A Church Of Continuing Hunches?

[Boanerges]

Great quote, Boanerges!

Sometimes we just need more cow bell.

I loved Elder Wirthlin - he, like Pres. Uchtdorf and a handful of others in the top leadership, gets it

 

And, yes, we need more cow bell! (One of the funniest skits ever!)

[DBMormon]

It is up to you, but I think sharing questions about spiritual things needn’t involve injecting doubt into them. The best spiritual questions are leveraged on the faith and knowledge one already has (“…remember how merciful the Lord hath been… and ponder it… [and] receive these things… [then] ask God …having faith in Christ.”). I recall a couple of recent General Conference talks on this. Disciplined scholarship, because it is limited to more rational processes, strives to formulate objective questions based on one’s confidence in his existing fund of knowledge, which can serve as a hedge against the prejudice of doubt and belief that can undermine vibrant scholarship.

 

As part of remembering and pondering, it helps to “study it out in your mind” which sometimes entails discussion like we see here. Once we involve others in our study, I think we need to be even more careful about doing all we can not to inject our doubts into the process, whatever media we employ for that discussion. It’s bad enough when we sabotage our private personal efforts!

my doubt that the brethren see Christ regularly seems to have little impact on if the Church is true.  I Doubt the Book of Mormon was created by Joseph.  See expressing doubts are not always negative.  Sharing that I doubt that Christ appears regularly to leaders,is not to me a negative.  It for me explains many things while letting me still have faith.  IT can rather than be a negative, be a solution that increases faith.

Edited October 7, 2014 by DBMormon

[ksfisher]

my doubt that the brethren see Christ regularly seems to have little impact on if the Church is true.  I Doubt the Book of Mormon was created by Joseph.  See expressing doubts are not always negative.  Sharing that I doubt that Christ appears regularly to leaders,is not to me a negative.  It for me explains many things while letting me still have faith.  IT can rather than be a negative, be a solution that increases faith.

 

And I would hope that the brethren would have enough faith that they do not need the Savior to appear to them regularly (as you put it).  I believe that the brethren are in tune enough with the spirit that personal visits would be rare.

[stemelbow]

And I would hope that the brethren would have enough faith that they do not need the Savior to appear to them regularly (as you put it).  I believe that the brethren are in tune enough with the spirit that personal visits would be rare.

Rare? Are you thinking it happens?

[Storm Rider]

Rare? Are you thinking it happens?

 

It has occurred throughout history to LDS and others alike; however, it remains a rare occurrence.  It is even more rare to have the Father appear.  There was a time when I actually thought that every apostle called had a theophany.  However, it has been a few decades since I concluded that it does not occur when first called and not every apostle may have such a visitation, but it continues to happen.  

 

Do you think the heavens are closed or are you of the mind that this is all a hoax that only the simple minded believe?

[ksfisher]

Rare? Are you thinking it happens?

 

"I am a witness of the Resurrection of the Lord as surely as if I had been there in the evening with the two disciples in the house on Emmaus road. I know that He lives as surely as did Joseph Smith when he saw the Father and the Son in the light of a brilliant morning in a grove of trees in Palmyra."

 

President Eyring - April 2013 Conferance

 

President Eyring says he is a witness to the resurrection in the same way the two disciples on the road to Emmaus were.  How did they know?  They saw him.

He says that he knows the Father and the Son live in the same way Joseph Smith did.  How did he know?  He saw them.

[HappyJackWagon]

"I am a witness of the Resurrection of the Lord as surely as if I had been there in the evening with the two disciples in the house on Emmaus road. I know that He lives as surely as did Joseph Smith when he saw the Father and the Son in the light of a brilliant morning in a grove of trees in Palmyra."

 

President Eyring - April 2013 Conferance

 

President Eyring says he is a witness to the resurrection in the same way the two disciples on the road to Emmaus were.  How did they know?  They saw him.

He says that he knows the Father and the Son live in the same way Joseph Smith did.  How did he know?  He saw them.

KSFisher, that is reading a lot into his words. It's called a simile. He believes "as if" or "like" he was there. Proves nothing. Instead of trying to read into their statements, why couldn't they just say something in a clear way. This is how it might look.

 

"I have had a personal visitation by Christ. He came and spake to me in the temple one day. I saw him with my physical eyes and heard him with my ears. I bear witness of him."

 

That would be cool.  Instead we are all subject to our assumptions and read into the vague comments what we expect to see.

[CV75]

my doubt that the brethren see Christ regularly seems to have little impact on if the Church is true.  I Doubt the Book of Mormon was created by Joseph.  See expressing doubts are not always negative.  Sharing that I doubt that Christ appears regularly to leaders,is not to me a negative.  It for me explains many things while letting me still have faith.  IT can rather than be a negative, be a solution that increases faith.

