A Prophet of God

[CV75]

34 minutes ago, california boy said:

So if someone picks the wrong sect when everyone is basically using the same process to decide doctrine  are they sheep or goats

That is not how a sheep or goat is determined.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Hard part is we can't know any more.
The FP & Qof12 are so determined to present the face of unity that we can never tell which policies and statements started in committee and which came by revelation to the Prophet.

In the past:
1. The prophet received a revelation (the word of the Lord)
2. The revelation was presented to the General Authorities in quorum and they discussed/accepted it.
3. It was presented to the Church for a common consent vote.

Now, we hardly ever get to know if #1 happened.  People generally assume, but we know little beyond #3.
 

Think "Moses." And also the D&C 107 passages on decisions (picked out of verses 27-83), wherein any authorized council is "entitled to the same blessings which the decisions of a quorum of three presidents were anciently."

[CV75]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

The church doesn't seem to even want to call it revelation any more 

Not so: https://www.lds.org/topics/revelation?lang=eng

[CV75]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

ALarsen, Your posts prompted me to remember a time when I did think the prophet received actual revelation from God that was clear and understood and declared as a revelation not a committee decision that was voted on

See D&C 107.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Button Gwinnett said:

I have no first hand knowledge so this is complete speculation on my part, but I am going to guess that the 15 work things out by committee, have discussions amongst themselves, reason things out and ultimately reach a decision upon a vote is made to sustain the decision after they've prayed about it.  It is my belief that they interpret this process as revelation.  Long gone are the days when members should believe that Jesus has face to face personal priesthood interviews with these men.

What you describe is according to D&C 107. Where / when would the expectation of a PPI have even come up?

[Kevin Christensen]

On 9/20/2017 at 1:37 PM, california boy said:

When do you think was the last time a revelation from God for the church was declared as such by the prophet?

I'm more about finding that I experience revelation as such, and do not need to have it validated for me.   This is not daily, but such experiences add up over time.  Most experiences have been subtle, and a few have been dramatic, though not as dramatic as some I have heard or read about.  But a revelation experienced as such is much more a sublime experience than complaining.

I listened to this talk on Revelation in the church back when I was a young missionary in England.  It had the effect of helping frame my expectations.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1974/05/we-believe-all-that-god-has-revealed?lang=eng

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg

 

 

Edited September 21, 2017 by Kevin Christensen

[JLHPROF]

33 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Think "Moses." And also the D&C 107 passages on decisions (picked out of verses 27-83), wherein any authorized council is "entitled to the same blessings which the decisions of a quorum of three presidents were anciently."

I do think Moses.
D&C 28:2 But, behold, verily, verily, I say unto thee, no one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., for he receiveth them even as Moses.

D&C 43:2 For behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, that ye have received a commandment for a law unto my church, through him whom I have appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations from my hand.
3 And this ye shall know assuredly—that there is noneother appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations until he be taken, if he abide in me.

Moses got the individual revelation on the mount.
There was no revelation by committee.

The problem remains that we as members don't get to know any more about these.  We like to assume they happen, but there has been little if any evidence.
Other than President Nelson's slip of the tongue there hasn't been a recorded revelation to the prophet in decades.  At least not one the membership is aware of.

All we see is the committee approved announcement of the policy change or doctrinal position.  Hopefully it was directed through the prophet by revelation.  We don't get to know any details so we have to live by faith that it is happening.

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Do you think that it was inevitable for the church to slip into the same pattern as every other Christian church?  Decisions decided by committee with a prophet more as a figurehead

Not even all of Joseph's revelation are n the D&C, the Quorum of the Twelve, must still approve any canonized scripture. Such as with Jiseph F Smith's account of Salvation of the Dead, that occurred on Oct 4, 1918, if memory serves. 

[CV75]

31 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I do think Moses.
D&C 28:2 But, behold, verily, verily, I say unto thee, no one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., for he receiveth them even as Moses.

D&C 43:2 For behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, that ye have received a commandment for a law unto my church, through him whom I have appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations from my hand.
3 And this ye shall know assuredly—that there is noneother appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations until he be taken, if he abide in me.

Moses got the individual revelation on the mount.
There was no revelation by committee.

The problem remains that we as members don't get to know any more about these.  We like to assume they happen, but there has been little if any evidence.
Other than President Nelson's slip of the tongue there hasn't been a recorded revelation to the prophet in decades.  At least not one the membership is aware of.

