- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
cwald wrote:
I would love to see an apostle next week get up and say — “you all have access to personal revelation. Why don’t you all go to the Lord and find the answers whether we should allows gay marriage within the church. Come back and let us know, and we will listen your answers and decide how to proceed.”
I LOVE this.
Continuing in the same vein as cwald:
I receive revelation that Coke is more harmful than coffee. I receive revelation that the church should teach classes about 40-day fasting. I receive revelation not to recite the pledge of allegiance or to serve in the military or to initiate suits at law. I receive revelation that home mortgages are a mistake, and that there is a far better way to live. I receive revelation that all abortions are wrong.
Tom Haws wrote:I receive revelation that Coke is more harmful than coffee. I receive revelation that the church should teach classes about 40-day fasting. I receive revelation not to recite the pledge of allegiance or to serve in the military or to initiate suits at law. I receive revelation that home mortgages are a mistake, and that there is a far better way to live. I receive revelation that all abortions are wrong.
Well said, Tom. And your personal revelation on these matters will not be restricted by having to go through the church…these can be real and actual revelations entitled to you.
The 2nd one about the church teaching classes is a fine idea…but if you have no authority or stewardship over classes in your ward, your idea is just yours…not to be imposed on the church as revelation for the church.
All the others are fine, and the church will not tell you that you are getting such “communication from a different source than god”.
cwald wrote:the church was forced to change to the 14 Fs mentality, which took us from the MAN-GOD-CHURCH theology, to the present situation that most of us hate, and that stinks so much where it now goes, MAN-CHURCH-GOD.
Or I suppose from a Protestant mindset to a Roman Catholic one. I come from a Protestant background, and the MCG model is very alien to me, as is confession/interview. If it had always been MGC, then JS could never have had his vision (in theory).
SamBee wrote:Or I suppose from a Protestant mindset to a Roman Catholic one. I come from a Protestant background, and the MCG model is very alien to me, as is confession/interview. If it had always been MGC, then JS could never have had his vision (in theory).
I like that way of looking at it, SamBee.
:thumbup: SamBee wrote:cwald wrote:the church was forced to change to the 14 Fs mentality, which took us from the MAN-GOD-CHURCH theology, to the present situation that most of us hate, and that stinks so much where it now goes, MAN-CHURCH-GOD.
Or I suppose from a Protestant mindset to a Roman Catholic one. I come from a Protestant background, and the MCG model is very alien to me, as is confession/interview. If it had always been MGC, then JS could never have had his vision (in theory).
Well, actually, I think that is what JS and the mormon church were all about and why it got started in the first place. According to his own words, the ministers and church leaders thought he was getting revelation from the devil because it didn’t match THEIR preconceived answers that they were telling the people at church meetings. JS didn’t like the MCG model, and broke away from it. It’s only irony that the LDS church has come back full circle.
Yeahm Heber, you kind of opened a can of worms. 🙂 Okay. —- I’m not being cynical here with this comment.
1. I have received personal revelation that homosexuality is genetic based, and that god wants homosexuals to marry and be happy in a monogamous relationship.
2. have received personal revelation that abortion is NOT a sin in
many cases, and that there is no “spirit” in the fetus stage, and it’s not the sin that the LDS church claims it is. 3. I have received personal revelation that the BoM is
not true, and that the church is not true/b] (according to mormon lingo anyway.So what now? Do you REALLY think the church is going to respect my PERSONAL REVELATION? Nope. Their answer is “we have been counseled by the prophets, who are speaking with god on a regular basis, on these matters, and you just need to PRAY HARDER to get the right answer. They already have the answers to these questions, and if our answer is different, than we are out of line and getting our revelation from a different source. AND, one is probably going to be subjected to church discipline if they “live” number 1 or 2. Your stake must be strange Ray, but my HC brother was pretty blunt when he told me that “I will get excommunicated or disfellowshipped if I have, or pay for, an abortion. I’m pretty sure that is in the CHI? So to say that we have free agency to get our own revelation on the issue of abortion is only true if one says that we have free agency to decide to be a member of the church or not. I suppose that is free agency, but it’s it’s not the freedom we are talking about in this conversation, is it?
In many church leaders view, they would tell me to conform to the prophets views, especially dealing with 1 and 2, or feel free to leave. So that is the free agency we have —- believe the prophet’s revelation over our own personal revelation, or leave — or in the case of folks like me – be content as a tier B member who sits in the back row.
