Follow the Prophet is Doctrinal!

[freedomforall]

Seek, obtain, and retain the Holy Ghost and then you will be able to hear and to recognize the Spirit's voice when it speaks. Then you will be able to discern truth and error. Believing solely on title, position, and church is an error.

-Finrock

Apparently you skipped my post about the necessity of having keys. Position does matter. Which church, under God, has the authority to bestow those keys is pertinent. Title is a way of distinguishing a Prophet or Apostle, a Seventy or Deacon.

You miss the point. A person is not a true prophet of Jesus Christ solely by virtue of them being in a particular church, them having received a particular title, and having been placed in to a particular position. Whether you agree or not is one thing, but it is critical that if you are going to disagree with something, that you understand the point that is being made. The scriptures testify and teach us that one is a prophet by virtue of having the Holy Ghost. The power comes from the Spirit. The power does not come from the title, the position, or the church.

Many are called but few are chosen. Why? Because they can't get it in to their heads that the powers of Heaven are inseparably connected with the principles of righteousness. We may have the priesthood conferred upon us and we may be given a position and a title in the Church, but unless we have the actual Holy Ghost attending us, which we obtain through faith and through righteousness, then we actually have no priesthood. We may retain our position and title, but it will be in name only. And, when we go around exercising unrighteous dominion we will lose our authority until we repent. I paraphrased the scripture in D&C, but this is what it says in essence. What is important principle here? Power in the priesthood comes from the Spirit. The Spirit comes through faith and righteousness. Why is this important? It shows us that the Spirit is what matters most. Not title, not position, not church.

-Finrock

So what are ALL the necessary requirements to becoming the type of person God could call to be a prophet? Use as many scriptural provided attributes as possible.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.

Coupled with:

Trustworthy,
Loyal,
Helpful,
Friendly,
Courteous,
Kind,
Obedient,
Cheerful,
Thrifty,
Brave,
Clean,
and Reverent.

[rewcox]

I encourage anyone and all to listen to true prophets,
-Finrock

Thomas Monson is a true prophet, confirmed by millions who have received confirmation by the Spirit.

Also, President Monson was selected by Christ to lead His Church at this time. As members, we sustain President Monson's calling.

Do you confirm that President Monson was selected by Christ to lead the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints? Or is that a problem for you? Theory is fine, but reality is where we really see what is going on.

[FTC]

An interesting point of doctrine to recognize is that in all these scriptures, in all the things a prophet is telling someone and/or people what to do, not once, not ever, nowhere, is a prophet ever telling people to follow him. Never. The only one that is trying to tell people what to do by the catch phrase "Follow the Prophet" is rewcox......

Have head-fog?

Nephi literally followed Lehi. Nephi was very useful since he followed the prophet. You might try it.

It was his dad, dude. And Nephi happened to like his dad. Nephi wasn't following the prophet; he was having a good times wilderness journey with his dad.
On top of that, Nephi, according to the laws of the land, had murdered Laban. Its not like he could have just chilled in Jerusalem.

Despite all that, it still doesn't say to "Follow the Prophet". Nephi doesn't say, preach, teach, nor even command, "Follow me because I'm the prophet". Lehi doesn't say, preach, teach, nor even command, "Follow me because I'm the prophet". There are still no scriptures with the exact word phrase "Follow the prophet". Because "Follow the prophet" isn't doctrinal. Still. The only one that has ever preached, taught, or commanded "Follow me because of who I am", and been right about it, is Jesus Christ. Because He's the only one with authority to do that. Still.

However, if you mingle scripture with enough head-fog philosophies, you can twist out a "Follow the prophet". But that's the only way you'll ever get "Follow the prophet" out of the scriptures.

[freedomforall]

An interesting point of doctrine to recognize is that in all these scriptures, in all the things a prophet is telling someone and/or people what to do, not once, not ever, nowhere, is a prophet ever telling people to follow him. Never. The only one that is trying to tell people what to do by the catch phrase "Follow the Prophet" is rewcox......

Have head-fog?

Nephi literally followed Lehi. Nephi was very useful since he followed the prophet. You might try it.

It was his dad, dude. And Nephi happened to like his dad. Nephi wasn't following the prophet; he was having a good times wilderness journey with his dad.
On top of that, Nephi, according to the laws of the land, had murdered Laban. Its not like he could have just chilled in Jerusalem.

Despite all that, it still doesn't say to "Follow the Prophet". Nephi doesn't say, preach, teach, nor even command, "Follow me because I'm the prophet". Lehi doesn't say, preach, teach, nor even command, "Follow me because I'm the prophet". There are still no scriptures with the exact word phrase "Follow the prophet". Because "Follow the prophet" isn't doctrinal. Still. The only one that has ever preached, taught, or commanded "Follow me because of who I am", and been right about it, is Jesus Christ. Because He's the only one with authority to do that. Still.

