New Revelations and the Future

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I think one of the vestiges of Greek philosophy we still carry in Mormonism is the belief in "absolute truth" which is really in conflict with Alma 32 which states that truth is belief that "bears fruit", and the idea found in Moroni 10 that we can know the "truth " through prayer and revelation, and the idea in D&C 93 that truth is found in "spheres" or contexts, as well as the idea that God does nothing except he reveals his will to the prophets.

All of those imply a kind of changing and pragmatic truth instead of an abstract realm of absolute truth floating around somewhere but yet we persist in looking for the Greek temple of "TRVTH" independent of language or human expression.

We would not need prophets if the truth was unchanging and that is precisely what separates us from Greek philosophy.   All the "solas" are based on unchanging truth and Greek philosophy.

God must have made the world literally as it says in Genesis.  That is unchanging truth as an assumption, from Greek philosophy.

That is part of Western culture and in my opinion does not belong in the restoration.   It just does not fit with the idea of a prophet revealing the truth for "our day" and fitting for our individual needs.  Even the name of the church- CoJC LDS- is the church IN THE LATTER DAYS and tailored for the latter days as opposed to all other days, implies that a different set of beliefs are needed now.

THAT is what I mean when I say the restoration needs to be completed!  No more Greek philosophy!

God is our father who hears and answers prayers and adjusts teaching according to our needs.

I still view the scriptures as God's attempt to teach us about Himself. I believe they do contain truth. People just insist on interpreting them "their" way so we end up with many versions of the "truth." That is one reason God has continually sent prophets. JS had this view that God is quite plain, and says what He means, but I haven't found this to be quite so obvious. Even JS interpreted days as years in Rev 12. I think the truth is sometimes hidden, and sometimes best understood within the context of a specific culture - I believe a lot of misunderstanding occurs by rigid application of "plain reading" of scripture. What I'm saying is it's not like one can sit down and completely understand God by reading his KJV. In fact I think it is sometimes misleading. So although it contains "the truth" one must study it, pray about it, understand cultural context, prophetic symbolism, and the list goes on. As more is revealed, our understanding increases and we appreciate scripture more, and realize how much "truth" we didn't see or understand.  It's not like the truth changed so much as we didn't fully grasp it. I think there is full understanding of God He wants man to have, and that when His servants are finished, man will have it. Then the full measure of the millennium will be ushered in, and the earth will have peace and rest.

So does the restoration need to be completed? Well, more truth will be revealed, but whether it is being "restored" from the past, I don't quite know. I don't think we know much at all about the first two seals. I think a lot of that will be "restored." Whether that will include new spiritual truths I really have no idea. I think it will help "complete the picture" for people so they will stop doubting God's word like they do now - a prime example is Aussieguy from the OT thread. I do essentially agree that we need to stop trying to restore Christianity through early Greek philosophy. I've read through some of the early Greek theologians, and was just overwhelmed by so much stuffffff. Tons and tons and pages and pages of stuff trying to figure out the nature of Jesus and God through Greek ideas and philosophy. I really was just flabbergasted that people actually went through all these mental gymnastics. God is really not that complicated. I don't think the truth about the nature of God is changing. I think man's perceptions of that truth changes - not that I think man can figure it out by Himself - I think man doesn't have the ability to understand God unless God helps man along - which means desire to understand, and willingness to study and pray, and being humble enough to be led. Without the revelation of Christ, man was quite a bit more lost than now, but for the ardent student, Christ was manifest in the scriptures as the NT and  BoM try to show. The Jews were quite aware of the prophecies concerning a Messiah, but just had built up their own traditions of what this Messiah would be like, and so most were not willing to believe despite the additional revelation of truth to them. That story is a good example of the revelation of new or more truth as you say - even though it was fulfillment of old truth. The Jewish attempt to find all truth in their past failed dismally - they were actually blinded by it, and failed to see prophecy being fulfilled right in front of them. Will the Church repeat that mistake? People certainly will, because people tend to stubbornly cling to their own perceptions of truth.

Quote

And so we end together with your siggy

Aw shucks, (they don't have the blush emo). Well, obviously I take no credit for that siggy. After explaining for years my issues with the creeds, someone posted it on this site, and it hit me over the head as mine - all mine! It basically completely incorporates my journey for "Truth" about God. It started with the creeds when I was a kid, and my eventual disagreement with them. Eventually, I just didn't want to utter them. This Church was a breath of fresh air. I was all about this Church for a number of years. Loved everything about it - I just developed questions about the atonement, which I guess I had to answer for myself.

