New Revelations and the Future

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Stewardship. 😀

Yes, stewardship for running the church.

And, I receive inspiration (or revelations and answers) regarding my own life and also for my family.

So which one trumps the other if they are not in agreement?  (Does not happen often, but it has at least once for me.)

[kllindley]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yes, stewardship for running the church.

And, I receive inspiration (or revelations and answers) regarding my own life and also for my family.

So which one trumps the other if they are not in agreement?  (Does not happen often, but it has at least once for me.)

It depends on the issue. My wife and I used to be pretty bad at holding Family  Home Evening. I would sometimes use the excuse that God wasn't telling me personally that it was important. Ultimately, I had a change of heart and felt that the Prophetic call, reiterated by several apostles in recent conferences, was important to follow, even if I didn't have a matching personal revelation. In planning how we could improve, my wife and I felt inspired (not revelation) to hold Family Home Evening on Sunday. I choose that over the instruction to hold it on Monday nights. 

I don't think it's my job to try to make rules for when to follow the general counsel and when to accept that my individual circumstances require adaptation. 

I think that if I have a tendency or feeling to expand my personal "exception" to the church as a whole, or even to my ward, that's not a good sign for it being of God. I personally ensure that I can fully endorse and sustain the Brethren in the matter before being comfortable accepting that I may be an exception. 

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I think that if I have a tendency or feeling to expand my personal "exception" to the church as a whole, or even to my ward, that's not a good sign for it being of God. I personally ensure that I can fully endorse and sustain the Brethren in the matter before being comfortable accepting that I may be an exception. 

And yet we teach and believe that even our Prophets and leaders are not infallible.   We are not to have blind obedience.  That means we can pray and receive our own inspiration and guidance (especially with personal and family decisions and issues).  This is how I have handled any differences I have had, but I make sure I do not preach or speak out publicly against any teachings from the leaders.

Edited April 10, 2018 by ALarson

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, Exiled said:

I agree with you but aren't you saying that these fundamental religious concepts actually aren't of divine origin, but from the Greeks, and other humans? If so, where's God in the equation if not involved in the atonement or the eternal soul? 

Humans ARE or can be divine.  Just takes a little work. 

 

[Kenngo1969]

On 4/8/2018 at 5:26 PM, Duncan said:

I wouldn't mind getting rid of like half the high council or more, it seems to take 12 people to do the job of 4. I would trim the 8, they don't seem to do a thing. I know it's scriptural thing to have 12 but hey one can hope!

 

On 4/8/2018 at 5:51 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

If they're doing what they're supposed to, it takes all 12!

This is actually a point our stake president and I discussed at length Thursday evening as we travelled the 100 km back from visiting a member.

 

On 4/8/2018 at 6:39 PM, Duncan said:

well, wanna move here?! there appears to be more movement in a punching bag than our Stake

Well, Duncan, your question contains its own answer: You simply need to punch the members of the High Council harder, then!  

 

[MiserereNobis]

19 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Ultimately, I had a change of heart and felt that the Prophetic call, reiterated by several apostles in recent conferences, was important to follow, even if I didn't have a matching personal revelation.

This sounds a lot like blind obedience. The LDS defense against the charge of blind obedience is that Mormons pray and get confirmation of a teaching so it's not blind. But here you are saying that your confirmation didn't match the teaching but you did it anyways. So why pray at all if no matter the answer you are going to do what the leaders say?

[Kenngo1969]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Humans ARE or can be divine.  Just takes a little work. 

 

As I'm reminded constantly when I look in the mirror, a takes a lot more work for some than it does for others!  

[MiserereNobis]

There have been stories on this thread of people receiving revelation/inspiration in their individual lives, of having miracles, etc. These also happen to me and in my church. So again, the claim that the LDS church has revelation is not something unique. The Book of Mormon, now that's something unique. But saying "we have a prophet who receives revelation from God" is not unique, it's just that you are saying it differently than my church would say it. So when a Mormon tells me "we have a prophet who receives revelation from God" I'll respond by saying, "so do we"

 

 

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Those are my feelings as well.

