Modern Revelation

[JLHPROF]

Use of the phrase "thus saith the Lord" is not required and all prophets must wait until God chooses to reveal something to them before they can receive revelation from him.

Those are all just descriptions of the different types of revelation God gives us, and all if it is revelation from God as God reveals things to our minds/spirits.

 

I never claimed "thus saith the Lord" is required and of course it depends on God choosing to reveal something.

 

I simply stated that the type of revelation, where God actually SPEAKS to man (as from the first 70+ years of the Church) hasn't been recorded publicly in many years.  Inspiration is also a type of revelation and seems to be more common these days.  The question it does raise, is it as reliable to those not present as the actual recorded "word of God" or is it more subject to interpretation?

 

And of course there are many kinds of revelations, ranging from promptings, inspiration all the way up to divine visitation.  The question still remains, why do we no longer emphasize receiving God's actual word on a matter, and instead focus on our feelings and inspiration and less recordable methods?

[CV75]

The question still remains, why do we no longer emphasize receiving God's actual word on a matter, and instead focus on our feelings and inspiration and less recordable methods?

I think many talks on the subject accord with scripture in advising us to seek the Lord directly for revelation. I read this in the scriptures as well. So we rely on the Gift of the Holy Spirit in reading the scriptures, seeking the Lord's will directly through prayer, and listening to the Church leaders. We are also taught to journal/document what we receive.

In my journal, I have documented feelings, impressions and inspiration as well as personal revelations. I don't see how any other forms of revelation could be more or less "recordable" than these. I think it is essential for our continued growth to document and keep these things.

I beleive much of what is discussed of both a tenmporal and spiritual nature in the leading quorums of the Church gets documented somehow, and I wouldn't be surprised if revelation or inspiration aren't mentioned from time to time. I imagine these discussions and decisions typically involve prayer in a spirit of unanimity.

[Ahab]

I never claimed "thus saith the Lord" is required and of course it depends on God choosing to reveal something.

I simply stated that the type of revelation, where God actually SPEAKS to man (as from the first 70+ years of the Church) hasn't been recorded publicly in many years. Inspiration is also a type of revelation and seems to be more common these days. The question it does raise, is it as reliable to those not present as the actual recorded "word of God" or is it more subject to interpretation?

And of course there are many kinds of revelations, ranging from promptings, inspiration all the way up to divine visitation. The question still remains, why do we no longer emphasize receiving God's actual word on a matter, and instead focus on our feelings and inspiration and less recordable methods?

Receiving God's actual word=

1. receiving inspiration from God

a. so that we can write scripture (God's "word")

b. so that we can know what God thinks

c. so that we can know what God feels

d. so that we can know more about God

Seeing things in visions and dreams without receiving inspiration from God to help us know how to correctly interpret and understand what we see wouldn't do us much good, so I would say receiving inspiration from God is the most powerful and important type of revelation from God we could ever receive both on Earth and in heaven.

[JLHPROF]

Receiving God's actual word=

1. receiving inspiration from God

a. so that we can write scripture (God's "word")

b. so that we can know what God thinks

c. so that we can know what God feels

d. so that we can know more about God

 

 

Uh, no.  The word of the Lord is the word of the Lord, just as these are my words.  Inspiration covers a whole multitude of other areas that are in no way "God's actual word", even if he is the source.  Inspiration can be a feeling, a thought, a prompting that a choice should be made.  None of these qualify as "the word of God" but could be loosely defined as "revelation" since something was revealed from God.

As to your other comment which is more valuable, well that is a different matter.

[David T]

The Word of God does not equal the sum of Gods words. IE, I affirm the Bible and Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price as God's Word. But I do not believe that everything found in them are to be understood as God's words.

 

I take Word similar to the sense of logos to mean the message, or messenger. I don't view the words of written scripture, even those presented rhetorically in First Person, as God's actual chosen vocabulary. I view them all as translation literature, interpreting and putting to paper the understanding of the observed and experienced message as it was revealed through inspiration.

 

Scripture explains and translates revelatory experiences and understanding, but are not the revelations to the prophets themselves.

