A Church Of Continuing Hunches?

[mormonnewb]

In another thread, someone pointed me to the following description of the process by which the Brethren received the revelation to remove the priesthood ban.

 

http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/sperry-symposium-classics-doctrine-and-covenants/23-official-declaration-2-revelation

 

To be clear, I am NOT asking about the propriety of the ban itself.  Whatever position you hold on that issue, I agree with you.  I really don't care about that issue because I am far more troubled by what I read about the process by which the Brethren received their revelation.

 

As I understand it, the Brethren gathered for their regular monthly meeting in June 1978.  One of the topics for discussion was lifting the priesthood ban, which they discussed for about two hours, concluding that they should lift the ban (contingent upon HF's confirming revelation).  They then went before the altar in fervent prayer, led by President Kimball himself, and received a spiritual witness that they should indeed lift the ban.  Here is how Elder McConkie described it:

 

"It was during this prayer that the revelation came. The Spirit of the Lord rested mightily upon us all; we felt something akin to what happened on the day of Pentecost and at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple. From the midst of eternity, the voice of God, conveyed by the power of the Spirit, spoke to his prophet. . . . And we all heard the same voice, received the same message, and became personal witnesses that the word received was the mind and will and voice of the Lord . . . On this occasion, because of the importuning and the faith, and because the hour and the time had arrived, the Lord in his providences poured out the Holy Ghost upon the First Presidency and the Twelve in a miraculous and marvelous manner, beyond anything that any then present had ever experienced.” [emphasis added]

 

This sounds just like the kind of continuing revelation that I would expect from the modern-day prophets.  Except that, according to Elder McConkie's own words, this was a one-of-a-kind experience (BEYOND ANYTHING THAT ANY THEN PRESENT HAD EVER EXPERIENCED).  So my question is how do the Brethren make the rest of their decisions if they don't ever actually hear the word of God?

 

Are they just winging it?  Or is it the case that they receive some lesser form of spiritual witness?  Perhaps, a burning in the bosom or just a general feeling of peace with their decision?  And no, I'm not trying to be flippant, but to actually understand how they make decisions in the absence of this once-in-a-lifetime experience that they had in 1978.

 

More importantly, I'm trying to understand why I should have such absolute confidence that they are acting in accordance with God's will when they don't seem to be that all-fire sure themselves.  After all, by this point, Elder McConkie must have gone to that altar, say, 200-300 times over the years.  Yet, not ONCE, had he EVER experienced a witness as firm and clear as the one they all received in June 1978.  By implication, this means that they must have received a LESS firm and clear witness in regards to HUNDREDS of decisions they put into place over the years.

 

Given that, are we to treat some prophetic pronouncements as more "firm" than others?  And, if so, which ones?  And no, I'm not being difficult for the sake of being difficult.  I'm really confused as to how I can have so much faith in "every word that proceedeth" from the mouth of the prophets if they are not always COMPLETELY clear about their own spiritual witnesses?

 

What am I missing here?

[Duncan]

I was born a few months later so I can't speak to this experience however I can say from personal experience that some spiritual experiences are more intense than others, it doesn't diminish the less intense ones but revelation is still revelation.

[The Nehor]

I have had two spectacular spiritual experiences in my life I would rate as the most important and most powerful. This does not mean that I have doubts about lesser experiences. I do not expect such experiences to keep biggerer and betterer and if they do not I must discount them.

[BCSpace]

So my question is how do the Brethren make the rest of their decisions if they don't ever actually hear the word of God?

 

 

How do you know they don't actually hear the word of God?

 

11 And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord. And, behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake:

12 And after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.

1 Kings 19

 

2 Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart.

D&C 8

 

6 Yea, thus saith the still small voice, which whispereth through and pierceth all things, and often times it maketh my bones to quake while it maketh manifest, saying:

D&C 85

 

Does it have to be a voice out of thin air or can the words come to our minds?  Do these words have to be complete Biblical sounding sentences with a KJV accent or can they be more like thoughts and visuals that come to us and make sense and are authoritative?

Edited October 2, 2014 by BCSpace

[Tarski]

 

What am I missing here?

 

That he was just embellishing to give pause to anyone who may have been inclined to doubt that the change was inspired.

 

 

 

I feel confident that the kind of experience they always have is no different that what any bishop or missionary experiences when they feel inspired.

In fact, since I am a critic of this kind of thing no one will be surprised when I say that I think the process is one of coming to a decision based on any number of considerations, practical or political, and then mustering a sense of confidence.  The sense of confidence is attributed to the spirit since that is how it is supposed to work in LDS theology.

Edited October 2, 2014 by Tarski

[Raingirl]

In another thread, someone pointed me to the following description of the process by which the Brethren received the revelation to remove the priesthood ban.

 

http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/sperry-symposium-classics-doctrine-and-covenants/23-official-declaration-2-revelation

 

To be clear, I am NOT asking about the propriety of the ban itself.  Whatever position you hold on that issue, I agree with you.  I really don't care about that issue because I am far more troubled by what I read about the process by which the Brethren received their revelation.