I agree that not all doubt is negative or bad, but I do see the negativity in what has been shared, as follows:

 

The Holy Spirit is a heavenly messenger. His voice (figuratively and literally) comes to us in spiritual and physical manifestations (and often both together). As difficult as they are to describe, all are valid forms of revelation to whoever receives them.

 

Experience (knowledge) and expectation (faith) is a “compound in one” that shares that ongoing relationship described in Alma 32.

 

So to alter one’s expectations of what a prophet is in this dispensation according to an evaluation of the form of revelation he receives undermines faith, because what a prophet is has nothing to do with placing some forms of divine manifestation above others. Likewise, altering one’s expectations of what a prophet is by comparing his description of revelation with those of his predecessors from earlier dispensations undermines faith, because all the revelations are valid for the prophets and their followers in the dispensation in which they are given.

 

I agree that we and the prophets are the same in that we are all human and can receive various forms of heavenly messages from the Holy Spirit. But the form of revelation does not define what a prophet is or his role in relation to the member, in which case the interactions with the divine actually do differ, by definition. To say otherwise is to create a prophet in our image, which undermines faith. It’s like saying, “Let’s adjust our expectations so that a prophet is just another one of us, since all he has are the same kinds of no-doubt-about-it-feelings that we do.”

 

Considering these three forms of undermining faith (which creates doubt), sharing the doubt that Christ appears regularly to leaders in concert with the assessment that the forms of appearance are not up to par with the face-to-face manifestations of the prophets of old, and that this impacts what a prophet is in this dispensation, does appear to be a bad thing.

 

A prophet in this dispensation is this: https://www.lds.org/topics/prophets?lang=eng

[ksfisher]

KSFisher, that is reading a lot into his words. It's called a simile. He believes "as if" or "like" he was there. Proves nothing. Instead of trying to read into their statements, why couldn't they just say something in a clear way. This is how it might look.

 

"I have had a personal visitation by Christ. He came and spake to me in the temple one day. I saw him with my physical eyes and heard him with my ears. I bear witness of him."

 

That would be cool.  Instead we are all subject to our assumptions and read into the vague comments what we expect to see.

 

They sound like pretty strong and potentially misleading statements for President Eyring to make if they weren't literally true.

[HappyJackWagon]

They sound like pretty strong and potentially misleading statements for President Eyring to make if they weren't literally true.

right. If he had an experience let him tell us about the experience. Otherwise, there is no need for us to assume he's had experiences in ways he hasn't claimed.

[JLHPROF]

I agree that not all doubt is negative or bad, but I do see the negativity in what has been shared, as follows:

 

The Holy Spirit is a heavenly messenger. His voice (figuratively and literally) comes to us in spiritual and physical manifestations (and often both together). As difficult as they are to describe, all are valid forms of revelation to whoever receives them.

 

Experience (knowledge) and expectation (faith) is a “compound in one” that shares that ongoing relationship described in Alma 32.

 

So to alter one’s expectations of what a prophet is in this dispensation according to an evaluation of the form of revelation he receives undermines faith, because what a prophet is has nothing to do with placing some forms of divine manifestation above others. Likewise, altering one’s expectations of what a prophet is by comparing his description of revelation with those of his predecessors from earlier dispensations undermines faith, because all the revelations are valid for the prophets and their followers in the dispensation in which they are given.

 

I agree that we and the prophets are the same in that we are all human and can receive various forms of heavenly messages from the Holy Spirit. But the form of revelation does not define what a prophet is or his role in relation to the member, in which case the interactions with the divine actually do differ, by definition. To say otherwise is to create a prophet in our image, which undermines faith. It’s like saying, “Let’s adjust our expectations so that a prophet is just another one of us, since all he has are the same kinds of no-doubt-about-it-feelings that we do.”

 

Considering these three forms of undermining faith (which creates doubt), sharing the doubt that Christ appears regularly to leaders in concert with the assessment that the forms of appearance are not up to par with the face-to-face manifestations of the prophets of old, and that this impacts what a prophet is in this dispensation, does appear to be a bad thing.

 

A prophet in this dispensation is this: https://www.lds.org/topics/prophets?lang=eng

 

No.  A prophet in the second half of this dispensation is what you describe. 

Nobody is arguing that there are many kinds of revelation, but there is a clear and definite change that occurred where we stopped being given the word of the Lord and started feeling impressed what course to take.

Is God still "revealing his will to his servants the prophets"?  I certainly hope so.

