Poll of Active LDS on Desire for Published (Canonized) Revelation Re: Controversial Issues

[smac97]

So here's a poll (it's multiple choice).  Feel free to comment.  Please also add other proposed answers you think I should have included in the poll.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 19, 2015 by smac97

[JLHPROF]

I went with yes, and picked the closest, but my reason would actually be "Yes, if it is the Lord's will to provide further light on these issues."

Seeking revelation to convince people who already don't have testimonies of prophetic callings and teachings seems wrong somehow.  Sounds more like a wicked man seeking a sign.

So I would like additional canonized revelation (aka "the word of the Lord"), but on his terms, not on the terms of an adulterous generation.  People get the revelation the deserve, and that would be scary considering the beliefs of many revelation seekers.

[smac97]

Do you think it is possible that there are sincere, well-meaning, faithful members of the church who earnestly feel that they are right and that the Church is in error in regards to one or more of these topics? Put another way, there are people who would benefit from clarification from the Lord about these topics, and are seeking further clarification not because they are wicked or seeking after a sign, but because they sincerely desire to better understand the Lord's will regarding these issues?

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Do you think it is possible that there are sincere, well-meaning, faithful members of the church who earnestly feel that they are right and that the Church is in error in regards to one or more of these topics? Put another way, there are people who would benefit from clarification from the Lord about these topics, and are seeking further clarification not because they are wicked or seeking after a sign, but because they sincerely desire to better understand the Lord's will regarding these issues?

Of course.

But I also believe that a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.  A supporter of SSM would almost certainly reject any new canonized revelation banning it.  A supporter of female ordination would almost certainly reject any new canonized revelation banning it.

I suppose I shouldn't have implied "wickedness" on the part of all the confused.  But the principle of seeking signs vs exercising faith is pretty clearly laid out.  I would hope that more are faithfully seeking clarification from the Lord.  Unfortunately reading some blog posts and website opinions seem a little closer to "PROVE to me that women can't hold the priesthood - show me a sign".

[Avatar4321]

Personally I don't see how it is difficult to understand with the current canon. However, if the Lord wishes to make it so clear that no one can misunderstand, I am not opposed to it. I think it would be more prudent however for individuals to seek their own witness from the Lord

[Bob Crockett]

None of those.  

Canonization for Latter-day Saints does not have the significance it has for other Christian and Jewish faiths where the teaching is that the heavens are closed.  All it means is it answers the question about what will be in the Triple Combination 8-year-olds take to Church. 

For instance, have the Latter-day Saints canonized the KJV?  No, they haven't.   The KJV consists of the text and marginal notations made by the translators.  In the last approval of the LDS scriptures, the marginal notations were dropped, some of which were quite favorable to an understanding of a plurality of gods.  Is it really significant that the Latter-day Saints have a different KJV than recognized by other faiths?  No; the "canonization" by dropping the marginal notes was meaningless to LDS doctrine.

Edited December 19, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[Storm Rider]

We believe that the heavens remain open and the revelation continues.  I have always felt that something was lacking when scripture ceased to be added to regardless of the reason.  Scripture is more than just the histories of God's interactions with ancient peoples, but it is also about God's interaction with his children today.  

It is inappropriate to assume that I look for revelation about social squeaky wheels, but I look for revelation that is deemed so significant that it is added to the Standard Works.  

[Ahab]

Didn't vote because I am fine either way but pity the people who are confused on these issues.

[smac97]

Quote

None of those.  

Canonization for Latter-day Saints does not have the significance it has for other Christian and Jewish faiths where the teaching is that the heavens are closed.  All it means is it answers the question about what will be in the Triple Combination 8-year-olds take to Church. 

For instance, have the Latter-day Saints canonized the KJV?  No, they haven't.   The KJV consists of the text and marginal notations made by the translators.  In the last approval of the LDS scriptures, the marginal notations were dropped, some of which were quite favorable to an understanding of a plurality of gods.  Is it really significant that the Latter-day Saints have a different KJV than recognized by other faiths?  No; the "canonization" by dropping the marginal notes was meaningless to LDS doctrine.

Hello Bob,

I would like to better understand your statement above, particularly in light of the following (emphases added):

Quote

For Latter-day Saints, the concept of scripture entails two complementary definitions-a broad definition that embraces all revelation from God as "scripture," and a narrower view that includes only the standard works as "the scriptures." Both categories are authoritative, since both are viewed as coming from God.

