Do you think there has been a revelation from God since Joseph Smith's time?

[Hamba Tuhan]

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

God ... aint' interested in revealing to us.

You and I seem to occupy two very different existential spaces.

[TheSkepticChristian]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

You misunderstand the nature and purpose of faith if you think that such an event and its recounting by its recipient would increase faith.  

I don't, and I am not saying anything about faith or increasing faith. If Pres Monson says that Jesus visits him, we as LDS would still need faith. So why were the Book of Mormon witnesses necessary? 

 I just simply wonder why no General Authority has claimed to see God, Jesus, or an angel. Joseph Smith did say many times that he saw Jesus and angels. Why Joseph Smith, but not other prophets? 

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 President Nelson was unequivocal about the nature of the policy change regarding the eligibility for baptism of minors reared in non-heterosexual households, 

My goodness! Not that subject again. We all know how much you hate gay marriage. 

52 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Even if they did I don't think they would share such a sacred experience it with the world. Can you imagine the reaction they would get from church critics and even people who are not church critics? 

but Joseph Smith did, many times. Was that a mistake and God learn his lesson? 

In fact, the church was growing a lot faster when Joseph Smith was the living prophet. 

Edited June 27, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

We are two-years away from the hundred-year mark of the last revelation to be canonized in the Doctrine and Covenants.

The fact is that the LDS Church does not receive any revelation, and has not for around a century.

This issue is being raised in more and more venues because more and more Mormons are getting wise to this fact.

They are becoming dissatisfied with the excuses commonly given for why it is the Church has no more revelation.

Indeed, why would the Church have so many excuses to address this problem if it were not an issue?

In brief:

1. We are told by President Hinkley that the Church doesn't need much revelation any more because Joseph Smith received it all.

2. In the face of that, we are told that the Church receives revelation all the time, only the membership doesn't get told about the specifics.  Trust us.

3. We are also told that revelation is ongoing and we get simply scads of it in protracted semi-annual General Conferences.  Only when we start looking at the content of the addresses there, it starts to look less like revelation and more like pabulum.

 

And yet the LDS Church continues to trumpet the claim of living prophets who receive revelation directly from God.

As I say, more and more Mormons are starting to wonder about this disparity between doctrinal claims and actual practice; between the claim of ongoing revelation against the dearth of the same.

This is why I think this subject keeps being raised.

And then, to top it all off, President Nelson claims a policy targeting the children of gay couples is a revelation.  Is this what we have waited a century to receive?

Many Mormons think otherwise.

 

I think President Nelson and others are seeing "revelation" as something loosely defined.  Any old inspiration one receives, like, oh say, It's a good idea to mow my neighbors lawn before it rains again is revelation.  If so, there's nothing unique about LDS revelation at all. 

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You and I seem to occupy two very different existential spaces.

Maybe .  Or maybe you misunderstand.  I'm saying if the tailoring to suit us is at issue, then today it feels like God is not interesting in revealing to us.  I say God is interested, It's not happening because the Church has forged a place where revelation is not welcome. 

[Sky]

The most common way the Lord communicates with us is through the still, small voice -- and I don't think the prophets are usually any exception to that.  

1 Kings 19: 11-13 - 

Quote

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:

And after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.

I don't think that stories of latter-day prophets receiving heavenly visions would necessarily increase faith.  It is a choice we make.  It has to come from within us.  In the gospel, there is a lot of repetition -- because repetition is the law of learning.  So there is probably not going to be much that we haven't heard in some way before.    

Also, there are things that I believe have come as a revelation in more recent times:

1) Hinckley - the building of many, smaller temples and the Perpetual Education Fund

2) Monson - the reemphasis on keeping the Sabbath day holy  

3) "Preach My Gospel" - new system for missionary work

…and so on.  I'm sure there are more.  But they might seem boring or un-noteworthy to some people.  

[stemelbow]

22 minutes ago, Sky said:

The most common way the Lord communicates with us is through the still, small voice -- and I don't think the prophets are usually any exception to that.  

