Kind of cool this morning

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Its because it is weird.  The vast majority of civilized western cultures don't believe in magical stones and sticks and astrology today.  The fact that Joseph and his contemporaries did believe in these things creates the conundrum.  The church still hasn't figured out how to reconcile the old with the new.  The essays don't tell you how you should be comfortable with seer stones.  We get ideas like comparing a seer stone to an iPhone from the church.  They don't know how to explain it.  

I'll explain it for you.  There was no magic happening at all.  It was all a product of Joseph's imagination.  Now, wrestle with that.  And wrestle with the idea that a man (Joseph Smith) created a religion, the same way that all religions have been created, by a human beings.  And then recognize that we can still find a lot of value from the metaphors of religion ideas without also believing in the supernatural.  To me, this is the path forward with integrity.  But church leaders aren't even close to this path yet. 

Hail Satan!

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I don't want to live in a world without magic and the supernatural --- to have a religion based only on metaphor and allegory. I'd rather keep taking the blue pill (or is it the red pill? I haven't seen the Matrix).  

Its actually not so bad living in this post supernatural world view.  I was scared initially too, but I'm enjoying it now.  

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Hail Satan!

Hmmm.  I don't believe in Satan, but I never considered that I might actually be Satan....  

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Its actually not so bad living in this post supernatural world view.  I was scared initially too, but I'm enjoying it now.  

How would I live day to day without summoning and binding demons to my will? I am not sure you have thought this through.

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

How would I live day to day without summoning and binding demons to my will? I am not sure you have thought this through.

There are some pretty realistic video games these days.  Have you tried any VR games?  

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Hmmm.  I don't believe in Satan, but I never considered that I might actually be Satan....  

No, I was just generally praising the infernal powers generally for your fine post. Encouraging a church to self-destruct seems pretty infernalish to me.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

There are some pretty realistic video games these days.  Have you tried any VR games?  

Just not the same. Pretending to channel eldritch forces in a game is just kind of ‘blah’ after you have dabbled in the real thing.

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No, I was just generally praising the infernal powers generally for your fine post. Encouraging a church to self-destruct seems pretty infernalish to me.

Who encouraged a church to self destruct?  It wasn't me.  

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Who encouraged a church to self destruct?  It wasn't me.  

You said you want our church leaders to admit that there was nothing divine in its formation of mission. Doing so would destroy it. I would not go back.

[cinepro]

On 2/28/2018 at 10:03 AM, rongo said:

It was just neat to be able to talk about the neat things that some people make shipwreck of their faith over. 

It is neat that you can talk about these things with your kids and have it not be faith-demoting when other people find such things "shipwreck" worthy.

Until you notice that when discussing these things, you present it in a certain way and hold back certain things out of fear of causing a shipwreck (i.e. The Gospel Topics Essays).  Remember, inoculation works because you are introducing the infecting agent, but doing so at a lower dosage or in an inert form that is different than the infecting agent found in the wild.  It would be like taking a vaccine and thinking "Wow, it's weird that people get infected by this virus and die from it.  I feel fine!"

Most the people who found themselves "wrecked" probably didn't have the benefit of someone carefully manicuring the message and leaving out the parts that cause us to connect the dots in "wreckful" ways. 

Your kids are lucky to have you. 

[rongo]

29 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Until you notice that when discussing these things, you present it in a certain way and hold back certain things out of fear of causing a shipwreck (i.e. The Gospel Topics Essays).  Remember, inoculation works because you are introducing the infecting agent, but doing so at a lower dosage or in an inert form that is different than the infecting agent found in the wild.  It would be like taking a vaccine and thinking "Wow, it's weird that people get infected by this virus and die from it.  I feel fine!"

Most the people who found themselves "wrecked" probably didn't have the benefit of someone carefully manicuring the message and leaving out the parts that cause us to connect the dots in "wreckful" ways. 

I think that some think that there is only one way to look at, understand, and present the "facts" as they are "in the wild," as you put it --- and that anything that varies from that is simply "manicuring" or "crafting" the message to conceal or reveal more or less. The fact is that, like any other historical item, there is not ultimate "truth" against which all else can be compared, like Plato's theory of ideal "things." In other words, the assumption is that all people would react the same way if presented with the unvarnished "facts" as they are "in the wild" --- without any mitigation or "nuancing." I don't think this is true at all, and I don't think there's any way to find a pure "fact" as it is "in the wild." By virtue of talking about it in any way, it ceases to be some ephemeral platonic conceit. 

