ERayR Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 This question has been asked a couple of times on this board. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young said it was because the people would not receive it. It was this general disbelief among the Mormons themselves which caused Joseph Smith, as well as Brigham Young, so much apprehension and difficulty in teaching new doctrines . . . there has been a great difficulty in getting anything into the heads of this generation. It has been like splitting hemlock knots with a corn-dogger for a wedge, and a pumpkin for a beetle. Even the Saints are slow to understand. I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions; they cannot stand the fire at all. (TPJS, p. 331) When the principle of baptism for the dead was announced by Joseph Smith, the Mormons themselves seemed the most distraught. Once, plural marriage was hinted at in a sermon by Joseph Smith, and in the afternoon he had to modify it because of the pressures put upon him. It was this sort of mental reservation that caused the Prophet to remark: There are a great many wise men, and women, too, in our midst, who are too wise to be taught; therefore, they must die in their ignorance, and in the resurrection they will find their mistake. (TPJS, p. 309) I think that is still the problem and answers the question as to why we are not (as a church) receiving new and glorious revelation. 4
JAHS Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 I agree but I think people need also to realize that we receive new revelation every time the prophets speak at General Conference. It might not be "glorious" but it is new and important for someone who is listening. Would God really reveal "new and glorious" doctrines to the prophets if we are not ready to receive it?
ERayR Posted August 31, 2014 Author Posted August 31, 2014 I agree but I think people need also to realize that we receive new revelation every time the prophets speak at General Conference. It might not be "glorious" but it is new and important for someone who is listening. Would God really reveal "new and glorious" doctrines to the prophets if we are not ready to receive it? That is my point. We could have the mysteries of heaven revealed to us. Joseph and Brigham tried but The saints(in large part) rejected them. The leaders them pulled back and gave the people what they would accept. Can anybody say Moses and Mt.Sinai? Judging from what comes across this forum I would guess the question of why no great revelations is the reason Brigham pulled back.
Senator Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 This question has been asked a couple of times on this board. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young said it was because the people would not receive it. It was this general disbelief among the Mormons themselves which caused Joseph Smith, as well as Brigham Young, so much apprehension and difficulty in teaching new doctrines . . . there has been a great difficulty in getting anything into the heads of this generation. It has been like splitting hemlock knots with a corn-dogger for a wedge, and a pumpkin for a beetle. Even the Saints are slow to understand. I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions; they cannot stand the fire at all. (TPJS, p. 331) When the principle of baptism for the dead was announced by Joseph Smith, the Mormons themselves seemed the most distraught. Once, plural marriage was hinted at in a sermon by Joseph Smith, and in the afternoon he had to modify it because of the pressures put upon him. It was this sort of mental reservation that caused the Prophet to remark: There are a great many wise men, and women, too, in our midst, who are too wise to be taught; therefore, they must die in their ignorance, and in the resurrection they will find their mistake. (TPJS, p. 309) I think that is still the problem and the question as to why we are not (as a church) receiving new and glorious revelation. So you then agree with the accusation that "the church" is not receiving new and glorious revelation? 2
ksfisher Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 There is a article I read by Blake Ostler, I don't have time to find it now, where he puts forth tne proposition that there is more revelation in the church today than at the time of Joseph Smith, it's just at the local level. Think about the emphasis the past few years on ward councils. Compare that with sections in the D&C where Joseph is receiving revelation for bishops or other individuals. I think that the church has come a long way in teaching the saints how to administer the affairs of the kingdom in their own stake, ward, or family, without having to appeal to headquarters for every decision. 3
ERayR Posted August 31, 2014 Author Posted August 31, 2014 There is a article I read by Blake Ostler, I don't have time to find it now, where he puts forth tne proposition that there is more revelation in the church today than at the time of Joseph Smith, it's just at the local level. Think about the emphasis the past few years on ward councils. Compare that with sections in the D&C where Joseph is receiving revelation for bishops or other individuals. I think that the church has come a long way in teaching the saints how to administer the affairs of the kingdom in their own stake, ward, or family, without having to appeal to headquarters for every decision. I think that is probably true but we are not receiving the deep doctrinal revelation that Joseph and Brigham were trying to bring to this people. Much like Moses who came off his forty day sojourn conversing with and getting revelation from God only to find his people unready for it and had to go back and get something they would abide. 1
Tsuzuki Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 The church has what it needs. If anyone wants more meat, they can hunt it themselves. Being spoon-fed would defeat the purpose. 3
ERayR Posted August 31, 2014 Author Posted August 31, 2014 The church has what it needs. If anyone wants more meat, they can hunt it themselves. Being spoon-fed would defeat the purpose. I don't agree it has what it needs but it does have all that it will accept.
cdowis Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 So you then agree with the accusation that "the church" is not receiving new and glorious revelation? Is this an "accusation"? Some people do not understand the role of a prophet. Right now we have "grand and glorious revelations" beyond our ability to live them We know what needs to be done for exaltation. The prophet has the keys to administer the kingdom of God, so we now are building smaller temple to allow access to the members, we have improved the youth programs, we have expanded the missionary force, etc. Perhaps you heard the conference talk on the experience of assigning missionaries to the field of labor. The role of the Seventies changed to meet the needs of the church, as well as other organizational changes. The task now is to build on what we already know.
