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

[california boy]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

No, no agenda there.  

You really don't like this topic do you.   Yet you still insert silly emoji's.  Interesting.....

[Avatar4321]

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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.

has anyone claimed revelation doesn't happen outside the church? Much of the success of our missionary efforts comes from teaching non members how to get revelation

[Sky]

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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.

Which is why there is a difference between the light of Christ and receiving the Holy Ghost as a constant companion. 

[JLHPROF]

49 minutes ago, california boy said:

You really don't like this topic do you.   Yet you still insert silly emoji's.  Interesting.....

I think the topic question has been answered...with a LOT of examples.

There have definitely been revelations since the days of Joseph, including several recorded written ones.
And that is coming from someone who doesn't consider all forms of revelation equal.

[Avatar4321]

3 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Yep and it is not accepted by many members.

I haven't seen real evidence of that

[Avatar4321]

21 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I think the topic question has been answered...with a LOT of examples.

There have definitely been revelations since the days of Joseph, including several recorded written ones.
And that is coming from someone who doesn't consider all forms of revelation equal.

considering he was upset on the revelation to not baptize children of gay marriages until age 18 it does seem odd that he is going to claim there have been none

[TheSkepticChristian]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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?

Please don't insult my intelligence, the LDS bible dictionary say, " The title was also applied to others who, though not of the number of the original Twelve, yet were called to serve as special witnesses of the Lord. Paul repeatedly spoke of himself as an Apostle "  

I think the older version said that Paul was not an apostle, I will have to verify that later. 

But for the moment you win. I don't have time. 

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Please don't insult my intelligence, the LDS bible dictionary say, " The title was also applied to others who, though not of the number of the original Twelve, yet were called to serve as special witnesses of the Lord. Paul repeatedly spoke of himself as an Apostle "  

I think the older version said that Paul was not an apostle, I will have to verify that later. 

But for the moment you win. I don't have time. 

I actually agree with you.
There is evidence that Paul was a Seventy.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

I haven't seen real evidence of that

I think he means numerically speaking (as in perhaps thousands) and not percentagewise (as in over 50%).

[Avatar4321]

2 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Please don't insult my intelligence, the LDS bible dictionary say, " The title was also applied to others who, though not of the number of the original Twelve, yet were called to serve as special witnesses of the Lord. Paul repeatedly spoke of himself as an Apostle "  

I think the older version said that Paul was not an apostle, I will have to verify that later. 

But for the moment you win. I don't have time. 

He could have been a seventy because they are in some places called the 70 apostles

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours 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. 

And then you see all the ones who do magnificent service, grow into their callings, bless everyone around them....oh....I mean using their agency to do good.

[Jeanne]

45 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

And then you see all the ones who do magnificent service, grow into their callings, bless everyone around them....oh....I mean using their agency to do good.

I should have been more specific.  There are a lot of Presidents of the Church and apostles who are good men..they mean well,   But there are those who are hard to read. They are contradictive and all over the place when it comes to doctrine/policies and sometimes disagree with eachother.  This makes it difficult to tell if they are speaking as men with opinions or speaking as a revelation from God.  In any case, in my post..I was thinking about Bishops who have made callings that have been to pedophiles and those who have been involved in white collar crimes and such.  Where is the divinity of any calling by revelation when it is surely against God himself. Joseph Smith may have been a charismatic and kind..hard working man who really wanted to do good things..but I can't believe anymore in his revelations for to me he was a man of stories and BY took so many of his own thought processes and called them the will of God..or simply said.."Joseph said'.  If you take the family proclamation which states a truth from the LDS church, you will see that it is a very basic concept in many churches and not a true revelation of anything new..I will quit while I am behind..

Edited June 28, 2016 by Jeanne

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

He could have been a seventy because they are in some places called the 70 apostles

Exactly.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

You really don't like this topic do you.   Yet you still insert silly emoji's.  Interesting.....

