They just don't make miracles like they used to

[JAHS]

Noah's flood; the plagues of Egypt; the parting of the Red sea; Sodom and Gomorrah; the walls of Jericho; Serpent healing Israelites; Sun and moon standing still; Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the fire;
Daniel and the Lions den; Jonah in belly of fish; Jesus turning water into wine; raising a man from the dead; Walking on water, feeding 4,000, etc

We claim we have the fullness of the Gospel now along with Prophets, Apostles, and the priesthood. And yes we do see some miracles of healing and crickets eating locusts and other things we can call miracles that are either answers to prayers or priesthood blessings.  
But why do we not today see these big more dramatic displays that affect a much larger audience of people like there were in the Old and New Testaments and even the Book of Mormon times?
We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. Could mis-translations have caused the stories to be exaggerated?
Do we simply not need to see those kinds of miracles in our day?  
I know there are those who don't take such scripture stories literally, but this question is more for those who do accept them as real and actual occurrences.
 

[bluebell]

My guess is that most of us don’t have the faith to experience such big miracles. 

[mnn727]

11 minutes ago, JAHS said:

But why do we not today see these big more dramatic displays that affect a much larger audience of people like there were in the Old and New Testaments and even the Book of Mormon times?
 

What about the 2004 Red Sox? that wasn't big enough?

[smac97]

1 minute ago, JAHS said:

Noah's flood; the plagues of Egypt; the parting of the Red sea; Sodom and Gomorrah; the walls of Jericho; Serpent healing Israelites; Sun and moon standing still; Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the fire;
Daniel and the Lions den; Jonah in belly of fish; Jesus turning water into wine; raising a man from the dead; Walking on water, feeding 4,000, etc.

That "etc" proceeds into this dispensation.  The First Vision, numerous angelic visitations/ministrations, translating the Book of Mormon, healings and exorcisms by Joseph Smith, and more.

1 minute ago, JAHS said:

We claim we have the fullness of the Gospel now along with Prophets, Apostles, and the priesthood. 

Yes.

1 minute ago, JAHS said:

And yes we do see some miracles of healing and crickets eating locusts and other things we can call miracles that are either answers to prayers or priesthood blessings.  

Okay.

1 minute ago, JAHS said:

But why do we not today see these big more dramatic displays that affect a much larger audience of people like there were in the Old and New Testaments and even the Book of Mormon times?

I think this article by Elder Oaks addreses this issue fairly well.

1 minute ago, JAHS said:

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. Could mis-translations have caused the stories to be exaggerated?

To some extent, perhaps. 

1 minute ago, JAHS said:

Do we simply not need to see those kinds of miracles in our day?  

From the above-linked article:

Quote

Why Don’t We Hear More about Miracles?

Why don’t our talks in general conference and local meetings say more about the miracles we have seen? Most of the miracles we experience are not to be shared. Consistent with the teachings of the scriptures, we hold them sacred and share them only when the Spirit prompts us to do so.

The revelation on priesthood affirms the biblical teaching in Mark 16:17 that “signs,” including miraculous healings and other wonderful works, “follow them that believe” (see also D&C 84:65). Similarly, modern revelation directs that “they shall not boast themselves of these things, neither speak them before the world; for these things are given unto you for your profit and for salvation” (D&C 84:73). Another revelation declares, “Remember that that which cometh from above is sacred, and must be spoken with care, and by constraint of the Spirit” (D&C 63:64). President Brigham Young explained, “Miracles, or these extraordinary manifestations of the power of God, are not for the unbeliever; they are to console the Saints, and to strengthen and confirm the faith of those who love, fear, and serve God, and not for outsiders.”⁷

Latter-day Saints generally follow these directions. In bearing testimonies and in our public addresses we rarely mention our most miraculous experiences, and we rarely rely on signs that the gospel is true. We usually just affirm our testimony of the truthfulness of the restored gospel and give few details on how we obtained it. Why is this? Signs follow those that believe. Seeking a miracle to convert someone is improper sign seeking. By the same token, it is usually inappropriate to recite miraculous circumstances to a general audience that includes people with very different levels of spiritual maturity. To a general audience, miracles will be faith-reinforcing for some but an inappropriate sign for others.

