New Revelations and the Future

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

I bring it up because a huge claim of the LDS church is that it is lead by modern prophets who receive revelations. As an outsider, I don't see any revelations, just possible inspiration, which the Catholic Church also claims. In other words, it seems on closer inspection that the LDS claim to revelation is over-inflated and there is no difference in the methods of governance.

When did the pontiff give any new scripture? Joseph Smith gave new scripture. He expressly indicates He heard a voice declare the coming of the Civil War(rebellion starting at SC) to him. Anyway, there are pages and pages of revelations - some of which have come true - both in D&C and in the Book of Mormon. The latter prophesied the new promised land would have no king upon it. It also promised it would be free of invasion from outside countries - which it has been since 1830 - almost 200 years now. Although I now believe the US is beginning to suffer from an inside invasion.

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'll say the obvious, too. There IS a difference: is God inspiring the LDS prophet or is God inspiring the Pope? But that's not my point. My point is that the LDS church claims to have more than just inspiration in governance, but I don't see the difference because the leaders do not say: "I have seen Jesus, I have spoken to Him, and this is what He has to say."

On the other hand, in the Catholic Church, Jesus and Mary frequently appear to people and sometimes, especially in the case of Mary, give them messages to pass on to the world. In that sense, I'd say there is more revelation in the Catholic Church than in the LDS one. This is, of course, leaving aside the question of whether or not either church has the truth. I'm looking at what each church claims and how each on operates.

Again, there have been several LDS authorities who have reported seeing Yeshua. Of course there was Joseph Smith. But D&C also says Sidney Rigdon and Oliver Cowdery had visions of the Savior with Joseph Smith. Further, Lorenzo Snow's family reported that He saw the Savior in the SLC temple, and the Savior spoke to Him. Further, I represent the Savior has spoken to me, although I claim no visions of Him. I have also had revelatory dreams. I know many others in the Church who have testified of hearing an audible voice of warning - usually said to be from the Holy Spirit. I recall one many years ago who said he joined the Church because he heard a voice tell him "It is true. It is true." Nevertheless, upon joining the negative criticism from Church critics eventually caused him to leave. I encourage you to read the story related about a Protestant man in Arizona who after praying heard a voice declare "stop the boys on the bikes." You can read a partial account here: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/10/ask-the-missionaries-they-can-help-you?lang=eng He ended up going out to the street, and stopping two LDS missionaries, and not only became converted, but helped convert his neighbor he was praying for. There are just many, many accounts of this in this Church, so I am surprised that you have gotten the idea there is no direct revelation in this Church. i guess the real question is who is experiencing the real revelation or is someone being fooled by an angel of darkness masquerading as light, because this church simply has too many accounts to simply dismiss. I personally will put my trust in my personal experiences rather than a non-existent mediatrix.

Edited April 9, 2018 by RevTestament

[Stargazer]

12 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I personally will put my trust in my personal experiences rather than a non-existent mediatrix.

Might I suggest you be a little less confrontational?  That mediatrix, as you put it, enjoys a degree of deep reverence among our RCC compatriots, and you might want to be more respectful.

[MiserereNobis]

7 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

When did the pontiff give any new scripture? Joseph Smith gave new scripture. He expressly indicates He heard a voice declare the coming of the Civil War(rebellion starting at SC) to him. Anyway, there are pages and pages of revelations - some of which have come true - both in D&C and in the Book of Mormon. The latter prophesied the new promised land would have no king upon it. It also promised it would be free of invasion from outside countries - which it has been since 1830 - almost 200 years now. Although I now believe the US is beginning to suffer from an inside invasion.

I specifically said that Joseph Smith and the early days of the LDS church were different. I'm talking about what I see in the LDS church today.

It's not new scripture, because our Biblical canon is closed, but in 1954 the Pope infallibly declared a new dogma. I see this as equivalent to the official declarations about polygamy and the priesthood race ban. In all three cases they are canonized doctrine.

9 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Again, there have been several LDS authorities who have reported seeing Yeshua. Of course there was Joseph Smith. But D&C also says Sidney Rigdon and Oliver Cowdery had visions of the Savior with Joseph Smith. Further, Lorenzo Snow's family reported that He saw the Savior in the SLC temple, and the Savior spoke to Him

That's a long time ago. I'm talking about now.

