Personal apostasy

[Guest]

Zomarah,

I understand it is difficult to get tone over the internet.  I'd like to preface this post with the declaration that I'm saying what I'm saying all of this in a low-keyed emotional state.  I'm not angry and I'm not trying to be argumentative.  But I certainly have disagreements.

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I don't think anyone is saying that the prophet's cereal preference is a divine declaration of any sort.  Nor do I believe that those who wear the "Monson Power tie" is doing so as a form of worship (religious or otherwise).  But you decided to make the statement as if none of us understood that.  So, what is it you're trying to get at?

You responded with.

3 hours ago, zomarah said:

I prefer to use the term "hearken to prophets," rather than follow prophets. Because when saying follow it tends to convey the meaning of obey. And it is not prophets we should be obeying or following, they are just the messengers; it is God we should be obeying. To me hearken means that I should listen to anyone who claims to be a prophet then take the message they claim to be from God and study it and pray about it. Then if God confirms the message is from him I will accept it as His Word, if not then I wont. But that doesn't grant a free pass for that person to say whatever they wish from there on out and have me accept that if it is from God. So no, I do not believe I should trust in men. I do not believe I should have faith in men. I believe I should only have faith in Christ and His Words. Now I understand you have a differing opinion and I respect that. I encourage you to follow what the Lord has told you to do.

On this point, no we don't have a differing opinion.  This is exactly what I said you were already doing.  And you did it again.  Yes, we're aware.  So?

3 hours ago, zomarah said:

I believe the traditional interpretation of this doctrine is false. I believe it undermines free will and lulls us unto an attitude of complacency and a feeling of all being well in Zion. I don't believe that God will zap any President of the Church who would try and teach anything false. I do believe that a Leader cannot lead us astray if we are firmly planted in the Word of God; because we will then be able to detect false teachings and not be lead astray by them.

See, this is what makes me think you're a Snufferite.  You've swallowed the camel so easily that you don't see how much you're straining at the gnat.  You put more stock into your personal, private interpretation than you do in the words of the Church leaders.  You're on the opposite end of the spectrum.  The balance is to recognize our own interpretation applied to our lives is EQUAL, not superior to.  And we do not hold the position to speak for the whole Church, just our own lives.  But you're making an interpretation that regardless of your protestations otherwise, by their very nature, are pronouncements for the whole Church.   That is why I object to these interpretations.

3 hours ago, zomarah said:

My understanding of the scriptures you quoted is this that D&C1:38 states that whether by the Lord's voice or the voice of His servants all of the Word of God will be fulfilled.

But that's not what it says.  It says "IT IS THE SAME".  How ironic that you're championing the adherence to "all of the Word of God" and substitute in your own words for your own convenience.

3 hours ago, zomarah said:

As for D&C 68:4, verses 2 and 7 indicate to me that what is mentioned in verse 4 is an example for all those mentioned in verse 7, because only Orson Hyde was mentioned in verse 1. It is my understanding that neither of these verses give a free pass any statement of a leader to be considered revelation or scripture.

 

Really?  Verse 2 to me says that this applies to everyone who receives the priesthood and to all those who preach in His name.  Perhaps you don't realize that revelation is not always a "thus saith the Lord" type revelation.  Many times I've personally been moved by the Spirit to do or say something.  But the words and actions were mine (albeit inspired).

3 hours ago, zomarah said:

I understand that you consider what I said to be splitting hairs. However, for me it is being clear. a declaration and reaffirmation is not a revelation. What that sentence is basically saying is that "we are repeating statements made in the past." But for example if I say, "I believe in the teachings found in Section 119 concerning tithing." In my view my statement may be a reaffirmation, but it is not a revelation. The revelation would be the original Voice of the Lord  that I cited, namely Section 119.

I hope you're aware of the historical background of this section.  It is not what you indicate in this paragraph.

 

 

Edited June 14, 2016 by Guest

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, zomarah said:

For example:

Excerpt from June 2016 First Presidency message:

"Our Father in Heaven knows His children’s needs better than anyone else. It is His work and glory to help us at every turn, giving us marvelous temporal and spiritual resources to help us on our path to return to Him."

No voice of the Lord.

I've been trying to not respond to threads with just the word 'nonsense', so I won't.

[Rhoades]

To Those Confused By Posts From  @zomarah ,

Understand that he/she does not believe The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is led by revelation.  I think the hang up is the Church's discontinuance of polygamy.  Re-read the posts with this in mind.

[omegaseamaster75]

18 minutes ago, Rhoades said:

To Those Confused By Posts From  @zomarah ,

Understand that he/she does not believe The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is led by revelation.  I think the hang up is the Church's discontinuance of polygamy.  Re-read the posts with this in mind.

Is this true Zomarah?

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I've been trying to not respond to threads with just the word 'nonsense', so I won't.

Nonsense.

 

[Anddenex]

16 hours ago, zomarah said:

That's fair. And really the word revelation has various shades of meaning. In the context of this discussion I'm using to refer to the Lord's Word on any given subject. To give a specific example of my meaning, tithing. In the Church today we teach that tithing is 10% of one's income. However, if we read Section 119 it states that tithing is an initial giving of one's surplus to the Bishop, followed by ten percent of one's interest annually. When did this change? More importantly when did the Lord change it and where is the revelation authorizing the change? If there is not a revelation then the Lord's latest word on the subject of tithing is in Section 119, which makes me believe that the current teaching and practice is not in harmony with God's word.