I just believe that the word "revelation" has come to mean or describe something different from what it did in the earlier days of the church.  But most members still apply the same meaning.  (Hope you know what I'm trying to say....I know many will disagree though....).

Have you been receiving revelation?

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Why bother?
It's one thing to pray about the Book of Mormon for instance where my belief/disbelief matters to me.  Whether or not I think the change from home teaching to ministering came from God or man makes no difference to anything.  It is the new program to be followed in the Church.  It doesn't directly impact my salvation or exaltation.
It just is.
Praying about it doesn't make any difference.  Whether it came directly from God or not doesn't even make a difference.

The changes to things that do make a difference are sadly also beyond my control, but you can believe I have prayed about them a lot.

It’s not the Lord who encourages a man not to pray

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

It’s not the Lord who encourages a man not to pray

True enough.  But there really is nothing to ask.
I don't pray over whether to breathe in and out either.

I pray over the things that matter.

[drums12]

2 hours ago, CMZ said:

I still don't know of a requirement that says that the exact words of God have to be given for something to be done in the Church.

Doctrine & Covenants 1:38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

You are misinterpreting what the Lord is saying, IMO.   He isn't saying "anything my servants say is as if I said it."   He's saying, "I can speak through my servants, and when I do, their words are as if I had said it myself."  Your interpretation is saying we should turn off our brains and blindly obey anything church leaders say.  It's the old, "obey your file leader, and even if he's wrong you'll be blessed" argument. 

Edited April 10, 2018 by drums12

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Then what's the point of a Prophet calling something a "revelation" vs. him admitting he received a "form of communication from God to man" just like any of us can receive who are praying and in tune?

What is the difference?

All of us can receive revelation. So the question doesn’t make sense.

the Lord has said he will show the least of the saints the same things he shows the prophet and twelve 

 

[MiserereNobis]

5 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Have you been receiving revelation?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but as a non-Mormon I will answer. Yes, I have. My first major experience set me on the road to Catholic baptism. I had been reading Thomas Merton's book "Seven Story Mountain." I had begun to pray and meditate in a more Catholic fashion. I was sitting and looking at this beautiful icon of the Blessed Virgin Mary. She clearly spoke in my mind. I have felt a devotion to Her ever since and many of my deepest spiritual experiences involve Her.

I would never deny that God works in the lives of Mormons, helping, guiding, comforting, loving. I don't have an explanation for the claims of Mormons that God told that the LDS church is the right one and I don't think I need to have one. That's your experience. I'm sure LDS who have converted to Catholicism have an explanation for their prior experiences, but that's not me. Catholics wouldn't use the term revelation (it's an issue of semantics), but wouldn't my experience fit the LDS definition?

[Kenngo1969]

2 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

This sounds a lot like blind obedience. The LDS defense against the charge of blind obedience is that Mormons pray and get confirmation of a teaching so it's not blind. But here you are saying that your confirmation didn't match the teaching but you did it anyways. So why pray at all if no matter the answer you are going to do what the leaders say?

The day isn't the important thing, Miserere Nobis.  Properly conducted, Family Home Evening strengthens families no matter what day it is held.  Reinforcing the teachings of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ (for Latter-day Saints) and even reinforcing Christian (or universal) principles for non-Latter-day Saints, as well as strengthening family bonds, are the important things.

Along with the rest of the Christian world, Latter-day Saints celebrate the Sabbath on Sunday.  However, if Latter-day Saints find themselves in parts of the world where Judaism predominates, it is celebrated from Friday evening through Saturday evening.  And if they find themselves in parts of the world where Islam predominates, it is celebrated on Friday.

If something as important as the Sabbath can withstand such individual adaptations, then, surely, God isn't so much of a tyrant that He's going to tell anyone, "Ohhh, so sorry!  I know you held Family Home Evenings without fail ... but I said Mondays!"  

[ALarson]

19 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Have you been receiving revelation?

Yes.  Have you?