There are good reasons why we do not seek conversions by exhibiting signs. “The viewing of signs or miracles is not a secure foundation for conversion. Scriptural history attests that people converted by signs and wonders soon forget them and again become susceptible to the lies and distortions of Satan and his servants (Hel. 16:23; 3 Ne. 1:22, 3 Ne. 2:1, 3 Ne. 8:4.). …

“In contrast to the witness of the Spirit, which can be renewed from time to time as needed by a worthy recipient, the viewing of a sign or the experiencing of a miracle is a one-time event that will fade in the memory of its witness and can dim in its impact upon him or her.”⁸

President George Q. Cannon (1827–1901), who served for more than a quarter century in the First Presidency, observed: “It has been a matter of remark among those who have had experience in this Church that where men have been brought into the Church by such manifestations, it has required a constant succession of them to keep them in the Church; their faith has had to be constantly strengthened by witnessing some such manifestations; but where they have been convinced by the outpouring of the spirit of God, … they have been more likely to stand, more likely to endure persecution and trial than those who have been convinced through some supernatural manifestation.”⁹

 

That's some pretty good food for thought.

Thanks,

-Smac

[cinepro]

From Teryl Givens:

Quote

I think there's no question, just as the gifts faded in the primitive Church, so there seems to be a diminishment of the spiritual manifestations and gifts in the restored Church. To some extent, that's a function of any church that becomes institutionalized...normatized over time. And to some extent that was a deliberate strategy on the part of Church leaders who wanted to de-emphasize spiritual gifts.

I think it's a natural process, I think Mormons have accommodated themselves in some ways by changing the lexicon of scriptural resources that they use to identify or define the nature of spiritual experience. For example, instead of focusing on those BoM episodes where we have angelic visitations or interaction with angelic beings, we emphasize those verses that originally were given to Joseph Smith to describe the translation process, that have to do with feelings and impressions and stupors of thought.

And that has become the template, if you will, for revelation. So that's one way Mormons have accommodated themselves to a less charismatic church.

FAIR Podcast Interview

(15:18)

 

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

What about the 2004 Red Sox? that wasn't big enough?

or the 1992 AND 1993 Toronto Blue Jays! While the subject has been broached, one thing that puzzles outsiders is why are the World series called that? There is only one country usually in it with the rare exception of Canada, what is so "World" about the "World Series"? did Guatemala, Italy, Mongolia ever field a team?

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Noah's flood; the plagues of Egypt; the parting of the Red sea; Sodom and Gomorrah; the walls of Jericho; Serpent healing Israelites; Sun and moon standing still; Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the fire;
Daniel and the Lions den; Jonah in belly of fish; Jesus turning water into wine; raising a man from the dead; Walking on water, feeding 4,000, etc

We claim we have the fullness of the Gospel now along with Prophets, Apostles, and the priesthood. And yes we do see some miracles of healing and crickets eating locusts and other things we can call miracles that are either answers to prayers or priesthood blessings.  
But why do we not today see these big more dramatic displays that affect a much larger audience of people like there were in the Old and New Testaments and even the Book of Mormon times?
We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. Could mis-translations have caused the stories to be exaggerated?
Do we simply not need to see those kinds of miracles in our day?  
I know there are those who don't take such scripture stories literally, but this question is more for those who do accept them as real and actual occurrences.
 

None of those old stories are literal, they are all narratives and myths told by tribes of people in a prescientific age.  They wouldn't have even understood our world and the way we look at things.  The reasons they wrote and told stories were different than the reasons we write and tell stories, no expectations for historical accuracy, etc.  These kinds of miracles never literally happened in the past, and they don't literally happen today.