 

As I understand it, the Brethren gathered for their regular monthly meeting in June 1978.  One of the topics for discussion was lifting the priesthood ban, which they discussed for about two hours, concluding that they should lift the ban (contingent upon HF's confirming revelation).  They then went before the altar in fervent prayer, led by President Kimball himself, and received a spiritual witness that they should indeed lift the ban.  Here is how Elder McConkie described it:

 

"It was during this prayer that the revelation came. The Spirit of the Lord rested mightily upon us all; we felt something akin to what happened on the day of Pentecost and at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple. From the midst of eternity, the voice of God, conveyed by the power of the Spirit, spoke to his prophet. . . . And we all heard the same voice, received the same message, and became personal witnesses that the word received was the mind and will and voice of the Lord . . . On this occasion, because of the importuning and the faith, and because the hour and the time had arrived, the Lord in his providences poured out the Holy Ghost upon the First Presidency and the Twelve in a miraculous and marvelous manner, beyond anything that any then present had ever experienced.” [emphasis added]

 

This sounds just like the kind of continuing revelation that I would expect from the modern-day prophets.  Except that, according to Elder McConkie's own words, this was a one-of-a-kind experience (BEYOND ANYTHING THAT ANY THEN PRESENT HAD EVER EXPERIENCED).  So my question is how do the Brethren make the rest of their decisions if they don't ever actually hear the word of God?

 

Are they just winging it?  Or is it the case that they receive some lesser form of spiritual witness?  Perhaps, a burning in the bosom or just a general feeling of peace with their decision?  And no, I'm not trying to be flippant, but to actually understand how they make decisions in the absence of this once-in-a-lifetime experience that they had in 1978.

 

More importantly, I'm trying to understand why I should have such absolute confidence that they are acting in accordance with God's will when they don't seem to be that all-fire sure themselves.  After all, by this point, Elder McConkie must have gone to that altar, say, 200-300 times over the years.  Yet, not ONCE, had he EVER experienced a witness as firm and clear as the one they all received in June 1978.  By implication, this means that they must have received a LESS firm and clear witness in regards to HUNDREDS of decisions they put into place over the years.

 

Given that, are we to treat some prophetic pronouncements as more "firm" than others?  And, if so, which ones?  And no, I'm not being difficult for the sake of being difficult.  I'm really confused as to how I can have so much faith in "every word that proceedeth" from the mouth of the prophets if they are not always COMPLETELY clear about their own spiritual witnesses?

 

What am I missing here?

An open heart and an open mind perhaps?

You seem to spend an excessive amount of time looking for ways to criticize the church's leaders. To the point that you have people wondering if there is anything at all you like about the church and why you ever joined the church in the first place.

I was an Orthodox Jew before I joined the church. I was in a class once, taught by a rabbi who was about as liberal as you can get. I forget now the context of the discussion, but a young Jewish woman there stated that she didn't believe in God, but wanted to, and asked the rabbi for advice. He told her to live her life "as if". As if she believed in God. To live her life doing those things she would do if she did believe. And then see what happens.

Perhaps that is something you could try. Live your life "as if" the prophets and apostles know what they're talking about (they actually do), and then see what happens.

[mormonnewb]

An open heart and an open mind perhaps?

You seem to spend an excessive amount of time looking for ways to criticize the church's leaders. To the point that you have people wondering if there is anything at all you like about the church and why you ever joined the church in the first place.

I was an Orthodox Jew before I joined the church. I was in a class once, taught by a rabbi who was about as liberal as you can get. I forget now the context of the discussion, but a young Jewish woman there stated that she didn't believe in God, but wanted to, and asked the rabbi for advice. He told her to live her life "as if". As if she believed in God. To live her life doing those things she would do if she did believe. And then see what happens.

Perhaps that is something you could try. Live your life "as if" the prophets and apostles know what they're talking about (they actually do), and then see what happens.

I have some people worrying about my conversion to Mormonism? Say it isn't so! Well, I guess I will drop ALL of my questions and get straight to pay, pray and obey because as a 46 yo man, I can't possibly live with the suspicion of strangers on the Internet.

Please understand that I lived for four DECADES without the benefit of living prophets, so it might take more than four YEARS for me to get completely comfortable with ceding my agency to 15 men who I never even heard of until 2011. That is why I ask these questions -- to gain such comfort. If I thought that the idea of prophets was completely ludicrous I wouldn't even bother to ask the question at all (I haven't started a thread on easterbunnydiscussions.org for MONTHS). So, believe it or not, I'm actually making progress.

Edited October 2, 2014 by mormonnewb

[Duncan]

I have some people worrying about my conversion to Mormonism? Say it isn't so! Well, I guess I will drop ALL of my questions and get straight to pay, pray and obey because as a 46 yo man, I can't possibly live with the suspicion of strangers on the Internet.

Please understand that I lived for four DECADES without the benefit of living prophets, so it might take more than four YEARS for me to get completely comfortable with ceding my agency to 15 men who I never even heard of until 2011. That is why I ask these questions -- to gain such comfort. If I thought that the idea of prophets was completely ludicrous I wouldn't even bother to ask the question at all (I haven't started a thread on easterbunnydiscussions.org for MONTHS). So, believe it or not, I'm actually making progress.

