NOM

alas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:07 am See, this whole process takes time. It isn’t like God tells his prophet what is going to happen ahead of time. What kind of God do you think Rusty worships? A real one?

alas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:07 am See, this whole process takes time. It isn’t like God tells his prophet what is going to happen ahead of time. What kind of God do you think Rusty worships? A real one?

You may have a point there.

The true God might have sent RMN a vision similar to Peter's of a sheet coming down from heaven. Except God, knowing RMN to have been a surgeon, would have sent a tourniquet to symbolize a way to help stem the bleeding.....

A note attached might read, "Honesty is the best policy."

He got one thing right, and that is truth is truth, regardless of if anyone thinks it is the truth or not.

What he got horribly wrong though, was the source of truth. Truth does not depend on a source- it just is- independent of a source.

That means if one is to learn the truth from a "decenter from the Church", as he put it- well buddy- it is still truth.

Same ol' same ol'. The leaders of the church are the source of truth- even if they are wrong- like they were this time. That is ridiculous. A child knows that truth must be backed by evidence. If there is no evidence, it is something that can and should be dismissed.

Just because someone says something and they "testify" that it is true does not mean that it is. Sadly, Nelson and the others are well aware of this but they like to do the same things that they've learned from others. The system is flawed because the leaders now are worried that if they say that the leaders before them were wrong they both lose credibility.

Of course every single one or you know this. Only one with the courage to say mistakes were made was Dieter....and they fired him for it.

Accidental post

An excerpt:

"You are the children whom God chose to be part of His battalion during this great climax in the longstanding battle between good and evil—between truth and error. I would not be surprised if, when the veil is lifted in the next life, we learn that you actually pled with our Heavenly Father to be reserved for now. I would not be surprised to learn that premortally, you loved the Lord so much that you promised to defend His name and gospel during this world’s tumultuous winding-up scenes."

Sooooo many built in psychological arm twisters here. Spiritual coercion?

1. Ego stroking:
God chose you especially for his army against evil.

2. Direct guilt trip:
You begged God to let you come to Earth at this time.

3. Implied guilt trip:
You don't want to let God down do you? "You promised"!!!

4. 2nd Coming scare tactic:
You're here for the great winding up scene! Don't screw it up!

græy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 9:10 pmI agree with you totally, Random. And that is precisely why praying to know if he is a prophet, or praying to know if what he says is true, is not an effective way of coming to those conclusions. Confirmation bias is a tricky thing when you need emotion to give you an objective result.

And we don't seem to be aware that we have it.

It reminds me of this blog post I read this morning. The premise seems to be that praying if Nelson is a prophet is sidestepping what a person really should be doing, and that's looking at the fruits.

back to the scripture, this teaching from Christ does not ask or teach people to assess the wolf or sheep themselves directly. It doesn't ask them to pray to God and ask for God to tell them whether the thing that looks like a sheep really is a sheep. Instead it asks you to look at the fruits, and by those fruits will come the answer as to the actual character of the thing in question. Whether sheep or wolf. Seems God wants us to grow and search and learn and not just sit back with a quick answer having learned nothing. Good fruit in the context of Christ teachings no doubt has to do with salvation, saved souls being the good fruit God desires. So the fruit of a prophet should link in some way to salvation.

Praying about the person sounds like a reasonable idea right?. I mean if you can get God to tell you who's a prophet and who's not you can be truly confident right? And yet that can easily distract you from looking at and examining the fruits.

From here: http://lamplightjournal.blogspot.com/20 ... ruits.html

And the fruit seems to be sadly lacking, unless throwing expensive birthday bashes and building expensive buildings and malls, while telling the poor among you to give you money even if it means they and their children go hungry, their bills go unpaid, and they lose their home is fruit. And what a telling fruit that is!

alas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:07 amIt takes time for the proper committee to gather the blogs and internet discussion grumbling and then present it to the leadership in one of their bubble penetrating briefings. Then the brethren have to discuss it.

I honestly believe that their underlings are afraid to tell them the raw truth about what is going on in the real world. They may dare to give hints, but anything that might imply the Brethren screwed up has to be tread upon lightly, if at all. After all, the messenger's (i.e. the underling, the peon, the hopeful-for-promotion person) eternal salvation is at stake, and they can't be looking like they don't support and honor God's own man. (Seriously.)

Palerider wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:10 pm An excerpt:

"You are the children whom God chose to be part of His battalion during this great climax in the longstanding battle between good and evil—between truth and error. I would not be surprised if, when the veil is lifted in the next life, we learn that you actually pled with our Heavenly Father to be reserved for now. I would not be surprised to learn that premortally, you loved the Lord so much that you promised to defend His name and gospel during this world’s tumultuous winding-up scenes."

And it is essentially what we were told when I was a teenager, and I'm 62 now. Flattery. Imagined "special" responsibility that we are to feel obligated to live up to.

