Sounding the Retreat?

[Five Solas]

14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Are you implying that the Church should be growing exponentially and any indication that it is not has some sort of dire message? If so, you should consider the words of the Book of Mormon that the numbers of the faithful in the last days will be few. If it were my church, I might be concerned, but since it is the Church of Jesus Christ, I will defer to His concerns and follow as He directs. Why should we be concerned? Is there something inherently more true about large numbers of adherents? Reminds me of Terry Pratchett's book "Small Gods" where a god's power is determined by how many believers he/she/it has. Poor turtle god only had one.

LDS are typically critical of adherents of Reformed theology (a.k.a., Calvinism).  LDS take the view that if God is truly sovereign over every detail, then it robs any motivation to do good work--since God is going to get what He wants regardless.  LDS apologist Louis Midgley once called Calvinism "demonic" on this very board.

But listen to your own argument (and several other LDS on the thread have said more or less the same as you).  You're telling us LDS don't need to be concerned about their numbers, that they don't need to work as hard as the JW's do in Russia & elsewhere--because the numbers are already predetermined in the LDS canon, and we've been told they will be "few." 

You, my friend, are serving determinism.  And ironically, much more than any Calvinist ever would. 

--Erik 

____________________________________________________________

Ah, you loved me as a loser, but now you're worried that I just might win
You know the way to stop me, but you don't have the discipline
How many nights I prayed for this, to let my work begin
First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin

--Leonard Cohen (1934 - 2016)

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, why me said:

The church will grow when the lds church takes back its narrative from the critics. They are beginning to do this. But there is still a way to go. The spirit must be allowed to do its work. At this moment the internet is interferring with the spirit.

I somewhat agree... I think the Brethren need to own the narrative and speak to the problems with it that many are discussing outside of the church hierarchy. 

But I don't think that alone will return us to a growth (in numbers) pattern. 

[thesometimesaint]

The LDS do not believe God controls all our actions. We believe in Agency. IOW it is we who choose what we do. We had a Temple in East Germany before there was one in West Germany. There is a Temple in Ukraine, formally part of the USSR. Can we do better? Yes. Eventually every knee shall bow and every heart shall confess that Jesus is the Christ. I don't get discouraged by minor hiccups along the way.

SEE

 

[why me]

49 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I somewhat agree... I think the Brethren need to own the narrative and speak to the problems with it that many are discussing outside of the church hierarchy. 

But I don't think that alone will return us to a growth (in numbers) pattern. 

They need to get out the correct interpretation. History has always been about an interpretation of the facts. The critics have been winning in the interpretation. It sort of goes like this: the facts are given....people search out the web to see if it is true. They discover that the fact is true. They begin to waver and they suck up the critic interpretation. What Fairmormon says no longer matters because of the shock of the fact. And then, the critic pushes the church lied idea.

Thus, church interpretation seems not to matter. The critics engage in a shock and awe attack.

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, Five Solas said:

But listen to your own argument (and several other LDS on the thread have said more or less the same as you).  You're telling us LDS don't need to be concerned about their numbers, that they don't need to work as hard as the JW's do in Russia & elsewhere--because the numbers are already predetermined in the LDS canon, and we've been told they will be "few."

That would not be my position.  People, whether they are members or not, should not stress out about things that are not in our control.  As members we should focus on our callings, being good to other people, do missionary work if able, ect but recognize the realities of the world we live in.  We should also not compare ourselves to other religions/churches in terms of numbers.  The reality is the LDS Church requires a lot of sacrifice of its members.  It is not easy being LDS.  There are plenty of other churches out there that do not require members to have one or more callings, invest as much of their time or resources into it.  If the Church really wants to compete with other religions in gaining members, it could relax a lot of the rules for membership like not requiring the Word of Wisdom to be practiced.  So we should be concerned about numbers but we should not get too focused on it. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, why me said:

They need to get out the correct interpretation. History has always been about an interpretation of the facts. The critics have been winning in the interpretation. It sort of goes like this: the facts are given....people search out the web to see if it is true. They discover that the fact is true. They begin to waver and they suck up the critic interpretation. What Fairmormon says no longer matters because of the shock of the fact. And then, the critic pushes the church lied idea.

Thus, church interpretation seems not to matter. The critics engage in a shock and awe attack.

Yes, I think it's critical that the Brethren get out a correct interpretation.  Although, I don't see us having a problem with critics.  Our problem is internal... faithful members discovering the facts and realizing that they don't align with the narrative that have been and still are being taught. 

[boblloyd91]

4 hours ago, why me said:

The church will grow when the lds church takes back its narrative from the critics. They are beginning to do this. But there is still a way to go. The spirit must be allowed to do its work. At this moment the internet is interferring with the spirit.

Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic but I think there have been some positive developments with Book of Mormon central, Mormon Interpreter etc that are helping us take back the narrative. We'll see in the long run how it goes.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, why me said:

They need to get out the correct interpretation. History has always been about an interpretation of the facts. The critics have been winning in the interpretation. It sort of goes like this: the facts are given....people search out the web to see if it is true. They discover that the fact is true. They begin to waver and they suck up the critic interpretation. What Fairmormon says no longer matters because of the shock of the fact. And then, the critic pushes the church lied idea.

Thus, church interpretation seems not to matter. The critics engage in a shock and awe attack.

I tend to agree with this although I'm not so I'd say the critics are winning the debate. But I do think we need to take back the framing of the issues.

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, Five Solas said:

... You, my friend, are serving determinism.  And ironically, much more than any Calvinist ever would. 

--Erik 

 

 

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, why me said:

They need to get out the correct interpretation. History has always been about an interpretation of the facts. The critics have been winning in the interpretation. It sort of goes like this: the facts are given....people search out the web to see if it is true. They discover that the fact is true. They begin to waver and they suck up the critic interpretation. What Fairmormon says no longer matters because of the shock of the fact. And then, the critic pushes the church lied idea.

Thus, church interpretation seems not to matter. The critics engage in a shock and awe attack.

I agree with this somewhat.
And the members posting on this board provide the evidence to back it up.
Most people who post here at this point have heard the "shocking facts".

You have those who were plunged into faith crisis, those who walked away from the Church, those who stay and criticize the church, those who choose to ignore or twist the historical "facts" to keep faith, and those who have been able to integrate the facts as they are and maintain their faith.

We on this board are the proof that the interpretation and narrative surrounding these facts are at least as important, if not more important, than the facts themselves.
(I'll let everyone decide where they fit in. )

 

[Avatar4321]

6 hours ago, why me said:

The church will grow when the lds church takes back its narrative from the critics. They are beginning to do this. But there is still a way to go. The spirit must be allowed to do its work. At this moment the internet is interferring with the spirit.

I think we are just learning to access the powers of heaven. I know I am and I've been faithful for decades

[Bernard Gui]

On 5/21/2017 at 1:17 PM, Five Solas said:

But listen to your own argument (and several other LDS on the thread have said more or less the same as you).  You're telling us LDS don't need to be concerned about their numbers, that they don't need to work as hard as the JW's do in Russia & elsewhere--because the numbers are already predetermined in the LDS canon, and we've been told they will be "few." 

You, my friend, are serving determinism.  And ironically, much more than any Calvinist ever would. 

--Erik 

____________________________________________________________

Ah, you loved me as a loser, but now you're worried that I just might win
You know the way to stop me, but you don't have the discipline
How many nights I prayed for this, to let my work begin
First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin

--Leonard Cohen (1934 - 2016)

Calvinism is a celestial lottery where even the winners can do nothing to get a ticket in the drawing. Losers are condemned if they complain they never had a ticket and even more so if they even think they can get one. In fact, none of the players even knows why he is in the game or why she won and her friends lost.

That's not me.

In a sense, LDS have a shadow of Calvinism in that we believe His sheep will hear the Shepherd's voice and we help find those sheep through missionary outreach, but even wolves, goats, aardvarks, and mosquitos have inviolable agency, possess their own eternal tickets, and are given all they need to be the game. This lottery is ongoing even into the next life. Not sure how that is deterministic.

At one point all but a very few followers abandoned Jesus.  Eventually, His Church was lost and replaced by things such as Calvinism. I don't believe that made Him any less the Son of God. As His Restored Church, we will do whatever He says we should do to accomplish His purposes. I'm not concerned that there are not billions of Mormons. That has never been part of the plan.

So, are you saying that the Church with the most members is the true Church of God? 

 

Quote

I realize it’s all anecdotal, and with a life-expectancy assumption of 110 for lost members, we can expect the LDS Church to continue to claim modest membership growth into the foreseeable future (loosing track of people makes *much* better numbers than knowing who actually dies or quits)....where the focus will shift more to Utah and adjacent states (plus perhaps a few parts of the “third world” where record keeping and independent verification of membership will conveniently not be possible)

Having served for many years in bishoprics and as a ward clerk in non-Utah areas and as a mission clerk in 6 third world countries, and intimately knowing the efforts we make to keep accurate and complete membership records and seek out the lost sheep, I'm curious what you mean by this. You seem to be falsely ascribing dishonesty to the Church.

Edited May 22, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Gray]

On 5/19/2017 at 11:14 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

I don't think that is true, and it doesn't make any sense.  Perhaps you could address actual rather than purported "revelations."  That might help clarify the issue. Maybr start with the 1978 revelation.  In covering all aspects of it, does it appear to be a "church business meeting" with a strong dose of group think?  Or is something else arguably going on?

I think the 1978 revelation, from what I know about it, sounds like the kind of revelation that members typically get - pray about something and feel the spirit in confirmation. But of course there are conflicting reports. I don't think there's anything new about that, except for revelations from the top level of the church in the early days seem to have been usually talked about in terms of discrete, verbal messages from God, rather than non-verbal spiritual impressions.