All we see is the committee approved announcement of the policy change or doctrinal position.  Hopefully it was directed through the prophet by revelation.  We don't get to know any details so we have to live by faith that it is happening.
 

By Moses and D&C 107 I meant the principle of delegation in the Lord’s operation of His kingdom on earth through prophets (and their delegates) … and how decisions, based on revelation, can and often does come by way of properly-presided councils. These principles are as real as the scriptures you provided. In some ways they are ancient (Moses, the quorum of three presidents) and a product of continuing revelation, restoration, and line-upon-line advancement.

Overarching this is, as long as all things are done by common consent by prayer and faith, there is no problem for “we as members.” I see the use of the phrase “committee approved announcements” as a secular spin on that which is described in D&C 107. But the spirit and letter of D&C 107 is what we commonly consent to (after all, it is our canon).

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

By Moses and D&C 107 I meant the principle of delegation in the Lord’s operation of His kingdom on earth through prophets (and their delegates) … and how decisions, based on revelation, can and often does come by way of properly-presided councils. These principles are as real as the scriptures you provided. In some ways they are ancient (Moses, the quorum of three presidents) and a product of continuing revelation, restoration, and line-upon-line advancement.

 

Overarching this is, as long as all things are done by common consent by prayer and faith, there is no problem for “we as members.” I see the use of the phrase “committee approved announcements” as a secular spin on that which is described in D&C 107. But the spirit and letter of D&C 107 is what we commonly consent to (after all, it is our canon).

 

To be clear, I have no problem with "official statements" or "proclamations" from the FP and Qof12.  (Better than committee approved?)

But if we are assuming they are based on revelation without any revelation being presented, that requires faith.
And I have nothing against faith.
But faith is still the evidence of things not seen.  There has to be some evidence that revelation is being received other than our assumption.
 

[CV75]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

To be clear, I have no problem with "official statements" or "proclamations" from the FP and Qof12.  (Better than committee approved?)

But if we are assuming they are based on revelation without any revelation being presented, that requires faith.
And I have nothing against faith.
But faith is still the evidence of things not seen.  There has to be some evidence that revelation is being received other than our assumption.
 

i understand... I see revelation as a process as well as an event or a product. Common consent depends entirely on faith and on what we have accepted as a product of that faith. When we express our common consent, we are expressing our faith and acceptance of the evidence upon which it is based. "Assumption" is a form of faith or hope, I suppose (but again a more secularized term). For example, we accept Section 107 as revelation, and from what we've seen and personally experienced, the Church abides by it. The decision-making process in councils is as much revelatory (there are other sections about that) as it is procedural (a president approving the decisions of a quorum, councils presiding over councils, etc.). I see this as an effective check-and-balance for the earthly kingdom.

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

So if someone picks the wrong sect when everyone is basically using the same process to decide doctrine  are they sheep or goats

You will have to ask God.

 

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

 I see this as an effective check-and-balance for the earthly kingdom.

Personally, I can't wait till we move beyond it.
When mankind will know God face to face again and the veil will be removed.
Then God's will can be made known, without having to trust that a quorum of men received it and just can't tell us.

Honestly, I'd even settle for things as they were in Joseph Smith's day (and Brigham's day, John Taylor's etc).

Edited September 20, 2017 by JLHPROF

[california boy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Okay.

Yes.  But we cannot disregard the function of the councils of the Church.  Revelation comes through the Presiding High Priest (D&C 28:2-3), but he does not function alone.  See here:

So the Presiding High Priest is the conduit through which church-wide revelation comes.  However, there is, for lack of a better term, a "ratification" function held by the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

It is declared by the Presiding High Priest, but then must also be unanimously ratified by the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (see D&C 107:27).

So the origins of the doctrine are revelatory, but the councils of the Church still play a mandatory role in the presentation of doctrine to the Church.

I think "that claim" needs to include an acknowledgment of the role of the councils.  Those councils are guided by revelation and are invested with priesthood authority.  That, I think, is the characteristic which distinguishes ours from "any other {church}."

No.  Not at all.

I disagree.  The leaders of the Church profess to be guided by revelation, and also profess to have been invested with priesthood authority not found in other churches.

