How Do You Define "revelation"?

[JLHPROF]

I am curious for some feedback from the board.

 

I think we would all agree on the spectrum of "revelation" from the small promptings to whisperings of the spirit to inspiration to revelation to vision/dream to visitation (with probably other steps intermixed).

 

We talk often of "continuing revelation" in the Church but freely admit that there haven't been any "thus saith the Lord"/"word and will" written revelations (revealed to the public at least) in over a century.

 

So I have to ask, are all revelations created equal?  Do we accept inspiration as reliable as revelation?  Why do we no longer receive "revelation" or "visitations" that we know of?

There is even the old urban tale that Heber J. Grant said the "Heavens were as brass to me" when he couldn't get a revelation.

Someone actually suggested that we are in the "half hour of silence" described in Revelation 8:1 (which using the 1 day = 100 years model means about 22 years).  Not sure I buy that.

 

But are all modes of revelation to be give equal weight and acceptance and why have some kinds completely ceased as far as we are aware?

[pogi]

I think that the "revelations" have ceased in part because the restoration has matured.  I think that we have received all that we can receive until we are ready for a higher law.  

 

While revelations in terms of canonical statements have ceased, revelation still continues in the government of the Church.  The Lord still leads this Church and is not silent. 

[The Nehor]

The President Grant quote would not surprise me. Joseph Smith said he got revelations but could not always get one when he felt he needed one.

As it stands the groundwork for our exaltation is laid. Without individual revelation you cannot be exalted so at a certain point while the prophets and apostles are a useful aid they are not enough on their own.

To quote Brigham:

"I wish to notice this. We read in the Bible, that there is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars. In the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, these glories are called telestial, terrestrial, and celestial, which is the highest. These are worlds, different departments, or mansions, in our Father's house. Now those men, or those women, who know no more about the power of God, and the influences of the Holy Spirit, than to be led entirely by another person, suspending their own understanding, and pinning their faith upon another's sleeve, will never be capable of entering into the celestial glory, to be crowned as they anticipate; they will never be capable of becoming Gods. They cannot rule themselves, to say nothing of ruling others, but they must be dictated to in every trifle, like a child. They cannot control themselves in the least, but James, Peter, or somebody else must control them. They never can become Gods, nor be crowned as rulers with glory, immortality, and eternal lives. They never can hold scepters of glory, majesty, and power in the celestial kingdom. Who will? Those who are valiant and inspired with the true independence of heaven, who will go forth boldly in the service of their God, leaving others to do as they please, determined to do right, though all mankind besides should take the opposite course. Will this apply to any of you? Your own hearts can answer. "

I can think of several General Conference talks, mostly by prophets, that I would put in the "word and will of the Lord" categories in any case.

I am of the belief that if I want revelations, visions, and visitations it is up to me to qualify for and ask for them. The channel of revelation is wide open. With the foundation laid it is just more selective. I know from poking my nose where it does not belong that there are things coming in the Church that Apostles know of. What they are.....I have only suspicians. Fun days lie ahead.

[David T]

While I believe Joseph Smith really had revelation experiences, I believe the presentation of his enlightenment in first person, "I the Lord say," documents is a unique rhetorical presentation and expression. Revelation texts are not the revelatory experiences to Joseph themselves - they are (translated!) literature expressing the revelation in Joseph's language and understanding and rhetoric.

 

I suggest inspiration  and bold and powerful revelations still come, to leaders and lay-member like, but the expression/presentation of the information to the Church has definitely substantially changed.

 

I did an experiment during my mission, where I intentionally recorded some of the impressions, counsel, and insight I truly felt I was receiving from the Lord in the form of first person from the Lord communication to me in one of my journals. The process of writing those texts in that form was enlightening, and I think truly helped me understand what Joseph was doing, and the nature of writing scripture. The initial prompting did not come in those words, but my writing them was a bit of a commentary of my understanding of the information I felt I was given to understand, and making it real and concrete by putting it on paper.

Edited February 13, 2014 by David T

[MiserereNobis]

I think that the "revelations" have ceased in part because the restoration has matured.  I think that we have received all that we can receive until we are ready for a higher law.  

