New Revelations and the Future

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, MiserereNobis said:

Is this in LDS scripture or am I forgetting something from the Bible?

Moses 5:4-6

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/5?lang=eng

[RevTestament]

4 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Is this in LDS scripture or am I forgetting something from the Bible?

Moses 5:

5 And he gave unto them commandments, that they should worship the Lord their God, and should offer the firstlings of their flocks, for an offering unto the Lord. And Adam was obedient unto the commandments of the Lord.

6 And after many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord? And Adam said unto him: I know not, save the Lord commanded me.

7 And then the angel spake, saying: This thing is a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father, which is full of grace and truth.

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Yes. So why is it so hard to believe the brethren are?

I haven't said that.  I just believe that the definition of what "revelation" means has changed from what occurred in the earlier days of the church.  There have been many Prophets who have not stated they received revelations or that a policy change is a "revelation".  I am seeing that President Nelson will most likely be using that word often to describe the process now in place to implement policy and procedural changes.  That's neither good nor bad....just an opinion of mine and an observation.  We may hear that word often from him as opposed to not hearing it from a Prophet for some time.

He's also the one who proclaimed other policy changes in the past to be a revelation.  So it fits.

Edited April 10, 2018 by ALarson

[Avatar4321]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Then why do you get so ecstatic over what was announced in conference?  You are one on here who has appeared to make a huge deal over the new policy and procedural changes (from my observations).  I'm not being critical, I'm just curious why you actually do seem to think there's a difference.

 How do you not? The fruits of the Holy Spirit include love him peace and joy. And those fruits for all over a conference.

 Why shouldn’t I  be excited? The Lord spirit was so overwhelming. And it confirmed Beyond earthly words that we have a prophet. That God leads his church. Isn’t this something we should rejoice over?

God loves us enough to instruct us.That’s just totally awesome. How is it not a big deal?

[Avatar4321]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I haven't said that.  I just believe that the definition of what "revelation" means has changed from what occurred in the earlier days of the church.  There have been many Prophets who have not stated they received revelations or that a policy change is a "revelation".  I am seeing that President Nelson will most likely be using that word often to describe the process now in place to implement policy and procedural changes.  That's neither good nor bad....just an opinion of mine and an observation.  We may hear that word often from him as opposed to not hearing it from a Prophet for some time.

He's also the one who proclaimed other policy changes in the past to be a revelation.  So it fits.

Because they are revelations. Why should we pretend otherwise?

[MiserereNobis]

3 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

 How do you not? The fruits of the Holy Spirit include love him peace and joy. And those fruits for all over a conference.

 Why shouldn’t I  be excited? The Lord spirit was so overwhelming. And it confirmed Beyond earthly words that we have a prophet. That God leads his church. Isn’t this something we should rejoice over?

God loves us enough to instruct us.That’s just totally awesome. How is it not a big deal?

I can understand this. I always get excited when the Pope releases an encyclical, especially when it deals with contemporary issues that require some guidance. I rejoiced over his last one concerning our care for the earth and the environment.

[Kenngo1969]

10 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Is this in LDS scripture or am I forgetting something from the Bible?

It's unique to the LDS Canon.  

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/5.6-8.

Sorry for any confusion.  

[kllindley]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And yet we teach and believe that even our Prophets and leaders are not infallible.   We are not to have blind obedience.  That means we can pray and receive our own inspiration and guidance (especially with personal and family decisions and issues).  This is how I have handled any differences I have had, but I make sure I do not preach or speak out publicly against any teachings from the leaders.

You make that sound like it is different than what I described. 

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Because they are revelations. Why should we pretend otherwise?

No pretending here.   I actually get a kick out of reading your posts.....carry on 

[mfbukowski]

23 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Is this in LDS scripture or am I forgetting something from the Bible?

Cain and Abel learned it from someone.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, kllindley said:

You make that sound like it is different than what I described. 

Ok.   Sorry if I misunderstood.  Sounds like we agree.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

There have been stories on this thread of people receiving revelation/inspiration in their individual lives, of having miracles, etc. These also happen to me and in my church. So again, the claim that the LDS church has revelation is not something unique. The Book of Mormon, now that's something unique. But saying "we have a prophet who receives revelation from God" is not unique, it's just that you are saying it differently than my church would say it. So when a Mormon tells me "we have a prophet who receives revelation from God" I'll respond by saying, "so do we"

 

 

No problem for me at all.

The question is how you justify that with the Magisterium   and Fides et Ratio. 

Quote

 

III. CHRIST JESUS -- "MEDIATOR AND FULLNESS OF ALL REVELATION"²⁵

God has said everything in his Word

65 "In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son."²⁶ Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father's one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2:

 

In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.
²⁷

There will be no further Revelation

66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."²⁸ Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations".

