A Church Of Continuing Hunches?

[ksfisher]

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

 

We read that a couple of days ago in family scripture study.  It must have sunk in and I didn't even realize it.

[CV75]

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.

I understand you were making a point about change, but I had been making one about undermining faith and people's reaction to change, and this reminded me of another element. I’m saying that linking the quality of revelation to its form, pace, documentation and canonization (and whether these things have changed over time) is incorrect and so undermines faith.

 

Your questions have to do with why these things have changed. Unanswered questions needn't undermine (or be used to undermine) faith that is already based on a true principle.

 

But to answer your questions, I think the principles of “line upon line, precept upon precept,” “revelations in their time,” and “I will hasten my work in its time” and “ the Lord doth grant …all that he seeth fit that they should have; therefore we see that the Lord doth counsel in wisdom, according to that which is just and true” are some of the doctrinal foundations for the types of changes you are asking about.

Edited October 8, 2014 by CV75

[HappyJackWagon]

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

1 Nephi 15:8-9

8 And I said unto them: Have ye inquired of the Lord?

9 And they said unto me: We have not; for the Lord maketh no such thing known unto us.

 

Or what if verse nine read. "We have, but the Lord maketh no such thing known unto us."

[ksfisher]

1 Nephi 15:8-9

8 And I said unto them: Have ye inquired of the Lord?

9 And they said unto me: We have not; for the Lord maketh no such thing known unto us.

 

Or what if verse nine read. "We have, but the Lord maketh no such thing known unto us."

 

Then it wouldn't mean the same thing.  What's your point?

[stemelbow]

"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.

He didn't say it was in the same way. He is suggesting that personal inspiration through the Holy Ghost, much like that which inspires all people throughout the globe to matters of truth is as powerful and meaningful as actually seeing Christ.

[ksfisher]

He didn't say it was in the same way. He is suggesting that personal inspiration through the Holy Ghost, much like that which inspires all people throughout the globe to matters of truth is as powerful and meaningful as actually seeing Christ.

 

"as if I had been there"     "as surely as did Joseph Smith"     That sounds like a bit more than just inspiration.

[stemelbow]

"as if I had been there"     "as surely as did Joseph Smith"     That sounds like a bit more than just inspiration.

hm...I read his words and get the very clear impression that he is suggesting when he has received witness of the Holy Ghost that it is as good as if he were Joseph Smith who saw them, or those who walked with Him in the NT. I get no impression at all that he is claiming Christ has personally visited him.

But if you think so, fine by me. I just disagree.

[ksfisher]

hm...I read his words and get the very clear impression that he is suggesting when he has received witness of the Holy Ghost that it is as good as if he were Joseph Smith who saw them, or those who walked with Him in the NT. I get no impression at all that he is claiming Christ has personally visited him.

But if you think so, fine by me. I just disagree.

 

If it came from anyone except an apostle I would agree with you. 

[CV75]

1 Nephi 15:8-9

8 And I said unto them: Have ye inquired of the Lord?

9 And they said unto me: We have not; for the Lord maketh no such thing known unto us.

 

Or what if verse nine read. "We have, but the Lord maketh no such thing known unto us."

Verse 6 shows the spirit in which the brothers were operating--they were disputing, which isn't conducive to hearing, receiving or understanding answers from any source (compare with 3 Nephi 11:28, 29).

 

I think two things come into play for those who have asked but haven't received answers. One is that unanswered questions in one area needn't undermine faith that is already established in another (or related) truth. The other is that questions may go unanswered not because “… this man sinned ….but that the works of God should be made manifest in him [eventually].”

[HappyJackWagon]

Then it wouldn't mean the same thing.  What's your point?

The point is that the implication when that scripture was quoted to me was that I simply need to ask and not be hard hearted like Laman and Lemuel. By altering the statement I was attempting to show that sometimes we do ask yet we still don't have the answer.

[Kenngo1969]

The point is that the implication when that scripture was quoted to me was that I simply need to ask and not be hard hearted like Laman and Lemuel. By altering the statement I was attempting to show that sometimes we do ask yet we still don't have the answer.

And sometimes we do get the answer, but we don't recognize it for what it is.  See, e.g., Doctrine and Covenants 6:14-15, 22-23; 3 Nephi 9:20.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[HappyJackWagon]

And sometimes we do get the answer, but we don't recognize it for what it is.  See, e.g., Doctrine and Covenants 6:14-15, 22-23; 3 Nephi 9:20.

That is very true.

 

If I were taking a college math class and I bought the book, did my homework, studied diligently, attended each lecture and asked the teacher questions when I didn't understand what he was teaching, who's fault would it be if I still failed?

 

Is the fault all mine for not being smart enough to understand the concepts being taught? Sounds reasonable.

Or could some responsibility also be on the instructor for not teaching, explaining, communicating in a way I can understand?

 

We all know that communication is a two way street. Both parties have a responsibility for clear, open, and honest communication. Therefore it seems reasonable to me to hope for communication from God that I can understand and recognize. Not all people communicate in the same way so communication must be tailored to fit the needs of the individual. For some, the still small voice or a burning in the bosom may be sufficient communication. For others, it may require something a little less common or mundane to recognize the source as coming from God.

[Boanerges]

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.

And in which of those scriptures did someone see the Savior and was forbidden to say so?

[ksfisher]

And in which of those scriptures did someone see the Savior and was forbidden to say so?

 

Please reread my first sentence.  

[DBMormon]

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

So if he never talks face to face with God, we should allow others to pretend he does?  Or if we think it does not occur we should be silent rather than discuss such things?

 

I will agree to disagree... this is a discussion board.... I am here to test all my assumptions and to learn what others think about the same issues.

[CV75]

So if he never talks face to face with God, we should allow others to pretend he does?  Or if we think it does not occur we should be silent rather than discuss such things?

 

I will agree to disagree... this is a discussion board.... I am here to test all my assumptions and to learn what others think about the same issues.

Those who draw the conclusion that the prophet never talks face to face with God and have decided that others are pretending that they do are facing two significant problems right out of the gate. First, how do they know that they themselves are right on this point; second, how do they know others are not?

 

But since they already think they are right, what they actually do in light of these problems is more a function of how successfully they relate to their fellow beings (collectively and individually). One key to doing that is to know by their own fruits whether they know and govern themselves sufficiently to know and how far to go in governing others (“allow others”). This requires both insight and inspiration.

 

But that aside, your questions are really about whether we should discuss things with those who we assume think differently than we do, and whether we should correct them.  Underlying that seems to be a question of how and/or whether we initiate those conversations and corrections. Both parties should be willing to discuss and relate to each other in good faith. There are many obvious and subtle ways to assess and facilitate this dynamic.

 

The Church has many materials on how to do this (Preach My Gospel, Teaching No Greater Call, the Handbooks, etc.), not to mention the scriptures about how the saints treat others. It applies to any Gospel subject, not just about prophets speaking face to face with God.