New Revelations and the Future

[RevTestament]

35 minutes ago, Gray said:

The immortal soul also comes from Greek philosophy. Christianity itself in inseparable from "pagan" influence. If you take that away it's more or less just the Pharisaical (not in the polemical sense) Judaism of the first century. 

What does it matter if you worship a "cloud" or worship the family, as long as it helps you to be your best self? Mormonism works best for some people. Orthodox Christianity works best for others. I don't know of one religious tradition that works for everyone.

I kinda disagree here - although technically, the soul is a creation, and technically a spirit cannot be immortal. What I am saying is that the spirit is eternal in terms of time. The soul essentially does become immortal through the gospel - I think it is D&C 28? which speaks to this subject. Anyway, I believe it a least inherent in LDS scriptural that the soul is immortal for the most part - except for the ability  of Satan to destroy the body and soul. I don't think it comes from Greek philosophy at all.

Unfortunately, I agree with you - at least with respect to "Orthodox" Christianity - that it is inseparable from pagan influences. Didn't we just recognize "Easter?"
I know you believe the scriptures came out of pagan influence, but I do not believe that. In fact I hold the opposite view - that pagan influences came out of God's word. You will point to stories such as the Enuma Elish and the Epoch of Gilgamesh to claim that Genesis was derived from them. However, I believe even modern textual scholars will admit that these two stories came out of a common background. What was that common background these stories were borrowed from?

[rongo]

12 minutes ago, Gray said:

Regarding when Jesus was "begotten" by God, LDS doctrine states he was ALWAYS the son. 

Friendly CFR on that. I'm curious what LDS sources you can come up with that say this. You don't have to drop what you're doing and scramble to try and find sources, and I won't bludgeon you with a CFR. 

While LDS doctrine teaches that he has always been God, it also teaches that he is the Firstborn (as in firstborn spirit son). It also teaches that he was begotten through divine means, making him the Only Begotten Son of the Father. But he wasn't always "begotten;" that was a major reason why Immanuel (God with us) needed to come to earth, and why the atonement had to be done on earth with us. 

The essential difference between the trinity and the godhead is this: three persons in one God vs three persons in one Godhead. Not worth arguing about.

Absolutely agree. I just spoke with a new sister in the ward with three children under five whose husband is a rabid anti-Mormon (Evangelical/born-again orientation). They are sealed, and this has been a big issue for them after he changed. He hounds her about the trinity and is angry that she insists on still attending church with the kids (we are blessing their newborn on May 6, not with him, of course. He won't set foot in an LDS Church now), and I mentioned to her that the trinity is actually pretty unimportant in the scheme of things, really. But not to him. 

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh, no

Indigenous peoples everywhere believe in an afterlife. To say that the idea of an immortal Soul comes from Greek philosophy is ridiculous.

That's where we got it from. It's not ridiculous, that's simply where we got it. If it comes from Greek philosophy, does that make it false?

[Exiled]

10 minutes ago, Gray said:

That's where we got it from. It's not ridiculous, that's simply where we got it. If it comes from Greek philosophy, does that make it false?

It would make christianity and mormonism false.  These believe it is the other way around, that God put these ideas or truths into the mind of man.

Edited April 9, 2018 by Exiled

[CA Steve]

15 minutes ago, rongo said:

Absolutely agree. I just spoke with a new sister in the ward with three children under five whose husband is a rabid anti-Mormon (Evangelical/born-again orientation). They are sealed, and this has been a big issue for them after he changed. He hounds her about the trinity and is angry that she insists on still attending church with the kids (we are blessing their newborn on May 6, not with him, of course. He won't set foot in an LDS Church now), and I mentioned to her that the trinity is actually pretty unimportant in the scheme of things, really. But not to him. 

I think you are missing something important about our view of the Godhead, that separates us from mainstream Christianity and is critical to our theology. We believe God has a physical body just like ours, only glorified. That physical body is, I suspect, a huge part of the reason we believe in three distinct individuals in the Godhead.

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

They worship clouds we worship the family.

