Do we all hear/feel the Spirit the same?

[Guest]

20 hours ago, Vort said:

In order for us to talk meaningfully with each other about something, we must share a commonality of experience. If our experiences with the Spirit are utterly different, we won't really have much discussion on the matter. Furthermore, if it's the same Spirit speaking to each of us, we might therefore assume that we will have a similar experience.

On the other hand, each of us as individuals has his or her own perceptions. Is my red the same as your red? Is my sour the same as your sour? (Well...yes. We have the same basic human equipment, we have roughly the same reactions, so it is reasonable to suppose the experiences are similar if not precisely identical.)

I'd agree with the overall theme here,  if I understand correctly.  There must be some commonalities.  But the fact that we are each different also means that our perceptions of the similar experience are also slightly different.

I believe that any experience that is wrought by the Spirit must include some feeling of peace.  All other feelings that come with it are merely different aspects and perceptions of said peace.

[Sadliers]

19 hours ago, Vort said:

So you are saying that until we are perfect, Godly experiences are utterly beyond our reach. Do I understand you correctly?

I disbelieve this. Do you have any evidence beyond your bare assertion?

You are going well beyond that, though. You are stating that God's portrayal of his emotion as "anger" is actively misleading and untrue. I disagree.

Whence do you derive this doctrine? Contention is of the devil, but anger? Again, I disbelieve it. Can you establish it by anything beyond your assertion?

Yep, that's it. You got me. I believe that Jesus aligned himself with Satan.

Sounds more like you want to contend. You're on your own. I will reply regarding anger but since you want to argue with me I'll quote Jesus and Paul then leave it to you to go argue with them.

"29    For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another. 

30    Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away." (3 Nephi 11:29-30)

Anger doesn't sound in the least bit acceptable, does it?

 

"Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:" (Ephesians 4:31)

Why should we put away anger if it is either God-neutral or pro-God?

 

"But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth." (Colossians 3:8)

 

You now get the last word.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Sadliers

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Sadliers said:

Sounds more like you want to contend.

That is your (false) interpretation.

1 hour ago, Sadliers said:

You're on your own.

That is not an act of integrity on your part. Rather, it is a dodge. For shame.

1 hour ago, Sadliers said:

"Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:" (Ephesians 4:31)

Why should we put away anger if it is either God-neutral or pro-God?

And yet, we have all the scriptures that speak of divine anger, but which you want to hand-wave away with no more justification than your own pet theories and a couple of out-of-context verses from Paul.

I am offering you a real opportunity to explain yourself. You really should not pretend to be avoiding contention just to avoid justifying (or, more likely, being unable to justify) your unscriptural doctrine. Just show us how this works, scripturally, or else just admit that you can't, that it's your private interpretation, and leave it at that.

[Sadliers]

13 hours ago, Vort said:

That is your (false) interpretation.

That is not an act of integrity on your part. Rather, it is a dodge. For shame.

And yet, we have all the scriptures that speak of divine anger, but which you want to hand-wave away with no more justification than your own pet theories and a couple of out-of-context verses from Paul.

I am offering you a real opportunity to explain yourself. You really should not pretend to be avoiding contention just to avoid justifying (or, more likely, being unable to justify) your unscriptural doctrine. Just show us how this works, scripturally, or else just admit that you can't, that it's your private interpretation, and leave it at that.

It was learned from the Spirit. The Spirit is the source and the one that taught it to me. The Spirit is the same one that taught it to Paul. The Spirit is God just as Jesus is God, and Jesus also taught it. Feel free to argue with the source.

 

When one shares what was received from God then those that listen have a choice to make. They can either seek from God whether He was the source (and that's what Saints do - see D&C 50), or they can disregard it. Disregarding it will not change the source. Furthermore, disregarding it is self-witnessing that the person is not sincerely trying to follow God since they reject what God has given to another without seeking to discover if it is truth.

Distegarding is one thing but you have taken to try dissuading me from what was received by the Spirit. What is the purpose in trying to dissuade one from that which God had given them? Is that not an alignment with Satan when one tries to persuade another in to disbelieving that which came from God? How is that not fighting against God even if done ignorantly?

