Response to Click Here
@shannonr....that is a loaded question that would require dialogue back and forth to further identify the complete context.
The difficult thing in this journey for anyone is understanding there is opposition from good/evil, not so much in the complete context of duality but rather, if there is a god, then there is a devil. IF there is a Hoily Ghost, then in the construct according to doctrine, then the Adversary (devil or his agents) may also imitate the Holy Ghost in an attempt to deceive people (role of the devil).
So, first I would want to identify if the answer received is indeed the Holy Ghost or something else, as the Holy Ghost, again in the confines of doctrine is the 3rd member of the Godhead with the express mission/role/duty of confirming truth. If the Holy Ghost did confirm something as true, it is implied that he cannot contradict the doctrines of God and Jesus Christ. Then, we enter into what we know vs what we may not know. Considering that this faith is based on restoration, it was recently explained by Elder Oaks, same talk referenced in my original post, that the details of the 'Dispensation of the Fullness of times" and what has been restored is sometimes misconstrued with dogma and culture -- note he didn't say it exactly that way but I feel his clarification indicates just that.
So, if someone received confirmation from the Holy Ghost and it contradicts doctrine, then in the light I would classify it such:
1. Current Understood Doctrine - HG Contradicts: Identify validity of confirmation - is it Holy Ghost or other? Review D&C Section 129 for clarification points, by their fruits ye shall know them (Matt 7:20), and the fruits of the Spirit (Galations 5:22) -- note that the Spirit is often misunderstood especially due to its closeness to emotional feelings - this in no way means someones thoughts and emotions are not important, but sometimes impressions are misinterpreted - example - people crying when they bear testimony --culture/dogma has crept in here and oft-times confused folks...IE I cried while testifying, that is the Spirit (errr.... maybe, maybe not; could just be you were overwhelmed and identified emotional feelings instead of the Spirit) or vice versa. -- hard to explicitly describe and explain.....
2. Doctrine unclear or not yet reveiled - HG to a person There are many biblical and other examples (BofM, D&C) of one learning something before those in authorized stewardships to present information or doctrine as word and will of God. When that happens, the revelation must be considered personal and maintained in that stewardship until it comes the the order of authorized channels as currently understood unless revelation is presented that offers a clarification and maturing of the alignment of how revelation may be received when one feels it goes beyond current stewardship.
This is a difficult topic and to write it out is not as clear as I would like. I recently heard someone assert that some of the things being hullabalooed (my personal description and I like the term 'noise') refer back to a simple understanding of the 10 commandments. In fact one of those directives is "thou shalt not covet". In the current context many of the issues take a different light (regardless of the issue - gender based, marriage based, equality, etc)...
I think many of the situations are quite particular to each situation and to identify a one-fit solution may not be possible, but I do believe that doctrines are established from God. Those may not be correctly interpreted and understood by (wo)men especially where there is not explicit direction. In the LDS faith, Elder Ucthdorf and Elder Holland have offered some very poignant thoughts about many of these scenarios. Whether members are listening to their apostolic counsel or not is another issue completely. Again, it seems to me that doctrine, dogma/culture and policy and procedure are sometimes at issue. It is up to the pursuer of truth to identify what to be true and hold self accountable to that pursuit and discovery.
I hope that opens some perspectives, but I cannot say if I answered your question(s) or not. Hopefully I have without creating contention or vice. hope this is what you sought to a degree. Good luck!
@shannonr....that is a loaded question that would require dialogue back and forth to further identify the complete context.
The difficult thing in this journey for anyone is understanding there is opposition from good/evil, not so much in the complete context of duality but rather, if there is a god, then there is a devil. IF there is a Hoily Ghost, then in the construct according to doctrine, then the Adversary (devil or his agents) may also imitate the Holy Ghost in an attempt to deceive people (role of the devil).
So, first I would want to identify if the answer received is indeed the Holy Ghost or something else, as the Holy Ghost, again in the confines of doctrine is the 3rd member of the Godhead with the express mission/role/duty of confirming truth. If the Holy Ghost did confirm something as true, it is implied that he cannot contradict the doctrines of God and Jesus Christ. Then, we enter into what we know vs what we may not know. Considering that this faith is based on restoration, it was recently explained by Elder Oaks, same talk referenced in my original post, that the details of the 'Dispensation of the Fullness of times" and what has been restored is sometimes misconstrued with dogma and culture -- note he didn't say it exactly that way but I feel his clarification indicates just that.
So, if someone received confirmation from the Holy Ghost and it contradicts doctrine, then in the light I would classify it such:
1. Current Understood Doctrine - HG Contradicts: Identify validity of confirmation - is it Holy Ghost or other? Review D&C Section 129 for clarification points, by their fruits ye shall know them (Matt 7:20), and the fruits of the Spirit (Galations 5:22) -- note that the Spirit is often misunderstood especially due to its closeness to emotional feelings - this in no way means someones thoughts and emotions are not important, but sometimes impressions are misinterpreted - example - people crying when they bear testimony --culture/dogma has crept in here and oft-times confused folks...IE I cried while testifying, that is the Spirit (errr.... maybe, maybe not; could just be you were overwhelmed and identified emotional feelings instead of the Spirit) or vice versa. -- hard to explicitly describe and explain.....
2. Doctrine unclear or not yet reveiled - HG to a person There are many biblical and other examples (BofM, D&C) of one learning something before those in authorized stewardships to present information or doctrine as word and will of God. When that happens, the revelation must be considered personal and maintained in that stewardship until it comes the the order of authorized channels as currently understood unless revelation is presented that offers a clarification and maturing of the alignment of how revelation may be received when one feels it goes beyond current stewardship.
This is a difficult topic and to write it out is not as clear as I would like. I recently heard someone assert that some of the things being hullabalooed (my personal description and I like the term 'noise') refer back to a simple understanding of the 10 commandments. In fact one of those directives is "thou shalt not covet". In the current context many of the issues take a different light (regardless of the issue - gender based, marriage based, equality, etc)...
I think many of the situations are quite particular to each situation and to identify a one-fit solution may not be possible, but I do believe that doctrines are established from God. Those may not be correctly interpreted and understood by (wo)men especially where there is not explicit direction. In the LDS faith, Elder Ucthdorf and Elder Holland have offered some very poignant thoughts about many of these scenarios. Whether members are listening to their apostolic counsel or not is another issue completely. Again, it seems to me that doctrine, dogma/culture and policy and procedure are sometimes at issue. It is up to the pursuer of truth to identify what to be true and hold self accountable to that pursuit and discovery.
I hope that opens some perspectives, but I cannot say if I answered your question(s) or not. Hopefully I have without creating contention or vice. hope this is what you sought to a degree. Good luck!
No comments:
Post a Comment