Question Of Why There Doesn't Seem To Be Any New Revelation

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I think that the church has been giving revelations to its members. For example, the chasity issue is a revelation. Those who listened to it were certainly less likely to get herpes and Hiv, especially the gay members in the 70s. Also, we have had revelation about porn years ago. That was right on the money as we now know that it is very damaging to a person's sex life and very addictive. We had countless talks about food storage too. But less so now. In other words, the revelations have not been vast and deep but they are there for all to read and follow. And we also have had the proclamation on the family. That sees right on the money too.

 

Seek and ye shall find.

Don't sleep around and don't look at porn were revelations? I swear I have seen warnings against those someplace else... Oh yeah...

The Scriptures.

[Guest]

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.

Revelation comes when it is needed...surly we all believed that one day the Church would have all it needs to function. It says a lot when we have Prophets who don't feel the need to fix something that is not broke, just so others will believe they are Prophets.

[JLHPROF]

Revelation comes when it is needed...surly we all believed that one day the Church would have all it needs to function. It says a lot when we have Prophets who don't feel the need to fix something that is not broke, just so others will believe they are Prophets.

 

Of course.  But we can't expect God to EVER give us further revelation when we disregard so much he has already given because WE don't think it passes muster.  If God saw fit to give it or teach it through his prophets who are we to decide it doesn't fit.

[mormonnewb]

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.

 

It seems to me that if the "stiff-neckedness" of the people prevented HF from sending prophets, the OT would be a very short read.  Weren't almost ALL of the OT prophets preaching in societies where "everyone did what was right in his own eyes"?  As I see it, if HF could send Jonah onto the bloodthirsty people of Nineveh, He could certainly send a prophet to speak to citizens of Sandy, Utah who shop on Sundays.

 

PERHAPS, the problem is that our system of linear succession prevents us from recognizing the prophets that HF is sending to us.  In the OT, HF most often raised His prophets from outside the leadership ranks of the established church.  When He chose a deliverer to bring the people out of Egypt, He chose Moses -- a relative outsider amongst the people.

 

The same is true when He chose John the Baptist to herald the coming of the Savior.  Rather than choose an established leader in the community, such as say Nicodemus, He chose a bug-eating desert dweller.  In our modern Church, that would be like HF choosing, say, Rock Waterman to announce the second coming, instead of say, Elder Bednar.  Or it would be like, say, HF choosing Kate Kelly to give the prophetic utterance that it's time to ordain women, instead of, say, Elder Ballard (hypothetically speaking, of course).

 

Even after the Christ established His church on earth, He drew from outside of the membership to select arguably the greatest apostle, Paul.  And let's be clear.  Paul wasn't just some member plucked from obscurity, but rather he was an enemy of the Church.  This would be like if Ed Decker or Sandra Tanner received a testimony of the Restoration and were shortly thereafter made Apostles.  It's inconceivable in our current paradigm, but it seems to have been HF's modus operandi throughout the ages.

 

Is it possible that this is the reason that we aren't receiving continuing revelation?  We are not listening to the "voices in the wilderness."

[ERayR]

But I don't think that the church has. The revelations that they received were good for the members at that time. I think that the problem comes from revelation or opinion. If it is not in the canon it is not a revelation. But that claim can work only so far as it is allowed. However, the church is still a revelatory church and if members would follow the guidence given by the GAs they would not go wrong. And that advice covers how to dress, behave, do business, care for the family etc. It is quite comprehensive.

 

Over used.  Every time someone doesn't agree they say "well that is just his opinion".  It is said about BY, it is said about McConkie, and I have heard it used in relation to the brethren today.  Instead of abiding hard doctrine it is dismissed with "well that is just his opinion".

 

Pablum, all of which should be obvious from reading their scriptures and half the membership don't even follow that.  How is God going to (as Joseph Smith would say reveal the economies of heaven.