Edited February 19, 2014 by David T

[CV75]

Uh, no.  The word of the Lord is the word of the Lord, just as these are my words.  Inspiration covers a whole multitude of other areas that are in no way "God's actual word", even if he is the source.  Inspiration can be a feeling, a thought, a prompting that a choice should be made.  None of these qualify as "the word of God" but could be loosely defined as "revelation" since something was revealed from God.

As to your other comment which is more valuable, well that is a different matter.

D&C 84 indicates that “the word of the Lord” refers to much more than what He speaks with His mouth and writes with His hand (it is a figurative as well as literal term):

43 And I now give unto you a commandment to beware concerning yourselves, to give diligent heed to the words of eternal life.

44 For you shall live by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God.

45 For the word of the Lord is truth, and whatsoever is truth is light, and whatsoever is light is Spirit, even the Spirit of Jesus Christ.

46 And the Spirit giveth light to every man that cometh into the world; and the Spirit enlighteneth every man through the world, that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit.

47 And every one that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit cometh unto God, even the Father.

48 And the Father teacheth him of the covenant which he has renewed and confirmed upon you, which is confirmed upon you for your sakes, and not for your sakes only, but for the sake of the whole world.

“The word of the Lord” consists of things such as “the words of eternal life;” words that “proceedeth forth from the mouth of God;” and “truth… light… the Spirit of Jesus Christ.” It is given “to every man …that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit” so that the Father can teach us “of the covenant which he has renewed and confirmed upon [us].”

I see the Gift of the Holy Ghost and the “word of the Lord” as very personal gifts to each member and presiding officer, and not necessarily restricted for the purpose of writing canon. For example:

The Lord’s servants “shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost. And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.” (D&C 68:3-4).

[ksfisher]

Forgive me if my contribution is off-topic or only tangentially related.  (And this is not a criticism of anyone specific: if it is, I include myself in it.)  I think the real question is not whether the Brethren still receive revelation in the "thus-saith-the-Lord" sense, or whether, if they do, this revelation or that revelation should be canonized (or why no revelation has been canonized since OD-2, or whether OD-2 is a revelation in itself or whether it's simply an announcement that a revelation was received).  The real question is why we live so far beneath our own privilege to receive revelation. 

 

Joseph Smith once said, "If you live up to your privileges, the angels cannot be restrained from being your associates.”  While I’m not suggesting that, therefore, we would all receive regular revelation via face-to-face heavenly visitation, nonetheless, it is worth asking the question, if angels could be our associates if we lived worthy of that privilege, why wouldn’t we be entitled regularly to less dramatic interactions with the Divine through the Holy Spirit if we lived so as to be able to receive more of those? 

 

While I’m not saying that you’re suggesting that we should rely solely on prophets to receive revelation, remember Moses’s lament in Numbers: “Would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets” (Numbers 11:29).  Each of us is entitled to revelation to guide us within our stewardships within the Church of Jesus Christ, fathers and mothers are entitled to revelation to guide their families, and we’re all entitled to revelation to guide us personally.  The scriptures also tell us that, eventually, the Earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord, and that the Earth itself will become a urim and thummim (Doctrine & Covenants 130:6-9).  That sounds like more revelation to me than a single mouthpiece (or even a large group of them, if we’re speaking only of general Church leadership) can hold.

Joel 2:28

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:

 

Exodus 19:6

And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation.

Edited February 19, 2014 by ksfisher

[Ahab]

Uh, no. The word of the Lord is the word of the Lord, just as these are my words. Inspiration covers a whole multitude of other areas that are in no way "God's actual word", even if he is the source. Inspiration can be a feeling, a thought, a prompting that a choice should be made. None of these qualify as "the word of God" but could be loosely defined as "revelation" since something was revealed from God.

As to your other comment which is more valuable, well that is a different matter.

Where us mski when I want him? He can share my thoughts more effectively than I do, sometimes, while we mean the same things with our words.

Think about what words are. If you think God isn't revealing his word or words to you when he inspires you to know what he is thinking or feeling, and yet without moving his physical tongue and lips, then you just do not understand how he is still revealing his word or words to you in that way.