Further, the Brethren are called upon to make decisions all the time.  All.  The.  Time.  Most are administrative, and hence fall within the parameters of the assigned stewardships in the Church.   However, there are times when "decisions" must be made for the Church as a whole.  For that, there is a more complex process required (see D&C 107).  

Recently this board has been discussing the November 2015 policy change regarding same-sex marriage and children living in same-sex-parent households.  This, I think, is the "decision" you are alluding to.  I think you are hinting that the policy change was "decided by well meaning men doing what they think is their best understanding of the will of God (just like every other church)."

Well, the answer to that is "no."  President Nelson's made some January 2016 remarks during a worldwide broadcast to the "millennials" of the Church, which remarks were subsequently transcribed and published to the world.  In his remarks he clarified how the policy change came to be:

These remarks are nearly two years old.  So the source of the policy change is clear.  There is no good faith question about how the Brethren have presented it, which is as arising from a revelation given through President Monson and sustained by the other members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.

You are, of course, at liberty to not believe in the revelatory origins of the policy change as described by President Nelson.  

Just like we have endless threads about several disputed issues.

Personally, I have found these remarks (attributed to Elder Bednar, and summarized by the author) to be a useful resource for considering "what is doctrine and what is policy):

An excellent treatise, IMO!

Then why start a thread on the subject?

I think the Church was quite clear as to the origins of the November 2015 policy change.  Very clear, indeed.

They can be.  See above.

Not all church policies are "revelatory."  The Church has a policy prohibiting the use of the kitchens in church buildings for the preparation of food (warming and serving, yes, but not "preparation").  I suspect this policy arose based on experience, logistical considerations, facilities management concerns, compliance with city ordinances or other laws, and so on.  I do not think that policy was created out of a revelatory experience given to the Presiding High Priest.  I also do not particularly care about the origins of this policy.

There are times, however, when a policy addresses some issue of significance, such as the Church's handling of same-sex marriage involving members of the Church, and also regarding children being raised in a same-sex-parent household.  These policies, I think, probably merit some real explanation and clarification from the Brethren.

And . . . that is precisely what we got.  The First Presidency issued a letter about it.  Elder Christofferson gave an in-depth interview about it.  President Nelson explained its origins as being revelatory.

They haven't.

Thanks,

-Smac

As usual, you are very responsive in your answer. I do appreciate the time you have given this.  But for me, most of what you wrote would be the same answer that any sect would say. They all have councils where policies and doctrine is discussed and decided upon by guidance from God.  That is not unique.  You just believe your council is better than theirs.  A assertion that they would make about theirs.  

You say that the church is clear about what is a revelation received by the prophet and what is just decided by committee.  

I would ask you the same question that I asked earlier. When do you think was the last time a revelation from God for the church was declared as such by the prophet?

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I'm more about finding that I experience revelation as such, and do not need to have it validated for me.   This is not daily, but such experiences add up over time.  Most experiences have been subtle, and a few have been dramatic, though not as dramatic as some I have heard or read about.  But a revelation experiences as such is much more a sublime experience than complaining.

I listened to this talk on Revelation in the church back when I was a young missionary in England.  It had the effect of helping frame my expectations.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1974/05/we-believe-all-that-god-has-revealed?lang=eng

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg

 

 

Every sect believes God answers prayer, inspires and guides.  I hat is not unique to you or the church. 

[california boy]

45 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

To be clear, I have no problem with "official statements" or "proclamations" from the FP and Qof12.  (Better than committee approved?)

But if we are assuming they are based on revelation without any revelation being presented, that requires faith.
And I have nothing against faith.
But faith is still the evidence of things not seen.  There has to be some evidence that revelation is being received other than our assumption.
 

This is what I mean when I say that the prophet is not clear whether something is a committee decision or God revealed truth to him.  When the prophet doesn't tell us directly something is a revelation from God there it just becomes speculation where it originated. 

[california boy]

40 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

You will have to ask God.

 

Well so far the odds of being a sheep are about 99.9 to .1.  Not all that great of chance if the Mormons are right 

[Physics Guy]

6 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

D&C 1 ... does not declare that we should expect that everything that church leaders do or say is what Christ himself would do or say.  

What does it declare? I looked it up just now, but it seems kind of ambiguous to me. I'm not bashing D&C 1 when I say that—I don't accept it as Scripture, but I can't say that it's any more ambiguous than Scripture usually is. I just mean, okay, fair enough, you don't think it means something that some people think it means. What does it mean, then, to you?