As for your second part, the proclamation "The Family" may indeed become canonized. But that still doesn't make it revelation. Our scriptural canon consists of many different things from historical records and letters, to songs and wise sayings. I find many good and wise things in "The Family." It may even be based on revelation , but in my view that does not make IT revelation.
 

What I find interesting is that we are using the same definition for revelation, and yet coming to a very different conclusion. Revelation equals the "Lord's Word" -- true. "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" is the Lord's Word on the subjects of who we are, the divine heritage we have, the role of men and women pertaining to family and marriage, and the eternal identity of gender, with a warning of failing to live up to our divine purpose. Yes, very much God's words to us, ergo revelation. Revelation has always been based upon revelation, and always will be. Spiritually, without revelation a question cannot be asked, and without a question, revelation will not be received. Abraham learned obedience through gaining more knowledge (revelation), by which he lived according to his knowledge and then desired more knowledge (revelation). The same for Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. 

As pertaining to tithing, there appears to be personal interpretation intertwined with scripture, as the scripture can be read more than one way. The interpretation you are providing is that the "surplus" statement is still mandated by God, and then also one-tenth. The other interpretation has a beginning and "after" surplus begins tithing. This would indicate that the surplus statement was for that time, and that period alone. Then "after" surplus has been received, which is the beginning, then they shall do the following, "pay one-tenth of their interest annually." Since Joseph's death, proceeding then to Brigham Young, down to President Thomas S. Monson, this has been the statement as declared by Joseph F. Smith, "God requires one-tenth of our increase to be put into His storehouse; and this is given as a standing law to all of the Stakes of Zion." The "after." I don't see a need for a "new" revelation to be given, or the need to change anything. It remains what is has been since Abraham paid a tenth to Melchizedek. Conclusion would be, yes, as at this time, we are in harmony with God's word; although, God would have us live the commandments of Zion, we are still in harmony with revealed word, at this moment.

EDIT: The concept would be similar if President Monson declared, and it was proclaimed and mandated, "Brethren, we are to give our surplus, and then after pay your tithing which is one-tenth of your interest annually." So we would then give a surplus according to commandment received, and then after we would pay as we are now currently, a tenth of our annual interest. I don't see an issue with any new revelation to change it. It has been said already.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Anddenex

[Guest]

23 hours ago, Rhoades said:

To Those Confused By Posts From  @zomarah ,

Understand that he/she does not believe The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is led by revelation.  I think the hang up is the Church's discontinuance of polygamy.  Re-read the posts with this in mind.

His hang up is about whatever he happens to disagree with the prophet on at the time.  If he doesn't change his mind on something, give it time.

(I'm no longer being nice).

(yes, the squirrel flame thrower is still my favorite).

1) He also believes we ought to give all our surplus to the church as a free-will offering.  He fails to understand what tithing actually is, nor does he understand the chonology of the D&C.  So he cannot understand Section 119.  So, he'd love it if people dropped the Church and decided to give all their surplus to him since he's a prophet after all.
2) He'd love to have another wife or seven.  I hope he knows what he's getting into.  That's a lot of emotional entanglement that I don't think any man really wants to get into.
3) He keeps harping on the "voice of the Lord" because he doesn't (want to) understand how revelation works.  Nor does he (want to) understand the many different tools the Lord uses to fulfill His purposes.
4) He really wants to have the "Sabbath" on Saturdays because it adds to the "hearkening back" to a more bygone era shtick.  Why on earth he concocted the "Sabbath" as being different from "The Lord's Day" is beyond me.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Guest

[Guest MormonGator]

15 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

2) He'd love to have another wife or seven.  I hope he knows what he's getting into.  That's a lot of emotional entanglement that I don't think any man really wants to get into.
 

"Plural marriage is complicated, I do not suggest trying it at home."-that dude from Sister Wives. 

[NeedleinA]

@zomarah What account name did you used to previously post here under before you created the "Zomarah" user name??

Edited June 15, 2016 by NeedleinA

[tesuji]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

His hang up is about whatever he happens to disagree with the prophet on at the time.  If he doesn't change his mind on something, give it time.

(I'm no longer being nice).

(yes, the squirrel flame thrower is still my favorite).

1) He also believes we ought to give all our surplus to the church as a free-will offering.  He fails to understand what tithing actually is, nor does he understand the chonology of the D&C.  So he cannot understand Section 119.  So, he'd love it if people dropped the Church and decided to give all their surplus to him since he's a prophet after all.
2) He'd love to have another wife or seven.  I hope he knows what he's getting into.  That's a lot of emotional entanglement that I don't think any man really wants to get into.
3) He keeps harping on the "voice of the Lord" because he doesn't (want to) understand how revelation works.  Nor does he (want to) understand the many different tools the Lord uses to fulfill His purposes.
4) He really wants to have the "Sabbath" on Saturdays because it adds to the "hearkening back" to a more bygone era shtick.  Why on earth he concocted the "Sabbath" as being different from "The Lord's Day" is beyond me.

Another point he seems to not accept is continuing revelation. According to the doctrine of continuing revelation, it doesn't matter what prophets or the church have done in the past. What matters is what the current prophet says.

Edited June 15, 2016 by tesuji