Can personal revelation trump counsel from the General Authorities

[PrinceofLight2000]

Pam: So your thoughts then are that personal revelation could go against a GA, but most likely wouldn’t, and if it did, then if it goes against commandment it is due to incorrect interpretation. Did I get that right?

Whew that’s complicated :)

Counsel doesn't always mean commandment.

[pam]

Pam: So your thoughts then are that personal revelation could go against a GA, but most likely wouldn’t, and if it did, then if it goes against commandment it is due to incorrect interpretation. Did I get that right?

Whew that’s complicated :)

Not exactly...but no time to respond right now. Off to celebrate my daughters 21st birthday.

[Wingnut]

Example: We are told to attend our Church meetings and partake of the Sacrament.

What if you are in a situation where attending church meetings would jeopardize your family unit? So after praying about it, you receive personal revelation that it's okay to miss Church for now and tend to your family priorities.

Is that justified? I believe so. Would I believe the person who blurted out that they are not attending Church because God told them not to. No probably not really. But I am not always privy to the personal aspects of someone's life and therefore who am I really to say they aren't justified?

I don't know if you're speaking of anyone in particular, but Elgama comes to mind with this example. It's pretty much her situation to a T, isn't it? I'm always a little skeptical when she posts about personal revelation directing her to go inactive as a family for a time, but then I remember the other things she's shared about the damaging experiences her family has gone through at church, and I also remember that it's not my place to judge that decision. Still, from her collective posts, it seems apparent that she has a strong testimony (especially, though perhaps ironically, of personal revelation) and isn't using "revelation" as an excuse.

[jayanna]

It also might be that the spirit of the law trumps the letter of the law.

3 examples I can think of

One is having sacrament, no water is available, only pop (soda), or something...you know that you are supposed to use water, but there is none. Do you go without sacrament or do you use the pop? Now I know that this instance has been discussed and instructed about, but imagine being that first guy that went with the pop option. How did he know that he could use the pop? While the letter says use water, the spirit of the law says the sacrament is still sacred.

Also the instance of not wearing garments when it is dangerous to, the letter of the law says wear them no matter what, but the spirit of the law says they are for your protection, and wearing them against your protection is working against the spirit of that law.

Also, the law of the fast, when you can't fast, but you would if you could... and you give fast offering just as if you have fasted. So you are still keeping the spirit of the law even whenyou are unable to keep the letter of the law.

Revelation is the key to knowing what the spirit of the law would have you do, that is why we need it for ourselves and don't just depend on church leaders to be around to ask.

And GaySaint, that is a really good question...I have had a person or two tell me that they have recieved revelation that is contrary...and while I think "OOooooo okay" I also say it and think, 'I guess we'll have to see when it all comes out and judge it by it's fruits'. That is the only real way for them to see if it is true or not sometimes...and try to be there for them no matter what they learn from it.

Edited September 15, 2010 by jayanna

[Moksha]

It also might be that the spirit of the law trumps the letter of the law.

Or at least the spirit can prevail if we can beat our inner Pharisee best two out of three.

[jayanna]

Why can't we make our own garments. Just modify a pair of shorts and shirt that have the wicking properties that you like.

Do garments have to come from Beehive Clothing to be garments? Do the workers over at Beehive pray over them?

The military already have garments that are green.

Adam and Eve made their own garments.

There is usually a way to make our needs/personal revelation conform with GA council.

Now, where is my decaf frozen mocha?

Actually they didn't make their own garments

Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them

Also in Moses 4:27 Unto Adam , and also unto his wife, did I , the Lord God, make coats of skins , and cloathed them.

That is an ordinance, you cannot baptize yourself, or lay hands on yourself for the Gift of the Holy Ghost, or give yourself the priesthood, you can't endow yourself either. They are given to us through Christ...so they can be received, just like the garments were given and recieved by Adam and Eve.

But that might be a whole other thread? maybe?

[Dravin]

While the letter says use water, the spirit of the law says the sacrament is still sacred.

Actually the letter says/said to use wine, then it was clarified it didn't matter, but wine came before water (or soda and bagels or what have you).

