Is There Enough Revelation?

[elguanteloko]

I suppose it all depends on whether or not you believe that the primary purpose of revelation is to satisfy our intellectual curiosity.

There are MANY things God could say (through the prophets) that would be knowledge and extremely useful... saying it is a matter of 'intellectual curiosity' is wrong.

...but knowledge has no practical applications or consequences for you, right?

[Deborah]

I find that people who complain about no revelation in today's church are usually looking for some great announcement about the coming Apocalypse. What they don't recognize is that prophets since I've been in the church have been warning us to prepare for times of difficulty and if we don't heed that warning what difference does it make if the Apocalypse is tomorrow or next month? Being prepared is being prepared whether it's today or a year from now.

As to new doctrine, I thought Joseph Smith pretty much restored all the doctrine that we need and that has been with the prophets since Adam. What the prophets do now is help us to live the covenants and apply the doctrine we have. God is not going to answer questions about how certain things happen (ie creation); he allows us to use our intellect to figure some things out, particularly when they have no bearing on our faith or obedience.

I also believe that given the worldwide nature of the church and how varying the needs are of people throughout the world, much revelation is in the hands of local leaders. A recent conference talk alluded to this when it was pointed out how carefully stake leaders are selected as they will have greater responsibility. Furthermore, Joseph Smith's goal was that we all be prophets in the sense we are able to receive our own revelation for our personal lives. If we aren't getting that revelation then we need to look at what we are doing.

[supersnail]

I have a deep consideration for Monster's questions. It is something that has greatly troubled me my whole life. That and the miracles that we don't see anymore, including speaking in tongues, which is supposed to be the most easy gift to receive. I sustain Monson as the rightful President of the Church with all my heart and soul, but I can't help but believe things are a bit out of order since Christ Himself said that miracles would follow those who believe on His name. People may argue that you just have to open your eyes to see the miracles, but the fact remains that in the early days, miracles were all over the place due to the faith of the saints. The fact is, I've never seen a miracle, which leads me to conclude that I am DEFINITELY out of order. And I guess "sign" would be a more rightful term to use, seeing as how our mere chance of coming to Christ is a miracle Anyways, those are my thoughts on the matter.

I'm writing for my own clarification. I'm not a church member.

I guess this a little tangential to the original topic question, but I wanted to respond on this issue of wanting a "sign," whether of a church's authority or the truth of what it teaches.

Moses 1:5 Wherefore, no man can behold all my works, except he behold all my glory; and no man can behold all my glory, and afterwards remain in the flesh on the earth.

By this verse and others like it in the scriptures, it sounds like there's a lot that has not been revealed--and will not be revealed to more than a figurative handful of people ever in mortal life on this earth.

I'm inclined to agree with others that personal revelation has become more important. Of course, in between personal revelation and singular spectacles like the parting of the Red Sea, there's a range of kinds of revelations or miracles one might look for.

In-your-face revelations and miracles that are unmistakably such may be needed initially in the formation of an organization or movement. But ongoing proof like that may actually get in the way of spiritual development. I feel that more important than knowing that something comes from a legitimate source, or knowing that something is authentically a miracle, is understanding the revelation or what happened.

Even when D&C 76 was received in 1832, the way it was received made verification by more than two people difficult. Think about if you were in that house in Hiram, Ohio, and observed Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon. What did you see yourself?

If revelations and miracles that weren't entirely undeniable even then are accepted now, why should there be a need for further, undeniable proof.

In the early 19^th century, more people like Joseph Smith, his family, and neighbors, believed in supernatural things in general. In that environment, one could be receptive to a reported miracle without being overly distracted from the accompanying message and its mysteries.

God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. It is us who change in understanding and righteousness. Maybe revelation and miracles only exist to degrees that are helpful. We now live in a world where many things of God are repudiated and the existence of God Himself is openly denied--while many things that people do see with their own eyes are worshiped slavishly and idolatrously.

