consiglieri Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 4 minutes ago, ksfisher said: I don't think any of this revelation seems controversial or pedestrian to those who believe that modern prophets and apostles are indeed receiving revelation. This is the problem to me. We have men claiming to be prophets and apostles, with all the gifts, powers and revelations of ancient prophets and apostles. And the best they can do is "keep the Sabbath better"? There needs no ghost, my lord, come from the grave To tell us this.
ksfisher Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 4 minutes ago, consiglieri said: This is the problem to me. We have men claiming to be prophets and apostles, with all the gifts, powers and revelations of ancient prophets and apostles. And the best they can do is "keep the Sabbath better"? There needs no ghost, my lord, come from the grave To tell us this. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Cor 2:14 2
JLHPROF Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 10 minutes ago, consiglieri said: This is the problem to me. We have men claiming to be prophets and apostles, with all the gifts, powers and revelations of ancient prophets and apostles. And the best they can do is "keep the Sabbath better"? There needs no ghost, my lord, come from the grave To tell us this. While I totally have similar concerns, my very reasonable answer to this would be "are we keeping the Sabbath day yet?" Why would we expect revelation on more weighty issues when we can't manage a basic commandment?
Rain Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 21 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Well, I suppose we could expect those who claim to have the same office, keys and roles as Joseph Smith to produce revelations the way Joseph Smith did. Or would that be asking too much? What do you want revealed? I keep hearing about how Joseph Smith had big revelations, but that kind of goes with the territory doesn't it? He is restoring the church on the earth so he needs more info than is needed now. So what do you want revealed?
JLHPROF Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 Just now, Rain said: What do you want revealed? I keep hearing about how Joseph Smith had big revelations, but that kind of goes with the territory doesn't it? He is restoring the church on the earth so he needs more info than is needed now. So what do you want revealed? God's specified will. Not inspired confirmation of proposed ideas of men. 1
ksfisher Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: God's specified will. Not inspired confirmation of proposed ideas of men. "The argument is common that because the prophet is not receiving revelations like Joseph Smith that are written in scripture, therefore prophecy and revelation have ceased in the Church. However, it must be disconcerting for a church that says that what guarantees the truthfulness of our church is continuing revelation, and we know we have the right interpretation of scripture because we have an ongoing revelation that interprets the scriptures for us. With all due respect I don’t see a “thus saith the Lord” in the [unintelligible] in a long time. Does that mean that the Church has ceased to receive revelation and is therefore no longer true? I suggest looking at it from a different perspective. The goal has always been a “nation of prophets” who themselves are governed by personal revelation. Each person, each Sunday School teacher, each Relief Society president, and (in my case) every Nursery leader, must receive revelation for their stewardship and the accountability for receiving revelation; and it shifts the accountability to each member so that we can’t avoid our responsibility by relying on the prophet to have revelations for us. In fact, I suggest that there is more revelation in the Church now than in the time of Joseph Smith, not less. The goal has always been a “nation of prophets.” Blake Ostler http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2007-fair-conference/2007-spiritual-experiences-as-the-basis-for-belief-and-commitment 4
stemelbow Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 31 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: While I totally have similar concerns, my very reasonable answer to this would be "are we keeping the Sabbath day yet?" Why would we expect revelation on more weighty issues when we can't manage a basic commandment? I'd say plenty are. Who is not? Why is this a problem? I'm just curious, because from my observations, I didn't anticipate this to be a problem.
