Historians have usurped the prophets

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Based on my stake president's recitation from the SWK biography, it was as Adam desribed--a long arduous process of consensus building over many, many months.

When I say consensus process, I don't mean that SWK was bullying them, or even really telling them what to believe or think. He was signaling that "this is on the Lord's agenda, get aboard."

Tex will now have to blame both the authors of DOM and SWK biographies for these "lies".

I'm not doubting or arguing against the long and arduous process ... it’s an essential component of the process! However, the actions of the twelve are scandalously mischaracterized as being unbending and even heinous. This simply isn't true. Their searching and questioning was essential.

When the moment came for SWK to act prophetic -it was SUDDEN; it was powerful and decisive. It was inspiration and most decidedly instantaneous confirmation. For support was unanimous and unflinching.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by tooblue

I'm not doubting or arguing against the long and arduous process ... it’s an essential component of the process! However, the actions of the twelve are scandalously mischaracterized as being unbending and even heinous. This simply isn't true. Their searching and questioning was essential.

When the moment came for SWK to act prophetic -it was SUDDEN; it was powerful and decisive. It was inspiration and most decidedly instantaneous confirmation. For support was unanimous and unflinching.

I think what Adam is trying to say, that SWK's actions do not fit with the theory that God was saying "ban is good, ban is good, ban is good" and then on what fateful day when everyone was gathered God said "ban is bad."

In other words, it wasn't God that changed his mind. It was the apostles that had opposed it.

Can you understand where Adam is coming from?

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I think what Adam is trying to say, that SWK's actions do not fit with the theory that God was saying "ban is good, ban is good, ban is good" and then on what fateful day when everyone was gathered God said "ban is bad."

In other words, it wasn't God that changed his mind. It was the apostles that had opposed it.

Can you understand where Adam is coming from?

I don't believe that is, as simply stated, what he is trying to say. I do understand where he is comming from and I am not in disagreement with the absurd notion of; "it's good, it's good ... it's now bad."

I contend with the absurd notion that SWK had to work the Apostles and that it was merely or mostly an arduous process. We have the testimonies of those present that SWK's decision was prophetic, powerfull and accompanied by confirmation of the Spirit ... Such is sudden and powerful inspiration. The fruits of which are a church that has never looked back -if only it's members would move on.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by tooblue

I don't believe that is, as simply stated, what he is trying to say. I do understand where he is comming from and I am not in disagreement with the absurd notion of; "it's good, it's good ... it's now bad."

I contend with the absurd notion that SWK had to work the Apostles and that it was merely or mostly an arduous process. We have the testimonies of those present that SWK's decision was prophetic, powerfull and accompanied by confirmation of the Spirit ... Such is sudden and powerful inspiration. The fruits of which are a church that has never looked back -if only it's members would move on.

Quite clearly he was working on the apostles. I don't know how else you can interpret it.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Quite clearly he was working on the apostles. I don't know how else you can interpret it.

Quite clearly they were fulfilling roles that were essential to the edification of all involved. Difficult questions had to be asked in the face of the contradictory nature of the ban verses a reversal. How was SWK supposed to see all sides of the issue singularly? How was he to answer the hardliner, the cynic, the non-believer, the ignorant, the racist, the elitist, and the traditionalist unless in some measure he was able to hear their voice, their absurdity and concerns?

That is why the twelve sit in council. That is why the process was long and arduous. That is why sudden inspiration was required to subdue the discussion at the moment when the brethren were most prepared (educated) to stand unanimous in favor of the decision.

[MikeWaters]

Certain hearts had to be softened. SWK went about trying to create the climate that would allow that to happen. Hence the long arduous campaign.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Certain hearts had to be softened. SWK went about trying to create the climate that would allow that to happen. Hence the long arduous campaign.

Hearts did not have to be softened, minds had to be prepared. The decision represeted a systematic dismantling of a fundamental component of the church's and many individual ideologies. The very men that were to lead this revolution had to be prepared to move foward without looking back.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Hearts did not have to be softened, minds had to be prepared. The decision represeted a systematic dismantling of a fundamental component of the church's and many individual ideologies. The very men that were to lead this revolution had to be prepared to move foward without looking back.

So instead of consensus building, you see this as more of say, like a semester long class. THat's how you reconcile your beliefs. Interesting.

Of course there are numerous examples of apostles overtly disagreeing with each other. So I hope you will not say that it is impossible for them to disagree with each other and advocate binary opposites as the Lord's will (yes vs no).

I think if you read (or re-read) the DOM biography you would have a better understanding of how the FP and Q12 operate and build consensus. There is a very, very human element to it.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

So instead of consensus building, you see this as more of say, like a semester long class. THat's how you reconcile your beliefs. Interesting.

Of course there are numerous examples of apostles overtly disagreeing with each other. So I hope you will not say that it is impossible for them to disagree with each other and advocate binary opposites as the Lord's will (yes vs no).

I think if you read (or re-read) the DOM biography you would have a better understanding of how the FP and Q12 operate and build consensus. There is a very, very human element to it.

I would not characterize reconciliation of my beliefs that way -it would be a combination of the two.

I truly feel from what I have read that there already was consenus. Yet consensus isn't absolute acceptance. And that's where I don't think you understand me ... I am certain apostles overtly disagree with one another. They would not be effective leaders and would fail in a measure of their stewardship if they did not voice their opinion on all matters.

Disagreement is not dissent. A compelling aspect of council is the human element. Yet equally compelling is the spiritual element.

[MikeWaters]

When, in your opinion, did consensus occur? ( I realize this is just a guess ).