conference today

[Kenngo1969]

19 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

I wish Everything was going well for me Kenngo...I'm still cleaning up after harvey (in Houston). But I like you guys with your subtle humors, having lived half of my life in Utah, I miss my Mormon culture 

 

I'm sorry for the difficulties you and yours are experiencing.   I wish you and yours well.

[DBMormon]

On 10/11/2017 at 8:33 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

 

Of all of the things to get a bee in one's britches about ...  

I work as a Lexus Destination Assist agent.  Rather than having drivers try to program their own GPSes on the fly (thereby endangering the motoring public) they call us and we download the destinations for them.  I did that for a guy one time, and he said he wanted to register a complaint.  So I conferenced the call in with one of our customer service reps, and he spends the next eight minutes (remember, one of the things I'm scored on is call handle time) going around and around with the CSR about, "Why do you guys always say, 'Don't forget to press "Go to" or "Enter" when the destination comes up on your screen'?"

Including that phrase takes all of five seconds, and, while the caller is right that most of the time, it isn't necessary, Murphy's Law applies: when we don't say it, that's going to be when the customer says, "Wait, wait, wait!  What am I supposed to do when the destination shows up on my screen?!"

Atheist, I guess all I can say is that I'm glad everything else is going so swimmingly well in your life that the thing that seems to bug you the most is a simple expression of gratitude as a sign-off.  

(I hope Bill Reel isn't lurking about these parts, or that, if he is, he doesn't happen to see this thread.  His pet peeve is my use of emoticons.  )

that is a lot of emoticons.........  

[Kenngo1969]

8 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

that is a lot of emoticons.........  

I didn't realize you were stalking the thread.  I'll try to rein it in.

[ERMD]

On 10/9/2017 at 4:49 PM, JLHPROF said:

True.

Except there is no proof or evidence for this.
The Proclamation may be 100% true.  It may even be 100% inspired (ie, prayed over).
But there is no proof or evidence that a single word of it was given from the mouth of God.

I made the statement elsewhere recently that the Church today doesn't differentiate between inspiration and revelation (even though I think they should) and I was corrected with a wonderful quote:

• How to Obtain Revelation and Inspiration for Your Personal Life
  By Elder Richard G. Scott April 2012
  The Holy Ghost communicates important information that we need to guide us in our mortal journey. When it is crisp and clear and essential, it warrants the title of revelation. When it is a series of promptings we often have to guide us step by step to a worthy objective, for the purpose of this message, it is inspiration.

So, how was the Proclamation given?  Crisp, clear, essential.  Or as a series of promptings.
If it was edited, drafted, adjusted step by step I would say that at best is inspiration, not revelation.  
If it was given clearly, crisply to the prophet THEN perhaps we can call it a revelation.  Remember what Joseph said about D&C 132:

• The Prophet consented and told William Clayton to get some paper to write; but to his brother's "urgent request" that the Prophet use the Urim and Thummim to recall the exact revelation, Joseph replied that he did not need it, "for he knew the revelation from beginning to end".

 

No proof or evidence that the First Vision occurred, either.

Line upon line, precept on precept, here a little and there a little seems to be a preferred mechanism of communication for the Divine.

[JLHPROF]

59 minutes ago, ERMD said:

No proof or evidence that the First Vision occurred, either.

Line upon line, precept on precept, here a little and there a little seems to be a preferred mechanism of communication for the Divine.

The First Vision was a revelation.  It doesn't get much clearer that God the Father and Jesus Christ telling you exactly what to do.
The written account of the First Vision may fall more into the inspiration category, as in, God didn't write it but inspired it.

Again, as Elder Scott said " When it is crisp and clear and essential, it warrants the title of revelation. When it is a series of promptings we often have to guide us step by step to a worthy objective, for the purpose of this message, it is inspiration."

First Vision was a revelation.  JSH 1 is an inspired writing (at least we assume there was some inspiration in the drafting of it).

[ERMD]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The First Vision was a revelation.  It doesn't get much clearer that God the Father and Jesus Christ telling you exactly what to do.

But there is no proof.  Apply your own standard.

[JLHPROF]

50 minutes ago, ERMD said:

But there is no proof.  Apply your own standard.

No proof of any revelation except to the recipient(s).
Not sure what your point is here.

[ERMD]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

No proof of any revelation except to the recipient(s).
Not sure what your point is here.