Heber13 wrote:I view it more in terms of jurisdiction. I get revelation for me. The priesthood line gets it for their stewardship.
Guidelines in the handbook are guidelines, not to replace personal revelation.Priesthood revelation says WoW is a commandment, personal revelation tells me how to apply it.
If a woman feels abortion is the right thing, and there is no medical reason or incest or rape, then there is no justification for it to go against church revelation on the subject.If there is incest or rape, the priesthood leader will counsel, but would never take away that family’s right to personal revelation on the matter).
I pretty well disagree with this entire thought. The priesthood WILL take away a families right to personal revelation, ALL THE TIME. ALL THE TIME! And guidebooks and handbooks ARE doctrine to most of the church, and they will become more so now that an apostle made the comment that they are “based on doctrine.” It may as well be the same thing to most members.
“Priesthood revelation says WoW is a commandment, personal revelation tells me how to apply it” I agree, my personal revelation tells me how to apply it — only it first tells me that it’s a man made commandment that really has nothing to do with god or salvation. blah blah blah…..preaching to choir here.
Anyway, I’m going to go to work – before I write something I will regret. All I can say is my signature line that I stole from Brian pretty well sums up my entire thought on the 14 Fs much better than I can ever describe.
Peace brothers. Peace.
cwald wrote:The priesthood WILL take away a families right to personal revelation, ALL THE TIME. ALL THE TIME!
You know, I guess I’ve never been in a situation where this has ever been done. If I disagree with a priesthood leader, and it usually ends up being “Well, the church says this and this, but you can decide for yourself what to believe”. Ray said it well, they STRONGLY encourage…but I never see them bullying people, and NEVER see them taking away personal revelation. They may frame it weird, but it is a critical element of our religion.I would never stay in a church that preached they will take away a family’s right to personal revelation. They may not like my revelations, they may tell me I’m not worthy to receive revelation…but revelation is between me and the Lord (actually I have been short on revelation a lot lately, but I still believe I’m entitled to it).
Its an interesting balancing act the church is doing, I think. They are clearly saying individuals have a direct line of communication to God…and that is a critical and fundamental element in God’s plan.
Oaks wrote:The personal line is of paramount importance in personal decisions and in the governance of the family. Unfortunately, some members of our church underestimate the need for this direct, personal line. Responding to the undoubted importance of prophetic leadership—the priesthood line, which operates principally to govern heavenly communications on Church matters—some seek to have their priesthood leaders make personal decisions for them, decisions they should make for themselves by inspiration through their personal line. Personal decisions and family governance are principally a matter for the personal line.
Then they immediately state, that it is dependent on priesthood line of receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and personal worthiness to not go against the commandments given by the priesthood line. IOW, if we break the commandments, we are not worthy to receive personal revelation.
Cwald — I think it’s possible for the personal line to conflict with the priesthood line of revelation, and for the priesthood line to be wrong. Therefore, the fact that personal revelation conflicts with the priesthood line is a good thing. It doesn’t mean the personal revelation is bad, it just means it’s not accepted by the Church yet. One of our HP’s talked about a person who spoke openly about the fact prayer and revelation told him that the priesthood ban was wrong (prior to it’s reversal). He left the Church over it because all the members would not accept that he had a point or was right. Then, a couple years later, SWK lifted the ban. So, this brother was actually right, given the close proximity of the revelation to SWK’s revelation to extend the priesthood to all men. The Church was moving slower than this brother was.
The sad part is how he reacted during that period he was a loggerheads with the official position of the Church. It really hurt his inner peace.
I don’t really have conflicting revelation with the Church; only personal thoughts. However, if I ever do have what I feel is undeniable conflicting revelation, my approach will be to say “That objectionable doctrine will likely change at some point in the future given the spiritual direction I feel I’ve received. But for now, the official Church position is the one we have to live with”.
Heber13 wrote:I would never stay in a church that preached they will take away a family’s right to personal revelation. They may not like my revelations, they may tell me I’m not worthy to receive revelation…but revelation is between me and the Lord
As a missionary I had read encouragement for baptizing children on their 8th B-day (I believe it was from Joseph F. Smith AGQ) and I liked the idea. DW says that in her stake all the child baptisms for the month are all done together. I plan on exerting my paternal right to baptize my child on their B-day. Call it family tradition or personal revelation; I do not expect to be impeded by local church leaders.