[ERayR]

It seems to me that if the "stiff-neckedness" of the people prevented HF from sending prophets, the OT would be a very short read.  Weren't almost ALL of the OT prophets preaching in societies where "everyone did what was right in his own eyes"?  As I see it, if HF could send Jonah onto the bloodthirsty people of Nineveh, He could certainly send a prophet to speak to citizens of Sandy, Utah who shop on Sundays.

 

PERHAPS, the problem is that our system of linear succession prevents us from recognizing the prophets that HF is sending to us.  In the OT, HF most often raised His prophets from outside the leadership ranks of the established church.  When He chose a deliverer to bring the people out of Egypt, He chose Moses -- a relative outsider amongst the people.

 

The same is true when He chose John the Baptist to herald the coming of the Savior.  Rather than choose an established leader in the community, such as say Nicodemus, He chose a bug-eating desert dweller.  In our modern Church, that would be like HF choosing, say, Rock Waterman to announce the second coming, instead of say, Elder Bednar.  Or it would be like, say, HF choosing Kate Kelly to give the prophetic utterance that it's time to ordain women, instead of, say, Elder Ballard (hypothetically speaking, of course).

 

Even after the Christ established His church on earth, He drew from outside of the membership to select arguably the greatest apostle, Paul.  And let's be clear.  Paul wasn't just some member plucked from obscurity, but rather he was an enemy of the Church.  This would be like if Ed Decker or Sandra Tanner received a testimony of the Restoration and were shortly thereafter made Apostles.  It's inconceivable in our current paradigm, but it seems to have been HF's modus operandi throughout the ages.

 

Is it possible that this is the reason that we aren't receiving continuing revelation?  We are not listening to the "voices in the wilderness."

 

Yet when Moses came out of Egypt with the Children of Israel God ended up giving them much less than he originally sent down the mountain with Moses because of their inability to receive it.  Could it be that much of modern Israel follows ancient Israel?  That while being generally acceptable there is yet to come a great sifting?

[Coreyb]

It seems to me that if the "stiff-neckedness" of the people prevented HF from sending prophets, the OT would be a very short read.  Weren't almost ALL of the OT prophets preaching in societies where "everyone did what was right in his own eyes"?  As I see it, if HF could send Jonah onto the bloodthirsty people of Nineveh, He could certainly send a prophet to speak to citizens of Sandy, Utah who shop on Sundays.

 

PERHAPS, the problem is that our system of linear succession prevents us from recognizing the prophets that HF is sending to us.  In the OT, HF most often raised His prophets from outside the leadership ranks of the established church.  When He chose a deliverer to bring the people out of Egypt, He chose Moses -- a relative outsider amongst the people.

 

The same is true when He chose John the Baptist to herald the coming of the Savior.  Rather than choose an established leader in the community, such as say Nicodemus, He chose a bug-eating desert dweller.  In our modern Church, that would be like HF choosing, say, Rock Waterman to announce the second coming, instead of say, Elder Bednar.  Or it would be like, say, HF choosing Kate Kelly to give the prophetic utterance that it's time to ordain women, instead of, say, Elder Ballard (hypothetically speaking, of course).

 

Even after the Christ established His church on earth, He drew from outside of the membership to select arguably the greatest apostle, Paul.  And let's be clear.  Paul wasn't just some member plucked from obscurity, but rather he was an enemy of the Church.  This would be like if Ed Decker or Sandra Tanner received a testimony of the Restoration and were shortly thereafter made Apostles.  It's inconceivable in our current paradigm, but it seems to have been HF's modus operandi throughout the ages.

 

Is it possible that this is the reason that we aren't receiving continuing revelation?  We are not listening to the "voices in the wilderness."