The point is, you dismiss the Proclamation with a wave of the hand saying that there is no "proof" it was received by revelation.

"Except there is no proof or evidence for this.
The Proclamation may be 100% true.  It may even be 100% inspired (ie, prayed over).
But there is no proof or evidence that a single word of it was given from the mouth of God."

There is no "proof" that anything a Prophet, including Joseph, claims is revelation.  And as has been stated by others, your manufactured difference between revelation and inspiration is non-existent.  They are one in the same.

[JLHPROF]

Just now, ERMD said:

The point is, you dismiss the Proclamation with a wave of the hand saying that there is no "proof" it was received by revelation.

"Except there is no proof or evidence for this.
The Proclamation may be 100% true.  It may even be 100% inspired (ie, prayed over).
But there is no proof or evidence that a single word of it was given from the mouth of God."

There is no "proof" that anything a Prophet, including Joseph, claims is revelation.  And as has been stated by others, your manufactured difference between revelation and inspiration is non-existent.  They are one in the same.

Oh, I see.
Thank you.

1. The difference is President Hinckley never claimed the Proclamation was a revelation or came to him by revelation.  He was the prophet that issued it and didn't feel to call it the word of the Lord.
2. Elder Scott provided the difference between revelation and inspiration.  And he did it more clearly than I did.  I'll take his word there is a difference.
3. There are multiple witnesses to Joseph's revelations.  Yes, the First Vision isn't one of them.  But many others experienced the visions and revelations Joseph received.
And unless Joseph was lying the Lord laid claim on many of them.  Most of them in fact.

 

[ERMD]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Oh, I see.
Thank you.

1. The difference is President Hinckley never claimed the Proclamation was a revelation or came to him by revelation.  He was the prophet that issued it and didn't feel to call it the word of the Lord.
2. Elder Scott provided the difference between revelation and inspiration.  And he did it more clearly than I did.  I'll take his word there is a difference.
3. There are multiple witnesses to Joseph's revelations.  Yes, the First Vision isn't one of them.  But many others experienced the visions and revelations Joseph received.
And unless Joseph was lying the Lord laid claim on many of them.  Most of them in fact.

 

The fact that there are/were witnesses is evidence, not your standard of "proof."

Elder Oaks--a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator (at least as far as I am concerned) referred to the receiving of the Proclamation as a "revelatory process," and unless he is lying, I'll take him at his word.

[JLHPROF]

40 minutes ago, ERMD said:

The fact that there are/were witnesses is evidence, not your standard of "proof."

Elder Oaks--a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator (at least as far as I am concerned) referred to the receiving of the Proclamation as a "revelatory process," and unless he is lying, I'll take him at his word.

Process is an interesting word isn't  it.  As compared to a revelatory event.  Seems the prophet, seer and revelator Elder Scott would differentiate.

[ERMD]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Process is an interesting word isn't  it.  As compared to a revelatory event.  Seems the prophet, seer and revelator Elder Scott would differentiate.

Let's take that way of thinking farther.  Would you say the presentation of the endowment is inspired or revealed?  And, is inspiration somehow inferior to revelation?

[JLHPROF]

14 minutes ago, ERMD said:

Let's take that way of thinking farther.  Would you say the presentation of the endowment is inspired or revealed?  And, is inspiration somehow inferior to revelation?

That's a fascinating question, and one that I think would require speculation.
I am of the belief that the Books of Genesis/Moses and Abraham represent records of those individuals receiving their endowments direct from the Lord.
We don't have a record for how Joseph received the endowment ceremony.  Perhaps he too was taken away in a revelatory vision.  Perhaps it was pieced together line upon line.  We don't have those details (unless you believe he got it all from masonry).  All we know is at some point prior to May 1842 Joseph established the complete ceremony.

Now, you specified the "presentation" of the endowment.  I would say, hesitantly, that the mode of presentation is inspired.  Especially since it has changed repeatedly from the very beginning, been systematized and adjusted.  I would say certain things that are given and taught in the endowment had to have come by revelation and instruction direct from the other side.  The things that according to Joseph were established before the foundation of the earth and are not to be altered.
So a bit of both.

Now your final question is where those on the board think I am too harsh.  Is inspiration inferior to revelation?  I want to say categorically that, NO, it isn't if it comes from God.
What I also want to say is that inspiration, due to the way in which it is received, is more subject to interpretation on the part of the recipient than revelation.
If inspiration is understood as clearly as revelation then both can be 100% true and there is no inferiority or superiority.