Cwald, I think you are right that there are practices and behaviors that will put you on the outskirts of the church if not out of the tent all together. But there is also a level of tolerance. One person can have quite a fundamentalist leaning while another may be quite liberal, but each can be a valued member of the tribe (as long as they don’t get too vocal or radical). I know that sometimes the loudest conservative voices drown out the rest of the orchestra. I understand that some question whether Senator Harry Reid is a good Mormon because of his political views, but I have always felt that Church leadership valued him. I have never heard that you shouldn’t partake of the sacrament if you can find justification in young unwed mothers terminating pregnancies or that you vote for gay marriage.
Old-Timer wrote:NONE of the things I just listed will get a member excommunicated (unless someone has a Nazi Bishop / Stake President who acts totally out of form) – or even disfellowshipped, in and of itself.
OTOH, there is also a strong social pressure to conform from the other membership. Sure you can refuse mission, callings, tithing payment, wear a bright pink shirt to church, and have been seen by nosy neighbors to break the word of wisdom, and still be a member (possibly without a recommend depending on your comfort level of answering TR interview questions) – but you may not receive the full level of “integratedness” or incentives that you may otherwise receive.
cwald wrote:So that is the free agency we have —- believe the prophet’s revelation over our own personal revelation, or leave — or in the case of folks like me – be content as a tier B member who sits in the back row.
Perhaps (depending on how flagrantly different you are) you face either being pushed out of the group, leaving of your own accord, or receiving a lesser level of acceptance. The key appears not to be on differences per se, but on how flagrant those differences are. This appears to be where mental gymnastics, use of shared phrases with divergent interpretation, making your own peace independent of the validation from the group, and even the occasional lie – comes in handy.
Heber13 wrote:….Then they immediately state, that it is dependent on priesthood line of receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and personal worthiness to not go against the commandments given by the priesthood line.
IOW, if we break the commandments, we are not worthy to receive personal revelation.This is perhaps one of the
most egregious and most insulting and most false and most manipulative,of all mormon doctrines taught today. I know you well enough Heber, to know you don’t believe it. But it is certainly what the church teaches – and it is just another example of man made doctrine
IMO🙂 .SilentDawning wrote:Cwald — I think it’s possible for the personal line to conflict with the priesthood line of revelation, and for the priesthood line to be wrong. Therefore, the fact that personal revelation conflicts with the priesthood line is a good thing. It doesn’t mean the personal revelation is bad, it just means it’s not accepted by the Church yet.
One of our HP’s talked about a person who spoke openly about the fact prayer and revelation told him that the priesthood ban was wrong (prior to it’s reversal). He left the Church over it because all the members would not accept that he had a point or was right. Then, a couple years later, SWK lifted the ban. So, this brother was actually right, given the close proximity of the revelation to SWK’s revelation to extend the priesthood to all men. The Church was moving slower than this brother was.
Thanks you SD —- very good example of why the 14Fs and Oaks talks are FALSE DOCTRINE. Thank you. And what else are members of the church being condemned for, because their personal revelation doesn’t match the priesthood revelation. Here are just a few to consider as possibilities.
Gays/marriage
Prop 8
Abortion
Masturbation
Women and the priesthood
Heavenly Mother
The WofW
The Cedar Creek Mall
White Shirts
tattoo and piercings
Oral sex
Sex – the most serious sin next to murder
10% tithing for the most poor of the poor saints
Multimillion dollar corporation firing janitors to pay for??????
White washed history
Correlation
blah blah blah….
That’s a long list, and I think some of those issues are clearer than others. If we’re talking tattoos, I think there are some serious issues there. Many people get tattoed by accident (i.e. drunk), or get something they regret (usually a woman’s name) put on them. I always fancied getting some form of Celtic or Maori geometric design on my arm. But would I like it in twenty years time? That said, I’ve seen many tattoos which look great…
WoW – take the discussion as read elsewhere, it’s a multilevel thing. Tea is not the same as tobacco, which is not the same as heroin.
I don’t agree with abortion as I see it as a cheapening of life, in the same way that cynical wars are.
Heavenly mother – just a big ? here for me… but I find it tragic. Carl Jung said that the Catholics had wisely turned the trinity into a quaternity, by adding the Virgin Mary. Don’t know how valid this is, but interesting idea. Wouldn’t be surprised if Mary is referenced as Heavenly Mother in some obscure LDS text.
- The topic ‘The 14 Fundamentals: Number 9’ is closed to new replies.