 

 

you aren't giving your agency to anyone! you are listening to 15 witnesses to something in order to gain your own witness via rational and revelation

[Avatar4321]

I have some people worrying about my conversion to Mormonism? Say it isn't so! Well, I guess I will drop ALL of my questions and get straight to pay, pray and obey because as a 46 yo man, I can't possibly live with the suspicion of strangers on the Internet.

Please understand that I lived for four DECADES without the benefit of living prophets, so it might take more than four YEARS for me to get completely comfortable with ceding my agency to 15 men who I never even heard of until 2011. That is why I ask these questions -- to gain such comfort. If I thought that the idea of prophets was completely ludicrous I wouldn't even bother to ask the question at all (I haven't started a thread on easterbunnydiscussions.org for MONTHS). So, believe it or not, I'm actually making progress.

no one is telling you to cede your agency to general authorities. Even they would agree.

we are suggesting you humble yourself before the Lord and exercise faith in Him. Study the scriptures and listen to the prophets and obtain a witness of Him. Stop doubting or at least leading with doubt. Ask questions with faith. Because Joseph revealed a key to the saints that the path you are on can and will lead to apostasy and we care about you.

I recommend Elder Holland's talk a few conferences ago about exercising faith. It's good to ask questions but ask in faith, nothing waivering.

to answer your question the brethren receive revelation by the Spirit. He can be subtle sometimes. I have no doubt the event in 78 was less subtle than most revelations.

[Boanerges]

I think if you asked most active believing members about the priesthood revelation you'd find that they believe it was a revelation but don't know the details. I only discovered the details within the last couple years because it has not ever been widely talked about. Most members probably believe it was much more profound than it actually was - that is, I generally think members think it was "more than a feeling" (cue Boston) and believe the Lord actually spoke or perhaps even appeared to Pres. Kimball. It is fairly apparent, however, that no prophet since Joseph Smith has had such an experience and even many of his revelations were similar to the one that lead to OD2. The cold, hard truth is that this revelation came the same way revelation comes to any of us - and I'm not sure the general membership of the church is ready to deal with that reality.

 

That said, such an understanding has lead me to believe that this is why some scripture is not completely clear - scripture writers, including those of the Old Testament and New Testament, Book of Mormon, and D&C, were writing about feelings and impressions more than more profound experiences like actually hearing a voice or visiting with a heavenly being. Do I believe the Bible and Book of Mormon to be the word of God (as far as they are translated correctly, of course)? Yes indeed - but seeing them as not necessarily the literal word of God gives me perspective.

[teddyaware]

In another thread, someone pointed me to the following description of the process by which the Brethren received the revelation to remove the priesthood ban.

 

http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/sperry-symposium-classics-doctrine-and-covenants/23-official-declaration-2-revelation

 

To be clear, I am NOT asking about the propriety of the ban itself.  Whatever position you hold on that issue, I agree with you.  I really don't care about that issue because I am far more troubled by what I read about the process by which the Brethren received their revelation.

 

As I understand it, the Brethren gathered for their regular monthly meeting in June 1978.  One of the topics for discussion was lifting the priesthood ban, which they discussed for about two hours, concluding that they should lift the ban (contingent upon HF's confirming revelation).  They then went before the altar in fervent prayer, led by President Kimball himself, and received a spiritual witness that they should indeed lift the ban.  Here is how Elder McConkie described it:

 

"It was during this prayer that the revelation came. The Spirit of the Lord rested mightily upon us all; we felt something akin to what happened on the day of Pentecost and at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple. From the midst of eternity, the voice of God, conveyed by the power of the Spirit, spoke to his prophet. . . . And we all heard the same voice, received the same message, and became personal witnesses that the word received was the mind and will and voice of the Lord . . . On this occasion, because of the importuning and the faith, and because the hour and the time had arrived, the Lord in his providences poured out the Holy Ghost upon the First Presidency and the Twelve in a miraculous and marvelous manner, beyond anything that any then present had ever experienced.” [emphasis added]

 

This sounds just like the kind of continuing revelation that I would expect from the modern-day prophets.  Except that, according to Elder McConkie's own words, this was a one-of-a-kind experience (BEYOND ANYTHING THAT ANY THEN PRESENT HAD EVER EXPERIENCED).  So my question is how do the Brethren make the rest of their decisions if they don't ever actually hear the word of God?

 

Are they just winging it?  Or is it the case that they receive some lesser form of spiritual witness?  Perhaps, a burning in the bosom or just a general feeling of peace with their decision?  And no, I'm not trying to be flippant, but to actually understand how they make decisions in the absence of this once-in-a-lifetime experience that they had in 1978.

 

More importantly, I'm trying to understand why I should have such absolute confidence that they are acting in accordance with God's will when they don't seem to be that all-fire sure themselves.  After all, by this point, Elder McConkie must have gone to that altar, say, 200-300 times over the years.  Yet, not ONCE, had he EVER experienced a witness as firm and clear as the one they all received in June 1978.  By implication, this means that they must have received a LESS firm and clear witness in regards to HUNDREDS of decisions they put into place over the years.