It would be more like Cliven Bundy announcing the second coming and Katherine Heigel announcing female ordination

[ERayR]

It seems to me that if the "stiff-neckedness" of the people prevented HF from sending prophets, the OT would be a very short read.  Weren't almost ALL of the OT prophets preaching in societies where "everyone did what was right in his own eyes"?  As I see it, if HF could send Jonah onto the bloodthirsty people of Nineveh, He could certainly send a prophet to speak to citizens of Sandy, Utah who shop on Sundays.

 

We are getting revelation of that sort.  We do have a prophet at our head.  As a church we are getting more revelation than ever.  We also still have, in increasing numbers is the "that is his opinion" members.  When the members won't accept it it aint going to happen.

 

PERHAPS, the problem is that our system of linear succession prevents us from recognizing the prophets that HF is sending to us.  In the OT, HF most often raised His prophets from outside the leadership ranks of the established church.  When He chose a deliverer to bring the people out of Egypt, He chose Moses -- a relative outsider amongst the people.

 

The same is true when He chose John the Baptist to herald the coming of the Savior.  Rather than choose an established leader in the community, such as say Nicodemus, He chose a bug-eating desert dweller.  In our modern Church, that would be like HF choosing, say, Rock Waterman to announce the second coming, instead of say, Elder Bednar.  Or it would be like, say, HF choosing Kate Kelly to give the prophetic utterance that it's time to ordain women, instead of, say, Elder Ballard (hypothetically speaking, of course).

 

Even after the Christ established His church on earth, He drew from outside of the membership to select arguably the greatest apostle, Paul.  And let's be clear.  Paul wasn't just some member plucked from obscurity, but rather he was an enemy of the Church.  This would be like if Ed Decker or Sandra Tanner received a testimony of the Restoration and were shortly thereafter made Apostles.  It's inconceivable in our current paradigm, but it seems to have been HF's modus operandi throughout the ages.

 

The prophets are still called out of obscurity.  A doctor, a lawyer, a college professor from Rexburg Idaho.  That is not the problem.

 

Is it possible that this is the reason that we aren't receiving continuing revelation?  We are not listening to the "voices in the wilderness."

 

No. We are getting continuing revelation.  Members are not accepting it.  It is very reminiscent of Moses' problem.  He is delivering the revelations but the congregation is not listening.

Edited September 2, 2014 by ERayR

[mormonnewb]

It seems to me that if the "stiff-neckedness" of the people prevented HF from sending prophets, the OT would be a very short read. Weren't almost ALL of the OT prophets preaching in societies where "everyone did what was right in his own eyes"? As I see it, if HF could send Jonah onto the bloodthirsty people of Nineveh, He could certainly send a prophet to speak to citizens of Sandy, Utah who shop on Sundays.

We are getting revelation of that sort. We do have a prophet at our head. As a church we are getting more revelation than ever. We also still have, in increasing numbers is the "that is his opinion" members. When the members won't accept it it aint going to happen.

PERHAPS, the problem is that our system of linear succession prevents us from recognizing the prophets that HF is sending to us. In the OT, HF most often raised His prophets from outside the leadership ranks of the established church. When He chose a deliverer to bring the people out of Egypt, He chose Moses -- a relative outsider amongst the people.

The same is true when He chose John the Baptist to herald the coming of the Savior. Rather than choose an established leader in the community, such as say Nicodemus, He chose a bug-eating desert dweller. In our modern Church, that would be like HF choosing, say, Rock Waterman to announce the second coming, instead of say, Elder Bednar. Or it would be like, say, HF choosing Kate Kelly to give the prophetic utterance that it's time to ordain women, instead of, say, Elder Ballard (hypothetically speaking, of course).

Even after the Christ established His church on earth, He drew from outside of the membership to select arguably the greatest apostle, Paul. And let's be clear. Paul wasn't just some member plucked from obscurity, but rather he was an enemy of the Church. This would be like if Ed Decker or Sandra Tanner received a testimony of the Restoration and were shortly thereafter made Apostles. It's inconceivable in our current paradigm, but it seems to have been HF's modus operandi throughout the ages.