See, the Mormon God/Jesus is a different God than the Christian God/Jesus. On that we at least agree

 

[MiserereNobis]

33 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Indigenous peoples everywhere believe in an afterlife. To say that the idea of an immortal Soul comes from Greek philosophy is ridiculous.

It is interesting that Theravadin Buddhism denies an eternal soul. "Sabbe sankhara anatta" which means "all compounded/dependent things (including humans) do not have a self"

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

See, the Mormon God/Jesus is a different God than the Christian God/Jesus. On that we at least agree

 

Oh heck yeah!

That is the whole point.  But if you are going to bring it up then I have to say that ours was not the one killed by Nietzsche and post modernism.  

 

[rongo]

7 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I think you are missing something important about our view of the Godhead, that separates us from mainstream Christianity and is critical to our theology. We believe God has a physical body just like ours, only glorified. That physical body is, I suspect, a huge part of the reason we believe in three distinct individuals in the Godhead.

Oh, I know, and we talked about that, too (the corporeality of God). But even with that, I don't think it's as big of an issue as the restoration by the ministering of angels. Yes, it is an area of big disagreement, but both trinitarians and non-trinitarians (and anthropomorphists, like us) are still talking and praying to God --- and not as different as, say, the Hindu concept of "God." I don't think it's as fundamental as other, more front burner issues (like did God really restore his church and authority through Joseph Smith and his successors through angels?).

[CMZ]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

That is a fair point.
We can only go on the words of our leaders.  They haven't described a revelation that consisted of any actual words coming to the whole Church in many, many years.
Even President Kimball's revelation as described by those present featured no actual words from God.  Just feelings.

Is it possible that the Lord is still speaking to our leaders?  Sure.  And could it be a case of them not making those words from God public?  Maybe.
Except they have claimed to receive revelation, but all descriptions of revelation no longer feature the Lord actually communicating words.

Wouldn't it be as challenging to believe God still speaks to them when they have made no such claim as it is to believe all revelation has ceased when they have claimed to receive it?
Whichever side of "is there continuing revelation to the Church" you land on, it simply has to be based on our faith and understanding.  Because the physical evidence is completely absent.

Please pay attention in conference. There were a number of references to revelation (and different kinds) in the most recent conference, some that many seemed to have missed. Some good gems in there.

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

It is interesting that Theravadin Buddhism denies an eternal soul. "Sabbe sankhara anatta" which means "all compounded/dependent things (including humans) do not have a self"

Yeah and that is also non-theistic post modernism.

Contingency of the self.

The only problem is that it is someone's Self who thought that up and a bunch of Selves who believe it.  

If you use first person grammar you believe that someone is talking.     The rest is semantics

 

 

Edited April 9, 2018 by mfbukowski

[RevTestament]

23 minutes ago, Gray said:

Are you saying someday Jesus won't be his Father's son anymore?

Yes. In the regeneration, He will be the Father. (See Isaiah 9:6 & other scriptures).  I imagine His Father will call Him Brother - having completed His calling and service as the Son. We will no longer call Him the Son, because He will make all things new.

Quote

Regarding when Jesus was "begotten" by God, LDS doctrine states he was ALWAYS the son. That's consistent with John.

No, it is not. He was the Son in and from the beginning. The beginning of what? The world. I don't read Genesis as describing the beginning of the universe. In fact, I am no longer convinced the universe has a beginning - at least not an ex nihilo beginning 15 billion years BP.  Scripture plainly teaches the Son was begotten by the oath of the Father, and became perfect. According to JS, he increased from grace to grace. There is no LDS scripture which states the Son was ALWAYS the son - that is in fact a complete contradiction to the scriptural concept of being begotten as the Son. If you want to claim that concept was introduced by apostates - good luck with that. It's in the OT, the early church scholars, and the earliest surviving Bible manuscripts. It is not some apostate change. 

Quote

However, there are different NT teachings about that. According to Paul, Jesus as adopted as Son of God/made a divine being after his resurrection. According to Matthew/Luke, that happened at his birth. According to Mark, that happened at his baptism. Generally Christianity sides with John, that says Jesus was divine from before the earth was made. Mormonism agrees.