If God is not going to be repeatedly interrupting the laws of the nature with large-scale impressive events to draw attention to His word, there remains the issue of smaller-scale miracles witnessed by individuals, private experiences. I'm sure some people living today have such experiences. But if a person already believes or can believe without witnessing absolutely undeniable miracles, are they really needed by him or her?

[Monster]

"Enough" is a highly subjective term, Monster.

What is enough for you may not be sufficient for me, or vice-versa. What is "too much" for you may be "enough" for me or "too little" for the little old lady down the street.

Personally, I think you're trying to be coy- why not simply admit that your faith has faltered and so you're demanding proof?

Unfortunately, faith doesn't work like that.

There is no magic lever at the end of the maze that we can push and automagically receive a pellet divine fact.

This litany is dismissive and condescending, bordering on outright mockery. It is- quite frankly- both offensive and indicative of a spirit of derision and contention rather than one of humility and willingness to learn.

Sorry I offended you.

[Stargazer]

Well, the ability to learn quickly is very possibly a manifestation of the Spirit, who brings light and intelligence to the Saints, but it is not the gift of tongues referenced in the scriptures.

Yea, I'm in agreement with Log on the Gift of Tongues issue. Don't get me wrong, I think the mere fact that missionaries learn a different language so quickly is a miracle for sure, but it's not the Gift of Tongues. As far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong), but the Gift of Tongues usually involves someone speaking in a different language with NO prior knowledge...at least not enough to even consider possibly speaking it; after which, another saint will always be there to interpret the language for the betterment of those who were in the presence of the miracle/sign. I remember reading about a little girl who spoke in Tongues. If I remember correctly, she was one of the first to ever receive the gift in the early Church. Anyways, I'm not blaming Monson in any way. I blame myself. And I know I shouldn't blame others, but I just feel that as a whole, there's something wrong due to the fact that we're not receiving more revelation and seeing more signs. Please don't let that lead you to believe that I need a sign to believe, because I already have my testimony. It's just that Christ said these signs would follow those who believed on His name, and since I don't see those signs and miracles, I feel I have to conclude that I'm out of order, as I'm a literalist when it comes to the scriptures. I don't know, it could be that Monson DOES receive revelation, and he's just waiting for us to become a more righteous people before he will let us hear the revelation. I just hope I can do better, cause lately I've been feeling like a poor Priesthood bearer. So yea, those are just my random thoughts lol thanx for listening.

Referencing the bolded phrases, I think you're limiting the workings of the Spirit.

I have personal experience with this, and while I hesitate to go into details, I guess I will a little bit anyway. The Gift of Tongues consists of all workings of the spirit which enable persons to both speak and understand languages foreign to them. You've described one aspect of the GoT. This has occurred both anciently and in latter days, one example being Peter's preaching at Pentecost where his hearers each heard him in their own languages. The other being what happened at an event where David O. McKay spoke to a congregation of Maori people in New Zealand. You can find this on page 552 of the book Gospel Ideals (I'll reproduce this below, for sake of space). This by the way would be an example of an important spiritual gift happening in our own era.

As to the learning of foreign languages, as opposed to the instantaneous speaking in a foreign tongue I submit my own example. I received my Patriarchal Blessing before I learned any other language at all, and received it from a patriarch outside my area, since I lived at the time in a mission district and not a stake. The patriarch, who didn't know me from Adam, pronounced upon me that I had been given the gift of tongues in order to truly testify to the nations of the earth that Jesus is the Christ. This is the kind of spiritual gift which isn't just for temporary occasions, and as it turned out, when I served my mission in Germany, I learned it quickly and had near-native fluency just a few months after arriving in Germany. I've retained this fluency, and while rusty, it is still there. Now, I believe the patriarch that pronounced that blessing was operating by the Spirit, and if the Spirit said that this was the Gift of Tongues, well, you can argue differently if you wish, but I disagree.