The prophets are still called out of obscurity. A doctor, a lawyer, a college professor from Rexburg Idaho. That is not the problem.

Is it possible that this is the reason that we aren't receiving continuing revelation? We are not listening to the "voices in the wilderness."

No. We are getting continuing revelation. Members are not accepting it. It is very reminiscent of Moses' problem. He is delivering the revelations but the congregation is not listening.

As I see it, men who serve the Church for 3-4 DECADES in increasing roles of responsibility are NOT being called out of obscurity. The person who goes from bishop to SP to Mission President to AA to GA is not someone who came "clear out of left field." They have been groomed in much the way that any secular leader is groomed.

By the way, this is a proven leadership development track and produces quality leadership: A 40-yr track record makes it extremely unlikely that a leader will raid the Church's cash account and run off to Tahiti with his assistant.

And as you know, this is a fairly common occurrence in more "charismatic" churches, where a preacher might very well rise from obscurity. One day, he is assistant pastor in a 30-person storefront church and three years later, he has attracted 10,000 members to his megachurch. And two years after that, he's serving 7-10 in Club Fed for embezzlement.

Fortunately, our "apostle track" makes that unlikely. However, it MAY also make it unlikely that we will receive any earth-shattering revelations because HF sometimes seems to give his hardest assignments to "rookies."

[Senator]

No. We are getting continuing revelation.  Members are not accepting it.  It is very reminiscent of Moses' problem.  He is delivering the revelations but the congregation is not listening.

 

Well, since we're speaking in broad brush opinions...

 

I'll simply say I disagree.

 

But then again maybe you're right.  No one must have been listening, because the youth (and their parents) simply ignored Pres. Monson's revelatory change to the missionary age coupled with the charge to hasten the work.

Edited September 2, 2014 by Senator

[why me]

Don't sleep around and don't look at porn were revelations? I swear I have seen warnings against those someplace else... Oh yeah...

The Scriptures.

The scriptures mentioned porn? By the way, since many people are now looking at porn because it is readily available online and because people are sleeping around a lot these days, I think that the warnings that the lds were given before the increase of porn access and immoral behavior was right on the money. Revelation is received to warn and advise on how to do life. I think that the church was right to stress the chasity issue in the seventies and the porn issue back then too. And it was correct to continue that advice when many forsook it in our relativist societies. We now know the harmful effects of porn usage on young people who view it regulary and on marriages.

Edited September 2, 2014 by why me

[Paddy]

...Pres. Monson's revelatory change to the missionary age coupled with the charge to hasten the work.

There is an irony in this statement in that when pres. Monson announced the change he simply stated it was a policy change to bring into conformity some practices that they were doing in Europe for some time. One could argue that the change to the age of sisters serving could have been revelatory, but again this is not how it was presented by the first presidency. It is the members that seem to suggest revelation where there isn't. I think there is some danger in that. We set the expectation of revelation either too high or in some cases too low and when our leaders speak it is the members that get confused about what is and what isn't revelation.

We need to listen to our leaders without putting words and revelation into their mouths when there is none.

[Paddy]

I will make a small qualification to what I stated above. It appears that Pres Monson did seek inspiration in the change to the age. But clearly did not announce that it came by revelation. Others suggest it. Which goes back to my original point about setting expectations for revelation.

[cinepro]

I think this quote from Teryl Givens is apropo:

 

I think there's no question, just as the gifts faded in the primitive Church, so there seems to be a diminishment of the spiritual manifestations and gifts in the restored Church. To some extent, that's a function of any church that becomes institutionalized...normatized over time. And to some extent that was a deliberate strategy on the part of Church leaders who wanted to de-emphasize spiritual gifts.

I think it's a natural process, I think Mormons have accommodated themselves in some ways by changing the lexicon of scriptural resources that they use to identify or define the nature of spiritual experience. For example, instead of focusing on those BoM episodes where we have angelic visitations or interaction with angelic beings, we emphasize those verses that originally were given to Joseph Smith to describe the translation process, that have to do with feelings and impressions and stupors of thought.