 

Given that, are we to treat some prophetic pronouncements as more "firm" than others?  And, if so, which ones?  And no, I'm not being difficult for the sake of being difficult.  I'm really confused as to how I can have so much faith in "every word that proceedeth" from the mouth of the prophets if they are not always COMPLETELY clear about their own spiritual witnesses?

 

What am I missing here?

One needs to have the spirit of prophecy -- the same spirit of prophecy possessed by the leading brethren -- before any of the things of God and His Church make coherent sense. Without the spirit of prophecy, people are left in a state where they grope and struggle for answers that never come. And those answers never come because the things of God can only be spiritually discerned.

 

Approaching spiritual matters by intellect and reason alone, without the Spirit of God as the primary agent of enlightenment, will never enable anyone, no matter how bright, to fathom the things of God. Without that gift, one is left in a condition where they are spiritually insecure and have to be "spoon fed" and mollified in their frustrations all the time because the light that would otherwise serve as an anchoring source of revelatory answers to their questions is absent. Moses said:

"... would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them!"

 

The way out of this unprofitable situation begins with a man sincerely and critically asking himself if he possesses the spirit of prophecy. If the answer is no, or I don't know, or I'm not sure there's a very good chance that person does not have that spiritual gift, or is at very least deficient in its possession. And if one makes the determination that they lack or are deficient in that spirit, the best thing to do is drop everything and focus solely on obtaining the spirit of prophecy.

In Alma 17, one learns what he must do in order to obtain the spirit of prophecy:

2 Now these sons of Mosiah were with Alma at the time the angel first appeared unto him; therefore Alma did rejoice exceedingly to see his brethren; and what added more to his joy, they were still his brethren in the Lord; yea, and they had waxed strong in the knowledge of the truth; for they were men of a sound understanding and they had searched the scriptures diligently, that they might know the word of God.

3 But this is not all; they had given themselves to much prayer, and fasting; therefore they had the spirit of prophecy, and the spirit of revelation, and when they taught, they taught with power and authority of God. (Alma 17)

But I suppose if one's great joy in life is pot stirring, rankling controversy and ministering doubts, there will be little motivation to stop doing these things in order to focus on gaining the spirit of prophecy, thereby finding inner peace through spiritual knowledge.

Edited October 2, 2014 by teddyaware

[janderich]

...

Here is how Elder McConkie described it:

 

"It was during this prayer that the revelation came. The Spirit of the Lord rested mightily upon us all; we felt something akin to what happened on the day of Pentecost and at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple. From the midst of eternity, the voice of God, conveyed by the power of the Spirit, spoke to his prophet. . . . And we all heard the same voice, received the same message, and became personal witnesses that the word received was the mind and will and voice of the Lord . . . On this occasion, because of the importuning and the faith, and because the hour and the time had arrived, the Lord in his providences poured out the Holy Ghost upon the First Presidency and the Twelve in a miraculous and marvelous manner, beyond anything that any then present had ever experienced.” [emphasis added]

 

This sounds just like the kind of continuing revelation that I would expect from the modern-day prophets.  Except that, according to Elder McConkie's own words, this was a one-of-a-kind experience (BEYOND ANYTHING THAT ANY THEN PRESENT HAD EVER EXPERIENCED).  So my question is how do the Brethren make the rest of their decisions if they don't ever actually hear the word of God?

 

Are they just winging it?  Or is it the case that they receive some lesser form of spiritual witness?  Perhaps, a burning in the bosom or just a general feeling of peace with their decision?  And no, I'm not trying to be flippant, but to actually understand how they make decisions in the absence of this once-in-a-lifetime experience that they had in 1978.

 

More importantly, I'm trying to understand why I should have such absolute confidence that they are acting in accordance with God's will when they don't seem to be that all-fire sure themselves.  After all, by this point, Elder McConkie must have gone to that altar, say, 200-300 times over the years.  Yet, not ONCE, had he EVER experienced a witness as firm and clear as the one they all received in June 1978.  By implication, this means that they must have received a LESS firm and clear witness in regards to HUNDREDS of decisions they put into place over the years.

 

Given that, are we to treat some prophetic pronouncements as more "firm" than others?  And, if so, which ones?  And no, I'm not being difficult for the sake of being difficult.  I'm really confused as to how I can have so much faith in "every word that proceedeth" from the mouth of the prophets if they are not always COMPLETELY clear about their own spiritual witnesses?

 

What am I missing here?

Revelation is a sacred topic and the members of the quorum of the 12 and first presidency are almost always reluctant to share too much information unless commanded otherwise. For instance president Hinckley spoke about the same revelation in these words, “There was a hallowed and sanctified atmosphere in the room. For me, it felt as if a conduit opened between the heavenly throne and the kneeling, pleading prophet of God who was joined by his Brethren. . . . Every man in that circle, by the power of the Holy Ghost, knew the same thing. . . ." ("Priesthood Restoration", Ensign, Oct 1988). Here Pres. Hinckley says he felt a conduit opened between heaven and the prophet. Such information is absent in Elder McConkie's statement. But, note that in both accounts they say all heard, or otherwise knew, the same thing. However, they do not say exactly what they heard. Is this surprising? No. Joseph provided at least seven versions of the first vision each giving a slightly different account and more or less information regarding who appeared, what was shared, and what was felt. I am not surprised in the least that limited information has been shared on this revelation.