However, if you mingle scripture with enough head-fog philosophies, you can twist out a "Follow the prophet". But that's the only way you'll ever get "Follow the prophet" out of the scriptures.

27 But when I speak with thee, I will open thy amouth, and thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; He that heareth, let him hear; and he that forbeareth, let him forbear: for they are a rebellious house.

The word heed in the next passage would equate to the word follow.

D&C 1:14
14 And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give (e)heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people;

(e) 14 e heed
D&C 11:2. TG Disobedience.

D&C 11:2
2 Behold, I am God; give heed to my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow; therefore give heed unto my word.

So how does this grab you? Sounds to me like God says to heed/follow the prophets.

Heed = to give careful attention to.

Follow =

3. to accept as a guide or leader; accept the authority of or give allegiance to:
Many Germans followed Hitler.

4. to conform to, comply with, or act in accordance with; obey:
to follow orders; to follow advice.

5. to imitate or copy; use as an exemplar:

So we are told to follow our prophets, even if you think and say otherwise. You may want to consult with Christ because He is the one who said it.

Why do people spout off without doing their own research? Why do some people go to conventions to learn hair splitting techniques?

[freedomforall]

D&C 21:4,5
4 Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;
5 For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

So who is he and his? Never mind, we are to follow the prophets of God, period.

Article of Faith 6:
6 We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.

And if we didn't heed or follow them, then what good would these callings be?

[FTC]

I have consulted with Christ. And He confirmed to me that He facepalms everytime someone over extrapolates His scriptures, aka head-fog philosophies mingled with scriptures. Especially when it comes to leader worship. Especially prophet worship.

The scriptures you presented plainly say "heed to the words of" NOT "follow the". That is, unless, you're going to mingle the philosphies of men with scripture.
Upon further consulting with Christ, while typing this response, He really wishes people would stop mingling philosophies that way like they too often do.

[freedomforall]

I have consulted with Christ. And He confirmed to me that He facepalms everytime someone over extrapolates His scriptures, aka head-fog philosophies mingled with scriptures. Especially when it comes to leader worship. Especially prophet worship.

The scriptures you presented plainly say "heed to the words of" NOT "follow the". That is, unless, you're going to mingle the philosphies of men with scripture.
Upon further consulting with Christ, while typing this response, He really wishes people would stop mingling philosophies that way like they too often do.

Guess again, pal. What part of "whether by my voice or the voice of my servants, it is the same" don't you understand? See: Doctrine and Covenants 1:38

And: 5 For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.


I think you're on the wrong forum, trying to conduct the wrong choir. If you want to ignore the prophets this is on you. And if you do, you will be cut off. It's in the book! D&C 1:14

BTW, heed does not equate to ignore. Heed suggests listening to and doing. Doing suggests following by our own efforts to accomplish heeding.

The only philosophies of men presented here are your own. :-ss

[FTC]

So many extrapolations about so many things. It comes as no surprise that you can be suckered so readily when you're of a mindset to toss and carry your ownself about with every wind of doctrine. How comforting that a scripture like that one applies so well - nearly word for word - that you don't have to declare more or less than the scripture to make it fit, don't ya think?

So, heads up, pal, Christ also recognizes that there are none of His scriptures that use the actual phrase "follow the prophet". Because He never had His servants make any. Because that's not His doctrine. Don't hate it. I'm just an instrument in the Lord's hands.

[rewcox]

So many extrapolations about so many things. It comes as no surprise that you can be suckered so readily when you're of a mindset to toss and carry your ownself about with every wind of doctrine. How comforting that a scripture like that one applies so well - nearly word for word - that you don't have to declare more or less than the scripture to make it fit, don't ya think?

So, heads up, pal, Christ also recognizes that there are none of His scriptures that use the actual phrase "follow the prophet". Because He never had His servants make any. Because that's not His doctrine. Don't hate it. I'm just an instrument in the Lord's hands.

No, you're just a Legend in your own mind.

[FTC]

You can always tell when someone's argument is losing steam, because the ad hominems start coming out.

[Finrock]

Seek, obtain, and retain the Holy Ghost and then you will be able to hear and to recognize the Spirit's voice when it speaks. Then you will be able to discern truth and error. Believing solely on title, position, and church is an error.

-Finrock

Apparently you skipped my post about the necessity of having keys. Position does matter. Which church, under God, has the authority to bestow those keys is pertinent. Title is a way of distinguishing a Prophet or Apostle, a Seventy or Deacon.