 

While revelations in terms of canonical statements have ceased, revelation still continues in the government of the Church.  The Lord still leads this Church and is not silent. 

 

Would revelation in this case be more accurately labeled "inspiration"?  I have thought about this issue a bit, because I think Mormons and Catholics talk past each other a bit when discussing revelation.  We say that revelation ceased, but what we mean by that, in one way, is that all the truths necessary for salvation were given to the Apostles, who passed them on to their successors the Bishops.  It doesn't mean that those truths were fully understood or developed, and it certainly doesn't mean that we believe God isn't leading His Church through inspiration.  The ecumenical councils are clear examples of trying to understand and develop doctrine, and ex cathedra statements by Popes are another (last used in 1950 by declaring the dogma of the Assumption of Mary).

 

I sometimes think that Catholics and Mormons have a more similar view of "revelation" than we think, in the sense that we both believe that God is leading His Church through inspiration and protecting Her from fallibility.

 

It also true, of course, that private revelations abound in the Catholic Church, from individual visions, to great events like Our Lady of Fatima.  Many Saints have reported such visions.

 

As an outsider, I have found it odd (I sure have been using that term alot lately, ha!) that the LDS church focuses so heavily on modern-day prophets and continuing revelation, yet there are no "thus saith the Lord" statements.  Pogi's statement that the restoration has matured and doesn't need them anymore seems to make sense.  Is that a common view among Mormons?

[The Nehor]

Would revelation in this case be more accurately labeled "inspiration"?  I have thought about this issue a bit, because I think Mormons and Catholics talk past each other a bit when discussing revelation.  We say that revelation ceased, but what we mean by that, in one way, is that all the truths necessary for salvation were given to the Apostles, who passed them on to their successors the Bishops.  It doesn't mean that those truths were fully understood or developed, and it certainly doesn't mean that we believe God isn't leading His Church through inspiration.  The ecumenical councils are clear examples of trying to understand and develop doctrine, and ex cathedra statements by Popes are another (last used in 1950 by declaring the dogma of the Assumption of Mary).

?

I would disagree. Inspiration is usually used to mean something light. Revelation is more like full-blown commandments which members get all the time.

I would also disagree that all knowledge necessary for salvation has been revealed. In a general sense maybe but there are lessons that individuals must learn and individualized commandments they must follow to be exalted and the only way I know to get at them is revelation.

[pogi]

Would revelation in this case be more accurately labeled "inspiration"?  I have thought about this issue a bit, because I think Mormons and Catholics talk past each other a bit when discussing revelation.  We say that revelation ceased, but what we mean by that, in one way, is that all the truths necessary for salvation were given to the Apostles, who passed them on to their successors the Bishops.  It doesn't mean that those truths were fully understood or developed, and it certainly doesn't mean that we believe God isn't leading His Church through inspiration.  The ecumenical councils are clear examples of trying to understand and develop doctrine, and ex cathedra statements by Popes are another (last used in 1950 by declaring the dogma of the Assumption of Mary).

 

I sometimes think that Catholics and Mormons have a more similar view of "revelation" than we think, in the sense that we both believe that God is leading His Church through inspiration and protecting Her from fallibility.

 

It also true, of course, that private revelations abound in the Catholic Church, from individual visions, to great events like Our Lady of Fatima.  Many Saints have reported such visions.

 

As an outsider, I have found it odd (I sure have been using that term alot lately, ha!) that the LDS church focuses so heavily on modern-day prophets and continuing revelation, yet there are no "thus saith the Lord" statements.  Pogi's statement that the restoration has matured and doesn't need them anymore seems to make sense.  Is that a common view among Mormons?

 

I agree with the bolded statement.  I think the difference is that Mormon's are continually open, receptive, and even expect further "thus sayeth the Lord" statements in preparation for Zion and the coming of the Lord.  The idea that revelation has ceased is not an idea that we could ever accept.  We fully anticipate further revelation.  While the heavens seem quite as of late with ground breaking revelations, previous revelations suggest there are more to come. 