Let's say God drew this picture and we are trying to determine what it is.
Inspiration says "I've studied this picture, prayed over it, and feel impressed that it represents a duck/rabbit.  And we are open to further light on the issue."
Revelation says "God spoke to me/appeared to me and told me this is a rabbit.  I know to some it is appears to be a duck but God actually told me he drew a rabbit."

Can both come to the right conclusion?  Sure.  Can both methods come from God?  Sure.  If the answer is correct are both equally valid?  Yep.
But again, see Elder Scott's quote.
 

 

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That's a fascinating question, and one that I think would require speculation.
I am of the belief that the Books of Genesis/Moses and Abraham represent records of those individuals receiving their endowments direct from the Lord.
We don't have a record for how Joseph received the endowment ceremony.  Perhaps he too was taken away in a revelatory vision.  Perhaps it was pieced together line upon line.  We don't have those details (unless you believe he got it all from masonry).  All we know is at some point prior to May 1842 Joseph established the complete ceremony.

Now, you specified the "presentation" of the endowment.  I would say, hesitantly, that the mode of presentation is inspired.  Especially since it has changed repeatedly from the very beginning, been systematized and adjusted.  I would say certain things that are given and taught in the endowment had to have come by revelation and instruction direct from the other side.  The things that according to Joseph were established before the foundation of the earth and are not to be altered.
So a bit of both.

Now your final question is where those on the board think I am too harsh.  Is inspiration inferior to revelation?  I want to say categorically that, NO, it isn't if it comes from God.
What I also want to say is that inspiration, due to the way in which it is received, is more subject to interpretation on the part of the recipient than revelation.
If inspiration is understood as clearly as revelation then both can be 100% true and there is no inferiority or superiority.

Let's say God drew this picture and we are trying to determine what it is.
Inspiration says "I've studied this picture, prayed over it, and feel impressed that it represents a duck/rabbit.  And we are open to further light on the issue."
Revelation says "God spoke to me/appeared to me and told me this is a rabbit.  I know to some it is appears to be a duck but God actually told me he drew a rabbit."

Can both come to the right conclusion?  Sure.  Can both methods come from God?  Sure.  If the answer is correct are both equally valid?  Yep.
But again, see Elder Scott's quote.
 

 

But that is clearly a Book of Mormon tapir.

[ERMD]

48 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That's a fascinating question, and one that I think would require speculation.
I am of the belief that the Books of Genesis/Moses and Abraham represent records of those individuals receiving their endowments direct from the Lord.
We don't have a record for how Joseph received the endowment ceremony.  Perhaps he too was taken away in a revelatory vision.  Perhaps it was pieced together line upon line.  We don't have those details (unless you believe he got it all from masonry).  All we know is at some point prior to May 1842 Joseph established the complete ceremony.

Now, you specified the "presentation" of the endowment.  I would say, hesitantly, that the mode of presentation is inspired.  Especially since it has changed repeatedly from the very beginning, been systematized and adjusted.  I would say certain things that are given and taught in the endowment had to have come by revelation and instruction direct from the other side.  The things that according to Joseph were established before the foundation of the earth and are not to be altered.
So a bit of both.

Now your final question is where those on the board think I am too harsh.  Is inspiration inferior to revelation?  I want to say categorically that, NO, it isn't if it comes from God.
What I also want to say is that inspiration, due to the way in which it is received, is more subject to interpretation on the part of the recipient than revelation.
If inspiration is understood as clearly as revelation then both can be 100% true and there is no inferiority or superiority.

Let's say God drew this picture and we are trying to determine what it is.
Inspiration says "I've studied this picture, prayed over it, and feel impressed that it represents a duck/rabbit.  And we are open to further light on the issue."
Revelation says "God spoke to me/appeared to me and told me this is a rabbit.  I know to some it is appears to be a duck but God actually told me he drew a rabbit."

Can both come to the right conclusion?  Sure.  Can both methods come from God?  Sure.  If the answer is correct are both equally valid?  Yep.
But again, see Elder Scott's quote.
 

 

So, if your position is that the Proclamation was not given as revelation from God (notwithstanding Elder Oaks' use of the term "revelatory"), but rather inspiration, do you think the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, as constituted when the Proclamation was announced and published, misinterpreted the inspiration they received?  

