Mormonism's accomodating nature

[_the road to hana]

Point out where I've denied the basic premise.

Again, Joseph Smith's claims are according to whom?

I edited my previous post while you were posting this.

Spiritual confirmation and revelation are by nature private events. Joseph's claims of revelation are according to Joseph, confirmed in individuals by the spiritual witness. So by whom? By Joseph. By me. By other faithful members.

So it would then be impossible for the Spirit to tell you that someone who claimed to be a "prophet" was not telling the truth?

[_the road to hana]

So if you don't accept inspiritation or revelation in the first place, why are we even talking about this?

If you'd point out to me where I claimed not to accept inspiration or revelation, I'd be very much obliged.

[_charity]

So it would then be impossible for the Spirit to tell you that someone who claimed to be a "prophet" was not telling the truth?

It would not be possible for the Spirit to confirm the idea "The prophet is not telling the truth." While the prophet was speaking, there would be a lack of the confirming spirit which we have felt on other occasions to the truth. There might be a sense of confusion. But the thought "The prophet is not telling the truth" would not be confirmed.

[_Runtu]

It would not be possible for the Spirit to confirm the idea "The prophet is not telling the truth." While the prophet was speaking, there would be a lack of the confirming spirit which we have felt on other occasions to the truth. There might be a sense of confusion. But the thought "The prophet is not telling the truth" would not be confirmed.

Are those the only two options? A confirming positive spirit, or a stupor of thought (sense of confusion)? If I recall correctly Joseph Smith had a much more expansive view of the workings of the spirit than you seem to.

[_the road to hana]

So it would then be impossible for the Spirit to tell you that someone who claimed to be a "prophet" was not telling the truth?

It would not be possible for the Spirit to confirm the idea "The prophet is not telling the truth." While the prophet was speaking, there would be a lack of the confirming spirit which we have felt on other occasions to the truth. There might be a sense of confusion. But the thought "The prophet is not telling the truth" would not be confirmed.

There you have it. It is impossible, according to you, for someone to know if someone is a false prophet.

[_Sethbag]

So it would then be impossible for the Spirit to tell you that someone who claimed to be a "prophet" was not telling the truth?

It would not be possible for the Spirit to confirm the idea "The prophet is not telling the truth." While the prophet was speaking, there would be a lack of the confirming spirit which we have felt on other occasions to the truth. There might be a sense of confusion. But the thought "The prophet is not telling the truth" would not be confirmed.

I'm sorry, Charity, but I call bullsh*t. What you propose is utterly ridiculous, and so I rightfully ridicule it.

You propose that God cannot confirm, through the spirit, that something is not true. He would only confirm this through a lack of confirmation that it is true.

But that's the same thing one gets when one, according to you and other TBMs, "doesn't do it right." If you don't ask right, or with enough faith, or with enough sincerity, or whatever, you get the exact same response from God as he would give to confirm that something is not true?

So, all I have to do when I want to know whether the Prophet is speaking the truth about something is, say, don't do my home teaching, or jack off, or think a dirty thought, and suddenly the non-answer through the Spirit that I would get is the exact same thing one would expect to get from God confirming something as not true?

How brain-dead. I'm sorry, you've always shown a propensity to make crap up as you go along just to win the argument, but falling back on the notion that the LDS God cannot, or will not, or whatever, ever confirm to someone through the Spirit that something is not true, is right up there with the worst of them.

You do realize that you completely eviscerate a great deal of Mormon epistemology, right?

[_charity]

How brain-dead. I'm sorry, you've always shown a propensity to make crap up as you go along just to win the argument, but falling back on the notion that the LDS God cannot, or will not, or whatever, ever confirm to someone through the Spirit that something is not true, is right up there with the worst of them.

You do realize that you completely eviscerate a great deal of Mormon epistemology, right?

Doctrine and Covenants 9: 8 . . .if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right. But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.


I did not make that up.

About about "Mormon thought" :

You and road to hana has confabulated two separate things. One is the confirming witness of the HolyGhost. And the second is direct revelation. I don't know road to hana's background in the Church, but I thought you knew what you were talking about, but you were just wrong. Now I am beginning to wonder about that.

[_the road to hana]

I did not make that up.

No. Joseph Smith did.

[_ludwigm]

One thing about "we are told to seek our spiritual confirmation of everything".
Show me ONE case, when ONE member has found the spiritual confirmation: I am not hearing the truth (and has said: this prophet, apostle, GA, president of any level is not right in this case) and after this he/she
- wasn't excommunicated
- hasn't leave
One case, please.

The Spirit does not testify to falsehood. The Spirit testifies to truth. So a person will never get a witness from the Spirit that says "this is not true."

What for the "spiritual confirmation", then. If the answer can be only YES, then the question is redundant.

In East-Europe, during the wildest socialism, there was elections in every 4 years. Official, valid ones.
Every candidate have got the 99.92 - 99.98% majority. The poll rooms (does this expression exists?), opened at 6.00, was closed at 12 - 14 with 100% participation, 6-8 hr before the official closing time.
Is it unbelievable? Then a little additional sacr.. er.. secret information:
- on the ballots there was one name only (the remaining 0.02-0.08% was not disagree, but invalid)
- who didn't attend up to 14.00, was apprehended (and the next time he/she knew his/her duty)
- at that day was always prohibition (the contemporary joke has said "one can not see two party or two candidate")

The Church has reached this level with different means.
We have overstepped the socialism.

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Charity, you wrote on page 1:

One of the major features of the Restoration is that we can all approach God. We don't have to go through ministers, preaches, popes, etc. to tell us what to think about the scriptures.

Did the world need the "Restoration" to know this? Peoples have been doing that through all time. Not all of course. But enough to have 1,000 +/- so-called Christian sects. LDSism being one of them.

Just for clarification, that you might have already addressed: Are you suggesting Mormons do not give any attention to what their Bishop, EQP, Stake President, GA, Prophet says "about the scriptures"? Warm regards, Roger