New Revelations and the Future

[Hamba Tuhan]

18 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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.

It's all good. As I've noted before many times, those who seem to be least familiar with revelation on a personal level always want to parse the process. Those who know it just nod along with each other. I'm not sure how it could ever turn out any different.

[The Nehor]

28 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

It's all good. As I've noted before many times, those who seem to be least familiar with revelation on a personal level always want to parse the process. Those who know it just nod along with each other. I'm not sure how it could ever turn out any different.

Probably true. It is kind of ridiculous. I have gotten revelation from dreams, visions, words come directly into my mind, impressions, pictures, feelings that compel to action, applicable scriptures brought to remembrance, something I was commanded to write, a strong confirmation of a decision, and probably many more ways that I do not recall at the moment. I am not unique or special. Most members with an active Holy Ghost connection get these. Some get them in fewer ways, some more, some the same, and some different. It does not matter that much (though I admit I would like to see an angel some day). That Joseph Smith got revelation that way is not evidence that all prophets will dictate to a scribe a specific revelation word for word in the First Person of deity. That was a pattern Joseph Smith used. Brigham Young almost never used it. Neither did most of his successors.

I also find it odd that critics of our prophets try to take revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants and say that is how general church revelation should be received. Especially when a large part of the Doctrine and Covenants is specifically not intended for the general church membership. They are blessings to individuals. They have some value but they are not commands to us. Add in all the times Joseph Smith did get revelation and did not write it down and the whole premise falls apart. Where is the revelation for the King Follett teachings? Where is the original plural marriage revelation? Also, if the wording is dictated by heaven why did Joseph edit them for content and clarification? Why have Church leaders edited them since? It just seems silly.

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

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.

That apparently semantic difference IS the real difference.  And the "semantic" difference is a problem because it is rooted in....  wait for it....  Greek philosophy which cannot be abandoned without giving up a host of doctrines including.... wait for it....  "consubstantiality".   As if you did not see that coming! 

From my point of view the Catholic church cannot say what "revelation" is precisely because then they would have to drop the Greek philosophy that perfection means "completed" and therefore since revelation is already complete, BECAUSE revelation must be "perfect",  then "Revelation" cannot in principle be received.  That would make it "imperfect

Somehow "tradition" is ok and "sensus fidelium" is ok but calling it "Revelation" is a no-no.  So it's ok that some practice that has been around forever becomes doctrinal or the faith of the people over time can become doctrinal, but by definition, the Pope cannot receive "revelation"

I have no problem in believing that the Catholic church receives revelation for its members and I have no reason to believe that "God does not do that".  Why would he NOT?

They are wonderful human beings who need direction as much as anyone.  God teaches all his children what they need to know to get closer to Him.

Go figure why they can't say that for themselves. 

I guess I will burn in hell or .... maybe not.    Perhaps they need some revelation on that!  My testimony says no, thank God literally.  I cannot see how Catholics can insist that everyone follow their own consciences and they will burn in hell for doing so. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/22/pope-benedict-xvi-heaven-non-catholics-church

But on the other hand if I end up in hell forever I suppose I will deserve it at least at that point because I will surely be ticked off at God forever for constructing his plan that way without any real way to know   

I can always hang out with the Buddhists if I have to   We will just meditate ourselves into another place, no problem. 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 10, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Probably true. It is kind of ridiculous. I have gotten revelation from dreams, visions, words come directly into my mind, impressions, pictures, feelings that compel to action, applicable scriptures brought to remembrance, something I was commanded to write, a strong confirmation of a decision, and probably many more ways that I do not recall at the moment. I am not unique or special. Most members with an active Holy Ghost connection get these. Some get them in fewer ways, some more, some the same, and some different. It does not matter that much (though I admit I would like to see an angel some day). That Joseph Smith got revelation that way is not evidence that all prophets will dictate to a scribe a specific revelation word for word in the First Person of deity. That was a pattern Joseph Smith used. Brigham Young almost never used it. Neither did most of his successors.

I also find it odd that critics of our prophets try to take revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants and say that is how general church revelation should be received. Especially when a large part of the Doctrine and Covenants is specifically not intended for the general church membership. They are blessings to individuals. They have some value but they are not commands to us. Add in all the times Joseph Smith did get revelation and did not write it down and the whole premise falls apart. Where is the revelation for the King Follett teachings? Where is the original plural marriage revelation? Also, if the wording is dictated by heaven why did Joseph edit them for content and clarification? Why have Church leaders edited them since? It just seems silly.

