What is the role of the modern day Prophet, Seer and Revelator

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

The bar never existed.  The illusion was that it did.

 

I believe that I graduated to “adulthood” in my faith some years back.  Except I would call it having moved to a Fowler Stage 4/5. 

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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. 

Which is of course unknowable by objective means so that leaves Pete's approach out of the issue

The Lord's will can only be known by testimony and that is subjective.

[mfbukowski]

17 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I believe that I graduated to “adulthood” in my faith some years back.  Except I would call it having moved to a Fowler Stage 4/5. 

Yes that is the sort of thing I was talking about but I am with Kevin in preferring Perry's scheme

https://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/perry.positions.html

We have many here still looking for objective and absolute answers.

Quote

A. Dualism/Received Knowledge:
There are right/wrong answers, engraved on Golden Tablets in the sky, known to Authorities.

Does that fit or what??

Actually that is a perfect description of Platonism and Neo Platonism and why the restoration was needed.  Personal revelation rules that out by definition- everyone becomes an "authority"

The mere admonition to receive "your own testimony" blows that out of the water.

Edited October 4, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

9 hours 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. 

In lieu of a rep point, 

[mfbukowski]

22 hours 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 one answer was Romanticism and the acknowledgement that we are at the bottom line EMOTIONAL creatures, not rational ones

We do what we WANT and then make it fit what we call "rational".  It is called "rationalization".   The passions are at the bottom of the most important decisions in life, deciding how we want to see the world. Some want to be logical without knowing what that means. Their understanding is about as deep as pretending to be Mr. Spock

So You can see changes as God having changed or our understanding of philosophy changed.  Either works because both are true.

All we know about God is what we think He is. 

It cannot be denied that what we think is - what we know!  That is just as true about science incidentally. All we can know about scientific truth is what we think is scientifically true.

Edited October 4, 2017 by mfbukowski
Wrong word reversed meaning

[CV75]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You want the church to change- it changes.  Now you want it go back ?

This is what I find interesting about the difference (or the change) in the predominant “style” of spiritual manifestations from the days of yore. Those who either poo-poo or favor the magical style in Joseph Smith’s day want or challenge it to be seen today, without realizing that spiritual manifestations take many forms, that Joseph operated under the less magical forms as well, and that even today we have examples of the magical style.

Here is where I see a difference: the magical manifestations of yesteryear were witnessed by a relatively small group and preserved in their records, and these accounts passed on through the families, official Church histories and gradually broadcast throughout the world in the 20-21^st centuries as communication became more global.

I have seen “magical” manifestations on a small group scale. I think if people had the self-control to not take notes and pictures and throw these pearls to swine, I suspect we would see a lot more. And as the earthly kingdom develops structurally to function in a bigger, secular and worldlier environment, God’s revelations also course through the kingdom through the medium of those individuals called to service in their apostolic offices and councils.

[jkwilliams]

On 10/2/2017 at 1:29 PM, FearlessFixxer said:

Why do you say 'if'?  As a member, I believed that day was inevitable. 

Fascinating that the belief in the literal gathering of Israel at the "center place" in Missouri is dismissed as an immature inability to understand metaphor. When I was on my mission, my mission president traveled to Salt Lake for a conference, and when he came back, he told us of meeting President Hinckley in his office. President Hinckley showed him street plans and architectural designs for the New Jerusalem to be built in Independence, Missouri. Later, when I was working for the church, a man I knew in the church's property division  told me that it was church policy to buy property adjacent to or near the temple lot site in Independence. He said it drove him crazy as a specialist in investment property, as these purchases rarely made financial sense but were purchased for their "religious significance" in anticipation of eventually fulfilling prophecy. It's a shame those folks didn't realize it was all just a metaphor to be taken seriously only by the spiritually immature. 

[rockpond]

34 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Fascinating that the belief in the literal gathering of Israel at the "center place" in Missouri is dismissed as an immature inability to understand metaphor. When I was on my mission, my mission president traveled to Salt Lake for a conference, and when he came back, he told us of meeting President Hinckley in his office. President Hinckley showed him street plans and architectural designs for the New Jerusalem to be built in Independence, Missouri. Later, when I was working for the church, a man I knew in the church's property division  told me that it was church policy to buy property adjacent to or near the temple lot site in Independence. He said it drove him crazy as a specialist in investment property, as these purchases rarely made financial sense but were purchased for their "religious significance" in anticipation of eventually fulfilling prophecy. It's a shame those folks didn't realize it was all just a metaphor to be taken seriously only by the spiritually immature. 

Agreed. 

While I personally tend to espouse mfbukowski’s approach, the default within the Church us certainly more of a literal interpretation. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, rockpond said:

Agreed. 

While I personally tend to espouse mfbukowski’s approach, the default within the Church us certainly more of a literal interpretation. 