 

 

 

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a1.htm

Joseph Smith of  course re-wrote the Bible as he thought was necessary as a "revelation".

I think maybe we have different definitions for the word.

Edited April 10, 2018 by mfbukowski
Add quote

[MiserereNobis]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Cain and Abel learned it from someone.

Sure. And a lot of people have speculated that the first sacrifice was done by God for Adam and Eve and that's where He got the coats of skins to clothe them in.

I was focusing on the part where Adam made sacrifices but didn't know why.

[JLHPROF]

20 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

And yet this seems to matter to you alot

The changes announced at conference don't matter to me at all.  (I'll admit an adverse knee jerk reaction to the priesthood quorum, one that I have since come to feel is purely administrative and not a revision on scriptural priesthood order).
The idea that they came by revelation or that they are being  called revelation does matter to me a great deal.

All over the Church right now it seems like members are sitting around believing that President Nelson (or Monson depending on timing) knelt before the Lord and prayed and asked God "how can we get the Elders and High Priest's to work together better" and the Lord said "I would that you would combine the quorums of Elders and High Priests into one body before me, and that body shall be known as the Elders Quorum."
Except we have no evidence of anything remotely like that happening.  

Instead what probably happened was more along the lines of "God, we have studied the situation and feel that the Elders and High Priests should be united into one quorum.  Is this your will?"  **crickets**
"We all feel at peace with the decision and that it would be good to go forward with the change?"  **more crickets**
"Well, since we are all agreed and feel the spirit to be present, and no stupor of thought then this is thy will for us."

I have nothing to pray about concerning the announced administrative changes at conference.  However, when changes have been made to ordinances and doctrines I have prayed over them, and I have come to know that the Lord cannot be pleased based on previous revelations, and that what the early prophets said on the issue are correct.

[MiserereNobis]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

No problem for me at all.

The question is how you justify that with the Magisterium   and Fides et Ratio. 

 

Ha

I'll just have to use the Catholic terminology, which I'm sure they will be fine with

 

[Avatar4321]

It seems so peculiar that after a conference where the Spirit was simply overwhelming, where we had talk after talk about revelation being received, how to receive it for ourselves, past revelatory experiences that were shared, including visions, how we are living beneath our privilege for obtaining revelation, how the Lord wants to pour out knowledge on us etc. that we have so many questioning whether the brethren are recieving revelation.

 

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

It seems so peculiar that after a conference where the Spirit was simply overwhelming, where we had talk after talk about revelation being received, how to receive it for ourselves, past revelatory experiences that were shared, including visions, how we are living beneath our privilege for obtaining revelation, how the Lord wants to pour out knowledge on us etc. that we have so many questioning whether the brethren are recieving revelation.

I agree with everything you said here except that last part.
It's all true that:

• the Spirit was simply overwhelming,
• where we had talk after talk about revelation being received,
• how to receive it for ourselves,
• past revelatory experiences that were shared, including visions,
• how we are living beneath our privilege for obtaining revelation,
• how the Lord wants to pour out knowledge on us etc

I remember all of this in Conference.  Except this part:

• whether the brethren are recieving revelation (presumably you mean for the Church).

I saw no revelation presented, just administrative changes and assumed revelation by some members.

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

This sounds a lot like blind obedience. The LDS defense against the charge of blind obedience is that Mormons pray and get confirmation of a teaching so it's not blind. But here you are saying that your confirmation didn't match the teaching but you did it anyways. So why pray at all if no matter the answer you are going to do what the leaders say?

Really? Did you read the rest of the post, or were you too eager to take that section and attack? Even there, I said that I felt called to obey. How is that blind obedience?

[HappyJackWagon]

22 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Instead what probably happened was more along the lines of "God, we have studied the situation and feel that the Elders and High Priests should be united into one quorum.  Is this your will?"  **crickets**
"We all feel at peace with the decision and that it would be good to go forward with the change?"  **more crickets**
"Well, since we are all agreed and feel the spirit to be present, and no stupor of thought then this is thy will for us."
 

I think you nailed it. This is often what qualifies as revelation.

I've shared the story before but it's been a while. A while back (less than 10 years) I was interviewed by Pres. Nelson for a church position. Thankfully I wasn't called to that position but I had the opportunity to speak with him 1 on 2 (a member of the 70 was also present) and so I asked him a question. I mentioned the miraculous revelations of the early restoration, visions, hearing the voice of God, sharing the dictated word of God etc, and I asked him why we don't have those same experiences in the church any more. Are they happening and the brethren don't feel comfortable sharing them, or do church leaders no longer receive revelation and spiritual experiences in the same way.