I wasn't really thinking about the 1978 revelation, I was thinking more about how revelation is talked about today. I think the definitive of revelation has become quite broad. Councils coming to a consensus is a revelation. Or in the case of the 2015 action against families lead by gay parents, it was mysteriously declared by one apostle as a revelation with no insight into the process at all. 

It seems to me that Joseph Smith was rather unique in that he described his revelations in terms of first person communication from God. I don't know if he really experienced it that way, of if he interpreted impressions into first person language, but that style of revelation seems to have disappeared. 

 

ETA: this is all just my impressions - I haven't researched deeply, so take with the usual grain of salt

Edited May 22, 2017 by Gray

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Gray said:

I think the 1978 revelation, from what I know about it, sounds like the kind of revelation that members typically get - pray about something and feel the spirit in confirmation. But of course there are conflicting reports. I don't think there's anything new about that, except for revelations from the top level of the church in the early days seem to have been usually talked about in terms of discrete, verbal messages from God, rather than non-verbal spiritual impressions.

I previously pointed out on this board that "All authentic revelations can be put into the class 'revelation,' which entails (1) textual, narrative description, (2) first person speech of Deity or sub-deities as recorded by humans, and (3) ineffable experiences which can only be described after the fact as ineffable (through poetry, song, and artistic symbols, or through a non-description masquerading as a description)."  Did you understand those distinctions?  And have you actually read about revelation in an LDS context, and in historical, biblical context?  What sources are you using?

If the only thing you know about the 1978 revelation is that some guys sat down, had a meeting, and then issued a declaration, then you have no basis for discussion.

John A. Widtsoe, Improvement Era, 40 (Oct 1937), 600-601, “Seldom are divine revelations dictated to man. . . .  Instead, ideas are impressed upon the mind of the recipient, who then delivers the ideas in his own language.”

8 hours ago, Gray said:

I wasn't really thinking about the 1978 revelation, I was thinking more about how revelation is talked about today. I think the definitive of revelation has become quite broad. Councils coming to a consensus is a revelation. Or in the case of the 2015 action against families lead by gay parents, it was mysteriously declared by one apostle as a revelation with no insight into the process at all. 

Based on your approach, Gray, anything might well be a "revelation," including any sort of off-the-wall statement by anyone who feels so moved.  Sounds like LDS "continuing revelation," and an "open canon," right?  So anything goes?  Do you really believe that?  Some people actually do.

George Albert Smith,, letter, Dec 7, 1945, “I am pleased to assure you that you are right in your attitude that the passage quoted does not express the true position of the Church. Even to imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church, which is that every individual must obtain for himself a testimony of the truth of the Gospel, must, through the redemption of Jesus Christ, work out his own salvation, and is personally responsible to His Maker for his individual acts.”

8 hours ago, Gray said:

It seems to me that Joseph Smith was rather unique in that he described his revelations in terms of first person communication from God. I don't know if he really experienced it that way, of if he interpreted impressions into first person language, but that style of revelation seems to have disappeared. 

ETA: this is all just my impressions - I haven't researched deeply, so take with the usual grain of salt

Is first person revelation from God "unique," or typical?  Have you given this serious thought?  Here is a short bibliography of Mormon and non-Mormon scholars (and one LDS GA):

William J. Abraham, Divine Revelation and the Limits of Historical Criticism (Oxford Univ. Press, 1982).

John Baillie,, The Idea of Revelation in Recent Thought (Oxford Univ. Press/Columbia Univ. Press, 1956).

Margaret Barker, “Joseph Smith and Preexilic Israelite Religion,” paper delivered in 2005, at Library of Congress in Washington, DC., published in J. Welch, ed., The Worlds of Joseph Smith: A Bicentennial Conference at the Library of Congress (Provo: BYU Press, 2006), 69-82.  Re Book of Mormon, “This revelation to Joseph Smith is the ancient wisdom symbolism, intact, and almost certainly as it was known in 600 BCE.”

Richard L. Bushman, “Joseph Smith’s Visions,” presented March 27, 2003, as the keynote address at the conference on “God, Humanity, and Revelation: Perspectives from Mormon Philosophy and History,” at the Yale Divinity School (organized by Kenneth West).

Kevin Christensen, "A Model of Mormon Spiritual Experience," Feb 26, 2011, online at https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22100469/model_of_experience.pdf .

Avery Dulles, Models of Revelation (Garden City: Doubleday, 1983).

Michael Fishbane, “Revelation and Tradition: Aspects of Inner-Biblical Exegesis,” Journal of Biblical Literature, 99 (1980), 343-361.

Terryl L. Givens, “The Book of Mormon and Dialogic Revelation,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 10/2 (2001), 16-27,69-70, online at https://publications.mi.byu.edu/pdf-control.php/publications/jbms/10/2/S00003-50e5e90c7056f3Givens.pdf .

David W. Halivni, Revelation Restored: Divine Writ and Critical Response (Boulder, Colo.: Westview, 1997), on the unevenness of scripture and the challenge it poses to divine revelation. 