1 Kings 19: 11-13 - 

I don't think that stories of latter-day prophets receiving heavenly visions would necessarily increase faith.  It is a choice we make.  It has to come from within us.  In the gospel, there is a lot of repetition -- because repetition is the law of learning.  So there is probably not going to be much that we haven't heard in some way before.    

Also, there are things that I believe have come as a revelation in more recent times:

1) Hinckley - the building of many, smaller temples and the Perpetual Education Fund

2) Monson - the reemphasis on keeping the Sabbath day holy  

3) "Preach My Gospel" - new system for missionary work

…and so on.  I'm sure there are more.  But they might seem boring or un-noteworthy to some people.  

I think you're right.  But then we must admit, revelation of this type is had by all, most of which is occurring outside the Church--seeing as their are so many more people seeking God's inspiration outside the Church then in it.

[consiglieri]

43 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think President Nelson and others are seeing "revelation" as something loosely defined.  Any old inspiration one receives, like, oh say, It's a good idea to mow my neighbors lawn before it rains again is revelation.  If so, there's nothing unique about LDS revelation at all. 

There is something to do this.  The LDS Church has over time dumbed down what constitutes revelation to the serendipitous finding of one's car keys.

Or fortuitously happening upon a newspaper article that helps direct what one should say in a public setting.  It was President Eyring who likened just such a coincidence to a miracle as big as when Moses parted the Red Sea, if memory serves.

But President Nelson went much further than this--he stated that the Twelve and the First Presidency were gathered, and that they ALL saw the Spirit move (whatever that means) upon President Monson when he received this "revelation," and that it was their privilege to sustain him.

This announcement was made by President Nelson in January.

I waited expectantly for April General Conference to see if any of the other apostles that President Nelson said were participants and witnesses to this event would stand up and confirm the truth of what President Nelson said.

But not one did.

And not one has.

The silence is deafening.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

It'll be interesting when that policy goes the way of the dinosaurs, as they say.  What will say about revelation in the church then?  Most will just say the end of the policy was by revelation and the policy was in place for a very specific reason that many might speculate on.  That speculation might even come from the prophet, officially declared as revelation, and then later such teachings will be condemned. 

I'm just saying, this has happened before. 

Thanks for providing evidence for my point.  

[JAHS]

46 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I don't, and I am not saying anything about faith or increasing faith. If Pres Monson says that Jesus visits him, we as LDS would still need faith. So why were the Book of Mormon witnesses necessary? 

 I just simply wonder why no General Authority has claimed to see God, Jesus, or an angel. Joseph Smith did say many times that he saw Jesus and angels. Why Joseph Smith, but not other prophets? 

My goodness! Not that subject again. We all know how much you hate gay marriage. 

but Joseph Smith did, many times. Was that a mistake and God learn his lesson? 

In fact, the church was growing a lot faster when Joseph Smith was the living prophet. 

I would say the circumstances were very different. God wanted to get His church started, which required a personal visit from Him to show that He does indeed exist, what His true nature is, and make an announcement to the world that His kingdom was now established on earth. Thanks to Joseph Smith's experience we now know that information. There is therefore no longer a need for Him to appear to anyone, unless He chooses to for the benefit of a specific person. 

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

and I am referring to many prophets that saw God, Jesus, or angels according to Holy Writ. I never said "all" or "most" 

By "many" I don't mean a long list because we don't know all the Prophets equivalent to President Monson in Holy Write. However, the few that we know (like Moses, Abraham, Lehi)many of them did see God or angels according to Holy Writ. 

Okay, how about apostles in the New Testament? 

1. Paul saw Jesus.

2. John saw Jesus and angels.

3. Jesus saw the Father and angels. 

4.  Two angels appear to the disciples of Jesus 

5. An angel frees one apostle from prison 

because we don't know many New Testament apostles, we know more than 100 LDS apostles. 

