tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post3454066212174837065..comments2024-03-13T12:52:19.391-07:00Comments on Pure Mormonism: Speaking Truth To PowerAlan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comBlogger263125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-28876288520942833592021-01-16T07:55:17.178-08:002021-01-16T07:55:17.178-08:00nidnidAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05124205572420291042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-28271322066523303412021-01-16T07:54:32.073-08:002021-01-16T07:54:32.073-08:00niceniceAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05124205572420291042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-14297975278357981842013-08-11T09:02:11.451-07:002013-08-11T09:02:11.451-07:00God commanded against killing of the innocent. Thu...God commanded against killing of the innocent. Thus any revelation that commands the killing of the innocent proves immediately false, even if it comes from prophets. We don't even have to think about it. Joseph Smith even knew this.<br><br>Even God cannot command the killing of innocent women and children. God has to follow eternal law and that means killing of the innocent is never justified by mortal man. <br><br>So, either Moses was wrong & deceived by false revelation from the adversary to kill innocents, like Joseph Smith was many times, as he even admitted, (for prophets aren't perfect) OR, the Bible isn't translated correctly and God really never commanded such things, but people later justified it all by saying God commanded it. Just like Brigham Young tried to justify polygamy by saying God commanded it.<br><br>Also, Moses didn't seem to be even near a perfect prophet either, as showed in other aspects of his life. So it's easy to see he could have been deceived.<br><br>Abraham appears to have been deceived also, for God would also not command a father to kill his innocent son. That must have been revelation from the Adversary, which Abraham fell for because he had lost the Spirit from living polygamy, etc.<br><br>If God could give contrary revelations, then there would be no way to judge false revelation from true revelation, our own or a prophet's.<br><br>If the Book of Mormon teaches that Moses & Abraham were commanded by God to do those things, then we have to assume it's wrong too, for it is not a perfect book and even the BoM prophets weren't perfect, they also could have fallen for these false stories about Moses and Abraham.<br><br>Or, it's possible that the Book of Mormon is not even true or from God but something Joseph Smith wrote somehow. But I believe it's more likely that BoM prophets were just wrong and deceived like all even 'true' prophets seem to be in some areas.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-30592118725718952402013-08-11T01:29:03.365-07:002013-08-11T01:29:03.365-07:00Okay, after 2 years, I have finally read this enti...Okay, after 2 years, I have finally read this entire post! And I can now say that I am in agreement with almost all of it. The only paragraph that doesn't sit well with me is the following:<br><br>"Like the children of Israel at Mount Sinai, we have rejected the continued presence of God and his ministering angels and have chosen mortal icons to lead us as we seek to conquer Canaan—a conquest that had the audacity to teach that there is spiritual immunity when we kill every man, woman and child who stands in the way of our “freedom”—and that when we commit these abominations, it is God’s will."<br><br>The above intimates that God did not command the Israelites to slaughter every living soul during the conquest of Canaan, but that this act was abominable in the eyes of God, committed under color of commandment, given through uninspired mortals. But to take such a view, we'd have to reject the words spoken to Moses as divine:<br><br>"In the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall devote them to complete destruction, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the LORD your God has commanded” (Deut. 20:16-17).<br><br>and we'd have to rejects Nephi's testimony that the Lord's strength and approbation was upon the Israelites and against the Canaanites:<br><br>"And after they had crossed the river Jordan he did make them mighty unto the driving out of the children of the land, yea, unto the scattering them to destruction.<br><br>"And now, do ye suppose that the children of this land, who were in the land of promise, who were driven out by our fathers, do ye suppose that they were righteous? Behold, I say unto you, Nay.<br><br>"Do ye suppose that our fathers would have been more choice than they if they had been righteous? I say unto you, Nay.<br><br>"Behold, the Lord esteemeth all flesh in one; he that is righteous is favored of God. But behold, this people had rejected every word of God, and they were ripe in iniquity; and the fulness of the wrath of God was upon them; and the Lord did curse the land against them, and bless it unto our fathers; yea, he did curse it against them unto their destruction, and he did bless it unto our fathers unto their obtaining power over it." (1 Nephi 17:32-35)<br><br>and we'd have to reject the Lord's words in D&C 98 that He has power to command His people "to go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people." When this occurs, that nation, kindred, tongue or people is "delivered into their hands." His people become "the hands" of the Lord, by which He executes His judgments upon sinful nations. This means that the enemy nation MUST BE SLAIN, because of the commandment and judgments of the Lord:<br><br>"Then I, the Lord, would GIVE UNTO THEM A COMMANDMENT, and justify them in going out to battle against that nation, tongue, or people."