Calm Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 Reference to missionary age change as revelation, dated Oct 2013: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865587616/One-year-later-Looking-back-at-the-worldwide-impact-of-a-prophets-announcement.html?pg=all
JLHPROF Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 6 minutes ago, Calm said: Reference to missionary age change as revelation, dated Oct 2013: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865587616/One-year-later-Looking-back-at-the-worldwide-impact-of-a-prophets-announcement.html?pg=all Bit of a stretch, but I suppose it could be. "The Lord has promised that revelation would come line upon line and precept upon precept,” Elder Evans said. “The implication is that when one revelation is given, the next revelation is needed. So you have this dramatic announcement by the president of the church, which he describes as having been prayerfully considered and inspired of the Lord,” he continued." 1. Elder Evans as far as his statements that we read here had no witness or record of a revelation being given. 2. It is described as "prayerfully considered and inspired of the Lord". That could be revelation, or it could not. But inspired policy is still closer to actual revelation and much better than uninspired policy I suppose.
Calm Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 Date 2014: https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-study-guide-for-home-study-seminary-students-2014/section-01/unit-8-day-2-doctrine-and-covenants-30-32?lang=eng Quote Doctrine and Covenants 32 The Lord calls Parley P. Pratt and Ziba Peterson to join the mission to the Lamanites The revelations you have studied in Doctrine and Covenants 30–31 and those you will study in Doctrine and Covenants 32–34 are about mission calls, missionary work, and preparations to teach the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. In October 2012, President Thomas S. Monson announced a change in age of missionary service based on the obedience, faithfulness, and maturity of the rising generation: “I am pleased to announce that effective immediately all worthy and able young men who have graduated from high school or its equivalent, regardless of where they live, will have the option of being recommended for missionary service beginning at the age of 18, instead of age 19. I am not suggesting that all young men will—or should—serve at this earlier age. Rather, based on individual circumstances as well as upon a determination by priesthood leaders, this option is now available. “As we have prayerfully pondered the age at which young men may begin their missionary service, we have also given consideration to the age at which a young woman might serve. Today I am pleased to announce that able, worthy young women who have the desire to serve may be recommended for missionary service beginning at age 19, instead of age 21. “We affirm that missionary work is a priesthood duty—and we encourage all young men who are worthy and who are physically able and mentally capable to respond to the call to serve. Many young women also serve, but they are not under the same mandate to serve as are the young men. We assure the young sisters of the Church, however, that they make a valuable contribution as missionaries, and we welcome their service” (“Welcome to Conference,” Ensign or Liahona, Nov. 2012, 4–5). As you continue to study these revelations about missionary work, think about similarities and differences in the preparation and work of the early missionaries and of missionaries throughout the world now. 2
Avatar4321 Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 11 hours 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. You really don't know how Revelation works do you? 1
Avatar4321 Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 11 hours 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? They are.
Avatar4321 Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 10 hours 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? Lorenzo Snow had a Revelation to head south and reinforce tithing. The Church was soon out of debt. We need to do this better. I have no doubt it's a Revelation. I've been having the same thoughts even before they started emphasizing it 1
Avatar4321 Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 10 hours ago, consiglieri said: Anybody who believes the recent policy change was the result of revelation knows not Jesus nor that God who sent him. And you base that conclusion on your lack of revelation.
Lemuel Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 11 hours ago, 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? For many folks, it's a big deal that women don't have priesthood. There is no revelation saying women can't have priesthood, but it would be extremely foolish to ordain women without a revelation. But there is no revelation. Joseph would've gotten one.
JLHPROF Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 9 minutes ago, Lemuel said: For many folks, it's a big deal that women don't have priesthood. There is no revelation saying women can't have priesthood, but it would be extremely foolish to ordain women without a revelation. But there is no revelation. Joseph would've gotten one. No revelation will contradict eternal law. And if God wanted women to be ordained to ecclesiastical priesthood he could very easily have called one. But he NEVER has. Instead God provides women with priesthood through temple ordinances, priesthood based in families and the eternities.
Lemuel Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 I should've been more clear. I didn't mean that the answer to the question of ordaining women should be yes; I think the answer is almost certainly no. But in Joseph's day he would've asked the question, and gotten an actual revelation in complete sentences, and then he would have published those sentences for all to read. Just saying that's not the church we have anymore. Today the best we can do is ask specific yes or no questions, and go with our feelings. "The seers hath he covered because of your iniquity." and all that.
JLHPROF Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 3 minutes ago, Lemuel said: I should've been more clear. I didn't mean that the answer to the question of ordaining women should be yes; I think the answer is almost certainly no. But in Joseph's day he would've asked the question, and gotten an actual revelation in complete sentences, and then he would have published those sentences for all to read. Just saying that's not the church we have anymore. Today the best we can do is ask specific yes or no questions, and go with our feelings. "The seers hath he covered because of your iniquity." and all that. Agreed.
ksfisher Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 14 minutes ago, Lemuel said: I should've been more clear. I didn't mean that the answer to the question of ordaining women should be yes; I think the answer is almost certainly no. But in Joseph's day he would've asked the question, and gotten an actual revelation in complete sentences, and then he would have published those sentences for all to read. Just saying that's not the church we have anymore. Today the best we can do is ask specific yes or no questions, and go with our feelings. "The seers hath he covered because of your iniquity." and all that. You seem to know a lot about what Joseph would have done. How do you come by that knowledge? 1
Lemuel Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 Pure conjecture, based on what Joseph did when faced with a vexing question.
consiglieri Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 11 hours ago, Avatar4321 said: You really don't know how Revelation works do you? I know revelation does not come through council deliberations.