Popular Post smac97 Posted February 12, 2016 Popular Post Posted February 12, 2016 (edited) 55 minutes ago, consiglieri said: This is the problem to me. We have men claiming to be prophets and apostles, with all the gifts, powers and revelations of ancient prophets and apostles. And the best they can do is "keep the Sabbath better"? There needs no ghost, my lord, come from the grave To tell us this. Technically, revelation is not something the Brethren "can do." It is something the Brethren receive. The recent policy changes (regarding same-sex marriage and children growing up in same-sex parent households) are, I think, an excellent example of revelatory guidance, particularly as juxtaposed with the Brethren's recent emphasis on improved Sabbath observance. Keeping the Sabbath day is not a controversial thing. It may seem quaint to people who do not sustain the Brethren, but such people don't appear to have a substantive objection to the concept. It does not appear to have been a basis for dissenters inside and critics outside the Church to accuse the Brethren or fault the Church. But it's an important piece of guidance for the Saints. In contrast, the Church's recent policy changes have been very controversial. These changes have been a basis for dissenters inside and critics outside the Church to accuse the Brethren or fault the Church. They have also been an important piece of guidance for the Saints, particularly in these days in which we increasingly observe those "that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter." I know that the cynics and anti-Mormons amongst us chalk up the policy changes to bigotry and hatred from the Brethren. But for reasonable, fairminded people, such knee-jerk, unsubstantiated accusations simply don't jibe with the track record of the Brethren. Their writings and their public statements demonstrate a consistent attitude of kindness, love and compassion. The enemies of the LDS Church are, of course, at liberty to accuse these fifteen men of suffering from some sort of collective schizophrenia (that they speak of love and compassion constantly, but then issue policy changes borne of hatred). But that simply doesn't wash. It is not reasonable. It is too pat, too convenient. It is an accusation made with malice, and is not supported by evidence. The alternative explanation makes more sense to me. Namely, that the Brethren are proceeding according to revelation. Even when doing so is unpopular in the eyes of the world. Particularly when doing so is unpopular in they eyes of the world. Making unpopular declarations from God is part and parcel of the whole "prophet" thing. As we know, "a prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house." Samuel the Lamanite was not popular precisely because he, as a prophet, was tasked with proclaiming things which were revealed to him by God, but which lots of people did not want to hear. The same goes for Abinadi. And Lehi. And Nephi. And Paul. And Elijah. And Noah. And, most notably, Jesus Christ. So prophets declaring the mind and will of God, even when many in the world don't want to hear it, even when doing so makes them unpopular, is "the best they can do." These men are kind and good and righteous men. And when they come together as the two highest quorums in the Church, when they spend considerable time in discussion, and in contemplation, and in fasting and prayer, and in temple attendance, and when a revelation is then given through the Presiding High Priest and is recognized as such by the other fourteen men present, and when that revelation touches on a difficult topic, and when that revelation is unpopular in the eyes of the world, and when the Brethren present it anyway, well, at such times we are seeing prophets doing what they are supposed to do. Thanks, -Smac Edited February 12, 2016 by smac97 7
JLHPROF Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 (edited) 18 minutes ago, ksfisher said: "The argument is common that because the prophet is not receiving revelations like Joseph Smith that are written in scripture, therefore prophecy and revelation have ceased in the Church. However, it must be disconcerting for a church that says that what guarantees the truthfulness of our church is continuing revelation, and we know we have the right interpretation of scripture because we have an ongoing revelation that interprets the scriptures for us. With all due respect I don’t see a “thus saith the Lord” in the [unintelligible] in a long time. Does that mean that the Church has ceased to receive revelation and is therefore no longer true? I suggest looking at it from a different perspective. The goal has always been a “nation of prophets” who themselves are governed by personal revelation. Each person, each Sunday School teacher, each Relief Society president, and (in my case) every Nursery leader, must receive revelation for their stewardship and the accountability for receiving revelation; and it shifts the accountability to each member so that we can’t avoid our responsibility by relying on the prophet to have revelations for us. In fact, I suggest that there is more revelation in the Church now than in the time of Joseph Smith, not less. The goal has always been a “nation of prophets.” Blake Ostler http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2007-fair-conference/2007-spiritual-experiences-as-the-basis-for-belief-and-commitment I don't disagree with this. But once again, revelation has been replaced by "inspiration", whether from the apostles or prophets or from the Nursery leader. Gone are the days when the Lord said to the heart and mind of man "this is my will for you". Now are the days of man saying "this is what I feel the Lord wants". A small but important distinction to some of us. Less so to others. If Nephi received the latter he should never have killed Laban. Fortunately he records receiving the former. There is a difference between being TOLD what to do and feeling like a course is correct. Edited February 12, 2016 by JLHPROF
