Does God Speak Directly?

[JLHPROF]

In light of another thread conversation claiming that new revelation can contradict prior revelation because of our limited understanding I am curious what people here think about some revelations.

 

I had a similar discussion with someone else a while back who didn't believe that God actually spoke to man, but rather that we interpret our spiritual prompting, and so were correctable.

If this is the case further light could correct a previous misinterpretation.  (AoF 9)

If it actually is the word of God then any further light revelations could not contradict because God does not change (D&C 3:2)

 

Some sample scriptures that read:

D&C 1:24 - Behold, I am God and have spoken it;

D&C 6:2 - Behold, I am God; give heed unto my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow; therefore give heed unto my words.

D&C 10:70 - And now, remember the words of him who is the life and light of the world, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Amen.

D&C 58:11-12 - And after that cometh the day of my power; then shall the poor, the lame, and the blind, and the deaf, come in unto the marriage of the Lamb, and partake of the supper of the Lord, prepared for the great day to come.  Behold, I, the Lord, have spoken it.

D&C 93:1 - Verily, thus saith the Lord: It shall come to pass that every soul who forsaketh his sins and cometh unto me, and calleth on my name, and obeyeth my voice, and keepeth my commandments, shall see my face and know that I am;

D&C 132:2  -Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter.

 

So, what do people think?  When a revelation says that God is speaking, does that actually mean verbatim?  Are these revelations actual words of God or the prophet's inspired interpretations of the spirit promptings?  Does God actually speak to man in unchangeable eternal words?

[Glenn101]

I believe that God does speak verbally and directly at times. The Doctrine and Covenants has many direct quotes from God, the Son. The Bible also has what purports to be direct quotes from God.

We do know that "the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. " (Exodus 33:11)

And on the day that Jesus was baptized, God evidently spoke directly to a gathering of people there at the event.

 

 

Glenn

[CV75]

So, what do people think?  When a revelation says that God is speaking, does that actually mean verbatim?  Are these revelations actual words of God or the prophet's inspired interpretations of the spirit promptings?  Does God actually speak to man in unchangeable eternal words?

Any mortal can ignore, misinterpret or misattribute, but not always and not always problematically so. The receipt of information is only part of the equation; processing it and acting on it contribute to salvation as well.

 

I think the answer to your questions is, “Sometimes yes; sometimes no; depends.” The third question might need further definition, but if “word” means “message of promise (or assurance) of truth”, then that offers more flexibility.

 

Oddly enough, not all words are to be taken literally.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

So, what do people think?  When a revelation says that God is speaking, does that actually mean verbatim?

Rarely, if ever, is God's finger or voicedictating the exact words of a revelation. We believe in the church that we are all entitled to personal revelation. When we receive that, do we feel like we have exact, precise words, or is it more of a feeling or direction we then work through as we try to understand what is being communicated. Consider your process in writing a talk for Sacrament Meeting. Is it God's direct words? There may be rare occassion where we feel that we do have a direct word, but usually it is not the case.

 

D&C 1

 24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

 25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

 

Joseph Smith often invokes divine investiture of authority in his revelations. In many ways I view this as a literary device to make his point. But by looking at the rest of D&C 1 we can see that errors will be made. If there were no errors there would never be need of correction or editing.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

In light of another thread conversation claiming that new revelation can contradict prior revelation because of our limited understanding I am curious what people here think about some revelations.

 

I had a similar discussion with someone else a while back who didn't believe that God actually spoke to man, but rather that we interpret our spiritual prompting, and so were correctable.

If this is the case further light could correct a previous misinterpretation.  (AoF 9)

If it actually is the word of God then any further light revelations could not contradict because God does not change (D&C 3:2)

 

Some sample scriptures that read:

D&C 1:24 - Behold, I am God and have spoken it;

D&C 6:2 - Behold, I am God; give heed unto my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow; therefore give heed unto my words.

D&C 10:70 - And now, remember the words of him who is the life and light of the world, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Amen.

D&C 58:11-12 - And after that cometh the day of my power; then shall the poor, the lame, and the blind, and the deaf, come in unto the marriage of the Lamb, and partake of the supper of the Lord, prepared for the great day to come.  Behold, I, the Lord, have spoken it.