You miss the point. A person is not a true prophet of Jesus Christ solely by virtue of them being in a particular church, them having received a particular title, and having been placed in to a particular position. Whether you agree or not is one thing, but it is critical that if you are going to disagree with something, that you understand the point that is being made. The scriptures testify and teach us that one is a prophet by virtue of having the Holy Ghost. The power comes from the Spirit. The power does not come from the title, the position, or the church.

Many are called but few are chosen. Why? Because they can't get it in to their heads that the powers of Heaven are inseparably connected with the principles of righteousness. We may have the priesthood conferred upon us and we may be given a position and a title in the Church, but unless we have the actual Holy Ghost attending us, which we obtain through faith and through righteousness, then we actually have no priesthood. We may retain our position and title, but it will be in name only. And, when we go around exercising unrighteous dominion we will lose our authority until we repent. I paraphrased the scripture in D&C, but this is what it says in essence. What is important principle here? Power in the priesthood comes from the Spirit. The Spirit comes through faith and righteousness. Why is this important? It shows us that the Spirit is what matters most. Not title, not position, not church.

-Finrock

So what are ALL the necessary requirements to becoming the type of person God could call to be a prophet? Use as many scriptural provided attributes as possible.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.

Coupled with:

Trustworthy,
Loyal,
Helpful,
Friendly,
Courteous,
Kind,
Obedient,
Cheerful,
Thrifty,
Brave,
Clean,
and Reverent.

One must have a broken heart and a contrite spirit or become as a child; with all those the Holy Ghost will dwell, making them prophets. All those who have the companionship of the Holy Ghost are prophets. I'm going to presume that you are going to conflate being a prophet with being the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. With this presumption I will offer the further answer that being the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has different criteria. Namely, today you must be the senior apostle when the president of the Church dies, and so therefore you inherit the position of president of the Church through this established tradition.

-Finrock

[Finrock]

The only philosophies of men presented here are your own. :-ss

This statement of yours is a nail biter? What?

-Finrock

[rewcox]

One must have a broken heart and a contrite spirit or become as a child; with all those the Holy Ghost will dwell, making them prophets. All those who have the companionship of the Holy Ghost are prophets. I'm going to presume that you are going to conflate being a prophet with being the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. With this presumption I will offer the further answer that being the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has different criteria. Namely, today you must be the senior apostle when the president of the Church dies, and so therefore you inherit the position of president of the Church through this established tradition.

-Finrock

You have little faith. It's interesting to me that some who have been born again, or those that claim to be members of The Church of the Firstborn, want to spend time fighting against the church and leaders.

What are you inheriting?

[Finrock]

One must have a broken heart and a contrite spirit or become as a child; with all those the Holy Ghost will dwell, making them prophets. All those who have the companionship of the Holy Ghost are prophets. I'm going to presume that you are going to conflate being a prophet with being the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. With this presumption I will offer the further answer that being the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has different criteria. Namely, today you must be the senior apostle when the president of the Church dies, and so therefore you inherit the position of president of the Church through this established tradition.

-Finrock

You have little faith. It's interesting to me that some who have been born again, or those that claim to be members of The Church of the Firstborn, want to spend time fighting against the church and leaders.

What are you inheriting?

Your ad hominem only reveals your own insecurities. That fact that you feel threatened about what I post suggest that your personal position is problematic. It is your own insecurities that lead you to believe that I am fighting against the church and leaders. You keep wasting time and energy with these posts. You ought to know better but I've been here long enough to realize that you are generally just trolling and don't have sincere and pure intent with your comments.

-Finrock

[rewcox]

One must have a broken heart and a contrite spirit or become as a child; with all those the Holy Ghost will dwell, making them prophets. All those who have the companionship of the Holy Ghost are prophets. I'm going to presume that you are going to conflate being a prophet with being the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. With this presumption I will offer the further answer that being the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has different criteria. Namely, today you must be the senior apostle when the president of the Church dies, and so therefore you inherit the position of president of the Church through this established tradition.

-Finrock

You have little faith. It's interesting to me that some who have been born again, or those that claim to be members of The Church of the Firstborn, want to spend time fighting against the church and leaders.

What are you inheriting?

Your ad hominem only reveals your own insecurities. That fact that you feel threatened about what I post suggest that your personal position is problematic. It is your own insecurities that lead you to believe that I am fighting against the church and leaders. You keep wasting time and energy with these posts. You ought to know better but I've been here long enough to realize that you are generally just trolling and don't have sincere and pure intent with your comments.

-Finrock

You're not a psychologist. I started this thread. Maybe you can clarify your intent, it sure doesn't seem to be church or leader positive.