Edited September 15, 2010 by Dravin

[carlimac]

A couple questions come to mind MOE. You said you thought long and hard (or something like that) about whether or not to wear the garment on your canoe trip. Was prayer part of that process? What do you think the Lord's answer was? If you absolutely feel that the Lord was telling you to not wear the garment because your life would be in grave danger if you did, then absolutely- that inspiration trumps the counsel we've been given about how and when to wear it. But I think that sometimes we *think* things have the potential of being a lot worse than they actually are or could be. And that leads to my second question. In looking back, do you think that it was worth it to go without the garment for that week? And do you still feel that it was personal revelation to go without, or do you think you might have been a little more cautious than you needed to be?

I ask these questions, not to pin you down but to get to the real heart of the matter which is, how honest are we really being with ourselves when we choose to let certain personal decisions trump counsel or commandments or whatever?

I just have to say that many times I have chosen my own path, thinking I really could go against a commandment or strong suggestion from GAs- feeling as if I was getting some sort of directive from the heavens, only to be disappointed with myself later realizing I could have followed the prescribed path. What I thought was personal revelation was just me jumping at shadows. I would have been better off just following the counsel rather than making up my own rules.

Edited September 15, 2010 by carlimac

[mikbone]

Actually they didn't make their own garments

Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them

Also in Moses 4:27 Unto Adam , and also unto his wife, did I , the Lord God, make coats of skins , and cloathed them.

That is an ordinance, you cannot baptize yourself, or lay hands on yourself for the Gift of the Holy Ghost, or give yourself the priesthood, you can't endow yourself either. They are given to us through Christ...so they can be received, just like the garments were given and recieved by Adam and Eve.

But that might be a whole other thread? maybe?

Yes...

I have no evidence to support the following, but I think that Adam and Eve actually did make their garments, under the direction of the Lord.

The Lord not only had to provide them with clothing but he had to instruct them on the basic necessities of life outside the Garden of Eden.

I believe that the Lord took Adam hunting and that they successfully acquired a deer or two. The lord then showed Adam how to, skin, slaughter, sacrifice and eventually consume and preserve the venison. Imagine how Adam's heart must have broke as he watched the life escape the animal that he had previously befriended and named. All the time realizing that the animals life had to sacrificed for his benefit so that he and his wife could have food and clothing, because he had transgressed the Lords command. Then the Lord told Adam that he had to perform sacrifice on a routine basis (Moses 5:6)... I imagine that Adam felt true remorse, and cried his eyes out.

I think that when Adam and the Lord returned to Eden after the successful hunting trip that the skins were turned over to the Lords eternal Wife and Eve. And that the Lord's Wife then showed Eve how to make the garment. Eve must have noticed who the skin came from and she no doubt shed some tears during the process as well.

[pam]

I don't know if you're speaking of anyone in particular, but Elgama comes to mind with this example. It's pretty much her situation to a T, isn't it? I'm always a little skeptical when she posts about personal revelation directing her to go inactive as a family for a time, but then I remember the other things she's shared about the damaging experiences her family has gone through at church, and I also remember that it's not my place to judge that decision. Still, from her collective posts, it seems apparent that she has a strong testimony (especially, though perhaps ironically, of personal revelation) and isn't using "revelation" as an excuse.

No wasn't thinking of Elgama at all. It was a random example. I still owe GaySaint an explanation and will have that soon. I hope I can do it justice as his thoughts were just as confusing as my own on what he thought I meant.

[MarginOfError]

A couple questions come to mind MOE. You said you thought long and hard (or something like that) about whether or not to wear the garment on your canoe trip. Was prayer part of that process?

If you're asking if I got down on my knees and asked directly "do you want me to not wear the Garment?" no, I didn't do that. What I did do was seriously contemplate and meditate at length over the decision while trying to keep myself open to inspiration and guidance. If you want to disqualify what I've felt because I didn't feel them in formal prayer, well, I suppose that's your right...but I'm pretty sure formal prayer isn't a prerequisite to inspiration.