I don't have an issue with seeing anything (everything?) as metaphor. It just seems odd to say that everything is subjective while simultaneously dismissing someone else's subjective interpretation as not "adult." 

[rongo]

35 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Fascinating that the belief in the literal gathering of Israel at the "center place" in Missouri is dismissed as an immature inability to understand metaphor. When I was on my mission, my mission president traveled to Salt Lake for a conference, and when he came back, he told us of meeting President Hinckley in his office. President Hinckley showed him street plans and architectural designs for the New Jerusalem to be built in Independence, Missouri. 

Pretty much all of the 10th Article of Faith is de-emphasized by most members --- and I can't remember the last time time things like that have even been mentioned in General Conference. 

"As for me and my house:" the Restoration is a living, current thing for me and my family, and in my ministry. I find that focusing on the Restoration --- including the promises and prophecies of the Restoration --- is a shot in the arm to most people. The Restoration is exciting, and we should embrace it and not be timid about people thinking it's weird or embarrassing (but that's how most members seem to act about it). 

[jkwilliams]

20 minutes ago, rongo said:

Pretty much all of the 10th Article of Faith is de-emphasized by most members --- and I can't remember the last time time things like that have even been mentioned in General Conference. 

"As for me and my house:" the Restoration is a living, current thing for me and my family, and in my ministry. I find that focusing on the Restoration --- including the promises and prophecies of the Restoration --- is a shot in the arm to most people. The Restoration is exciting, and we should embrace it and not be timid about people thinking it's weird or embarrassing (but that's how most members seem to act about it). 

I'm not sure why anyone would find the idea of a literal gathering at all embarrassing. In my 40 years of activity in the church, it was always taught as a physical gathering to Independence in preparation for the Second Coming. I didn't realize that belief was now considered a metaphor by some people. Oh, well. I haven't attended regularly for almost 10 years, so I'm sure things have changed.

Edited October 4, 2017 by jkwilliams

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Fascinating that the belief in the literal gathering of Israel at the "center place" in Missouri is dismissed as an immature inability to understand metaphor. When I was on my mission, my mission president traveled to Salt Lake for a conference, and when he came back, he told us of meeting President Hinckley in his office. President Hinckley showed him street plans and architectural designs for the New Jerusalem to be built in Independence, Missouri. Later, when I was working for the church, a man I knew in the church's property division  told me that it was church policy to buy property adjacent to or near the temple lot site in Independence. He said it drove him crazy as a specialist in investment property, as these purchases rarely made financial sense but were purchased for their "religious significance" in anticipation of eventually fulfilling prophecy. It's a shame those folks didn't realize it was all just a metaphor to be taken seriously only by the spiritually immature. 

 

52 minutes ago, rongo said:

Pretty much all of the 10th Article of Faith is de-emphasized by most members --- and I can't remember the last time time things like that have even been mentioned in General Conference. 

 

10th Article of Faith is clear.
We believe in the literal gathering of Israel, not the metaphorical gathering of Israel to their local ward.
Some times I really think maybe we should drop the "latter-day saints" part of our Church name since apparently nobody wants to admit any more that the last days actually mean the last days.

We may not know when, but it's been 200 years nearly since the Church was restored.  The Millennium, the gathering to Zion and then the building of the Temple in Jackson County, the return of the Savior, the end of all nations, the grand council at Adam-Ondi-Ahman.
Do we believe those things are imminent or not?  Or are we really as those in the days of Noah.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Pretty much all of the 10th Article of Faith is de-emphasized by most members --- and I can't remember the last time time things like that have even been mentioned in General Conference. 

"As for me and my house:" the Restoration is a living, current thing for me and my family, and in my ministry. I find that focusing on the Restoration --- including the promises and prophecies of the Restoration --- is a shot in the arm to most people. The Restoration is exciting, and we should embrace it and not be timid about people thinking it's weird or embarrassing (but that's how most members seem to act about it). 

Umm. What?

It's not the focus, but the second coming is a pretty common trope of conference. Unfortunately lds.org took away the ability to sort by date but I found quite a few talks on the topic within the last decade including one that was focused on the New Jerusalem. Elder Nelson even had a full article on the gathering of Israel just a few years ago.

I don't want to say there aren't people taking it as metaphoric, but I confess I've met very few people who do.

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

 

10th Article of Faith is clear.
We believe in the literal gathering of Israel, not the metaphorical gathering of Israel to their local ward.
Some times I really think maybe we should drop the "latter-day saints" part of our Church name since apparently nobody wants to admit any more that the last days actually mean the last days.

We may not know when, but it's been 200 years nearly since the Church was restored.  The Millennium, the gathering to Zion and then the building of the Temple in Jackson County, the return of the Savior, the end of all nations, the grand council at Adam-Ondi-Ahman.
Do we believe those things are imminent or not?  Or are we really as those in the days of Noah.