Robert L. Millett, “What the Bible Means to Mormons,” paper delivered at the BYU Feb 2011 Symposium on “The King James Bible and the Restoration,” online at http://lds.org/pages/king-james-symposium-video-gallery?lang=eng#what-the-bible-means-to-mormons .  “When God chooses to speak through an individual, that person does not become a mindless ventriloquist, an earthly sound system through which the Almighty can voice himself.  Rather the person becomes enlightened and filled with intelligence or truth.”

David L. Paulsen, “Are Christians Mormons?  Reassessing Joseph Smith’s Theology in His Bicentennial,” BYU Studies, 45/1 (2006), 35-128; examining seven major points of LDS theology: spiritual gifts & the reopening of the biblical canon; God as a personal and passible being; Godhead as three distinct personages; deification; the divine feminine; God as eternally self-surpassing; salvation for the dead.

John C. Polkinghorne, Faith, Science and Understanding, A Nota Bene Book (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 2000).  The role of revelation in religion, the interaction of science and theology.

Richard G. Scott, “To Acquire Spiritual Guidance,” LDS General Conference, Oct 2009, Ensign, 39/11 (Nov 2009), online at https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2009/10/to-acquire-spiritual-guidance?lang=eng .

Ann. Taves, “History and the Claims of Revelation: Joseph Smith and the Materialization of the Golden Plates,” Numen, 61/2-3 (Mar 18, 2014):182-207, online at https://www.deepdyve.com/browse/journals/numen/2014/v61/i2-3 , and at http://www.religion.ucsb.edu/wp-content/uploads/B-6-Golden-Plates-Numen.pdf .

 

[Five Solas]

On 5/21/2017 at 7:49 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Calvinism is a celestial lottery where even the winners can do nothing to get a ticket in the drawing. Losers are condemned if they complain they never had a ticket and even more so if they even think they can get one. In fact, none of the players even knows why he is in the game or why she won and her friends lost.

That's not me.

In a sense, LDS have a shadow of Calvinism in that we believe His sheep will hear the Shepherd's voice and we help find those sheep through missionary outreach, but even wolves, goats, aardvarks, and mosquitos have inviolable agency, possess their own eternal tickets, and are given all they need to be the game. This lottery is ongoing even into the next life. Not sure how that is deterministic.

At one point all but a very few followers abandoned Jesus.  Eventually, His Church was lost and replaced by things such as Calvinism. I don't believe that made Him any less the Son of God. As His Restored Church, we will do whatever He says we should do to accomplish His purposes. I'm not concerned that there are not billions of Mormons. That has never been part of the plan.

So, are you saying that the Church with the most members is the true Church of God? 

 

Having served for many years in bishoprics and as a ward clerk in non-Utah areas and as a mission clerk in 6 third world countries, and intimately knowing the efforts we make to keep accurate and complete membership records and seek out the lost sheep, I'm curious what you mean by this. You seem to be falsely ascribing dishonesty to the Church.

A lottery implies chance, Bernard, so the analogy fails from the start. 

But I think you see your difficulty in this ("LDS have a shadow of Calvinism") and I think it would be worth exploring similarity (as well as difference).  When you point to your scriptures to argue LDS don't need to work as hard or sacrifice as much as JW's do in London, Russia, etc. because numbers will be "few"--perhaps your deepest similarity is with what sometimes gets labeled "extreme Calvinism." 

Regarding your last sentence, I'll note that I was once Ward Clerk in the University Second Ward, Seattle North Stake.  And I'm well aware LDS (myself then included) worked to find missing members.  The UW affiliated YSA wards were basically a record dumping ground for anyone < age 31, single, and believed to be anywhere in the greater Seattle area.  It was an endless task and it's undoubtedly more difficult today because now there are only two remaining YSA wards (University 2nd and University 3rd).  Back then there were four YSA wards to shoulder the load (U 1 - 4).  Closure and consolidation makes the work harder and means even more will slip through the cracks. 

So am I "ascribing dishonesty?"  Well, if a 110 year life expectancy assumption feels "honest" to you, Bernard, we'll probably just end up debating the definition of that particular word.  But is the assumption self-serving in the sense that not finding everyone inflates the membership number that the LDS Church reports?  You betcha!

--Erik

[clarkgoble]

23 hours ago, Gray said:

...I was thinking more about how revelation is talked about today. I think the definitive of revelation has become quite broad. Councils coming to a consensus is a revelation. Or in the case of the 2015 action against families lead by gay parents, it was mysteriously declared by one apostle as a revelation with no insight into the process at all. 

It seems to me that Joseph Smith was rather unique in that he described his revelations in terms of first person communication from God. I don't know if he really experienced it that way, of if he interpreted impressions into first person language, but that style of revelation seems to have disappeared.

You see that's where I'd disagree. First off, communication from God seems to be how it is always talked about. Not sure what you mean by first person. Joseph described it as flows of pure intelligence which isn't really akin to hearing someone speaking to you if that's what you mean.