The essential difference between the trinity and the godhead is this: three persons in one God vs three persons in one Godhead. Not worth arguing about.

There are major differences which I have discussed. You do not have to believe them - yet. I'm not sure what you are trying to say with regards to when Jesus became "divine." I don't accept your synopsis. I don't speak in terms of His divinity. I think being the Father's only begotten/unique Son is pretty divine, and I believe He was such from the beginning. If you want to debate His divinity - more power to you. I don't really see the point. If in mentioning Paul you are speaking of Hebrews, I agree that Yeshua was adopted as the Son of God - that is my point. His Sonship is not the result of some kind of bodily birth - but His spiritual birth by covenant. He followed the Father. As His Father showed Him, so did He. As His Father laid down His life, so did He - so He became perfect and the author of our salvation as Hebrews puts it. So, I totally agree with Hebrews and Paul - and John... and Matthew...Mark and Luke.... unless you are going to insist on the Luke of the Codex Bezae. 

[rongo]

1 minute ago, CMZ said:

Please pay attention in conference. There were a number of references to revelation (and different kinds) in the most recent conference, some that many seemed to have missed. Some good gems in there.

I think what JLHPROF is saying is that simply stating that something is revelation doesn't make it revelation. It either is or isn't revelation, independent of the testimony. And it is up to us to determine for ourselves whether anything is or is not revelation. For many LDS, anything the Brethren say is revelation is revelation because they said so. Others have things they need to pray and ask God about. I think that should be encouraged, where needed (and not everyone needs to). 

[CMZ]

From the document that was sent out about the recent changes: "Over a period of years, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have considered the adjustments described below."

[CMZ]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think what JLHPROF is saying is that simply stating that something is revelation doesn't make it revelation. It either is or isn't revelation, independent of the testimony. And it is up to us to determine for ourselves whether anything is or is not revelation. For many LDS, anything the Brethren say is revelation is revelation because they said so. Others have things they need to pray and ask God about. I think that should be encouraged, where needed (and not everyone needs to). 

Whether or not a prophet has received a revelation is not dependent on if a lay member of the Church receives a confirming revelation of it. A revelation to a prophet does not cease to become a revelation because some other individual has decided it wasn't a revelation.

Receiving personal revelation was encouraged many times in this past conference (as in prior ones), which flies in the face of the many who inexplicably say that Mormons need to follow their prophet on blind faith. This is the very first conference where President Nelson has served as the prophet, and he was telling people to increase their capacity to receive personal revelation; in other words, he was deflecting the focus away from himself (but without denigrating his position) and to every other member. There were also accounts of different types of revelation that have been received by Church leaders. "Those who have ears to hear... "

Edited April 9, 2018 by CMZ

[CMZ]

I have also been in a number of recent meetings (including at least two different stake conferences with general authorities attending) where members were encouraged to pray to receive independent testimonies of President Nelson's calling as the prophet.

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Whether or not a prophet has received a revelation is not dependent on if a lay member of the Church receives a confirming revelation of it. A revelation to a prophet does not cease to become a revelation because some other individual has decided it wasn't a revelation.

Very much agree. Which is why I also said "independent."  

Receiving personal revelation was encouraged many times in this past conference (as in prior ones), which flies in the face of the many who inexplicably say that Mormons need to follow their prophet on blind faith. This is the very first conference where President Nelson has served as the prophet, and he was telling people to increase their capacity to receive personal revelation; in other words, he was deflecting the focus away from himself (but without denigrating his position) and to every other member. There were also accounts of different types of revelation that have been received by Church leaders. "Those who have ears to hear... "

Again, very much agree. Our culture says this, though, but then finds fault when people do it (ask) and don't get the answer they think they should. 

I think it's a given that the vast majority of people don't ever ask for confirmation. Not that I think people should do it automatically, as a rote thing. Only when and where needed.

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

They worship clouds we worship the family. Is that simple enough?