 

11 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Further, I represent the Savior has spoken to me, although I claim no visions of Him. I have also had revelatory dreams. I know many others in the Church who have testified of hearing an audible voice of warning - usually said to be from the Holy Spirit. I recall one many years ago who said he joined the Church because he heard a voice tell him "It is true. It is true." Nevertheless, upon joining the negative criticism eventually caused him to leave. I encourage you to read the story related about a Protestant man in Arizona who after praying heard a voice declare "stop the boys on the bikes." You can read a partial account here: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/10/ask-the-missionaries-they-can-help-you?lang=eng He ended up going out to the street, and stopping two LDS missionaries, and not only became converted, but helped convert his neighbor he was praying for

The Catholic Church is FULL of stories like this, and then some. Some are quite dramatic. Angels. Crying statues. Bleeding Hosts. Visitations, apparitions, miracles upon miracles.

 

13 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

There are just many, many accounts of this in this Church, so I am surprised that you have gotten the idea there is no direct revelation in this Church.

My point is that if the Catholic Church has the same stuff going on, then the LDS claim to revelation is not unique.

 

14 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

i guess the real question is who is experiencing the real revelation or is someone being fooled by an angel of darkness masquerading as light, because this church simply has too many accounts to simply dismiss.

I agree that the rock-bottom issue is which church has the truth. However, that was not my point. My point was that the way the current LDS church operates when it comes to revelation/inspiration isn't different from the way the Catholic Church operates, so the LDS claim of revelation is not unique and is over-inflated. Also, you bring up the number of accounts. The Catholic Church has got you beat on the numbers game for visitations, revelation/inspiration, and miracles for sure

17 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I personally will put my trust in my personal experiences rather than a non-existent mediatrix.

I wouldn't trust a "non-existent" mediatrix, either, since it doesn't exist  

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'll say the obvious, too. There IS a difference: is God inspiring the LDS prophet or is God inspiring the Pope? But that's not my point. My point is that the LDS church claims to have more than just inspiration in governance, but I don't see the difference because the leaders do not say: "I have seen Jesus, I have spoken to Him, and this is what He has to say."

On the other hand, in the Catholic Church, Jesus and Mary frequently appear to people and sometimes, especially in the case of Mary, give them messages to pass on to the world. In that sense, I'd say there is more revelation in the Catholic Church than in the LDS one. This is, of course, leaving aside the question of whether or not either church has the truth. I'm looking at what each church claims and how each on operates.

Read the conference talks

[MiserereNobis]

2 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Read the conference talks

Rather than asking me to read 8 hours worth of meetings, do you mind pointing out where in the conference someone said: "I have seen Jesus, I have spoken to Him, and this is what He had to say"? I appreciate you saving me the time

 

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Read the conference talks

If you're referring to Elder Cook, that's a pretty good hint he drops.  And as usual one with no fruit to taste.

If you're referring to Pres. Nelson, he does a good job differentiating between revelation when he describes one he received personally and he describes how revelation in the Church is viewed.  I don't think that was his intent, but he shows the difference either way.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, MiserereNobis said:

Rather than asking me to read 8 hours worth of meetings, do you mind pointing out where in the conference someone said: "I have seen Jesus, I have spoken to Him, and this is what He had to say"? I appreciate you saving me the time

 

Elder Cook implied it this past conference when he said:

•  "please be assured that senior Church leaders who preside over the divinely appointed purposes of the Church receive divine assistance. This guidance comes from the Spirit and sometimes directly from the Savior. Both kinds of spiritual guidance are given. I am grateful to have received such assistance."

Such ambiguous statements are hardly evidence of God's word to his Church.  He could be speaking of inspiration of the spirit or direct guidance by the Savior when he says he has received such assistance.  There's no way of knowing which he meant.  Clever writing.

[Avatar4321]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

You first.
According to Joseph Smith the Holy Ghost's effect is to transfer knowledge and to confirm it's truthfulness.

The still small voice still speaks.  It speaks words.  Those words spoken by God to his representatives have not been seen since Joseph F. Smith.  Not so much as a word.
I think the Lord still inspires or prompts our leaders decisions from time to time, and keeps things under control.
But right now revelation, the word of God, is not making its way to the Church.

Funny, because I've been recieving revelation by following the counsel of those with the keys. Last conference was a revelation bonanza. As I've said before if a nobody like me is getting revelation I find it improbable that those who taught me dont

Edited April 9, 2018 by Avatar4321

[Stargazer]

5 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.

The primitive church had similar goings-on, you know.  The occasional big-time bang-on vision or revelation, but mainly the Spirit telling one man or another something.  