His answer was SUPER disappointing to me. He said something to the effect of "Isn't it great that church leaders are so mature now that we no longer need those kinds of miracles to get our attention? We listen to the still small voice."

While the still small voice is fine, it came across as very condescending, as if the church leaders today are spiritually superior to leaders of the past, including Joseph Smith. It was almost like a pat on the head to those immature youngsters of yesteryear. In any case, I brushed it aside but I've always remembered it. We've had many talks in conferences talking about revelation and even how great it is to have old men leading by consensus of the quorum instead of revelation as if it's a great protection against 1 rogue or mentally ailing prophet. Revelation, prophecy, seems to be continually dumbed down away from grand spiritual manifestations to rather mundane processes for leading. There's a certain way to get consensus in the quorum. There's a certain way you should ask a question in prayer "if this is not thy will, let us know" which essentially is a set up for confirmation bias. And this is supposed to be great?

My experience with Nelson taught me that perhaps I expected too much of leaders. Ironically, now he's the one talking so much about revelation and dreams etc as if returning to the glory days of a prophet led church, instead of a prophets lead church.

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

. He said something to the effect of "Isn't it great that church leaders are so mature now that we no longer need those kinds of miracles to get our attention? We listen to the still small voice."

While the still small voice is fine, it came across as very condescending, as if the church leaders today are spiritually superior to leaders of the past, including Joseph Smith.

I have nothing against the still small voice, as long as it is speaking.

And Joseph Smith understood God and the receiving of revelation better than any Church leader since.
In fact, according to some of his successors, Joseph Smith was often the deliverer of revelation as the Lord's messenger after his death.

President Wilford Woodruff once said, "Joseph Smith continued visiting myself and others up to a certain time, and then it stopped"
- https://www.lds.org/new-era/1973/12/joseph-joseph-joseph?lang=eng&clang=pes

Actually, other prophets who have passed on also visited with the living prophets.  Which makes perfect sense from a priesthood order of things.

• After the death of Joseph Smith I saw and conversed with him many times in my dreams in the night season... I have had many interviews with Brother Joseph until the last 15 or 20 years of my life; I have not seen him for that length of time. But during my travels in the southern country last winter I had many interviews with President Young, and with Heber C. Kimball, and Geo. A. Smith, and Jedediah M. Grant, and many others who are dead... the thought came to me that Brother Joseph had left the work of watching over this church and kingdom to others, and that he had gone ahead, and that he had left this work to men who have lived and labored with us since he left us. This idea manifested itself to me, that such men advance in the spirit world. (Wilford Woodruff - JD 21:317-318, October 10th, 1880.) 

I wonder if President Monson ever had a nice night time chat with President Hinckley or Kimball? 

Edited April 10, 2018 by JLHPROF

[MiserereNobis]

23 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Really? Did you read the rest of the post, or were you too eager to take that section and attack? Even there, I said that I felt called to obey. How is that blind obedience?

You're right, I apologize. I should have thought it out better.

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think you nailed it. This is often what qualifies as revelation.

I've shared the story before but it's been a while. A while back (less than 10 years) I was interviewed by Pres. Nelson for a church position. Thankfully I wasn't called to that position but I had the opportunity to speak with him 1 on 2 (a member of the 70 was also present) and so I asked him a question. I mentioned the miraculous revelations of the early restoration, visions, hearing the voice of God, sharing the dictated word of God etc, and I asked him why we don't have those same experiences in the church any more. Are they happening and the brethren don't feel comfortable sharing them, or do church leaders no longer receive revelation and spiritual experiences in the same way.

His answer was SUPER disappointing to me. He said something to the effect of "Isn't it great that church leaders are so mature now that we no longer need those kinds of miracles to get our attention? We listen to the still small voice."

While the still small voice is fine, it came across as very condescending, as if the church leaders today are spiritually superior to leaders of the past, including Joseph Smith. It was almost like a pat on the head to those immature youngsters of yesteryear. In any case, I brushed it aside but I've always remembered it. We've had many talks in conferences talking about revelation and even how great it is to have old men leading by consensus of the quorum instead of revelation as if it's a great protection against 1 rogue or mentally ailing prophet. Revelation, prophecy, seems to be continually dumbed down away from grand spiritual manifestations to rather mundane processes for leading. There's a certain way to get consensus in the quorum. There's a certain way you should ask a question in prayer "if this is not thy will, let us know" which essentially is a set up for confirmation bias. And this is supposed to be great?

My experience with Nelson taught me that perhaps I expected too much of leaders. Ironically, now he's the one talking so much about revelation and dreams etc as if returning to the glory days of a prophet led church, instead of a prophets lead church.