Six Truths

1. Prophets are human, and humans make mistakes. Specific examples are countless and range from the book of Jonah to the 1947 First Presidency letter to Lowry Nelson.
2. When humans make mistakes, they are more likely to rationalize those mistakes than to humbly say, "I made a mistake." (See: number 1. for countless examples)
3. Humans who view reality as a battle for truth are less likely to admit mistakes than humans who view reality as a search, or a journey toward truth.
4. When people see it as their mission or calling to defend a policy or institution, they will be less likely to understand criticism of that policy or institution, even if it is true.
5. Institutions once formed, take on the natural human tendency to defend themselves.
6. I, as a human could be mistaken. I recommend you examine the issues from multiple perspectives. Compare these truths to other truths. I'm open to further discussion. Remember the search for truth is a journey, not a battle.

(Do lessons from the "happiness letter" apply here? Joseph Smith said whatever God commands is right, whether it's "Thou shalt not kill" [Exo. 20:13] or "Thou shalt destroy utterly" [Deu. 20:17] Note that Joseph considered himself the arbiter of God's will, or in other words: the judge and the jury.)

Note: I woke up at 1 a.m. and felt I needed to write this down.

deacon blues wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 1:21 am Joseph Smith said whatever God commands is right, whether it's "Thou shalt not kill" [Exo. 20:13] or "Thou shalt destroy utterly" [Deu. 20:17] Note that Joseph considered himself the arbiter of God's will, or in other words: the judge and the jury.)

Yep, humans do make mistakes. Lots of them, all the time. I certainly do.

But "mistakes" by their nature seem to occur in innocence because of a lack of truth. On the other hand, sin or evil (whether great or small) seems to flow out of deception and grows out of the carnal desires of a man's heart.

By definition it seems a true prophet could not be deceptive OR make a mistake, in delivering the word that God has plainly manifested to him. How could he otherwise claim to speak for God? He is bound only to say what he has heard. If he has not "heard", he cannot speak. He may give an opinion as such but he must take ownership and not attribute it to God.

So how do we determine if a man is a true prophet of God? If a false prophet makes a false "saying" of the will of the Lord, will he admit it freely or will he attempt to cover his sin? "By their works ye shall know them."

When Joseph Smith utterly failed in his "revelation" to sell the copyright of the BofM, he went BACK to the source he had used to receive the first revelation to ask for another. His peepstone.

He only did this at the insistence of his friends who could not understand why his prophecy had failed. The new revelation stated that, "Some revelation comes from God. Some revelation comes from the Devil. And some revelation comes from the heart of man."

He never admitted to making a mistake, much less a sin by claiming to represent God's will and then being proven wrong. It was more of a shoulder shrug with the hope that no one would take much notice that he was apparently unable to determine whether a "revelation" was from God, the Devil or himself. AND....how would anyone know whether his peepstone had delivered the correct answer they had just received??? Wasn't it highly possible that this was a false revelation as well?

How could anyone trust Joseph to be the arbiter of God's will?

The church has taught in times past that Satan uses a little bit of truth mixed with falsehoods to deceive the people. I believe that whatever God commands IS correct. But a person better be damn sure that God is the one commanding it. A man claiming to be a prophet of God should NOT be given the benefit of the doubt. His words and works must produce the fruits of God's work and be proof of his/her calling.

None of this, "Oops, I got that one wrong..."

People's lives depend on it.

The podcast is now up at radiofreemormon.org!!!

So does anyone know more about the differences between the talk and the transcripts?

I saw on reddit that the phrase "God has not changed His definition of marriage," had been left out. I watched the video. It's still there. I looked on the newsroom transcript (https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.or ... ember-2019); it's still there. However, on the BYU speeches page (https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/russell- ... -laws-god/), it looks like that sentence has been replaced with

And to this day it is defined by Him as being between a man and a woman.

I don't know if there is some deep reason behind the difference. Does anyone know if the phrase was actually removed earlier?

blazerb wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 1:54 pm So does anyone know more about the differences between the talk and the transcripts?

I saw on reddit that the phrase "God has not changed His definition of marriage," had been left out. I watched the video. It's still there. I looked on the newsroom transcript (https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.or ... ember-2019); it's still there. However, on the BYU speeches page (https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/russell- ... -laws-god/), it looks like that sentence has been replaced with

And to this day it is defined by Him as being between a man and a woman.

I don't know if there is some deep reason behind the difference. Does anyone know if the phrase was actually removed earlier?

I tried to look at the "wayback machine" on the BYU speech but unforunately the only cached version they have was overnight, which was after the change was noted.

I agree that it's odd it was scrubbed from one source but left in others... especially so quickly after, so I have to wonder if it's accidental... but then how could you accidentally leave off a line like that?

deacon blues wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 1:21 amNote: I woke up at 1 a.m. and felt I needed to write this down.

We have a prophet in our midst!!

Seriously, though, that list is excellent!

Thanks. I wrote it with the intention of posting it on the You Tube post for Pres. Nelson’s talk so where I used the word prophet I didn’t mean I believed the guy was a prophet. I should have revised it somewhat before I posted it on NOM. I tried to tailor it for believing readers.