Doctrine and Revelation

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

What you stated above is that if you have not been given a witness by the Holy Ghost of Principle X, this lack of witness is proof that Principle X is false.

Do you really believe this? If so, hurry to this site and do all the logic puzzles you can.

I cant believe something in the gospel is true unless the spirit testifies to me it is true. Are we not commanded to teach by the spirit which is the spirit of truth?

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

What I understand is that you said you'd never gotten revelation on it and then you said have. Which of those times you were not speaking the truth?

Seems like your changing tactics because you aren't getting through. After all, who can argue against, "the Spirit told me I was right".

Your cunning grows.

Theres a vast difference between receiving revelation on the correct doctrine versus not receiving a witness that what exists is correct. You need to understand the principle of witness and confirmation a bit more before you go flying off the handle.

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, Rob Osborn said:

Theres a vast difference between receiving revelation on the correct doctrine versus not receiving a witness that what exists is correct. You need to understand the principle of witness and confirmation a bit more before you go flying off the handle.

I'm not flying off the handle. You said you HAVEN'T received revelation on your theory and then you said you HAVE. I'm not flying off the handle. Which is it?

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, zil said:

(I know, rhetorical question, still...)  I can.  And so can the scriptures!

No, you can also keep your mouth closed when what you think contradicts what the prophets teach as doctrine, and therefore also contradicts the order the Lord established for teaching doctrine, and therefore has the potential to lead people to reject the prophets - something far worse than whether they have a correct understanding of heaven and hell.

If you want to contradict the prophets on the best ink color and nib size ever, have at it.  But when it comes to doctrine, doing so is contrary to the Lord's explicit instructions - regardless of whether you or they are right.

When I teach, I do so by stating who believes it is that believes it is correct. For instance, when I teach in church about the three degrees of glory I state "this is what the doctrine is of the church, any questions"? 

[Rob Osborn]

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm not flying off the handle. You said you HAVEN'T received revelation on your theory and then you said you HAVE. I'm not flying off the handle. Which is it?

Well then you are lieing because I never said that. 

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, Rob Osborn said:

Well then you are lieing because I never said that. 

Which did you never say? That you have or you haven't?

[Rob Osborn]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Which did you never say? That you have or you haven't?

I will try one more time to explain. Please listen this time.

I said, and have always said so that I have never received revelation on my findings as to its correctness. I dont have that right to receive that revelation. Thats why I need to seek clarification from church priesthood leaders over me. On the other side, I havent received a confirmation on certain doctrine already taught by the church that it is true. As a side to that I have received a witness that certain aspects of gospel principles and their definitions are correct as I understand them because it is the same way ancient prophets and Joseph Smith understood them. Thats not receiving new revelation but rather a confirmation of what was already revealed to the prophets ancient and modern. Now, if there are discrepencies, and there are, then it needs to be clarified. I cant do that but the church can. Do you now understand this?

[Rob Osborn]

16 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

As a side to that I have received a witness that certain aspects of gospel principles and their definitions are correct as I understand them because it is the same way ancient prophets and Joseph Smith understood them.

For instance, to be "saved" when speaking of salvation in scripture means to be saved from physical and spiritual death. In short it means to be saved from tge eternal hell.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

I will try one more time to explain. Please listen this time.

I said, and have always said so that I have never received revelation on my findings as to its correctness. I dont have that right to receive that revelation. Thats why I need to seek clarification from church priesthood leaders over me. On the other side, I havent received a confirmation on certain doctrine already taught by the church that it is true. As a side to that I have received a witness that certain aspects of gospel principles and their definitions are correct as I understand them because it is the same way ancient prophets and Joseph Smith understood them. Thats not receiving new revelation but rather a confirmation of what was already revealed to the prophets ancient and modern. Now, if there are discrepencies, and there are, then it needs to be clarified. I cant do that but the church can. Do you now understand this?

Right...so when you say:

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I teach what I feel is right as has been confirmed by the spirit to me.

What you really meant was "I teach what I've worked out with my brain but don't have the right to receive confirmation on."

[Rob Osborn]

10 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Right...so when you say:

What you really meant was "I teach what I've worked out with my brain but don't have the right to receive confirmation on."

No, you keep missing it, completely missing it.

[The Folk Prophet]

35 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

No, you keep missing it, completely missing it.