<br><br>So, the idea that genocide can never be commanded by the Lord is not scriptural. See also this:<br><br>Yahweh War and the Conquest of Canaan<br>https://bible.org/article/yahweh-war-and-conquest-canaanLDS Anarchisthttp://ldsanarchy.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-78777878540566880222013-04-17T15:39:06.454-07:002013-04-17T15:39:06.454-07:00It's clear that you have the talent to write, ...It's clear that you have the talent to write, as does Rock. Although I follow no man and look to the Lord for my inspiration, I haven't the ability to articulate my thoughts as you, Josh, Ron, and others do. I find it interesting that you don't like the trite statements of Hear! Hear! If they are similar to my own thoughts and better penned by someone else, I reserve the right to heartily agree. I frequently find these articles to be a second or third "witness" to some of my inspiration and I am thrilled.Kristinenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-71875409181715389972013-02-06T08:53:55.029-08:002013-02-06T08:53:55.029-08:00Anonymous (Englishman) January 14, 2013 at 2:52pm:...Anonymous (Englishman) January 14, 2013 at 2:52pm:<br><br>I think you misunderstood the article. I am sure Bro. Madsen is well aware that more than one-half of the LDS people reside outside the USA. This fact is irrelevant to the point of the article. <br><br>The 98th Section of the Doctrine and Covenants is the Lord's requirements for going to war. It outlines our responsibilities, as His followers, in regards to how we should react to situations which could lead to war. The point of the article is that we as a people (including Church leaders) generally did the opposite of what the Lord asked us to do. In fact Pres. Hinkley went to Washington and sign a document in support of the War on Terror on behalf of the LDS people. I am not aware of any General Authorities who came out against the War on Terror, with the exception of Elder Nelson. He later recanted because of the controversy his words created. <br><br>The fact is, this article is for all LDS people. The 98th Section of the Doctrine and Covenants is for all people and not just USA-LDS people. Read verse 38 below and compare it with your copy of the D&C. <br><br>"Behold, this is an ensample unto all people, saith the Lord your God, for justification before me." (D&C 98:38)<br><br>We did not come anywhere near meeting the Lord's requirements. If you think we did, show us how.Gary Huntnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-92021199625288998162013-01-14T14:52:55.587-08:002013-01-14T14:52:55.587-08:00I think a major error in this article is to equate...I think a major error in this article is to equate the church with the US. There are more non US church members and you would do well to remember that.<br>In fact, it could not have escaped your notice that one of the current First Presidency is a Czech born German and owes no allegience whatsoever to the US government or constitution.<br>I am an Englishman and can confirm the church looks very different from over here. You guys need to look beyond the horizon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-64414661499199751082012-05-05T12:40:29.917-07:002012-05-05T12:40:29.917-07:00The year 2001 should not be repeatedThe year 2001 should not be repeatedAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-44380473486684514892011-10-02T16:50:13.234-07:002011-10-02T16:50:13.234-07:00I can't tell if the mind-boggled anonymous abo...I can't tell if the mind-boggled anonymous above is a satirist, because he has unfortunately run up against Poe's Law. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_LawJeremiah Stoddardhttp://www.jeremiahstoddard.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-19048116518745979972011-10-02T12:34:55.755-07:002011-10-02T12:34:55.755-07:00how incredible and mind-boggling is it exactly?how incredible and mind-boggling is it exactly?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-47070970998902860442011-10-02T11:57:22.362-07:002011-10-02T11:57:22.362-07:00It is absolutely incredible & mind boggling ho...It is absolutely incredible & mind boggling how some can actually think themselves to be so above even Prophets of the BoM & judge their acts as less than perfect. Prophets like Nephi, & Moroni especially, who it was said of him: <br><br>"If all men had been, and were and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men." <br><br>Those are powerful & telling words. What man living today can say they are worthy of such said about them? <br><br>I have never heard of anyone living today who could have that said of them.<br><br>Can those who tell on themselves & reveal who they really are & aren't, by criticizing the Prophets & their actions, really say that such greatness, goodness & perfection could be said of them?<br><br>I do not believe they could.