Edited April 10, 2018 by RevTestament

[mfbukowski]

24 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I still view the scriptures as God's attempt to teach us about Himself. I believe they do contain truth. People just insist on interpreting them "their" way so we end up with many versions of the "truth." That is one reason God has continually sent prophets. JS had this view that God is quite plain, and says what He means, but I haven't found this to be quite so obvious. Even JS interpreted days as years in Rev 12. I think the truth is sometimes hidden, and sometimes best understood within the context of a specific culture - I believe a lot of misunderstanding occurs by rigid application of "plain reading" of scripture. What I'm saying is it's not like one can sit down and completely understand God by reading His KJV. In fact I think it is sometimes misleading. So although it contains "the truth" one must study it, pray about it, understand cultural context, prophetic symbolism, and the list goes on. As more is revealed, our understanding increases and we appreciate scripture more, and realize how much "truth" we didn't see or understand.  It's not like the truth changed so much as we didn't fully grasp it. I think there is full understanding of God He wants man to have, and that when His servants are finished, man will have it. Then the full measure of the millennium will be ushered in, and the earth will have peace and rest.

So does the restoration need to be completed? Well, more truth will be revealed, but whether it is being "restored" from the past, I don't quite know. I don't think we know much at all about the first two seals. I think a lot of that will be "restored." Whether that will include new spiritual truths I really have no idea. I think it will help "complete the picture" for people so they will stop doubting God's word like they do now - a prime example is Aussieguy from the OT thread. I do essentially agree that we need to stop trying to restore Christianity through early Greek philosophy. I've read through some of the early Greek theologians, and was just overwhelmed by so much stuffffff. Tons and tons and pages and pages of stuff trying to figure out the nature of Jesus and God through Greek ideas and philosophy. I really was just flabbergasted that people actually went through all these mental gymnastics. God is really not that complicated. I don't think the truth about the nature of God is changing. I think man's perceptions of that truth changes - not that I think man can figure it out by Himself - I think man doesn't have the ability to understand God unless God helps man along - which means desire to understand, and willingness to study and pray, and being humble enough to be led. Without the revelation of Christ, man was quite a bit more lost than now, but for the ardent student, Christ was manifest in the scriptures as the NT and  BoM try to show. The Jews were quite aware of the prophecies concerning a Messiah, but just had built up their own traditions of what this Messiah would be like, and so most were not willing to believe despite the additional revelation of truth to them. That story is a good example of the revelation of new or more truth as you say - even though it was fulfillment of old truth. The Jewish attempt to find all truth in their past failed dismally - they were actually blinded by it, and failed to see prophecy being fulfilled right in front of them. Will the Church repeat that mistake? People certainly will, because people tend to stubbornly cling to their own perceptions of truth.

Aw shucks, (they don't have the blush emo). Well, obviously I take no credit for that siggy. After explaining for years my issues with the creeds, someone posted it on this site, and it hit me over the head as mine - all mine! It basically completely incorporates my journey for "Truth" about God. It started with the creeds when I was a kid, and my eventual disagreement with them. Eventually, I just didn't want to utter them. This Church was a breath of fresh air. I was all about this Church for a number of years. Loved everything about it - I just developed questions about the atonement, which I guess I had to answer for myself.

Agree, and Yes we will have to talk about the atonement sometime.

As I see it, forgiveness comes pretty much from the grace produced purely by belief in it.  So the atonement comes by faith that you will be forgiven in God's mercy, but to get a powerful enough faith to generate that, one must "do all one can do".  "Father I have changed my life and have done all I can do to repent,  now I believe with certainty that you will save me in your kingdom by your grace, as a gift for my sacrifice in repentence and surrender to thy will, in my small way in memory and imitation of thy Son's infinite sacrifice"

Something like that.  THEN comes the knowledge of forgiveness.

No weighing the scales- it is infinity vs nothing on that "scale".

Edited April 10, 2018 by mfbukowski

[JLHPROF]

28 minutes ago, rongo said:

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

I'll post those quotes for you.

• Many Christians insist that the age of miracles stopped after the fourth or fifth century. Others insist that miracles have remained, but the miracles they describe after the fourth and fifth centuries pale in comparison to those described in the Primitive Church. 
• Insistence on the discontinuance of revelation comes from the realization that revelation is and has been absent. This explains the rise of explanations such as “these things are no longer needed,” or “these extraordinary things were needed as Christianity started, but are not needed now that it is well-established." --- New Witnesses for God: 1:136-137)

 Wow.  Those quotes sound just like members of the Church today.
Scary.