 

I find it difficult to distinguish between inspiration and revelation.  Can they not both considered the mind and will of the Lord for his people?  Perhaps we look at revelation as "new" or "clarifying" doctrine, and inspiration as the guiding hand of the Lord in all other areas.  I don't see the need to make such classifications and distinctions.  It is all the voice of the Lord speaking to man through his prophets. 

[MiserereNobis]

I would disagree. Inspiration is usually used to mean something light. Revelation is more like full-blown commandments which members get all the time.

I would also disagree that all knowledge necessary for salvation has been revealed. In a general sense maybe but there are lessons that individuals must learn and individualized commandments they must follow to be exalted and the only way I know to get at them is revelation.

 

Hmmm, let's see if there is similarity here.  If I have a major decision in my life, and I pray, and God tells me what I am to do, would you consider that revelation?  If so, then I would think almost all faithful Christians are receiving revelation and no Christian would feel strange saying so.  We all pray for guidance.  Would you consider that individualized commandments?  The Catholic Church history is chock full of instances of people receiving revelations of this type.  Some are so huge they change the face of the Church.  St. Francis comes to mind.

 

What would be the difference between Our Lord speaking to St. Francis and telling him what to do and the idea of continuing revelation in the LDS church?

[mfbukowski]

Hmmm, let's see if there is similarity here.  If I have a major decision in my life, and I pray, and God tells me what I am to do, would you consider that revelation?  If so, then I would think almost all faithful Christians are receiving revelation and no Christian would feel strange saying so.  We all pray for guidance.  Would you consider that individualized commandments?  The Catholic Church history is chock full of instances of people receiving revelations of this type.  Some are so huge they change the face of the Church.  St. Francis comes to mind.

 

What would be the difference between Our Lord speaking to St. Francis and telling him what to do and the idea of continuing revelation in the LDS church?

Good to see you!

 

I would say that most LDS would classify receiving guidance as personal revelation.  Perhaps it is even more than "most"- I think I don't know anyone who would classify it otherwise.

 

I think the key is to understand that personal revelation is what makes one know the "church is true" in the first place.   For a Mormon, the church's credibility is based totally on personal revelation- or personal guidance if you want to use that term.

 

If God has not confirmed to you personally that the path you are on is his will for you, there is no reason to accept any of the rest of it.  I accept the Bible because God has told me he wants me to.  I accept the BOM for the same reason.

 

I do not have to take anyone's word for anything, I do not have to accept philosophical positions (you know what I mean ) in which I do not believe, nor take anyone's word for anything because it is "tradition"

 

I just posted on another thread that I left behind probably 1000 years of family tradition of belief in another faith because I didn't find it reasonable, and because I believed God led me here.

 

THAT is what we call "personal revelation".  With out it, you have nothing in a religious sense, to follow, except someone else's word for what they think is right.

[mfbukowski]

Of course other churches do not believe in "private interpretation" of the scriptures.

 

To me that is contradictory and circular reasoning.  Why would I believe any church which tells me that only they have the truthful interpretation unless I knew that church was correct in the first place?  And how would I know that church was correct?

 

The only way you can know that is by direct revelation from God.   We believe that personal testimony is the cornerstone of it all.

[Gray]

Anything that gets us closer to divinity, usually as an expression of a change in attitude toward becoming kinder and more loving 

[MiserereNobis]

Good to see you!

 

 

 

Thanks!  You, too.  I took a break from internet boards for a while.

 

If God has not confirmed to you personally that the path you are on is his will for you, there is no reason to accept any of the rest of it.  I accept the Bible because God has told me he wants me to.  I accept the BOM for the same reason.

 

I agree, though I think reason has a part to play, too.

 

I do not have to take anyone's word for anything, I do not have to accept philosophical positions (you know what I mean ) in which I do not believe, nor take anyone's word for anything because it is "tradition"

 

I just posted on another thread that I left behind probably 1000 years of family tradition of belief in another faith because I didn't find it reasonable, and because I believed God led me here.