[Vort]

14 minutes ago, Sadliers said:

It was learned from the Spirit. The Spirit is the source and the one that taught it to me. The Spirit is the same one that taught it to Paul. The Spirit is God just as Jesus is God, and Jesus also taught it. Feel free to argue with the source.

Behold the problem. You introduce new doctrine and claim to have received it by revelation, then fault me because I do not recognize your unsanctioned revelation and accept your word.

15 minutes ago, Sadliers said:

Distegarding is one thing but you have taken to try dissuading me from what was received by the Spirit. What is the purpose in trying to dissuade one from that which God had given them? Is that not an alignment with Satan when one tries to persuade another in to disbelieving that which came from God? How is that not fighting against God even if done ignorantly?

This is an untrue assessment. You are not merely misunderstanding things; you are misrepresenting them.

You are welcome to your private revelation. I have spoken nothing against it. Rather, I have said that I disbelieve it (or parts of it) and have challenged you to provide evidence -- not merely your word or a claim of revelation, which of course anyone can say. That you can claim only to have received this new doctrine by revelation, and then suppose that means that Jesus himself told you, so anyone who disbelieves you is therefore rebelling against Jesus, well, that does indeed say a great deal about the subject.

I have enjoyed many of your contributions since you joined recently, but in this, you're pretty much off the deep end. I urge you to rethink this strategy of claiming personal revelation to teach new doctrine. It will lead to a bad place.

[Guest]

I've received revelation that all of you need to pay me $100,000 per month.  Those who dare to say otherwise must fear the wrath of...

What do you mean you don't believe me?  That just shows you have small, meaningless lives and will never know the sublime experience that is my continuing revelation.

[Sadliers]

7 hours ago, Vort said:

Behold the problem. You introduce new doctrine and claim to have received it by revelation, then fault me because I do not recognize your unsanctioned revelation and accept your word.

This is an untrue assessment. You are not merely misunderstanding things; you are misrepresenting them.

You are welcome to your private revelation. I have spoken nothing against it. Rather, I have said that I disbelieve it (or parts of it) and have challenged you to provide evidence -- not merely your word or a claim of revelation, which of course anyone can say. That you can claim only to have received this new doctrine by revelation, and then suppose that means that Jesus himself told you, so anyone who disbelieves you is therefore rebelling against Jesus, well, that does indeed say a great deal about the subject.

I have enjoyed many of your contributions since you joined recently, but in this, you're pretty much off the deep end. I urge you to rethink this strategy of claiming personal revelation to teach new doctrine. It will lead to a bad place.

Why jump to the conclusion that it is new doctrine? Church leaders are the ones that declare doctrine, aren't they? It is church doctrine that not all truth is doctrine. An example given on the Mormon Channel was of the possibility that Jesus was married. There's many evidences that support the idea, and many even believe it, however that is not church doctrine. 

 

I've explained what the Spirit feels like and how to recognize the presence and used scriptures. Did I miss it or did you hold back in explaining your idea on how the Spirit feels along with supporting scriptures?

[Vort]

53 minutes ago, Sadliers said:

Why jump to the conclusion that it is new doctrine?

This is precisely why I invited you to give substantiation of this doctrine, something beyond bearing personal testimony of it.

53 minutes ago, Sadliers said:

I've explained what the Spirit feels like and how to recognize the presence and used scriptures. Did I miss it or did you hold back in explaining your idea on how the Spirit feels along with supporting scriptures?

The question is not whether I am capable of receiving revelation. I am. I assume (friendly guy that I am) that you are, too.

The question is whether your doctrine is true, that God never feels anger. I dispute it as a plain falsehood, based on revealed scripture -- including modern scripture. Please, by all means, let's see your justification for preaching this doctrine of an angerless God. I invite you wholeheartedly to make your case, hopefully with something a bit more than "Jesus told me so."

[Sadliers]

4 hours ago, Vort said:

This is precisely why I invited you to give substantiation of this doctrine, something beyond bearing personal testimony of it.