JLHPROF Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 3 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I'd say plenty are. Who is not? Why is this a problem? I'm just curious, because from my observations, I didn't anticipate this to be a problem. No idea. Just playing devils advocate against Consig's concern. Leaving aside the Sabbath, why would we expect revelation on weightier matters when we haven't mastered the basics? To the other thread, why would we expect new revelation on consecration when some members refuse to pay tithing? Why would we expect revelation on any higher principle where the lower law isn't being followed? 1
ksfisher Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: I don't disagree with this. But once again, revelation has been replaced by "inspiration", whether from the apostles or prophets or from the Nursery leader. Gone are the days when the Lord said to the heart and mind of man "this is my will for you". Now are the days of man saying "this is what I feel the Lord wants". A small but important distinction to some of us. Less so to others. If Nephi received the latter he should never have killed Laban. Fortunately he records receiving the former. There is a difference between being TOLD what to do and feeling like a course is correct. The Lord, in past times, has also spoken to his children in a still, small voice. 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 1
JLHPROF Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 Just now, ksfisher said: The Lord, in past times, has also spoken to his children in a still, small voice. 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 Not the same thing. A voice, whether still and small or loud and booming is still the voice of the Lord. Men's feelings are not the voice of the Lord. 1
Popular Post Glenn101 Posted February 12, 2016 Popular Post Posted February 12, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: So now "revelation" is so watered-down in the LDS Church that it means a decision to focus on better keeping a commandment that has been around for thousands of years? Your response, Glenn, is precisely the desired impact this claim is supposed to have. President Nelson stirred up controversy by claiming a two-month old leaked policy was actually revelation. The obvious response to the controversy is to claim that things entirely uncontroversial are likewise the result of revelation. President Nelson understood that in his talk and gave the example of lowering the missionary age, which was now claimed for the first time to be a "revelation." Elder Christofferson continues this tactic by announcing so pedestrian a decision as focusing on Sabbath day observance was a "revelation." The goal seems to be to claim so many uncontroversial things are "revelation" as to soften the controversy surrounding the "revelation" claimed by President Nelson for the new policy. And based on your response, Glenn, this maneuver is having the desired effect. Thanks, consig. You did not let me down. Now, pretty soon, there will be a consensus that the heavens are closed and there is no more revelation. Sound familiar? People are imposing their own interpretations on what is and what is not revelation seemingly in an attempt to justify not heeding the advice or whatever that follows the announced revelation. Glenn Edited February 12, 2016 by Glenn101 5
stemelbow Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: No idea. Just playing devils advocate against Consig's concern. Leaving aside the Sabbath, why would we expect revelation on weightier matters when we haven't mastered the basics? To the other thread, why would we expect new revelation on consecration when some members refuse to pay tithing? Why would we expect revelation on any higher principle where the lower law isn't being followed? Whose not keeping the Sabbath day holy? It seems to have been mastered by many. Why not expect revelation on weightier matters for those who have so mastered? Hold them back because others make different choices.
consiglieri Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 42 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: While I totally have similar concerns, my very reasonable answer to this would be "are we keeping the Sabbath day yet?" Why would we expect revelation on more weighty issues when we can't manage a basic commandment? We can never keep the commandments with perfection. It's that whole "natural man" thing. I have heard this argument before, but because everybody can never keep even the basic commandments, this argument would render void the doctrine that we believe God will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God. If we have to wait for that until we are all perfect, it will never happen. And if we have to wait for that until we are perfect, what would be the point? The imperfections of the early Latter-day Saints didn't seem to prohibit God from pouring down revelation on Joseph Smith . . .
consiglieri Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 5 minutes ago, Glenn101 said: Thanks, consig. You did not let me down. Now, pretty soon, there will be a consensus that the heavens are closed and there is no more revelation. Sound familiar? Glenn The leaders of the LDS Church have proven that the heavens are closed to them and they receive no more revelation. Their recent politically motivated claims notwithstanding. Yes, it does sound familiar. And history is repeating itself.