What do you think the Lord's answer was?

If I were to translate what I felt into English, I think what I was told amounted to, "Do you really think that I care?"

If you absolutely feel that the Lord was telling you to not wear the garment because your life would be in grave danger if you did, then absolutely- that inspiration trumps the counsel we've been given about how and when to wear it. But I think that sometimes we *think* things have the potential of being a lot worse than they actually are or could be.

On my trip I had a great time. Nothing went wrong, fortunately. But there certainly was potential. For instance, capsizing in the Georgian Bay could have devastating consequences. It takes time to right a canoe, and then if you're not close to shore when it's righted, if your clothes don't dry quickly, it could be a long time before you get to where you can access your dry clothing (if it's still dry after the capsize). Particularly if it's a windy day on the open water. And another factor I had to include in my considerations was that medical attention was, at minimum, 48 hours away for most of that trip.

And that leads to my second question. In looking back, do you think that it was worth it to go without the garment for that week? And do you still feel that it was personal revelation to go without, or do you think you might have been a little more cautious than you needed to be?

I don't think wearing the Garment would have made any difference whatsoever. I am 100% confident that the Lord accepted my decision to go without. I'm also 100% confident that he would accepted a decision to wear it by me or anyone else.

Was I too cautious? No. absolutely not. Any time I go out into a wilderness area, I do so with the knowledge that I am as prepared as I can be for whatever disaster I might face. And I will continue to do so as long as I have a family to support and other families are trusting the health and safety of their children to my care.

I ask these questions, not to pin you down but to get to the real heart of the matter which is, how honest are we really being with ourselves when we choose to let certain personal decisions trump counsel or commandments or whatever?

If you want to talk the heart of the matter, let me ask this...If I had said I felt the opposite inspiration--that the Lord absolutely wanted me to wear the Garment, and then I had done so--would you have asked me all those same questions? Would you have even thought to try to challenge me to consider what I thought I had felt if it had been more in line with the revelation you would have expected me to receive?

How honest are we with ourselves about that? How often do we question the revelation and inspiration others have felt because it doesn't coincide with our expectations? Why do we think that the answer is going to be the same for every person?

I just have to say that many times I have chosen my own path, thinking I really could go against a commandment or strong suggestion from GAs- feeling as if I was getting some sort of directive from the heavens, only to be disappointed with myself later realizing I could have followed the prescribed path. What I thought was personal revelation was just me jumping at shadows. I would have been better off just following the counsel rather than making up my own rules.

I have rarely felt any such thing. In the instance of the canoe trip, I am certain that the blessings and protections of honoring my temple covenants were afforded me, even though I didn't wear the Garment. And the Lord taught me some very valuable and important lessons along the way. In fact, I'd compare the feelings and emotions I had coming away from that trip to the feelings and emotions I've had after serving in the temple.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I have heard it said that the prophet receives revelation for the whole church and the father receives revelation for his family. So I guess under this principle the potential is there for conflicting counsel.

Good question!

[ryanh]

MoE, your opening example of the garments troubles me as a vanguard for the idea of revelations for personal exceptions.

Just because the Lord is merciful, and will bless us beyond measure despite our various imperfections in actions and thought does not automatically justify the correctness of such actions and thought.

Who is to say that because of the excess of faith it would take to wear garments despite difficulties that could accompany such a choice, would not have provided for even greater blessings and experiences, including protection in the event of unfortunate circumstances such as a capsize?

I think what makes the example most uncomfortable to me is the temporal considerations seemingly trumping spiritual considerations. What does it really matter - these temporal considerations? They are but dross in the end.

There is not much question that there are exception to the "general rules" that are given as counsel. Of course there are – else they would be given as absolutes, not “general”. As Elder Oaks points out in the talk that Hordak takes his signature quote from - the commandment Thou Shalt Not Kill - does have exceptions - such as being a soldier in a war and being directed by others.

