stemelbow Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 46 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: The question we might want to ask is if the style of revelation actually did change from the 19TH century to today's more feeling inspired style WHY did God choose to change his delivery method? Why would God feel it is better now to give feelings instead of literal "thus saith the Lord" words? Well it is likely he never gave "thus saith the Lord" words. That phrase seems to have been used back when, but it is not anymore.
Avatar4321 Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 37 minutes ago, bluebell said: Having less such types of manifestations just makes sense to me. For one thing, I believe that there is a strong correlation between such manifestations and sacrifice and suffering endured. Most saints are not anywhere near the level of sacrifice and suffering of the early saints. I don't think most of us have earned the privilege of those kinds of manifestations. For another thing, God has never really worked the way that some people say He should be working right now. He's never provided constant revelation and manifestations (on the scale of the early saints). If we look at the scriptures, we can pick lots of 150+ year periods of time when there is little to nothing to report on the revelation and manifestation front. Why do we think we should be treated any differently? And third, I don't think that many saints have the faith to receive them (not saying that judgmentally, but just as a result of the culture we live in). In the early days of the church, those things were a part of the culture, and cultural expectations have an impact on levels of faith. They are not a part of our culture now, and some saints even deny that God interacts with us at all. Less faith in spiritual manifestation will always equal less spiritual manifestations. That's just how they work. I've been participating in one of the self reliance classes in the stake. I've seen a number of people in the class see miracles just by doing part of what they are asked. 2
JLHPROF Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 7 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Well it is likely he never gave "thus saith the Lord" words. That phrase seems to have been used back when, but it is not anymore. Honestly, I am not so ready as many seem to be to think the early leaders would choose to speak in the first person, as if the Savior himself were speaking. I don't think they would have been quite that arrogant. Speaking for the Lord is one thing. Speaking as the Lord is another. Besides, given all the visions on record, I think it's safe to say that not all the words came from feelings and impressions. Some were quite literally spoken and heard.
rongo Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 3 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: except i see no evidence of diminishing gifts. This past weekend and this morning as ive been listening to conference ive been receiving revelation more than i have in a while. in fact I received revelation during our discussions on this thread. as I've said before, if a nobody like me is getting revelation I find it highly unlikely that revelation has ceased in the rest of the Church. Particularly the presiding councils. Revelation hasn't ceased! As you testify, we are all individually witnesses to that. I'm talking more about the apparent diminishing of seership. I firmly believe that these keys are in place, and held by the Brethren, but we seem to be in an era where prophet (messenger) and revelator (revealer) are almost exclusively the claim and practice. With the careful PR, committee, and survey/focus group approach, we very rarely have the Brethren speak directly about things. We have anonymous, delegated and approved essays. My big wish would be that we would have prophets, seers, and revelators speak directly (not indirectly, vaguely and generally through anonymous outsourced essays) about thorny issues --- especially ones that involve doctrine and explanations that are being disavowed. That seems to me to be one of the reasons for prophets, seers, and revelators. Why don't we have any more doctrinal expansion or clarification? I don't think it's because God doesn't want to give it, but because of the temperament and inclinations of our current mix of personalities. I think the keys are there (that's the important thing), but God won't force his servants if they are intent on playing it safe. I think a major consideration is not providing "disavow-able" things for the future, and hence the focus on playing it safe with doctrine and explanations.