It takes one passive aggressive to know another.  You have cut me to the quick  

Edited June 28, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Bernard Gui]

13 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I should have been more specific.  There are a lot of Presidents of the Church and apostles who are good men..they mean well,   But there are those who are hard to read. They are contradictive and all over the place when it comes to doctrine/policies and sometimes disagree with eachother.  This makes it difficult to tell if they are speaking as men with opinions or speaking as a revelation from God.  In any case, in my post..I was thinking about Bishops who have made callings that have been to pedophiles and those who have been involved in white collar crimes and such.  Where is the divinity of any calling by revelation when it is surely against God himself. Joseph Smith may have been a charismatic and kind..hard working man who really wanted to do good things..but I can't believe anymore in his revelations for to me he was a man of stories and BY took so many of his own thought processes and called them the will of God..or simply said.."Joseph said'.  If you take the family proclamation which states a truth from the LDS church, you will see that it is a very basic concept in many churches and not a true revelation of anything new..I will quit while I am behind..

Good idea. Nothing new?

Quote

  IN THE PREMORTAL REALM, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshipped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize their divine destiny as heirs of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.

Prophets have more pressing issues than telling the future. Perhaps their most important purposes are to call to repentance, warn against sin, and proclaim truth with authority.

Edited June 28, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

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). 

Huh?

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

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

Well the biggie is that "we have a Mother there".  I don't think that goes over so well with the Catholics and EV's

[california boy]

8 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

considering he was upset on the revelation to not baptize children of gay marriages until age 18 it does seem odd that he is going to claim there have been none

Where have I claimed that the church doesn't receive any revelation.  I actually have no idea whether heavenly messengers have visited the prophet.  Is all I am wondering is if members of the church think that heavenly messengers or Christ himself meets with the prophet to guide him.  Some think yes, but it is too sacred to tell anyone.  Others think it last occurred 100 years ago.  Am I misrepresenting the responses???

The second part of the question is, if the church is only guided by inspiration, is there any difference between how say the Catholics or protestants claim how their church's are guided.

[rodheadlee]

15 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

I haven't seen real evidence of that

Well I guess I was thinking of Rockpond, Happyjack, Gray, Consiglieri  and many others on this board who claim to be Members of the LDS Church. At the Ward level as far as I know it is fully accepted in our ward.

[rodheadlee]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

Where have I claimed that the church doesn't receive any revelation.  I actually have no idea whether heavenly messengers have visited the prophet.  Is all I am wondering is if members of the church think that heavenly messengers or Christ himself meets with the prophet to guide him.  Some think yes, but it is too sacred to tell anyone.  Others think it last occurred 100 years ago.  Am I misrepresenting the responses???

The second part of the question is, if the church is only guided by inspiration, is there any difference between how say the Catholics or protestants claim how their church's are guided.

Well you pretty much have it right except for the Protestants, I don't know any that claim to have meetings with Christ but it's been a long time since I was a Protestant. I can't remember what branch of Christianity  David Wilkerson was but his book "The Vision" had a profound affect on me. It came out in the late 60s/early 70s. I did a search for it a few years back and could not find one copy to confirm his prophecies which came true 100% from memory. Looking back I would say he was a voice in the wilderness.

edited to ad: This book appears readily available now.

Edited June 28, 2016 by rodheadlee

[Gray]

7 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Well I guess I was thinking of Rockpond, Happyjack, Gray, Consiglieri  and many others on this board who claim to be Members of the LDS Church. At the Ward level as far as I know it is fully accepted in our ward.

That's because the people who disagree don't feel comfortable saying so in church meetings. 

[rodheadlee]

17 minutes ago, Gray said:

That's because the people who disagree don't feel comfortable saying so in church meetings. 

I doubt it, our ward's demographics are pretty elderly and us old folks are not afraid to speak our mind.

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, Sky said:

Which is why there is a difference between the light of Christ and receiving the Holy Ghost as a constant companion. 

meh...luckily the Light of Christ can work just as effectively--at least it appears so seeing as the goodness of many who not LDS. 

[Gray]

10 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

I doubt it, our ward's demographics are pretty elderly and us old folks are not afraid to speak our mind.

Could be. I know in my ward no one will say anything controversial during meetings, but they will say it outside of church meetings. 

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I actually agree with you.
There is evidence that Paul was a Seventy.

This is an interesting consideration, particularly in light of Paul's disagreements with Peter.  If Paul was not an apostle, we should be happy to note that the top down structure we so revere, ought to be questioned.  Of course, if Paul was an apostle we should see it as instructive just the same, but even more intriguing if he weren't.