Paddy Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 (edited) If revelation can be defined as simply "knowledge", then I run into people having trouble with new revelation in my Sunday school class quite often. I find the mention of doctrines such as polygamy, or teaching OD 2 can cause existential crisis'!! This is mainly a result of the church essays releasing information that is outside the standard discourse that can be used to supliment lessons. Also looking at scriptures from differnt angles and perspectives can get peoples undies in a twist. We have an interesting tension between rigidity of doctrine and the fluidity of revelation. It affects people in many ways. Edited August 31, 2014 by Paddy 1
ERayR Posted August 31, 2014 Author Posted August 31, 2014 If revelation can be defined as simply "knowledge", then I run into people having trouble with new revelation in my Sunday school class quite often. I find the mention of doctrines such as polygamy, or teaching OD 2 can cause existential crisis'!! This is mainly a result of the church essays releasing information that is outside the standard discourse that can be used to supliment lessons. Also looking at scriptures from differnt angles and perspectives can get peoples undies in a twist.We have an interesting tension between rigidity of doctrine and the fluidity of revelation. It affects people in many ways. The thing we still have, that was from the first, is personal revelation. We can still have personal revelation and as long as we keep it personal we don't get "peoples undies in a twist". I don't think we should be teaching beyond the scope of the lesson outlines, after all even Joseph and Brigham pulled back to what the saints could abide.
K-2 Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 There's plenty of revelation, but there doesn't seem to have been any "Thus saith the Lord" revelations for over a hundred years despite perfect occasions calling for them like in June of 1978, and the last addition to our canon wasn't very recent either. 2
ERayR Posted August 31, 2014 Author Posted August 31, 2014 There's plenty of revelation, but there doesn't seem to have been any "Thus saith the Lord" revelations for over a hundred years despite perfect occasions calling for them like in June of 1978, and the last addition to our canon wasn't very recent either. If you will read closely you will see I was not saying there was no revelation coming through but only that the "deep" doctrine revelation was not.
Senator Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 Is this an "accusation"? No, it was a question.
Tsuzuki Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 I don't agree it has what it needs but it does have all that it will accept.It's fully functional, and doesn't prevent people from searching outside it.
Paddy Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 The thing we still have, that was from the first, is personal revelation. We can still have personal revelation and as long as we keep it personal we don't get "peoples undies in a twist".Although I disagree I don't teach beyond the curriculum - whatever that really means as there is scope to teach according to the class's needs. Also I don't believe in deliberately making classes controvertible, that should not be the point of Sunday school. However you have illustrated the tension between revelation and being dogmatic. At what point do you teach something according to revelation knowing that it maybe borderline curriculum or borderline controvertible yet also knowing it will be beneficial to your class. Again this comes down to personal revelation. It is a cycle that requires balance when teaching. Furthermore you can also teach or mention something rather benign and still butt up against people tradition, dogmatism, and knowledge level and get them in a twist without realising it. Like you did with the idea I teach outside the curriculum
JLHPROF Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 The role of the Seventies changed to meet the needs of the church, as well as other organizational changes. No, the priesthood office of seventy as revealed by God was changed to be a calling given to High Priests who remain High Priests. Basically, we deleted a priesthood office and replaced it with a calling in the Church held by a different priesthood office.
JLHPROF Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 I think that is probably true but we are not receiving the deep doctrinal revelation that Joseph and Brigham were trying to bring to this people. Much like Moses who came off his forty day sojourn conversing with and getting revelation from God only to find his people unready for it and had to go back and get something they would abide. Of course we're not getting deep doctrinal revelations anymore. We've gone back and now disavow or downright badmouth many of the "deeper" revelations Joseph and Brigham revealed. Why on earth would we merit more deep revelation when we've rejected most of the deeper revelation we've already been given.We are ungrateful children who need to embrace what we've already been given before we will EVER get more. 1
ERayR Posted August 31, 2014 Author Posted August 31, 2014 It's fully functional, and doesn't prevent people from searching outside it. I didn't say it did. I did not even think that.
ERayR Posted September 1, 2014 Author Posted September 1, 2014 (edited) Although I disagree I don't teach beyond the curriculum - whatever that really means as there is scope to teach according to the class's needs. Also I don't believe in deliberately making classes controvertible, that should not be the point of Sunday school. However you have illustrated the tension between revelation and being dogmatic. At what point do you teach something according to revelation knowing that it maybe borderline curriculum or borderline controvertible yet also knowing it will be beneficial to your class. Again this comes down to personal revelation. It is a cycle that requires balance when teaching.Furthermore you can also teach or mention something rather benign and still butt up against people tradition, dogmatism, and knowledge level and get them in a twist without realising it. Like you did with the idea I teach outside the curriculum Just teach the truth that is presently revealed for general consumption. You will find some who are not even ready for that. Just bee gentle with them. At least as gentle as they will let you be. Edited September 1, 2014 by ERayR
ERayR Posted September 1, 2014 Author Posted September 1, 2014 Of course we're not getting deep doctrinal revelations anymore. We've gone back and now disavow or downright badmouth many of the "deeper" revelations Joseph and Brigham revealed. Why on earth would we merit more deep revelation when we've rejected most of the deeper revelation we've already been given.We are ungrateful children who need to embrace what we've already been given before we will EVER get more. Which is what my OP said. 1
Paddy Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 Just teach the truth that is presently revealed for general consumption. You will find some who are not even ready for that. Just bee gentle with them. At least as gentle as they will let you be.Agreed
Tsuzuki Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 I didn't say it did. I did not even think that.And that's all it needs.
Senator Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 We've gone back and now disavow or downright badmouth many of the "deeper" revelations Joseph and Brigham revealed. . Who's the "we", kemosabe?
JLHPROF Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 Who's the "we", kemosabe? The Church as a generalized whole. Members on this board frequently dismiss or disavow deeper doctrines revealed by Joseph and Brigham.
Recommended Posts