The question is not whether I am capable of receiving revelation. I am. I assume (friendly guy that I am) that you are, too.

The question is whether your doctrine is true, that God never feels anger. I dispute it as a plain falsehood, based on revealed scripture -- including modern scripture. Please, by all means, let's see your justification for preaching this doctrine of an angerless God. I invite you wholeheartedly to make your case, hopefully with something a bit more than "Jesus told me so."

Why do you continue to claim it as doctrine?

 

Share with me how you know the revelations you receive are from God and not from another source. I'm interested in knowing.

 

Are you claiming that what I shared is false on your own beliefs or are you claiming that the Spirit bore witness to you that it is false?

Edited April 8, 2016 by Sadliers

[Vort]

19 minutes ago, Sadliers said:

Why do you continue to claim it as doctrine?

Because you are teaching it. Ergo, doctrine.

19 minutes ago, Sadliers said:

Share with me how you know the revelations you receive are from God and not from another source. I'm interested in knowing.

No.

19 minutes ago, Sadliers said:

Are you claiming that what I shared is false on your own beliefs or are you claiming that the Spirit bore witness to you that it is false?

I think I have made it eminently clear that I disbelieve your testimony based on my own understanding, and invite you to substantiate your doctrine by an appeal to something a bit more believable and accessible than your own private revelation.

[Sadliers]

52 minutes ago, Vort said:

Because you are teaching it. Ergo, doctrine.

No.

I think I have made it eminently clear that I disbelieve your testimony based on my own understanding, and invite you to substantiate your doctrine by an appeal to something a bit more believable and accessible than your own private revelation.

Did you also disbelieve me when I said that only the General Authorities define doctrine? You're not a General Authority, are you?

 

I see where you're coming from. Are you aware that the Pharisees also relied on their own interpretations of scripture as you do? In fact that was one of their downfalls. They relied on their interpretation of scripture to prove that Jesus was not the Christ and challenged everyone to prove them wrong:

 

"They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet." (John 7:52)

 

Satan proved that scriptures can be misinterpreted by tempting Jesus using scriptures:

"And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone." (Matthew 4:6)

 

Even the beginning of the restoration was caused by scripture interpretations by man:

"for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible." (Joseph Smith History 1:12)

 

I find it interesting that you would do the exact same thing of using your own wisdom to interpret scripture. We were taught since the beginning of the restoration that it is unacceptable before God: 

"they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof." " (ibid 1:19)

 

And even in latter-day revelation we are told that it is not of God to use our own wisdom and understanding to interpret scriptures:

"And again, he that receiveth the word of truth, doth he receive it by the Spirit of truth or some other way? If it be some other way it is not of God." (D&C 50:19-20)

 

You may think you're covered if it says it in the scriptures but even at that scriptures can be misinterpreted. How many different denominations are there based on different interpretations of the Bible? Paul shared how he learned what he wrote and it wasn't from reading other's books or from his interpretations of the scriptures:

"11    But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 

12    For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Galatians 1:11-12)

 

This is all consistent with what prophets have told us. For example, Nephi said:

"O Lord, I have trusted in thee, and I will trust in thee forever. I will not put my trust in the arm of flesh; for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm." (2 Nephi 4:34)

 

Yet with all that you still ignore the scriptures that tell us to seek from God rather than using our own wisdom, and then have the fortitude to challenge what I had learned from the Spirit after seeking from God. Nephi had a similar issue with brothers that wouldn't turn to God for understanding but would also try using their own wisdom and understanding. Might your reason for failing to seek the answers directly from God be the same reason as we read here?

"8    And I said unto them: Have ye inquired of the Lord? 