It does help that my children trust their parents, and we can expose them to the weird, "shock value" things that throw a lot of people for a loop because they trust us. That gives us more cachet than doing a fireside, for instance, where you are simply a stranger up front talking. 

Edited March 1, 2018 by rongo

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

And then recognize that we can still find a lot of value from the metaphors of religion ideas without also believing in the supernatural.  To me, this is the path forward with integrity.  But church leaders aren't even close to this path yet. 

If there are people who 'find a lot of value from the metaphors of religion ideas without also believing in the supernatural', I'm more than happy for that to be their chosen pathway, but it is most certainly not a 'path forward with integrity' for me ... or, I would assume, for the vast majority of those who post in this forum.

It is precisely because I have integrity that I have to reject the 'metaphor only' approach to religion. My personal experience, oft repeated, is of a living, personal God who communicates to His children in a number of ways: spiritual impressions, dreams, visions, an internal voice, an audible voice, angels, and so forth. There is real power in the priesthood. In short, the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ functions in my life exactly as I would expect it to considering its claims of divine origin -- consistently, reliably and predictably.

To respond any other way would do violence to my integrity. And if that is the case for me, I find it reasonable that such would be the case for 'Church leaders'. They know what they have, and to do anything other than persist in teaching its reality to any who will listen would not be a path forward in any meaning of the word.

Edited March 1, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[hope_for_things]

36 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

If there are people who 'find a lot of value from the metaphors of religion ideas without also believing in the supernatural', I'm more than happy for that to be their chosen pathway., but it is most certainly not a 'path forward with integrity' for me ... or, I would assume, for the vast majority of those who post in this forum.

It is precisely because I have integrity that I have to reject the 'metaphor only' approach to religion. My personal experience, oft repeated, is of a living, personal God who communicates to His children in a number of ways: spiritual impressions, dreams, visions, an internal voice, an audible voice, angels, and so forth. There is real power in the priesthood. In short, the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ functions in my life exactly as I would expect it to considering its claims of divine origin -- consistently, reliably and predictably.

To respond any other way would do violence to my integrity. And if that is the case for me, I find it reasonable that such would be the case for 'Church leaders'. They know what they have, and to do anything other than persist in teaching its reality to any who will listen would not be a path forward in any meaning of the word.

I would never propose that one size fits all.  I also think many people change throughout their life, so what works for you today might not work as well in 5-10 years from now.  No reason to assume that others on this forum more closely align to that way of thinking though.  All of that power and value is subjective and aligns with your view of things, but that doesn't mean it works the same for others.  Reality is largely in the eye of the beholder.  

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

What if a person (me) doesn't believe that there is any supernatural power imbued in stones or an Ark.  The best I can imagine these days is that the person making claims of an influence by an external force, is actually just experiencing something inside their brain, and that they are describing this experience as something other, when in reality it is just a part of their internal brain state.  

Joseph being in good company with the billions of humans throughout history that have imagined experiences of one kind or another, and described these experiences as being communication from a God or from something external to themselves, when in reality they were just experiencing a very natural part of the amazing abilities we've all evolved to experience.  

Oh, and lest anyone think I'm hostile to religion, I'm not, and I don't have a problem using religious language to contextualize this narrative.  I just honestly don't believe in the supernatural these days.  

It would appear that there would be no need for further discussion, then, if one party is totally closed-minded about what is and is not possible and religion just becomes philosophy. Nothing supernatural...no prayers answered, no revelation, no angels, no resurrection, no Atonement, no God, etc. Not much left to talk about. Seen any good movies lately?

Edited March 2, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

If there are people who 'find a lot of value from the metaphors of religion ideas without also believing in the supernatural', I'm more than happy for that to be their chosen pathway, but it is most certainly not a 'path forward with integrity' for me ... or, I would assume, for the vast majority of those who post in this forum.

It is precisely because I have integrity that I have to reject the 'metaphor only' approach to religion. My personal experience, oft repeated, is of a living, personal God who communicates to His children in a number of ways: spiritual impressions, dreams, visions, an internal voice, an audible voice, angels, and so forth. There is real power in the priesthood. In short, the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ functions in my life exactly as I would expect it to considering its claims of divine origin -- consistently, reliably and predictably.

To respond any other way would do violence to my integrity. And if that is the case for me, I find it reasonable that such would be the case for 'Church leaders'. They know what they have, and to do anything other than persist in teaching its reality to any who will listen would not be a path forward in any meaning of the word.

