A Prophet of God

[california boy]

30 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

The other Churches openly and proudly acknowledge that when they speak in the name of Christ they are most definitely not doing so as prophets of God. Among the major religions, the LDS Church is unique in this regard. But I repeat, for those who possess the Spirit of Revelation, there is no need for the prophets to flatly proclaim what they teach and preach in General Conference, for instance, is revelation from God. The prophets don't have to bluntly proclaim what they are going to teach and preach in the forthcoming General Conference is revelation from God because the Holy Ghost makes that pronouncement in behalf of the prophets to all those who have spiritual ears to hear.

One day you will understand why it's very wise that the prophets of the Church are now operating in the current fashion because if they were to get pushy with the revelations at this time, it would cause much more internal strife than the Church is now experiencing, and there would also be a great deal more external persecution and mockery of sacred things than the Church is presently experiencing. Now this doesn't mean the days of blunt "in your face" revelation from God won't return in the future, because they surely will; but when that day does come it will be at a time when fire and brimstone is raining down from heaven and the whole earth will be in convulsion. When that fearful day does come, there will be many members of the Church who now want blunt revelation who will wish they could go back to the good old days when the prophets of God were flying their revelations underneath the devil's radar. 

Well that certainly is an interesting perspective,  Thanks for sharing.

[jkwilliams]

27 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well that certainly is an interesting perspective,  Thanks for sharing.

I don't think there's a shortage of interesting perspectives here. Must be why I keep coming back.

[Avatar4321]

5 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I believed that when I was a young man, but since that time, I have come to accept that these church leaders receive revelation the same way the rest of us do. President Hinckley said something to that effect, that the difference was in the extent of our stewardship, not in how revelation is received. 

In the aftermath of the hurricane, I was trying to figure out some way we could help my daughter. Having just paid my son's tuition and room and board, we don't have a lot of spare cash right now. At work one morning, the thought occurred to me that we should give them our second car. Not 30 seconds later, my wife texted me from Texas saying "We should give them the Honda."  Coincidence?

A small thing, yes, but it turned out to make a huge difference. If there is revelation or inspiration to be had, church leaders are no more entitled to it than anyone else. 

I agree that they are no more entitled to it than the rest of us. My experience though is that they receive more because they are seeking it more than others of us. If we lived up to our privileges as Saints, I agree that there would be no difference.

 

[Avatar4321]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

Yet neither one is declared revelation.  So you are just reinforcing my point.

how exactly did they get revealed truth to declare if not by revelation?

[Avatar4321]

5 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Even the one clear revelation said to have happened in my lifetime (the lifting of priesthood restrictions) is described as everyone in the room with President Kimball having a spiritual confirmation that it was God's will. That's no different from what a bishop or elders quorum president or father or mother is entitled to in praying about their stewardship.

why should we expect otherwise?

[Avatar4321]

5 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Just out of curiosity, when church leaders issue a new policy or proclamation, should we immediately accept it as the word of God, or should we seek spiritual confirmation that it is?

sometimes the spirit will confirm it immediately. Other times you may need to seek confirmation from the Lord. But always seek with faith.

for example when I received my mission call the spirit immediately confirmed it was correct to me. Other things I've had to think out and ponder a bit.

president woodruff gave instructions on the matter when he was speaking about OD 1. This instruction is canonized and an invitation for the saints to confirm the instruction on their own.

again the miracle of Mormonism isn't that revelation has been declared but that we can all receive the same witness to that revelation.

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I have come to accept that these church leaders receive revelation the same way the rest of us do.

I think each of us naturally projects onto Church leaders our own experiences with revelation.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I think each of us naturally projects onto Church leaders our own experiences with revelation.

Is that any worse than projecting revelation where none is actually claimed?

[jkwilliams]

26 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I think each of us naturally projects onto Church leaders our own experiences with revelation.

I'm just going by what President Hinckley said. 

[Avatar4321]

24 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Is that any worse than projecting revelation where none is actually claimed?

Its more strange to pretend none is claimed when they are continually teaching about it

[Hamba Tuhan]

17 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Is that any worse than projecting revelation where none is actually claimed?