[Avatar4321]

26 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

This sounds a lot like blind obedience. The LDS defense against the charge of blind obedience is that Mormons pray and get confirmation of a teaching so it's not blind. But here you are saying that your confirmation didn't match the teaching but you did it anyways. So why pray at all if no matter the answer you are going to do what the leaders say?

IF the Lord tells you so and so is a prophet listen to his counsel but hasn’t taught you the truth of all things is it blind obedience to put your trust in the early testimony and exercise faith in God as father Adam did when He made sacrifices without understanding the why yet?

[MiserereNobis]

5 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Along with the rest of the Christian world, Latter-day Saints celebrate the Sabbath on Sunday.  However, if Latter-day Saints find themselves in parts of the world where Judaism predominates, it is celebrated from Friday evening through Saturday evening.  And if they find themselves in parts of the world where Islam predominates, it is celebrated on Friday.

If something as important as the Sabbath can withstand such individual adaptations, then, surely, God isn't so much of a tyrant that He's going to tell anyone, "Ohhh, so sorry!  I know you held Family Home Evenings without fail ... but I said Mondays!"

Interesting. The universal Catholic liturgical calendar (Latin rite) is the same no matter where you are. Sunday is always Sunday. But then again, we have masses every day, too  

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

All of us can receive revelation. So the question doesn’t make sense.

Then why do you get so ecstatic over what was announced in conference?  You are one on here who has appeared to make a huge deal over the new policy and procedural changes (from my observations).  I'm not being critical, I'm just curious why you actually do seem to think there's a difference.

[Avatar4321]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

True enough.  But there really is nothing to ask.
I don't pray over whether to breathe in and out either.

I pray over the things that matter.

And yet this seems to matter to you alot

[Kenngo1969]

18 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I know this wasn't directed at me, but as a non-Mormon I will answer. Yes, I have. My first major experience set me on the road to Catholic baptism. I had been reading Thomas Merton's book "Seven Story Mountain." I had begun to pray and meditate in a more Catholic fashion. I was sitting and looking at this beautiful icon of the Blessed Virgin Mary. She clearly spoke in my mind. I have felt a devotion to Her ever since and many of my deepest spiritual experiences involve Her.

I would never deny that God works in the lives of Mormons, helping, guiding, comforting, loving. I don't have an explanation for the claims of Mormons that God told that the LDS church is the right one and I don't think I need to have one. That's your experience. I'm sure LDS who have converted to Catholicism have an explanation for their prior experiences, but that's not me. Catholics wouldn't use the term revelation (it's an issue of semantics), but wouldn't my experience fit the LDS definition? ...

There have been stories on this thread of people receiving revelation/inspiration in their individual lives, of having miracles, etc. These also happen to me and in my church. So again, the claim that the LDS church has revelation is not something unique. The Book of Mormon, now that's something unique. But saying "we have a prophet who receives revelation from God" is not unique, it's just that you are saying it differently than my church would say it. So when a Mormon tells me "we have a prophet who receives revelation from God" I'll respond by saying, "so do we"

 

 

Great!  

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/toward-interreligious-oneness/

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2013/12/30/lds-who-join-other-churches/

 

[Avatar4321]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yes.  Have you?

Yes. So why is it so hard to believe the brethren are?

[MiserereNobis]

1 minute ago, Avatar4321 said:

as father Adam did when He made sacrifices without understanding the why yet?

Is this in LDS scripture or am I forgetting something from the Bible?

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

Thomson (2008). Bodies of thought: science, religion, and the soul in the early Enlightenment. p. 42. "For mortalists the Bible did not teach the existence of a separate immaterial or immortal soul and the word 'soul' simply meant 'life'; the doctrine of a separate soul was said to be a Platonic importation."