Well, this is a problem, isn’t it? Having experienced the supernatural (to me that means currently unexplainable by standard means), I am quite open to consider Arks, shining stones, translations of ancient documents in hats, etc.

 

 

Edited March 2, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I also think many people change throughout their life, so what works for you today might not work as well in 5-10 years from now.

This certainly happens. We used to have an odd fellow in our ward who, after the death of his wife to cancer, walked away from modern medicine. This is course doesn't mean that modern medicine ceased working, just that it had ceased working for him.

Quote

No reason to assume that others on this forum more closely align to that way of thinking though.

Mate, seriously, what reasons do you think most people have for participating in a forum called 'Mormon Dialogue & Discussion'? I understand that some people persist in maintaining affiliation with the Church of Jesus Christ long after it means anything practical to them, but most people do not. Have you not noticed that most posters here actually believe in the truth claims of 'Mormonism' in some way ... and then actually defend them against those who don't? It's sort of the main purpose of this whole board, from what I can tell.

Quote

All of that power and value is subjective and aligns with your view of things, but that doesn't mean it works the same for others.

Of course it's subjective and aligns with my view of things. Where do you think my view of things comes from? From my personal (subjective) experiences. I sense that you really want to turn this around somehow and claim that people make up experiences to match their pre-existing assumptions, but that's certainly not true of me. I believe what I do specifically because of what I have experienced. That's no guarantee, of course, that people will agree, but if you've spent much time hanging out with the Saints and attending their meetings, I'm guessing you've seen a good amount of agreement. In many ways, every sermon, every testimony, every comment in a class is an act of reporting of personal observation. It sometimes happens that what I hear at church is unfamiliar; usually, it rings true because I've had a similar or even identical experience. This, to me, is what forges the shared community of the Saints: we have common experiences in accepting and living the Restored Gospel.

When I was a master's student at an American university, I received a Fulbright-Hayes grant from the US Dept of Education to spend a semester studying at a university that had a branch of the Church located about an hour away. It was a tiny branch (I became the 14th member) and so remote that it belonged to no stake or district. Minus me and one other transplant, the entire branch consisted of three sons who had been baptised by their convert father (already deceased), the wives of two of them (one only recently baptised), and their kids. No missionaries had ever laboured in this province. I was the only one who had ever seen a session of General Conference. Etc.

My very first Sunday was Fast Sunday, and the branch president started the testimony sharing. I remember thinking it would be interesting to hear how different his testimony was bound to be considering how limited had been his exposure to 'Church culture'. After all, we were holding services in a stilt-house in the middle of a coconut grove in a village of only a few hundred people. The walls of our 'chapel' were, contrary to Church policy, covered with images of temples and prophets cut from occasional copies of the Liahona, and a stray dog was nursing her pups (having brought them up the ladder one-by-one in her teeth) in the middle of the floor.

And then he shared his testimony. It sounded just like mine. He shared an experience involving chickens and prayer. It was exactly parallel to experiences I've had that didn't involve chickens. He bore witness to the exact same things I've seen and heard and come to know for myself. I was surprised, but I shouldn't have been. In a branch with 14 members, a testimony meeting involves everyone in the room. I was the last to stand, but as I listened to what was said by adults and children alike, it was all familiar to me. All of it. Every single experience. Every single word.

As I expressed earlier, I'm fine if you just want to ride on the outside of the bus for some reason, but it's silly to suggest that those inside the bus aren't all sharing in a common experience. From the beginning, this has been what has given 'Mormonism' its strength and resilience: Joseph Smith invited those around him to experience things for themselves so that they would know those things for themselves, without having to rely on what he might say, and we've never stopped doing that.

One of the things that I loved most about serving a full-time mission and still love as a member missionary is watching people come to experience what the rest of us have. As of this week, I have a new housemate. Nearly four years ago, I took the Elders to meet with him for the first time. He'd never before prayed in his entire life, but he agreed to pray that night. In response, things happened -- things that were familiar to the Elders and me but completely new for him. Over time, he experienced more and more of what we'd experienced and so came to know what we knew. And that process continues for all of us. Well, for most of us.

Edited March 2, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Interesting story, but it makes me want to ask how members would react if they knew that current leadership (the prophet I assume it would have to be) were actually using the seer stones today in the same way Joseph is said to have used  them?

I could be wrong, but I would assume that most active members have read Mosiah 8 and 28. When I sustain the apostles as 'prophets, seers and revelators' five times each year, I do so consciously. 