I think Pres. Nelson's emphasis for his presidency is going to be the restoration of the word "revelation"    He's even having a revelation celebration!  ( http://www.ldsliving.com/First-Presidency-Announces-Worldwide-Celebration-for-the-Priesthood-Revelation-s-40th-Anniversary/s/88110 ....wow!!)

And it's having the expected affect on members who I believe have been starved to hear that word more from their Prophet.  I'm not saying this is a negative....but it's interesting to observe and watch how excited members are getting over what are actually simply some policy and procedural changes, IMO.  

Edited April 10, 2018 by ALarson

[Jeanne]

23 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think you nailed it. This is often what qualifies as revelation.

I've shared the story before but it's been a while. A while back (less than 10 years) I was interviewed by Pres. Nelson for a church position. Thankfully I wasn't called to that position but I had the opportunity to speak with him 1 on 2 (a member of the 70 was also present) and so I asked him a question. I mentioned the miraculous revelations of the early restoration, visions, hearing the voice of God, sharing the dictated word of God etc, and I asked him why we don't have those same experiences in the church any more. Are they happening and the brethren don't feel comfortable sharing them, or do church leaders no longer receive revelation and spiritual experiences in the same way.

His answer was SUPEld R disappointing to me. He said something to the effect of "Isn't it great that church leaders are so mature now that we no longer need those kinds of miracles to get our attention? We listen to the still small voice."

While the still small voice is fine, it came across as very condescending, as if the church leaders today are spiritually superior to leaders of the past, including Joseph Smith. It was almost like a pat on the head to those immature youngsters of yesteryear. In any case, I brushed it aside but I've always remembered it. We've had many talks in conferences talking about revelation and even how great it is to have old men leading by consensus of the quorum instead of revelation as if it's a great protection against 1 rogue or mentally ailing prophet. Revelation, prophecy, seems to be continually dumbed down away from grand spiritual manifestations to rather mundane processes for leading. There's a certain way to get consensus in the quorum. There's a certain way you should ask a question in prayer "if this is not thy will, let us know" which essentially is a set up for confirmation bias. And this is supposed to be great?

My experience with Nelson taught me that perhaps I expected too much of leaders. Ironically, now he's the one talking so much about revelation and dreams etc as if returning to the glory days of a prophet led church, instead of a prophets lead church.

If you can would you better explain your last paragraph here??  Where is the difference and what does it mean to you/?

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Ok.   Sorry if I misunderstood.  Sounds like we agree.

 

13 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

You're right, I apologize. I should have thought it out better.

Hey, thanks. I didn't intend for those posts to come across as confrontational (and I hope they didn't). I didn't understand where they were coming from. I really appreciate both of you clarifying. 

The fact that you both misunderstood suggests to me that my initial post was not very clear. I apologize for my contribution to the confusion.

Thanks for making this a constructive forum, even when we don't always agree. 

[rongo]

38 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think you nailed it. This is often what qualifies as revelation.

I've shared the story before but it's been a while. A while back (less than 10 years) I was interviewed by Pres. Nelson for a church position. Thankfully I wasn't called to that position but I had the opportunity to speak with him 1 on 2 (a member of the 70 was also present) and so I asked him a question. I mentioned the miraculous revelations of the early restoration, visions, hearing the voice of God, sharing the dictated word of God etc, and I asked him why we don't have those same experiences in the church any more. Are they happening and the brethren don't feel comfortable sharing them, or do church leaders no longer receive revelation and spiritual experiences in the same way.

His answer was SUPER disappointing to me. He said something to the effect of "Isn't it great that church leaders are so mature now that we no longer need those kinds of miracles to get our attention? We listen to the still small voice."

While the still small voice is fine, it came across as very condescending, as if the church leaders today are spiritually superior to leaders of the past, including Joseph Smith. It was almost like a pat on the head to those immature youngsters of yesteryear. In any case, I brushed it aside but I've always remembered it. We've had many talks in conferences talking about revelation and even how great it is to have old men leading by consensus of the quorum instead of revelation as if it's a great protection against 1 rogue or mentally ailing prophet. Revelation, prophecy, seems to be continually dumbed down away from grand spiritual manifestations to rather mundane processes for leading. There's a certain way to get consensus in the quorum. There's a certain way you should ask a question in prayer "if this is not thy will, let us know" which essentially is a set up for confirmation bias. And this is supposed to be great?

My experience with Nelson taught me that perhaps I expected too much of leaders. Ironically, now he's the one talking so much about revelation and dreams etc as if returning to the glory days of a prophet led church, instead of a prophets lead church.

I've attached two slides (with the photos of B. H. Roberts removed, so that it is small enough to upload) from a stake/community fireside I did years ago on "Can Mormon Prophets Stand Up to Scrutiny?" The points that Elder Roberts made are applicable to the Church today, too. 

BHR excerpt 2.pptx