I only have the words you use to go by. You said, "I teach what I feel is right as has been confirmed by the spirit to me."

You also said, "I have never received revelation on my findings as to its correctness. I dont have that right to receive that revelation."

You are teaching things that you have not had confirmed by the spirit, but say you teach what has been confirmed by the Spirit.

You can keep responding that I don't get it, but I understand the words you're using very well. Maybe the flaw is in the words you're using.

Are you under the impression that receiving revelation and having something confirmed by the Spirit are not the same thing? Or did you mean to say you teach what you feel is right as has been confirmed by the Spirit to you, and you ALSO teach things that you feel are right that haven't been confirmed by the Spirit to you.

I only have your words to go on as to what you mean. Please clarify.

[Guest]

 

.

Edited April 20, 2018 by Guest

[The Folk Prophet]

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

 

.

Inspiring.

 

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I only have the words you use to go by. You said, "I teach what I feel is right as has been confirmed by the spirit to me."

You also said, "I have never received revelation on my findings as to its correctness. I dont have that right to receive that revelation."

You are teaching things that you have not had confirmed by the spirit, but say you teach what has been confirmed by the Spirit.

You can keep responding that I don't get it, but I understand the words you're using very well. Maybe the flaw is in the words you're using.

Are you under the impression that receiving revelation and having something confirmed by the Spirit are not the same thing? Or did you mean to say you teach what you feel is right as has been confirmed by the Spirit to you, and you ALSO teach things that you feel are right that haven't been confirmed by the Spirit to you.

I only have your words to go on as to what you mean. Please clarify.

Im clarifying the part where you accused me of receiving revelation that my ideas were correct. I never said that. I dont know where you dream this stuff up. I think you just dont understand. If you cant find the actual quote from me that states I have received revelation my ideas are correct then you must retract your accusations.

I will say it ONE MORE TIME. I havent received any revelation that my ideas are correct. I teach according to how the spirit guides me. As of yet, I have received no confirmation that certain topics within the gospel are correct.

[Guest]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

Inspiring.

In an effort to back you up, I was in the process of making a character assassination that was so saucy and so delicious that I felt a bit on the evil side for making it.  So, I repented and deleted it.

[Rob Osborn]

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/obtuse

[The Folk Prophet]

4 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Im clarifying the part where you accused me of receiving revelation that my ideas were correct. I never said that. I dont know where you dream this stuff up. I think you just dont understand. If you cant find the actual quote from me that states I have received revelation my ideas are correct then you must retract your accusations.

I will say it ONE MORE TIME. I havent received any revelation that my ideas are correct. I teach according to how the spirit guides me. As of yet, I have received no confirmation that certain topics within the gospel are correct.

So the part that was false was when you said, "I teach what I feel is right as has been confirmed by the spirit to me."

Gotchya.

[person0]

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

In an effort to back you up, I was in the process of making a character assassination that was so saucy and so delicious that I felt a bit on the evil side for making it.  So, I repented and deleted it.

[Guest]

Just now, person0 said:

Yes, it's true.  My deleted post was about the delusions of Buzz Lightyear.  He thinks he's a space ranger or something.

[Rob Osborn]

20 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

So the part that was false was when you said, "I teach what I feel is right as has been confirmed by the spirit to me."

Gotchya.

And you failed to see the context. Having ideas and expressing them versus teaching others a doctrine of the church in a role as a teacher at church are two separate things. The context of this is is in defining doctrine. This started because I was stating that "doctrine" doesnt equate to eternal truth. When I said I teach according to what I feel is right, what has been confirmed to me it was in light of general doctrine. Somehow you jumped the gun and automatically thought I was teaching my version of heaven as had been confirmed to me by the spirit. Nothing could be further from the truth. Like I said- quote the text where I said I have received confirmation that my ideas are correct.

Put up or SHUT UP!

[The Folk Prophet]

[The Folk Prophet]

6 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

And you failed to see the context.

So contextually when I say, 

9 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Clearly. You don't seem have any problem with telling people the prophets are incorrect at all.

And you reply saying.

6 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

For me to say something is true when I feel it is untrue is to be deceptive. I teach what I feel is right as has been confirmed by the spirit to me. Thats all I can do- teach by the spirit.

So...telling people in this forum the prophets are incorrect is out of context for your reply, because you meant only formal teaching, despite the fact that you were directly replying to a statement that was about you telling people in this forum that the prophets are incorrect?