9    And they said unto me: We have not; for the Lord maketh no such thing known unto us. 

10    Behold, I said unto them: How is it that ye do not keep the commandments of the Lord? How is it that ye will perish, because of the hardness of your hearts?" (1 Nephi 15:8-10)

 

One only has beliefs until it is revealed to them by God. Since you're failing to turn to God for understanding then all you can challenge with is your beliefs. If you turn to God then the Spirit can give you learning and understanding in those beliefs and that will result in knowledge... Unless you continue to deny the Spirit. But it looks like a catch 22 since turning to God for learning requires the Spirit yet you're disputing the Spirit because you're relying on your own wisdom and understanding rather than God. It is a dilemma...

Edited April 8, 2016 by Sadliers

[Vort]

Okay, Sadliers, how about this:

God has told me that you are wrong. He has done so by giving me scriptures as a guide, and your doctrine is shown false by that standard. His Spirit, which is manifest in me by the fact that I can think about things, has taught me that your beliefs are contrary to his divine word.

Does that work better for you?

[Sadliers]

10 hours ago, Vort said:

Okay, Sadliers, how about this:

God has told me that you are wrong. He has done so by giving me scriptures as a guide, and your doctrine is shown false by that standard. His Spirit, which is manifest in me by the fact that I can think about things, has taught me that your beliefs are contrary to his divine word.

Does that work better for you?

Oh, my friend, that's not good! You didn't understand what Nephi was saying.

"O Lord, I have trusted in thee, and I will trust in thee forever. I will not put my trust in the arm of flesh; for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm." (2 Nephi 4:34)

 

You're doing the very thing that Nephi said that is a curse. The saints in Corinth were also having problems with trying to learn God the same way, through the wisdom of their study, and it was causing problems. One would interpret one way and another would interpret it differently and it resulted in contention. Paul wrote to them and right off the bat addressed the issue. He pointed out that the learning is supposed to come directly from God, not through their studies. The Pharisees would do their studying but rather than seeking a witness from the Spirit they would rely on their own interpretations, such as you are doing, and that is relying on one's own wisdom. The members in Corinth had that as their example before being converted and they thought it would work for them as members of the church. Paul tried correcting it and said:

 

"That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge;" (1 Corinthians 1:5)

 

Notice that Paul did not say that one's own wisdom was sufficient for knowledge but rather that it comes from God. Paul continues making the point:

 

"For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect." (1 Corinthians 1:17)

 

What is "wisdom of words"? It is a good argument/claim using wisdom just as you have done. Notice that he did not go that route and the reason why: because it would make the "cross of Christ... of none effect". That is a very serious claim! Is there salvation for a person if the cross is of no effect? No! What he is saying is that God is not learned through mere studies and God is also not taught through conclusions from study ("wisdom"). Since that is not how God is learned and taught then how is it? Just like he has said previously and elsewhere, it is through the Spirit. This is totally consistent with what the Lord has revealed in the D&C:

 

"17    Verily I say unto you, he that is ordained of me and sent forth to preach the word of truth by the Comforter, in the Spirit of truth, doth he preach it by the Spirit of truth or some other way? 

18    And if it be by some other way it is not of God. 

19    And again, he that receiveth the word of truth, doth he receive it by the Spirit of truth or some other way? 

20    If it be some other way it is not of God. 

21    Therefore, why is it that ye cannot understand and know, that he that receiveth the word by the Spirit of truth receiveth it as it is preached by the Spirit of truth? 

22    Wherefore, he that preacheth and he that receiveth, understand one another, and both are edified and rejoice together." (D&C 50:17-22)

 

Paul didn't leave it at that but rather did a whole chapter on learning by he Spirit. He again makes the point:

"4    And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: 

5    That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God." (1 Corinthians 2:4-5)

 

Again he told them not to do as you have done but rather look to God. And he states what has already been stated within this thread:

"For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." (1 Corinthians 2:11)

 

The JST is corrects it as "except he has the Spirit of God." Again, attempting to learn God through studying and interpreting, as you have done, is fruitless because it is only a belief. Knowledge only comes from God. Paul continues:

 

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14)

 

Yes, when you have consistently failed to learn by the Spirit but rather relied on your own wisdom then what was shared may very well look like foolishness to you. The problem isn't in what was said but rather in your method for gaining understanding of God. Paul makes another point regarding those that fail to gain their learning from God:

 

"1    And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. 