D&C 93:1 - Verily, thus saith the Lord: It shall come to pass that every soul who forsaketh his sins and cometh unto me, and calleth on my name, and obeyeth my voice, and keepeth my commandments, shall see my face and know that I am;

D&C 132:2  -Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter.

 

So, what do people think?  When a revelation says that God is speaking, does that actually mean verbatim?  Are these revelations actual words of God or the prophet's inspired interpretations of the spirit promptings?  Does God actually speak to man in unchangeable eternal words?

 

If Joseph was just writing down revelations dictated by God, why did he have to go back and change so many of them?

[Boanerges]

Which God are you talking about?

 

God the Father - almost never and then not much more than "This is my beloved Son, hear Him."

Jesus Christ - sometimes, apparently not in quite some time but individuals may have heard him and not shared it (or in the case of Denver Snuffer, did share - if you believe he's not deluded)

Holy Ghost - all the time if speaking includes feelings, thoughts, impressions, etc., and sometimes with an actual voice (apparently).

 

If you mean God collectively, then yes. We can all receive revelation.

[CA Steve]

Wouldn't some, if not all, of Joseph's sacred translations be consider examples of God speaking (or writing if you prefer) directly?  For example, it is pretty clear that Joseph could not speak Egyptian, wouldn't the Book of Abraham have to be such an example if those are the actual words of Abraham? Even more so the Book of Moses, since there was no original text.

Edited September 30, 2014 by CA Steve

[JLHPROF]

If Joseph was just writing down revelations dictated by God, why did he have to go back and change so many of them?

 

Now this IS the big question?  When a revelation says it is God speaking and then gets edited, does that mean it wasn't actually God speaking, or that it was recorded imperfectly?

 

 

Wouldn't some, if not all, of Joseph's sacred translations be consider examples of God speaking (or writing if you prefer) directly?  For example, it is pretty clear that Joseph could not speak Egyptian, wouldn't the Book of Abraham have to be such an example if those are the actual words of Abraham? Even more so the Book of Moses, since there was no original text.

 

Also, the wording of the endowment - either was dictated to Joseph directly or he improvised a lot of it.  Which is scary when you consider that the ordinances are supposed to be the same since "before the foundations of the earth".

[HappyJackWagon]

Now this IS the big question?  When a revelation says it is God speaking and then gets edited, does that mean it wasn't actually God speaking, or that it was recorded imperfectly?

 

 

 

Also, the wording of the endowment - either was dictated to Joseph directly or he improvised a lot of it.  Which is scary when you consider that the ordinances are supposed to be the same since "before the foundations of the earth".

Yes, editing God's direct words would be a problem.

Does it seem strange to anyone that the temple ordinances are so precise and perfect. The ordinance must be done exactly the way it is written or it must be repeated. So on one hand we would have God being very precise but then on the other, when it comes to knowing about the celestial kingdom, eternal progression, how eternal families function etc, there is virtually nothing written.

 

But we can view scripture as inspired without having to believe it is directly God's word. Why? Because anything that passes through human hands, mind, mouth will be corrupted in some way. We must find a way to be comfortable with fallibility of prophets and therefore scripture.

[will227457]

Our interpretation of the scriptures leads us to believe that he does talk to us.....I have never heard a voice or seen a vision.

[JLHPROF]

Yes, editing God's direct words would be a problem.

Does it seem strange to anyone that the temple ordinances are so precise and perfect. The ordinance must be done exactly the way it is written or it must be repeated. So on one hand we would have God being very precise but then on the other, when it comes to knowing about the celestial kingdom, eternal progression, how eternal families function etc, there is virtually nothing written.

 

But we can view scripture as inspired without having to believe it is directly God's word. Why? Because anything that passes through human hands, mind, mouth will be corrupted in some way. We must find a way to be comfortable with fallibility of prophets and therefore scripture.

 

Personally, I still like to believe that when something claims to be the word of God, that that word often has come verbatim from the lips of either our Savior or Heavenly Father.  And those items that actually came verbatim should not be altered and cannot be contradicted or changed.

[HappyJackWagon]

Personally, I still like to believe that when something claims to be the word of God, that that word often has come verbatim from the lips of either our Savior or Heavenly Father.  And those items that actually came verbatim should not be altered and cannot be contradicted or changed.