 

I believe the important point in the statement by Elder McConkie and Pres. Hinckley is that they all heard the same words, received the same witness, at the same time. Revelation is often received by one or two people. Almost all the revelations of Joseph were received in this manner. Others then pray to God and receive confirmation of what was given to Joseph. What is amazing in this case is that they all heard the voice of the Lord speaking to his prophet at that very moment in that very room. 

 

So, in short, I do not believe that we know exactly what was heard in that room around that altar. Nor am I foolish enough to believe that Elder McConkie or other members of the 12 and first presidency ever received a more "powerful" witness at other times and places. But, I do believe that as a group, up to that time, this was the most powerful witness they together had received.

Edited October 2, 2014 by janderich

[CV75]

What am I missing here?

I don't know. But not describing in detail the "miraculous and marvelous manner" -- only that it was "beyond anything that any then present had ever experienced" -- doesn't invalidate the revelations they had previously experienced. All the revelations are worthy of our faith.

[JLHPROF]

I think if you asked most active believing members about the priesthood revelation you'd find that they believe it was a revelation but don't know the details. I only discovered the details within the last couple years because it has not ever been widely talked about. Most members probably believe it was much more profound than it actually was - that is, I generally think members think it was "more than a feeling" (cue Boston) and believe the Lord actually spoke or perhaps even appeared to Pres. Kimball.

 

I also think you would find this to be the case.  I don't think the "still small voice" announcement would have brought as much confidence to the general membership at the time.

 

 

It is fairly apparent, however, that no prophet since Joseph Smith has had such an experience and even many of his revelations were similar to the one that lead to OD2. The cold, hard truth is that this revelation came the same way revelation comes to any of us - and I'm not sure the general membership of the church is ready to deal with that reality.

 

This I disagree with.  There are many recorded revelations and visions to Brigham, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow and Joseph F. Smith.  These are all recorded as being much more than "promptings" or "impressions" or what I usually call inspiration instead of revelation.  Now, since Joseph F. Smith there have been very few, but it certainly wasn't only Joseph Smith.

 

 

That said, such an understanding has lead me to believe that this is why some scripture is not completely clear - scripture writers, including those of the Old Testament and New Testament, Book of Mormon, and D&C, were writing about feelings and impressions more than more profound experiences like actually hearing a voice or visiting with a heavenly being. Do I believe the Bible and Book of Mormon to be the word of God (as far as they are translated correctly, of course)? Yes indeed - but seeing them as not necessarily the literal word of God gives me perspective.

 

I think some scripture is impressions.  Some scripture is history after the fact.  Some scripture is even opinion.  But there is also some scripture that is actually God's verbatim words to man.  The challenge is determining which are which.

Edited October 2, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That he was just embellishing to give pause to anyone who may have been inclined to doubt that the change was inspired.

 

 

 

I feel confident that the kind of experience they always have is no different that what any bishop or missionary experiences when they feel inspired.

In fact, since I am a critic of this kind of thing no one will be surprised when I say that I think the process is one of coming to a decision based on any number of considerations, practical or political, and then mustering a sense of confidence.  The sense of confidence is attributed to the spirit since that is how it is supposed to work in LDS theology.

Tarski,

I appreciate this, as from a secular perspective it makes a lot of sense, but I think it is a little short sighted. I didn't need to "muster a sense of confidence" that when I was thinking of serving a mission, that the church was true. I wanted to know if it was true because how could I teach people if it was false. I was prepared to leave the church and I really didn't even want to serve fully at this time. I had nothing to gain or lose either way at that point. But when I did get the answer to the question I asked, I had to serve and I did so willingly and gladly.

[will227457]

The political climate of that time period needs to be taken into account,and also the explanation for the revelation given. We do not get details like that now about our leaders communication with God or Jesus. Think political climate and the need for the membership to buy in to the change in church policy.

 

As for myself I am cynical...it's funny I make a decision, then I pray to make sure that it is the right decision before I act on it, and I feel good about it while I pray. Here is the kicker I always feel better when I pray, it makes me feel good. So is God talking to me or do I just generally just feel good when I pray? 

[Tarski]

....... or can they be more like thoughts and visuals that come to us and make sense and are authoritative?

 

This is normally called having thoughts and feelings. It happens all the time (literally).  

 

On occasion one is so convinced and pleased by ones thoughts, either because they confirm our own biases or because they make sense, that we feel a sort of elation or some similar positive affect.  Now this is just what human brains do. But a religious person, especially one brought up with the notion of personal revelation, might attribute this to God if the topic were religious or if they had recently prayed about it or something. But when Steven Hawking gets inspired or has an insight I am sure he does find any reason to suspect he has been infused by a ghost or contacted by an omniscient being. Being wrong after all is the rule not the exception especially for religious claims as is apparent when one considers the claims others make on the authority of divine inspiration. Most first runs at good ideas are either wrong or need improvement anyway and how likely are you to reconsider or dig deeper if you think God has spoken?.