The real miracles are things like being able to help your friend in a time of crisis, witnessing the birth a new baby, reconciliation of an old dispute, overcoming a weakness, completing a project, having a moment of understanding and connection, experiencing nature in a way that is profound, accomplishing your goals, alleviating the suffering of another person, etc.  These are the true miracles, they're within everyone's grasp and this is what everyone can partake of in reality.  

[HappyJackWagon]

18 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Noah's flood; the plagues of Egypt; the parting of the Red sea; Sodom and Gomorrah; the walls of Jericho; Serpent healing Israelites; Sun and moon standing still; Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the fire;
Daniel and the Lions den; Jonah in belly of fish; Jesus turning water into wine; raising a man from the dead; Walking on water, feeding 4,000, etc

We claim we have the fullness of the Gospel now along with Prophets, Apostles, and the priesthood. And yes we do see some miracles of healing and crickets eating locusts and other things we can call miracles that are either answers to prayers or priesthood blessings.  
But why do we not today see these big more dramatic displays that affect a much larger audience of people like there were in the Old and New Testaments and even the Book of Mormon times?
We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. Could mis-translations have caused the stories to be exaggerated?
Do we simply not need to see those kinds of miracles in our day?  
I know there are those who don't take such scripture stories literally, but this question is more for those who do accept them as real and actual occurrences.
 

In 200 years there will likely be records of major miracles occurring today. It takes time for those stories to grow into the kinds of major miracles you're talking about. The difference is that everything today is verifiable. There are audio/video records of so much that it may be harder for the tales to exaggerate to those levels. In some cases things are exaggerated on purpose, but in many cases it's just the natural progression of good people trying to build up the faith of others with affirming stories.

A few years ago Pres. Nelson personally told me, in response to a very similar question I asked him, that we don't need the same kinds of miracles/manifestations that the early saints received because the leaders are more mature in listening to the still small voice. Frankly, that sounds like an admission that these things aren't happening, and that it is justified because we don't need them. I disagree, but when prophets/apostles don't have the same kinds of manifestations Joseph did, then they have to explain it somehow.

[Atheist Mormon]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

My guess is that most of us don’t have the faith to experience such big miracles. 

Your guess is correct. Having been afflicted with skepticism from birth I never could expect to see a miracle. However I witnessed a scientific miracle today, a dear family member was healed through a tough brain operation. Life is a gift, none of us earned.  I am simply lucky to be here reading your  posts.

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, cinepro said:

From Teryl Givens:

Quote

And that has become the template, if you will, for revelation. So that's one way Mormons have accommodated themselves to a less charismatic church.

 

"Charismatic":

Quote

adjective

1. exercising a compelling charm that inspires devotion in others.

   "a charismatic leader"

   synonyms:

   charming, fascinating, strong in character; More

2. relating to the charismatic movement in the Christian Church.

I wonder about the longevity of a "charismatic" Church.  Sooner or later "compelling charm that inspires devotion in others" must give way to something more durable.

I have experienced miraculous events in my life, including a singular experience that, in many ways, set my feet on my current path and verified my position re: the Church.  But that one event many years ago was both preceded and followed by many, many smaller, more quiet spiritual experiences and impressions which constitute a far larger portion of the composite that is my testimony.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[JAHS]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

24 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Noah's flood; the plagues of Egypt; the parting of the Red sea; Sodom and Gomorrah; the walls of Jericho; Serpent healing Israelites; Sun and moon standing still; Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the fire;
Daniel and the Lions den; Jonah in belly of fish; Jesus turning water into wine; raising a man from the dead; Walking on water, feeding 4,000, etc.

That "etc" proceeds into this dispensation.  The First Vision, numerous angelic visitations/ministrations, translating the Book of Mormon, healings and exorcisms by Joseph Smith, and more.

I agree but, why not anything since Joseph Smith?  The miracles seem to have diminished in supernatural magnitude over time since the Old Testament. 