I think the idea of family unity is a little more solid than consubstantiality.

Amen Bro!. I didn't catch your edit the first time around. You are hitting the nail on the proverbial head here.

The Godhead is a spiritual family of one. One IN spirit - not one spirit. It is the house of Elohim in its plural dimension as a family - one in family brotherhood rather than one being. 

What's more He invites all into this family house of Elohim. "My Father's house has many rooms. I go and prepare a place for you." 

Some will even be YHWH. Jeremiah 33:16.

[JLHPROF]

36 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Please pay attention in conference. There were a number of references to revelation (and different kinds) in the most recent conference, some that many seemed to have missed. Some good gems in there.

No, that is what I referenced.
"they have claimed to receive revelation, but all descriptions of revelation no longer feature the Lord actually communicating words."

There is no record of a single word being given by way of revelation to the Church body in years.  All revelations now feature spiritual feelings.
In the early days of the Church the Lord TOLD the prophets what to do.  Today, the prophets do what they FEEL the Lord wants.

33 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think what JLHPROF is saying is that simply stating that something is revelation doesn't make it revelation. It either is or isn't revelation, independent of the testimony. And it is up to us to determine for ourselves whether anything is or is not revelation. For many LDS, anything the Brethren say is revelation is revelation because they said so. Others have things they need to pray and ask God about. I think that should be encouraged, where needed (and not everyone needs to). 

A revelation is when God reveals his will or knowledge.
A body of 15 men feeling at peace and united on a decision is not the same as receiving instruction from the Almighty.  Simply calling that a revelation doesn't make it so.

Every single other dispensation, the prophets, apostles, the scriptures, etc ALL describe God speaking to man, appearing to man, instructing man directly.
There is not a single record of any of this (other than a few personal revelations) given in the last 100 years of the Church to the Church.  Any and all revelations referred to in conference  etc all feature feelings of one kind or another.

And I'll issue a CFR to anyone who can provide a record in the past century of God actually speaking a word to the Church body to direct his Church through its leaders.
Just one.
You know, something like:

• I Nephi 2:1 For behold, it came to pass that the Lord spake unto my father, yea, even in a dream, and said unto him: Blessed art thou Lehi, because of the things which thou hast done; and because thou hast been faithful and declared unto this people the things which I commanded thee, behold, they seek to take away thy life.
• I Nephi 2:19 And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto me, saying: Blessed art thou, Nephi, because of thy faith, for thou hast sought me diligently, with lowliness of heart.
• Acts 9:4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
• Doctrine and Covenants 128:20 And again, what do we hear? Glad tidings from Cumorah!  Moroni, an angel from heaven, declaring the fulfilment of the prophets—the book to be revealed. A voice of the Lord in the wilderness of Fayette, Seneca county, declaring the three witnesses to bear record of the book! The voice of Michael on the banks of the Susquehanna, detecting the devil when he appeared as an angel of light! The voice of Peter, James, and John in the wilderness between Harmony, Susquehanna county, and Colesville, Broome county, on the Susquehanna river, declaring themselves as possessing the keys of the kingdom, and of the dispensation of the fulness of times!
• 1883 Revelation to John Taylor as quoted by Elder Rasband in conference - 
  • What ye have written is My will, and is acceptable unto Me:
    And furthermore: Thus saith the LORD unto the First Presidency, unto the Twelve, unto the Seventies and unto all My holy Priesthood, let not your hearts be troubled, neither be ye concerned about the management and organization of My Church and Priesthood and the accomplishment of My work.
• D&C 138:60 Thus was the vision of the redemption of the dead revealed to me, and I bear record, and I know that thisrecord is true, through the blessing of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, even so. Amen.
• " ‘Now, Granddaughter, I want you to remember that this is the testimony of your grandfather, that he told you with his own lips that he actually saw the Savior, here in the temple, and talked with Him face to face.’ - Testimony of Lorenzo Snow to his granddaughter.