 

One reason that attributing ones outstanding episodes of thought or emotion to God's voice is simply that one can't easily be critical or be open to changing ones mind  from that point.

The other related reason is that it gives people a false sense of authority and excuses them from the normal social requirements of justification: "He don't look at me! That's just what God said and who am I to question God."

 

The irony is that it becomes just an unusually intractable case of trusting in the arm of flesh since one loses track of the fact that the ideas are productions of a very fleshy human brain filled with preconceptions, various socialization, unquestioned assumptions and so on. People under the impression that the their own thoughts on a matter have come from God are incorrigible and impervious to reason or any gentle persuasion. That's why why religiously charged political situations are so intractable.

In short, what at first seems like a good thing (personal revelation) is shown to be a real problem (a global war of conflicting incorrigibilities).

Or anyway, that is how it seems to me when I look around and try to think calmly about it.

Edited October 2, 2014 by Tarski

[DBMormon]

We are raised in the faith thinking God's speaks face to face with Prophets.  That seems to be a very simple view that many of us take.  Yet there is much evidence that indicates that it is more about the 15 men being in agreement or going off feelings that defines revelation.

 

Take for example this response from President Hinkley.

 

DR: But more than that, because you’re leader of the Church. Do you have a special connection?

 

Gordon B. Hinckley: I have a special relationship in terms of the Church as an institution. Yes.

 

DR: And you receive........

 

Gordon B. Hinckley: For the entire Church.

 

DR: You receive?

 

Gordon B. Hinckley: Now we don’t need a lot of continuing revelation. We have a great, basic reservoir of revelation. But if a problem arises, as it does occasionally, a vexatious thing with which we have to deal, we go to the Lord in prayer. We discuss it as a First Presidency and as a Council of the Twelve Apostles. We pray about it and then comes the whisperings of a still small voice. And we know the direction we should take and we proceed accordingly.

 

DR: And this is a Revelation?

 

Gordon B. Hinckley: This is a Revelation.

 

DR: How often have you received such revelations?

 

Gordon B. Hinckley: Oh, I don’t know. I feel satisfied that in some circumstances we’ve had such revelation. It’s a very sacred thing that we don’t like to talk about a lot. A very sacred thing.

 

Q: But it’s a special experience?

 

Gordon B. Hinckley: I think it’s a real thing. It’s a very real thing. And a special experience.

 

http://www.lds-mormon.com/hinckley.shtml

 

Now I know some seem to explain this away as President Hinkley is not tossing pearls before swine so he cuffs his answers in a way that reserves sharing real revelation with them.  I personally don't buy that but to each their own.

 

President Hinckley seems very hesitant to state absolutes.  He seems hesitant to say he is certain that such experiences are revelation when he says " I feel satisfied that in some circumstances we’ve had such revelation".  He follows with the sacred card.... but it seems many prophets from many dispensations were comfortable with their mode of revealtion being described

 

We have also gotten feedback from various sources that for a change to happen all 15 men need to agree on the change and that in and of itself constitutes Revelation.  AKA that is how the define when God is speaking.  Is is believed to be God speaking when all 15 men agree on XYZ even without a voice or manifestation from the heavens?  I think that is what is happening and for me that seems far from what revelation is/ should be.  for me I have faith but see this as problematic.

Edited October 2, 2014 by DBMormon

[Raingirl]

I have some people worrying about my conversion to Mormonism? Say it isn't so! Well, I guess I will drop ALL of my questions and get straight to pay, pray and obey because as a 46 yo man, I can't possibly live with the suspicion of strangers on the Internet.

Please understand that I lived for four DECADES without the benefit of living prophets, so it might take more than four YEARS for me to get completely comfortable with ceding my agency to 15 men who I never even heard of until 2011. That is why I ask these questions -- to gain such comfort. If I thought that the idea of prophets was completely ludicrous I wouldn't even bother to ask the question at all (I haven't started a thread on easterbunnydiscussions.org for MONTHS). So, believe it or not, I'm actually making progress.

You ask questions. But do you do it with an open mind and open heart? Or simply to be contentious? Because that is how you come across.

So you've only been a Mormon for four years. So what? I was baptized on 2011. Your point is...well....pointless.

And no one asked that you cede your agency.

But then, you only see and hear what you want to hear.

Not all of life has to be a battle.

[BCSpace]

This is normally called having thoughts and feelings. It happens all the time (literally).  

 

I see it more like this:

 

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 14:26

 

The Holy Ghost will help clarify and organize your thoughts so one comes to the right conclusions; super charged meditation if you will.  Good for science, religion, or, as is the preferred example anti Mormons like to latch on to, finding your keys.

 

This actually goes to the heart of the matter and the example given.  BY, in "To The Saints", said the ban came about because of his knowledge of the scriptures and experience in the Church. I definitely see a John 14:26 role for that.

 

[mormonnewb]

You ask questions. But do you do it with an open mind and open heart? Or simply to be contentious? Because that is how you come across.

So you've only been a Mormon for four years. So what? I was baptized on 2011. Your point is...well....pointless.

And no one asked that you cede your agency.

But then, you only see and hear what you want to hear.

Not all of life has to be a battle.

I agree with you that I am far more contentious than necessary. Please accept my apologies.