[CMZ]

2 hours ago, drums12 said:

You are misinterpreting what the Lord is saying, IMO.   He isn't saying "anything my servants say is as if I said it."   He's saying, "I can speak through my servants, and when I do, their words are as if I had said it myself."  Your interpretation is saying we should turn off our brains and blindly obey anything church leaders say.  It's the old, "obey your file leader, and even if he's wrong you'll be blessed" argument. 

I said absolutely nothing of the sort. Sorry, but that it is a completely unwarranted interpretation of what I said. Many of my posts in this board are about how individuals can receive their own revelations and are not to be blind followers. I understand all the stuff about how a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such. I also didn't offer an interpretation of D&C 1:37; I merely pasted it in.

[CMZ]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I'll post those quotes for you.

• Many Christians insist that the age of miracles stopped after the fourth or fifth century. Others insist that miracles have remained, but the miracles they describe after the fourth and fifth centuries pale in comparison to those described in the Primitive Church. 
• Insistence on the discontinuance of revelation comes from the realization that revelation is and has been absent. This explains the rise of explanations such as “these things are no longer needed,” or “these extraordinary things were needed as Christianity started, but are not needed now that it is well-established." --- New Witnesses for God: 1:136-137)

 Wow.  Those quotes sound just like members of the Church today.
Scary.

Some might say those things, but not all do. Furthermore, there is nothing in the last general conference that says that revelation is no longer needed, but quite a bit to the contrary.

https://www.lds.org/blog/president-nelson-announces-changes-speaks-of-revelation-and-ministering-at-general-conference

Edited April 10, 2018 by CMZ

[CMZ]

 

Quote

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/21.5?lang=eng&clang=eng#p4

For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

(No, me pasting this in is not me saying we need to be blind followers of the Prophet any more than Joseph Smith was saying that by publishing this verse.)

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Some might say those things, but not all do. Furthermore, there is nothing in the last general conference that says that revelation is no longer needed, but quite a bit to the contrary.

https://www.lds.org/blog/president-nelson-announces-changes-speaks-of-revelation-and-ministering-at-general-conference

I don't think anyone in the Church says revelation is no longer needed.
I was referring to "Others insist that miracles have remained, but the miracles they describe after the fourth and fifth centuries pale in comparison to those described in the Primitive Church" and "“these extraordinary things were needed as Christianity started, but are not needed now that it is well-established."

I have heard both from members, both in the Church and on this board.
Claims that miracles remain, yet they pale in comparison to those in the days of Joseph and Brigham.
Claims that the visions, "thus saith the Lord" style revelation, speaking in tongues, angelic manifestations, etc were needed to start the restoration but now we are more spiritually mature and only need the still small voice and the spirit.

I could even reword the BH Roberts quotes

• Many Mormons insist that the age of miraculous manifestations to entire congregations stopped after the nineteenth century and are more personal today. Others insist that miracles have remained, but the miracles they describe after the nineteenth century pale in comparison to those described in the Kirtland, Navoo, and early Utah Church. 
• Insistence on the continuance of revelation comes from the realization that revelation to the LDS Church is harder to identify, even by the believers. This explains the rise of explanations such as “these visionary things and written revelations are no longer needed by the Church as a whole,” or “these extraordinary things were needed as Mormonism was restored, but are not needed now that it is well-established and we are operating more correctly than ever."

As the days go on, the more we resemble the post-apostolic primitive Church and the less we resemble the restored Church of Christ as set up by Joseph Smith.

[CMZ]

Quote

Oh, there is so much more that your Father in Heaven wants you to know. As Elder Neal A. Maxwell taught, “To those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, it is clear that the Father and the Son are giving away the secrets of the universe!”

Each individual has to decide if they want to be the ones who are missing out, all while ranting that there is no more revelation.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, CMZ said:

Each individual has to decide if they want to be the ones who are missing out, all while ranting that there is no more revelation.

Oh, for pete's sake.  I have not claimed there is no more revelation.  People pray and get answers all over the world on a daily basis.  I would have no reason to exclude the general authorities from that.  I have prayed and received revelation.  I know many others have as well.

But there are degrees in all things.  And that includes revelation, especially authoritative revelation.  And Joseph taught that revelation can come from a variety of sources.

[CMZ]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Oh, for pete's sake.  I have not claimed there is no more revelation.  People pray and get answers all over the world on a daily basis.  I would have no reason to exclude the general authorities from that.  I have prayed and received revelation.  I know many others have as well.

But there are degrees in all things.  And that includes revelation, especially authoritative revelation.  And Joseph taught that revelation can come from a variety of sources.

I'm not naming any names, but you seem to have an issue. Believe me, I get where you are coming from: I think it'll be great when more revelations get canonized in The Doctrine and Covenants. Until that occurs I see many, many instances of revelations, miracles, visions, visitations, etc.