It seems to me though that one must be very careful in acknowledging the existence of exceptions to general counsel. Such exceptions are not common (by definition - the general counsel applies to the majority). And I doubt that many of the "exceptions" people make that are congruent with personal preferences - esp when based on temporal personal preferences - are valid revelation. I suspect they most often are simply our own justifications and good feelings.

There is greater assurance there is revelation when the decision is out of harmony with our personal preferences. And I think that is where most exceptions would reside – within the realms of situations that would comprise of testing and refining. What use is there in comforting us in doing that which already gives us comfort? That is inconsistent with what I have learned are the purposes of this life.

[Wingnut]

Who is to say that because of the excess of faith it would take to wear garments despite difficulties that could accompany such a choice, would not have provided for even greater blessings and experiences, including protection in the event of unfortunate circumstances such as a capsize?

Yes, because no one who has ever worn their garments faithfully, when when it might have endangered their life, has ever died because of it.

I think what makes the example most uncomfortable to me is the temporal considerations seemingly trumping spiritual considerations. What does it really matter - these temporal considerations? They are but dross in the end.

Taking appropriate precautions to preserve one's own life when one has a spouse and a child to care for (and, as has been mentioned, the lives of other young men to care for) is "but dross?"

[MarginOfError]

MoE, your opening example of the garments troubles me as a vanguard for the idea of revelations for personal exceptions.

Just because the Lord is merciful, and will bless us beyond measure despite our various imperfections in actions and thought does not automatically justify the correctness of such actions and thought.

Who is to say that because of the excess of faith it would take to wear garments despite difficulties that could accompany such a choice, would not have provided for even greater blessings and experiences, including protection in the event of unfortunate circumstances such as a capsize?

So you're going to base your argument on Schroedinger's cat?

I think what makes the example most uncomfortable to me is the temporal considerations seemingly trumping spiritual considerations. What does it really matter - these temporal considerations? They are but dross in the end.

You don't seem to have read much of what I've written here. This wasn't a decision taken lightly. You seem to imply that because one has temporal considerations that he entirely ignores spiritual considerations. But how can you come to that conclusion? Exactly how do you measure whether one has given greater weight to spiritual considerations than to temporal considerations? Your response implies that it's done by the end decision. Is that fair, accurate, honest, or even realistic?

What's more...are temporal considerations really "dross in the end" when it could potentially be the difference in life or death? Do you really expect that I should put my health, safety, and life at risk to wear the Garment?

There is not much question that there are exception to the "general rules" that are given as counsel. Of course there are – else they would be given as absolutes, not “general”. As Elder Oaks points out in the talk that Hordak takes his signature quote from - the commandment Thou Shalt Not Kill - does have exceptions - such as being a soldier in a war and being directed by others.

It seems to me though that one must be very careful in acknowledging the existence of exceptions to general counsel. Such exceptions are not common (by definition - the general counsel applies to the majority). And I doubt that many of the "exceptions" people make that are congruent with personal preferences - esp when based on temporal personal preferences - are valid revelation. I suspect they most often are simply our own justifications and good feelings.

The majority of what, though? General counsel applies to the majority of people? But aren't people adaptive, evolving, dynamic? People certainly aren't static. And it would be nonsense to suggest that general counsel applies to the 95% in this box, but not to the 5% outside of it.

Recognizing that people grow, adapt, change, and evolve, it seems more appropriate to say that general counsel applies to all people in the majority of their circumstances. That is to say, I might feel comfortable removing the Garment for a week long canoe trip in the Canadian wilderness, but not have the same feeling for a two hour trip down a river in Arizona.

There is greater assurance there is revelation when the decision is out of harmony with our personal preferences. And I think that is where most exceptions would reside – within the realms of situations that would comprise of testing and refining. What use is there in comforting us in doing that which already gives us comfort? That is inconsistent with what I have learned are the purposes of this life.

This seems disingenuous to the crux of the dilemma that people often face when they question the Lord about exceptions to general counsel. Very often, it isn't a case of wanting to be comforted in doing that which already gives us comfort. Instead, it's usually a case of both option result in discomfort. That is, I'm not comfortable with the idea of wearing the Garment, but I'm also not comfortable with the idea of not wearing it.