Avatar4321 Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 9 minutes ago, rongo said: Revelation hasn't ceased! As you testify, we are all individually witnesses to that. I'm talking more about the apparent diminishing of seership. I firmly believe that these keys are in place, and held by the Brethren, but we seem to be in an era where prophet (messenger) and revelator (revealer) are almost exclusively the claim and practice. With the careful PR, committee, and survey/focus group approach, we very rarely have the Brethren speak directly about things. We have anonymous, delegated and approved essays. My big wish would be that we would have prophets, seers, and revelators speak directly (not indirectly, vaguely and generally through anonymous outsourced essays) about thorny issues --- especially ones that involve doctrine and explanations that are being disavowed. That seems to me to be one of the reasons for prophets, seers, and revelators. Why don't we have any more doctrinal expansion or clarification? I don't think it's because God doesn't want to give it, but because of the temperament and inclinations of our current mix of personalities. I think the keys are there (that's the important thing), but God won't force his servants if they are intent on playing it safe. I think a major consideration is not providing "disavow-able" things for the future, and hence the focus on playing it safe with doctrine and explanations. I clearly don't understand this because I've rarely seen them as clear as they were this past weekend. And I saw plenty of doctrinal expansion and clarification. President uctdorfs sermon on light and its healing abilities for example. 1
rongo Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 25 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: ive seen you use the term corporate revelaton before. What exactly do you mean by that? Committees, focus groups/surveys, everything seen through PR/damage control. The vast majority of general authorities come from business, medicine, law, and to a lesser but still significant extent, higher education. I think you can count on one hand the number who do not come from these fields. This drives the corporate nature of how the church is run, and the corporate model for revelation by committee/council. This also filters down to the current hyper-emphasis on stake and ward level councils, including the self-reliance and teacher councils. A big emphasis is accentuating revelation through councils, but in my experience, the new programs (which seem gimmicky and very like what arises out of business and education in response to challenges and problems --- including names like Preach My Gospel, Come Follow Me, and Teaching in the Savior's Way) are a shadow of what was formerly there. In the Brethren's defense, it isn't easy to help the church in the face of burgeoning incompetence, lack of resilience, apathy, and easily-distractedness. what makes you think that the revelation we are receiving is different than in Kirtland and Nauvoo? Doctrine and Covenants I emphasize that this is the Restored Church, and it will not be left for another people. Concerns about the corporate Church as experienced today drive the appeal for Snufferism, but God is not with them and they have no keys or authority. But, I understand the concerns and the sentiment. bluebell said: If we look at the scriptures, we can pick lots of 150+ year periods of time when there is little to nothing to report on the revelation and manifestation front. Why do we think we should be treated any differently? I have often said and thought this as well. The Church can be true, and the keys intact, while still going through a period of "doldrums" with a resulting revival or renaissance. The Book of Mormon is full of this ebb and flow, and the latter-day Church is very young in gospel epic time. It will be interesting what developments come in the ensuing decades. 1
stemelbow Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 21 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Honestly, I am not so ready as many seem to be to think the early leaders would choose to speak in the first person, as if the Savior himself were speaking. I don't think they would have been quite that arrogant. Speaking for the Lord is one thing. Speaking as the Lord is another. Besides, given all the visions on record, I think it's safe to say that not all the words came from feelings and impressions. Some were quite literally spoken and heard. I wouldn’t call it arrogant although that works in some sense. I think it was expected and accepted even by those saying thus saith the lord that pronouncements that felt very much god approved should come out that way.
rongo Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 8 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: I clearly don't understand this because I've rarely seen them as clear as they were this past weekend There were numerous times when it was obvious what was being referred to, although the thing itself wasn't named. Snufferism, for instance. Or why the Proclamation was emphasized how it was (which was outstanding, but why not come out and directly say why?). . And I saw plenty of doctrinal expansion and clarification. President uctdorfs sermon on light and its healing abilities for example. What doctrines were clarified? What new doctrine was there by way of expansion? There were many inspirational items that spur us to do better in certain areas (my family is discussing and working on ours), but this isn't expansion or clarification.
mfbukowski Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 On 10/2/2017 at 8:54 AM, FearlessFixxer said: For the last 187 years there have been 15 Prophets on the earth at any given time (give or take a little for the interim periods after the death of one). Early on in Church history, it seems like these men, especially the one who was designated as President, prophesied on a regular basis. Things like when the second coming would be, the world would be flooded with the gospel, changes in people's pigment (please don't think this is me being passive aggressive, just trying to stick to the facts), etc. etc. Even things like describing the preexistence or post mortal world could be included, like Harold B. Lee's statement on disabled people or Bruce R. McConkie's ideas on where animals originated from. I am not passing judgement on the veracity of any of these things, just pointing out things that could be seen as prophesies. My question: Do you still see the current Prophets prophesying? Has their role shifted more to an administrative role or maybe a figure head role? If you see them as still prophesying, what are some contemporary examples? Would it be their commentary of social issues? Like, beware of the detrimental effects of gay rights, or something along those lines? Do you consider something like the missionary age change to be prophecy? The only thing I can think of that would be close is the November Policy which Nelson said was a revelation to the Q15. I have heard some Mormons dispute that and say it is just a policy and that Nelson is wrong...but I don't know what the majority of members think about it. In summary, do the current prophets prophesy and what are some contemporary examples? -Ryan The Essays.