[Finrock]

One must have a broken heart and a contrite spirit or become as a child; with all those the Holy Ghost will dwell, making them prophets. All those who have the companionship of the Holy Ghost are prophets. I'm going to presume that you are going to conflate being a prophet with being the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. With this presumption I will offer the further answer that being the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has different criteria. Namely, today you must be the senior apostle when the president of the Church dies, and so therefore you inherit the position of president of the Church through this established tradition.

-Finrock

You have little faith. It's interesting to me that some who have been born again, or those that claim to be members of The Church of the Firstborn, want to spend time fighting against the church and leaders.

What are you inheriting?

Your ad hominem only reveals your own insecurities. That fact that you feel threatened about what I post suggest that your personal position is problematic. It is your own insecurities that lead you to believe that I am fighting against the church and leaders. You keep wasting time and energy with these posts. You ought to know better but I've been here long enough to realize that you are generally just trolling and don't have sincere and pure intent with your comments.

-Finrock

You're not a psychologist. I started this thread. Maybe you can clarify your intent, it sure doesn't seem to be church or leader positive.

I am going to take some time to share some truths with you and whoever else may be reading this now or in the future. I want you to understand that this is time spent away from the actual issues being discussed but I feel it is important for me to give you the opportunity to understand what principles are driving my discussions and how I attempt to make sense of what is being said. Also, it is an attempt to provide some actual context to what it is you are doing in the course of this discussion and what I might be doing as well because it is not natural for a person to be a critical thinker, to be fair-minded, and to have intellectual empathy, courage, and honesty. These are all traits, abilities, skills that must be acquired and worked on in order to develop them. We are all subject to certain prejudices and predispositions due to various reasons be they culture, background, religion, socioeconomic status, and other factors that if we are ignorant to them and unwilling to take them in to account and apply sound principles, we will be incapable of actually discussing and conversing a viewpoint in a fair and ethical, Christ-like way.

First, the truth claims or the truth value of my argument or the position that I am advocating or the point that I am making is not measured or affected by my religion, my sex, my race, or any other such irrelevant factor. Do you recognize that what I say is either true or it is false, independent of my religious beliefs, my race, my economic status, my sex/gender, or any other such irrelevant criteria? In a discussion, for you or anyone to make any reference to who and what I may be or what my religious beliefs are in order to judge the validity or soundness of my position, is an attack against me, the person, aka, ad hominem. When you are doing this, you are in fact not addressing, attacking, or undermining my point of view or my position. Can you not see how what I state above is true?

Here are some universal principles that are in play anytime a discussion is taking place or when we are interacting with other people. These are the principles I either am trying to use or avoid. I will be quoting from a book titled, "Critical Thinking: Learn the Tools the Best Thinkers Use", Concise Edition, Richard Paul and Linda Elder, Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006, pages 194, 195, 196, 198, 200:

1. Fair-mindedness - "Fair-mindedness entails the predisposition to equally consider all relevant viewpoints, without reference to one's own feelings or selfish interests, or the feelings or selfish interests of one's friends, community, or nation. It implies adherence to intellectual standards (such as accuracy, sound logic, and breadth of vision), uninfluenced by one's own advantage or the advantage of one's group" (p. 194)

2. Intellectual humility - "To have intellectual humility is to be aware of the limits of one's knowledge and to understand the natural inclinations of the mind to overestimate what it knows. Thus intellectual humility includes an acute awareness of the fact that our egocentrism is likely to deceive us (to tell the mind, in other words, that it knows more than it does). Intellectual humility means being aware of one's biases and prejudices as well as the limitations of one's viewpoint. It involves being keenly aware of the extent of one's ignorance when thinking through any particular issue or thinking within any content area. Intellectual humility depends on recognizing that one should not claim more than one actually knows. It does not imply spinelessness or submissiveness. It implies the lack of intellectual arrogance, pretentiousness, boastfulness, or conceit. It requires identifying and assessing the foundations of one's beliefs, looking especially for those that cannot be justified through good reasoning" (p. 195).

3. Intellectual courage - "Having intellectual courage means facing and fairly addressing ideas, beliefs, or viewpoints even when it is painful to do so. It means closely examining beliefs toward which one has strong negative emotions and to which one has not given a serious hearing. An important part of intellectual courage is recognizing that ideas society considers dangerous or absurd are sometimes rationally justified (in whole or in part) or simply matters of subjective taste. Conclusions and beliefs inculcated in people by society are sometimes false or misleading. To determine what makes sense to believe, one must not passively and uncritically accept what one has learned. Having intellectual courage is especially important because there may be some truth in ideas considered dangerous or absurd, as well as distortion or falsity in ideas strongly held by social groups to which we belong. To be fair-minded thinkers in these circumstances, we must develop intellectual courage. We must be willing not only to examine beliefs we hold dear, but also to stand alone, when necessary, against the crowd. We must have the courage to do so. Realize that the penalties placed on us by society for nonconformity can be severe" (p. 198)

4. Intellectual cowardice - "The opposite of intellectual courage, intellectual cowardice, is the fear of ideas that do not conform to one's own. If we lack intellectual courage, we are afraid of giving serious considerations to ideas, beliefs, or viewpoints that we perceive as dangerous. We feel personally threatened by ideas that seem to conflict with our personal identity. The unwillingness to examine one's beliefs implies that there may be some problem with the justifiability of those beliefs" (p. 198).