3 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Just because a person becomes a prophet, that does not mean they stop being human.

What does it mean, then, for a person to become a prophet?

3 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

These people judge Jesus against what they arbitrarily decided that he could have and should have done.

Surely the point of John 11 is that the people were right. Jesus could have stopped Lazarus from dying. The story pretty much says that Jesus deliberately dawdled on the way, so that Lazarus would die, so that Jesus could then raise him from the dead instead of merely healing him. So not only were the people right, they were also reacting exactly as Jesus intended. To call the people's murmuring reaction wrong seems to me to be distorting the story of John 11.

[ksfisher]

7 minutes ago, Physics Guy said:

Surely the point of John 11 is that the people were right. Jesus could have stopped Lazarus from dying. The story pretty much says that Jesus deliberately dawdled on the way, so that Lazarus would die, so that Jesus could then raise him from the dead instead of merely healing him. So not only were the people right, they were also reacting exactly as Jesus intended. To call the people's murmuring reaction wrong seems to me to be distorting the story of John 11.

Should we murmur when God doesn't do the thing that we think he should do, in the way that we think they should be done, at the time that we think he should?

One of the themes of the gospels is one of Christ submitting his will to the will of the Father.

 

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, california boy said:

As usual, you are very responsive in your answer. I do appreciate the time you have given this.  But for me, most of what you wrote would be the same answer that any sect would say.

Yes.  Hence we have the principles of scripture study, and faith, and Moroni's Promise, and so on.

22 minutes ago, california boy said:

They all have councils where policies and doctrine is discussed and decided upon by guidance from God.  That is not unique.  

Yes, it is.  Angelic ministrations in this dispensation are unique.  Prophet and apostles are unique.  An open scriptural canon is unique.  The Book of Mormon is unique.

I do not doubt that there are many good and decent people and faith groups who seek - and receive - guidance from God.  But they don't receive such guidance in the same way, about the same things, through the same means.

22 minutes ago, california boy said:

You just believe your council is better than theirs.  A assertion that they would make about theirs.  

I've never been into competing with other faiths.  I am content to let them share their views, and for me to share mine.

22 minutes ago, california boy said:

You say that the church is clear about what is a revelation received by the prophet and what is just decided by committee.

You speak as if these are two distinct categories of things.  They aren't.  Again, review what Pres. Nelson wrote.  Guidance was "received by the prophet" (revelation given to President Monson) that was then "decided {on} by committee" (the ratifying and unanimous vote of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles).  It's all part of the same process.

22 minutes ago, california boy said:

I would ask you the same question that I asked earlier. When do you think was the last time a revelation from God for the church was declared as such by the prophet?

Not sure.  The Official Declaration-2 was declared by Pres. Kimball to be revelatory.  But he declared it in a letter which was read during General Conference by Pres. N. Eldon Tanner, who was the First Counselor in the First Presidency at the time.  So by the reckoning of some of our critics, it doesn't count, I guess.  

I'm not that rigid.  Pres. Nelson declared the November 2015 policy change to have had revelatory provenance.  He said it to the world.  In an official setting and in his official capacity as the President of the Quorum of the Twelve.  I'm good with that.

I am also comfortable that the Brethren are being led by revelation regularly, and that they are providing assurances of that regularly.  

I am not altogether comfortable with the decades-long absence of further revealed scripture, but I attribute that either A) less to the General Authorities mucking things up and more to the Saints not sufficiently having their act together; or B) to the timing of the Lord, as I don't think He operates on our preferred timetable.

I would like to see the Proclamation canonized.  It would, I think, help members who vacillate on the issue of same-sex marriage.  I would also like to see further revelatory guidance regarding same-sex attraction generally.  Such things wouldn't help the got-the-bit-in-their-teeth types who are bound and determined to ignore/defy the Brethren on this issue, but it could be helpful to those who somehow think that same-sex behavior is compatible with the Law of Chastity.  These are controversial issues (made more controversial than they need to be, I think).  So I will pray for such guidance, but then leave the eventuality up to God.  It's His show, after all.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Not even all of Joseph's revelation are n the D&C, the Quorum of the Twelve, must still approve any canonized scripture. Such as with Jiseph F Smith's account of Salvation of the Dead, that occurred on Oct 4, 1918, if memory serves. 