The first definition uses "scripture" as synonymous with such terms as "inspired" or "divinely revealed." Concerning those who have been called and ordained to proclaim God's word, a revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants provides the foundation: "Whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation" (D&C 68:4). In this light, Latter-day Saints hold in high regard the words of Church leaders at all levels. Especially authoritative are the official pronouncements of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who are sustained by Church members as "prophets, seers, and revelators." Their writings and addresses-particularly in general conference-are cited frequently as guides for living and for authoritative interpretation of doctrine. Statements issued by the First Presidency represent the official position and policy of the Church.

Joseph Smith taught that "a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such" (HC 5:265). Thus, the words of prophets carry the force of scripture only when they are uttered under the influence of the Holy Ghost. Latter-day Saints freely acknowledge this divine influence in the teachings and counsel of leaders and deem it a privilege to be instructed by them. They consider this inspired direction to be "scripture" in the broad definition and endeavor to harmonize their lives with it.

The more restrictive view of what constitutes scripture would include only what is called "the scriptures"-that is, the four standard works: the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. These constitute the canonized, authoritative corpus of revealed writings against which all else is measured. President Joseph Fielding Smith taught, "My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them…. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine" (DS 3:203).

Comparative valuations in respective faith traditions notwithstanding, it has been my understanding that the scriptural canon is quite important in Mormonism.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tony Frank]

None of the poll choices reflect the truth. On page 477 of History of the Church, Volume Two, the Prophet Joseph Smith addressed the assembly and said:

Quote

The Melchizedek High Priesthood was no other than the Priesthood of the Son of God; that there are certain ordinances which belong to the Priesthood from which flow certain results; and the Presidents or Presidency are over the Church; and revelations of the mind and will of God to the Church are to come through the Presidency. This is the order of heaven.

We obviously do not need "formal, published (that is, canonized in scripture) revelation" to know the mind and will of God to the Church. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Tony Frank said:

None of the poll choices reflect the truth. On page 477 of History of the Church, Volume Two, the Prophet Joseph Smith addressed the assembly and said:

We obviously do not need "formal, published (that is, canonized in scripture) revelation" to know the mind and will of God to the Church. 

Well, sometimes we do.  The OD-1 and the OD-2 both addressed significant issues facing the Church (polygamy and the priesthood restriction), and are both canonized revelations.  I don't really fault people who hope for an OD-3 regarding the Lord's will as pertaining to priesthood ordination for women or same-sex marriage.  Not as an exercise in sign-seeking, nor as an effort to foist a pre-determined conclusion on the Church (a la the OW folks' repeated "we want the priesthood and nothing less will suffice" nonsense).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ahab]

The Lord and the "brethren" have already been perfectly clear on this issue, though, and it is mainly only those who object to what they have already said who want additional "clarification".  The rest of the objectors just don't know how to correctly understand what the Lord and the brethren have already said even though they have been taught repeatedly to inquire of the Lord for themselves.

 

 

[carbon dioxide]

The only revelations that I want are real ones and I want revelations on issues the Lord wants to talk about and not what is the hot button issue for the moment.

[carbon dioxide]

I don't need a revelation of SSM or SS sexual activity.  For me at least those issue are pretty much clear cut as issues regarding stealing, murder, ect. 

[Duncan]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

The Lord and the "brethren" have already been perfectly clear on this issue, though, and it is mainly only those who object to what they have already said who want additional "clarification".  The rest of the objectors just don't know how to correctly understand what the Lord and the brethren have already said even though they have been taught repeatedly to inquire of the Lord for themselves.

 

 

 

Some people think that Lord hasn't ever said anything about homosexuality (If the BOM was written for our day where is their a scripture that says anything remotely about homosexuality?) or SSM and so what the brethren say are their own opinions, because if it wasn't their own opinions it would be canonized into scripture and that hasn't happened since the 1970's and this is 2015

[sunstoned]

I wish there was more evidence that god is speaking through the leaders of the church.  But there isn't.  Major doctrines have been reversed because of external influences. Because past performance predicts future behavior, I have no doubt that the the policies on ordination of women and the acceptance of the gay community will be revisited and reversed.

[Ahab]

Again, for the umpteenth time, scripture doesn't need to be put into a collection of other scripture for it to count as scripture, and there always will be more scripture than what is in the canon.