5. Intellectual empathy - "To have intellectual empathy is to imaginatively put oneself in the place of others on a routine basis, so as to genuinely understand them. It requires one to accurately reconstruct the viewpoints and reasoning of others and to reason from premises, assumptions, and ideas other than one's own. This trait requires the motivation to recall occasions when one was wrong in the past despite an intense conviction of being right, and the ability to imagine that the same might be true now" (p. 200).

-Finrock

[rewcox]

You have little faith. It's interesting to me that some who have been born again, or those that claim to be members of The Church of the Firstborn, want to spend time fighting against the church and leaders.

What are you inheriting?

Your ad hominem only reveals your own insecurities. That fact that you feel threatened about what I post suggest that your personal position is problematic. It is your own insecurities that lead you to believe that I am fighting against the church and leaders. You keep wasting time and energy with these posts. You ought to know better but I've been here long enough to realize that you are generally just trolling and don't have sincere and pure intent with your comments.

-Finrock

You're not a psychologist. I started this thread. Maybe you can clarify your intent, it sure doesn't seem to be church or leader positive.

I am going to take some time to share some truths with you and whoever else may be reading this now or in the future. I want you to understand that this is time spent away from the actual issues being discussed but I feel it is important for me to give you the opportunity to understand what principles are driving my discussions and how I attempt to make sense of what is being said. Also, it is an attempt to provide some actual context to what it is you are doing in the course of this discussion and what I might be doing as well because it is not natural for a person to be a critical thinker, to be fair-minded, and to have intellectual empathy, courage, and honesty. These are all traits, abilities, skills that must be acquired and worked on in order to develop them. We are all subject to certain prejudices and predispositions due to various reasons be they culture, background, religion, socioeconomic status, and other factors that if we are ignorant to them and unwilling to take them in to account and apply sound principles, we will be incapable of actually discussing and conversing a viewpoint in a fair and ethical, Christ-like way.

First, the truth claims or the truth value of my argument or the position that I am advocating or the point that I am making is not measured or affected by my religion, my sex, my race, or any other such irrelevant factor. Do you recognize that what I say is either true or it is false, independent of my religious beliefs, my race, my economic status, my sex/gender, or any other such irrelevant criteria? In a discussion, for you or anyone to make any reference to who and what I may be or what my religious beliefs are in order to judge the validity or soundness of my position, is an attack against me, the person, aka, ad hominem. When you are doing this, you are in fact not addressing, attacking, or undermining my point of view or my position. Can you not see how what I state above is true?

Here are some universal principles that are in play anytime a discussion is taking place or when we are interacting with other people. These are the principles I either am trying to use or avoid. I will be quoting from a book titled, "Critical Thinking: Learn the Tools the Best Thinkers Use", Concise Edition, Richard Paul and Linda Elder, Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006, pages 194, 195, 196, 198, 200:

1. Fair-mindedness - "Fair-mindedness entails the predisposition to equally consider all relevant viewpoints, without reference to one's own feelings or selfish interests, or the feelings or selfish interests of one's friends, community, or nation. It implies adherence to intellectual standards (such as accuracy, sound logic, and breadth of vision), uninfluenced by one's own advantage or the advantage of one's group" (p. 194)

2. Intellectual humility - "To have intellectual humility is to be aware of the limits of one's knowledge and to understand the natural inclinations of the mind to overestimate what it knows. Thus intellectual humility includes an acute awareness of the fact that our egocentrism is likely to deceive us (to tell the mind, in other words, that it knows more than it does). Intellectual humility means being aware of one's biases and prejudices as well as the limitations of one's viewpoint. It involves being keenly aware of the extent of one's ignorance when thinking through any particular issue or thinking within any content area. Intellectual humility depends on recognizing that one should not claim more than one actually knows. It does not imply spinelessness or submissiveness. It implies the lack of intellectual arrogance, pretentiousness, boastfulness, or conceit. It requires identifying and assessing the foundations of one's beliefs, looking especially for those that cannot be justified through good reasoning" (p. 195).