 

Yup, and on that thread I said don't attack neo-Platonism or bring up Rorty or I'm gone

 

On a serious note, though, I'm still wondering what makes the LDS concept of continuing revelation different from what goes in the Catholic Church.  Since you're a pragmatist, let's stick to the practical application of it.  It appears to me that they are quite similar.  You have the teachings of your leaders in general conference, we have the teachings of Popes and Bishops.  You have official proclamations, we have encyclicals.  You have the articles of faith, we have the catechism.  You have the D&C, we have ecumenical councils and ex cathedra statements.

 

Don't we both believe in continuing revelation but perhaps are skirmishing over the term "revelation"?  What does the LDS church have, in say the last 100 years, that the Catholic Church doesn't, when it comes to revelation?  In the past 100 years, we've had an ecumenical council and we've had ex cathedra declarations of dogma.

[mfbukowski]

Thanks!  You, too.  I took a break from internet boards for a while.

 

 

 

I agree, though I think reason has a part to play, too.

 

 

 

Yup, and on that thread I said don't attack neo-Platonism or bring up Rorty or I'm gone

 

On a serious note, though, I'm still wondering what makes the LDS concept of continuing revelation different from what goes in the Catholic Church.  Since you're a pragmatist, let's stick to the practical application of it.  It appears to me that they are quite similar.  You have the teachings of your leaders in general conference, we have the teachings of Popes and Bishops.  You have official proclamations, we have encyclicals.  You have the articles of faith, we have the catechism.  You have the D&C, we have ecumenical councils and ex cathedra statements.

 

Don't we both believe in continuing revelation but perhaps are skirmishing over the term "revelation"?  What does the LDS church have, in say the last 100 years, that the Catholic Church doesn't, when it comes to revelation?  In the past 100 years, we've had an ecumenical council and we've had ex cathedra declarations of dogma.

Oh yeah, he says he believes in reason then ties my hands by not letting me bring up Rorty.     Not fair!

 

But that's ok!  I can whup ya anyway!    

Seriously though, I think there is probably no difference.  Others here will disagree and pull the "Gift of the Holy Ghost" card but I think the difference is minimal, frankly.

 

The problem for me is the belief that God wants us all to believe the same things while we are all in different "places" in our lives, so if MY doctrine disagrees with yours then ONE of us must be wrong.

 

I don't think that's true.  We all follow a crooked path to God and if he tells one "turn right" and the other "turn left" that doesn't mean we are not on the same path ultimately, we are just in different locations looking for the right way home.

Edited February 13, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

But I really do think that when we all get together on the other side we will find that Mormonism was the closest!

 

That's my story and I am sticking to it!

[CV75]

But are all modes of revelation to be give equal weight and acceptance and why have some kinds completely ceased as far as we are aware?

I think all revelations from God merit the weight and context He gives them, which can be discerned by the power and Gift of the Holy Ghost. I believe our awareness of revelations and visitations is a function of how well we respond to His power and steward our Gift of the Holy Ghost individually and collectively (Luke 12:48).

[3DOP]

From the word reveal. That which is revealed = revelation

 

Catholics make a distinction between natural and supernatural revelation. Natural revelation has to do with what can be known by rational processes. Supernatural revelation is when God reveals something not known naturally because it would be above our nature to know it. Knowledge of the future and knowledge of the unrecorded past would be two examples of what Catholic would call supernatural revelation. Every kind of knowledge that is not supernatural would be natural revelation.

 

If you think that it can be logically demonstrated that God made the world out of pre-existent matter, that would be a belief founded on theories of natural revelation. If you think that the Scriptures reveal that God made the world out of pre-existent matter, that would be a belief founded on theories of supernatural revelation. Natural revelation is more certain and clearer and is in that respect superior. On the other hand, supernatural revelation is superior in that it deals with more profound subject matter.

 

There is probably a reason why the distinction Catholics draw won't work for you guys. But for what it is worth to those who might want to understand us, that is how we see revelation.

 

3DOP

[3DOP]

Oh shoot...Miserere and Mark are already at it. Nevermind. I am sure it has been said.

 

Later edit, PS: Well I guess it wasn't.