[JLHPROF]

35 minutes ago, ERMD said:

So, if your position is that the Proclamation was not given as revelation from God (notwithstanding Elder Oaks' use of the term "revelatory"), but rather inspiration,  

Correct.  Based only upon our limited knowledge and evidence and based upon their own description of the process (including Elder Oaks), I don't believe the document itself to be an actual revelation.
I am willing to believe that the decision to state the doctrines of the Proclamation in a new and more definitive way may have been inspired, given our current societal state of affairs.
In other words, it was written by man, based on scriptural principles, possibly because God inspired them to take a stand on these principles.
Sometimes God speaks truths to man, sometimes he inspires man to speak truths to each other.  At best, this is the latter.

Quote

do you think the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, as constituted when the Proclamation was announced and published, misinterpreted the inspiration they received? 

Well, I certainly don't see any doctrine in the Proclamation that goes against anything God had said previously, so I don't think it much matters where the Proclamation is concerned.  Inspired or not, I also don't think there was anything new in the document that we could call "revealed" from heaven.

Perhaps the inspiration/revelation was to issue the Proclamation, not the Proclamation itself.  It certainly came out at a time when society is fighting tooth and nail against the principles it contains.  The brethren's responsibility after all is to lead the Church and be a beacon to the world.  
I think it much more likely that they were led by the Spirit to restate previous doctrine in a more clear and concise way for the benefit of the Church and world than that anything was revealed from God.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Perhaps the inspiration/revelation was to issue the Proclamation, not the Proclamation itself.  

That's a good point I hadn't considered before.

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That's a good point I hadn't considered before.

And one I'd be much more willing to accept considering the evidence.
After all, it's pretty much how we got the Manifesto too.  Not a revelation, but issued because of revelation.  (Or inspiration  )

Edited October 26, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Hamba Tuhan]

31 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Perhaps the inspiration/revelation was to issue the Proclamation, not the Proclamation itself. 

 

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That's a good point I hadn't considered before.

Interesting. That's precisely how I've understood the entire discussion all this time: the prophets were instructed by revelation to produce the proclamation, and they were guided by revelation as they fulfilled that instruction. I honestly never picked up that anyone's perspective was different to mine. Go figure...

Edited October 26, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[ERMD]

I can't dismiss Elder Oaks' characterization of the receiving and production of the Proclamation as a revelatory experience and seemingly minimize its importance or veracity by calling it inspired or written by man (isn't all scripture written by man anyway?).  He was there, I wasn't.  I'll take his word for it.

Edited October 26, 2017 by ERMD

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, ERMD said:

I can't dismiss Elder Oaks' characterization of the receiving and production of the Proclamation as a revelatory experience and seemingly minimize its importance or veracity by calling it inspired or written by man (isn't all scripture written by man anyway?).  He was there, I wasn't.  I'll take his word for it.

If it were truly a revelatory document the Church by design should be submitting it for canonization.
Any document or revelation that can be shown to have come directly from God is scripture and should be part of our scriptural canon.
It will probably become OD3 at some point but until then it's a policy statement, not scripture.

And there are lots of other uncanonized revelations to prophets that should be considered for canonization.  I don't believe canonization makes anything one whit more true as it is just a vote by members, but it would make them binding and show our belief that they came from God.
It's silly we are so hesitant to make official scripture out of things we consider to have come from God and that influence the Church directly.

Edited October 26, 2017 by JLHPROF

[ERMD]

7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

If it were truly a revelatory document the Church by design should be submitting it for canonization.
 

CFR

[rongo]

I think that the latest trend in calling things revelations after the fact which are not presented to the Church or announced as revelations has the potential of diluting the meaning of revelation. The tendency is to call almost any impression or committee product --- whatever the Brethren collectively decide to do (even after much revision and massaging) revelation. I think the move to call the two big cases (the Proclamation this October and the November 2015 policy) revelation without presenting it as such was made in response to unhappiness about it by a sizable enough bloc of vocal progressive members --- a doubling down. 

No one is a bigger fan of the Proclamation than I am. I would like it to be put in the D&C, and I wonder why it hasn't been. 