mfbukowski Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 On 10/2/2017 at 9:15 AM, FearlessFixxer said: Thank you. I am not saying I want prognostication or foretelling. I was just noting that it happened a lot more in the past than now. I am fine with defining the role of the prophet as testifying of Christ. It happens in every conference if you are listening. Conference is full of messages that seem directly pointed at my life. I think you are looking for new doctrine which is a misplaced search. We don't have doctrine therefore there is no new doctrine except warnings and lessons on how to live life. If you can pass a temple recommend interview honestly, that is all the doctrine we need. We need to more clear definition of the esoteric stuff- that is for us to figure out for ourselves through our own study and the spirit. Life is a Phd course, not third grade. You have to be self motivated to do "research" and make your own conclusions about what works for you. Maybe people are looking for answers but prophets are fallible humans with their own ideas each of which we must confirm for ourselves. I think your way of seeing the authoritarian church is outmoded. 1
mfbukowski Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 On 10/2/2017 at 9:20 AM, FearlessFixxer said: I agree 100%. The policy must be considered revelation. Would you classify a revelation as doctrine? there seems to be some disagreement on that part of it. Of course not. All doctrines are revealed but not all revelations are doctrine. Strange that you would confuse that. I get revelations every day that are not doctrine- about my personal problems. I don't need my mommy any more to tell me what to believe about God- I go to God himself. 1
mfbukowski Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 On 10/2/2017 at 10:22 AM, Jeanne said: Storm Rider...leaders in other churches are also trying to counsel, guide and direct God's children. Heck, I do this with my "grandkids"..we can see the world going to hell in a handbasket and pass out relevant scriptures, thoughts..ideas..and emphasize certain aspects of moral truths...but what makes a prophet different??? I haven't seen that. A testimony of Christ makes you a "prophet". No biggie- we are all supposed to be prophets in our own way. Those other folks are doing fine and I am sure they receive revelation- why not? But frankly in my years of searching, this is the only church that "has it all together" as far as a general skeleton of a belief system that I believe should be adopted by the whole world. Were it more specific it would not work as well as it does. The "tolerances" would be too fine to make the machine fly for most folks. I mean look at the philosophy one has to accept to be Catholic, justifying transubstantiation. We don't have to worry about that because we do not have complex doctrine like that. Our doctrine is about how to live and have joy in life by following rules that make sense for everyone, it's not based on philosophical jargon about, say, the nature of "appearances" vs "reality" or "substance". That's very esoteric stuff. The more we get bogged down with detailed doctrine, the more it locks you into rigid dogmas- we ain't got none! But that is what- to me- makes us the only "true and LIVING" church- our open Canon So yes, like government, the more laws you have, the more bogged down you get in administration. So our LACK of dogma is actually our strength. We've got all we need until a brand new problem arises- like gay ethics. Something has to be said about that. The virgin birth or the mechanics of how Joseph received revelation? Not so much. DID Joseph receive revelation? How does one determine that?? By our own personal revelation. As someone wiser than me said, for the one who has received revelation, there can be no question. For those who have not received revelation, there can be no answer. Describe the taste of pineapple. Either you know it or you don't. 1
mfbukowski Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 On 10/2/2017 at 10:29 AM, FearlessFixxer said: Why do you say 'if'? As a member, I believed that day was inevitable. Sterling McMurrin said that he was never disillusioned because he was never illusioned in the first place. You were not an adult in your faith, but you still can be. Prophets are not perfect and often speak in parables if they know it or not. 1
jkwilliams Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 (edited) 42 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Sterling McMurrin said that he was never disillusioned because he was never illusioned in the first place. You were not an adult in your faith, but you still can be. Prophets are not perfect and often speak in parables if they know it or not. Faith is a rather personal thing, don’t you think? How does one judge something so subjective and personal? Edited October 3, 2017 by jkwilliams
rockpond Posted October 4, 2017 Posted October 4, 2017 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: The Essays. The gospel topics essays? You consider those to be recent exemples of prophecy? Or have I misunderstood.