As I mentioned earlier the distinction between textual revelation and non-textual vague confirmation seems blurry at best. For one the most common type of revelation received in the Church is priesthood blessings which are always textually given with people thinking the words are given to them what to say. So I just don't see the difference. Clearly in Joseph's time confirmation type revelations were also given. 

So I think at best you'd have to figure a way to quantify things better to make your point.

It's fine to complain we don't have any insight into the process, but of course that was equally true for Joseph Smith or Brigham Young as well. In a few cases like D&C 76 for example, we have more information about what went out. Typically though we get an answer or doctrine from Joseph with zero information on the background.

Edited May 23, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Gray]

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I previously pointed out on this board that "All authentic revelations can be put into the class 'revelation,' which entails (1) textual, narrative description, (2) first person speech of Deity or sub-deities as recorded by humans, and (3) ineffable experiences which can only be described after the fact as ineffable (through poetry, song, and artistic symbols, or through a non-description masquerading as a description)."  Did you understand those distinctions?  And have you actually read about revelation in an LDS context, and in historical, biblical context?  What sources are you using?

If the only thing you know about the 1978 revelation is that some guys sat down, had a meeting, and then issued a declaration, then you have no basis for discussion.

John A. Widtsoe, Improvement Era, 40 (Oct 1937), 600-601, “Seldom are divine revelations dictated to man. . . .  Instead, ideas are impressed upon the mind of the recipient, who then delivers the ideas in his own language.”

Based on your approach, Gray, anything might well be a "revelation," including any sort of off-the-wall statement by anyone who feels so moved.  Sounds like LDS "continuing revelation," and an "open canon," right?  So anything goes?  Do you really believe that?  Some people actually do.

George Albert Smith,, letter, Dec 7, 1945, “I am pleased to assure you that you are right in your attitude that the passage quoted does not express the true position of the Church. Even to imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church, which is that every individual must obtain for himself a testimony of the truth of the Gospel, must, through the redemption of Jesus Christ, work out his own salvation, and is personally responsible to His Maker for his individual acts.”

Is first person revelation from God "unique," or typical?  Have you given this serious thought?  Here is a short bibliography of Mormon and non-Mormon scholars (and one LDS GA):

William J. Abraham, Divine Revelation and the Limits of Historical Criticism (Oxford Univ. Press, 1982).

John Baillie,, The Idea of Revelation in Recent Thought (Oxford Univ. Press/Columbia Univ. Press, 1956).

Margaret Barker, “Joseph Smith and Preexilic Israelite Religion,” paper delivered in 2005, at Library of Congress in Washington, DC., published in J. Welch, ed., The Worlds of Joseph Smith: A Bicentennial Conference at the Library of Congress (Provo: BYU Press, 2006), 69-82.  Re Book of Mormon, “This revelation to Joseph Smith is the ancient wisdom symbolism, intact, and almost certainly as it was known in 600 BCE.”

Richard L. Bushman, “Joseph Smith’s Visions,” presented March 27, 2003, as the keynote address at the conference on “God, Humanity, and Revelation: Perspectives from Mormon Philosophy and History,” at the Yale Divinity School (organized by Kenneth West).

Kevin Christensen, "A Model of Mormon Spiritual Experience," Feb 26, 2011, online at https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22100469/model_of_experience.pdf .

Avery Dulles, Models of Revelation (Garden City: Doubleday, 1983).

Michael Fishbane, “Revelation and Tradition: Aspects of Inner-Biblical Exegesis,” Journal of Biblical Literature, 99 (1980), 343-361.

Terryl L. Givens, “The Book of Mormon and Dialogic Revelation,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 10/2 (2001), 16-27,69-70, online at https://publications.mi.byu.edu/pdf-control.php/publications/jbms/10/2/S00003-50e5e90c7056f3Givens.pdf .

David W. Halivni, Revelation Restored: Divine Writ and Critical Response (Boulder, Colo.: Westview, 1997), on the unevenness of scripture and the challenge it poses to divine revelation. 

Robert L. Millett, “What the Bible Means to Mormons,” paper delivered at the BYU Feb 2011 Symposium on “The King James Bible and the Restoration,” online at http://lds.org/pages/king-james-symposium-video-gallery?lang=eng#what-the-bible-means-to-mormons .  “When God chooses to speak through an individual, that person does not become a mindless ventriloquist, an earthly sound system through which the Almighty can voice himself.  Rather the person becomes enlightened and filled with intelligence or truth.”

David L. Paulsen, “Are Christians Mormons?  Reassessing Joseph Smith’s Theology in His Bicentennial,” BYU Studies, 45/1 (2006), 35-128; examining seven major points of LDS theology: spiritual gifts & the reopening of the biblical canon; God as a personal and passible being; Godhead as three distinct personages; deification; the divine feminine; God as eternally self-surpassing; salvation for the dead.