2    I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able." (1 Corinthians 3:1-2)

 

Those that fail to learn through the Spirit are babes in the gospel and should not be given meat. They need to grasp tightly to the coat tails of the prophets because they cannot learn the gospel from God on their own. One does not grow in the gospel by relying on their own wisdom and understanding, and it does not matter how long they've been members nor how many books they have read. The approach you have taken does not work for a saint. How many different ways does it need stated and how many different scriptures need cited before it will occur that one must not rely on their own wisdom and understanding in learning the gospel? As Paul said, doing so makes the cross of Christ of no effect.

Edited April 8, 2016 by Sadliers

[Vort]

And yet, for all your pretentious condescension, you have yet to provide anything to back up your anti-scriptural claims beyond "God told me so, and therefore I'm right and you're wrong".

[estradling75]

Moses 7:34

34 And the fire of mine indignation is kindled against them; and in my hot displeasure will I send in the floods upon them, for my fierce anger is kindled against them.

Moses 8:15

15 And the Lord said unto Noah: The daughters of thy sons have sold themselves; for behold mine anger is kindled against the sons of men, for they will not hearken to my voice.

Moses 6:27

27 And he heard a voice from heaven, saying: Enoch, my son, prophesy unto this people, and say unto them—Repent, for thus saith the Lord: I am angry with this people, and my fierce anger is kindled against them; for their hearts have waxed hard, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes cannot see afar off;

Doctrine and Covenants 109:27

27 And if any people shall rise against this people, that thine anger be kindled against them;

Doctrine and Covenants 121:5

5 Let thine anger be kindled against our enemies; and, in the fury of thine heart, with thy sword avenge us of our wrongs.

Doctrine and Covenants 82:6

6 And the anger of God kindleth against the inhabitants of the earth; and none doeth good, for all have gone out of the way.

Doctrine and Covenants 1:13

13 And the anger of the Lord is kindled, and his sword is bathed in heaven, and it shall fall upon the inhabitants of the earth.

Doctrine and Covenants 61:5

5 For I, the Lord, have decreed in mine anger many destructions upon the waters; yea, and especially upon these waters.

Doctrine and Covenants 61:20

20 I, the Lord, was angry with you yesterday, but today mine anger is turned away.

Doctrine and Covenants 5:8

8 Oh, this unbelieving and stiffnecked generation—mine anger is kindled against them.

Doctrine and Covenants 63:2

2 Yea, verily, I say, hear the word of him whose anger is kindled against the wicked and rebellious;

 

This is just the tip of the iceberg of scriptures that clearly state that God can and does feel and act on Anger.

Given that the scriptures are the bench mark against false revelation and false doctrine are measured it seems that the scriptures clearly disagree with the idea that God does not feel anger.

Now if the statement was that Divine Anger or Wrath is profoundly different then what most of us fallen and corrupt mortal experience then I have no problem with that.. But to say he doesn't feel it at all is simply not supported by  scripture

 

 

Edited April 8, 2016 by estradling75

[The Folk Prophet]

I tend to think (just my view) that Gods "feelings" of anger are not what we talk of when we think of anger. God's anger would never be irrational, for example. Ours almost always is.

[estradling75]

16 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I tend to think (just my view) that Gods "feelings" of anger are not what we talk of when we think of anger. God's anger would never be irrational, for example. Ours almost always is.

God is perfect... his anger is therefore also perfect... 

We are imperfect... our anger is therefore also imperfect..

The difference is profound... and that been what was stated I doubt any one would have an issue with it.  But the statement was God does not feel anger which is clearly not the case if you believe that the scriptures are true

 

 

 

[The Folk Prophet]

16 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

God is perfect... his anger is therefore also perfect... 

We are imperfect... our anger is therefore also imperfect..