Do we get the "will of the Lord" from the prophet?  I certainly hope so.

Do we get more of the "word of the Lord"?  Not for a long time.

 

I just posted in another thread but I'll reiterate here:

 

You can almost mark the point in time when something changed.  The last "written" revelation/vision or whatever was Joseph F. Smith.   And why weren't more of the actual revelations that we have recorded added to canon?  Why did we stop presenting legitimate revelation for admission to the canon?

 

For the first 100 years of the Church every prophet recorded written revelation.

For the second 100 years of the Church no prophet has recorded a written revelation.

 

What changed about 1920?  Because that is when things changed.

[Kenngo1969]

... Instead of trying to read into their statements, why couldn't they just say something in a clear way. This is how it might look.

 

"I have had a personal visitation by Christ. He came and spake to me in the temple one day. I saw him with my physical eyes and heard him with my ears. I bear witness of him."

 

That would be cool.  Instead we are all subject to our assumptions and read into the vague comments what we expect to see.

Matthew 7:6?

[JLHPROF]

KSFisher, that is reading a lot into his words. It's called a simile. He believes "as if" or "like" he was there. Proves nothing. Instead of trying to read into their statements, why couldn't they just say something in a clear way. This is how it might look.

 

"I have had a personal visitation by Christ. He came and spake to me in the temple one day. I saw him with my physical eyes and heard him with my ears. I bear witness of him."

 

That would be cool.  Instead we are all subject to our assumptions and read into the vague comments what we expect to see.

 

I explained why this would be completely wrong.  If the Savior did indeed visit someone as part of their calling and election they would be absolutely forbidden to reveal it.

If a prophet or apostle got up and said "I have had a personal visitation by Christ. He came and spake to me in the temple one day. I saw him with my physical eyes and heard him with my ears. I bear witness of him." I would either doubt his veracity or know he broke that covenant.  Either way, it would not increase any respect or faith I had in him.

 

If on the other hand the Savior did visit the prophet with instruction for the Church then they should theoretically be allowed to bring such a visitation to the Church (like D&C 110 for instance).

[HappyJackWagon]

I explained why this would be completely wrong.  If the Savior did indeed visit someone as part of their calling and election they would be absolutely forbidden to reveal it.

If a prophet or apostle got up and said "I have had a personal visitation by Christ. He came and spake to me in the temple one day. I saw him with my physical eyes and heard him with my ears. I bear witness of him." I would either doubt his veracity or know he broke that covenant.  Either way, it would not increase any respect or faith I had in him.

 

If on the other hand the Savior did visit the prophet with instruction for the Church then they should theoretically be allowed to bring such a visitation to the Church (like D&C 110 for instance).

I know you did, but I don't accept that answer. No offense. You are making the assumption that IF a leader had a miraculous visitation like this they would be under covenant not to proclaim it because it must be part of the Calling and Election. I see no evidence for that.

[HappyJackWagon]

Matthew 7:6?

That is a cliche answer. The world is not all swines or dogs. Don't prophets teach repentance to the world and don't they testify of Christ? So why would we say that testifying of Christ would be casting pearls before swine? Weak argument.

[Boanerges]

I agree that not all doubt is negative or bad, but I do see the negativity in what has been shared, as follows:

 

The Holy Spirit is a heavenly messenger. His voice (figuratively and literally) comes to us in spiritual and physical manifestations (and often both together). As difficult as they are to describe, all are valid forms of revelation to whoever receives them.

 

Experience (knowledge) and expectation (faith) is a “compound in one” that shares that ongoing relationship described in Alma 32.

 

So to alter one’s expectations of what a prophet is in this dispensation according to an evaluation of the form of revelation he receives undermines faith, because what a prophet is has nothing to do with placing some forms of divine manifestation above others. Likewise, altering one’s expectations of what a prophet is by comparing his description of revelation with those of his predecessors from earlier dispensations undermines faith, because all the revelations are valid for the prophets and their followers in the dispensation in which they are given.

 

I agree that we and the prophets are the same in that we are all human and can receive various forms of heavenly messages from the Holy Spirit. But the form of revelation does not define what a prophet is or his role in relation to the member, in which case the interactions with the divine actually do differ, by definition. To say otherwise is to create a prophet in our image, which undermines faith. It’s like saying, “Let’s adjust our expectations so that a prophet is just another one of us, since all he has are the same kinds of no-doubt-about-it-feelings that we do.”

 

Considering these three forms of undermining faith (which creates doubt), sharing the doubt that Christ appears regularly to leaders in concert with the assessment that the forms of appearance are not up to par with the face-to-face manifestations of the prophets of old, and that this impacts what a prophet is in this dispensation, does appear to be a bad thing.