Just learn how to tell when the words of men or of our Lord are scripture.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

I ended up not voting.

While it would give me some visceral satisfaction to see some explicit revelation added to the canon to confirm what I already know to be true, from what I have observed on this board, it would do little-to-no-good in changing intransigent minds. There is too much of what I can only characterize as invincible doubt and fault-finding.

 

Edited December 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I wish there was more evidence that god is speaking through the leaders of the church.  But there isn't.  Major doctrines have been reversed because of external influences. Because past performance predicts future behavior, I have no doubt that the the policies on ordination of women and the acceptance of the gay community will be revisited and reversed.

External influences have not caused the church to abandon the Book of Mormon, Word of Wisdom, Law of Chastity, and other things.  What does the Church gain out of appeasing these external influences?  They are mainly non-Mormons.  Even if the Church was to change its positions, they would not join the Church.  In fact the Church would be mocked for changing its position.  Past performance predicts future behavior.  When the Church changed the policy on blacks and the priesthood, these non-LDS people did not join the church in mass.  Instead they began mocking the Church for doing the change.  The church gains nothing by listening to external influences.  It loses a lot by listening to them.  Some changes are small and some are huge.  The Church would experience a huge schism if it was to accept homosexuality and gay marriage. It would be far, far greater than the schism that occurred when Joseph Smith died.  It would lose at least half of the membership with this radical doctrinal change.  Ordination of women might be less disruptive but it still would result in more members leaving than joining.  There is always a chance that the ordination of women might occur but I give the odds of the Church accepting homosexuality and gay marriage to be the same as the Church formally rejecting the Book of Mormon.  I give the odds to be zero.

Edited December 20, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I wish there was more evidence that god is speaking through the leaders of the church.  But there isn't.  Major doctrines have been reversed because of external influences. Because past performance predicts future behavior, I have no doubt that the the policies on ordination of women and the acceptance of the gay community will be revisited and reversed.

Dream on, good buddy . . .

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I ended up not voting.

While it would give me some visceral satisfaction to see some explicit revelation added to the canon to confirm what I already know to be true, from what I have observed on this board, it would do little-to-no-good in changing intransigent minds. There is too much of what I can only characterize as invincible doubt and fault-finding.

 

That was one of the options, Scott.  The last one; which was what I went with.

[JLHPROF]

12 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I wish there was more evidence that god is speaking through the leaders of the church.  But there isn't.  Major doctrines have been reversed because of external influences. Because past performance predicts future behavior, I have no doubt that the the policies on ordination of women and the acceptance of the gay community will be revisited and reversed.

Personally I believe these "influences" you speak of are more internal than external.

The majority of the changes you are alluding to came as a result of pressure from members who agreed with the world at large, rather than the world itself.  These days nobody wants to live apart from general society so pushing to be more acceptable continues.  Almost every change made by the Church has historical references to member pressure bringing it about.  God gives us what we want.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, Stargazer said:

That was one of the options, Scott.  The last one; which was what I went with.

Had it been possible to choose both the first and last options, I might have voted. 

[Rain]

On Saturday, December 19, 2015 at 11:42 AM, smac97 said:

Do you think it is possible that there are sincere, well-meaning, faithful members of the church who earnestly feel that they are right and that the Church is in error in regards to one or more of these topics? Put another way, there are people who would benefit from clarification from the Lord about these topics, and are seeking further clarification not because they are wicked or seeking after a sign, but because they sincerely desire to better understand the Lord's will regarding these issues?

Yes.

[Rain]

On Saturday, December 19, 2015 at 0:41 PM, Bob Crockett said:

None of those.  

Canonization for Latter-day Saints does not have the significance it has for other Christian and Jewish faiths where the teaching is that the heavens are closed.  All it means is it answers the question about what will be in the Triple Combination 8-year-olds take to Church. 

For instance, have the Latter-day Saints canonized the KJV?  No, they haven't.   The KJV consists of the text and marginal notations made by the translators.  In the last approval of the LDS scriptures, the marginal notations were dropped, some of which were quite favorable to an understanding of a plurality of gods.  Is it really significant that the Latter-day Saints have a different KJV than recognized by other faiths?  No; the "canonization" by dropping the marginal notes was meaningless to LDS doctrine.

Would you share where I can learn more about this please? 

 

Edit to clarify: I'm not talking about canonization. Just the marginal notations. 

Edited December 20, 2015 by Rain