John C. Polkinghorne, Faith, Science and Understanding, A Nota Bene Book (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 2000).  The role of revelation in religion, the interaction of science and theology.

Richard G. Scott, “To Acquire Spiritual Guidance,” LDS General Conference, Oct 2009, Ensign, 39/11 (Nov 2009), online at https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2009/10/to-acquire-spiritual-guidance?lang=eng .

Ann. Taves, “History and the Claims of Revelation: Joseph Smith and the Materialization of the Golden Plates,” Numen, 61/2-3 (Mar 18, 2014):182-207, online at https://www.deepdyve.com/browse/journals/numen/2014/v61/i2-3 , and at http://www.religion.ucsb.edu/wp-content/uploads/B-6-Golden-Plates-Numen.pdf .

 

As always, you've given me much food for thought. Thanks.

I'll just add that I'm not opposed to broadening what is called revelation. I'm happy to call just about any good idea a revelation, although when I say revelation I likely have something different in mind than you.

My impressions about what has changed in the church are based on reading how revelation is couched in the D&C, vs what I observe today. It's no deeper than that. So I appreciate your thoughts here. 

 

[Gray]

51 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

You see that's where I'd disagree. First off, communication from God seems to be how it is always talked about. Not sure what you mean by first person. Joseph described it as flows of pure intelligence which isn't really akin to hearing someone speaking to you if that's what you mean.

As I mentioned earlier the distinction between textual revelation and non-textual vague confirmation seems blurry at best. For one the most common type of revelation received in the Church is priesthood blessings which are always textually given with people thinking the words are given to them what to say. So I just don't see the difference. Clearly in Joseph's time confirmation type revelations were also given. 

So I think at best you'd have to figure a way to quantify things better to make your point.

It's fine to complain we don't have any insight into the process, but of course that was equally true for Joseph Smith or Brigham Young as well. In a few cases like D&C 76 for example, we have more information about what went out. Typically though we get an answer or doctrine from Joseph with zero information on the background.

Do you think that Joseph's revelations were put into specific, first-person language by Joseph himself, based off of a non-verbal communication from God?

When I say discrete, first person revelation, I'm thinking of language like this:

D&C 1: 4-5

Quote

And the voice of warning shall be unto all people, by the mouths of my disciples, whom I have chosen in these last days. And they shall go forth and none shall stay them, for I the Lord have commanded them.

This type of language is all over the D&C. Revelation is no longer couched in these terms. Do you think it is the revelation that has changed or the way we couch the revelation has changed? A couple of Joseph's successors produced revelation in this way, but it seems to have petered out early in church history.

If it's merely a change in the way it's expressed, should members reject the idea that any of this specific language is literally the voice of the Lord, but instead Joseph Smith's voice giving language to non-verbal spiritual impressions?

I realize we can't step into Joseph Smith's head and experience what he was experiencing.

 

 

 

Edited May 23, 2017 by Gray

[clarkgoble]

26 minutes ago, Gray said:

Do you think that Joseph's revelations were put into specific, first-person language by Joseph himself, based off of a non-verbal communication from God?

I think there's a large diversity with Joseph. Some places, like D&C 76, are a combination of vision and then saying things as given in prophesy. In other places Joseph is clearly just reworking prior revelations for new circumstances (changing names, merging texts) but in a presumed inspired way. In many other passages we have no clue where Joseph learned what he learned. We just have fragments of sermons or lessons with no idea how Joseph got what he did. (Say D&C 131)

Quote

When I say discrete, first person revelation, I'm thinking of language like this:

D&C 1: 4-5 This type of language is all over the D&C. Revelation is no longer couched in these terms.

But again revelation most emphatically is couched in those terms. That's the whole point I'm making. Most revelation in the church today is like that. When I get a patriarchal blessing or given a healing blessing that's the form it takes. Likewise apostolic blessings are occasionally given. I know several times in stakes I've lived in where they've done that. Again much of the blessing is given in first person.

So I simply dispute your premise.

Quote

Do you think it is the revelation that has changed or the way we couch the revelation has changed? A couple of Joseph's successors produced revelation in this way, but it seems to have petered out early in church history.

I don't think it's changed at all beyond not getting scripture like that of late. But in small settings it remains common.

So I think you're conflating scripture with revelation.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

As always, you've given me much food for thought. Thanks.

I'll just add that I'm not opposed to broadening what is called revelation. I'm happy to call just about any good idea a revelation, although when I say revelation I likely have something different in mind than you.

While it is true that ordinary people will frequently use a vernacular understanding of "revelation" to mean any good idea or new notion or discovery, I thought that we might try to be a bit more circumspect here.  Otherwise the conversation becomes pointless and meaningless.  I thought we might be more concerned with very specific, scholarly definitions of revelation, such that our historical understanding would be more accurate and better informed.  For example, virtually all the sorts of revelation which I defined in three main groups are evident in both Bible and LDS praxis.  If you are not familiar with the Bible and LDS history, that will not make any sense at all.