I also have no problem at all with the November policy, but the rolling out was ham-handed, and each clarification of it was in hasty reaction to outcry, culminating in President Nelson declaring it as revelation in a January YSA devotional. So, was the revelation the original policy quietly inserted into the online handbook (without notifying priesthood leaders of the update), or was it the first or the second clarification (priesthood leaders informed by letter)?  President Nelson appears to have only referred to the original policy decision in his remarks.

It seems to me that in these two cases, revelation is used as an attempted ultimate trump card in the face of criticism. All of which could have been avoided (as well as updates and clarifications) by announcing them as revelations to the Church from the outset. 

Edited October 27, 2017 by rongo

[JLHPROF]

15 hours ago, ERMD said:

Quote

If it were truly a revelatory document the Church by design should be submitting it for canonization.

CFR

I'm not going to CFR my opinion, but you did get me thinking about the canonization process in Mormonism.
In googling I found some interesting statements I was unfamiliar with:
 

PRO need for canonization of Revelation

• The church has a right to reject or approve of revelations and any man independent of the action of the church has a right to accept it or reject it as he sees fit and the church has a right to say whether they will accept it or reject it as a revelation, and before a revelation can be accepted by the church, as a law, it must in some form or other be presented to the church and accepted by the church, and that has been true since the time I first became connected with the church. - Wilford Woodruff
• Joseph F. Smith at the Reed Smoot trial - "I will say this, Mr. Chairman, that no revelation given through the head of the church ever becomes binding and authoritative upon the members of the church until it has been presented to the church and accepted by them." Questioned whether "the church in conference may say to you, Joseph F. Smith, the first president [sic] of the church, 'We deny that God has told you to tell us this?,' " President Smith replied: "They can say that if they choose. . . . And it is not binding upon them as members of the church until they accept it"

ANTI need for canonization of Revelation

• It seems nonsensical that the Prophet of God should submit to such a test as this [common consent], and not deem the revelations he received authentic until they had the approval of the different quorums of the Church. They were authentic and divinely inspired, whether any man or body of men received them or not. Their reception or non-reception of them would not affect in the least their divine authenticity. But it would be for the people to accept them after God had revealed them. In this way they have been submitted to the Church, to see whether the members would accept them as binding upon them or not. Joseph [Smith] himself had too high a sense of his prophetic office and the authority he had received from the Lord to ever submit the revelations which he received to any individual or to any body, however numerous, to have them pronounce upon their validity  - George Q. Cannon
• Revelations given of God through his prophets . . . are not subject to an approving or sustaining vote of the people in order to establish their validity. Members of the Church may vote to publish a particular revelation along with the other scriptures, or the people may bind themselves by covenant to follow the instructions found in the revealed word. But there is no provision in the Lord's plan for the members of the Church to pass upon the validity of revelations themselves by a vote of the Church; there is nothing permitting the Church to choose which of the revelations will be binding upon it, either by a vote of people or by other means - Bruce R. McConkie

Under laws of common consent, if the Proclamation is not canonized it is not binding on the members of the Church.
(D&C 26:2, D&C 28:13).
But I agree with both sides - revelations are true regardless of official status, but official status is required for them to be binding on members as Church policy.
 

[Rain]

5 hours ago, rongo said:

I think that the latest trend in calling things revelations after the fact which are not presented to the Church or announced as revelations has the potential of diluting the meaning of revelation. The tendency is to call almost any impression or committee product --- whatever the Brethren collectively decide to do (even after much revision and massaging) revelation. I think the move to call the two big cases (the Proclamation this October and the November 2015 policy) revelation without presenting it as such was made in response to unhappiness about it by a sizable enough bloc of vocal progressive members --- a doubling down. 

No one is a bigger fan of the Proclamation than I am. I would like it to be put in the D&C, and I wonder why it hasn't been. 

I also have no problem at all with the November policy, but the rolling out was ham-handed, and each clarification of it was in hasty reaction to outcry, culminating in President Nelson declaring it as revelation in a January YSA devotional. So, was the revelation the original policy quietly inserted into the online handbook (without notifying priesthood leaders of the update), or was it the first or the second clarification (priesthood leaders informed by letter)?  President Nelson appears to have only referred to the original policy decision in his remarks.

It seems to me that in these two cases, revelation is used as an attempted ultimate trump card in the face of criticism. All of which could have been avoided (as well as updates and clarifications) by announcing them as revelations to the Church from the outset. 

I've heard this idea several times.  How was it different than other times the handbook has changed?  Do you usually get a notice as a bishop?