 

A prophet in this dispensation is this: https://www.lds.org/topics/prophets?lang=eng

It is interesting that the LDS.org link makes no mention of the idea that a prophet or apostle actually has to have a visit by Christ. In fact, it does not mention anything other than "revelation" which is open to interpretation. We did have a wonderful talk in this General Conference about how it really works. Maybe some people missed it.

 

I don't think it undermines anyone's faith whatsoever in believing the prophet receives revelation for the church. I sustain him and the other 14 apostles and do believe that they are quite capable of receiving revelation  and do receive revelation for the church as described just as I am quite capable of receiving revelation for myself. Based on such revelation, I also believe Jesus Christ is the Redeeming Savior, God's son, the promised Messiah. My witness of Him is not diminished by the fact that I do not profess to have seen Him. As was quoted in Conference, Joseph Smith said “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it." I'm fine with the witness of the prophets and apostles concerning Jesus Christ - whether they may or may not have seen Him has no bearing on that testimony - although I do believe that if they actually had they should say so, after all Denver Snuffer the apostate does. I do believe the prophet and apostles receive revelation for the church, although rarely because they don't need it (that was said in Conference). I do not believe many, if any, of them have seen the Savior and I'm good with that - I will continue to sustain them.

 

Any undermining of faith that is perceived is due to people making assumptions that perhaps the prophet and apostles have seen the Savior without any evidence they have. Continuing to teach such falsehoods without the evidence undermines faith when people who believe these teachings realize they have been lead astray. THAT undermines and destroys faith. Let the prophets and apostles themselves teach us about how they receive revelation and whether they have seen Christ if they think that is necessary - we don't need to teach things we do not know on their behalf.

[Boanerges]

I explained why this would be completely wrong.  If the Savior did indeed visit someone as part of their calling and election they would be absolutely forbidden to reveal it.

If a prophet or apostle got up and said "I have had a personal visitation by Christ. He came and spake to me in the temple one day. I saw him with my physical eyes and heard him with my ears. I bear witness of him." I would either doubt his veracity or know he broke that covenant.  Either way, it would not increase any respect or faith I had in him.

 

If on the other hand the Savior did visit the prophet with instruction for the Church then they should theoretically be allowed to bring such a visitation to the Church (like D&C 110 for instance).

My question is, why? Why would the Savior forbid someone we know as His special witness from saying he saw Him? It makes no sense, and I see no scriptural or doctrinal evidence for it.

[ksfisher]

That is a cliche answer. The world is not all swines or dogs. Don't prophets teach repentance to the world and don't they testify of Christ? So why would we say that testifying of Christ would be casting pearls before swine? Weak argument.

 

There is plenty of scriptural precedent for prophets (or others) being forbidden to reveal certain things:

 

3 Nephi 24:18 https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/28.14?lang=eng#13

3 Nephi 27:23 https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/27.23?lang=eng#22

1 Nephi 14:28 https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/14.28?lang=eng#27

3 Nephi 26:16 https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/26.16?lang=eng#15

Ether 5:1 https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/ether/5.1?lang=eng#1

Ether 13:13 https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/ether/13.13?lang=eng#12

Mark 7:36 https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/mark/7.36?lang=eng#35

Mark 9:9 https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/mark/9.9?lang=eng#8

 

I don't think it's always a question of "peals before swine," more a matter of waiting for the proper time.

Edited October 7, 2014 by ksfisher

[Kenngo1969]

That is a cliche answer. The world is not all swines or dogs. Don't prophets teach repentance to the world and don't they testify of Christ? So why would we say that testifying of Christ would be casting pearls before swine? Weak argument.

Yup.  Filled with cliches.  That's my first thought when I think of reading the scriptures.  You didn't like that one? Why am I not surprised?  OK.  Try this one on for size: 1 Corinthians 2:11.

 

P.S.: Many cliches are only cliches because they happen to be true.

Edited October 7, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[HappyJackWagon]

Yup.  Filled with cliches.  That's my first thought when I think of reading the scriptures.  You didn't like that one? Why am I not surprised?  OK.  Try this one on for size: 1 Corinthians 2:11.

 

P.S.: Many cliches are only cliches because they happen to be true.

2 Cor 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

 

I think that we will never know the things of God if the special witnesses of God don't share those things with us.

[ksfisher]

I think that we will never know the things of God if the special witnesses of God don't share those things with us.

 

We come to know the things of God the same way the apostles do; through obedience to the commandments and a daily effort to listen to the spirit.

[CV75]

No.  A prophet in the second half of this dispensation is what you describe. 