And the word "feelings" conveys such a wide range of experiences. Anything from what one might get when one hears a bit of good news, to a fire lit in one's bosom.  Have you had such unmistakeable "feelings" at all lately?  A fire lit in one's soul that makes it clear that it is the Lord who is talking -- even if no actual words are "heard'?

You seem to want words dictated and written down, that are then thundered across the pulpit at General Conference.  I think that might happen at some point, but even with prophets such as Elijah the Lord dealt with the still, small voice, for the most part -- and the showy stuff was reserved for some very unusual circumstances.  Circumstances in which some people's very lives were lost.  The priests of Baal got their sign, as you may remember.  Not one they profited much from, of course, but there it was.

 

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

The term that comes to mind in reading this is "seeking after signs".

If you doubt that that which comes forth from the Prophet is truly from God, I'm pretty sure you know whom to apply to for assurance.

I can tell you that lowly little me has heard actual words spoken in his mind in response to a need for guidance and direction.  And not just once and not ten or twenty years ago, either.  And if little old me, with my day-to-day worldly cares and vanishingly small importance to the destiny of the Lord's Church can receive direct revelation, in actual words, then I have to believe that those men who stand as special witnesses of the Lord Jesus Christ receive far more than I.  And who are you to insist upon a written "Thus saith the Lord" revelation, anyway?  Do you REALLY need that?  You'd have to confirm it with the Lord in ANY case, wouldn't you?  And if you'd have to confirm it with the Lord in that case, then why the hell do you not think that you shouldn't be asking for a confirmation from the Spirit that what is going on in those Thursday meetings in the temple are the result of the Lord guiding and directing his servants along the path that He wants them to go?

Heck, if I can get a spiritual confirmation that what has come down the message line about Ministering is what the Lord has directed -- ever so softly, mind you -- then why can't you?

The day will come when the Lord no longer speaks to us in a still, small voice, so that we can, if we want, ignore it. But He will speak in earthquakes, storms, and fire from the sky.  On that day, perhaps you might want it written down and published in a book.  But by then it will be being imprinted upon the very bones of the earth, for all to read.  Though there will be many in that day who will still refuse to believe what it written.

I think I would prefer to become accustomed to hearing the quiet word of the Lord, and conform myself to that, before I demand it all be written down and published in a book.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

It's not new scripture, because our Biblical canon is closed, but in 1954 the Pope infallibly declared a new dogma. I see this as equivalent to the official declarations about polygamy and the priesthood race ban. In all three cases they are canonized doctrine.

Can you please indicate specifically what 1954 new dogma you are speaking of? I assume you are speaking of the new Marian dogma?

Quote

The Catholic Church is FULL of stories like this, and then some. Some are quite dramatic. Angels. Crying statues. Bleeding Hosts. Visitations, apparitions, miracles upon miracles.

My point is that if the Catholic Church has the same stuff going on, then the LDS claim to revelation is not unique.

Yes, I am aware of the many stories. I do not completely dismiss all of them either. However, I think relatively few actually speak to the truth of the Catholic Church. Does a weeping statue mean the Catholic Church is true, or that Mary weeps because she sees people in pain or living falsehoods or something else? I do think the LDS claims of revelation are unique in the sense that they seem to always impart protection or truth. A claimed apparition is just that - it is quite open to interpretation. I actually do not recall even one instance of a "Catholic miracle" which declared the truthfulness of the Catholic Church. There must be some, but I don't recall one now. I think the LDS Church is unique in that sense.

Quote

I agree that the rock-bottom issue is which church has the truth. However, that was not my point. My point was that the way the current LDS church operates when it comes to revelation/inspiration isn't different from the way the Catholic Church operates, so the LDS claim of revelation is not unique and is over-inflated. Also, you bring up the number of accounts. The Catholic Church has got you beat on the numbers game for visitations, revelation/inspiration, and miracles for sure

I will actually agree with you that the LDS claims of revelation have been a tad over-inflated - I personally do not accept every word out of the mouth of a GA as revelation. Lots of times it has just been opinion or repetition. That in no way makes the LDS Church untrue, however - maybe sometimes errant, but still the intended repository of the Savior's gospel.

By the same token I believe the Catholic claims of revelation are extremely over-inflated. The actual instances of accepted revelation by your pontiff are few. It seems the Lord has had little additional guidance for the last 2000 years, but the historical claims and hype around the Roman pontiff have been enormous through the centuries. And you are right there are huge numbers of these accounts in the history of the RCC both surrounding the pontiff and other Catholics - but it has been quite longer than 200 years for LDS history. Further, what was once accepted canon has been dismissed by your church, vis-a-vis the Donation of Constantine. The LDS Church has no real claims of infallibility. 

