Renlund ties himself in knots during General Conference

[PseudoPaul]

That’s a great question. Not an easy one to share/transmit to another. For me, it’s more or less intuitive in the sense that I believe that I am experiencing something beyond myself. Something excluding a simple “tickling of the brain”, so to speak. One can only know for themselves whether or not they have received inspiration/revelation.

Unfortunately, these experiences can readily be transmitted/shared with others by means other than using words.

I have gone through periods of life where I have been more or less a strict materialist. As I’ve aged I no longer see materialism as the one and only true faith.

Regards,
MG

So it sounds like you just decide that some particular feeling or mental state is from God? Why would you make that kind of seemingly wild assumption?

We know from the 2016 LDS neurological study that people can be tricked into having a spiritual experience when fed the right false information. Can the Holy Ghost be tricked?

[MG 2.0]

That’s a great question. Not an easy one to share/transmit to another. For me, it’s more or less intuitive in the sense that I believe that I am experiencing something beyond myself. Something excluding a simple “tickling of the brain”, so to speak. One can only know for themselves whether or not they have received inspiration/revelation.

Unfortunately, these experiences can readily be transmitted/shared with others by means other than using words.

I have gone through periods of life where I have been more or less a strict materialist. As I’ve aged I no longer see materialism as the one and only true faith.

Regards,
MG

So it sounds like you just decide that some particular feeling or mental state is from God? Why would you make that kind of seemingly wild assumption?

We know from the 2016 LDS neurological study that people can be tricked into having a spiritual experience when fed the right false information. Can the Holy Ghost be tricked?

The experiences that I’ve had, which are few, have not been the “tickle the brain” kinds of experiences. I think I have had some experience with those sorts of brain changing experiences along the way. Especially…well only…during my younger years of playing around.

But again, I can only speak for myself as to the uniqueness of the experiences I’ve had. And I’m not going to share them here.

I also know some very level headed folks whose judgement I trust. In some cases these people are well aware, as I am, of the ‘god brain’ studies that have been done. And yet they believe they have had a unique experience that seemingly doesn’t have any plausible explanation except for an external influence.

And it’s not serendipity. I think I know what that is too. These revelatory experiences are of a different type. Yeah, I guess YOU could still chalk it up to brain chemistry if you want.

I am willing to give some credence to some of these experiences resulting in inspiration/revelation. Something in my mind (pun intended) more than elevation or brain chemistry.

My opinion. My experience.

YMMV.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

That’s a great question. Not an easy one to share/transmit to another. For me, it’s more or less intuitive in the sense that I believe that I am experiencing something beyond myself. Something excluding a simple “tickling of the brain”, so to speak. One can only know for themselves whether or not they have received inspiration/revelation.

Unfortunately, these experiences can readily be transmitted/shared with others by means other than using words.

I have gone through periods of life where I have been more or less a strict materialist. As I’ve aged I no longer see materialism as the one and only true faith.

Regards,
MG

So it sounds like you just decide that some particular feeling or mental state is from God? Why would you make that kind of seemingly wild assumption?

We know from the 2016 LDS neurological study that people can be tricked into having a spiritual experience when fed the right false information. Can the Holy Ghost be tricked?

Well, if you don’t mind another response, according to Renlund, it’s only a legit experience if it agrees with the current Mormon rules. The Holy Ghost has to toe the line too, AND figure out the current variations in the changingness of the supposedly unchanging doctrine. AND pretend that he’s always been that way. It must be difficult.

[JohnW]

I think that is exactly what I am saying. Only it isn't meaningless. On the contrary, it may be the only thing that is meaningful when discussing how humans interact with logic. You see, whenever we interact with logic we can only perceive it imperfectly because of a lack of information. It's hard to explain.

Let me try to come up with an example: Your child asks why the sky is blue. You respond that the reason is Raleigh scattering. Your child dismisses that as nonsense and responds that she had heard that airplane contrails have a blue tint to them and that spreads out to cause the sky to be blue. You accuse her of being illogical. Well, if she has no concept of Raleigh scattering (which is the real reason the sky is blue), then all sorts of things can be logical from her perspective. Little kids could even argue that someone splashed too much blue paint in the sky. Frankly, when dealing with logic, we are much more like little kids than we would like to admit.

John: You're comparing the failed logic of a cardiologist who serves as an Apostle in the One True Church (as he speaks to the entire world in a conference broadcast), to yourself as you mistake a gas line for a waterline, and to a wee child asking why the sky is blue. You're suggesting all three of you miss the mark because you're all innocently ignorant. None of these are examples of something being illogical but nevertheless true.

