LDS Freedom Forum

ATL Wake wrote:

InfoWarrior82 wrote:

Overemphasizing the importance of personal revelation.

If one is not going to connect with heaven, who else is going to? Can another man's connection to heaven save someone else?

ATL Wake wrote:

ATL Wake wrote:

InfoWarrior82 wrote:

Overemphasizing the importance of personal revelation.

If one is not going to connect with heaven, who else is going to? Can another man's connection to heaven save someone else?

Think about At-One-Ment for a minute. How can a person be At-One with God, if he is not connected to Him?

I don't see how the fact that another person may have connected to God and is At-One with him can possibly save a third party.

This is principally what concerns me when we say such things as following the prophet. On the one hand, it's great advice, the prophets many times have great things to say. I think the problem is when we have come too much to rely on that. Or in other words "overemphasizing following the prophet".

This can be exemplified by a comment made in my ward the week before general conference. The speaker said how excited he was to listen to conference. He generally likes to make a list of issues he's concerned about, and he's always fascinated how as conference rolls on, each of those issues are usually addressed.

My concern is, if he has a list of issues, why not take them to the Lord, instead on waiting for someone else to address them?

RaVaN wrote:

TZONE wrote:

RaVaN wrote:And that essay illustrates very some one of the major reasons I am not LDS and not likely to ever be. I don't know why someone would consider that to be "humble"...

Its not. Its the normal way to convince someone that doesn't even talk about Christ (doctrine)... Its an "intellectual" answer. It makes intellectualism seem to be something as a "fearful" thing to do and should not be sought after, even after we are taught, it is my knowledge we are saved.

I try to avoid posting anything that is intentionally anti-LDS, but that essay is pretty anti-gospel guised as a man's repentance which is ANYTHING but repentance. It is elitist tripe that is the same stuff that gets put out worldwide as propaganda. The whole thing is a prettily wrapped up package that follows the recipe of a lie of 2 parts truth to 1 part lie...mix and serve up and most will swallow it. You can't easily discuss it because of the 2/3rds truth that will be pointed at to support to 1 part lie. The biggest lie in this is that you can overemphasis any of these:


Overemphasizing the importance of personal revelation.
Overemphasizing the importance of “thus saith the Lord”.
Overemphasizing the importance of church history.
Overemphasizing the fallibility of prophets.

You can not overemphasize any of these!!!

PERSONAL REVELATION IS THE BASIS TO FOLLOWING CHRIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How can that EVER be overemphasized!!

The rest follow suit. All are part of the gospel and not one part of them can be overemphasized because without one the next ceases to be with the exception of the fallibility of prophets.

Boiled down, whole essay is "Do what the Church leaders say and shut up even if they are wrong" rather than following Christ and doing what he said in his own ministry! What it truly comes off as is the writer was required to write that as part of his coming back into the LDS church by (insert whatever lds authority does that) and is no different that the catholic church with their "recant or be burned as a heretic" during the reformation.

Anyhow, I am will end that here since it is becomes arguing for the sake of arguing rather than evoking any meaningful change in the mindsets...and that really isn't my place regardless. My apologies to those I might offend with that, but somethings are unbearable that are in DIRECT opposition of God and even more so when they are couched in a frame to have the appearance of light.

jo1952 wrote:

InfoWarrior82 wrote:Will Denver Snuffer humble himself like this Brother?

Okay. We can see that this OP is based upon a failed argument because it is not an apples to apples comparison. Another problem is that an incredible jump in unrighteous judgment has been made. This OP assumes that Denver Snuffer needs to humble himself. Snuffer was punished in accordance with temporal law in which there is no righteous judgment...only punishment. Jesus was judged in the same way; in accordance with the temporal law of Moses. There was no righteous judgment there.....only punishment. Was Jesus not humble? He most certainly was; and He allowed Himself to humbly go before the judgment seat to be scorned, beaten, and crucified. He could have saved Himself; but instead, humbly and quietly submitted Himself to the judging system. Snuffer did the same; he was humble in submitting himself to the judging system. He could have saved himself from being excommunicated; but instead, he humbly submitted himself. He has already been humble in this affair.

Snuffer testifies of Christ; and he does not back away nor is he frightened to stand up and do what the Lord has asked him to do. He has been beaten with the stripes of excommunication from his religious institution. He is a classic scriptural disciple of Christ. He has sealed his testimony of Christ through bannishment from the Church.