Worse? I wasn't making a criticism, just an observation. There are probably exceptions, but I sincerely think much of the disagreement in these kinds of threads can be explained by the differences that exist in our personal interactions with God. As I stated earlier, I for one refuse to accept that the prophets are in receipt of less -- or less frequent -- revelation than I am. And that means that I'm perfectly satisfied with revelation in the Church. Others seem to be more concerned that the prophets aren't in receipt of more (which I think is just another form of projecting), and consequently they seem unsatisfied.

I also think Bobbie was onto something when she mentioned confirmation. Over the past few years especially, I have been struck by how many times I have had instruction come to me privately only to then hear it taught publicly (often in leadership training meetings* with our area president). It is then easy to accept what is taught because it has already come to me, and in the moment, the Spirit uses that resonance to testify. I'm far from it, but I think the goal is to be so familiar with the voice of God that we recognise it immediately in most instances.

-----

* These are great meetings to hear a bit more about revelation in the Church. I attended one with our area president last year right after October General Conference. In it he relayed an experience from the end of their training in SLC. It was conducted by the Twelve, but Pres Eyring was there representing the First Presidency. He was asked if there was anything he wanted to share, and he said yes. He then stood up and told the assembled General Authorities that during the training, he had 'overheard' a conversation between the Father and the Son, and he then shared the contents of that with them, and our area president shared it with us.

Does it bother you that that wasn't written down, shared with everyone in General Conference, and then canonised? I'm still trying to figure out your specific concerns.

[Hamba Tuhan]

25 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm just going by what President Hinckley said. 

And I agree. The prophets receive revelation the same way the rest of us do. What that means to any individual, however, will then almost inevitably depend on what that person's experience with receiving revelation has been.

[Avatar4321]

43 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Worse? I wasn't making a criticism, just an observation. There are probably exceptions, but I sincerely think much of the disagreement in these kinds of threads can be explained by the differences that exist in our personal interactions with God. As I stated earlier, I for one refuse to accept that the prophets are in receipt of less -- or less frequent -- revelation than I am. And that means that I'm perfectly satisfied with revelation in the Church. Others seem to be more concerned that the prophets aren't in receipt of more (which I think is just another form of projecting), and consequently they seem unsatisfied.

I also think Bobbie was onto something when she mentioned confirmation. Over the past few years especially, I have been struck by how many times I have had instruction come to me privately only to then hear it taught publicly (often in leadership training meetings* with our area president). It is then easy to accept what is taught because it has already come to me, and in the moment, the Spirit uses that resonance to testify. I'm far from it, but I think the goal is to be so familiar with the voice of God that we recognise it immediately in most instances.

-----

* These are great meetings to hear a bit more about revelation in the Church. I attended one with our area president last year right after October General Conference. In it he relayed an experience from the end of their training in SLC. It was conducted by the Twelve, but Pres Eyring was there representing the First Presidency. He was asked if there was anything he wanted to share, and he said yes. He then stood up and told the assembled General Authorities that during the training, he had 'overheard' a conversation between the Father and the Son, and he then shared the contents of that with them, and our area president shared it with us.

Does it bother you that that wasn't written down, shared with everyone in General Conference, and then canonised? I'm still trying to figure out your specific concerns.

I've noticed the resonance tendency as well.

A few years ago I was reading something from president Kimball. It struck me as rather profound. The next day I was listening to Glenn Beck on the radio and he said the same thing verbatim. (Now I'm not saying Bro Beck is a prophet).

I think this is an effect of the law of witnesses. The Spirit teaches similar principles to multiple people like how the light of the sun brightens many people at once. And the fact that many are getting the same light shows the group that the sun is shining

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

And I agree. The prophets receive revelation the same way the rest of us do. What that means to any individual, however, will then almost inevitably depend on what that person's experience with receiving revelation has been.