Well, that's not much to support your claim that "mormonism" is derived from Greek Orthodoxy. As Mark points out according to LDS scripture the soul of man is not "separate" but is a combination of the spirit with the body.  As I tried to show in the LDS concept of soul, the soul is not necessarily immortal like in the platonic concept, but can be destroyed with the body by Satan - presumably leaving only the spirit. That is how the spirits who follow satan can possess bodies. They have no soul. In the strict sense of the term they are not immortal, because they have no mortality or corporeal form. Just because we use Greek words doesn't mean the idea incorporated by that word is Greek. We use Christ for Christos which is the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew Messiach. We use many words from the Greek including name forms simply because the NT we have come to accept is Greek. Soul happens to be one of those words. That doesn't mean that everything "soul" is platonic. 

Quote

What I meant by Greek and orthodoxy was that Greek philosophy influenced what came to be Christian orthodoxy, and some of that filtered into doctrine as well. The Godhead theology is a modification of the trinity, for instance. First century Christians didn't believe in the trinity or in our Godhead. There was God, and there was Jesus, who God raised and vindicated and made divine.

Regarding the Canaanite pantheon, if you go back far enough Hebrews are just Canaanites. They shared many of the same gods before the monotheistic reforms - there are even echoes of this in the Bible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Council#Hebrew

And of course Yahweh/Jehovah is a God borrowed from trading partners of the ancient Hebrews, and adopted into the pantheon, before finally being conflated with El. We have taken that and separated the two out again, and we've created our own divine council of gods - it's us! Homo sapiens, I mean.

Well, I don't agree. The Godhead theology has its basis in the OT contrary to your assertions. It is true that the Jews became very monotheistic oriented, which is why they had trouble conceptualizing Yeshua being God. Yeshua was hidden in the OT, but is there as YHWH with the Father. The word Godhead may not be as clearly derived from the NT words like theiotēs as we would like to think, but the concept of Yeshua as Elohim and YHWH are in the scriptures. Hebrews 1:8 quotes the OT verse and therefore equates Yeshua with the Elohim of that OT verse. The OT makes it clear that there are at least two YHWH beginning in Genesis. Sometimes YHWH says that the LORD God and His spirit have sent Him. I have no problem calling them the Godhead, and Yeshua made it clear that the Holy Spirit also manifested from God to lead man, making Him a part of this Godhead. My issues with the DOT are several. These include the fact that God never said there is not or will not be another member of the Godhead. While the Father remains the sole El Elyon, the Most High of the Godhead, there are clearly other actors who assist Him in this role, and Yeshua is foremost - having all the other titles of the Father, and being the revelator of the Father to man. Clearly, there is a Godhead.

As for your comments about YHWH coming from trading partners, you will have to do much better than a simple assertion. It seems the earliest records of the name come from Egypt commenting on the God of people in the Levant. Not all of the peoples in the Levant were Canaanites. There were Ammonites or the descendants of Lot, as well as Edomites, who may have used that name. However, I tend to think of that name as distinctly chosen for the Hebrew language. It hasn't shown up in Ugaritic nor Canaanite languages, so I think your claim is a little specious. As I have discussed, they do share the generic El title which seemed to mean "power." But I haven't found YHWH in any of the early Canaanite. Have you?

Nor do I accept the characterization of Hebrews as Canaanite. Their language was more a derivation of Syriac Akkadian. Abraham was probably a descendant of northern Semitic Syrians who had moved into Sumeria in its last death throe when people invaded from the NE and the NW (Semites). Canaanite languages were considerably different but related since they too were Semitic peoples from the same area, who had probably moved into Canaan after the fall of the first empire of Sargon. 

Your site link does discuss the assembly of God from Psalms 82, but fails to mention that those Elohim are then referred to as the children of the Most High, and that the Psalm is referring to the people of Israel - This is made doubly clear by Yeshua's application of it to the Jews of His day telling them "Isn't it written in your law, ye are elohim/gods?" The author of that wiki page is just plain sloppy or just intentionally misrepresenting things. Psalm 82 is one of the clearest revelations that the house of Elohim includes the followers of Elohim as Elohim themselves or in the modern English parlance as gods. I break that down to say they are of the family of immovable force/stone, but the KJV had already applied the word gods to elohim. There is nothing particularly mysterious about it.