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-17456269420375717712011-10-01T14:48:47.923-07:002011-10-01T14:48:47.923-07:00continued from previous postThe belief of direct ...continued from previous post<br><br>The belief of direct information from "The Spirit" often relies on the premise that one is more worthy than others, since we must have a way to dismiss claims that are opposed to our own. I see this stance strongly invoked in Justin’s comment: “Claims don't prove anything -- agreed. Millions of people profess a belief in Christ, however very few [none in my experience] manifest the signs given by Christ which follow them that believe.”<br><br>Based on reading some posts on ldsanarchy I will assume LDSA and Justin consider themselves exceptions to this. So we have 1 or 2 people in a several million that can function by the spirit, while the rest of us are deluded if we try to use the spirt, and/or inferior if we try to use mechanisms like critical thinking, logic or empathy? <br><br>Sad to say, but anytime someone starts trying to reconcile ALL scriptures LITERALLY they will either go crazy with internal torment until they stop trying (like me), or come to conclusions about the will of God that would seem reprehensible to any person using basic empathy and proportionality to determine what course of action should be taken for a given situation.~Clint~http://www.blogger.com/profile/09357719835853628668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-23607224159570613272011-10-01T14:46:29.145-07:002011-10-01T14:46:29.145-07:00Although this question was not directed to me, I w...Although this question was not directed to me, I would like to address it:<br>Justin Said: "J, why does bringing the Spirit into play turn you off so much?"<br> <br>What this whole conversation makes incredibly clear to me, is that what people call the spirit is not a reliable means for conveying truth. I could state that I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the papyrus for the "Book of Abraham" were translated correctly by Joseph Smith, because the spirit has manifest it to me (a stance I once took) ... <br><br>However, now I can state that this feeling of this spirit was not truth, because I factually know that it is not translated correctly, and it is not what it claims to be, you can find some good information of this <a href="http://www.bookofabraham.com/boamathie/BOA_TOC.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br><br>Justin says, of the scriptures: "we cannot approach them using our own reasoning"<br><br>This is the kind of statement that I always fear will lead people to preform actions that they would normally consider morally reprehensible as long as there is some scriptural context and/or a feeling of justification from the spirit. <br><br>Am I OK with the idea of someone feeling it is OK to kill people who break covenants? Certainly not! Whether they are open covenants like baptism and and its constituent ordinance of the sacrament (which I am pretty sure if you read closely you will realize no-one can “literally" keep) or hidden covenants like the those in the temple for which you have no advance notice of what we will be agreeing to. <br><br>continued in next post ...~Clint~http://www.blogger.com/profile/09357719835853628668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-37542799165526483942011-10-01T01:19:43.459-07:002011-10-01T01:19:43.459-07:00contSo for me personally I choose to use the teach...cont<br><br><br>So for me personally I choose to use the teachings, words and life of Jesus as a filter/lens to discern all other texts--literal, figurative, parable, doctrine, or fictional--as in Job and perhaps other composite stories). If they are inconsistent with Jesus of Nazareth's teaching and acts then I see such stories as being flawed--including the opinions/beliefs that come out of the story line not linked to the true vine. <br><br>I chose Jesus's story--it is an act of faith I know. And in so doing, I see all other stories, actors (including their lines in their script) as being to varying degrees flawed (even surprise those we have idolized like Nephi and C. Moroni). Others read into their stories an absolute perfection which I think perpetuates the very hubris that the actors were scripted to demonstrate their inadequacies rather then provide us with an invitation to emulate their errors. The only true/perfect actor/performance was that of Jesus of Nazareth. All others are to be learned from. <br><br>I agree with you Steven, that we all "see through a glass darkly"--what can any or us really know with perfect metaphysical certainty? We must exercise faith in something. The only light I try to focus on anymore is that of Jesus as I sit at the end of this dark cave called mortality. To the extent any scripture, teaching, policy, doctrine is consistent with His words and life and moves me closer to Him, then I choose to embrace it as best as I can. To the extent any voices (including actors in sacred texts) offer a lesser formula or one that even appears incongruous with "what Jesus would do" then I choose to not use it as an example inspired from a being whose word and life stand in stark opposition to their words and deeds. <br><br>I might be deluded, deceived, "understand nothing", be accused of following the "philosophies' of men, etc.