Revelation As A Process

[David T]

This is sort of an expansion of a thought I was expressing on another thread, concerning a question as to why some are willing to "run from" doctrinal declarations given by even Presidents of the Church, and even Joseph smith himself.

I think the "Speaking as a Prophet" (#1) and "speaking as a man" (#2) dichotomy isn't always useful. I think more than not, whenever #1 is happening, a degree of #2 is certainly going on as well.

It is clear that there were concepts Joseph viewed as inspired anchors, to which he built logical explanations and conclusions around - and at times, he revisted those anchors, and had new understanding and meaning granted to them. for example, a large part of his final discourses and Temple preparation appear, to me, very much attempts to work out a new understanding of God based on what he had learned. I'm not convinced all of his conclusions were correct. His mind was firmly focused on preparations for the Kingdom of God, and the role of dynastic families within that celestial hierarchy of Kings and Priests was a key intellectual framework from which he was approaching aspects of God.

Brown and Stapley's papers on Adoption Theology and Ritual in early Mormonism that were published in the latest Journal of Mormon History do a very fascinating job of showing some of the trial and error that went into the practice and associated doctrinal explanations for ritual Adoption, and also its relevance for the doctrinal emphases that specifically tied Polygamy with Exaltation, its relationship to the concept of heavenly Kings and Priests and the Kingdom of God, and set the ground layer for how the practice could be removed, and the theology of exaltation survive. It involved a massive shift in paradigm.

I'm convinced more and more that God continually grants divine deposits of information to the Church leadership, and then leads us (the Church) to work it out and seek to understand its significance until we are prepared to ask the right questions, and accept the answers when they come. A huge part of the revelatory and learning process to guide humanity is study, practice, trial and error. In fact, I think in many cases, the Church Leadership gets and approves the answer after many of us On The Ground have already received that answer, and are just patiently (at times agonizingly) waiting for the authorization to officially teach and act on it. (see thefascinating story of Darius Gray's revelation that he submitted for First Presidency approval, and was then given permission to teach)

Some may be uncomfortable with a God who doesn't dictate and explain in certain terms interesting doctrinal treatises. I love that it's a process of learning and moving forward - progressive (or evolutionary) revelation, where humanity as a whole is working and progressing through school together. And some times, individual members of the class are ready even though the class itself (and even some of the Teacher's Aids) aren't to that point yet. and sometimes the class is moving forward, and there are still some stragglers who aren't sure why everyone else is pulling them forward.

I love the understanding of there being a difference between Revelation and the attempts to understand and express that revelation that we have presented as scripture. This makes scripture highly valuable for its power of giving a framework of practical application and instruction. I think the Lord leaves it up to us, through our attempts to practice the scriptures in our life, to weed out the flawed philosophy and logic of the human messengers, and approach more clearly the raw truth behind it all. All scripture should be tried and applied, in my opinion.

I don't think God tells us things. I think in a very real way, he shows us the next step of what we need to know, and then steps back, and sees and what what we make of it. Sometimes, the understanding and significance of what God has shown takes longer than we wish it would. But when we get there, and are willing to accept the answer, He shows us something else. And it often blows our mind.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Yes! Yes yes yes.

[CV75]

I think in a very real way, he shows us the next step of what we need to know, and then steps back, and sees and what what we make of it.

As in Abrahan 4;18, “And the Gods watched those things which they had ordered until they obeyed."

And note the progression in verses 21 and then 31: “(21) And the Gods saw that they would be obeyed, and that their plan was good... (31) We will do everything that we have said, and organize them; and behold, they shall be very obedient.”

[elguanteloko]

Good job, nack! Very enjoyable post, too.

There is also another question that comes as a consequence of having chosen an answer for the revelation one in the way you have: What is, then, the essence of Christianity if paradigms change? What is it that is the fundamental and why not take this also as a paradigm as part of a bigger, ultimately probably not even 'Christian' (as we normally understand the term) perspective?

I'm still reading it but I HIGHLY recommend this book by theologian Hans Küng: http://www.amazon.co...13011244&sr=1-1

..it is quite massive but (as far as I've been reading) it is never boring or lacking insight. If you don't substantially profit from it I'll cut one arm off.

Edited August 10, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Chris Smith]

Hi nack,

I'm curious how (or if) the process you describe differs from secular modes of reasoning.

From my point of view, it appears the biggest difference is that in the "revelatory process" you've outlined, the rules are unclear, and people often think their conclusions have been dictated by God when in fact (as you suggest in your OP) they really aren't.

In the process of secular reason, by contrast, there have developed clear rules and controls to compensate for the definite humanness of the process.

Is there any reason we should prefer "religious" reasoning of the type you describe to "secular" reasoning of the type I'm talking about?