And that has become the template, if you will, for revelation. So that's one way Mormons have accommodated themselves to a less charismatic church.

 

http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2010/07/fair-podcast-episode-2-terryl-l-givens.html

 

(15:18)

 

I don't know if it was intentional or not, but Church leaders and members have drastically lowered our expectations over the years when it comes to spiritual gifts, including "revelation".  It might have been inevitable, but it's also kind of sad.

[stemelbow]

I've wondered if the reason the Church doesn't receive revelation anymore is because we simply have closed our minds to it, much like every other generation has done. Instead of realizing there is a ton of truth out there that we ought to embrace, we tend to close our eyes and shut our ears, thinking we already know because we're specially anointed to be the only place from whence truth can spring. I'm not trying to put this on members, or blame the membership as someone said it. This is from the top down, perhaps.

My SP pretty much told us all that a little over a week ago in Stake Conference. Says he, we need to stop trying to figure things out. Truth comes to us from one source and that is through the prophets down to us. Don't confuse yourself with facts, get in line and on board, thinking for yourself will surely lead you to apostasy. He followed that up by saying he's been exposed to every possible question/issue problem out there and he knows none of them pose any problem at all, so we shouldn't be bothered either.

Nah..he's backwards, but his pharisaic, rigid, hyper-conservative perspective receives grand applause in my neck of the woods.

[Jeanne]

Let me try this again.  In my opinion only..I believe that Prophets, Seers and Revelators should have a special connection and discernment of what is revelation/prophecy than just repetitive things over and over. 

 

When 9-11 happened, the best we got from the pulpit was "No second pierced ears"...

 

I see more cultural reasons for some changes rather than actual prophecy.

 

Regards,

Jeanne

[ERayR]

I've wondered if the reason the Church doesn't receive revelation anymore is because we simply have closed our minds to it, much like every other generation has done. Instead of realizing there is a ton of truth out there that we ought to embrace, we tend to close our eyes and shut our ears, thinking we already know because we're specially anointed to be the only place from whence truth can spring. I'm not trying to put this on members, or blame the membership as someone said it. This is from the top down, perhaps.

My SP pretty much told us all that a little over a week ago in Stake Conference. Says he, we need to stop trying to figure things out. Truth comes to us from one source and that is through the prophets down to us. Don't confuse yourself with facts, get in line and on board, thinking for yourself will surely lead you to apostasy. He followed that up by saying he's been exposed to every possible question/issue problem out there and he knows none of them pose any problem at all, so we shouldn't be bothered either.

Nah..he's backwards, but his pharisaic, rigid, hyper-conservative perspective receives grand applause in my neck of the woods.

 

I think there is still a lot of revelation in the Church today, just not the Joseph Smith, Brigham Young expounding doctrine kind.  I do the personal revelation kind is alive and well and perhaps that is the way it should be thus putting us personally responsible for our understanding and growth.

 

I think your SP does not know or understand the scriptures. 

[ERayR]

Which Church are you talking about?  From what I can tell, LDS are anxious for "more revelation", and many do whatever they can to receive any bit of guidance and inspiration from our leaders that they can. 

I

 

I agree they are unless it conflicts with what they think it should and then it is just personal opinion.

[stemelbow]

I think this quote from Teryl Givens is apropo:

 

 

 

 

I don't know if it was intentional or not, but Church leaders and members have drastically lowered our expectations over the years when it comes to spiritual gifts, including "revelation".  It might have been inevitable, but it's also kind of sad.

I guess sad, but it could also mean we're heading in a direction God doesn't want us going.

[ERayR]

As I see it, men who serve the Church for 3-4 DECADES in increasing roles of responsibility are NOT being called out of obscurity. The person who goes from bishop to SP to Mission President to AA to GA is not someone who came "clear out of left field." They have been groomed in much the way that any secular leader is groomed.