The difference is profound... and that been what was stated I doubt any one would have an issue with it.  But the statement was God does not feel anger which is clearly not the case if you believe that the scriptures are true

 

 

 

True. I think the consternation comes in the semantics of the word "feel" though, simply because when we "feel" anger it is typically sin and cannot imagine God every feeling anything of the sort. That is not to say that I disbelieve that God "feels" anger...but what He is feeling, I suspect, isn't what we mean when we talk about feeling anger.

[Sadliers]

 When one cannot comprehend God's love then how is it assumed they can comprehend God's "anger"??? How can one comprehend either of those if they cannot even comprehend the Spirit? What makes one think they comprehend the Spirit if they don't even know what the Spirit's presence feels like?

[The Folk Prophet]

11 minutes ago, Sadliers said:

 When one cannot comprehend God's love then how is it assumed they can comprehend God's "anger"??? How can one comprehend either of those if they cannot even comprehend the Spirit? What makes one think they comprehend the Spirit if they don't even know what the Spirit's presence feels like?

What?

[estradling75]

13 minutes ago, Sadliers said:

 When one cannot comprehend God's love then how is it assumed they can comprehend God's "anger"??? How can one comprehend either of those if they cannot even comprehend the Spirit? What makes one think they comprehend the Spirit if they don't even know what the Spirit's presence feels like?

While one might not be able to comprehend fully God's love or God's anger...  Doesn't mean that if we make the statement God doesn't feel love or feel anger that we are anywhere near what the scripture teach on the subject... Or the truth for that matter, and if the truth isn't in us then our claims on having the spirit are also suspect.

Edited April 8, 2016 by estradling75

[Guest]

It's simple. We are all given the light of Christ from birth, and the gift of the Holy Ghost at our confirmation. Most of us are taught from childhood about the Holy Ghost, and through learning and practice we get better and better at hearing and heeding promptings and messages from the Spirit. 

But we're wrong, because if we don't listen to Sadleirs and correct the errors we've been making all these years by following revelation given to him, we are relying on the arm of man. 

In summary: what we recognize as promptings from the Spirit, as we've practiced and grown in doing since childhood = wrong, apostate, man-leaning. Heeding the revelations of Sadliers = real truth, and not leaning on the arm... of man. Except... wait...

 

Got it?

[Vort]

14 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

Got it?

The clearness of your clarity is just...so...clear.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Sadliers said:

Oh, my friend, that's not good! You didn't understand what Nephi was saying.

You're doing the very thing that Nephi said that is a curse. The saints in Corinth were also having problems with trying to learn God the same way, through the wisdom of their study, and it was causing problems. One would interpret one way and another would interpret it differently and it resulted in contention. Paul wrote to them and right off the bat addressed the issue. He pointed out that the learning is supposed to come directly from God, not through their studies. The Pharisees would do their studying but rather than seeking a witness from the Spirit they would rely on their own interpretations, such as you are doing, and that is relying on one's own wisdom. The members in Corinth had that as their example before being converted and they thought it would work for them as members of the church. Paul tried correcting it and said:

What is "wisdom of words"? It is a good argument/claim using wisdom just as you have done. Notice that he did not go that route and the reason why: because it would make the "cross of Christ... of none effect". That is a very serious claim! Is there salvation for a person if the cross is of no effect? No! What he is saying is that God is not learned through mere studies and God is also not taught through conclusions from study ("wisdom"). Since that is not how God is learned and taught then how is it? Just like he has said previously and elsewhere, it is through the Spirit. This is totally consistent with what the Lord has revealed in the D&C:

Those that fail to learn through the Spirit are babes in the gospel and should not be given meat. They need to grasp tightly to the coat tails of the prophets because they cannot learn the gospel from God on their own. One does not grow in the gospel by relying on their own wisdom and understanding, and it does not matter how long they've been members nor how many books they have read. The approach you have taken does not work for a saint. How many different ways does it need stated and how many different scriptures need cited before it will occur that one must not rely on their own wisdom and understanding in learning the gospel? As Paul said, doing so makes the cross of Christ of no effect.

And she swears she's not following after Snuffer.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

And she swears she's not following after Snuffer.

The first rule of the Snuffer club is that we don't talk about the Snuffer club.