Edited April 10, 2018 by RevTestament

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Again, I kinda agree and disagree. The Hebrew language is significantly different from English, and doesn't have near as large a vocabulary. There are fewer words to describe ideas and things. Our Genesis says God blew the breath of life into Adam, and yes it is referring to his spirit. However, there are places where a lot more than an idea of breath is being communicated. See for instance Isaiah 42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.

The word nap̄·šî doesn't really carry with it the idea of breath, and is also translated as soul or life. While I can't claim expertise on the subject, I view my soul as where I communicate with God. It is where the spirit resides with mine, and allows communication with mine. I'm not sure what you mean by a dualistic spirit. I don't view my soul as some separate being. It is a place where God can reside within me, even as He did with Yeshua - it is the "divine" aspect of my temporal body. It stays with my body - not my spirit. If the body dies, so does the soul - until resurrection That is my best attempt to describe "soul."

I agree that "Mormonism" has not shed itself of all pagan influences. Again, did we not just celebrate "Easter?" Some still use fertility Easter eggs from this pagan tradition. Christmas has many pagan influences as well. However, I do not think the LDS faith is "inseparably tied" with paganism. We do use English words which come out of pagan backgrounds - for instance the very word "God" comes from the pagan Germanic "Gaut." Similarly, in the Semitic languages "el" could be used to refer to a pagan god or power just like Elohim could. I do not share your opinions about the Tanakh. I don't think the Tanakh has experienced a vast purge of pagan gods. Deuteronomy still proclaims God as an El of Elohim. Genesis says man had become like YHWH Elohim, who refers to Himself as "Us." The idea that God is not just a single spirit is all over the OT. The fact that Canaanites referred to God as El does not mean that Hebrews adapted their God from a pagan God. It just means they shared a Semitic language with the Hebrews, and had many of the same words.

i would be interested in hearing what you have to say about your so-called Greek orthodox influence on the LDS faith. As I see it, we are vastly different. There is no talk of the incarnate Christ, two natures of Christ, the consubstantial nature of Christ or even the trinity in our Church - all ideas which seem to come from Greek orthodoxy. Just because we may share a handful of traits with Greek orthodoxy doesn't mean we got these traits from Greek Orthodoxy. That's an error you seem all too willing to commit. Doesn't a certain adversarial spirit like to mix the precepts of man with the truths of God? Concluding therefore that common traits means that the LDS faith stole these ideas from another sect based a few similar traits, is not well-founded.

I think one of the vestiges of Greek philosophy we still carry in Mormonism is the belief in "absolute truth" which is really in conflict with Alma 32 which states that truth is belief that "bears fruit", and the idea found in Moroni 10 that we can know the "truth " through prayer and revelation, and the idea in D&C 93 that truth is found in "spheres" or contexts, as well as the idea that God does nothing except he reveals his will to the prophets.

All of those imply a kind of changing and pragmatic truth instead of an abstract realm of absolute truth floating around somewhere but yet we persist in looking for the Greek temple of "TRVTH" independent of language or human expression.

We would not need prophets if the truth was unchanging and that is precisely what separates us from Greek philosophy.   All the "solas" are based on unchanging truth and Greek philosophy.

God must have made the world literally as it says in Genesis.  That is unchanging truth as an assumption, from Greek philosophy.

That is part of Western culture and in my opinion does not belong in the restoration.   It just does not fit with the idea of a prophet revealing the truth for "our day" and fitting for our individual needs.  Even the name of the church- CoJC LDS- is the church IN THE LATTER DAYS and tailored for the latter days as opposed to all other days, implies that a different set of beliefs are needed now.

THAT is what I mean when I say the restoration needs to be completed!  No more Greek philosophy!

God is our father who hears and answers prayers and adjusts teaching according to our needs.

And so we end together with your siggy

Quote

"I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things; but the creeds set up stakes, and say, ‘Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further;’ which I cannot subscribe to.” Joseph Smith, Discourse to Saints, October 1843; DHC 6:57.

Not all of those stakes are from the "Creeds". 

 

Edited April 10, 2018 by mfbukowski