different thread, that it is possible for a believer to be absolutely convinced God communicated certain information to that person, and for that person to be wrong. Hence, it is equally possible for you, who absolutely is convinced God communicated with you, to also be wrong. Remember?

I answer you the same I did then. You have to ask what is the source of the conviciton?

1. God appeared in vision, as to Joseph Smith.
2. God sent a witness of the Holy Ghost. As with many of us.
3. God sent some mortal person to give you a personal message. Oral Roberts and his "give me money or God will kill me" sermon.
4. Some pre-determined event will mean that God is telling you something. The finding the $10 bill.
5. The source of the "revelation" could be Satan.

A person in conditions #3, #4, and #5 could be 100% convinced. But that would not be the same as #1 and #2.
...

What about:

6. Inquiry through the Urim & Thumim, or other seer stone?

When Joseph Smith sent Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery to Toronto to sell the copyright to the Book of Mormon, he was (presumably (;=) ) convinced that the instruction to do so was from God, as this was how he had previously interpreted (pun intended) information obtained by this method.

He later said that he was wrong - revelation can come from god, from satan, or from "men" (meaning his own mind/wishful thinking?).

Interestingly, he got the revelation that told him of his error by the same means as the revelation to sell the copyright.

If the prophet could make such a mistake in the first place, and could accept the same means of revelation to tell him that the first revelation was wrong, to me it casts serious doubt on the idea that there is any reliable method of telling when you have got a revelation from god and when it is from somewhere else.

Can you be certain, Charity, that the witness that you keep referring to as giving you an assurance that you have heard the "truth" is really, really from god? Can you conceive of the possibility that for all of your LDS life you have been following the promptings of "men" or of the devil? Do you have a means of discriminating that is superior to that employed by Joseph Smith?

Edited to add: for 5., you have not specified how you could tell that satan was the source.

[_ludwigm]

...

...
The Holy Ghost confirms or does not confirm.
...

As I have supplicated many times, please tell us one case when the Holy Ghost didn't confirm anything what any prophet has said.

If there is no such case then the whole "Holy Ghost" reference is moot.

[_The Nehor]

...

...
The Holy Ghost confirms or does not confirm.
...

As I have supplicated many times, please tell us one case when the Holy Ghost didn't confirm anything what any prophet has said.

If there is no such case then the whole "Holy Ghost" reference is moot.

Ummmm.....I've had it happen a few times.

[_Jason Bourne]

Of course, is a member prays and receives CONTRADICTORY information than the prophet, we all know who's wrong. They must not have prayed right, or maybe weren't worthy.

So the bit about praying for confirmation is nothing but frill.

The reason we pray for confirmation is that then we KNOW and not just think that the words are from God. A person can sometimes be talked out of a position they only think maybe is right. When you KNOW then you can't be deceived or deluded away from the truth.

Oh, yes, and just to clarify something. The Holy Ghost does not give CONTRADICTORY information. The Holy Ghost confirms or does not confirm. Beastie, I am sure you taught "the stupor of thought" concept.

So we pray to know make sure what that prophet says is true but the only correct answer is what he says is true. If I get an answer that says what he is saying is not true then I got the wrong answer. So why pray about it then. This seems redundant. And does this not really lead to defacto infallibility for LDS prophets?

And what about when prophets contradict each other or event themselves? When should a follow and when should I not? Infymus makes a decent point here. We continue to here that the pre-existence behavior resulting in black being denied the priesthood was not ever official. Yet we have and FP statement that says it was. So if I prayed about it in 1951 and got the answer that what they said was true who was wrong back then since now it is denied that was ever doctrinal? Or what if I prayed back then and was answered the teaching was not true. Then could I have bucked the system and so declared it that way? Oh let me see, someone did...Lowell Bennion...and he was fired from his job as an institute teacher.

Or how about coggins comment on the MEP thread. He states that the oral sex ban was never official. But we have that it was on a letter from the FP. So what good is a letter from the FP and if that is not official what the hell is?

THis is why for me I feel quite fine in cherry picking and staying LDS. Prophets and apologists do it all the time.

Oh by the way, I prayed about the two earing deal. It is not of God. God does not care how many earrings you have.

[_malkie]

...
Oh by the way, I prayed about the two earing deal. It is not of God. God does not care how many earrings you have.

Thanks Jason.

I'll let my TBM wife know - she didn't pray about it, I believe, because she figured that the GAs could not be wrong, and won't listen to me when i say that they can.

Needless to say, I didn't pray about it either, but for a different reason.