No, what I think E. Renlund is trying to say is that sometimes things just aren't as simple as they appear at first. He is trying to get at a deeper understanding of spiritual communication. It is a complex topic. It is understandable that some people may not catch the deeper level, especially those who may not believe in spiritual communication in the first place. I used the cases when things are illogical but still true as one type of situation where things aren't as simple as they might appear. I apologize that I don't seem to be getting my point across. Maybe Gadianton would do better explaining what I'm trying to get at.

[Marcus]

John: You're comparing the failed logic of a cardiologist who serves as an Apostle in the One True Church (as he speaks to the entire world in a conference broadcast), to yourself as you mistake a gas line for a waterline, and to a wee child asking why the sky is blue. You're suggesting all three of you miss the mark because you're all innocently ignorant. None of these are examples of something being illogical but nevertheless true.

No, what I think E. Renlund is trying to say is that sometimes things just aren't as simple as they appear at first. He is trying to get at a deeper understanding of spiritual communication.

No, he was pretty clear. He said if your spiritual revelation disagrees with lds leaders, then you are wrong.

[IHAQ]

No, what I think E. Renlund is trying to say is that sometimes things just aren't as simple as they appear at first. He is trying to get at a deeper understanding of spiritual communication. It is a complex topic. It is understandable that some people may not catch the deeper level, especially those who may not believe in spiritual communication in the first place. I used the cases when things are illogical but still true as one type of situation where things aren't as simple as they might appear. I apologize that I don't seem to be getting my point across. Maybe Gadianton would do better explaining what I'm trying to get at.

Ah, the old "As a special spiritual person I can see the deeper meaning behind the words that you non spiritual plebs are too stupid to discern."

It's not a complex topic at all. Renlund uses nice clear language. Let's use the paragraph about Nephi.

Some might point out that Nephi violated a commandment when he slew Laban. However, this exception does not negate the rule—the rule that personal revelation will be in harmony with God’s commandments.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... d?lang=eng
Clear language. And Renlund is clearly wrong. That exception clearly does run contrary to the rule that personal revelation will be in harmony with God's commandments. So Renlund has to go on a merry dance to try and explain away the contradiction.

No simple explanation of this episode is completely satisfactory, but let me highlight some aspects.

This is Renlund admitting he hasn't managed to satisfy himself that it isn't a contradiction, but he's going to show us his workings...

The episode did not begin with Nephi asking if he could slay Laban. It was not something he wanted to do. Killing Laban was not for Nephi’s personal benefit but to provide scriptures to a future nation and a covenant people. And Nephi was sure that it was revelation—in fact, in this case, it was a commandment from God.

Has Renlund satisfied us that Nephi killing Laban in cold blood isn't a breach of the rule that personal revelation will be in harmony with God's commandments? Renlund is saying that it's not breaking a commandment if you kill someone providing that:
- you believe it's a revelation to kill someone.
- you didn't want to kill that someone in the first place, and are only doing it because God commanded you to.
- you personally don't benefit from the killing.

That's what he said, in clear language, over the pulpit under the inspiration of God.

He also said this:

When we ask for revelation about something for which God has already given clear direction, we open ourselves up to misinterpreting our feelings and hearing what we want to hear.

God had already given clear direction about the idea of killing someone at the point Nephi chose to interpret his feelings as a go-ahead from God to slice off a sleeping man's head, as it was an easy means to an end. Perhaps Nephi misinterpreted his feelings and heard what he wanted to hear. He was, after all, frightened of Laban and wasn't able to convince Laban to give Nephi what he wanted. Maybe that's the deeper meaning here - that Nephi was a murderer who got away with it citing voices in his head and fleeing the country.

This is supposed to be a carefully crafted, divinely inspired, modern day scripture containing God's clear message for our day. It's a dogs breakfast. This is their chance to speak to the whole of the membership as an Apostle Of God. It happens only twice a year. So they have 6 months to prepare. I'd be surprised if Renlund spent 6 hours on this one. He's an Apostle explaining to the membership about Revelation. If he doesn't know how it works, to the point he can explain it, what does that say about his connection as an Apostle to divinity? He can't explain how revelation works, beyond "Obey", yet we are to believe he's a special witness? If this talk had been given by a member at Sacrament Meeting, the congregation would be discounting it as a rambling incoherent jumble of self-contradictory personal opinions - which is exactly what it is.