Quote

I wouldn't trust a "non-existent" mediatrix, either, since it doesn't exist  

I was not trying to be disrespectful on this matter, but you seem to bring up the point with your mention of the 1954 new dogma regarding Mary. Your church definitely does teach Mary is a Mediatrix:

"Up to this point in history, the Church has proclaimed four “dogmas” or solemnly pronounced doctrines about the Virgin Mary: 1) that Mary is the Mother of God (Council of Ephesus, 431); 2. that she is a Perpetual Virgin (Lateran Council, 649); 3) that Mary was conceived without original sin, or her “Immaculate Conception” (Bl. Pius IX, 1854); and 4) that she was assumed body and soul into heaven, or her “Assumption” (Pius XII, 1950).  The last major doctrine about Mary is her role as Spiritual Mother of all peoples under its three motherly aspects as Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces, and Advocate, which is already the official teachings of the popes, or the “Papal Magisterium.”" 

I assume you are making a semantic point or are you saying Mary is not considered a Mediatrix by your church? That is a major point of difference for me. I simply accept no mediator with the Father besides Yeshua or ourselves. I am not precluding a change in the law in this matter, but assuming such a change, I believe it will come about through the priesthood. I simply do not believe the claims of the RCC regarding Mary. I believe she had other children including James, and so is not "eternally virgin" either. I am sorry I brought up the point. I do not wish to debate it nor do I wish to offend you - I was merely trying to say that I personally have severe doubts about the source of the many claims surrounding Mary. I suppose LDS critics will express similar doubts about all the many claims of audible revelation made within the LDS Church, so that doesn't really get us anywhere on the surface of it. I suppose it is left up to the spiritual impressions of the listener and their own revelations in the truthfulness of these many events in order to ultimately determine truth for themselves.

 

Edited April 9, 2018 by RevTestament

[Stargazer]

3 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Funny, because I've been review in revelation by following the counsel of those with the keys. Last conference was a revelation bonanza. As I've said before if a nobody like me is getting revelation I find it improbable that those who taught me dont

Well, you beat me by 2 minutes, and said it in a lot fewer words.

Bravo!

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Funny, because I've been review in revelation by following the counsel of those with the keys. Last conference was a revelation bonanza. As I've said before if a nobody like me is getting revelation I find it improbable that those who taught me dont

Edited April 9, 2018 by JLHPROF

[Avatar4321]

2 hours ago, e-eye said:

Elder Cooks talk in the Sunday afternoon session:  "In conclusion, please be assured that senior Church leaders who preside over the divinely appointed purposes of the Church receive divine assistance. This guidance comes from the Spirit and sometimes directly from the Savior. Both kinds of spiritual guidance are given. I am grateful to have received such assistance. "

You don't usually here statements like this in General Conference and his comments made me do a double take.

There was a reason we weren't pointing that out:)

[Avatar4321]

50 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Rather than asking me to read 8 hours worth of meetings, do you mind pointing out where in the conference someone said: "I have seen Jesus, I have spoken to Him, and this is what He had to say"? I appreciate you saving me the time

 

But if I do the work for you it won’t benefit you. It was clearly testified to that Jesus teaches them directly

[Avatar4321]

48 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Elder Cook implied it this past conference when he said:

•  "please be assured that senior Church leaders who preside over the divinely appointed purposes of the Church receive divine assistance. This guidance comes from the Spirit and sometimes directly from the Savior. Both kinds of spiritual guidance are given. I am grateful to have received such assistance."

Such ambiguous statements are hardly evidence of God's word to his Church.  He could be speaking of inspiration of the spirit or direct guidance by the Savior when he says he has received such assistance.  There's no way of knowing which he meant.  Clever writing.

There is no ambiguity there whatsoever

[Avatar4321]

33 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Are you not getting revelation?

[Gray]

5 hours 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. 

You seem to have your own personal "deep doctrines" that go well beyond normative Mormonism, regarding the details of Jesus' sonship.  I believe I've represented the normative church teachings about Jesus accurately, and the various points at which Jesus becomes the son of God and divine are based on Ehrman's reading.

Edited April 10, 2018 by Gray

[Gray]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

I can't believe I wasted my points on substantive replies and have none left to give you two.

Bless you for making me laugh.

