Mormon prophets can see around corners

[MG 2.0]

She was.

Regards,
MG

Can you see how her words might be interpreted otherwise given the title of her talk and context?

Listen to her talk.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

She was.

Regards,
MG

President Gordon B. Hinckley gave her personal revelation at General Conference in 1998? Cool.

Seems like a strange venue, broadcasting to the entire church, in order to give someone personal revelation.


[this space reserved for once again making words not mean what they mean]

OK, just read this. It sounds like you did pay her address some attention.

Personal revelation comes as we listen to the words of prophets in/at conference. It can come at other times and places.

My point is that personal revelation may come down/along a different track than revelation given to prophets in regards to larger geopolitical world events and/or natural disasters, etc.

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

Can you see how her words might be interpreted otherwise given the title of her talk and context?

Listen to her talk.

Regards,
MG

I've read it thoroughly. She doesn't use the phrase "personal revelation" even once.

I'm sure that you know since the latest prophet took over, personal revelation has taken a backseat to following revelation from prophets.

[MG 2.0]

The inspiration Sheri Dew received, it should be kept in mind, was for/to her as an individual. And again I would propose that revelation that comes to individuals may be handled differently by God than the revelation that may be and/or is given through prophets.

Regards,
MG

I don't think that's the message she was conveying:

all because I had followed a prophet’s counsel ten years earlier. Prophets help us see around corners

She wasn't talking about personal revelation, her talk was about prophets seeing around corners. The prophet saw around the corner and she followed.

We don’t know that she didn’t follow that counsel because she had already received personal revelation that prophets see around corners. As a result she had confidence in what the prophets have taught and then by association took what Pres. Hinckley said to heart.

My guess is that she had already received that personal revelation.

If she hadn’t received that personal revelation she may very possibly have decided not to follow the prophet’s counsel.

Those that haven’t received that personal confirmation that the prophets are chosen as God’s witness are less likely to follow counsel I would think?

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

I don't think that's the message she was conveying:



She wasn't talking about personal revelation, her talk was about prophets seeing around corners. The prophet saw around the corner and she followed.

We don’t know that she didn’t follow that counsel because she had already received personal revelation that prophets see around corners. As a result she had confidence in what the prophets have taught and then by association took what Pres. Hinckley said to heart.

My guess is that she had already received that personal revelation.

If she hadn’t received that personal revelation she may very possibly have decided not to follow the prophet’s counsel.

Those that haven’t received that personal confirmation that the prophets are chosen as God’s witness are less likely to follow counsel I would think?

Regards,
MG

I would imagine there is:

1) Personal revelation given to an individual
2) Revelation received through God's prophets

She's talking about 2. And you're saying she's following 2 by following 1, which may be true but not germane to the topic.

[malkie]

I don't think that's the message she was conveying:



She wasn't talking about personal revelation, her talk was about prophets seeing around corners. The prophet saw around the corner and she followed.

We don’t know that she didn’t follow that counsel because she had already received personal revelation that prophets see around corners. As a result she had confidence in what the prophets have taught and then by association took what Pres. Hinckley said to heart.

My guess is that she had already received that personal revelation.

If she hadn’t received that personal revelation she may very possibly have decided not to follow the prophet’s counsel.

Those that haven’t received that personal confirmation that the prophets are chosen as God’s witness are less likely to follow counsel I would think?

Regards,
MG

Seems to me like an awful lot of supposition on which to base your assumption and insistence that personal revelation was involved. A weak case is not made stronger by guessing, and by opining about what we don't know that she didn't do. Could have been, if we squint at it just the right way, or maybe there could possibly have been other things we have no knowledge of that came into play. Or something else entirely, ...

We also don't know if she was faking the whole thing, but I doubt that you would find such an argument very persuasive.

I don't really care either way, of course.

[MG 2.0]

We don’t know that she didn’t follow that counsel because she had already received personal revelation that prophets see around corners. As a result she had confidence in what the prophets have taught and then by association took what Pres. Hinckley said to heart.

My guess is that she had already received that personal revelation.

If she hadn’t received that personal revelation she may very possibly have decided not to follow the prophet’s counsel.

Those that haven’t received that personal confirmation that the prophets are chosen as God’s witness are less likely to follow counsel I would think?

Regards,
MG

Seems to me like an awful lot of supposition on which to base your assumption and insistence that personal revelation was involved. A weak case is not made stronger by guessing, and by opining about what we don't know that she didn't do. Could have been, if we squint at it just the right way, or maybe there could possibly have been other things we have no knowledge of that came into play. Or something else entirely, ...

We also don't know if she was faking the whole thing, but I doubt that you would find such an argument very persuasive.

I don't really care either way, of course.

Again, my point made earlier is that “God might have a different modus operandi for revelation when it some to individuals vs. prophets and geopolitical politics and their outcomes.”

Revelation that comes to individuals may come in various forms/methods. God isn’t a a one trick pony.

Regards,
MG

[dastardly stem]

Seems to me like an awful lot of supposition on which to base your assumption and insistence that personal revelation was involved. A weak case is not made stronger by guessing, and by opining about what we don't know that she didn't do. Could have been, if we squint at it just the right way, or maybe there could possibly have been other things we have no knowledge of that came into play. Or something else entirely, ...

We also don't know if she was faking the whole thing, but I doubt that you would find such an argument very persuasive.

I don't really care either way, of course.

Again, my point made earlier is that “God might have a different modus operandi for revelation when it some to individuals vs. prophets and geopolitical politics and their outcomes.”

Revelation that comes to individuals may come in various forms/methods. God isn’t a a one trick pony.

Regards,
MG

That's just a lazy way of trying to square all the contradicting messages people are imagining and then publicly telling us they're all from God.

[MG 2.0]

Again, my point made earlier is that “God might have a different modus operandi for revelation when it some to individuals vs. prophets and geopolitical politics and their outcomes.”

Revelation that comes to individuals may come in various forms/methods. God isn’t a a one trick pony.

Regards,
MG

That's just a lazy way of trying to square all the contradicting messages people are imagining and then publicly telling us they're all from God.

That’s where you have to either sort them out or throw them all away. And allow others to the same without judging their judgement to be inferior to yours.

That’s the tough part, right?

Regards,
MG

[dastardly stem]

That’s where you have to either sort them out or throw them all away. And allow others to the same without judging their judgement to be inferior to yours.

That’s the tough part, right?

Regards,
MG

No. You don't have to throw out anything at all. You can assume their inner workings are inspired by God, I suppose. But it seems quite possible their inner workings though thought to be from God, aren't coming from anything outside them at all. It could be their claimed revelations from God, or inspirations or however one chooses to word it, are simply them attributing their own thoughts, feelings and ideas to a construct called God.