And how do you know if it came verbatim or not?

 

Many things claim to be the word of God. The Quran for example. Literal words from the mouth fo God?

Temple ordinances? Seriously. I'm curious what revelations are verbatim from the mouth of God and which aren't and how you know.

[JLHPROF]

And how do you know if it came verbatim or not?

 

Many things claim to be the word of God. The Quran for example. Literal words from the mouth fo God?

Temple ordinances? Seriously. I'm curious what revelations are verbatim from the mouth of God and which aren't and how you know.

 

Faith, especially in the prophetic calling of the prophet to whom they were spoken.

When Joseph Smith says "God said  XYZ" I believe him.

When Joseph Smith interpreted God's word, I also believe him, although it seems to me more subject to change than the first.

 

As far as telling which revelations are verbatim from the mouth of God, well, I would like to believe that any that say "I the Lord God say unto you" or "Thus saith the Lord" or similar.  I don't believe such revelations are subject to contradiction and would not accept any "further light" that did contradict such a revelation.

But you are right, the only way to be sure is through prayer, faith, and a spiritual witness.

[HappyJackWagon]

Faith, especially in the prophetic calling of the prophet to whom they were spoken.

When Joseph Smith says "God said  XYZ" I believe him.

When Joseph Smith interpreted God's word, I also believe him, although it seems to me more subject to change than the first.

 

As far as telling which revelations are verbatim from the mouth of God, well, I would like to believe that any that say "I the Lord God say unto you" or "Thus saith the Lord" or similar.  I don't believe such revelations are subject to contradiction and would not accept any "further light" that did contradict such a revelation.

But you are right, the only way to be sure is through prayer, faith, and a spiritual witness.

Christ often spoke AS the Father via divine investiture of authority. Prophets do the same thing but it doesn't necessarily mean they are dictating the words directly. It means they are speaking with authority as their authorized servant. Again, it is a communication device. How do you handle the issue of divine investiture? Discount it or assume that any time it is used it is only because God is speaking directly through the individual as if they're a medium for God?

[JLHPROF]

Christ often spoke AS the Father via divine investiture of authority. Prophets do the same thing but it doesn't necessarily mean they are dictating the words directly. It means they are speaking with authority as their authorized servant. Again, it is a communication device. How do you handle the issue of divine investiture? Discount it or assume that any time it is used it is only because God is speaking directly through the individual as if they're a medium for God?

 

I don't believe in "divine investiture" (primarily I don't accept the Christ as Jehovah doctrine and the Christ as the Father doctrine is entirely misunderstood most of the time).

I prefer to assume it is God speaking directly, or in the case of most of Joseph's revelations, Christ speaking directly.

[HappyJackWagon]

I don't believe in "divine investiture" (primarily I don't accept the Christ as Jehovah doctrine and the Christ as the Father doctrine is entirely misunderstood most of the time).

I prefer to assume it is God speaking directly, or in the case of most of Joseph's revelations, Christ speaking directly.

Interesting. Though it may be your preference to view it that way, and you certainly have the right to believe it that way if you choose, rejecting revelations that say Christ is Jehovah doesn't really make your point about the infallibility of revelation.

[JLHPROF]

Interesting. Though it may be your preference to view it that way, and you certainly have the right to believe it that way if you choose, rejecting revelations that say Christ is Jehovah doesn't really make your point about the infallibility of revelation.

There has been no such revelation.  Christ was not known as Jehovah until AFTER his resurrection (D&C 110 for instance), despite the whole "I Am" theory.  Jehovah refers to a resurrected being, not a premortal spirit.

[HappyJackWagon]

There has been no such revelation.  Christ was not known as Jehovah until AFTER his resurrection (D&C 110 for instance), despite the whole "I Am" theory.  Jehovah refers to a resurrected being, not a premortal spirit.

But the revelation (D&C 110 that you referenced works fine) refers to Jehovah as Christ. My only point is that I don't understand how you can on one hand claim the revelations or prophets found in scriptures is the direct utterance of God while at the same time dismissing it as wrong. There's a disconnect for me there. Can you help me understand.