... since I don't see those signs and miracles, I feel I have to conclude that I'm out of order

I suspect not, actually. The gifts of the Spirit aren't just handed out like penny candy, you know.

From Gospel Ideals, David O. McKay, page 552. THE GIFT OF INTERPRETATION—The occasion was a conference held at Huntly, New Zealand, a thousand people assembled. Before that time I had spoken through interpreters in China, Hawaii, Holland, and other places, but I felt impressed on that occasion to speak in the English language. In substance I said, "I have never been much of an advocate of the necessity of tongues in our Church, but today I wish I had that gift. But I haven't. However, I am going to speak to you, my brothers and sisters, in my native tongue and pray that you may have the gift of interpretation of tongues. We will ask Brother Stuart Meha who is going to interpret for me, to make notes, and if necessary he may give us a summary of my talk afterwards."

Well, the outpouring of the gift of tongues on that occasion was most remarkable. Following the end of my sermon Brother Sid Christy, who was a student of Brigham Young University, a Maori, who had returned to New Zealand, rushed up and said, "Brother McKay, they got your message!"

Well, I knew they had by the attention and the nodding of their heads during the talk. I said, "I think they have but for the benefit of those who may not have understood or had that gift, we shall have the sermon interpreted."

While Brother Meha was interpreting that or giving a summary of it in the Maori language some of the natives, who had understood it, but who did not understand English, arose and corrected him in his interpretations.

President George Albert Smith and Brother Rufus K. Hardy visited New Zealand several years after that event, and Brother Hardy, hearing of the event, brought home testimonies of those who were present, and he took the occasion to have those testimonies notarized. So it is the gift of interpretation rather than the gift of tongues, that was remarkable.

[Log]

Referencing the bolded phrases, I think you're limiting the workings of the Spirit.

Actually, I was quite precise in my post. Cool story, though.

[Stargazer]

Actually, I was quite precise in my post. Cool story, though.

Actually, I understand your precision, but just because the NT only gives one or two examples of the workings of the Gift of Tongues doesn't mean that that is the end of the story.

[Monster]

Maybe I can clarify some. I am not looking for a seer to foretell future events or to make grand pronuncements. I am simply looking for the leaders to say "God spoke to me and this is what he said" My concern is all we get is a testimony from them. Nothing more that the average member. We get advice on how to live our lives and how important the principles of the gospel are and the importance of obedience. That is not revelation to my understanding. It is commentary.

We can find revelation in every talk and every Ensign article if we choose to. We can define revelation down to anything we want it to be. That is all well and good and if it works for you I think that is great. You would have some insight I do not. Perhaps my understanding of revelation at the level of the prophet is in error. I feel there is noting to differentiate revelation in the church from any other words of wisdom to be found from many great men and women. If revelation is truly claimed by the leaders and obedience required, then I think it is not asking to much to actually get some relevant instruction and information beyond what any motivational speaker could produce.

It is claimed that Joseph received all the needed revelation and now it is up to us to just live our covenants. I reject that concept because it limits humans to a finite amount of information. I think it is against Gods plan to have us live in the past and not progress towards the future. This is one of the weaknesses in the church. We are forever worshipping our past and not projecting into the future. Of course this is a common mistake that all corporations seem to be making. We always need more information to stay vibrant and progressive. There is no end to learning and to restrict us with a finite amount of information is stagnation.

Many say that the revelation is there if you just have ears to hear. Perhaps that is true but it is not logical to me that God so restricts the information he wants to give us. To just let a select few in on his instructions seems like he is selective in his love for his children. Does not the sinner need to hear the word of God and understand it as much as the saint? I must reject the notion that God requires certain acts of obedience before he can instruct you. I want God to help everyone regardless of their level of understanding or righteousness. God is no respecter of persons.