I was once up in the mountains riding my bike, literally 10 miles up a winding bike path with no cars for miles and I could not get the thought of a particular sister out of my head.  There was a problem.  My phone rang and it was the Relief Society president asking me if I had heard from that sister because she was on her mind.

I said I did not, but was 10 miles away from even a road with cars, much less the place I left MY car, and asked her to call her

The RS pres called her and got no answer.  She went over to her house.  The sister had fallen and could not get up- yes it was the classic "commercial" but in real life.  She called 911 and it all turned out fine.

I KNOW this stuff is for real.   No question.

[Gray]

9 hours ago, Exiled said:

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.

On the contrary, Mormonism says that truth can come from anywhere - even the much maligned (on this forum, anyway) Greek philosophy. We got our theory of atonement from a medieval formulation based on the norms of feudal law. We got the idea of souls from those pesky pagan Greeks. Mormonism is a magpie, taking truths as it sees them from here and there and everywhere.

[CMZ]

8 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.

D&C 138 is not in the Lord's words. It is in Joseph F. Smith's words.

[CMZ]

10 minutes ago, Gray said:

On the contrary, Mormonism says that truth can come from anywhere - even the much maligned (on this forum, anyway) Greek philosophy. We got our theory of atonement from a medieval formulation based on the norms of feudal law. We got the idea of souls from those pesky pagan Greeks. Mormonism is a magpie, taking truths as it sees them from here and there and everywhere.

Keep in mind that Greeks may have gotten the idea of souls from an earlier source.

[Gray]

9 hours ago, RevTestament said:

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.

In the Jewish tradition, the soul was simply the "breath of life" - it wasn't a dualistic spirit being inhabiting a body. That came later with Greek influence. We take it for granted now and read back the concept into the scriptures, where it still says "breath/wind", usually translated as soul or spirit now.

 

9 hours ago, RevTestament said:

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?

Mormonism is also inseparably tied with pagan influences. Some of our pagan influences are more interesting than the usual Christian ones, though, including the pagan remnants not fully expunged from the Tanakh after the monotheistic reforms that purged the supporting cast of pagan gods and recast them as angels. We've got a mix of just about everything, I think. We've got the post-apostolic Greek-influenced orthodoxy mixed in with the old time Canaanite religion, a dash of Gnosticism, and who knows what else.

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Keep in mind that Greeks may have gotten the idea of souls from an earlier source.

It's probably safe to assume that every idea has some genesis in an earlier source.

[CMZ]

6 hours 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.

Keep in mind that whichever type, or both, of the two kinds of guidance he has personally received he still says that divine assistance comes to senior Church leaders directly from the Savior sometimes. As with many things, we can pray as individuals to know if that last statement is true. He's not wording things so that others may consume it on their lusts.

[kllindley]

53 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I have gotten revelation from dreams, visions, words come directly into my mind, impressions, pictures, feelings that compel to action, applicable scriptures brought to remembrance, something I was commanded to write, a strong confirmation of a decision, and probably many more ways that I do not recall at the moment. I am not unique or special. Most members with an active Holy Ghost connection get these. Some get them in fewer ways, some more, some the same, and some different. It does not matter that much (though I admit I would like to see an angel some day).

This is all true for me.  Though I have deep suspicion about a man I met one day in Finland. 

53 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That Joseph Smith got revelation that way is not evidence that all prophets will dictate to a scribe a specific revelation word for word in the First Person of deity. That was a pattern Joseph Smith used. Brigham Young almost never used it. Neither did most of his successors.

Amen. It appears that the exact wording of revelation is often subject to revision and differing memories as time progresses. I.e. what "exactly" was said in the grove to Joseph?

Edited April 10, 2018 by kllindley

[CMZ]

8 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

 

Ah yes, the old “you simply don’t understand” rebuttal to avoid answering the question.

I've studied the Holy Ghosts track record, it isn’t impressive. Look how well it did with the appointment of Joseph L Bishop, the failure of the Holy Ghost inspired Home & Visiting teaching programme, the failure of the missionary programme (how did that Holy Ghost inspired iPad decision work out?) Now’s the time you say “but it’s the weaknesses of humans that causes the Holy Spirit to fail”. Which makes my point - if it’s subject to the frailties of man, then it’s no better than the frailties of man.

