Where did I do that?
You conceded the Bible also demonstrates unreliable revelation here:
Such is evident in scripture too. Balaam for example. He had an even greater manifestation than the HG and he still went astray. There is Jonah. There are Peter and the rest of the disciples in Acts not immediately agreeing that Peter's revelation dictates the gospel should be preached to the Gentiles, etc.
In other words, we already know and understand that the prophets aren't perfect and don't need to be told that. It's a built in conception of our doctrine which is why you guys fail to gain much traction with it.
How so? We know their personal opinions are not always reliable, I said nothing about their revelations being unreliable. Instead, I showed you from the scriptures how the Lord helps us determine what is and is not revelation / doctrine.
Once again, for old time's sake. I'm talking about when prophets and apostles speak to the body of the church, IN THE NAME OF Jesus Christ, while functioning in their callings. I am generously assuming that they care enough about teaching correct principles that they prayed beforehand for inspiration and guidance, and prayed immediately prior to the talk for that same inspiration and guidance. Inspiration, guidance = plea for personal revelation. And yet they still taught false teachings.
You just choose to call their false teachings "personal opinions", as if that changes any of the facts I just outlined. You call it "personal opinion", even when THEY did not view it as "personal opinion" because it is an example of FAILED revelation.
And yet they signed it.
Big deal.
Hard to forget an angel, or some large metal plates.
Ask Joseph Smith how easy it was for HIM to remember the details of the First Vision.
How so? Just because you haven't experienced it (or noticed it) doesn't preclude it's validity.
How many times do I have to repeat myself before you actually HEAR??? See above explanation of failed revelation. Your prophets and apostles do not obtain reliable revelation in order to help them teach correct principles across the pulpit no matter how hard they try.
Here's the past post about ambiguous revelation:
Maybe this analogy will help me demonstrate my point.
Let's say I need to take some measurements in order to plan a construction project. "Instrument X" is offered to me as a means to obtain the knowlege I want - the lengths of certain plots. However, "instrument X" has a history of producing results that are ambigious. It is unknown exactly why this occurs, but the history of its use demonstrates quite clearly that, even when used by 'experts', the results are ambigious. This ambiguity is not a problem with many minor projects, but it would be a problem with the more important projects. When I express concern over the reliability of instrument X due to the past reliability issue, I am told by the folks who are comfortable using instrument X that when the project is important enough, instrument X will no longer produced ambigious results. I wonder why, when it's the same instrument, used by the same user. What reason would I have to trust that the same instrument is capable of completely clear and accurate results when it has such a long history of ambigious results? And if it is capable of clear and accurate results for important projects, why would it not simply produce those type of results for all projects?
Now, communication between God and man is instrument X. Although it can be called by various names, for simplicity, I'll call it revelation. Here are some generic groups I've noticed within Mormonism (again, please use common sense and accept that variations exist, and that this is not unique to Mormonism). I'm going to use the terms I've seen used on this board.
Group A: fundamentalist: There is no ambiguity in the results. Any apparent ambiguity is a result of human error in record keeping or clearly understanding the words of the person reporting the results.
Group B: liberal (I'll call them cafeteria liberals) There is some ambiguity to be expected, this is normal and human. But this ambiguity is only a factor in periphereal issues, the foundational issues of the church have no ambiguity.
Group C: full blown liberal: All religion is predicated on a certain degree of ambiguity, and that includes Mormonism. Although there is no way that I can have assurance that I, personally, am not erronneous in my conclusions, and will not be judgmental towards those who have concluded differently, I believe Mormonism is just as valid as any other religious path, and it is the one that I prefer.
Group A is consistent, although they may be challenged in proving their case. Group C is consistent. Group B is inconsistent.
Group B tends to defend their inconsistency by stating, or insinuating, that there are different types of revelation and that some is so clear that there can be no doubt as to the conclusion. Leaving aside the question of why, if that degree of clarity is possible between man and God, why then doesn't God be consistent in his clarity - there remains the problem that, since revelation is inherently subjective and impossible to share, one never knows how "strong" one's own revelation actually is, comparatively speaking. Perhaps the strongest revelation one has ever received is actually quite tepid and weak in comparison to the revelation someone of a different belief system has received. I've seen this argument used to explain how people can receive spiritual assurances about faiths other than the "one true" church, Mormonism, but the knife cuts both ways.
Let's demonstrate:
Born Again EV: I have received assurance that I am saved!!! It was such a strong experience I have no doubt of its validity. I have no interest in finding a "more true" faith because of the strength of this experience. People who think they have had spiritual assurances about OTHER faiths are being misled, either by satan, or because they haven't experienced an event as strong, and clear, as my own.
Mormon: I have received a testimony of the truthfulness of the church!!! It is such a strong experience I have no doubt of its validity. I have no interest in finding a "more true" faith because of the strength of this experience. People who think they have had spiritual assurances about OTHER faiths are being misled, either by satan, or because they haven't experienced an event as strong, and clear, as my own.
??????: I have received a witness of the truth of (faith X). It is such a strong experience I have no doubt of its validity. I have no interest in finding a "more true" faith because of the strength of this experience. People who think they have had spiritual assurances about OTHER faiths are being misled, either by satan, or because they haven't experienced an event as strong, and clear, as my own.
Now, the entire problem is that NONE of these people can ever KNOW what the other experienced, and hence, has absolutely no rational justification for dismissing the others' as less strong or clear. And each person has no way of knowing whether or not an even MORE clear or strong experience could be had in another faith.
The result: ambiguity.
Yes, ambiguity is a part of life, a part of all communications, and, by definition of the experience, an inevitable part of revelation. Either embrace it in its entirety or stop trying to pretend that you do.