[CA Steve]

15 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I could be wrong, but I would assume that most active members have read Mosiah 8 and 28. When I sustain the apostles as 'prophets, seers and revelators' five times each year, I do so consciously. 

Well my experience when sitting in those same meetings is that most members are occupied with other thoughts, kids, drowsiness, look at smart phones, rubbing the back of someone's neck, looking at the clock and more, when sustaining anyone. It is hard to imagine they are also thinking about a specific passage in scripture at that time of are even conscious what it is they are actually doing. 

 

I would be willing to bet, someone conducting a meeting, could, out of the blue. simply say; "all those in favor signify by raising your right hand... and those opposed by the same sign", and the majority of the audience would participate without even knowing what they weren't voting on anything.

Edited March 2, 2018 by CA Steve

[rongo]

14 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I could be wrong, but I would assume that most active members have read Mosiah 8 and 28. When I sustain the apostles as 'prophets, seers and revelators' five times each year, I do so consciously. 

I don't think that most active members think at all about the Book of Mormon definitions of seership when sustaining as such (JSH 1:35 is also important along with Mosiah). I don't think many believe that the president of the Church or other apostles use the seer stone, or would even consider using the seer stone, today.

I believe more that the potential is there, but it's more of a "sleeping giant" than in actual practice. The keys are resident, but there is much more of a corporate, council-based, approach to governance and policies (and revelation) than inquiring invoking seership. Otherwise, we wouldn't have the gospel topics essays done by outsourcing to academics (John Gee, Brian Hales, Paul Reeve, etc.) and published anonymously. The would be given more in a "we have inquired of the Lord on this matter, and this is what he told us to say." 

What saddens me is that the issues in some of the gospel topics essays are absolutely the very issues that are the whole point of having a seer. A revelatory explanation for the Book of Abraham. A revelatory explanation for the knotty problems with Joseph Smith's polygamy. A revelatory (definitive) explanation for the priesthood ban (as opposed to simply disavowing past explanations in general, but not offering an explanation, and not explaining how the preexistence does impact mortality). 

How long has it been since there has been any doctrinal expansion or explanation? We pay lip service to believing AoF #9, but shouldn't seership include "yet" revealing many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God?"

Again, I believe that the keys and the potential are here, but I don't think we have the faith as a people (top to bottom) for that currently. I think many hesitate lest we be thought of as "too weird" by the world. That isn't how we raise our family, and we have an attitude of safeguarding these embers of faith.  

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't think that most active members think at all about the Book of Mormon definitions of seership when sustaining as such (JSH 1:35 is also important along with Mosiah). I don't think many believe that the president of the Church or other apostles use the seer stone, or would even consider using the seer stone, today.

I believe more that the potential is there, but it's more of a "sleeping giant" than in actual practice. The keys are resident, but there is much more of a corporate, council-based, approach to governance and policies (and revelation) than inquiring invoking seership. Otherwise, we wouldn't have the gospel topics essays done by outsourcing to academics (John Gee, Brian Hales, Paul Reeve, etc.) and published anonymously. The would be given more in a "we have inquired of the Lord on this matter, and this is what he told us to say." 

What saddens me is that the issues in some of the gospel topics essays are absolutely the very issues that are the whole point of having a seer. A revelatory explanation for the Book of Abraham. A revelatory explanation for the knotty problems with Joseph Smith's polygamy. A revelatory (definitive) explanation for the priesthood ban (as opposed to simply disavowing past explanations in general, but not offering an explanation, and not explaining how the preexistence does impact mortality). 

How long has it been since there has been any doctrinal expansion or explanation? We pay lip service to believing AoF #9, but shouldn't seership include "yet" revealing many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God?"

Again, I believe that the keys and the potential are here, but I don't think we have the faith as a people (top to bottom) for that currently. I think many hesitate lest we be thought of as "too weird" by the world. That isn't how we raise our family, and we have an attitude of safeguarding these embers of faith.  

Revelation does not come on demand. It comes as the Almighty sees fit to bestow it. To "have faith as a people" entails understanding and embracing that principle.

From Dallin H. Oaks:

 

Quote

 

... [W]hen I was president of Brigham Young University, we were making plans to persuade the president of the United States to speak at the university. We had particular times that would suit our convenience, and we had in mind some things we wanted him to say and do while he was there. But all of us were wise enough to know that we could not contact the highest authority in the United States and invite him to come to the BYU campus—even to speak to 26,000 people—and put conditions on his appearance.

We knew that in inviting the president, we had to say in effect, “We will welcome you whenever you can come and for whatever time you choose to be here and for whatever you choose to say and do while you are here. We will accommodate our schedules and our arrangements entirely to your visit.”