[Hamba Tuhan]

17 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Claims that miracles remain, yet they pale in comparison to those in the days of Joseph and Brigham.

...

As the days go on, the more we resemble the post-apostolic primitive Church and the less we resemble the restored Church of Christ as set up by Joseph Smith.

For what it may be worth, I'm willing to go on record that miracles remain, and in many cases they resemble those in the days of Jesus.

Edited April 10, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, CMZ said:

I'm not naming any names, but you seem to have an issue. Believe me, I get where you are coming from: I think it'll be great when more revelations get canonized in The Doctrine and Covenants. Until that occurs I see many, many instances of revelations, miracles, visions, visitations, etc.

I don't want quantity.  I don't need more revelations.
I want us to stop changing or ignoring the previous ones and pretending we received revelation to do it.

Especially the ordinances.  Primarily the ordinances.  I couldn't care less about the temporal administration of the Church, what we call ourselves when we visit our members, or the name of the group that meets together on a Sunday.
Not one of those is sufficient to put us in an out of order position.  We have far bigger issues, and more on the horizon if we aren't very, very careful.

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

For what it may be worth, I'm willing to go on record that miracles remain, and in many cases they resemble those in the days of Jesus.

Again, the attribution to the personal anecdote at the expense of the Church body.

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Again, the attribution to the personal anecdote at the expense of the Church body.

I genuinely have no clue what you mean by this, so I'll withhold my inclination to disagree until you clarify.

[clarkgoble]

30 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't think anyone in the Church says revelation is no longer needed.
I was referring to "Others insist that miracles have remained, but the miracles they describe after the fourth and fifth centuries pale in comparison to those described in the Primitive Church" and "“these extraordinary things were needed as Christianity started, but are not needed now that it is well-established."

I have heard both from members, both in the Church and on this board.
Claims that miracles remain, yet they pale in comparison to those in the days of Joseph and Brigham.
Claims that the visions, "thus saith the Lord" style revelation, speaking in tongues, angelic manifestations, etc were needed to start the restoration but now we are more spiritually mature and only need the still small voice and the spirit.

I could even reword the BH Roberts quotes

• Many Mormons insist that the age of miraculous manifestations to entire congregations stopped after the nineteenth century and are more personal today. Others insist that miracles have remained, but the miracles they describe after the nineteenth century pale in comparison to those described in the Kirtland, Navoo, and early Utah Church. 
• Insistence on the continuance of revelation comes from the realization that revelation to the LDS Church is harder to identify, even by the believers. This explains the rise of explanations such as “these visionary things and written revelations are no longer needed by the Church as a whole,” or “these extraordinary things were needed as Mormonism was restored, but are not needed now that it is well-established and we are operating more correctly than ever."

As the days go on, the more we resemble the post-apostolic primitive Church and the less we resemble the restored Church of Christ as set up by Joseph Smith.

Haven't followed the thread (sorry) but I think it just wrong to assume miracles "pale in comparison." Maybe miracles people know about broadly, but there's tons of stuff if you look around.

So I just don't buy the premise.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I genuinely have no clue what you mean by this, so I'll withhold my inclination to disagree until you clarify.

Whenever anyone suggests that the miraculous has ceased in the Church the individual anecdotes come out of the woodwork as evidence against it.
But we aren't talking about personal revelation here.  We aren't talking about "my cousin received a blessing and was made well".

We are speaking about the Church as a body.  And that is an important distinction to recognize.
 

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

Haven't followed the thread (sorry) but I think it just wrong to assume miracles "pale in comparison." Maybe miracles people know about broadly, but there's tons of stuff if you look around.

So I just don't buy the premise.

I just answered this.  Individual versus God's Church.  Two different issues.

Edited April 10, 2018 by JLHPROF

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

We are speaking about the Church as a body. 

And what exactly are miracles in the Church as a body except a collection of miracles experienced by the members of the Church? Are you, for example, positing a divine manifestation that an entire congregation experiences at the same time? Because I've seen that as well. Please do clarify.

[clarkgoble]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I just answered this.  Individual versus God's Church.  Two different issues.

I don't think that fits since many are by GAs. The issue is more whether these miracles are supposed to be signs to all or just to those "with ears let them hear." The argument by some is they are supposed to be done in the open and I just don't buy that. But the Church vs. individual is a false distinction I think.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

And what exactly are miracles in the Church as a body except a collection of miracles experienced by the members of the Church? Are you, for example, positing a divine manifestation that an entire congregation experiences at the same time? Because I've seen that as well. Please do clarify.