Nobody is arguing that there are many kinds of revelation, but there is a clear and definite change that occurred where we stopped being given the word of the Lord and started feeling impressed what course to take.

Is God still "revealing his will to his servants the prophets"?  I certainly hope so.

Do we get the "will of the Lord" from the prophet?  I certainly hope so.

Do we get more of the "word of the Lord"?  Not for a long time.

 

I just posted in another thread but I'll reiterate here:

 

You can almost mark the point in time when something changed.  The last "written" revelation/vision or whatever was Joseph F. Smith.   And why weren't more of the actual revelations that we have recorded added to canon?  Why did we stop presenting legitimate revelation for admission to the canon?

 

For the first 100 years of the Church every prophet recorded written revelation.

For the second 100 years of the Church no prophet has recorded a written revelation.

 

What changed about 1920?  Because that is when things changed.

I’ll distill my comments: the incorrect understanding that the form of revelation drives its quality, and that this in turn defines not only what a prophet is (at any point in any dispensation) but whether God’s work is proceeding, undermines faith. First, because these are false principles; and second, they are promoted in terms of talk of lowering expectations.

 

In addition, whether a revelation is written or not has nothing to do with its form of receipt, nor affect its validity, define what a prophet is, or how much faith we can place in the Lord getting His work done through him. Changes in how things are done likewise.

 

Depending on the nature of our expectations, when we lower them, we can be lowering authentic faith and hope, or presumption and conjecture, or doubt. Lowering faith and hope is spiritually damaging; lowering doubt is leading with doubt and unproductive; lowering presumption and conjecture can take us anywhere or nowhere.

 

My comments get to judging a prophet unrighteously by using false principles as a standard and informing one's expectations accordingly. Do your questions from another thread presume there is a problem because of the standards / expectations being used to create them? Or are they objective questions to find out correct principles with regards to how prophets work?

[CV75]

Continuing to teach such falsehoods without the evidence undermines faith when people who believe these teachings realize they have been lead astray. THAT undermines and destroys faith. Let the prophets and apostles themselves teach us about how they receive revelation and whether they have seen Christ if they think that is necessary - we don't need to teach things we do not know on their behalf.

Thank you. I would say that teaching falsehood is a symptom of undermined (at least undeveloped) faith (which goes hand-in-hand with knowledge) in the first place! I think the prophets and apostles themselves teach us correctly, and if we apply their teachings and govern ourselves correctly, we too will have revelations, in whatever format the Lord chooses.

[Kenngo1969]

I think that we will never know the things of God if the special witnesses of God don't share those things with us.

 

 

We come to know the things of God the same way the apostles do; through obedience to the commandments and a daily effort to listen to the spirit.

I agree with ksfisher, but with due respect, your response also reminds me of this scripture: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/15.8-9?lang=eng

[JLHPROF]

I’ll distill my comments: the incorrect understanding that the form of revelation drives its quality, and that this in turn defines not only what a prophet is (at any point in any dispensation) but whether God’s work is proceeding, undermines faith. First, because these are false principles; and second, they are promoted in terms of talk of lowering expectations.

 

In addition, whether a revelation is written or not has nothing to do with its form of receipt, nor affect its validity, define what a prophet is, or how much faith we can place in the Lord getting His work done through him. Changes in how things are done likewise.

 

Depending on the nature of our expectations, when we lower them, we can be lowering authentic faith and hope, or presumption and conjecture, or doubt. Lowering faith and hope is spiritually damaging; lowering doubt is leading with doubt and unproductive; lowering presumption and conjecture can take us anywhere or nowhere.

 

My comments get to judging a prophet unrighteously by using false principles as a standard and informing one's expectations accordingly. Do your questions from another thread presume there is a problem because of the standards / expectations being used to create them? Or are they objective questions to find out correct principles with regards to how prophets work?

 

You seem to think that I am of the opinion that written revelation is superior to all other kinds.  That is not the point I am making.

The point I am making is one of change.

 

Regardless of type of revelation there are  3 points which seem undeniable:

1. God does NOT change or he would cease to be God.  That's scripture.

2. For the first 100 years of the Church God gave the prophets revelations that were written down and (eventually) added to canon.

3. For the last 100 years of the Church God appears to have given NO revelations that can be written down or added to canon, only spiritual impressions.

 

So the question is:  What changed?  It wasn't God so it must be us?  And does it matter?

 

I am not discounting the spiritual promptings and impressions received by the prophets today.  They lead the Church and it is God's Church.

I am asking WHY the method of delivery would have changed.  Simple doctrinal question, although I don't know that there is a simple doctrinal answer.