 

So I'll wait for my CFR to be answered.
Just one reference, anywhere, to God speaking so much as a word for the direction of the Church in the past century.  Not a feeling, not a claim of revelation, but an actual word from the Lord to direct the Church.

 

Edited April 9, 2018 by JLHPROF

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No, that is what I referenced.
"they have claimed to receive revelation, but all descriptions of revelation no longer feature the Lord actually communicating words."

There is no record of a single word being given by way of revelation to the Church body in years.  All revelations now feature spiritual feelings.
In the early days of the Church the Lord TOLD the prophets what to do.  Today, the prophets do what they FEEL the Lord wants.

A revelation is when God reveals his will or knowledge.
A body of 15 men feeling at peace and united on a decision is not the same as receiving instruction from the Almighty.  Simply calling that a revelation doesn't make it so.

Every single other dispensation, the prophets, apostles, the scriptures, etc ALL describe God speaking to man, appearing to man, instructing man directly.
There is not a single record of any of this (other than a few personal revelations) given in the last 100 years of the Church to the Church.  Any and all revelations referred to in conference  etc all feature feelings of one kind or another.

And I'll issue a CFR to anyone who can provide a record in the past century of God actually speaking a word to the Church body to direct his Church through its leaders.
Just one.
You know, something like:

• I Nephi 2:1 For behold, it came to pass that the Lord spake unto my father, yea, even in a dream, and said unto him: Blessed art thou Lehi, because of the things which thou hast done; and because thou hast been faithful and declared unto this people the things which I commanded thee, behold, they seek to take away thy life.
• I Nephi 2:19 And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto me, saying: Blessed art thou, Nephi, because of thy faith, for thou hast sought me diligently, with lowliness of heart.
• Acts 9:4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
• Doctrine and Covenants 128:20 And again, what do we hear? Glad tidings from Cumorah!  Moroni, an angel from heaven, declaring the fulfilment of the prophets—the book to be revealed. A voice of the Lord in the wilderness of Fayette, Seneca county, declaring the three witnesses to bear record of the book! The voice of Michael on the banks of the Susquehanna, detecting the devil when he appeared as an angel of light! The voice of Peter, James, and John in the wilderness between Harmony, Susquehanna county, and Colesville, Broome county, on the Susquehanna river, declaring themselves as possessing the keys of the kingdom, and of the dispensation of the fulness of times!
• 1883 Revelation to John Taylor as quoted by Elder Rasband in conference - 
  • What ye have written is My will, and is acceptable unto Me:
    And furthermore: Thus saith the LORD unto the First Presidency, unto the Twelve, unto the Seventies and unto all My holy Priesthood, let not your hearts be troubled, neither be ye concerned about the management and organization of My Church and Priesthood and the accomplishment of My work.
• D&C 138:60 Thus was the vision of the redemption of the dead revealed to me, and I bear record, and I know that thisrecord is true, through the blessing of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, even so. Amen.
• " ‘Now, Granddaughter, I want you to remember that this is the testimony of your grandfather, that he told you with his own lips that he actually saw the Savior, here in the temple, and talked with Him face to face.’ - Testimony of Lorenzo Snow to his granddaughter.

 

So I'll wait for my CFR to be answered.
Just one reference, anywhere, to God speaking so much as a word for the direction of the Church in the past century.  Not a feeling, not a claim of revelation, but an actual word from the Lord to direct the Church.

 

Just to support the position that JLHProf laid out above:

 

Quote

A: [Gordon B. Hinckley] Let me say first that we have a great body of revelation, the vast majority of which came from the prophet Joseph Smith. We don't need much revelation. We need to pay more attention to the revelation we've already received. Now, if a problem should arise on which we don't have an answer, we pray about it, we may fast about it, and it comes. Quietly. Usually no voice of any kind, but just a perception in the mind. I liken it to Elijah's experience. When he sought the Lord, there was a great wind, and the Lord was not in the wind. And there was an earthquake, and the Lord was not in the earthquake. And a fire, and the Lord was not in the fire. But in a still, small voice. Now that's the way it works.”

...