But ultimately, I'm curious about why we expect people to defend themselves on these matters? What is it about this that brings out the judgmental and critical side in us where if someone, say a guy like MOE, admits that he felt a confirming revelation that it was acceptable to remove the Garment for this trip--why do we question that. You, ryan, are at least the third person on this board to imply I couldn't have had the revelation I did--that it was probably self serving justification.

Why is it that we claim that there are certainly exceptions to general counsel but are so slow to accept that others might have seen those exceptions? Are we only giving lip service to the fact that Elder Oaks very pointedly stated that there are exceptions? Or is it just a general discomfort with gray areas? Do we just have a craving for false dichotomy of life? Why do we, when we have no idea what others feel when they attempt to communicate with God, attempt to tell them what they should have heard anyway?

[ryanh]

Yes, because no one who has ever worn their garments faithfully, when when it might have endangered their life, has ever died because of it.

Yes what? What are you saying "yes" to? It wasn't a closed end question, so I'm confused what you are trying to say in saying "yes" other than to be snarky. Try removing your personal emotions from the discussion please. It really helps convey meaning much easier.

And, I think you well know that it is a virtually useless argument to negate an idea by pointing to contrary examples that likely have no bearing. Can you honestly point to examples of people dying that was casued by the wearing of garments? Or are we speaking of simply in hyperbole?

Taking appropriate precautions to preserve one's own life when one has a spouse and a child to care for (and, as has been mentioned, the lives of other young men to care for) is "but dross?"

The castigation of my words into a narrow and unlikely interpretation is not very helpful to the discussion. Of course there is value in taking into consideration and valuing one's gift of life. Why would you make the automatic assumption that I would not feel that way?

But what is most important to you Wing? Life and the preservation thereof? Or the eternal consequences of spiritual decisions? Eventually we need to reach a point that we no longer put temporal life as a 'god' before the Lord our God, and submitting out will's to His.

[Wingnut]

It wasn't a closed end question, so I'm confused what you are trying to say in saying "yes" other than to be snarky.

Well I guess you got the point, then.

And, I think you well know that it is a virtually useless argument to negate an idea by pointing to contrary examples that likely have no bearing. Can you honestly point to examples of people dying that was casued by the wearing of garments? Or are we speaking of simply in hyperbole?

I thought that's what you were doing.

The castigation of my words into a narrow and unlikely interpretation is not very helpful to the discussion. Of course there is value in taking into consideration and valuing one's gift of life. Why would you make the automatic assumption that I would not feel that way?

Because if you'd read all of what MOE posted in this thread, you would know that what I'd said was true in his case.

But what is most important to you Wing? Life and the preservation thereof? Or the eternal consequences of spiritual decisions? Eventually we need to reach a point that we no longer put temporal life as a 'god' before the Lord our God, and submitting out will's to His.

Prudence is important. One cannot be imprudent in his stewardships in this life simply because eternal life is more important than physical life.

[MarginOfError]

Yes what? What are you saying "yes" to? It wasn't a closed end question, so I'm confused what you are trying to say in saying "yes" other than to be snarky. Try removing your personal emotions from the discussion please. It really helps convey meaning much easier.

It wasn't an answer. It was a language device bridging one comment with which she disagreed to another comment she disagreed, the latter of which exposed the fallacy that was initialized by your statement. In essence, "yes" in this context is merely a conjunction on which the analogy pivots.

And, I think you well know that it is a virtually useless argument to negate an idea by pointing to contrary examples that likely have no bearing. Can you honestly point to examples of people dying that was casued by the wearing of garments? Or are we speaking of simply in hyperbole?

Yet, this is exactly what you did when you said, "Who is to say that because of the excess of faith it would take to wear garments despite difficulties that could accompany such a choice, would not have provided for even greater blessings and experiences, including protection in the event of unfortunate circumstances such as a capsize?"