3. Intellectual courage - "Having intellectual courage means facing and fairly addressing ideas, beliefs, or viewpoints even when it is painful to do so. It means closely examining beliefs toward which one has strong negative emotions and to which one has not given a serious hearing. An important part of intellectual courage is recognizing that ideas society considers dangerous or absurd are sometimes rationally justified (in whole or in part) or simply matters of subjective taste. Conclusions and beliefs inculcated in people by society are sometimes false or misleading. To determine what makes sense to believe, one must not passively and uncritically accept what one has learned. Having intellectual courage is especially important because there may be some truth in ideas considered dangerous or absurd, as well as distortion or falsity in ideas strongly held by social groups to which we belong. To be fair-minded thinkers in these circumstances, we must develop intellectual courage. We must be willing not only to examine beliefs we hold dear, but also to stand alone, when necessary, against the crowd. We must have the courage to do so. Realize that the penalties placed on us by society for nonconformity can be severe" (p. 198)

4. Intellectual cowardice - "The opposite of intellectual courage, intellectual cowardice, is the fear of ideas that do not conform to one's own. If we lack intellectual courage, we are afraid of giving serious considerations to ideas, beliefs, or viewpoints that we perceive as dangerous. We feel personally threatened by ideas that seem to conflict with our personal identity. The unwillingness to examine one's beliefs implies that there may be some problem with the justifiability of those beliefs" (p. 198).

5. Intellectual empathy - "To have intellectual empathy is to imaginatively put oneself in the place of others on a routine basis, so as to genuinely understand them. It requires one to accurately reconstruct the viewpoints and reasoning of others and to reason from premises, assumptions, and ideas other than one's own. This trait requires the motivation to recall occasions when one was wrong in the past despite an intense conviction of being right, and the ability to imagine that the same might be true now" (p. 200).

-Finrock

I am biased, I deal with the truth. You, I and others (billions) listened to some very sophisticated discussions in the pre-existence. All of us that come to this earth, voted for Heavenly Father's Plan, the Plan of Happiness, the Plan of Salvation, etc.

Some voted for Lucifer's plan. A third part (I don't know if that actually means 1/3 of God's children) voted for Lucifer's plan and were cast out for rebellion.

Interestingly, that third part tries really hard to distract us from again, choosing God's plan. Each of us chooses which way we will go, and our choice is made outside the presence of our Father. God does give us some help with the Spirit, and especially with Christ.

You want to say it is about Fair Mindedness, Humility, Courage, Cowardice, and Empathy.

Well friend, I chose and choose Christ, which includes His Church and His Prophet and His Apostles. Do I listen to "other's" opinions, yes. Do I have empathy for others' opinions, yes. I also reject those opinions that I know to be wrong, or at odds with God's Plan.

Maybe I am too forceful, but when a member starts saying things that are against the church or leaders, I know something is amiss. Just today, I visited a few websites ( I seldom do this now) of those who had been members, but either resigned or was excommunicated. I see strange things, I don't see happiness. Whatever it was that took them on their journey certainly didn't provide what they thought it would.

While afflictions and persecutions may be around us, we can and are happy. That is because we do our best (even though that may be small) to be part of the Plan of Happiness. That knowledge and truth, is found in the Gospel of Christ, in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, with the Keys, Authority, Covenants, Ordinances, Prophets and Apostles and the Stakes and Wards in which we live. This is the Truth.

[freedomforall]

Finrock, you say that for those having the Holy Ghost are prophets.
Tell us, present to us a new and unheard of prophecy not known to the First Presidency, the Twelve Apostles or the entire body/membership of the church.

Or provide an amendment to any current, known prophecy not ever heard by the First Presidency, the Twelve Apostles or the entire body/membership of the church.

[freedomforall]

You can always tell when someone's argument is losing steam, because the ad hominems start coming out.

No, we merely have too many people come on the forum claiming to be part of deity whose lips flap but nothing of scriptural substance comes out of the pie hole worth paying attention to. When one speaks against church leaders, the church, itself, and attempting to tell others that what they know to be truth is not...this is real problematic.

May I suggest reading the entire panoply of scripture, internalizing the word of God and messages and then again trying to convey that knowledge in a less than self aggrandizing way?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
An excerpt:
Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is normally categorized as an informal fallacy, more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.

However, in some cases, ad hominen attacks can be non-fallacious; i.e., if the attack on the character of the person is directly tackling the argument itself. For example, if the truth of the argument relies on the truthfulness of the person making the argument—rather than known facts—then pointing out that the person has previously lied is not a fallacious argument.

[Finrock]

I am biased, I deal with the truth. You, I and others (billions) listened to some very sophisticated discussions in the pre-existence. All of us that come to this earth, voted for Heavenly Father's Plan, the Plan of Happiness, the Plan of Salvation, etc.