(do we not all fall short of His mind, will perspective? and will we not all stand amazed when embraced with His full love and understanding and then wonder how we could so blind, and hardhearted to each other?) but I will try to see the world through the words, teachings and example of Jesus and judge the sacred texts accordingly. I will take my chances on my approach to how I read and see the world, and if I am wrong then the Jesus I have come to know spiritually and through experience I am convinced for forgive my naivete for in the end "he is the keeper of the gate and employeth NO servant there" --no other judge. <br><br>And I believe his love is unconditional and complete. that is what my spiritual experiences confirm. And I am convinced that He is not worked up over doctrinal purity/exactness/proper readings, but rather concerned as to how we might use such readings(claiming authority which can be another form of compulsion) to justify harming others while using His name in vain.Ron Madsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-87663453917433199762011-10-01T01:16:07.682-07:002011-10-01T01:16:07.682-07:00Now, we have choices in looking to the past and ch...Now, we have choices in looking to the past and choosing (which we all do) how we read the stories of the past (whether they are literal or not --such as Job which is most likely a composite story but "true' in the sense that it is distilled, composite experiences of innumerable people that suffer unjustly). So even assuming (as I gather is the case for you) that the some or all of the stories in scriptures are composite/fictional truths or literal, we still chose what to emulate and how to read the past into the present--do we not? <br><br>So we must choose who to emulate and what and how we will live in the present tense. Ask yourself this question---if you could chose to live in a world of people of your choosing who would it be? Would it be those that believe in OT narratives that God tells them through voices and "spirit" to kill their child, or maybe whole cities of men, women and children or at times those that dissent to their political views? Those that believe that obedience and strict legal interpretation of the law (say Jehovah or found sinning as they believe God has defined it and you will be stoned) OR would you choose to live with those that seek to emulate the very words and behavior of Jesus---not judging others, loving all mankind--the least, the outcasts, and even one's enemies? <br><br>So, yes we read the texts differently. How could we not? Jesus came and His words, example and very life was a walking/talking/living denunciation of those that were cock sure certain that they knew His mind and will and He came and said they were clueless and missed the whole point. <br><br>So for me personally I choose to use the teachings, words and life of Jesus as a filter/lens to discern all other texts--literal, figurative, parable, doctrine, or fictional--as in Job and perhaps other composite stories). If they are inconsistent with Jesus of Nazareth's teaching and acts then I see such stories as being flawed--including the opinions/beliefs that come out of the story line not linked to the true vine. <br> contRon Madsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-43547179740666422832011-10-01T00:26:07.674-07:002011-10-01T00:26:07.674-07:00Steven--thank you I needed that..My vanity request...Steven--thank you I needed that..<br>My vanity requests that you/all re-consider the original post that Rock graciously allowed to be posted here in his blog. What I presented was two paths in regard to our current wars--one that we chose in reality and the other being "what could have been" if ONLY we chose a path which I believe would have been consistent with the life, teachings and example of Jesus. <br><br>Here is the core essence of what I choose to believe: I believe that there has been only only perfect story every told--the story of Jesus which culminates on the cross. He could only say "it is finished" when unto the end He followed His very teaching-- "resist not evil"--lest he become the very evil he sought to crush. He showed us how to not become the very evil that placed Him there. The topic of what was occurring there needs to be explored in another lengthy post, etc. but my point is that He provided the perfect offering and said "Come follow Me" His resurrection was the vindication, sign and token by the Father of this perfect offering. Go and do likewise and obtain a perfect resurrection.<br><br>Now, we choose every day in each of our lives and collectively alternate histories. I gave an alternate one that "could" have been in the opening post. To the extent our past and future choices are consistent with the life/teachings of Jesus of Nazareth then we have grafted onto a true vine that will bear eternal fruit. When we choose to write a lesser story or contrary scripts then we find what? We find what happened in the BOM. We find a foundational hubris in the story ("better to kill another for our benefit"--expediency) perpetuated in constant, unreconciled wars/enmity--"better to use arm flesh/violence" when threatened then engage as the Sons of Mosiah and the Anti-Nephit Lehites did in destroying their enemies through self sacrifice rather then "other" sacrifice. You can kill your some of your enemy but you cannot kill their hate through force/violence. The BOM is a story of failure with an invitation to learn from it and not repeat/embrace the foundational and cultural hubris that led inexorably to their destruction. The BOM is not a perfect story--it is a story that falls very short of a perfect story in that the pride of the Nephites ("we are right, god is on our side, we have the spirit that tells us to do such and such---right when they patterned their relations with their enemies as Jesus did his enemies--love them, pray for them, turn the other cheek--but dead wrong when they chose a lesser path/storyline which included pre-emptive attacks and force as C. Moroni engaged in at times)<br><br>to be continued...Ron Madsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-14680030797089905802011-09-30T14:07:38.802-07:002011-09-30T14:07:38.802-07:00Dudes...all of this verbiage reminds me of the anc...Dudes...all of this verbiage reminds me of the ancient doctrinal wars within the original Church of Jesus Christ of Former-Day Saints back in the old days in Rome and Jerusalem and Antioch. It took an Emperor to get people to sit and down and sort it out and then to decide what the New Church would look like, hence the need for a Restoration, etc. What a delightful arrogance.