 

We misunderstand each other on this. I figured that our very early. Although it is true to say it, most Mormons will misunderstand us if we say that revelation ceased with the last Apostle. They will get a false picture. I never say that anymore without qualifications like those Miserere is talking about.

Edited February 13, 2014 by 3DOP

[pogi]

On a serious note, though, I'm still wondering what makes the LDS concept of continuing revelation different from what goes in the Catholic Church.  Since you're a pragmatist, let's stick to the practical application of it.  It appears to me that they are quite similar.  You have the teachings of your leaders in general conference, we have the teachings of Popes and Bishops.  You have official proclamations, we have encyclicals.  You have the articles of faith, we have the catechism.  You have the D&C, we have ecumenical councils and ex cathedra statements.

 

Don't we both believe in continuing revelation but perhaps are skirmishing over the term "revelation"?  What does the LDS church have, in say the last 100 years, that the Catholic Church doesn't, when it comes to revelation?  In the past 100 years, we've had an ecumenical council and we've had ex cathedra declarations of dogma.

 

When you compare the two, it does sound like the Catholic Church believes in continuing revelation, which leads me to wonder what was meant by "revelation" when Vatical  II states: “no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord, Jesus Christ.”  What is the difference between revelation and an ex cathedra declaration?

 

Do Catholics hold ecumenical councils and ex cathedra statements on the same level as scripture?  Because it seems like the only difference between us is that our cannon remains open, whereas your cannon is closed.  

[3DOP]

I was just looking at the poll started by DBMormon where the respondent is supposed to judge the LDS faith using only "non-spiritual evidence". He is making the distinction between natural and supernatural revelation. He wants those who participate to consider only natural revelation.

[Coreyb]

The President Grant quote would not surprise me. Joseph Smith said he got revelations but could not always get one when he felt he needed one.

As it stands the groundwork for our exaltation is laid. Without individual revelation you cannot be exalted so at a certain point while the prophets and apostles are a useful aid they are not enough on their own.

To quote Brigham:

"I wish to notice this. We read in the Bible, that there is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars. In the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, these glories are called telestial, terrestrial, and celestial, which is the highest. These are worlds, different departments, or mansions, in our Father's house. Now those men, or those women, who know no more about the power of God, and the influences of the Holy Spirit, than to be led entirely by another person, suspending their own understanding, and pinning their faith upon another's sleeve, will never be capable of entering into the celestial glory, to be crowned as they anticipate; they will never be capable of becoming Gods. They cannot rule themselves, to say nothing of ruling others, but they must be dictated to in every trifle, like a child. They cannot control themselves in the least, but James, Peter, or somebody else must control them. They never can become Gods, nor be crowned as rulers with glory, immortality, and eternal lives. They never can hold scepters of glory, majesty, and power in the celestial kingdom. Who will? Those who are valiant and inspired with the true independence of heaven, who will go forth boldly in the service of their God, leaving others to do as they please, determined to do right, though all mankind besides should take the opposite course. Will this apply to any of you? Your own hearts can answer. "

I can think of several General Conference talks, mostly by prophets, that I would put in the "word and will of the Lord" categories in any case.

I am of the belief that if I want revelations, visions, and visitations it is up to me to qualify for and ask for them. The channel of revelation is wide open. With the foundation laid it is just more selective. I know from poking my nose where it does not belong that there are things coming in the Church that Apostles know of. What they are.....I have only suspicians. Fun days lie ahead.

C'mon, don't tease us like that

[mfbukowski]

When you compare the two, it does sound like the Catholic Church believes in continuing revelation, which leads me to wonder what was meant by "revelation" when Vatical  II states: “no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord, Jesus Christ.”  What is the difference between revelation and an ex cathedra declaration?

 

Do Catholics hold ecumenical councils and ex cathedra statements on the same level as scripture?  Because it seems like the only difference between us is that our cannon remains open, whereas your cannon is closed.  

Subject to correction by someone who really knows what he is talking about, Catholics put "Tradition" on the same level as scripture. so I am sure that fits in here somewhere as well.