Peace,

-Chris

[Maidservant]

I'll always remember when my late husband, who had a very sweet and salt-of-the-earth testimony and view of the gospel, came out to me one day and said, "I don't think God gives yes or no answers any more." My jaw dropped a little hearing that coming from him, ha ha. I can't remember exactly what else he said after that, but I seem to remember something about making our own decisions or something. Of course, he was referring to personal answers, not fold-wide answers, but I just recalled this when reading nack's profound post.

[Maidservant]

The idea of what is fundamental . . . my personal reconciliation is that what is fundamental IS that we are human, i.e. children of God. The rest changes, or seems to in our limited view. I haven't had a great opportunity to have cohesive thought on the matter, just some bits, but I do keep returning to the object lesson of a flower growing out of the ground. The root is not the flower head and vice versa. They are different. If you stay a root, you will never have the flower. But you cannot have a flower disconnected from root, stem, etc. While the form changes from root, stem, leaf . . . there is something fundamental to all of these and that is the cells making up all of them.

Trying to find a fundamental nugget of reality/truth that is external to Being, especially in our through-a-glass-darkly plane, is an exercise in Greek philosophy, in my opinion, not of Christianity or scriptures, per se. The truths are not so much what we Think or what the format is . . . it's what we choose to do, and that is, to love and to be clean, no matter what the rest of the belief system is (because we all have more to learn).

What we take with us as we progress to new conditions of belief . . . is God himself, who is always with us.

[Franktalk]

I think that the Holy Ghost is different for different people. I have had a night vision and one awake one. I have had very clear messages from the Holy Ghost. Short but clear. These were in advance of my faith. It seems that God knew where I was going and decided to communicate in advance. A very strange thing to experience. I will say that a confirmation "yes" may or may not come. But a "no" is easy to get if you start going down the wrong path. But if God knows you are going down that path and will not come back I am not sure you get the "no". Hard to explain.

But others strong in apparent faith do not get any messages at all. I can not explain any of it. It may have a great deal to do with the pre-existence. The one thing that I do is I pray as I am falling asleep almost every night. I am sure the prayer continues after I am not aware nor can I remember anything after I fell asleep. But I will tell you that my spirit is strong as a result.

God does respect free will. You must give God permission to enter you. Speak using your mouth. Move your hands and do His will. If you don't do this constantly then He will respect you and leave you alone. Give Him permission. Ask for discernment. Ask for all of the gifts of God. I ask all of the time. I am sure He responds sometimes to persistence.

[David T]

Hi nack,

I'm curious how (or if) the process you describe differs from secular modes of reasoning.

From my point of view, it appears the biggest difference is that in the "revelatory process" you've outlined, the rules are unclear, and people often think their conclusions have been dictated by God when in fact (as you suggest in your OP) they really aren't.

In the process of secular reason, by contrast, there have developed clear rules and controls to compensate for the definite humanness of the process.

Is there any reason we should prefer "religious" reasoning of the type you describe to "secular" reasoning of the type I'm talking about?

Peace,

-Chris

Chris, thanks for your thoughts. And I think it's a very good, and very tough question. And frankly, I am not convinced that all that is secularly reasoned is not connected with the same process. I don't believe one has to know they are being inspired and guided to be so. I feel very strongly that at period before I was actively seeking divine guidance, I was given some inspired 'landmarks' in my mind to work out intellectually that led me to where I needed to be.

I think a key role of the Church is to gather, concentrate and structurally organize, and put into practice, without compulsory means, the practical application of the communal divine message and mission, with a designated Prophet speaking as the mouthpiece with responsibility over the Organization, and that gathering of all into it.

I do believe that many outside the Church serve in inspired prophetic roles within their own stewardships, from scientists to civil rights leaders to other religious leaders. They do not speak authoritatively for the Church, but they may speak on behalf of others to the Church in matters of their own passions and expertise to assist in the process of asking the right questions to learn the right answers in best caring for God's people.

Unlike many, I'm actually quite optimistic for the world as a whole, and see society moving, in degrees, and in essence if not in what we view as religious observance, closer to the practical divine will. I think as the people as a whole move forward in the direction, and the Church moves forward in that direction on their own path, there will be much more of an overlap. There of course will be many who still choose to act in horrible opposition to not just Church principles, but general humanistic principles as well. But I frankly see, in time, the goals and purposes of good, decent humanists being entirely compatible with that of the Church -- although I recognize that it will take some radical paradigm shifts by both to get there.

I don't view it as a compromise for either - In many ways, I think humanism is a far more helpful and useful ideology for accomplishing God's will than many Religious viewpoints who feel locked into a single non-evolving creedal understanding/belief of Divine Will. the later, I find, while still accomplishing much good, can actually lead to some of the most violent and cruel opposition (physcially and emotionally) to what I believe are the actual desires of God.