Some voted for Lucifer's plan. A third part (I don't know if that actually means 1/3 of God's children) voted for Lucifer's plan and were cast out for rebellion.

Interestingly, that third part tries really hard to distract us from again, choosing God's plan. Each of us chooses which way we will go, and our choice is made outside the presence of our Father. God does give us some help with the Spirit, and especially with Christ.

You want to say it is about Fair Mindedness, Humility, Courage, Cowardice, and Empathy.

Well friend, I chose and choose Christ, which includes His Church and His Prophet and His Apostles. Do I listen to "other's" opinions, yes. Do I have empathy for others' opinions, yes. I also reject those opinions that I know to be wrong, or at odds with God's Plan.

Maybe I am too forceful, but when a member starts saying things that are against the church or leaders, I know something is amiss. Just today, I visited a few websites ( I seldom do this now) of those who had been members, but either resigned or was excommunicated. I see strange things, I don't see happiness. Whatever it was that took them on their journey certainly didn't provide what they thought it would.

While afflictions and persecutions may be around us, we can and are happy. That is because we do our best (even though that may be small) to be part of the Plan of Happiness. That knowledge and truth, is found in the Gospel of Christ, in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, with the Keys, Authority, Covenants, Ordinances, Prophets and Apostles and the Stakes and Wards in which we live. This is the Truth.

We are all biased and because we are egocentric we all think that when we speak we are dealing with truth. The principled way, Christ-like way, with dealing with this is to utilize principles that account for our egocentricity, our biases, and our prejudices. You make statements and judgments that frankly are irrelevant to what I am saying. You ignore post after post of perspectives that counter your view. This just happens again and again. This isn't the first time we have interacted. You think you know and you think you understand what is being said and you think that somehow judging and making these cheap shot statements show your loyalty or goodness, but all it does is create contention and distractions.

You don't really know that something is amiss. You think you know something is amiss. You believe, because you are threatened by the views that are being expressed, that something is amiss because someone is not believing just as you believe. In fact, very much of the time when you are interacting with me, you are completely missing the point. You make statements and comments that frankly are irrelevant. But, here is the thing, we've had this discussion before and no matter how many times I tell you that your judgments about me are wrong, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because all you see is your own view, which you know is right, and if anyone disagrees with your view, then you feel threatened. Some of the things your say are right, some of them are wrong. This goes for me too. I can guarantee that there have been times when you have strongly felt that you were right, with absolute certainty, yet you ended up being wrong. I know that I have been in that position. You must recognize that this same thing can be true again. Just because you feel something strongly or because you have an emotional attachment to some concept, doesn't mean that you are right. You can't possibly sit there behind your computer screen and pretend to be able to judge me, my heart, my faith, and what I believe. Especially when you aren't taking the time to even consider the point-of-view that you are disagreeing with.

I understand the tendency to argue the way that many people argue. We are not born critical thinkers. Most of us aren't born with an innate capacity for intellectual honesty, intellectual courage, and intellectual empathy. Rather we have a tendency to be egocentric, sociocentric, or ethnocentric. What I am presenting to you are time tested and scripturally supported principles. It is imperative that in our communications with others we apply these principles. This takes a real effort, it takes time, practice, and a dedication to living by a higher standard. It is common and pervasive to see people communicating with others using tactics such as ad hominems, sarcasm, ridicule, name-calling, missing the point, etc. As I've said before, this is a natural tendency. We want to support our side and we want to believe that the cultural or social circle that we grew up in or have been exposed to for most of our life is the only right way of being and/or thinking. That is the common way. That is the natural way. The carnal way. A higher way of thinking, of discoursing, and of interacting with others is use of the principles that I have mentioned which are universal in their truth and application. It requires being able to deal with your bias. To be fair-minded. To actively listen. It takes courage because often we are emotionally attached to concepts, ideas, or social groups. For instance, we might self-identify as Christians and then we try to own all of the traits and qualities we believe a Christian should have and so our self-identity is tied in to these categories. So, when someone comes around and presents an idea that doesn't seem to fit in to the Christian concept, the person feels threatened personally because they feel like their whole identity is being attacked, ridiculed, or made light of. Critical thinking requires us to recognize these tendencies and to deal with information, situations, and problems from a more objective position. Christ is life, light, and truth. Our loyalty, therefore, should be to life, light, and truth. Our egocentric and sociocentric paradigms quite often do not mesh well with truth and if we are tied to those paradigms as opposed to being tied to truth, we can very well reject truth, all the while proclaiming that we stand for truth, thinking we know, when in reality we don't even know that we don't know.