To end this, I respect those that can find the revelation they are looking for in the church. In many ways I wish I could also. Problem is my mind does not do well with nuance and fleeting thoughts. I would be most grateful if God could give some revelation that was relevant and understood by me. I also would wish those who take revelation as a given could understand those of us who do not see it at the same level and respect why we have questions.

[supersnail]

Maybe it is a testament to the integrity and sanity of the church leaders that they don't claim to have received dramatic doctrinal revelations though they are in a position to do so. Any new doctrinal revelation would be dramatic if the words aren't banal.

On the other hand, it is my understanding that most of the revelations in the D&C, for example, were received in response to specific questions and needs. If there is no such need at this time, should there be more revelation of the kind some are craving?

Doctrine is not for its own sake. An individual's ability to learn in this life is limited, and the addition of more doctrine might cause unnecessary difficulty if there were no point. Joseph Smith wanted people to understand what he was saying and what he said was revelation. I don't get the impression that he used frequent revelations to support his authority, though that might have been a consequence as the revelations he received were perceived as true by others.

If another church came out with some theological innovation that needed to be challenged, I can see how LDS leaders might need to address that with a widely disseminated teaching, which may or may not be put forward as revelation. In reality, most conversations or debates along those lines involve ideas that are actually old. Consider all the things that are rehashed on this forum.

I want to say more, but have to go.

[Calm]

For someone who is not LDS, you seem to get the concepts remarkably well and are picking up on the nuances as well.

In addition to not being automatically needed, revelation comes with obligations attached and in general I don't see a lot of people jumping up and down yelling "put more on my back, this is way too easy". If any are, it is more likely in my view they are ignoring current doctrine rather than having digested and so assimilated it that they are ready for more.

I also see the Church as given to men as a foundation on which to build their personal experience with God. If the Church provides for the individual's needs and desires, for what reason would he need to turn to God and earnestly seek him out. Instead, personal revelation serves in part as one of God's 'carrots' along with numerous other blessings that spur us on to a face to face with the Lord. I suspect that once one reaches the stage where one's relationship with the Lord is fully committed and faithful that he would refuse nothing that is asked, that one has also reached the stage that one is willing to let the Lord tell one what he thinks is important, to be at peace with any way that the Lord chooses to reveal himself and his work.

[supersnail]

Something to think about:

Jarom 1:2 And as these plates are small, and as these things are written for the intent of the benefit of our brethren the Lamanites, wherefore, it must needs be that I write a little; but I shall not write the things of my prophesying, nor of my revelations. For what could I write more than my fathers have written? For have not they revealed the plan of salvation? I say unto you, Yea; and this sufficeth me.

Prophets of the past have received revelations that they didn't communicate in writing to future generations. But they were still prophets and revelators. And some of the things that prophets did record that appear in the Book of Mormon are reiterations of what predecessors said, not stunning pronouncements.

I'm going to go out on a limb here (perhaps) and suggest another way of viewing the decreased frequency of public revelations. Arguably (there might be disagreement over this among LDS scholars), literacy is far more widespread today than it was among the Nephites. For that reason—the lower level and prevalence of literacy in Nephite society—and other reasons, one might expect the leading prophets of that time to have a more central role in communicating doctrine orally, including old doctrine, in comparison with prophets today. A modern prophet could both write and speak fewer statements prefaced with "thus saith the Lord" and still be a prophet.

Maybe there are parts of the world that would benefit from a highly visible Thomas Monson putting out highly authoritative statements. I'm not sure. The LDS Church is faced with a complex audience. Not everyone's needs are the same. There can be only one President of the Church at a time, though, and whatever he does has to be genuine, not cynically calculated (as pretending to divine revelations just to increase the number of conversions would be). In industrialized countries, we certainly can read the Book of Mormon and the other scriptures ourselves.