Yet for some reason they don't expect the Spirit to speak the same way for the apostles

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Worse? I wasn't making a criticism, just an observation. There are probably exceptions, but I sincerely think much of the disagreement in these kinds of threads can be explained by the differences that exist in our personal interactions with God. As I stated earlier, I for one refuse to accept that the prophets are in receipt of less -- or less frequent -- revelation than I am. And that means that I'm perfectly satisfied with revelation in the Church. Others seem to be more concerned that the prophets aren't in receipt of more (which I think is just another form of projecting), and consequently they seem unsatisfied.

I also think Bobbie was onto something when she mentioned confirmation. Over the past few years especially, I have been struck by how many times I have had instruction come to me privately only to then hear it taught publicly (often in leadership training meetings* with our area president). It is then easy to accept what is taught because it has already come to me, and in the moment, the Spirit uses that resonance to testify. I'm far from it, but I think the goal is to be so familiar with the voice of God that we recognise it immediately in most instances.

-----

* These are great meetings to hear a bit more about revelation in the Church. I attended one with our area president last year right after October General Conference. In it he relayed an experience from the end of their training in SLC. It was conducted by the Twelve, but Pres Eyring was there representing the First Presidency. He was asked if there was anything he wanted to share, and he said yes. He then stood up and told the assembled General Authorities that during the training, he had 'overheard' a conversation between the Father and the Son, and he then shared the contents of that with them, and our area president shared it with us.

Does it bother you that that wasn't written down, shared with everyone in General Conference, and then canonised? I'm still trying to figure out your specific concerns.

Since leaving the church, I also have felt more inspired by God as to what I should be doing in life. Perhaps God is telling me that what the prophet is telling the church does not apply to my life. I am clearly on a different path. And one that God is leading me on. 

Maybe that is why the prophet has never declared any revelation from God on  the issues that are important to me. For right now, God is telling me I need to be separated from the church and find my own way back to his presents by trusting in Him and not church leaders. 

[mfbukowski]

On 9/20/2017 at 1:48 AM, california boy said:

I personally don't care one way or another. I wish the church would just be more clear whether church policy is coming by committee or declared by revelation through a spokesman from God. 

Obviously sentence one contradicts sentence two.

If you do not care you should not have started the thread.  What is its purpose then?

I know the answer- obviously we have a prophet.  But if you don't care there is no need for 6 pages and still growing.  Why should I pound my head against the wall as others are doing, while your mind is already made up?

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, california boy said:

Since leaving the church, I also have felt more inspired by God as to what I should be doing in life. Perhaps God is telling me that what the prophet is telling the church does not apply to my life. I am clearly on a different path. And one that God is leading me on. 

Maybe that is why the prophet has never declared any revelation from God on  the issues that are important to me. For right now, God is telling me I need to be separated from the church and find my own way back to his presents by trusting in Him and not church leaders. 

Good.  You have your answer.

Now do it!

 

[california boy]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Obviously sentence one contradicts sentence two.

If you do not care you should not have started the thread.  What is its purpose then?

I know the answer- obviously we have a prophet.  But if you don't care there is no need for 6 pages and still growing.  Why should I pound my head against the wall as others are doing, while your mind is already made up?

While I am clear as to what I believe is true does not mean that I am not interested in learning what others believe.  Yeah.  I know. Kind of a strange concept in the world we live in. 

Too many people are quick to assume they "know" the beliefs of others without listening to what they actually say  as you have done here  

'

[california boy]

13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Good.  You have your answer.

Now do it!

 

I have been doing that for quite some time.   I am surprised you haven't figured that out. I thought I have been quite clear on that

Edited September 23, 2017 by california boy

[mfbukowski]

16 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Even the one clear revelation said to have happened in my lifetime (the lifting of priesthood restrictions) is described as everyone in the room with President Kimball having a spiritual confirmation that it was God's will. That's no different from what a bishop or elders quorum president or father or mother is entitled to in praying about their stewardship.

Disagree.  There is no such thing as a "clear" revelation in this life.  There actually should not be!

That implies we have an objective knowledge of God's will and that God will reveal the same answer to multiple people.   I know that happens sometimes when it is necessary- I have experienced it.  But it does not always happen.