Now we don't need a lot of continuing revelation. We have a great, basic reservoir of revelation. But if a problem arises, as it does occasionally, a vexatious thing with which we have to deal, we go to the Lord in prayer. We discuss it as a First Presidency and as a Council of the Twelve Apostles. We pray about it and then comes the whisperings of a still small voice. And we know the direction we should take and we proceed accordingly.
DR: And this is a revelation?
Gordon B. Hinckley: This is a revelation.

- Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, San Francisco Chronicle, Sunday Interview, April 13, 1997, by Don Lattin

Either God directs or the brethren feel good about it, its all the same for some.  For others, it's not.  God's direction is preferred.  Men are simply prone to the weaknesses of the flesh when it comes to feeling good about something, and the secret whisperings of the spirit.  

[MiserereNobis]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

So I'll wait for my CFR to be answered.
Just one reference, anywhere, to God speaking so much as a word for the direction of the Church in the past century.  Not a feeling, not a claim of revelation, but an actual word from the Lord to direct the Church.

Obviously I can't say anything about the CFR, but from the outside it seems to me like the way the LDS church is governed is not that different from the way the Catholic Church is governed. I've said this before, too. Our Pope makes administrative decisions all the time. He sends out letters explaining the faith: doctrines and morals. And from time to time he makes infallible dogmatic proclamations (1954 being the last one). In doing all of this, he prays to God to find God's will and follow it.

What's different between the Pope (who has the title "Vicar of Christ") and the LDS president/prophet? I know the latter claims revelation, but I don't see it as being any different than the Pope. The Pope wouldn't use the word revelation, of course, but what's the difference?

There was a clear difference with Joseph Smith, but that seems to have gone away. This, of course, is from an outside point-of-view, so tell me if I am missing something.

[Avatar4321]

42 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Yes. In the regeneration, He will be the Father. (See Isaiah 9:6 & other scriptures).  I imagine His Father will call Him Brother - having completed His calling and service as the Son. We will no longer call Him the Son, because He will make all things new.

No, it is not. He was the Son in and from the beginning. The beginning of what? The world. I don't read Genesis as describing the beginning of the universe. In fact, I am no longer convinced the universe has a beginning - at least not an ex nihilo beginning 15 billion years BP.  Scripture plainly teaches the Son was begotten by the oath of the Father, and became perfect. According to JS, he increased from grace to grace. There is no LDS scripture which states the Son was ALWAYS the son - that is in fact a complete contradiction to the scriptural concept of being begotten as the Son. If you want to claim that concept was introduced by apostates - good luck with that. It's in the OT, the early church scholars, and the earliest surviving Bible manuscripts. It is not some apostate change. 

There are major differences which I have discussed. You do not have to believe them - yet. I'm not sure what you are trying to say with regards to when Jesus became "divine." I don't accept your synopsis. I don't speak in terms of His divinity. I think being the Father's only begotten/unique Son is pretty divine, and I believe He was such from the beginning. If you want to debate His divinity - more power to you. I don't really see the point. If in mentioning Paul you are speaking of Hebrews, I agree that Yeshua was adopted as the Son of God - that is my point. His Sonship is not the result of some kind of bodily birth - but His spiritual birth by covenant. He followed the Father. As His Father showed Him, so did He. As His Father laid down His life, so did He - so He became perfect and the author of our salvation as Hebrews puts it. So, I totally agree with Hebrews and Paul - and John... and Matthew...Mark and Luke.... unless you are going to insist on the Luke of the Codex Bezae. 

In the regeneration? Is He a Time Lord?

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, MiserereNobis said:

Obviously I can't say anything about the CFR, but from the outside it seems to me like the way the LDS church is governed is not that different from the way the Catholic Church is governed. I've said this before, too. Our Pope makes administrative decisions all the time. He sends out letters explaining the faith: doctrines and morals. And from time to time he makes infallible dogmatic proclamations (1954 being the last one). In doing all of this, he prays to God to find God's will and follow it.