You proclaim that you believe in Christ and are loyal to Him. So am I. You further assert that you know that if someone is loyal to Christ, they will then believe just as you do, namely they will adhere to the paradigm that you have built up where Church, covenants, keys, and priesthood are all vested in your particular social group or construct. You are so sure of this that if anyone dares to contradict or say something to the contrary, well, you now know that something is amiss and you are justified in all your judging and demagoguery. All the while you have failed to consider the feelings, ideas, notions, and the position of the person that you are interacting with. This is not right. That this fallacious propensity that I have describe isn't right, is not just scripturally supported, but it is also academically supported, and historically supported.

Everything that I have attempted to share on this website over the last year or so, has been to uplift, edify, and to bring people closer to Jesus Christ. I have shared my experiences with Christ and the amazing power of His atonement. I am motivated by my conversion to share with others the happiness and peace that has been brought in to my life as a result of the principles and truths that have been introduced to me through the power of the Holy Ghost. Everything I do and say here is with the intent of helping others to become converted to Jesus Christ, to follow Him, to obey His laws, and to make His way their way. I am not always successful at this. I do not always act in accordance with the principles that I am trying to live by, but by and large, I am successful at being a true disciple of Jesus Christ. There is nothing sinister in anything that I have said or that I will say. There is no desire to hurt, harm, or injure. Everything I say is aimed at bringing people to understanding the Good and to being committed and converted to the gospel of Jesus Christ. I love Christ. I love people. I love being alive. I love life. I love myself. I am happy and at peace with my choices because I feel in my heart that I am approved and supported by Father God and His Son.

-Finrock

[Finrock]

You can always tell when someone's argument is losing steam, because the ad hominems start coming out.

No, we merely have too many people come on the forum claiming to be part of deity whose lips flap but nothing of scriptural substance comes out of the pie hole worth paying attention to. When one speaks against church leaders, the church, itself, and attempting to tell others that what they know to be truth is not...this is real problematic.

May I suggest reading the entire panoply of scripture, internalizing the word of God and messages and then again trying to convey that knowledge in a less than self aggrandizing way?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
An excerpt:
Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is normally categorized as an informal fallacy, more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.

However, in some cases, ad hominen attacks can be non-fallacious; i.e., if the attack on the character of the person is directly tackling the argument itself. For example, if the truth of the argument relies on the truthfulness of the person making the argument—rather than known facts—then pointing out that the person has previously lied is not a fallacious argument.

Logic and reason fail. :))

-Finrock

[Finrock]

Finrock, you say that for those having the Holy Ghost are prophets.
Tell us, present to us a new and unheard of prophecy not known to the First Presidency, the Twelve Apostles or the entire body/membership of the church.

Or provide an amendment to any current, known prophecy not ever heard by the First Presidency, the Twelve Apostles or the entire body/membership of the church.

:)) No.

-Finrock

[freedomforall]

So many extrapolations about so many things. It comes as no surprise that you can be suckered so readily when you're of a mindset to toss and carry your ownself about with every wind of doctrine. How comforting that a scripture like that one applies so well - nearly word for word - that you don't have to declare more or less than the scripture to make it fit, don't ya think?

So, heads up, pal, Christ also recognizes that there are none of His scriptures that use the actual phrase "follow the prophet". Because He never had His servants make any. Because that's not His doctrine. Don't hate it. I'm just an instrument in the Lord's hands.

Pal, if you want to ignore the prophets, this is on you. And if you do, you will be cut off. It's in the book! D&C 1:14 Read it word for word, and possibly learn something new.

[freedomforall]

You can always tell when someone's argument is losing steam, because the ad hominems start coming out.

No, we merely have too many people come on the forum claiming to be part of deity whose lips flap but nothing of scriptural substance comes out of the pie hole worth paying attention to. When one speaks against church leaders, the church, itself, and attempting to tell others that what they know to be truth is not...this is real problematic.

May I suggest reading the entire panoply of scripture, internalizing the word of God and messages and then again trying to convey that knowledge in a less than self aggrandizing way?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
An excerpt:
Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is normally categorized as an informal fallacy, more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.

However, in some cases, ad hominen attacks can be non-fallacious; i.e., if the attack on the character of the person is directly tackling the argument itself. For example, if the truth of the argument relies on the truthfulness of the person making the argument—rather than known facts—then pointing out that the person has previously lied is not a fallacious argument.

Logic and reason fail. :))

-Finrock

If the shoe fits! #-o

[freedomforall]

Finrock, you say that for those having the Holy Ghost are prophets.
Tell us, present to us a new and unheard of prophecy not known to the First Presidency, the Twelve Apostles or the entire body/membership of the church.

Or provide an amendment to any current, known prophecy not ever heard by the First Presidency, the Twelve Apostles or the entire body/membership of the church.

:)) No.

-Finrock

Nor can you being a prophet and all. (-|