Another Anti-Mormon Who Just Doesn't Get It

[_Gadianton Plumber]

i won't quibble over the word "any", but isn't the real crux of the argument the point that apparently, for the most part, the people who deem revelation to be unreliable, are those who are greatly struggling with faith or who have lost faith? And, if so, is that just a coincidence?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Or perhaps those who trust only their own revelations.

I am diggin' this idea the more I hear it.

[_beastie]

Or perhaps those who trust only their own revelations.

I think we should be as skeptical of our own revelations as anyone else's. As Seth has repeatedly pointed out, it seems that the human race generally shares a huge blind spot when it comes to our individual beliefs.

[_harmony]

Or perhaps those who trust only their own revelations.

I think we should be as skeptical of our own revelations as anyone else's. As Seth has repeatedly pointed out, it seems that the human race generally shares a huge blind spot when it comes to our individual beliefs.

We all live by different criteria. And that's okay.

[_beastie]

We all live by different criteria. And that's okay.

As long as criteria draws the line at accepting revelation about killing people (as another recent thread explored ;)

[_wenglund]

I kind of feel this conversation is over. Wade has admitted revelation is unreliable - he just faults the human side of the equation. When evaluating the reliability of revelation - or any other process - it's irrelevant on which side the breakdown occurs. To deem that it is an unreliable method, one must only determine that a breakdown occurs.

I agree that the conversation is now over--if it wasn't long before now. It has been made all the more evident to me that the non-believers here have staked out a remarkably dogmatic position ironically on the issue of growth in faith, and are unmovably entrenched. They are quite staunch in their beliefs about things they don't believe, and I find that rather odd.

This never ceases to amaze me. I mean, I would think that reason would scream out that those who have lost faith and flunked the test of faith would defer to the faithful (those successful in faith) in discussions about growth in faith. On matter of revelation, I would think it unarguable common sense for those who lack the ability to use revelation in a reliable way, would defer to those who can and have.

But, no. Not only is there adamant unwillingness to rationally defer, but I get the distinct impression that the faithless actually think they know more about the process of growth in faith than the faithful. Does it get any more upside-down in thinking than that?

Anyway, it was worth a try. Perhaps some seeds of faith have been planted, or at least maybe some minds have been exposed to alternative ways of looking at things that might prove beneficial in the future. Who knows..

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Gadianton Plumber]

Wade: Is it possible that the faithless do understand the process of building and protecting faith because they were once faithful? A non-believer who was once a believer still knows what it is like to be a believer, doesn't she? I mean, they don't forget it all suddenly. I would posit that at least some of the faithless DO understand your position, but with NEW information (that you reject) have a greater understanding of faith? Do YOU know what it's like to be faithless after being faithful? Is it possible you are the one with the incomplete picture?

[_wenglund]

Oh...and one more thing. THE most important point about my hypothesis isn't to point fingers, but rather to propose a way for those who have lost faith, who may still have at least some inclination to believe, to return to growth in faith, experience a condition of reliable revelation, and renue their progression towards the worthy goal of becoming like Christ--and this without the irrational fear or least concern that God might order you to kill people.

I am grateful that you all have given me a chance to have my say and to explain my ideas further.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Scottie]

I would think it unarguable common sense for those who lack the ability to use revelation in a reliable way, would defer to those who can and have.

And who would this be?

Are you suggesting that, even though the prophets have an abysmally low success rate on revelation, that there are common brethren that have figured out the secret to correctly interpreting revelation? That those of us who lack it should come to these brethren for guidance because they know?

Perhaps these brethren should go teach the prophets how to correctly interpret revelation. The leaders seem to have an awfully hard time with it.

With every post, Wade, you seem to side-step the real argument here.

If you could address one question: How can a normal member be expected to correctly interpret personal revelation when it is apparent that the prophets cannot even correctly interpret it?

[_wenglund]

Wade: Is it possible that the faithless do understand the process of building and protecting faith because they were once faithful? A non-believer who was once a believer still knows what it is like to be a believer, doesn't she? I mean, they don't forget it all suddenly. I would posit that at least some of the faithless DO understand your position, but with NEW information (that you reject) have a greater understanding of faith? Do YOU know what it's like to be faithless after being faithful? Is it possible you are the one with the incomplete picture?

I suppose that as someone who passed a lot of math classes, but flunked calculous and trigonometry (finding them to be unreliable for me), it is possible that I understand better and have a more complete picture of math than my math teachers (some who were Phd's). However, reason inclines me to think it highly unlikely, and to see it as in my interest to defer to them in matters of high-level mathematics.

But, that may just be me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

And who would this be?

Any one of millions of faithful members who pray regularly and continue to grow in faith towards becoming like Christ. Obviously.

Are you suggesting that, even though the prophets have an abysmally low success rate on revelation, that there are common brethren that have figured out the secret to correctly interpreting revelation? That those of us who lack it should come to these brethren for guidance because they know?

Perhaps these brethren should go teach the prophets how to correctly interpret revelation. The leaders seem to have an awfully hard time with it.

With every post, Wade, you seem to side-step the real argument here.

If you could address one question: How can a normal member be expected to correctly interpret personal revelation when it is apparent that the prophets cannot even correctly interpret it?

You are quite mistaken (and likely projecting) to think that the bretheren have had an abysmally low success rate on revelation--if not also in misthinking that I have continually sidestepped this issue. Revelation for prophets, while not infallible, has been sufficiently reliable for their purpose, if not somewhat more reliable than it is for your average member.

Again, the only one's who seem to view revelation as unreliable are those good people, such as yourself, who have lost faith, have discontinued engaging in revelatory activities, and yet who think they know better about faith and revelation than the faithful who have found revelation to be sufficiently reliable.

I really don't see any point in recovering this ground over and over. You have your unfavorable and binary view of revelation. If that works for you, and if you think you and your family are better off without revelation, then I accept that. I just happen to see it differently. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-