I'm not saying I don't need Thomas Monson. In arriving at a sense of the truth of the Book of Mormon, Thomas Monson just has not been that crucial to me personally. It's not just Monson that distinguishes the LDS Church from other churches. The issue of how many revelations recent prophets have put out or which statements count as revelations is not going to make or break my encounter with these scriptures. I imagine others here feel/have felt the same way, and I also suppose Monson has figured more prominently in the minds of some prospective converts, just not in mine. (I'm in a little bit of an unusual situation making it difficult to meet with missionaries, which is why I'm here. It has forced me to study at length without much guidance.)

[selek1]

Sorry I offended you.

I didn't say I was offended, Monster- I said your attitude was combatative and your litany was designed to affront and offend.

If you really wish us to take your concerns seriously, you might trouble to be less inflammatory, derisive, and dismissive in your presentation.

If you really wish us to take your complaints seriously, you might trouble to take our beliefs and responses seriously.

[supersnail]

If revelation is truly claimed by the leaders and obedience required, then I think it is not asking to much to actually get some relevant instruction and information beyond what any motivational speaker could produce.

To add to what others have said...

I just watched a couple of videos of Thomas S. Monson speaking to see what the President has said recently. President Monson makes positive reference to Mother Teresa in one address and to a piece of Nortre Dame research in another. Globally, however, the Roman Catholic Church is one of the LDS Church's biggest "competitors" and certainly the largest that one might confuse with the LDS Church in terms of having a prophet-like leader. In the last 180 years, the office of the Pope has rarely sealed a statement as having the highest authority, and the Pope actually doesn't call himself a prophet (or a seer or a revelator).

Even within North America, how many other Christian organizations of significant size even claim to have a prophet? The fact is the LDS Church's claim to having a prophet already sets it apart from many others. Many other things serve to distinguish the LDS Church from other churches.

There are plenty of ways prospective converts can distinguish the LDS Church from other churches. Regarding people who are already LDS and wondering where the public revelations are, I would tentatively suggest a kind of thought experiment when viewing "Dare to Stand Alone" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q49fwqsYxss), for example. Assume Thomas Monson knows some things that he is not telling for some reason (maybe because he has not been commanded to or because he has been commanded not to), but which nonetheless shape his address. Is it not possible that Monson is functioning as a prophet, seer, and revelator, even though "thus saith the Lord" appears nowhere in his address and nothing like that? That his statements have causes that aren't obvious?

[supersnail]

I came across this verse. I thought it might be relevant to this topic.

Alma 45:9 But behold, I have somewhat to prophesy unto thee; but what I prophesy unto thee ye shall not make known; yea, what I prophesy unto thee shall not be made known, even until the prophesy is fulfilled; therefore write the words which I shall say.

[selek1]

If revelation is truly claimed by the leaders and obedience required, then I think it is not asking to much to actually get some relevant instruction and information beyond what any motivational speaker could produce.

For some reason (and perhaps it's my IMDB addiction showing through), this comment reminds me of the scene when Moses threw down his staff and it became a snake. The Egyptian priests' response was essentially, "Oh heck, WE can do THAT!".

Too many people seem far too eager to discount the things of God simply because there are imitators.

It was foolish to do so then, it's foolish to do so now.

It is claimed that Joseph received all the needed revelation and now it is up to us to just live our covenants.

Really? By whom?

The closest argument I've seen or heard is that Joseph received those things essential to the Restoration, and that it is up to us to live up to those things. I've never yet seen a faithful Latter-day Saint reject the possibility- nay, the inevitability- of additional revelation as God offers it.

Your allegation is a strawman, nothing more.

I reject that concept because it limits humans to a finite amount of information. I think it is against Gods plan to have us live in the past and not progress towards the future.

That's deeply amusing- because no faithful Latter-day Saint embraces such a notion. In point of fact, we teach precisely the opposite- that the Heavens are open to every son and daughter of God who is patient, penitent, and humble.

This is one of the weaknesses in the church. We are forever worshipping our past and not projecting into the future.