I think what we get is an impression of what God wants for US- and if we are praying about our stewardship when that stewardship is shared, it calls for discussion if say, husband and wife disagree about the revelation.  Perhaps the reason for the revelations disagreeing is because God wants us to reason it out between us.  Think of Adam and Eve.   Contradictory commandments- multiply and replenish, but do not eat of the tree.  As it turned out, to do both was impossible and Eve got it, but Adam never saw the conflict until Eve pointed it out to him.  Discussion ensued.  Decision was made.  Adam ate the fruit.

I think that is why we have that lesson taught to us that way.  Sometimes we need others input to figure out what God wants.  That's how I interact with my wife all the time.   I am in a fog often about what to do and she always sees it clearly

In other cases, as when one is a bishop and only one person has the stewardship over many people, what the bishop thinks God is telling him is what goes.  That is the same for prophets.

So any way you look at it, this is a learning laboratory where we learn by interaction and yes by "committee" when that is appropriate.  Nothing wrong with that.  It is the illusion of the possibility of objective knowledge about God's will that is the problem.

Remember one of the main teachings is that this is a TEST yet we always always think God is giving us absolute answers- while WE are supposed to be figuring it out for ourselves!!

When will we learn that?

Everyone wants to make everything absolute dogma when God is watching how we will react to new situations as part of the test.   I don't know how LDS people can preach this stuff and then totally miss exactly what they teach.

It's a test for us, it's a test for the prophet, it's a test for us to figure out if the prophet is correct or not.  We are not robots- it's all goes back to the garden and agency

The story of the fortunate fall is the basis for what makes our faith different and yet we want to be like ordinary Christians with their absolutes.

Come on guys- let's figure out where our doctrinal strength lies- we are creating our own worlds here, not robots turning out the same widget again and again.  That is precisely what sets us apart- ambiguity.

Ambiguity is inevitable and it is supposed to be.  It is part of the human condition for a reason.

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

It seems bizarre to suggest that the prophets are somehow holding back what they say so they don't cause internal strife. How could anyone other than the prophets know that? In my 52 years in the church, the only people I've ever heard making such statements are those who think the stuff being held back is, coincidentally, the gospel hobby they've been blathering about for years. 

And you know for others what is a gospel hobby....  now why was that?  Because you know the will of God for that individual better than they do??

Edited September 23, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

28 minutes ago, california boy said:

I have been doing that for quite some time.   I am surprised you haven't figured that out. I thought I have been quite clear on that

If you are separated from the church why are you still here?

I don't post on Catholic boards

 

Edited September 23, 2017 by mfbukowski
unkind

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

I've noticed the resonance tendency as well.

A few years ago I was reading something from president Kimball. It struck me as rather profound. The next day I was listening to Glenn Beck on the radio and he said the same thing verbatim. (Now I'm not saying Bro Beck is a prophet).

I think this is an effect of the law of witnesses. The Spirit teaches similar principles to multiple people like how the light of the sun brightens many people at once. And the fact that many are getting the same light shows the group that the sun is shining

You know Beck is LDS, right?

[california boy]

16 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

If you are separated from the church why are you still here?

I don't post on Catholic boards

 

You always have always had a hard time understanding me. If you look under my avatar you will find the answer you seek. It has been in plain site all along. 

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

You always have always had a hard time understanding me. If you look under my avatar you will find the answer you seek. It has been in plain site all along. 

No, that just re-states what I cannot comprehend- it makes no sense to me

What is the difference between "truth" and "dogma" and how do you make the distinction?  How do you know what the "basic message of Christ" even IS without "dogma"?  Why is the "basic message of Christ" NOT "dogma"?

How do you determine what is a "simple truth" and that you believe the correct "simple truths"?  You respect but challenge, supposedly yet state no reason for your beliefs so you allow no one to analyze the source of your beliefs so we can "respect and challenge" your beliefs.  Can truth be complicated?  Why or why not?

Seems to me all you do is criticize the LDS church and leave your opinions a mystery so that there is nothing there for anyone else to question.  Yes, we know you advocate gay marriage but what else and on what grounds?

Why do you accept the bible, for example, when it is clearly against homosexual behavior?   How do you pick and choose "truth" from "dogma"?

Edited September 23, 2017 by mfbukowski