smac97 Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: I don't disagree with this. But once again, revelation has been replaced by "inspiration", whether from the apostles or prophets or from the Nursery leader. Gone are the days when the Lord said to the heart and mind of man "this is my will for you". Now are the days of man saying "this is what I feel the Lord wants". A small but important distinction to some of us. Less so to others. If Nephi received the latter he should never have killed Laban. Fortunately he records receiving the former. There is a difference between being TOLD what to do and feeling like a course is correct. CFR regarding a material distinction between "inspiration" and "revelation." I'm not seeing it. Anything from the Sciptures or published statements by General Authorities will do. Thanks, -Smac 1
consiglieri Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 8 minutes ago, ksfisher said: The Lord, in past times, has also spoken to his children in a still, small voice. 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 This scripture is used a great deal in the LDS Church. It should be remembered that, historically speaking, this teaching was put in the Old Testament as an excuse for why it is God no longer speaks to his prophets as he did to Moses. In other words, the point had come in Israelite history where no longer did God manifest himself as in earlier days. And a justification for this was required. Hence this teaching was introduced, which can make God's voice something completely indistinguishable from everyday life. It is no coincidence this passage has gained such prominence in LDS usage.
consiglieri Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 17 minutes ago, smac97 said: The recent policy change is, I think, an excellent example of revelatory guidance, Anybody who believes the recent policy change was the result of revelation knows not Jesus nor that God who sent him.
CV75 Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Gone are the days when the Lord said to the heart and mind of man "this is my will for you". Now are the days of man saying "this is what I feel the Lord wants". This may be your point of view, but I personally have been “crowned with blessings from above, yea, and with commandments not a few, and with revelations in their time” (D&C 59:4) Sometimes I receive these things as inspiration, and sometimes as revelation, where inspiration is a form or subset of revelation. Using your phrasing, the Lord has said to my heart and mind, "This is my will for you." And I don't see the First Presidency and Twelve framing their pronouncements in terms of "this is what i feel the Lord wants" at all. 4
Glenn101 Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 3 minutes ago, consiglieri said: The leaders of the LDS Church have proven that the heavens are closed to them and they receive no more revelation. Their recent politically motivated claims notwithstanding. Yes, it does sound familiar. And history is repeating itself. Okay, I disagree. There will come a time when you will find that your are wrong in this. Make your prediction, and then we will just have to wait. Glenn
CV75 Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 Hey everybody that has an overly rigid view of what divine revelation is, and all the who-what-where-when-why-and-hows about it, here is a great article to read that might be helpful to this thread: https://www.lds.org/topics/revelation?lang=eng 1
consiglieri Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 (edited) 17 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Whose not keeping the Sabbath day holy? It seems to have been mastered by many. Why not expect revelation on weightier matters for those who have so mastered? Hold them back because others make different choices. This is exactly the same type of practice most Mormons decry when practiced in the public schools. And with good reason. P.S. AGAIN FOR SOME REASON I AM NO LONGER ALLOWED TO MAKE COMMENTS. I DO NOT KNOW IF THIS IS A SOFTWARE PROBLEM OR WHAT. BUT I WANT BOARD MEMBERS TO KNOW I CANNOT RESPOND TO ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS THEY MAKE. AT LEAST NOT AT THIS TIME. Edited February 12, 2016 by consiglieri
ksfisher Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 9 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Anybody who believes the recent policy change was the result of revelation knows not Jesus nor that God who sent him. Are you speaking as a prophet now?
stemelbow Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 10 minutes ago, consiglieri said: This is exactly the same type of practice most Mormons decry when practiced in the public schools. And with good reason. P.S. AGAIN FOR SOME REASON I AM NO LONGER ALLOWED TO MAKE COMMENTS. I DO NOT KNOW IF THIS IS A SOFTWARE PROBLEM OR WHAT. BUT I WANT BOARD MEMBERS TO KNOW I CANNOT RESPOND TO ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS THEY MAKE. AT LEAST NOT AT THIS TIME. I can't give you any rep points either, for some reason.
Recommended Posts