The Nehor wrote:No, they should probably keep it to themselves out of a sense of duty and obedience. Most people who learn such things also have enough faith to know that God can steady the ark when he wishes and does not need their help to do it. If he wanted them to correct it, he'd give them the keys to do so.
No, they should keep it to themselves because it's personal, and not for anyone else. That's why it's called personal inspiration, or personal revelation.
Duh.
Yes, that is obedience. If, as you say, you SHOULD keep it to yourself that implies that God wants you to keep it to yourself. Hence, it is obedience.
Duh.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
RockSlider wrote:I like to call it part of the "preamble to the oath and covenant of the priesthood"
D&C section 84 verse 19
"And this greater apriesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the bkey of the cmysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the dknowledge of God."
Hmmm, seems (at least the males) should have the keys
That depends...does everyone who has the Priesthood have those keys or are they keys that belong to the Priesthood and are held by Priesthood leaders? I don't know.
On the other hand since women enter the order of the higher priesthood they would have access to those keys if all Priesthood leaders do.
I don't want to get pedantic but the word 'keys' in LDS scripture can have different meanings based on context.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
I always leaned towards no respector of persons and every member a prophet types of concepts
Church leaders are ecclesiastical, if you've been to the temple, you should known that the plan is patriarchal (King/Priest/Holy Order based) ... see alma chapter 13
Why would/do you put so much weight on the current "leaders"
The Nehor wrote:Yes, note the Holy Ghost proviso at the end.
Experience shows me that invoking the Holy Ghost to justify disagreement with General Authorities (even if it is true) is the best way to find oneself labeled as an apostate (the real, scary kind!). If the Holy Ghost tells an active member an apostle is wrong about something, they should probably just keep it to themselves, for their own good.
Yes indeed. Members are entitled to their own spiritual witness, as long as it agrees with the convictions of Mormon authority figures.
Morrissey wrote:Yes indeed. Members are entitled to their own spiritual witness, as long as it agrees with the convictions of Mormon authority figures.
Members are entitled to their own spiritual witness, even if it disagrees with leaders, as long as they keep it to themselves. Ya only get in trouble if ya share that which is personal.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Morrissey wrote:Yes indeed. Members are entitled to their own spiritual witness, as long as it agrees with the convictions of Mormon authority figures.
Members are entitled to their own spiritual witness, even if it disagrees with leaders, as long as they keep it to themselves. Ya only get in trouble if ya share that which is personal.
I'd rephrase that to say that ya only get in trouble if ya share that which contradicts Mormon authority figures.
I think you might also get in trouble if you share really wacky ideas/theories. (Although what can be more wacky than angels, gold plates, angels with flaming swords, etc?) More likely in this case to suffer social ostracization than official censure. Authority figures tend to butt in when you challenge their authority.
Morrissey wrote: I think you might also get in trouble if you share really wacky ideas/theories. (Although what can be more wacky than angels, gold plates, angels with flaming swords, etc?) More likely in this case to suffer social ostracization than official censure. Authority figures tend to butt in when you challenge their authority.
It doesn't even have to be authority figures. It can be a member in the next pew. If what you share contradicts what's taught, the default "truth" goes to the church, the rumor mill gets turning, and then you're screwed (or saved, depending on your perspective).
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
harmony wrote:Members are entitled to their own spiritual witness, even if it disagrees with leaders, as long as they keep it to themselves. Ya only get in trouble if ya share that which is personal.
Harmony, I agree with your thoughts on personal revelation being personal, however, a more truthful statement would be "Ya only get in trouble if ya share that which is personal, and it disagrees with the brethren"
Morrissey wrote: I think you might also get in trouble if you share really wacky ideas/theories. (Although what can be more wacky than angels, gold plates, angels with flaming swords, etc?) More likely in this case to suffer social ostracization than official censure. Authority figures tend to butt in when you challenge their authority.
It doesn't even have to be authority figures. It can be a member in the next pew. If what you share contradicts what's taught, the default "truth" goes to the church, the rumor mill gets turning, and then you're screwed (or saved, depending on your perspective).
The moral of this story is... if you get inspiration that is contrary to established doctrine, and you value your membership in the church, don't share it. If you share, don't be surprised when your local authority shows up on your doorstep.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.