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

My impressions about what has changed in the church are based on reading how revelation is couched in the D&C, vs what I observe today. It's no deeper than that. So I appreciate your thoughts here. 

If one believes that the very selective D&C represents the only types of revelation received in LDS history, then of course one's impressions are unlikely to be accurate. If, on the other hand, one understands the full spectrum of revelation in LDS history, the so-called changes might not be so apparent.

I cited the 1978 revelation only because it is recent and because people so frequently misunderstand the genesis of it, and imagine that it is merely a bland declaration in the D&C -- something generated in an ordinary business meeting.  The idea that a General Authority is reported to have wept over it, is ignored.  The fact that it was years in coming, and only came to a lone Pres Spencer Kimball after repeated prayers in the Holy of Holies in the SLC Temple, is also ignored.  Pres McKay had been unable to obtain that revelation, despite his strong desire to do away with the priesthood restrictions by mere fiat (Joseph Fielding Smith advised him that a revelation was necessary).  The rule is that a revelation does not come simply because one desires it.  Pres Kimball called a meeting of the Presidency and Twelve only after he had  received his revelation on the subject (which does not appear in the D&C).  There, rather than some absurd business meeting, all understood the gravity of what Pres Kimball was telling them, and all had an extraordinary spiritual witness of the truth of that revelation (which also does not appear in the D&C).

Those familiar with their Bible would recall the ecstatic company of prophets in the book of Judges, and that even Saul strangely found himself in that company.  Since when do prophets travel in groups and conduct themselves like Dervishes? Those familiar with their Bible would likewise recall that Isaiah was asked by God to do some very strange, symbolic acts, having nothing to do with dialogic revelation (going about naked and barefoot for three years, and naming his sons, etc).  What of Hosea marrying a whore? In addition, biblical scholars have called attention to the intimate connection among poetry, music, and prophecy.  How can that be?  Is revelation the Word of God, or only a description of God's mighty acts?  In the case of Joseph's First Vision, for example, do we have the actual experience or only a human description(s) of it?  What of Moses' and Elijah's meetings with God?  Do we have the actual experience, or merely a human narrative of it?  We must not  confuse the two.

Anyone who wants to understand revelation in a biblical and LDS context, needs to read extensively about it.

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think there's a large diversity with Joseph. Some places, like D&C 76, are a combination of vision and then saying things as given in prophesy. In other places Joseph is clearly just reworking prior revelations for new circumstances (changing names, merging texts) but in a presumed inspired way. In many other passages we have no clue where Joseph learned what he learned. We just have fragments of sermons or lessons with no idea how Joseph got what he did. (Say D&C 131)

Thanks!

 

6 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

But again revelation most emphatically is couched in those terms. That's the whole point I'm making. Most revelation in the church today is like that. When I get a patriarchal blessing or given a healing blessing that's the form it takes. Likewise apostolic blessings are occasionally given. I know several times in stakes I've lived in where they've done that. Again much of the blessing is given in first person.

So I simply dispute your premise.

Patriarchal blessings, healings, giving the gift of the Holy Ghost, yes, good point. Revelations from the FP and Q2? No, we simply get the outcome of the revelation, with none of that language. 

 

6 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think it's changed at all beyond not getting scripture like that of late. But in small settings it remains common.

So I think you're conflating scripture with revelation.

 

Possibly. Robert Smith gave me a bunch of reading - perhaps non-canonical revelation worked differently in the early church? Or maybe it didn't? I wonder how much of Joseph Smith's revelations for the church were canonized vs not. Do you have a notion of that? 

[clarkgoble]

30 minutes ago, Gray said:

Patriarchal blessings, healings, giving the gift of the Holy Ghost, yes, good point. Revelations from the FP and Q2? No, we simply get the outcome of the revelation, with none of that language. 

To me this is demonstrably false as apostolic blessings demonstrate. I've seen it first hand several times. Now sometimes apostolic blessings are given in 3rd person language but often it's 1st person. (You can see this even with Joseph's rhetoric somewhat in places like the Wentworth letter) 

Again though, most of these circumstances are in smaller groups. 

You are right though that with most recent revelations to the church, we get the consequences and not the text. That to me though seems a different issue than first person prophecy. I think what's changed is that administration changes just don't need to be canonized, the way they did in the very early church (1830-34). But that change happened in Joseph's lifetime. By Nauvoo the structural changes for things like the Relief Society aren't in the D&C. The D&C shifts to more major texts. And even most of those are reconstituted texts of Joseph added to the D&C. The exceptions are D&C 136 (revelation by Brigham Young) and D&C 138 (Joseph F. Smith). Even the two arguably huge revelations (OD1, OD2) aren't provided in a textual fashion. So I do think you're right there. What's interesting is that during the post-Nauvoo period (and even for much of Nauvoo) there were plenty of revelations that simply didn't end up in the D&C. D&C 132 is arguably the exception and even there we don't know much about its writing.