D&C 10:37 But as you cannot always judge the righteous, or as you cannot always tell the wicked from the righteous, therefore I say unto you, hold your peace until I shall see fit to make all things known unto the world concerning the matter.

I don't think it's correct to say the home teaching program failed. Many stories have been told in the Church of successful and helpful home teaching ministering over the decades. Without knowing it would be done away the next day I finished my home teaching for the month of March 2018 on the 31st (with the other two people on my list having been contacted earlier in the month) and was able to give a blessing to a home teachee in January which helped her overcome a grave illness. Changing it to "ministering" doesn't prove that home teaching "failed" and even with the new program we will still have people who have trouble doing their duty. I'm sure I may even struggle with it at times, as before. Human failings don't prove a revelation failed.

[CMZ]

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's probably safe to assume that every idea has some genesis in an earlier source.

True, as the everlasting gospel stretches back to before this earth was formed.

[Gray]

10 hours ago, rongo said:

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. 

I'm not saying he was "begotten" before birth in LDS terms, I'm saying he was always the son of God in a special way (first born), and was always divine, in Mormon belief. This consistent with the Gospel according to John and consistent with Orthodox Christianity (well, more or less). But, we try to harmonize that with the synoptic concept of Jesus having been begotten - ie adopted by God at some point in his mortal life and chosen for special recognition. But Jesus wasn't divine before his birth in the minds of the synoptic writers, so it's a retcon.

 

10 hours 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. 

It's amazing to me how many non-trinitiarians confuse it with modalism (including me, for most of my life). But it's even more amazing to me how many self-described trinitarians are actually modalists and only think they believe in the trinity.

I try to tell trinitiarians that there isn't a hint of that doctrine in the NT, and no NT scholar worth her salt would ever claim that it was. They don't seem to believe me, though. I also find it weird that the sola scriptura crowd is also so big on a doctrine not found anywhere in scripture.

[Gray]

10 minutes ago, CMZ said:

True, as the everlasting gospel stretches back to before this earth was formed.

Well, that can't be supported on historical grounds, which is what I was talking about. On theological grounds, sure, that's fine.

[CMZ]

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

Well, that can't be supported on historical grounds, which is what I was talking about. On theological grounds, sure, that's fine.

Well, we are on a theological board.

[Exiled]

44 minutes ago, Gray said:

On the contrary, Mormonism says that truth can come from anywhere - even the much maligned (on this forum, anyway) Greek philosophy. We got our theory of atonement from a medieval formulation based on the norms of feudal law. We got the idea of souls from those pesky pagan Greeks. Mormonism is a magpie, taking truths as it sees them from here and there and everywhere.

I agree with you but aren't you saying that these fundamental religious concepts actually aren't of divine origin, but from the Greeks, and other humans? If so, where's God in the equation if not involved in the atonement or the eternal soul? 

[CMZ]

Home teaching actually sprung from the revelation that is now known as Section 20:

Quote

 

46 The priest’s duty is to preach, teach, expound, exhort, and baptize, and administer the sacrament,

47 And visit the house of each member, and exhort them to pray vocally and in secret and attend to all family duties.

 

"Ministering" is just a different way of implementing that and also brings in influences from other scriptures.

 

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I agree with you but aren't you saying that these fundamental religious concepts actually aren't of divine origin, but from the Greeks, and other humans? If so, where's God in the equation if not involved in the atonement or the eternal soul? 

I don't really see the difference. To me, "of divine origin" is the same thing as saying something is good and beneficial. But that wasn't really my point - in Mormonism God can inspire anyone from any tradition. Mormons can recognize truths from other cultures and faiths and borrow them for themselves. So, presumably, can non-Mormons. So why should we object when orthodox Christians borrow concepts from the Greeks? We do it too. The point isn't really where it came from, the point is, does it help you get closer to God?

[CMZ]

Another point relevant to this thread is that we have some here decrying there not being enough "direct words from the Lord" revelations, but we are missing that one of the efforts of the Church now (and always, but it was emphasized a lot recently) is to get people to be able to receive their own revelations. I have a feeling that when one has grown up into the principle of revelation themselves that they will be less likely to rant about the leaders not having enough revelation. Since we just had a powerful conference with a number of messages on this point it's embarrassing to have to point out the relevant quotes when they are available for all to read.

And if we are looking for indications that God is with this Church President Nelson testified that we will get those indications: "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." But even then each individual will have the freedom to ignore it or interpret it away.