Yep. Super obtuse. How could I not have known that you directly replying to something I said wasn't within the context of what I said?

[Rob Osborn]

4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

So contextually when I say, 

And you reply saying.

So...telling people in this forum the prophets are incorrect is out of context for your reply, because you meant only formal teaching, despite the fact that you were directly replying to a statement that was about you telling people in this forum that the prophets are incorrect?

Yep. Super obtuse. How could I not have known that you directly replying to something I said wasn't within the context of what I said?

You accused me of teaching my ideas as having them being confirmed by the spirit. Perhaps you dont get that "teaching" is different than expressing ideas, asking questions, commenting on a topic, etc.

Im not sure why you keep hammering this point when you know that my own ideas regarding heaven are just my ideas and not a revelation from God confirming a new truth.

So please stop mischaracterising me and spreading lies.

[The Folk Prophet]

10 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

You accused me of teaching my ideas as having them being confirmed by the spirit. Perhaps you dont get that "teaching" is different than expressing ideas, asking questions, commenting on a topic, etc.

Im not sure why you keep hammering this point when you know that my own ideas regarding heaven are just my ideas and not a revelation from God confirming a new truth.

So please stop mischaracterising me and spreading lies.

I probably shouldn't bother here but...

When I said "Well, well, well" in the first place all you really needed to do was say, "I mean formal teaching like in a church class."

Instead you talked about praying about confirmation on manuals, there being a difference between getting revelation on correct doctrine and not getting revelation on doctrine, called me a liar, talked about the revelation you haven't received on your views, reiterated you haven't received confirmation, and finally, after all that waste, explained what you actually meant. (teaching others a doctrine of the church in a role as a teacher at church)

So why did we have to go through all that?

You spoke about teaching thing, I obviously thought you meant what you were "teaching/preaching" here in the forum. Why did it take so many posts to get to a simple answer -- "I meant teaching others in a role as a teacher at church"?

Then, after going round and round in circles based on your failure to get to the actual point, you resort to calling me a liar again.

I can plainly understand when you actually explain instead of going off on a bunch of unrelated points. When you say you teach things that have been confirmed by the Spirit you mean teaching in formal church settings not expressing ideas on a public forum. I understand you now. And I can now say: Thanks for the clarification.

Tell me this -- seriously -- do you really believe I'm lying? Do you truly believe that I am intentionally saying things that I do not believe to be true? I know you think what I am saying in many cases is inaccurate. But for me to be lying it must be deliberately untruthful, right? Do you believe I am deliberately being untruthful in the things I say?

[Rob Osborn]

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I probably shouldn't bother here but...

When I said "Well, well, well" in the first place all you really needed to do was say, "I mean formal teaching like in a church class."

Instead you talked about praying about confirmation on manuals, there being a difference between getting revelation on correct doctrine and not getting revelation on doctrine, called me a liar, talked about the revelation you haven't received on your views, reiterated you haven't received confirmation, and finally, after all that waste, explained what you actually meant. (teaching others a doctrine of the church in a role as a teacher at church)

So why did we have to go through all that?

You spoke about teaching thing, I obviously thought you meant what you were "teaching/preaching" here in the forum. Why did it take so many posts to get to a simple answer -- "I meant teaching others in a role as a teacher at church"?

Then, after going round and round in circles based on your failure to get to the actual point, you resort to calling me a liar again.

I can plainly understand when you actually explain instead of going off on a bunch of unrelated points. When you say you teach things that have been confirmed by the Spirit you mean teaching in formal church settings not expressing ideas on a public forum. I understand you now. And I can now say: Thanks for the clarification.

Tell me this -- seriously -- do you really believe I'm lying? Do you truly believe that I am intentionally saying things that I do not believe to be true? I know you think what I am saying in many cases is inaccurate. But for me to be lying it must be deliberately untruthful, right? Do you believe I am deliberately being untruthful in the things I say?

Two words come to my mind- 

Manipulative: serving or intended to control or influence others in an artful and often unfair or selfish way

Obtuse: annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand

I think you are being manipulative and using trickery in an attempt to discredit me. I think you are being obtuse in that you are annoyingly insensitive.

We both know where we both stand. You seem to just follow me around and announce on every thread how horrible I am and hi-jack every thread I post in. You fit the definition of those two words to perfection.