I can ask similar questions, such as, "can you honestly point to examples of people living that was caused expressly by wearing the Garment?" Sure, you can go find a handful of examples where someone testifies that wearing the Garment created a miracle on their behalf. But what about the dozens of instances for each one of those where wearing the Garment did not have the same effect? "I've not heard about those!" you say? That's because no one ever talks about the Garment when it fails to provide a miracle. There's a huge reporting bias here, and one you're attempting to exploit to the benefit of your opinion.

The castigation of my words into a narrow and unlikely interpretation is not very helpful to the discussion. Of course there is value in taking into consideration and valuing one's gift of life. Why would you make the automatic assumption that I would not feel that way?

But what is most important to you Wing? Life and the preservation thereof? Or the eternal consequences of spiritual decisions? Eventually we need to reach a point that we no longer put temporal life as a 'god' before the Lord our God, and submitting out will's to His.

Again with the false dichotomy. You frame it so easily. "Do you value temporal life, or eternal salvation more?" Well, I obviously value temporal salvation more, and if my life or death had zero repercussion on anyone else in the world, that would greatly simplify a lot of decisions. But life isn't that simple. Have you ever thought to consider that may 'temporal life' is a proxy term for a whole lot of things that have spiritual importance?

[ryanh]

You don't seem to have read much of what I've written here.

Completely false MoE. In fact, it is by more careful attention to your words that some determinations can be made. I read of your account of careful consideration and prayer beforehand. But, then I read of undue emphasis and reliance on retrospective consideration of experience.

When I have a spiritual experience that tells me a direction to go, I neither feel a need to rely on subsequent verification (which many times may never come within this lifetime), nor to vigorously defend my position in a public forum by starting a topic surronding my experience.

But ultimately, I'm curious about why we expect people to defend themselves on these matters? What is it about this that brings out the judgmental and critical side in us where if someone, say a guy like MOE, admits that he felt a confirming revelation that it was acceptable to remove the Garment for this trip--why do we question that. You, ryan, are at least the third person on this board to imply I couldn't have had the revelation I did--that it was probably self serving justification.

I'm sorry MoE if I came across as insinuating that you "couldn't have had the revelation". That was not my intent, and not at all what was in my thoughts. Nor did I think that was what I typed. I was uncomfortable that the example shared is a vanguard that is well representative of the times when such personal exceptions are received.

And what I wrote was to support that general idea, and provide some ideas for thought provocation. After all, you opened the thread with "please discuss". Did you really not expect at least some ideas to be shared to be to the contrary? What use would it be if we all just said "yep, MoE said it, it must be right, let's all praise him?"

I feel that in getting defensive and insinuating that people are personally jumping on you, there is a failure to perceive that: that which some people are able to observe is speaking louder than many of the words you are typing.

[ryanh]

I suspect both Wingnut and MOE know precisely why some don't feel comfortable with either the example, or the way it is shared or defended. The real question is actually why it is such a matter of pride for either of you? Can't it simply be taken as a lesson not to cast pearls before swine?

“Maturity begins when we're content to feel we're right about something without feeling the necessity to prove someone else wrong.” Sydney J Harris

Edited September 15, 2010 by pam
Comment wasn't necessary

[MarginOfError]

Completely false MoE. In fact, it is by more careful attention to your words that some determinations can be made. I read of your account of careful consideration and prayer beforehand. But, then I read of undue emphasis and reliance on retrospective consideration of experience.

When I have a spiritual experience that tells me a direction to go, I neither feel a need to rely on subsequent verification (which many times may never come within this lifetime), nor to vigorously defend my position in a public forum by starting a topic surronding my experience.

I'm sorry MoE if I came across as insinuating that you "couldn't have had the revelation". That was not my intent, and not at all what was in my thoughts. Nor did I think that was what I typed. I was uncomfortable that the example shared is a vanguard that is well representative of the times when such personal exceptions are received.

And what I wrote was to support that general idea, and provide some ideas for thought provocation. After all, you opened the thread with "please discuss". Did you really not expect at least some ideas to be shared to be to the contrary? What use would it be if we all just said "yep, MoE said it, it must be right, let's all praise him?"