Rain Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 11 hours ago, Lemuel said: I should've been more clear. I didn't mean that the answer to the question of ordaining women should be yes; I think the answer is almost certainly no. But in Joseph's day he would've asked the question, and gotten an actual revelation in complete sentences, and then he would have published those sentences for all to read. Just saying that's not the church we have anymore. Today the best we can do is ask specific yes or no questions, and go with our feelings. "The seers hath he covered because of your iniquity." and all that. Thanks for answering my question about something you would like revealed (or that some would like revealed). I get tired of the lament that nothing is every revealed anymore without some direction of what they want revealed. Just wondered if some want a "Thus sayeth the Lord" every decade, year, conference? I disagree though that the best we can do is to only ask yes or no questions. That has not been my experience. While I try to do my part and study it out there are times when I don't have any idea and have to keep the question open. And on several occasions answers have come in clear words, not just feelings. I recognize that this doesn't happen for everyone and I won't insinuate in anyway that if you don't get those answers that you aren't worthy as I don't believe that. I just know it is possible and it does happen when the Lord chooses the timing is right. 1
CV75 Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: I know revelation does not come through council deliberations. Yet councils and their processes are often the venue through which revelation comes: From D&C 107, to “administer in spiritual things” (verses 8, 10 and 12) includes receiving revelation: “The power and authority of the higher, or Melchizedek Priesthood, is to hold the keys of all the spiritual blessings of the church—To have the privilege of receiving the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, to have the heavens opened unto them, to commune with the general assembly and church of the Firstborn, and to enjoy the communion and presence of God the Father, and Jesus the mediator of the new covenant.” (verses 18, 19) The Melchizedek Priesthood often functions through councils to “administer in spiritual things” especially “…the most important business of the church …shall be handed over and carried up unto the council of the church, before the Presidency of the High Priesthood.” (verse 78). “And the Presidency of the council of the High Priesthood shall have power to call other high priests, even twelve, to assist as counselors; and thus the Presidency of the High Priesthood and its counselors shall have power to decide upon testimony according to the laws of the church.” (verse 79). “…And after this decision it shall be had in remembrance no more before the Lord; for this is the highest council of the church of God, and a final decision upon controversies in spiritual matters. There is not any person belonging to the church who is exempt from this council of the church.” (verses 80-81). 2
Avatar4321 Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 8 hours ago, consiglieri said: I know revelation does not come through council deliberations. How did you reach that conclusion?
Tacenda Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 On 2/13/2016 at 8:57 PM, Lemuel said: I should've been more clear. I didn't mean that the answer to the question of ordaining women should be yes; I think the answer is almost certainly no. But in Joseph's day he would've asked the question, and gotten an actual revelation in complete sentences, and then he would have published those sentences for all to read. Just saying that's not the church we have anymore. Today the best we can do is ask specific yes or no questions, and go with our feelings. "The seers hath he covered because of your iniquity." and all that. According to some he did get revelation that women can hold the priesthood, like probably a lot of things during the building process of the church. But I guess it got scratched.
Tacenda Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 Lethal, struggling with edit function to this post: According to some he did get revelation that women can hold the priesthood, like probably a lot of things during the building process of the church. But I guess it got scratched. ETA: http://www.lds-mormon.com/01220259.shtml http://askgramps.org/women-ever-hold-priesthood http://wonderwitch.blogspot.com/2007/05/mormon-women-have-had-priesthood-since.html Too many to c/p, but here some opinions on the matter.
Lemuel Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 5 hours ago, Tacenda said: Darn autocorrect....Lemuel Lethal...I'm cool with it.
CMZ Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 On 2/11/2016 at 0:33 PM, Ahab said: Or am I expected to commune with the Lord some more about this myself? It's not so much that you're expected to as it is that you always have the privilege to.
CMZ Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 On 2/12/2016 at 7:37 AM, 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. Not every revelation is a revealing of entirely new information. Revelation can certainly guide prophets to emphasize or re-emphasize certain principles. 1
CMZ Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 On 2/12/2016 at 7:49 AM, 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"? I'm quite certain they get revelation far beyond just that, but it twists things around the wrong way if we say we won't believe a revelation to a prophet unless we feel it's spectacular enough. What's really awesome is that you can receive your own personal revelation.
Avatar4321 Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 11 hours ago, CMZ said: I'm quite certain they get revelation far beyond just that, but it twists things around the wrong way if we say we won't believe a revelation to a prophet unless we feel it's spectacular enough. What's really awesome is that you can receive your own personal revelation. I agree. And we already know the Lord often does give us revelation to renew previously given commands. the law of tithing for example. Lorenzo snow received a revelation to renew preaching it. Can anyone deny this was a great revelation even though it was a revelation to renew a previously given commandment?
Recommended Posts