I think the problem is in defining the word 'imminent'.   Obviously, what is imminent to the Lord is not necessarily imminent to us mortals.  We could be in 'the last days' for hundreds of years (and have been already, as you pointed out).  I think that's why people have stopped focusing on that phrase.  We don't really know how to define it accurately and I think people have gotten tired of trying.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, bluebell said:

I think the problem is in defining the word 'imminent'.   Obviously, what is imminent to the Lord is not necessarily imminent to us mortals.  We could be in 'the last days' for hundreds of years (and have been already, as you pointed out).  I think that's why people have stopped focusing on that phrase.  We don't really know how to define it accurately and I think people have gotten tired of trying.

Believing the events are imminent is a different issue than believing the events are metaphorical. I've seen a lot of disagreement over the former, but this thread is the first time I've heard disagreement over the latter.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't have an issue with seeing anything (everything?) as metaphor. It just seems odd to say that everything is subjective while simultaneously dismissing someone else's subjective interpretation as not "adult." 

Yes.  Excellent point.

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Believing the events are imminent is a different issue than believing the events are metaphorical. I've seen a lot of disagreement over the former, but this thread is the first time I've heard disagreement over the latter.

Can you believe they are imminent and believe they are metaphorical?  

[jkwilliams]

Just now, bluebell said:

Can you believe they are imminent and believe they are metaphorical?  

Sure, as I said, it's a subjective belief, so whatever works for someone is fine with me. I'd just never heard anyone suggest the events are metaphorical and that believing otherwise is a sign of spiritual immaturity. 

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Sure, as I said, it's a subjective belief, so whatever works for someone is fine with me. I'd just never heard anyone suggest the events are metaphorical and that believing otherwise is a sign of spiritual immaturity. 

No, i agree that the idea of a metaphorical gathering does not mesh with the teachings of the church.  The church has always taught a literal gathering.

My question was in response to your reply to my post about the definition of 'imminent'.  Can a metaphorical gathering even happen on specific date in time?  As I understand it, a figurative gathering can't occur on a literal date or at a literal time.  That would contradict the definition of figurative and metaphorical.

If i'm understanding that correctly, I don't think that the definition of imminent would figure in at all for those who believe in a metaphorical gathering, would it?

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No, i agree that the idea of a metaphorical gathering does not mesh with the teachings of the church.  The church has always taught a literal gathering.

My question was in response to your reply to my post about the definition of 'imminent'.  Can a metaphorical gathering even happen on specific date in time?  As I understand it, a figurative gathering can't occur on a literal date or at a literal time.  That would contradict the definition of figurative and metaphorical.

If i'm understanding that correctly, I don't think that the definition of imminent would figure in at all for those who believe in a metaphorical gathering, would it?

I suppose you'd have to ask them. Clearly, the church for many decades has counseled for people to "gather" wherever they are, not to a central place, but I'd never understood that to extend to the events at Adam-Ondi-Ahman and Independence that are supposed to usher in the Second Coming. That people no longer consider those to be literal events is fascinating to me. 

[rongo]

52 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Umm. What?

It's not the focus, but the second coming is a pretty common trope of conference. Unfortunately lds.org took away the ability to sort by date but I found quite a few talks on the topic within the last decade including one that was focused on the New Jerusalem. Elder Nelson even had a full article on the gathering of Israel just a few years ago.

I don't want to say there aren't people taking it as metaphoric, but I confess I've met very few people who do.

One in the last decade? How about the restoration of the ten tribes? The meeting at Adam-ondi-Ahman? 

There have been real efforts from online message board Mormons in recent times to completely downplay or outright allegorize the Garden of Eden being on the American continent. Those in this camp are embarrassed that this was ever taught, and want to distance the Church as much as possible from that. Things of this nature.

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I suppose you'd have to ask them. Clearly, the church for many decades has counseled for people to "gather" wherever they are, not to a central place, but I'd never understood that to extend to the events at Adam-Ondi-Ahman and Independence that are supposed to usher in the Second Coming. That people no longer consider those to be literal events is fascinating to me. 

I’m guessing the number of such people in the church is small. I’ve never known any personally. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, bluebell said:

I’m guessing the number of such people in the church is small. I’ve never known any personally. 

Nor have I. Hence my surprise at hearing that my cousin's belief in a literal gathering was evidence that his faith was not adult.

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Nor have I. Hence my surprise at hearing that my cousin's belief in a literal gathering was evidence that his faith was not adult.

Whoever said that was obviously speaking only for himself and his way of seeing things.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Whoever said that was obviously speaking only for himself and his way of seeing things.

Agreed. It was just a strange response, IMO. I'm not often surprised by how people interpret scripture and the gospel, but this one threw me for a loop.