I used to wonder what language our Lord would use when or if he spoke to me with his words, and if he would have a particular accent. Do you suppose he would sound like someone from the land of Israel does now, or that he would speak English? What language do you think his words would be in? Or what if any language do you think he doesn't speak in? I know from experience that he can speak in my own language and with my own words, and I think he can speak the same way to everyone.

[Coreyb]

I know that several exist but I guess they are not for public consumption.

you're a tease Nehor 

[Coreyb]

So for a follow up question, If we don't receive revelation in a written form anymore (at least not ones we could add to the scriptures), but still receive plenty of inspiration and spiritual promptings, what really separates us from the greater christian tradition. I think that nearly all Christians believe in inspiration, and some form of personal revelation, especially through reading the scriptures, and Catholics believe that the Pope can interpret the word and will of God by interpreting the existing scriptures. We speak of the heavens being open again, but I wonder if many modern Mormons see the heavens as really being any more open than most Christians do. Of course, all good Mormons believe that God could add to our scriptures, whereas most Christians believe that the Bible will be sufficient, as far as Gods written word is concerned, but that seems to be the only difference. I have been reading a conversation on the By Common Consent blog with Daymon Smith, where he talks about one of the consequences of the Manifesto/polygamous underground era of Mormon history being that Mormon thought changed from a belief that religious beliefs had to be lived/obeyed to be real, to the idea that religious beliefs/commandments must be believed in, but not always practiced.

 

 Brad: Mormons can believe in polygamy.

Daymon. Right, but they can’t use their bodies as a demonstration of this belief. They can’t live it. They can hold propositions concerning polygamy in their mind true and right as robustly as they like.

Brad. The underlying idea here is that laws are about action and actions, and do not govern the realm of the mind. Which brings us back to the deep irony of the unlawful cohabitation prosecutions.

Daymon: The irony is that in the public space of the courtroom, these ideas, these things that exist only in people’s minds actually become things that are used against them.

Brad: Mind or belief is something that becomes concrete in the sense of having relevance to the case in question and producing real consequences.

Daymon: And this is really the starting point for this great transition in Mormonism, leading to what I am going to call Correlation or Correlationism. In summary, the realm of belief or of the mind was ostensible granted freely as a space where any religious person—and in particular a Mormon person—could enjoy non-intervention from the state.

Brad: “Believe whatever you want.”

I wonder if this is where alot of Mormons are in regards to the question of continuing revelation. Mormons can believe in revelation, in new scripture, in inspiration, visions, charismatic gifts, but they are secret. Don't talk about your conversion experiences, don't ask for visions, if you write a revelation its for you, so never talk about it to anybody, don't expect to heal or be healed (if I had a nickel for every time I explained the power of the priesthood to someone before we laid hands on them, and the other person made sure to follow by saying that God often doesn't heal us, that sometimes its just his will that we have this trial, so don't get your hopes up ), don't share your patriarchal blessing with anybody but family, don't expect any additions to the scriptures any time soon. It often seems like anything beyond promptings or inspiration is taboo for most Mormons. I dont want us to ever be in a place where our children are saying, "a Quad, a Quad, we have a Quad, and we need no more Quad."

[Alan]

I was not asked to keep the teaching secret or i obviously would not have shared it. We are instructed not to share notes or quotes from non-public meetings unless the speaker has a chance to review the notes. It is mostly to prevent misunderstandings.

 

 

I'm sorry Nehor.

You seem like a nice chap, but I don't believe this.

Over the years I've had a belly-full of "a friend of mine's cousin's uncle's neighbour's sister's aunt's father-in-law's second cousin once removed overheard an apostle say............."

[Ahab]

I'm sorry Nehor.

You seem like a nice chap, but I don't believe this.

Over the years I've had a belly-full of "a friend of mine's cousin's uncle's neighbour's sister's aunt's father-in-law's second cousin once removed overheard an apostle say............."

I believe all of us receive messages from both God and Satan very often throughout every day, and a lot of the time those messages are essentially saying either "believe it" or "believe it not". And regardless of which position you take on an issue you are in agreement with either God or Satan. And I'll bet you, and give you 100 to 1 odds, that you think God would give you the idea to disagree with what Nehor just said he heard from an apostle (edit: 2 apostles). Edited February 21, 2014 by Ahab