 

Just now, clarkgoble said:

I don't think that fits since many are by GAs. The issue is more whether these miracles are supposed to be signs to all or just to those "with ears let them hear." The argument by some is they are supposed to be done in the open and I just don't buy that. But the Church vs. individual is a false distinction I think.

Honestly, I'm too exhausted to think of cogent examples that will differentiate my point right now.

In the end, I really don't care what the leaders of the Church call revelation, as long as they stop walking all over the revelations and teachings of their predecessors and leave the ordinances alone.  If they want to change their bureaucracy and rename their auxiliaries, more power to them.

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't want quantity.  I don't need more revelations.
I want us to stop changing or ignoring the previous ones and pretending we received revelation to do it.

Especially the ordinances.  Primarily the ordinances.  I couldn't care less about the temporal administration of the Church, what we call ourselves when we visit our members, or the name of the group that meets together on a Sunday.
Not one of those is sufficient to put us in an out of order position.  We have far bigger issues, and more on the horizon if we aren't very, very careful.

Are you talking about same sex marriage?  Totally agree.  Absolutely don't see it happening.  

If you're talking about the Brethren being in apostasy because they aren't doing things the same way Joseph did 180 years ago, then I would refer you to Denver Snuffer.  

ETA

Quote

In the end, I really don't care what the leaders of the Church call revelation, as long as they stop walking all over the revelations and teachings of their predecessors and leave the ordinances alone.  If they want to change their bureaucracy and rename their auxiliaries, more power to them.

What revelations and teachings are they "walking all over?" 

Edited April 10, 2018 by kllindley

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

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

This intrigued me, of course we know about Cain and Abel but what about Adam?

This is an EV site which sees the "coats of skins" as the skin of a sacrificed animal(s)

We have a different view about the coats of skins, but it  is an  interesting interpretation nevertheless.

[Hamba Tuhan]

22 minutes ago, kllindley said:

What revelations and teachings are they "walking all over?" 

Well, at a minimum, they are preaching to and baptising gentiles...

[CMZ]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Whenever anyone suggests that the miraculous has ceased in the Church the individual anecdotes come out of the woodwork as evidence against it.
But we aren't talking about personal revelation here.  We aren't talking about "my cousin received a blessing and was made well".

We are speaking about the Church as a body.  And that is an important distinction to recognize.
 

Good news: "Our Savior and Redeemer, Jesus Christ, will perform some of His mightiest works between now and when He comes again. We will see miraculous indications that God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, preside over this Church in majesty and glory."

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I know this has become one of the main talking points of this change but I don't get it...at all.

Home and visiting teaching has always been about ministering. It simply had a stronger system of accountability associated with it. Numbers were collected and reported to SLC every quarter. That won't happen any more.

So one of the main things that seems to have changed is the reporting aspect. There are typically 2 reasons reporting requirements are loosened. 1- those completing the reports are so good that the individual/group receiving the report no longer feels like they need to follow up and review the activities and success. 2- those reporting are so bad that it becomes embarrassing to continually have reports with negative numbers. It becomes demotivating so the report goes away.

My question is, was home and visiting teaching so successful that the church figured there was no longer a need to report on activities and success? Doubtful. Home teaching stats are usually pretty abysmal. I would tend to believe that the reports were more embarrassing and demotivating. So if reporting is removed because of poor performance, can we really talk about the change being a higher law? Does one usually receive a higher law when they can't effectively live the lower law? I don't think so.

IMO- the goal of the HT/VT & ministering programs remains the same. The reporting has changed because the consistent failure to meet reporting goals was demotivating and embarrassing. This seems more like a lower law being heralded as a higher law to make people feel better about it.

My Machiavellian interpretation of the new reporting requirements is that now the onus is entirely on the Presidencies. Their job is to interview. Before there was some distance between the Presidencies and the reporting numbers. Now they are directly responsible for the actions that get reported. This encourages those interviews and if you are being interviewed you have more of an impetus to know something about your families so you have something to say.

Note that I do not believe the reporting requirements are the main reason for the change. I think loosening the restrictions on a worldwide level is a big help. For example in Japan where members often work 12 hours a day and can barely see their families Home Teaching was impractical but electronic contact is good. In some of the larger wards where it takes an hour or more to get from one end to the other this is also a help.

The higher law is that we have flexibility. People who do not want home visits do not have to have them. It avoids the 30th/31st deadlines that too often motivated visits. Now a text works. It is more likely we will have weekly contact as opposed to monthly contact. It also places the impetus on the member to know how to proceed with each family. It requires revelation as opposed to one phone call to set up the appointment and reading from a magazine.

If we fail at this and Home and Visiting Teaching come back then we then know for sure it was a lesser law so stay tuned.