I suspect that our very minor difference in opinion might be the result of an age difference. I'm only guessing but I suspect that you are probably 20 years younger than I am.

Please note that my advanced age does not make me any wiser than you. After all, there is no fool like an old fool. However, being an old fool means that I've had a lot more time to be wrong. I've also invested a lot more in being wrong. So when someone suggests an entirely new paradigm in which to view the world, it's harder for an old fool to give up a mindset that has born some good fruit in the past.

This isn't to say that I couldn't be "fruitier" going forward, but hopefully, it explains why my conversion experience might be different than yours.

Edited October 2, 2014 by mormonnewb

[Robert F. Smith]

In another thread, someone pointed me to the following description of the process by which the Brethren received the revelation to remove the priesthood ban.

 

http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/sperry-symposium-classics-doctrine-and-covenants/23-official-declaration-2-revelation .

What is remarkable in Professor Dale LeBaron's description is his total ignorance of the teachings and practices of Joseph Smith.

 

As far as we know, this was the first time since Cain and Abel that all the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ were made available to all people of all races living upon this earth. And it was the first time that temple ordinances could be performed for all people back to the beginning of time.

 

A false statement, based on folklore, and requiring an extraordinary revelation to reverse.

 

.............................................. I am far more troubled by what I read about the process by which the Brethren received their revelation.

 

As I understand it, the Brethren gathered for their regular monthly meeting in June 1978.  One of the topics for discussion was lifting the priesthood ban, which they discussed for about two hours, concluding that they should lift the ban (contingent upon HF's confirming revelation).  They then went before the altar in fervent prayer, led by President Kimball himself, and received a spiritual witness that they should indeed lift the ban.  Here is how Elder McConkie described it:

 

"It was during this prayer that the revelation came. The Spirit of the Lord rested mightily upon us all; we felt something akin to what happened on the day of Pentecost and at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple. From the midst of eternity, the voice of God, conveyed by the power of the Spirit, spoke to his prophet. . . . And we all heard the same voice, received the same message, and became personal witnesses that the word received was the mind and will and voice of the Lord . . . On this occasion, because of the importuning and the faith, and because the hour and the time had arrived, the Lord in his providences poured out the Holy Ghost upon the First Presidency and the Twelve in a miraculous and marvelous manner, beyond anything that any then present had ever experienced.” [emphasis added]

 

This sounds just like the kind of continuing revelation that I would expect from the modern-day prophets.  Except that, according to Elder McConkie's own words, this was a one-of-a-kind experience (BEYOND ANYTHING THAT ANY THEN PRESENT HAD EVER EXPERIENCED).  So my question is how do the Brethren make the rest of their decisions if they don't ever actually hear the word of God?

 

Are they just winging it?  Or is it the case that they receive some lesser form of spiritual witness?  Perhaps, a burning in the bosom or just a general feeling of peace with their decision?  And no, I'm not trying to be flippant, but to actually understand how they make decisions in the absence of this once-in-a-lifetime experience that they had in 1978.

 

More importantly, I'm trying to understand why I should have such absolute confidence that they are acting in accordance with God's will when they don't seem to be that all-fire sure themselves.  After all, by this point, Elder McConkie must have gone to that altar, say, 200-300 times over the years.  Yet, not ONCE, had he EVER experienced a witness as firm and clear as the one they all received in June 1978.  By implication, this means that they must have received a LESS firm and clear witness in regards to HUNDREDS of decisions they put into place over the years.

 

Given that, are we to treat some prophetic pronouncements as more "firm" than others?  And, if so, which ones?  And no, I'm not being difficult for the sake of being difficult.  I'm really confused as to how I can have so much faith in "every word that proceedeth" from the mouth of the prophets if they are not always COMPLETELY clear about their own spiritual witnesses?

 

What am I missing here?

You are troubled by the process, and classify it as a once-in-a-lifetime experience (relegating all else to insignificance), even though you at the same time expect modern day prophets to receive continuing revelation.

 

You are overthinking it, newby.  You are making demands of precision and certainty which are absurd in light of what we actually know about prophecy.  You might rather want to ask whether this event partakes of the kind of ecstatic prophecy which Saul encountered in a school of Israelite prophets ("school" as in "school of fish") in I Samuel 10:5-12, 19:20-24.  Saul himself got caught up in that ecstatic prophecy, and it was likely sui generis in his point of view.

 

To go by your demands, we might have to exclude or discount anything else experienced by early Christians, just because of the spectacular nature of the Day of Pentecost experience in Acts 2.

[cinepro]

In another thread, someone pointed me to the following description of the process by which the Brethren received the revelation to remove the priesthood ban.

 

http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/sperry-symposium-classics-doctrine-and-covenants/23-official-declaration-2-revelation

 

To be clear, I am NOT asking about the propriety of the ban itself.  Whatever position you hold on that issue, I agree with you.  I really don't care about that issue because I am far more troubled by what I read about the process by which the Brethren received their revelation.