Even much of the revelations in the 1840's in the D&C seem odd. Why is D&C 126 included, for instance? With the exception of D&C 132, everything after that are epistles or items of instruction reconstituted. We know of really big changes in this period but not major texts.

Again, even in the early Utah period there's no shortage of first person prophecy or purported visions. It's just that no one feels the need to put it into the D&C. Even the Joseph F. Smith vision is added quite late in the 1980's.

Quote

I wonder how much of Joseph Smith's revelations for the church were canonized vs not. Do you have a notion of that? 

Most of the ones that were clear that were had were added to the canon by Orson Pratt. So almost by definition all the other ones we don't have good records for. There are a few you can find in Joseph's journals or the like. The Parallel Joseph has most of the ones that ended up in The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith but in terms of the original notes.

Edited May 23, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

To me this is demonstrably false as apostolic blessings demonstrate. I've seen it first hand several times. Now sometimes apostolic blessings are given in 3rd person language but often it's 1st person. (You can see this even with Joseph's rhetoric somewhat in places like the Wentworth letter) 

Again though, most of these circumstances are in smaller groups. 

Maybe I should have been clearer, I mean revelation from the FP and Q12 for the church, not for individuals. 

[clarkgoble]

15 minutes ago, Gray said:

Maybe I should have been clearer, I mean revelation from the FP and Q12 for the church, not for individuals. 

Ah, that makes more sense. I was still writing when you replied so take a look at my comments above. To me that shift happened during Joseph's life - arguably by 1838 things had largely shifted. Even D&C 132 wasn't really written for the church but arguably for Emma. There are a few exceptions, but perhaps because the Church is now somewhat stable and mostly gathered there's no need. Even in the early Utah period the focus is less on texts to organize the church than trying to put together major texts by Joseph that Joseph never really put together for the church. (Thus the development of the Pearl of Great Price in England - and then the later realization they needed to make those texts more available)

Contrast this with the early Church where the structure was changing rapidly. My guess is we have so much of the D&C simply because new members in the 1830's needed to have a clear distinction between policy trying to implement God's command and the actual structure God commanded. As time goes on and Joseph's place is more secure that's not as necessary. (Those appealing to Weber's distinction between charisma in the church versus the formalization and bureaucratization tend to argue that's behind all this)

Of course the complaint now is that there's no clear way to distinguish between what God commanded explicitly versus what is done by the authority of the apostles but with more of their own innovation. I suspect that's a feature not a bug since the reason people want that distinction is typically so they can simply dismiss what the prophets direct.

[Bernard Gui]

15 hours ago, Five Solas said:

A lottery implies chance, Bernard, so the analogy fails from the start. 

Interesting word, chance. Related to the word choice. Like a lottery, in Calvinism you pays your money and you takes your chances. Paying your money is living a life of depravity totally out of your control and facing an eternity of damnation that you cannot choose - and unless your ticket is drawn capriciously, you have no chance at all. One's chances to be saved are precious few under Calvinism, kind of like the odds of winning the lottery. You must be one of the winners? If so, congratulations on a job well done....oh, wait.....

There is no difficulty. It's a well-known LDS doctrine called foreordination. Calvinism is an erroneous version of it. I said nothing about not working hard. We do that every day all over the world and have done so since the first days of the Restoration. What I said is that billions of Mormons in the last days is not in the plan and we should not be concerned about that. Since we are the Church of Jesus Christ, we will do as He instructs to bring His gospel to all people. 

Quote

So am I "ascribing dishonesty?"  Well, if a 110 year life expectancy assumption feels "honest" to you, Bernard, we'll probably just end up debating the definition of that particular word.  But is the assumption self-serving in the sense that not finding everyone inflates the membership number that the LDS Church reports?  You betcha!

I'll note that I was once Ward Clerk in the University Second Ward, Seattle North Stake.  And I'm well aware LDS (myself then included) worked to find missing members.  The UW affiliated YSA wards were basically a record dumping ground for anyone < age 31, single, and believed to be anywhere in the greater Seattle area.  It was an endless task and it's undoubtedly more difficult today because now there are only two remaining YSA wards (University 2nd and University 3rd).  Back then there were four YSA wards to shoulder the load (U 1 - 4).  Closure and consolidation makes the work harder and means even more will slip through the cracks. 

I see absolutely nothing wrong with a 110-year life expectancy for inactive/lost membership purposes, but that's hardly worth wasting time debating. I'm glad to belong to the Church that keeps record of all its baptized members and makes continual effort to seek them out as we are commanded in the scriptures, old and new. As a bishop, seeking to inflate membership numbers was about as far from my mind as anything could be. We sought to find the lost sheep for the purpose of offering them ministry, repentance, fellowship, service, help, and comfort when needed - as we are commanded by the Lord Jesus Christ. That was my covenanted duty. So sad you have such a jaded view of the sincere effort and sacrifice we make. 

There used to be a sizable cohort of Calvinists here. Made for some interesting discussions.

Edited May 24, 2017 by Bernard Gui