quote:

---

Moral lesson: if your religion asks you do to something that you don't understand, or which feels wrong to you, switch religions. Your gut instinct is almost guaranteed to be healthier than blind faith in your leadership.

---

quote:

---

Consider the numerous stories in the Bible about people whose gut instincts were to do X when God told them to do Y. Isn't the point of these stories precisely to have faith, even when your gut instincts may say otherwise?

---

Can you give an example of such a story? I'm not saying I don't believe you, I just don't know what you're talking about.
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
Abraham and Isaac pops to mind.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
How about the children of Isreal wandering through the wilderness after the Exodus? Their gut instinct (or something) was to build a god they could see.
 

---

Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
Well, almost all of them really, at least the ones where God says to do something.

But to take the biggest example, how about when God tells Jesus he needs to die on the cross?
 

---

Posted by Law Maker (Member # 5909) on :
 
Yeah, I guess those work. The whole Abraham and Isaac thing was truely senseless, but then he didn't really have to go through with it so I don't think it compares with this.

Edit to respond to Tresopax: I don't know if that one counts. According to what he says in the Bible, dying didn't go against his 'gut instinct' because his 'gut instinct' was to do whatever God wanted him to do.

[ November 18, 2003, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Law Maker ]
 

---

Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
He only said it would be healthier...not that their God would enjoy it or anything.

I'm sure Jesus would've been more likely to pass a physical had he not been crucified.

And how do you survive a mass suicide?

Who doesn't like Kool-Aid?
 

---

Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
 

quote:

---

The whole Abraham and Isaac thing was truely senseless, but then he didn't really have to go through with it so I don't think it compares with this.

---

I dunno . . . I think the point is still valid. Or do you think Abraham was going to pull away at the last moment? The point is, God asked him to do something quite against his instincts, and he was ready to do it. The fact that he was stopped doesn't seem to have any bearing on it, unless you're saying that the moral is do what God tells you, unless it seems like he's not going to stop you from doing something you really don't want to at the last minute . . .
 

---

Posted by Law Maker (Member # 5909) on :
 
You're right. Abraham was doing exactly what you all are saying he did. One thing though. Wasn't Abraham a prophet? Doesn't that mean he had no doubt about who was telling him to sacrifice his son? It's one thing to blindly follow a fallable human being, It's another to do what you know God is telling you to do.
 

---

Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
 
Yeah, god talked directly to Abraham. But there are other instances where a prophet told someone to do something that didn't seem right to that person. A prophet is a fallable human being that you believe knows the right answers. So was the guy who told these people to kill themselves, so that makes more sense.

--ApostleRadio
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Bill Cosby Voice:
"NOAH."
"Waat?"
"I want you to build a boat."
"Yeah. Ri-i-i-ight."
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Jim Jones believed himself to be a prophet as well, in direct communication with God.

Unfortunately, True Prophets don't come with blinking lights on their heads, or other failsafe markers. And matters of faith aren't matters of proof, sort of by definition.
 

---

Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
 
I was thinking the same thing kat.


--ApostleRadio
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
(katharina, how's the creepy stalkerish-guy?)
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
When God tells you to sacrifice your son, that is one thing.

When a self-appointed prophet tells you to feed your children poison, its time to get a new prophet.

(PS she survived by not being in Guyana at that tmie, but at one of the other church centers. Event here one mother killed herself and her three children with a carving knife. I also recall there were a few people who hid out in the jungle during the suicide, and witnessed the whole thing.)
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
(I'm calling the company lawyer during lunch, and then will call creepy stalker-ish guy tonight. Will have update tomorrow. Hopefully, all will be ended. Thanks. )
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Dan, what's the fundamental difference? (I'm really curious.)

(katharina: good. I was worried. )

[ November 18, 2003, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
 

---

Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
 
The difference is when God says something to you, hopefully you will notice it. If God himself is speaking directly to you, then you had better do what he is saying.

If some other guy tells you that God has spoken to him and told him what you need to do, you should probably be slightly more apprehensive.



--APostleRadio
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
If you believed that God told you to lead a massacre of hundreds of people, would you do it? What about thousands? Is there a point at which you'd say "waaaait a minute, maybe this isn't God, even if I'm sure it is -- or maybe, even if it's God, this still may not be a good idea?"

My "wait-a-minute" response kicked off with the first person I was sent to kill. (I don't mean that facetiously -- there was a point in my life when I was suicidal and pretty seriously depressed, and I was sure that the thing I was supposed to do -- that God wanted me to do -- was start over.)
 

---

Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
Yeah, but God never talks to anybody anymore. (well, except LDS prophets)

He's become quite a hermit.

You would think he'd be more involved--plagues and whatnot--since the world is so much more evil than in Biblical times.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 

quote:

---

Yeah, but God never talks to anybody anymore. (well, except LDS prophets)

---

quote:

---

Here is where LDS members depart from a strictly positivist, empirical way of knowing things, and talk about receiving pure intelligence straight from the source in a manner that leaves no doubt as to the source or the truth of what is received. Reliance on human ways of knowing is not an issue here.

---

avr, I understand I'm treading on shaky ground here, and feel free not to repond or to tell me "none of your business." But I mean it as a solemn, respectful question:

Is it taken as a given, then, that someone who is properly prepared to receive communication from God, in what he/she believes to be full sobriety, cannot be wrong about that communication? So, for example, the world is arranged in such a way that a person in this circumstance could not be suffering from a delusion, and not know it?

(BTW, I'm cool with you saying "yes," and I'd be okay with dropping it at that. It would help explain some things to me about the structure of faith, at least for you. I know you don't speak for all of the LDS. )
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I know you were talking to afr, and he'll answer it, but I can offer my perspective.