Now, if that’s the way a community of 26,000 people must approach the highest authority of a nation, it should not be surprising that one person—however important—is in no position to put conditions upon or to impose personal timing upon a visit or communication from the Highest Authority in the universe.

Indeed, this is the principle the Lord revealed to His children in the great revelation printed in the 88th section of the Doctrine and Covenants. The Lord said, “Draw near unto me and I will draw near unto you; seek me diligently and ye shall find me; ask, and ye shall receive; knock, and it shall be opened unto you” (verse 63).

Next, the Lord declared that if our eye is single to His glory, our whole body will be filled with light and we will be able to comprehend all things. Then, His instruction continued with this great promise: “Therefore, sanctify yourselves that your minds become single to God, and the days will come that you shall see him; for he will unveil his face unto you, and it shall be in his own time, and in his own way, and according to his own will” (verse 68; emphasis added).

The principle stated in that revelation applies to every communication from our Heavenly Father. We cannot force spiritual things.

In most cases, “his own way” is not the thunderous interruption or the blinding light but what the scriptures call the “still small voice” (1 Kings 19:12; 1 Nephi 17:45; D&C 85:6). Some have misunderstood this principle. As a result, some have looked exclusively for the great manifestations recorded in the scriptures and have failed to recognize the “still small voice” that is given to them. This is like making up our minds that we will learn only from a teacher who shouts and that we will refuse to listen to even the wisest teaching that comes in a whisper.

We need to know that the Lord rarely speaks loudly. His messages almost always come in a whisper.

 

Incidentally, I believe the "council-based approach to ... revelation" is, in itself, a principle given to us by revelation. As President M. Russell Ballard told me in an interview just over a year ago, "It's a great system. It's the Lord's system."

Edited March 2, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[rongo]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Revelation does not come on demand. It comes as the Almighty sees fit to bestow it. To "have faith as a people" entails understanding and embracing that principle.

I understand that, and agree that it is not on demand. But it should happen sometimes, right? What I mean, is that the only examples of revelation over the last several decades are simple policy changes. We seem to be in a doldrums where no doctrinal explanation or expansion is expected, needed, or wanted (institutionally). The irony is that we are currently facing several weighty issues that can only be settled by authoritative revelation, and today, we don't get any indication that God is even being asked for answers to those questions by the key-holders (such as David O. McKay indicating that he had asked but received no answer in the 1940s). While we believe that "God will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God," it has been a long time since this has happened. I don't think only policy changes are what is meant by this.

Incidentally, I believe the "council-based approach to ... revelation" is, in itself, a principle given to us by revelation. As President M. Russell Ballard told me in an interview just over a year ago, "It's a great system. It's the Lord's system."

That's the phase we're in now (it's Elder Ballard's big theme. He talks about it all the time, and his book has been out for a long time now), but it seems to me like a replacement or substitute. When revelation is only and ever "council-based" (and it seems for some time that what is held out as revelation lately is only and ever council-based, not from the seer) that is not after the manner of "seership" as defined by Moroni or in Mosiah or in Joseph Smith's experience. Councils have their place and their use, but they are not a good 100% of the time substitute for the key-holder inquiring of God and giving an authoritative answer.

[MiserereNobis]

42 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think many hesitate lest we be thought of as "too weird" by the world.

Obviously I'm not a Mormon so my view is from the outside and is primarily limited to this board, though I used to be close friends with an LDS family before they moved away. What you say is how it appears to me from the outside. What's strange to me, though, is that Mormon practice isn't weird at all. Sunday church services are, from my point-of-view, rather boring (in the best sense of the word!). There is nothing weird that goes on at all, just a lot of talking in three different meetings. I've heard the temple is quite different but I wouldn't know and I years ago decided not to look up those clandestine videos out of respect.

Catholicism is full of "weird" and it doesn't seem to bother outsiders too much. The traditional Latin mass that I attend could and sometimes is considered "weird" by outsiders with its Latin and incense and big candles and ornate vestments and chants. Isn't the belief that the host turns into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ weird? Catholic personal devotion can also be looked at as weird -- lighting candles, praying rosaries, praying to Saints while looking at Saint cards/images, etc. We kneel and pray in front of relics (a body part from a Saint)! Add to that monasteries and religious orders and it can become a whole pile of weirdness. We have holy water. We have blessed crucifixes that we kiss. We believe in apparitions of Jesus and Mary and angels. We have demonic possessions and exorcism (a few months ago I had beers with our Diocesan exorcist and we spent a few minutes talking about his experiences -- didn't sound fun at all!).