 

You mean kind of like Samuel who was brought by his mother when but a child to serve Eli in the Lords service.  No grooming there.

[Paddy]

Let me try this again. In my opinion only..I believe that Prophets, Seers and Revelators should have a special connection and discernment of what is revelation/prophecy than just repetitive things over and over.

When 9-11 happened, the best we got from the pulpit was "No second pierced ears"...

I see more cultural reasons for some changes rather than actual prophecy.

Regards,

Jeanne

Cultural bias in talks and instructions given by our leaders I think is very discernable particularly from outside the US. Talks on SSM and modesty are kind of peculiar, but are probably not so in the US. I wish that our leaders would talk on how to deal with more broader and more important social, moral and spiritual issues affecting saints throughout the world. But in my wish am setting an expectation for revelation and guidance from god through our leaders that he is not ready to give? Maybe SSM and two earring are something we need to be concerned about.

[ERayR]

I think this quote from Teryl Givens is apropo:

 

 

 

 

I don't know if it was intentional or not, but Church leaders and members have drastically lowered our expectations over the years when it comes to spiritual gifts, including "revelation".  It might have been inevitable, but it's also kind of sad.

 

This thread was prompted by some of my pondering along what you have posted.  My pondering was prompted by what I perceive as a cavalier dismissal of statements  with which some disagree and do not understand as merely the  personal opinion of the prophet who uttered it.  That coupled with the withdrawn of some doctrinal teachings that have been dropped because of members opposition.

 

Maybe I have over analyzed.

[teddyaware]

I think this quote from Teryl Givens is apropo:

 

 

 

 

I don't know if it was intentional or not, but Church leaders and members have drastically lowered our expectations over the years when it comes to spiritual gifts, including "revelation".  It might have been inevitable, but it's also kind of sad.

By speaking in this way, brother Givens seems to be admitting his Church experience has been devoid of extraordinary manifestations of the Spirit and miracles.

First of all, speaking only for myself, I will testify to the fact that I have had several miraculous manifestations of the Spirit occur in my lifetime, experiences easily the equal to many of the miraculous spiritual manifestations of the Church's supposedly eclipsed past.

While teaching a Gospel Doctrine class about ten years ago, we were discussing the gifts of the Spirit, and as a personal testimony that the day of miracles has not come to an end I departed from my long-held reticence and testified about one of these miraculous events. It did not go over well with some of those present and was I later reprimanded by a ward leader. Upon painful reflection, I soon came to realize the ward leader was correct to set me straight and I've kept my mouth shut about such things ever since.

I'm quite certain my experiences are not unique in the Church, and that there are many other members who have experienced greater manifestations of the Spirit than I have. But we who are of this group know in our hearts it's wise and right to keep these manifestations to ourselves, because revealing remarkable manifestations of the Spirit to those who are unprepared will, for the most part, only prove to be counterproductive and destructive of faith in the end. The day may soon come when this dynamic will change, and the miracles of God will be more freely spoken of in the Church, but for now I believe it's best to allow each member to grow spiritually at their own pace, without causing them to incorrectly feel they are not worthy of the Lord's blessings.

Though I'm surely no more righteous and worthy than most of the other active LDS participants on this board, the one ingredient that has made a difference when it comes to the extraordinary manifestations of the Spirit I've been able to enjoy is that I know, nothing doubting, that God lives, Jesus is the Christ, Joseph Smith is a Prophet, the Book of Mormon is true, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true, and that miracles wrought of God really have happened, can happen, and do still happen. It is this steadfast faith, I believe, that has made all the difference. Miracles do not cease because of some unavoidable natural process, they cease because of unbelief...

13 But wickedness did prevail upon the face of the whole land, insomuch that the Lord did take away his beloved disciples, and the work of miracles and of healing did cease because of the iniquity of the people.