I have to agree that there's some projecting going on in that post- but it isn't the Church. You are attempting to indict and condemn the Church for sins that you yourself are committing, and are arguing from a false premise . Your entire argument has a foundation of sand- simply that because the revelation available isn't "sufficient" or "significant" enough for your taste, the Church must be doing something wrong.

Setting aside the fundamental and inescapable narcissism in that position, one must also remember the signs of apostacy: particularly "kicking against the pricks".

Of course this is a common mistake that all corporations seem to be making.

Ah, yes- the old "LDS, Inc." canard. The veritable hallmark of the troll. Is it true that you must have that mark tattoed on your hand or your forehead before you're allowed into the clun?

We always need more information to stay vibrant and progressive. There is no end to learning and to restrict us with a finite amount of information is stagnation.

And yet it is you and you alone who are alleging that dearth of information- despite the ample testimony of others to the contrary.

Many here have testified of the presence of revelation in their lives. Your only response is sneering and dismissive condescension.

Many say that the revelation is there if you just have ears to hear.

And you've offered nothing to contradict their witness. Your only response has been to complain that such revelation is not sufficiently "flashy" or "earth-shattering" enough for your tastes.

It's remarkably like a petulant two-year-old complaining "there's nothing to eat" because he is served milk and a peanut butter sandwich when what he really wants is a 44 oz Coke and Big Mac.

Perhaps that is true but it is not logical to me that God so restricts the information he wants to give us. To just let a select few in on his instructions seems like he is selective in his love for his children.

Again, note that these are your starwmen, rather than our doctrines.

Does not the sinner need to hear the word of God and understand it as much as the saint? I must reject the notion that God requires certain acts of obedience before he can instruct you.

And you are free to reject the laws of God as much as your heart desires. You do not, however, have the right or ability to reject the consequences of that decision.

The fruit of apostacy is silence from the Heavens.

If you choose to reject God's clearly spoken law, then you also reject the right to hear his voice in your life.

I want God to help everyone regardless of their level of understanding or righteousness. God is no respecter of persons.

And there is the rub. God IS no respector of persons- and what you "want" isn't going to change who He is.

God has laid down the (remarkably low) requirements by which all of humanity may receive revelation and divine insight. He isn't going to change them simply because you disagree with his terms.

To end this, I respect those that can find the revelation they are looking for in the church. In many ways I wish I could also.

Problem is my mind does not do well with nuance and fleeting thoughts.

No, the problem is that you want God to dance to your lute and offer his revelation on your terms, rather than his.

You might just as well demand to be taught all the world's wisdom whilst standing on one foot.

I would be most grateful if God could give some revelation that was relevant and understood by me. I also would wish those who take revelation as a given could understand those of us who do not see it at the same level and respect why we have questions.

We do understand- and we've tried to help you understand. In return, you've mocked our beliefs and dismisses our answers out of hand.

And for the record, the problem isn't in your questions, but in your adversarial and "gotcha" tactics and in your entitlement attitude.

Edited November 15, 2011 by selek1

[Hamba Tuhan]

And ye shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the LORD your God, and none else: and my people shall never be ashamed. And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:

This perfectly describes my experiences in the Church. It is more than enough.

[Senator]

I truely wish this to have been, and to be, my experience in the church. I say that honestly.

I'm envious of you.

[Hamba Tuhan]

May you obtain your sincere wish! As I repeatedly teach my priests, we will always get that which we desire above all else.

Edited November 18, 2011 by Hamba Tuhan

[Nominee]

I would say that is one of its main purposes. What else is there really to the eternities but to learn and know. We understand the world around us better than we did because of intellectual curiosity. What is wrong with wanting the same thing when it comes to things of heaven.

Where you say, "What else is there really to the eternities but to learn and know." I say, the ability to act on that knowledge accordingly. Knowing the gospel and living it by no means pose the same challenges and the world, IMO, clearly handles one better than the other.