What's different between the Pope (who has the title "Vicar of Christ") and the LDS president/prophet? I know the latter claims revelation, but I don't see it as being any different than the Pope. The Pope wouldn't use the word revelation, of course, but what's the difference?

There was a clear difference with Joseph Smith, but that seems to have gone away. This, of course, is from an outside point-of-view, so tell me if I am missing something.

I think it's a very appropriate question.  I don't think there is a difference, really.  At least when it comes to the modes of revelation, inspiration, and direction.  

[Marginal Gains]

30 minutes ago, CMZ said:

I have also been in a number of recent meetings (including at least two different stake conferences with general authorities attending) where members were encouraged to pray to receive independent testimonies of President Nelson's calling as the prophet.

They were encouraged to pray for confirmation that Nelson is what the Church claims him to be... How does that process mitigate the risk of confirmation bias?

[Avatar4321]

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No, that is what I referenced.
"they have claimed to receive revelation, but all descriptions of revelation no longer feature the Lord actually communicating words."

There is no record of a single word being given by way of revelation to the Church body in years.  All revelations now feature spiritual feelings.
In the early days of the Church the Lord TOLD the prophets what to do.  Today, the prophets do what they FEEL the Lord wants.

A revelation is when God reveals his will or knowledge.
A body of 15 men feeling at peace and united on a decision is not the same as receiving instruction from the Almighty.  Simply calling that a revelation doesn't make it so.

Every single other dispensation, the prophets, apostles, the scriptures, etc ALL describe God speaking to man, appearing to man, instructing man directly.
There is not a single record of any of this (other than a few personal revelations) given in the last 100 years of the Church to the Church.  Any and all revelations referred to in conference  etc all feature feelings of one kind or another.

And I'll issue a CFR to anyone who can provide a record in the past century of God actually speaking a word to the Church body to direct his Church through its leaders.
Just one.
You know, something like:

• I Nephi 2:1 For behold, it came to pass that the Lord spake unto my father, yea, even in a dream, and said unto him: Blessed art thou Lehi, because of the things which thou hast done; and because thou hast been faithful and declared unto this people the things which I commanded thee, behold, they seek to take away thy life.
• I Nephi 2:19 And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto me, saying: Blessed art thou, Nephi, because of thy faith, for thou hast sought me diligently, with lowliness of heart.
• Acts 9:4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
• Doctrine and Covenants 128:20 And again, what do we hear? Glad tidings from Cumorah!  Moroni, an angel from heaven, declaring the fulfilment of the prophets—the book to be revealed. A voice of the Lord in the wilderness of Fayette, Seneca county, declaring the three witnesses to bear record of the book! The voice of Michael on the banks of the Susquehanna, detecting the devil when he appeared as an angel of light! The voice of Peter, James, and John in the wilderness between Harmony, Susquehanna county, and Colesville, Broome county, on the Susquehanna river, declaring themselves as possessing the keys of the kingdom, and of the dispensation of the fulness of times!
• 1883 Revelation to John Taylor as quoted by Elder Rasband in conference - 
  • What ye have written is My will, and is acceptable unto Me:
    And furthermore: Thus saith the LORD unto the First Presidency, unto the Twelve, unto the Seventies and unto all My holy Priesthood, let not your hearts be troubled, neither be ye concerned about the management and organization of My Church and Priesthood and the accomplishment of My work.
• D&C 138:60 Thus was the vision of the redemption of the dead revealed to me, and I bear record, and I know that thisrecord is true, through the blessing of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, even so. Amen.
• " ‘Now, Granddaughter, I want you to remember that this is the testimony of your grandfather, that he told you with his own lips that he actually saw the Savior, here in the temple, and talked with Him face to face.’ - Testimony of Lorenzo Snow to his granddaughter.

 

So I'll wait for my CFR to be answered.
Just one reference, anywhere, to God speaking so much as a word for the direction of the Church in the past century.  Not a feeling, not a claim of revelation, but an actual word from the Lord to direct the Church.

 

What exactly do you consider evidence that the Lord is speaking to His Apostles directly and by the Holy Ghost?