FAIR: A Prophet Doesn't Speak For God

[_The Nehor]

...
Oh by the way, I prayed about the two earing deal. It is not of God. God does not care how many earrings you have.

Thanks Jason.

I'll let my TBM wife know - she didn't pray about it, I believe, because she figured that the GAs could not be wrong, and won't listen to me when I say that they can.

Needless to say, I didn't pray about it either, but for a different reason.

It might be the counsel is good for her. She should probably pray about it. Either that or she just doesn't care and that's okay too.

[_charity]

And as I told you then, the question is not the actual SOURCE of the "revelation", but rather whether or not the level of conviction in the particular individual that his or her revelation was from God has any correlation to whether or not they are actually correct, and it did come to God.

Right.


While it is not possible for us mere human beings to know exactly what does come from God, we can draw some justified conclusions based on what God "told" the individuals. You agreed that, without a doubt, there are times when human beings are absolutely convinced God told them something, and they are actually mistaken. [/quote]

Right.

That is the point, Charity - all you have is your utter conviction, your certitude, that God told you something. This is what you're offering as evidence - your certitude God spoke to you. Perhaps if you take a moment to consider all the human beings who have been completely convinced God spoke to THEM, too, and were obviously wrong, you'll understand why we consider it fatally flawed as far as serious evidence.

I have NEVER offered my testimony as evidence. Anytime I have said anything about my testimony, it is only to explain why I take the position I do. But not as EVIDENCE.

And once again, I'm not asking you to abandon your beliefs, but to remember that it's possible you're wrong, and that possibility to bestow some caution in using this, in particular, as serious evidence.

Now, you should be easy in your mind on that question. I NEVER offer my testimony as EVIDENCE. But I will not admit to the possiblity of being wrong, because that would be denying the Holy Ghost.

[_guy sajer]

But I will not admit to the possiblity of being wrong, because that would be denying the Holy Ghost.

Which explains why Charity won't concede any inch and why she maintains the delusional position that there's been no credible evidence against the Book of Mormon.

Please somebody note this lest Charity even accuse anyone of arrogance again.

Charity, you are truly delusional.

[_malkie]

...

Now, you should be easy in your mind on that question. I NEVER offer my testimony as EVIDENCE. But I will not admit to the possiblity of being wrong, because that would be denying the Holy Ghost.

Assuming that have a foolproof way of determining that your sense of "rightness" came from the holy ghost. Without that you have no way of guarding against the possibility of being wrong, and hence no way of being sure about any revelation.

Or have I missed something here?

[_Trevor]

The apologists over on FAIR have decided that the Prophet of the Mormon Corporation is no longer a spokesman for God.

Since the current LDS prophets sometimes contradict the former ones, how do you decide which one is correct? Most "contradictions" are actually misunderstandings or misrepresentations of LDS doctrine and teachings by critics. The LDS standard for doctrine is the scriptures, and united statements of the First Presidency and the Twelve.

All of which goes to show why the LDS 'prophet' has become little more than a CEO with the same basic inspiration any member can receive.

[_malkie]

I'm just about to go out to the home of my TBM BiL for New Year (note the singular - not 'New Years' - I hope that Dr Shades and his grammar rules will approve of the Scottish way of saying it).

I had hoped for a reply from Charity to my posts of 3:34pm and 4:23pm, but perhaps a mewling nursery baby doesn't rate a reply from a god.

Can someone else tell me, am I missing something, or is the whole "confirmation by the HG" thing busted. Replies from TBMs preferred - I don't need an external source of confirmation bias (;=> - my internal one works quite well, thank you.


When I need to communicate something important to my children, I try to make it so that they cannot easily misunderstand. The importance of the message determines the extent to which I will go to make it foolproof. It appears that god does not do the same. Either that or that the mechanism that should make communication and validation of important messages reliable has become broken - not what I would call a sign of intelligent design. I cannot distinguish between the feelings that the HG is supposed to give me, and the feelings I get when I listen to a particularly good guitar riff - think Jimi Hendrix in 'All Along the Watchtower'.

My doctor tells me that the body sends similar signals for heart attack and for some kinds of indigestion - that has caused me a trip to the emergency dept when Rolaids would have done the trick. Also not a sign of intelligent design.

But somehow I expect something better from god when my eternity and that of my family depends on it.

At the judgment, will I be allowed to plead that it felt like indigestion to me (metaphorically speaking, now), when god intended it to be a sign of a heart attack, but I genuinely cannot tell the difference?

Also, to add again to Charity's list of 5 sources of conviction:

7. An angel with a flaming sword, saying that you (Charity) have to marry one of the members of the Teachers quorum - well, actually, several of them - and some Priests and some husbands of your Relief Society sisters.

[This last part is a little tongue-in-cheek, but it's New Year, almost.]

[_Sethbag]

If you think the universe would be in better hands with a Ken Lay you have a weird idea about eternity!

I'd agree about Ken Lay, but I think you have wierd ideas if you think that the universe in the hands of Brigham Young would be any better off.

[_Sethbag]

...

Now, you should be easy in your mind on that question. I NEVER offer my testimony as EVIDENCE. But I will not admit to the possiblity of being wrong, because that would be denying the Holy Ghost.

Assuming that have a foolproof way of determining that your sense of "rightness" came from the holy ghost. Without that you have no way of guarding against the possibility of being wrong, and hence no way of being sure about any revelation.

Or have I missed something here?

No, you haven't missed anything. This is one of my main arguments, actually.

She believes that the Church is true because the Holy Ghost told her it is. And she's sure that her perception of the Holy Ghost's having told her so is really true because, well, the Holy Ghost told her so.

Meanwhile someone else can be sure that the Holy Ghost told them that the Book of Mormon is from Satan (I've been told this by a few different EVs), but they're just wrong, even though they think they're right, and they think that they're right because the Holy Ghost told them so.

[Guest]

She believes that the Church is true because the Holy Ghost told her it is. And she's sure that her perception of the Holy Ghost's having told her so is really true because, well, the Holy Ghost told her so.

Meanwhile someone else can be sure that the Holy Ghost told them that the Book of Mormon is from Satan (I've been told this by a few different EVs), but they're just wrong, even though they think they're right, and they think that they're right because the Holy Ghost told them so.

Exactly Seth. The Holy ghost is right, as long as it is in favor of the Cult. If the Holy Ghost is wrong, well, then you either did something wrong, wasn't praying right, paying right, obeying right.. Or whatever the Cult wants to say. If the Holy Ghost said the Cult of Mormonism was true, well, of course it did.

The truth is, that the Holy Ghost is just another control mechanism set up by the Cult.

People like Charity cannot or will not comprehend it.

I remember one time when I was TBM on the BBS forums. I was trying so hard to convert a person over to Mormonism. This person read the Book of Mormon and prayed about it, came back and said the Holy Ghost had denied it was true. I just would not accept this. How could the Holy Ghost not testify the Book of Mormon was true? This person must have done something wrong, because, well, it was true, wasn't it? I hammed him with dozens of questions. Were you sincere? Did you pray hard? Did you fast enough? Is there some grevius sin in your life you haven't divulged?

I think I began to wake up from Mormonism at that point, even though it took me a decade more to get out.

[_harmony]

The concept of the Holy Ghost isn't confined to Mormonism.