But to me all of this isn't really weird because 1) I believe in Catholicism (obviously) but more important 2) the Catholic Church has a very strong sense of the supernatural. It is foundational and inherent in our theology and I think any true supernatural practice or event is going to be out of the norm by definition. In Mormonism it seems like to me there is a much fuzzier line between natural and supernatural. I've heard many Mormons say that miracles are simply natural laws that we don't yet understand (meaning that miracles are not supernatural). There is also the believe that spirit is refined matter (meaning that there is no real difference between spirit and matter which parallels the difference between supernatural and natural).

Perhaps a stronger sense of the supernatural would alleviate the fear of weirdness. Hey, where I'm from, Jesus shows up sometimes in tortillas, so yeah, we're weird out here, lol

 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

I understand that, and agree that it is not on demand. But it should happen sometimes, right? What I mean, is that the only examples of revelation over the last several decades are simple policy changes. We seem to be in a doldrums where no doctrinal explanation or expansion is expected, needed, or wanted (institutionally). The irony is that we are currently facing several weighty issues that can only be settled by authoritative revelation, and today, we don't get any indication that God is even being asked for answers to those questions by the key-holders (such as David O. McKay indicating that he had asked but received no answer in the 1940s). While we believe that "God will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God," it has been a long time since this has happened. I don't think only policy changes are what is meant by this.

 

 

That's the phase we're in now (it's Elder Ballard's big theme. He talks about it all the time, and his book has been out for a long time now), but it seems to me like a replacement or substitute. When revelation is only and ever "council-based" (and it seems for some time that what is held out as revelation lately is only and ever council-based, not from the seer) that is not after the manner of "seership" as defined by Moroni or in Mosiah or in Joseph Smith's experience. Councils have their place and their use, but they are not a good 100% of the time substitute for the key-holder inquiring of God and giving an authoritative answer.

I think you may be neglecting what then-Elder Oaks said in the quote I provided:
 

Quote

 

In most cases, “his own way” is not the thunderous interruption or the blinding light but what the scriptures call the “still small voice” (1 Kings 19:12; 1 Nephi 17:45; D&C 85:6). Some have misunderstood this principle. As a result, some have looked exclusively for the great manifestations recorded in the scriptures and have failed to recognize the “still small voice” that is given to them. This is like making up our minds that we will learn only from a teacher who shouts and that we will refuse to listen to even the wisest teaching that comes in a whisper.

We need to know that the Lord rarely speaks loudly. His messages almost always come in a whisper.

 

It seems to me that decisions worked out in council deliberations and ultimately ratified by the Spirit are the collective means of inviting and receiving the whispering of the still, small voice.

[rongo]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think you may be neglecting what then-Elder Oaks said in the quote I provided:

I think you may be misreading what I am saying. I am not saying (and have never said) that we need "thunderous interruption or a blinding light." I am not discounting the still, small voice. I agree with President Oaks that this is usually how people receive revelation. What I am saying is that it doesn't appear to me that the Brethren have asked for revelation on the pressing doctrinal questions of our day. At least, they haven't said that they have, and they haven't said what the Lord told them to say. Whether by a still, small voice or something more dramatic.

It seems to me that decisions worked out in council deliberations and ultimately ratified by the Spirit are the collective means of inviting and receiving the whispering of the still, small voice.

Sure. What does that have to do with the gospel topics essays? *Nothing* from them was produced by a council or a committee of the Brethren. They assigned it to academics, and then approved their publications on the website. They gave no input. When I have heard them answer questions related to them in local Q&As, they are not knowledgeable about the issues, and seem caught off guard and flat-footed about them. 

I would much prefer that they, as a council or committee, had written them --- especially seeking God's answers to inform them. 

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

 

Sure. What does that have to do with the gospel topics essays? *Nothing* from them was produced by a council or a committee of the Brethren. They assigned it to academics, and then approved their publications on the website. They gave no input. When I have heard them answer questions related to them in local Q&As, they are not knowledgeable about the issues, and seem caught off guard and flat-footed about them. 

I would much prefer that they, as a council or committee, had written them --- especially seeking God's answers to inform them. 

Very true, I would have loved it if the first presidency had written or said something alongside of the essays instead of just the LDS scholars. Some members of the church that read the gospel topic essays say they don't believe them because it's not coming from the leaders themselves, even when it's on LDS.org, believe it or not!