 

As I understand it, the Brethren gathered for their regular monthly meeting in June 1978.  One of the topics for discussion was lifting the priesthood ban, which they discussed for about two hours, concluding that they should lift the ban (contingent upon HF's confirming revelation).  They then went before the altar in fervent prayer, led by President Kimball himself, and received a spiritual witness that they should indeed lift the ban.  Here is how Elder McConkie described it:

 

"It was during this prayer that the revelation came. The Spirit of the Lord rested mightily upon us all; we felt something akin to what happened on the day of Pentecost and at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple. From the midst of eternity, the voice of God, conveyed by the power of the Spirit, spoke to his prophet. . . . And we all heard the same voice, received the same message, and became personal witnesses that the word received was the mind and will and voice of the Lord . . . On this occasion, because of the importuning and the faith, and because the hour and the time had arrived, the Lord in his providences poured out the Holy Ghost upon the First Presidency and the Twelve in a miraculous and marvelous manner, beyond anything that any then present had ever experienced.” [emphasis added]

 

What am I missing here?

 

Wait!  Hold on!  Stop the presses!  Hold your horses!  Pause!

 

The following info is important in considering the words of Elder McConkie regarding this event.  From Ed Kimball's Bio of his father:

 

 

 

In April (1982), when Ed arrived to visit, he found his father agitated.  Camilla had been reading aloud from the recently published book "Priesthood", a collection of essays compiled by Deseret Book.  In one chapter, "The New Revelation on Priesthood", Bruce R. McConkie described the the climactic events of June 1978, confirming the decision to extend the priesthood to all worthy men.  He had written: "We all heard the same voice, received the same message."  This language upset Spencer, since it might give the impression that everyone in the meeting heard the voice of God audibly.  He asked Ed to speak to Elder McConkie about changing the text to avoid any possibility of that mistaken interpretation.  Spencer had no doubt about the reality of the revelation.  "It did happen," he said, with an energy they belied his frailty.  What occurred did not need exaggeration.

Two weeks later, when a nurse was reading this chapter to Spencer again, Spencer said to Camilla, "That didn't happen." Assuming that he was talking about the revelation, she was momentarily taken aback. She knew that in the four years since the revelation Spencer had no doubts whatsoever about the divine nature of that communication. She was relived when he explained that he was talking about the implication that the General Authorities had heard an audible voice.

 

Ed Kimball, "Lengthen Your Stride", Working Draft, Chapter 38, p.12

 

But a quick Google search shows the Elder McConkie's wording is extremely popular, and used frequently when the 1978 revelation is discussed.

The book shares other recollections of that event from Apostles that were there, and they are pretty uniform in describing it as a great spiritual manifestation, like "a rushing of wind" and akin to what was described on the Day of Pentecost. But no "voice".

Edited October 2, 2014 by cinepro

[juliann]

This sounds just like the kind of continuing revelation that I would expect from the modern-day prophets.  Except that, according to Elder McConkie's own words, this was a one-of-a-kind experience (BEYOND ANYTHING THAT ANY THEN PRESENT HAD EVER EXPERIENCED).  So my question is how do the Brethren make the rest of their decisions if they don't ever actually hear the word of God?

 

Are they just winging it?  Or is it the case that they receive some lesser form of spiritual witness?  Perhaps, a burning in the bosom or just a general feeling of peace with their decision?  And no, I'm not trying to be flippant, but to actually understand how they make decisions in the absence of this once-in-a-lifetime experience that they had in 1978.

 

 

I can see where you are coming from, but you are setting up a definition for revelation that I haven't even heard prophets themselves make. Every direct statemetn about revelation that I have seen describes it as very subtle, Pres. Hinckley compared it to a scripture that I can't recall right now to emphasize how "soft" it was. They were obviously describing a confirmation in the above situation...not God speaking to Moses kind of thing. I don't even think that really happened to Moses, either.  When I see complaints about no new revelations it begs the question of what revelation is...and it seems everyone thinks it is always of biblical proportion. I don't think the day to day stuff is any different than what we experience. I believe it was Elder Packer that said as much...as well as big events don't come along often for anyone.

 

If we really came here to learn and discover, it makes no sense to have to wait for a fax from God. It also strips agency from leaders, which is a theological impossibility in our doctrine.   Leaders are going to have to do the same repenting as anyone else. That we want them to be God is our problem (not that we haven't been nudged in that direction, which to Mormons is a call to "magnify" and boy, do we. Almost all of their advice is either based directly on scripture or just plain good advice derived from it.

 

So this is an "us" problem not a revelation problem. It takes some reformulating that is scary because it puts the burden squarely on us not them.

[Robert F. Smith]

I agree with you that I am far more contentious than necessary. Please accept my apologies.

I suspect that our very minor difference in opinion might be the result of an age difference. I'm only guessing but I suspect that you are probably 20 years younger than I am.

Please note that my advanced age does not make me any wiser than you. After all, there is no fool like an old fool. However, being an old fool means that I've had a lot more time to be wrong. I've also invested a lot more in being wrong. So when someone suggests an entirely new paradigm in which to view the world, it's harder for an old fool to give up a mindset that has born some good fruit in the past.

This isn't to say that I couldn't be "fruitier" going forward, but hopefully, it explains why my conversion experience might be different than yours.

As one old fool to another, I gave you a rep point.