CV75 Posted October 4, 2017 Posted October 4, 2017 4 hours ago, rongo said: Many LDS do try to diminish the expectation that we should have Kirtland/Nauvoo/Trek-style spiritual manifestations today. I agree that we still receive revelation today. Many seem resigned to it being more of a corporate, institutional, day-to-day running type of revelation, often behind the scenes and unknown. In our day. I see. Styles do change, and new complimentary styles are introduced, and to some that may seem disconcerting. I think as the earthly Church organization changes in both priesthood and legal structure to maximize her ability to successfully navigate the systems of the world, the Lord expects to use all kinds of "new" (compared to 1830) venues to manifest His revelations. The worst of the world's systems, and the worst of their use, would destroy the Lord's earthly kingdom if possible, and so the Lord follows His own advice to be as wise as serpents and harmless as a doves. When a prophet hasn't a council, he receives revelation in a way a council doesn't; when he has a council, he has more options in how he receives revelation, and all are edified. Likewise, when the Lord hasn't a sufficiently viable legally-recognized Church, He sends revelation a la Joseph Smith in 1820, but when He does have a corporate structure in place, He has additional options. And He certainly uses them! 1
mfbukowski Posted October 4, 2017 Posted October 4, 2017 3 hours ago, rockpond said: The gospel topics essays? You consider those to be recent exemples of prophecy? Or have I misunderstood. Yes- I see them as a change in the direction of openness and an important declaration of what is and what is not doctrine. As an indication of attitude, they are very important The change in direction is what is "prophecy".
Pete Ahlstrom Posted October 4, 2017 Posted October 4, 2017 23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Yes- I see them as a change in the direction of openness and an important declaration of what is and what is not doctrine. As an indication of attitude, they are very important The change in direction is what is "prophecy". I guess we need to look really hard to find "prophecy" nowadays. Why do you think the FP/Q12 doesn't ever say "thus sayeth the Lord" anymore?
mfbukowski Posted October 4, 2017 Posted October 4, 2017 1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said: I guess we need to look really hard to find "prophecy" nowadays. Why do you think the FP/Q12 doesn't ever say "thus sayeth the Lord" anymore? Because they have a change of attitude. How many times do I have to say it? In essence they do say that actually by simply publishing the Proclamation and other revelations. And we get to verify them for ourselves so we decide if the Lord said them or not.
Pete Ahlstrom Posted October 4, 2017 Posted October 4, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Because they have a change of attitude. How many times do I have to say it? In essence they do say that actually by simply publishing the Proclamation and other revelations. And we get to verify them for ourselves so we decide if the Lord said them or not. So do you think there are times or could there be times when the FP/Q12 could mistakenly claim revelation? Could the Family Proclamation be one of those times? How about when E. Nelson questionably claimed the denying baptism to children of gay couples was a revelation? Edited October 4, 2017 by Pete Ahlstrom
mfbukowski Posted October 4, 2017 Posted October 4, 2017 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said: So do you think there are times or could there be times when the FP/Q12 could mistakenly claim revelation? Could the Family Proclamation be one of those times? How about when E. Nelson questionably claimed the denying baptism to children of gay couples was a revelation? Prophets are fallible clearly. They have admitted it many many times. I think that was clearly a revelation and is the best for the kids but your opinion may differ. No I will not debate it again. Look up those threads if you want to. You want the church to change- it changes. Now you want it go back ? And it was merely a delay to baptism for their own good Edited October 4, 2017 by mfbukowski
rockpond Posted October 4, 2017 Posted October 4, 2017 2 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Yes- I see them as a change in the direction of openness and an important declaration of what is and what is not doctrine. As an indication of attitude, they are very important The change in direction is what is "prophecy". Deciding to be more open about troubling doctrinal and historical issues (after the Information Age forced them into it) is prophecy? Wow. We’re really lowering the bar.
mfbukowski Posted October 4, 2017 Posted October 4, 2017 You persist in taking a scientific approach to religion. There is no objective answers to these questions- the answers are subjective and are supposed to be. It is about choosing a path that works in your life- within the general guidelines of the church teachings. If is not in accord with the church teachings you should be out of the church, but in no case should you NOT follow your conscience.
mfbukowski Posted October 4, 2017 Posted October 4, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, rockpond said: Deciding to be more open about troubling doctrinal and historical issues (after the Information Age forced them into it) is prophecy? Wow. We’re really lowering the bar. The bar never existed. The illusion was that it did. 7 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Sterling McMurrin said that he was never disillusioned because he was never illusioned in the first place. Edited October 4, 2017 by mfbukowski
rockpond Posted October 4, 2017 Posted October 4, 2017 30 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Because they have a change of attitude. How many times do I have to say it? In essence they do say that actually by simply publishing the Proclamation and other revelations. And we get to verify them for ourselves so we decide if the Lord said them or not. The FP and the 12 took full credit for the Proclamation in 1995. So I don’t even need to ask if the Lord said it. They claimed authorship. Whether or not it is aligned with the Lord’s will seems to be the relevant question.
Recommended Posts