<br><br>I hate to tell you this, but none of you have even an inkling of what the truth is about of whether one name killed another name or what the nature of God is. You think you do, and therein is the great joke, at which even you will laugh about once you die and reside in Paradise and see everything as it truly is. Compared to the sight that you will all have there, you are virtually blind today. I hate to break this to you in your arrogance, which arrogance will just ignore my words and keep on being arrogant. "I know!" No, you don't. You only suspect. That is all.Steven Lesterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01285355643172321289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-89432232420591329562011-09-30T05:25:50.120-07:002011-09-30T05:25:50.120-07:00I made no claim about all others in the 200+ comme...I made no claim about all others in the 200+ comments here Mr/Mrs Anon -- what I said still holds true if one other person has claimed to be acting as a prophet and a revelator.Justinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-18604493068511298112011-09-29T22:22:12.833-07:002011-09-29T22:22:12.833-07:00JustinYou prob missed it but others did claim that...Justin<br><br>You prob missed it but others did claim that the spirit and revelation they have led them to their conclusions in those words. So you are wrong about your claims as is ldsa about that issue.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-23192634055441391632011-09-29T21:44:28.507-07:002011-09-29T21:44:28.507-07:00LDSA, thank you for your explanation about Laban&#...LDSA, thank you for your explanation about Laban's death. It makes sense.<br><br>Justin, I appreciate the fact that you are keeping your cool under fire. Both your words and LDSA's words "feel" like truth in this arena.Tonihttp://ljnsvoice.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-47816025413398914612011-09-29T20:53:39.709-07:002011-09-29T20:53:39.709-07:00I have the gift of discernment and thought Id help...I have the gift of discernment and thought Id help out. LDSA and Justin are full of sh%t. So since no one here is a prophet I guess we can all go home now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-21596401325486166822011-09-29T17:01:44.370-07:002011-09-29T17:01:44.370-07:00J, why does bringing the Spirit into play turn you...J, why does bringing the Spirit into play turn you off so much? When it comes to the scriptures [which were given by the spirit of prophecy and revelation] -- we cannot approach them using our own reasoning, originating from our own minds b/c that's now how they come -- they are the word of God, coming from *His* mind. <br><br>In fact, what you advocate is exactly what would create the authority-whoring that you keep trying to say is going on here. Now things become about this man's reasoning over that man's. <br><br>Only letting the Spirit be the source of information actually *removes* man out of the situation. The appeal can no longer be about me [*my* ideas, *my* writings, and *my* claims] -- but only to the claim, which must then stand or fall on its own as either true or false.<br><br>It is immoral to give advice on a subject that you are not qualified to speak on. This is why the Lord has said, “If ye receive not the Spirit, ye shall not teach." <br><br>If you know the scriptures are true, but are not a prophet or revelator yourself, then when talking to others about it, you should just testify that you know the scriptures are true and then hand them a copy and invite them to read and come to a proper interpretation of them through their own revelations and prophecies. What you are doing is giving people your own understandings about scripture, which will always create problems -- unless you are a prophet or a revelator [which, if I'm correct, you aren't claiming to be].<br><br>If people don’t have the spirit of prophecy and revelation, then everything that they say about the scriptures are their own ideas or guesses, based on their own experiences and reasonings. The authority lies with the person themself -- so it's always best to just stop listening because a person can learn nothing from them about the scriptures. <br><br>Now -- if they claim to have the spirit of prophecy and revelation, then you should listen closely to what they say b/c it can only be one of two things: <br><br>(1) Either they are true prophets sent from God,<br>(2) Or they are false prophets who are trying to deceive. <br><br>A true prophet, when asked if they have the spirit of prophecy, will always answer in the affirmative. While a person just giving a non-prophetic opinion on the scriptures will not claim to have the spirit of prophecy. <br><br>So, only true prophets and deceivers will claim to operate by the gift of prophecy and revelation. So, when interpreters [like you] come along and say they make no claims to be prophets -- I can immediately discern that their interpretation does not come from the Lord. That one is easy, you see.