14 And there were no gifts from the Lord, and the Holy Ghost did not come upon any, because of their wickedness and unbelief. (Mormon 1)

and,

24 And now I speak unto all the ends of the earth—that if the day cometh that the power and gifts of God shall be done away among you, it shall be because of unbelief.

25 And wo be unto the children of men if this be the case; for there shall be none that doeth good among you, no not one. For if there be one among you that doeth good, he shall work by the power and gifts of God. (Moroni 10)

Edited September 2, 2014 by teddyaware

[mormonnewb]

By speaking in this way, brother Givens seems to be admitting his Church experience has been devoid of extraordinary manifestations of the Spirit and miracles.

First of all, speaking only for myself, I will testify to the fact that I have had several miraculous manifestations of the Spirit occur in my lifetime, experiences easily the equal to many of the miraculous spiritual manifestations of the Church's supposedly eclipsed past.

While teaching a Gospel Doctrine class about ten years ago, we were discussing the gifts of the Spirit, and as a personal testimony that the day of miracles has not come to an end I departed from my long-held reticence and testified about one of these miraculous events. It did not go over well with some of those present and was I later reprimanded by a ward leader. Upon painful reflection, I soon came to realize the ward leader was correct to set me straight and I've kept my mouth shut about such things ever since.

I'm quite certain my experiences are not unique in the Church, and that there are many other members who have experienced greater manifestations of the Spirit than I have. But we who are of this group know in our hearts it's wise and right to keep these manifestations to ourselves, because revealing remarkable manifestations of the Spirit to those who are unprepared will, for the most part, only prove to be counterproductive and destructive of faith in the end. The day may soon come when this dynamic will change, and the miracles of God will be more freely spoken of in the Church, but for now I believe it's best to allow each member to grow spiritually at their own pace, without causing them to incorrectly feel they are not worthy of the Lord's blessings.

Though I'm surely no more righteous and worthy than most of the other active LDS participants on this board, the one ingredient that has made a difference when it comes to the extraordinary manifestations of the Spirit I've been able to enjoy is that I know, nothing doubting, that God lives, Jesus is the Christ, Joseph Smith is a Prophet, the Book of Mormon is true, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true, and that miracles wrought of God really have happened, can happen, and do still happen. It is this steadfast faith, I believe, that has made all the difference. Miracles do not cease because of some unavoidable natural process, they cease because of unbelief...

13 But wickedness did prevail upon the face of the whole land, insomuch that the Lord did take away his beloved disciples, and the work of miracles and of healing did cease because of the iniquity of the people.

14 And there were no gifts from the Lord, and the Holy Ghost did not come upon any, because of their wickedness and unbelief. (Mormon 1)

and,

24 And now I speak unto all the ends of the earth—that if the day cometh that the power and gifts of God shall be done away among you, it shall be because of unbelief.

25 And wo be unto the children of men if this be the case; for there shall be none that doeth good among you, no not one. For if there be one among you that doeth good, he shall work by the power and gifts of God. (Moroni 10)

I'm so very grateful that JS didn't have your ward leader. We would not have the Book of Mormon ("Keep that to yourself, Joseph! HF left those plates for you alone!). We would have never learned of the First Vision, the Restoration of the. Priesthood, etc.

I'm not saying that HF doesn't sometimes give us revelation that is meant just for us. However, what gives your ward leader the temerity to tell YOU if you should share revelation given to YOU by HF? If HF didn't want you to share it, wouldn't He tell YOU so. And better yet, perhaps He wouldn't give it to you while you were in the middle of instructing others.

Perhaps, this is what stops the revelation from flowing -- someone is at the ready to shut it down at every turn.

Edited September 2, 2014 by mormonnewb

[VideoGameJunkie]

Wasn't the blacks being allowed the priesthood modern day revelation? And Thomas S Monson changing the ages that boys and girls can begin their missions. I'm sure others will come in time.