Yep.  Here's a chronology.  There was a 50-year gap between the canonization of OD-1 and D&C 138, and yet the Church carried on during that half century.  And there was a 28-year gap between OD-2 and D&C 138, and then a 43-year gap between the D&C 136 and OD-1.  And yet the Church continued on.

I think the same can be said for the Church post OD-2.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 20, 2017 by smac97

[RevTestament]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Hard part is we can't know any more.
The FP & Qof12 are so determined to present the face of unity that we can never tell which policies and statements started in committee and which came by revelation to the Prophet.

In the past:
1. The prophet received a revelation (the word of the Lord)
2. The revelation was presented to the General Authorities in quorum and they discussed/accepted it.
3. It was presented to the Church for a common consent vote.

Now, we hardly ever get to know if #1 happened.  People generally assume, but we know little beyond #3.
 

I have never seen #3. Has that ever really happened? I guess confirming the presidency could be seen loosely as confirming revelation, but is there a case where a revelation was specifically put to a vote of confirmation ie the November policy?

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Personally, I can't wait till we move beyond it.
When mankind will know God face to face again and the veil will be removed.
Then God's will can be made known, without having to trust that a quorum of men received it and just can't tell us.

Honestly, I'd even settle for things as they were in Joseph Smith's day (and Brigham's day, John Taylor's etc).

I believe there's a potential problem with your point of view. What if it turns (I believe it will) that the 15 are leading and guiding the Church precisely as the Lord now wants it to be led and guided. In light of the prophecies, I believe the way the 15 receive revelation for the Church today is exactly suited to the members' present willingness to receive and obey further light and knowledge.

I believe it's a bit presumptuous on you part to imagine that things ought to be other than the way they presently are. In fact, I believe it's very likely the leaders are frustrated they cannot reveal more concerning the gospel and the unfolding of the kingdom of God because they are constrained by the Spirit to withhold because the Church at large isn't presently ready to receive deeper gospel knowledge. Just look at the negativity and disloyalty generated by the pure common sense policy the 15 rendered on the member children of gay parents and it's plain to see the revelation of deeper truths could turn the kingdom upside down. Both the wheat and the tares of the Church will need to reach full maturity and then be separated before many of the hidden truths of God are finally openly revealed to the faithful.

But remember, while the general membership of the Church may now be having many gospel principles and prophecies withheld from their view, that doesn't mean the floodgates of personal revelation aren't going to be thrown wide-open for those faithful souls who are sincerely striving to overcome the world and fully prepare themselves to receive deeper knowledge. The Lord has promised to reveal many of the hidden deeper truths to those who are truly ready to receive them. God is not of the disposition to hold any man or woman back from becoming prophets and prophetesses in their own right as long as they strictly keep what's revealed to themselves 

Finally, I subscribe to a statement made by President Reuben J Clark in which he made it clear the main reason why some members can't perceive the Church is being rightly led by continuous revelation today is because they themselves lack the gift of revelation. Divine revelation can only be discerned and understood by one who enjoys the spirit of revelation. 

"We can tell when the speakers are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’ only when we, ourselves, are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost.’"

Edited September 20, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I have never seen #3. Has that ever really happened? I guess confirming the presidency could be seen loosely as confirming revelation, but is there a case where a revelation was specifically put to a vote of confirmation ie the November policy?

Well, OD 1 was based on a revelation (even if it wasn't a revelation) and there was a vote on that.
And OD 2 was a report of a revelation (even if the document wasn't a revelation) and there was a vote on that too.

As in
"Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as the prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is proposed that we as a constituent assembly accept this revelation as the word and will of the Lord. All in favor please signify by raising your right hand. Any opposed by the same sign.
The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous in the affirmative."

Not sure I know of any revelation since.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Personally, I can't wait till we move beyond it.
When mankind will know God face to face again and the veil will be removed.
Then God's will can be made known, without having to trust that a quorum of men received it and just can't tell us.

Honestly, I'd even settle for things as they were in Joseph Smith's day (and Brigham's day, John Taylor's etc).

That is certainly something to look forward to! But I'm also seeing that the "quorum of men" -- another secular spin, unintentional I'm sure -- can and do tell us God's will, that we can receive confirmation for ourselves, and that our common consent formalizes that covenant relationship. I think the difference over the years is only a matter of communication style on one hand and a greater expectation upon the members of body of Christ. The Prophet still has and delegates the keys and serves a presiding function over the councils.