You are still not listing all the prophets and then listing whether each saw God/Jesus/angels.  Most of the prophets in the Bible do not see God (not that we know of).  What we find Nathan the prophet doing, for example, is confronting King David and pronouncing judgment upon him.  There is a large group of ecstatic prophets among whom King Saul finds himself, but none are listed as seeing God or angels.  Most of the writing prophets do not claim to see God/angels, but some non-prophets do.  Why are you unwilling to make a list?  Then you could compare your list to your automatic assumptions about LDS prophets (which include all the apostles).  I think that your automatic assumptions here are false, but would like to see you present the data yourself.  Of course, you will want to list all BofM prophets.  And then there are the prophets contemporary with Lehi and Jeremiah:   Zephaniah (ca. 680–620), Habakkuk (ca. 609–598), Nahum (620–605?), Daniel, the unknown author of Lamentations, Ben-Yohanan ben Igdaliah (Jeremiah 35:4 LXX; ca. 605–537), Uriah ben Shemaiah (Jeremiah 26:20–23; ca. 609–598), Ezekiel, and the prophetess Huldah (622 B.C.).

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Thanks for providing evidence for my point.  

However I can help.

[TheSkepticChristian]

22 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

  Most of the writing prophets do not claim to see God/angels, but some non-prophets do.  Why are you unwilling to make a list? 

because it is hard to know who are all of the Prophets (equivalent to Pres Monson) and the non-prophets. So example, we are not sure if Paul was truly an apostle. Was Stephen a General Authority? Was Zacharias a prophet? Was Cornelius a General Authority? All of them saw an angel according to the New Testament, but we don't know if they were General Authorities. 

 

Writing prophets? I though Moses was NOT the author of the first five books of the Bible. I though Isaih did not write the entire Book of Isaiah. I though the original apostles did not know how to write. 

25 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I would say the circumstances were very different. God wanted to get His church started, which required a personal visit from Him to show that He does indeed exist, what His true nature is, and make an announcement to the world that His kingdom was now established on earth. Thanks to Joseph Smith's experience we now know that information. There is therefore no longer a need for Him to appear to anyone, unless He chooses to for the benefit of a specific person. 

What about Moroni and the Book of Mormon witnesses? Why were they necessary? 

Edited June 27, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Jeanne]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

We believe that a man must be called of God by revelation....

 

This right here is hard to understand when you see that some that are called make horrific mistakes and misuse their power. 

[JAHS]

10 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

because it is hard to know who are all of the Prophets (equivalent to Pres Monson) and the non-prophets. So example, we are not sure if Paul was truly an apostle. Was Stephen a General Authority? Was Zacharias a prophet? Was Cornelius a General Authority? All of them saw an angel, but we don't know if they were General Authorities. 

 

Writing prophets? I though Moses was NOT the author of the first five books of the Bible. I though Isaih did not write the entire Book of Isaiah. I though the original apostles did not know how to write. 

What about Moroni and the Book of Mormon witnesses? Why were they necessary? 

To be witnesses to the actual existence of the plates and to verify their divine authenticity by the angel Moroni.

[Jeanne]

31 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

There is something to do this.  The LDS Church has over time dumbed down what constitutes revelation to the serendipitous finding of one's car keys.

Or fortuitously happening upon a newspaper article that helps direct what one should say in a public setting.  It was President Eyring who likened just such a coincidence to a miracle as big as when Moses parted the Red Sea, if memory serves.

But President Nelson went much further than this--he stated that the Twelve and the First Presidency were gathered, and that they ALL saw the Spirit move (whatever that means) upon President Monson when he received this "revelation," and that it was their privilege to sustain him.

This announcement was made by President Nelson in January.

I waited expectantly for April General Conference to see if any of the other apostles that President Nelson said were participants and witnesses to this event would stand up and confirm the truth of what President Nelson said.

But not one did.

And not one has.

The silence is deafening.

And it is a huge elephant in the church.  The silence on said revelations and policies is like a cover..another way to never have to apologize or admit mistakes.

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

This right here is hard to understand when you see that some that are called make horrific mistakes and misuse their power.

Being called by revelation doesn't remove a man's agency.

After all, Christ called Judas to the Apostleship.

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, california boy said:

I am just asking the question because I am interested in what members of the church think.  Sorry if you feel I have some kind of agenda on this issue.  I don't.  

Said the spider to the fly.

[stemelbow]

57 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

 

But President Nelson went much further than this--he stated that the Twelve and the First Presidency were gathered, and that they ALL saw the Spirit move (whatever that means) upon President Monson when he received this "revelation," and that it was their privilege to sustain him.