I feel that in getting defensive and insinuating that people are personally jumping on you, there is a failure to perceive that: that which some people are able to observe is speaking louder than many of the words you are typing.

Ah! Now you bring in a whole new twist to all of this. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that if I had really had the revelation I claim to have had, I should have be satisfied to simply say, "It's what I felt. 'Nuff said." Your claim is that the explanation of circumstances and further detail into my process is evidence that I was merely seeking to justify my foregone conclusion.

I can see where you'd get that interpretation--the idea of overcompensation.

But I want to explore the progression of this a little bit. I put myself out a little bit, and opened myself to criticism. For a few pages, no one really challenged me on it. I still haven't seen dash, and carlimac hasn't replied yet today, so I can't be sure what the outcome of my statements has been on them. But nonetheless, they both challenged my claim to revelation. For them, saying I had felt that the Lord found it acceptable for me to not wear the Garment on that trip wasn't enough.

For dash, he wanted to know how I could reconcile that revelation with the counsel that we wear the Garment as much as possible, or for activities that can reasonably be done with it on. For carli, she wanted to know if I had prayed about it; what the answer was; did I feel like my life would be in "grave danger". Both of them wanted to know if I felt my trip was enhanced by the decision.

Now here we are, and you're saying that because I answered their questions that I'm exposing my fraud.

So on the one hand, "I felt what I felt. 'Nuff said" gets written off as justification. On the other hand, explaining and defending my actions and thought processes gets written off as justification.

That's a clever argument to make, by the way. By taking my efforts to expound upon the process of how one determines if they've received a confirmation to go contrary to general counsel and labeling that as evidence that I'm retrospectively seeking to justify my decision, you've left me with only one defense: I know what I felt.

Which I guess leaves us right where we began.

[MarginOfError]

Now, having gotten this far, ryan, I want to ask you this series of questions

If I had said I felt the opposite inspiration--that the Lord absolutely wanted me to wear the Garment, and then I had done so--would you have asked me all the same questions?

Would you have implied that I was retrospectively justifying my actions if I were to share the same level of detail about my decision to follow general counsel?

[Wingnut]

So on the one hand, "I felt what I felt. 'Nuff said" gets written off as justification. On the other hand, explaining and defending my actions and thought processes gets written off as justification.

That's a clever argument to make, by the way. By taking my efforts to expound upon the process of how one determines if they've received a confirmation to go contrary to general counsel and labeling that as evidence that I'm retrospectively seeking to justify my decision, you've left me with only one defense: I know what I felt.

Which I guess leaves us right where we began.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[Dravin]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

There is only one question left to ask MoE, this one a simple yes or no.

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

[ryanh]

Now here we are, and you're saying that because I answered their questions that I'm exposing my fraud.

Exposing your fraud? If the accusation that such was my motive wasn’t so serious to me, it would be funny. I have never for a moment considered that your recounting of your experience was a fraud. Go back and read my first post that apparently caused you and Wingnut to feel like you were attacked. The two last paragraphs were not intended to be a reflection of your personal example - but generalities. That could have been clearer. I had three points in my mind 1) your experience isn’t best example for the reasons I stated, 2) exceptions do exist, and 3) in general, one has to be careful in considering the validity of their exception.

Why such extreme interpretation and fatalistic assigning of motives because someone expresses a differing opinion?

So on the one hand, "I felt what I felt. 'Nuff said" gets written off as justification. On the other hand, explaining and defending my actions and thought processes gets written off as justification.

That's a clever argument to make, by the way. By taking my efforts to expound upon the process of how one determines if they've received a confirmation to go contrary to general counsel and labeling that as evidence that I'm retrospectively seeking to justify my decision, you've left me with only one defense: I know what I felt.

Which I guess leaves us right where we began.

And, with such experiences finally comes the wisdom to understand why pearls are typically held close to one's heart, and only exposed in certain circumstances - when moved upon. Of course it comes down to what YOU know you felt. No one else is going to feel that also unless conveyed by the Spirit, which I don’t think such witness is likely to come when an experience is shared to spur open discussion, or to prove a personal point. Edited September 15, 2010 by pam