I'll take the blessing in lieu of upvotes. Thanks Calm

[SteveO]

President Faust, in one of the last talks I heard him give (on my mission in Mexico), said he knew without a doubt the Savior lived. And then to be as clear as he could, he said “I know, because I have seen him with my own eyes” and pointed to his eyes.

I was awestruck, and then looking around the chapel, nobody seemed to care what was just said.  It’s like they didn’t even hear it.  I think that reaction surprised me more than what President Faust said.  

At a stake conference two years ago, Elder Ballard spoke of a miracle in Africa that he was party to.  They prayed for rain in middle of a drought of biblical proportions.  It rained that same day.  It was an incredible story—something on par with anything found in scripture.

When we’re in the right place with the right attitude, you’ll find the church is filled with stuff like this.  It is still very much “alive” with revelation and miracles.  But they aren’t trumpeted to the world, and people who sit at home inactive waiting for it to come to them will probably find the church wanting.  But the miracles are there.

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I was not trying to be disrespectful on this matter, but you seem to bring up the point with your mention of the 1954 new dogma regarding Mary. Your church definitely does teach Mary is a Mediatrix:

I was just playing with you because of your words. I do not believe in a "non-existent" mediatrix. I believe in an existent mediatrix

[Avatar4321]

5 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

How do you reliably and objectively differentiate between the still small voice and confirmation bias?

How do you know salt tastes salty?

by trying it, by testing it, by doing it yourself. You can’t rely on the descriptions other give its something that has to be experienced.

 

 

[RevTestament]

51 minutes ago, Gray said:

You seem to have your own personal "deep doctrines" that go well beyond normative Mormonism, regarding the details of Jesus' sonship.  I believe I've represented the normative church teachings about Jesus accurately, and the various points at which Jesus becomes the son of God and divine are based on Ehrman's reading.

Well, to say the least, I don't get my interpretation from Ehrman. I don't think the Church really does either. 

I do however, seem to match points made by Yeshua and Joseph Smith in the King Follet discourse. May I suggest you read up on that?

"for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.

These ideas are incomprehensible to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible. 

I  wish I was in a suitable place to tell it, and that I had the trump of an archangel, so that I could tell the story in such a manner that persecution would cease forever. What did Jesus say? (Mark it, Elder Rigdon!) The scriptures inform us that Jesus said, as the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power—to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. Do you believe it?"

Do you believe Joseph Smith? Did the Father die for man? It seems the Church has forgotten that. So the Father must teach it again.

 

3 Nephi 21:8 And when that day shall come, it shall come to pass that kings shall shut their mouths; for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.

9 For in that day, for my sake shall the Father work a work, which shall be a great and a marvelous work among them; and there shall be among them those who will not believe it, although a man shall declare it unto them.

10 But behold, the life of my servant shall be in my hand; therefore they shall not hurt him, although he shall be marred because of them. Yet I will heal him, for I will show unto them that my wisdom is greater than the cunning of the devil.

 

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

How is feeling good about a decision, feeling it’s the right decision, based on the facts presented and the discussion entered into, noticeably different to a decision influenced by the Holy Spirit?

Externally to a spiritually dead person, not much unless the Spirit is so strong people start weeping. As someone who has been in meetings and councils where the will of the Holy Ghost is powerfully made manifest and have also had the experience of reaching consensus in a corporate management meeting the two are nothing alike.

[The Nehor]

I regret starting this thread. If I knew it would end with defining revelation so narrowly I would have **** up and avoided a lot of really dumb heresy.

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

President Faust, in one of the last talks I heard him give (on my mission in Mexico), said he knew without a doubt the Savior lived. And then to be as clear as he could, he said “I know, because I have seen him with my own eyes” and pointed to his eyes.

I was awestruck, and then looking around the chapel, nobody seemed to care what was just said.  It’s like they didn’t even hear it.  I think that reaction surprised me more than what President Faust said.  

At a stake conference two years ago, Elder Ballard spoke of a miracle in Africa that he was party to.  They prayed for rain in middle of a drought of biblical proportions.  It rained that same day.  It was an incredible story—something on par with anything found in scripture.

When we’re in the right place with the right attitude, you’ll find the church is filled with stuff like this.  It is still very much “alive” with revelation and miracles.  But they aren’t trumpeted to the world, and people who sit at home inactive waiting for it to come to them will probably find the church wanting.  But the miracles are there.

I agree. I've been reading a book of journal excerpts from President Monson's experience with the Saints of East Germany. It's absolutely amazing