[hope_for_things]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

In 200 years there will likely be records of major miracles occurring today. It takes time for those stories to grow into the kinds of major miracles you're talking about. The difference is that everything today is verifiable. There are audio/video records of so much that it may be harder for the tales to exaggerate to those levels. In some cases things are exaggerated on purpose, but in many cases it's just the natural progression of good people trying to build up the faith of others with affirming stories.

A few years ago Pres. Nelson personally told me, in response to a very similar question I asked him, that we don't need the same kinds of miracles/manifestations that the early saints received because the leaders are more mature in listening to the still small voice. Frankly, that sounds like an admission that these things aren't happening, and that it is justified because we don't need them. I disagree, but when prophets/apostles don't have the same kinds of manifestations Joseph did, then they have to explain it somehow.

I've wondered about this as well, and whether our technologies will dampen the exaggeration effects that were so common in the past.  

I visited the 911 memorial site a couple years ago with my wife and there is a church right across the street and there were some miraculous stories being told about how that church had avoided major damage and destruction during 911 because it was favored by God.  I think its human nature to exaggerate and to try and assign meaning to events that happen, especially some kind of cosmic or divine meaning to things that are coincidences. 

Unfortunately, many religious people will take offense at my statement, but I mean no offense by it.  People regularly do this, and studies have shown this tendency to not understand randomness and coincidence.  I too do this in my life, so I'm not immune, but I'm trying my best to understand my tendencies and to be thoughtful about them.  

[CV75]

28 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Noah's flood; the plagues of Egypt; the parting of the Red sea; Sodom and Gomorrah; the walls of Jericho; Serpent healing Israelites; Sun and moon standing still; Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the fire;
Daniel and the Lions den; Jonah in belly of fish; Jesus turning water into wine; raising a man from the dead; Walking on water, feeding 4,000, etc

We claim we have the fullness of the Gospel now along with Prophets, Apostles, and the priesthood. And yes we do see some miracles of healing and crickets eating locusts and other things we can call miracles that are either answers to prayers or priesthood blessings.  
But why do we not today see these big more dramatic displays that affect a much larger audience of people like there were in the Old and New Testaments and even the Book of Mormon times?
We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. Could mis-translations have caused the stories to be exaggerated?
Do we simply not need to see those kinds of miracles in our day?  
I know there are those who don't take such scripture stories literally, but this question is more for those who do accept them as real and actual occurrences.
 

I think it's relative. We are basically the same kind of human beings as they were, and so naturally after all the exposure over thousands of years we are used to the miracles and so may not recognize them. We certainly need to.

Whatever it is that people might point to that they believe proves the world is a better place for us than our forebearers is a miracle, though they may not call it that because they do not recognize/acknowledge God's hand in it.

[CV75]

27 minutes ago, bluebell said:

My guess is that most of us don’t have the faith to experience such big miracles. 

Or recognize them when they stare us in the face!

[strappinglad]

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

None of those old stories are literal, they are all narratives and myths told by tribes of people in a prescientific age

Glad to know you were personally there when Jesus fed the 4 people with some loaves and fishes. Over the centuries this has been exaggerated to 4000 people. Now it is a miracle, then it was just lunch. OOOOOOKAY !

[smac97]

1 minute ago, JAHS said:

I agree but, why not anything since Joseph Smith? 

There are many accounts of miracles in the Church after Joseph Smith.

1 minute ago, JAHS said:

The miracles seem to have diminished in supernatural magnitude over time since the Old Testament. 

Perhaps.  You could even say that the New Testament miracles (water to wine, loaves and fishes, raising Lazarus, resurrection and ascension, etc.) pale in comparison to the "spectacle"-type miracles in the Old Testament.  But such a comparison doesn't lessen the spiritual import of the NT miracles, wouldn't you agree?

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

24 minutes ago, cinepro said:

From Teryl Givens:

 

Learning from his observations and conclusion, what miracles or spiritual gifts has Teryl Givens experienced (has he reported any, or is he in line and satisfied with the template that has been handed him)?