Sure, people can be wrong. Feeling is subjective. I mean, some people's brains tell them they are being spoken to by someone standing directly in front of them, and it is a hallucination.

Do you mean the average population, that does not schizophrenia? Well, feeling is subjective, and I'd never underestimate the ability of human beings to talk themselves into anything.

If you are asking about customs, it is considered inappropriate to question someone's answer or inspiration, especially when it is something most directly concerning them.
 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
The woman they interviewed was out of the complex at the time of the Kool-aid thing.

Ron heard it and was disturbed by how much time she spent talking about how cool it was to be there in the commune with like-minded people, etc. Like, she was missing the good old days before eveyone decided to die.

See, the problem Tom and I have with this LDS thing, is that it seems likely that what I truly believe, after prayer and seeking and reading and all that, might not jibe with everyone else. I mean, I'm the weirdo who said "Squid" when asked to name a vegetable.

That, and I'd probably have trouble not decking the first guy to say something remotely sexist. I have anger issues.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 

quote:

---

have trouble not decking the first guy to say something remotely sexist.

---

Welcome to my world.

I know you were halfway joking, Olivet, but that really is a big issue for some people. Certainly was for me. The only way I could reconcile the Lord's gospel with my brother and various guys' interpretation was that they were doing it wrong. Fortunately, everything from the prophets to my prayers bears that out.
 

---

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
CT:

I guess what I was trying to get at in my earlier post was that it's a very unmistakable feeling (or impression), accompanied, as kat said, by peace and clarity of thought concerning the matter. However, faith still plays a big part in recognizing and accepting it.

I certainly recognize that there is real delusion and mental illness that might make it very confusing. However, it is my opinion that God takes special care of people with those problems and provides ways for them to distinguish between falsehood and reality as well. This isn't some machine spewing out information. It's a living, very real, very loving God who cares for each of us personally and works with us individually.

Another "check," if you will, is how the inspiration in question lines up with what has already been taught through scripture and living prophets. We believe God does everything in an ordered fashion. He reveals doctrine in an orderly way, namely through duly called prophets, and the doctrine is passed down the channels of leadership from there. Some random Joe isn't suddenly going to receive revelation from God that he is to start murdering people, or do something else contrary to what has been already taught through prophets. But we can all receive inspiration that relates to our personal lives or to those over whom we have stewardship, like our families.

Also, I don't mean to imply that inspiration from God is limited to members of the LDS Church. We are all entitled to it, as children of God.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Thanks, katharina and avr. Both answers were very helpful to me, and I appreciate the thought and great consideration. Thanks, also, for not telling me to go fly a kite.

I'll respectfully withdraw from the discussion at this point, unless I can be of help to someone.

Again, many thanks.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"Here is where LDS members depart from a strictly positivist, empirical way of knowing things, and talk about receiving pure intelligence straight from the source in a manner that leaves no doubt as to the source or the truth of what is received."

Um....I know LDS members who thought they had received a communication from God, and turned out to be wrong.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
*spreads hands* How do they know?
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Actually, it wouldn't matter if they turned out to be wrong, it only matters if they later think they have been wrong. Then you have at a given time t a set of people who believe they have received direct communication from God, and at a later time t + n a subset of those people who have decided otherwise.

Now, you could argue that anyone who has a true communication from will certainly know it, but this example clearly shows that, well, there's no way of being certain if you are certain. Recanting happens, clearly. People who are certain at one time become uncertain later. And since we are not privy to internal visions, there's no way to isolate if certain kinds of visions are never recanted.

Plus, even were certain kinds never recanted, I'm betting I could find contradictory visions within that subtype, invalidating that mode of analysis.
 

---

Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
 
Understand, too, that the question of stewardship comes into play. If I, as a member, were to receive the revelation that women should be admitted to the priesthood, then I can safely assume that was a mistake, since that's not my stewardship.

Stewardship means that on my own personal decisions, the decisions that affect my dependent children, and my calling with the church, I have the right to receive revelation concerning these things.

If I were to receive, say, a revelation about my personal future calling in the church, then I would act to prepare myself for that, but would assume that God will tell the prophet about it if and when He feels I'm ready or it's time or whatever. I would wait to be called, in other words, and not put myself forward based on my personal revelation.

Everyone's stewardship is well defined. We all have the right to receive revelation about our own stewardships. Never is there any compulsion on anyone else. The priesthood "constitution", if you want to call it that, states that it only works through long-suffering good will, kindness, mercy, etc. Never through harshness or cruelty or punishments. That if you use the power of the priesthood in any unrighteous fashion, then you forfeit the backing of heaven, and the power is withdrawn. If the prophet one day (and this is inconceivable) told us all to drink cyanide, he would be very clearly breaking all the most basic rules, and nobody would comply.
 

---

Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
 
So the things that can't be refuted are the things that bear on your own personal decisions. And about everything else there is not any compulsion ever.

What I find so disturbing about the Jim Jones thing is that many many of the people were murdered. There are even tapes in which we hear people screaming, being shot, etc. My question is not so much how people can come to think that committing suicide for a cause is a good idea, but murdering? And what were they thinking would be accomplished?

It really cuts to the core of what it means to be a human being. Are there circumstances under which I would do something like that? I'd like to think there aren't, and yet in extreme situations people seem to do all sorts of things that you would think nobody could ever do. Just like in concentration camps. How was it that possibly happened? In the mass killings in Rwanda? Slavery?

What is this beast called man?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"My question is not so much how people can come to think that committing suicide for a cause is a good idea, but murdering?"

There are PLENTY of Biblical instances in which God commands people to murder. And they do -- or, if they DON'T, He usually gets ticked off and does something atrocious to both them AND the victims.
 

---