 

Which may just be a cool way of putting normal humdrummy revelation that anyone has. 

[mfbukowski]

22 hours ago, california boy said:

This kind of relates to the thread about fallibility of prophets.  Though I think it is specific enough to have it's own thread.  The question is:  What revelations from God do you think the prophets have received directly from Him since the time of Joseph Smith?  Do you think that heavenly messengers and even Christ Himself has visited the prophet?  Can any statement by any prophet since Joseph Smith's time start with "Thus sayth the Lord?

I am not talking about feelings of the Spirit that we can all have.  Or perhaps feelings of the Spirit that the prophet has concerning the church.  I am talking about communicating as Abraham of old "face to face as one man speaks to another".   Or is that kind of revelation a thing of the past??  Is the Holy Ghost the only communicator of God's will in the church today?

No, no agenda there.  

[Atheist Mormon]

19 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It turns classical Christianity on its head.!   Absolutely major revelation

What part; "one Man one Woman"? That is a proclamation (obviously) intended for the LDS Church, otherwise as it is shown stateswide, (starting from CA, even in UT) God has no power to enforce this proclamation. (No pun intended). 

Edited June 27, 2016 by Atheist Mormon
grammar

[rodheadlee]

21 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Russell M Nelson said the gay policy in November was revelation.

Yep and it is not accepted by many members.

[rodheadlee]

20 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It turns classical Christianity on its head.!   Absolutely major revelation

It reveals that our gender is eternal. It's also a warning to repent.

[stemelbow]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Being called by revelation doesn't remove a man's agency.

After all, Christ called Judas to the Apostleship.

I thought he called Judas so there would be one who necessarily betrayed to fulfill prophesy.  If that were the case, it doesn't sound like Judas had much in terms of agency.  it sounds like he chose what he did because he was destined to. 

We had this lesson in GD yesterday.  Everone was like, "oh yeah...each of us were called and ordained before this world was to do exactly what we do". 

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

because it is hard to know who are all of the Prophets (equivalent to Pres Monson) and the non-prophets.

"equivalent"?  That is nonsense, Skeptic.  Biblical prophets cover such a broad range of kinds and types that speaking in your way is just silly.  That's what comes from not being familiar with the Bible.

So example, we are not sure if Paul was truly an apostle.

Nonsense again.  Paul calls himself an apostle, and he is treated as a fellow apostle by the Jerusalem leaders.  Do you even know what the word "apostle" means?

Was Stephen a General Authority?

Stephen was explicitly a seventy.  The OT & NT never use the term "general authority," which is not even a biblical concept.  It is a modern administrative category and has nothing to do with our discussion.

Was Zacharias a prophet? Was Cornelius a General Authority? All of them saw an angel according to the New Testament, but we don't know if they were General Authorities. 

Again, a prophet is a prophet is a prophet.  What they do tells us whether they are prophets.  Some prophets are also priests, as in the case of Moses, Aaron, and Jeremiah.

Writing prophets?

There are Four Major Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel), and Twelve Minor Prophets (Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi).  These are the Writing Prophets, even though they used scribes (Jeremiah had two scribes, both priests).

I though Moses was NOT the author of the first five books of the Bible. I though Isaih did not write the entire Book of Isaiah. I though the original apostles did not know how to write. 

There is no reason to think that Jesus' apostles were illiterate.

What about Moroni and the Book of Mormon witnesses? Why were they necessary? 

Necessary for what?  Your question is unclear.

 

Edited June 27, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[california boy]

Thanks for your answers.  It is interesting to me that there is quite a variety of definition or understanding of what revelation is.  

Some say that revealing that Chirst appeared to the prophet is too sacred.  Do you think it was wrong for other prophets such as Paul to reveal that Christ appeared to him?  Do you think it makes his vision less sacred?

 

Some seem to think that revelation happens throughout the church on a regular basis, literally every day.

How does Mormon revelation differ from other Christian religions?  I have heard them also say they were called into the ministry by God.  Or that their teachings were inspired by the Holy Spirit.  

Do members of the church have a different view of what a revelation from God is?  Or is it pretty much like ever other Christian church?  If it is different, then HOW is it different?