[Avatar4321]

I'm not sure we aren't seeing them end just shutting eyes to them.

 

[CV75]

18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

A few years ago Pres. Nelson personally told me, in response to a very similar question I asked him, that we don't need the same kinds of miracles/manifestations that the early saints received because the leaders are more mature in listening to the still small voice.

He might have a point there, but he is also a proponent of D&C 88:90, "the testimony of the voice of thunderings, and the voice of lightnings, and the voice of tempests, and the voice of the waves of the sea heaving themselves beyond their bounds."

Edited April 18, 2018 by CV75

[Avatar4321]

Does President Nelson being shown how to perform a certain heart surgery in vision count? Many have been blessed by this.

It could be why the brethren were focused on teaching the saints how to get revelation last conference

[CV75]

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I've wondered about this as well, and whether our technologies will dampen the exaggeration effects that were so common in the past.  

While rapid advancement in technology has been advancing humankind for 200 years -- obviously quicker every year -- the inventions themselves are miracles, and so impressive many can't conceive that God had anything to do with them.

[Avatar4321]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

He might have a point there, but he is also a proponent of D&C 88:90, "the testimony of the voice of thunderings, and the voice of lightnings, and the voice of tempests, and the voice of the waves of the sea heaving themselves beyond their bounds."

We are having a blizzard today. After one we had Sunday. Past the middle of April.

Last year we saw amazing national disasters. Large parts of Houston were destroyed. Puerto Rico is still recovering. That's just in the United States.

 

[JAHS]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Quote

The miracles seem to have diminished in supernatural magnitude over time since the Old Testament. 

Perhaps.  You could even say that the New Testament miracles (water to wine, loaves and fishes, raising Lazarus, resurrection and ascension, etc.) pale in comparison to the "spectacle"-type miracles in the Old Testament.  But such a comparison doesn't lessen the spiritual import of the NT miracles, wouldn't you agree?

I would agree, but it still doesn't really answer the question.  I am thinking it's possible that many of those Old and New Testament miracles were based on things that actually happened but by the time they were written down may have become exaggerated over time with regards to their supernatural magnitude. 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

Noah's flood; the plagues of Egypt; the parting of the Red sea; Sodom and Gomorrah; the walls of Jericho; Serpent healing Israelites; Sun and moon standing still; Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the fire;
Daniel and the Lions den; Jonah in belly of fish; Jesus turning water into wine; raising a man from the dead; Walking on water, feeding 4,000, etc

We claim we have the fullness of the Gospel now along with Prophets, Apostles, and the priesthood. And yes we do see some miracles of healing and crickets eating locusts and other things we can call miracles that are either answers to prayers or priesthood blessings.  
But why do we not today see these big more dramatic displays that affect a much larger audience of people like there were in the Old and New Testaments and even the Book of Mormon times?
We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. Could mis-translations have caused the stories to be exaggerated?
Do we simply not need to see those kinds of miracles in our day?  
I know there are those who don't take such scripture stories literally, but this question is more for those who do accept them as real and actual occurrences.

There are several problems with your delineation of the question:

(1) great time depth and the telescoping of history gives the impression of frequent "miracles," when they were actually quite unusual and scattered over long periods.

(2) Mormon history is replete with "miracles," but they are seldom acknowledged as such -- see John W. Welch and Eric B. Carlson, eds., Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestation, 1820–1844 (Provo: BYU Press/SLC: Deseret Book, 2005); 2nd ed. (2017).

(3) the concept of "miracle" is a logical contradiction in terms (a category mistake), and certainly not in keeping with LDS theology, which asserts such apparently supernatural events are actually natural and beyond human understanding (beyond current human technology).

[CV75]

58 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I would agree, but it still doesn't really answer the question.  I am thinking it's possible that many of those Old and New Testament miracles were based on things that actually happened but by the time they were written down may have become exaggerated over time with regards to their supernatural magnitude. 

...which means they weren't much different in nature or magnitude for the eye-witness believers than the miracles we see today?