<br><br>The work comes in when someone [like LDSA] comes along and does claim to be speaking something by the spirit of prophecy and revelation -- because now I must search the scriptures myself and ask the Lord for understanding, relying upon His Spirit for understanding and confirmation -- to know if he is being true or if he is deceiving. <br><br>It's not beating anyone over the head to claim the Spirit as the source of information for an idea. Because the burden is still on me to determine if he is telling the truth or if he is lying. <br><br>But the rule is to listen to no one’s interpretation unless you know for certain that he or she possesses that spirit and is properly qualified to expound the scriptures.Justinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-41406146763682037272011-09-29T14:05:25.832-07:002011-09-29T14:05:25.832-07:00Great! you sorted it all out. If you want someone ...Great! you sorted it all out. If you want someone to believe your views then make claims its from a higher spiritual authority. And then claim that others views are not and therefore everyone should shut up and listen because I have the authority. Fantastic stuff. <br><br>And lets presume to know something about others and their views because they refuse to play your authority game. Brilliant. <br><br>You know nothing. You presume to know a thing. You would demand a sign or some signal of authority. If it is ones highest impulse to be an intellectual slave, then a slave you ought to remain. Light and truth does not need the imprimatur of authority. It stand independent.J Madsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-69674506933866872232011-09-29T12:49:51.499-07:002011-09-29T12:49:51.499-07:00Claims don't prove anything -- agreed. Millio...Claims don't prove anything -- agreed. Millions of people profess a belief in Christ, however very few [none in my experience] manifest the signs given by Christ which follow them that believe.<br><br>However, the lack of a claim does say something. When faced with two expositions on scripture that lead me to two different conclusions -- when one is *claimed* to be given by the spirit of prophecy and revelation and the other is not, then my only choice to make is:<br><br>Do I believe the one claimed to have come under the spirit of prophecy and revelation?<br><br>Because the other one cannot be true -- while that one has the potential for being true.<br><br>Now, if you claimed angelic ministration was the source of your message -- then that would make for an entirely different ball-game than what I described above.<br><br>But you don't -- so it doesn't.<br><br>Think of it this way -- who's more likely to be a genuine believer in Christ:<br>* A professed believer in Christ<br>* A Buddhist who does not claim to believe in Christ<br><br>True many people profess to believe in Christ, but actually do not -- but my chances are still better with the former than the latter.<br><br>Saying "God is on my side" doesn't mean that I've failed to exert my own authority over someone else -- it's that *not* interpreting scripture under the influence of the spirit of prophecy and revelation means that *you* are applying your own authority [your reason, intellect, experience, etc.] to the text -- making yourself a pope over the paper [as it were] by virtue of your logic/deduction/experience.<br><br>"I have claimed nothing about my readings" -- which is how I know that they come from the doctrines/philosophies of men [formulated in your own mind].Justinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-28315335155737432842011-09-29T10:01:33.560-07:002011-09-29T10:01:33.560-07:00Justin,claiming gifts, claiming the spirit, claims...Justin,<br><br>claiming gifts, claiming the spirit, claims do not prove anything. They are claims. If I claim an angel told me my reading was true would that be enough for you? Isn't that good fruit? Of course not and if I use such claims to exert authority over you and the text solely based on those claims then Amen to whatever authority I may have had. <br><br>If you truly have such gifts then the spirit can confirm that or not independent of your claims. There is no reason to accept ldsan. claim as meaning anything other than he thinks he has something. The proof is not in his claim but whether other things external to him confirm his claims in the hearts of others. And if others discern your claims as not of the spirit, or wrong, and even give them a stupor of thought and ill feelings then maybe you should be a little more humble about thinking that your reading is the one true reading and realize it is simply your interpretation that works for you and not universal. The very fact that one must claim God is on their side and not others suggests that having failed to exert their own authority they must make theirs equal with Gods in an effort to get everyone in line or under their reading. <br><br>I have claimed nothing about my readings authority over another. It's not like anything. You assume much where you don't understand. I wouldn't seek to control others by claiming God is on my side.J Madsonnoreply@blogger.com