[Philo Sofee]

IHAQ
Has Renlund satisfied us that Nephi killing Laban in cold blood isn't a breach of the rule that personal revelation will be in harmony with God's commandments? Renlund is saying that it's not breaking a commandment if you kill someone providing that:
- you believe it's a revelation to kill someone.
- you didn't want to kill that someone in the first place, and are only doing it because God commanded you to.
- you personally don't benefit from the killing.

That's what he said, in clear language, over the pulpit under the inspiration of God.

Ironically, by this definitional prescription, the Lafferty's are justified and innocent as well. And there is not a single Mormon I am aware of who would think this. Nephi gets a break, no one else does.

[dastardly stem]

Renlund should just unapologetically say nephi killing Laban fits nicely with the Old Testament god who delights in murder for his sake. I mean wasn’t god going to have him killed anyway for not listening to the prophet Lehi and other prophets who were telling them they need to repent so god would make a mockery of free agency again and intervene…or was he intervening to destroy the wicked generation again? Not sure it’s very clear here.

Of course whether Joseph smith wrote the story or not ain’t all that problematic in An Old Testament setting anyway. It wouldn’t be problematic in a Christian history setting either since there were waves of god wanting to see heretics and infidels murdered, apparently, depending on his mood. “Kill them all” might be a more common command from god than ”you shouldn’t murder”. The latter he only threw in their once. The former he had commanded many times before Jospeh’s day and plenty of times before the mythical Nephis day too.

“Oh my god”, says god, “I command them to kill and somehow some mythical story about Moses has me telling them not to kill and that trumps everything else I say? Goddammit I can’t get these imbeciles to hear me consistently…‘ugh might as well send these other losers in to wipe ‘em out.”

Ya think about it nephi killing Laban should be used by these Mormon apologists as evidence the story fits in well with the Old Testament, and would be wise not to point out how god wanted Christians killing other Christians, heretics and infidels in a more recent setting more familiar to joe anyway (because, you know, that might upset other Christians). “Gods ways are not our ways, and murdering is his way of getting sh1t done.” Sounds like a decent apologetic compared to all the rest of it. At least in This case they’d be staying true to god as has been traditionally believed.

[Morley]

John: You're comparing the failed logic of a cardiologist who serves as an Apostle in the One True Church (as he speaks to the entire world in a conference broadcast), to yourself as you mistake a gas line for a waterline, and to a wee child asking why the sky is blue. You're suggesting all three of you miss the mark because you're all innocently ignorant. None of these are examples of something being illogical but nevertheless true.

No, what I think E. Renlund is trying to say is that sometimes things just aren't as simple as they appear at first. He is trying to get at a deeper understanding of spiritual communication. It is a complex topic. It is understandable that some people may not catch the deeper level, especially those who may not believe in spiritual communication in the first place. I used the cases when things are illogical but still true as one type of situation where things aren't as simple as they might appear. I apologize that I don't seem to be getting my point across. Maybe Gadianton would do better explaining what I'm trying to get at.

Oh, I think I understand what you're saying. I'm not suggesting that all Truths (capital T) are logically accessible to all people. I just don't think that you make the case that Elder Renlund's speech is both illogical and true--and inaccessible because the subject is either too intellectually complex or that, umm, some spiritual stuff we nonbelievers can't understand.

...

edit: Thank you for engaging, John. You do so with grace.

[Dr Moore]

The church teaches members that it's OK to have questions, but not OK to question.

As a result, members who defend the faith inevitably tie themselves in knots trying to defend what authorities say. They'll explore all kinds of ways to reconcile contradictions. It's kind of funny, actually.

Because what defenders of Mormonism don't do is ask the question of what could have been, that would be better AND non-contradictory.

With Laban, for instance, murder didn't have to happen. Period.

Nephi could have just stolen the plates and never approached Laban in the first place. Or, he could have prayed for Laban to "forget" their encounter, thus avoiding being chased through the wilderness. Or, Lehi could have found a stone in a streambed and used it to see/translate the plates. Or, an angel could have brought them the plates. Or, or, or...

But the story has Laban being murdered in a blatant contradiction of current and former church teachings, and so leaders and defenders are predictably working their hamster wheels to "learn from" and gain "understanding" from this episode. What they're not doing is questioning or challenging the logic, exploring ways the story could have ended well and not required God-sanctioned murder.