Edited April 10, 2018 by CMZ
grammar, punctuation

[RevTestament]

17 minutes ago, Gray said:

In the Jewish tradition, the soul was simply the "breath of life" - it wasn't a dualistic spirit being inhabiting a body. That came later with Greek influence. We take it for granted now and read back the concept into the scriptures, where it still says "breath/wind", usually translated as soul or spirit now.

Again, I kinda agree and disagree. The Hebrew language is significantly different from English, and doesn't have near as large a vocabulary. There are fewer words to describe ideas and things. Our Genesis says God blew the breath of life into Adam, and yes it is referring to his spirit. However, there are places where a lot more than an idea of breath is being communicated. See for instance Isaiah 42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.

The word nap̄·šî doesn't really carry with it the idea of breath, and is also translated as soul or life. While I can't claim expertise on the subject, I view my soul as where I communicate with God. It is where the spirit resides with mine, and allows communication with mine. I'm not sure what you mean by a dualistic spirit. I don't view my soul as some separate being. It is a place where God can reside within me, even as He did with Yeshua - it is the "divine" aspect of my temporal body. It stays with my body - not my spirit. If the body dies, so does the soul - until resurrection That is my best attempt to describe "soul."

Quote

Mormonism is also inseparably tied with pagan influences. Some of our pagan influences are more interesting than the usual Christian ones, though, including the pagan remnants not fully expunged from the Tanakh after the monotheistic reforms that purged the supporting cast of pagan gods and recast them as angels. We've got a mix of just about everything, I think. We've got the post-apostolic Greek-influenced orthodoxy mixed in with the old time Canaanite religion, a dash of Gnosticism, and who knows what else.

I agree that "Mormonism" has not shed itself of all pagan influences. Again, did we not just celebrate "Easter?" Some still use fertility Easter eggs from this pagan tradition. Christmas has many pagan influences as well. However, I do not think the LDS faith is "inseparably tied" with paganism. We do use English words which come out of pagan backgrounds - for instance the very word "God" comes from the pagan Germanic "Gaut." Similarly, in the Semitic languages "el" could be used to refer to a pagan god or power just like Elohim could. I do not share your opinions about the Tanakh. I don't think the Tanakh has experienced a vast purge of pagan gods. Deuteronomy still proclaims God as an El of Elohim. Genesis says man had become like YHWH Elohim, who refers to Himself as "Us." The idea that God is not just a single spirit is all over the OT. The fact that Canaanites referred to God as El does not mean that Hebrews adapted their God from a pagan God. It just means they shared a Semitic language with the Hebrews, and had many of the same words.

i would be interested in hearing what you have to say about your so-called Greek orthodox influence on the LDS faith. As I see it, we are vastly different. There is no talk of the incarnate Christ, two natures of Christ, the consubstantial nature of Christ or even the trinity in our Church - all ideas which seem to come from Greek orthodoxy. Just because we may share a handful of traits with Greek orthodoxy doesn't mean we got these traits from Greek Orthodoxy. That's an error you seem all too willing to commit. Doesn't a certain adversarial spirit like to mix the precepts of man with the truths of God? Concluding therefore that common traits means that the LDS faith stole these ideas from another sect based a few similar traits, is not well-founded.

[RevTestament]

49 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's amazing to me how many non-trinitiarians confuse it with modalism (including me, for most of my life). But it's even more amazing to me how many self-described trinitarians are actually modalists and only think they believe in the trinity.

I try to tell trinitiarians that there isn't a hint of that doctrine in the NT, and no NT scholar worth her salt would ever claim that it was. They don't seem to believe me, though. I also find it weird that the sola scriptura crowd is also so big on a doctrine not found anywhere in scripture.

Well, this I can completely agree with - the DOT has led Christians so far astray when they don't even realize it, and exclude other Christians from their websites etc because they don't accept the DOT or the Nicene Creed. It's just terribly ironic to say the least.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

On the contrary, Mormonism says that truth can come from anywhere - even the much maligned (on this forum, anyway) Greek philosophy. We got our theory of atonement from a medieval formulation based on the norms of feudal law. We got the idea of souls from those pesky pagan Greeks. Mormonism is a magpie, taking truths as it sees them from here and there and everywhere.

We prefer to think that God revealed it all and everyone else is a magpie picking up the pieces and fitting them together. Sometimes rightly and sometimes wrongly. But we are probably not going to convince anyone else of that.  

Then again, LDS often miss truths or have them right in front of them without picking up on them. For example, women exercising the Priesthood through their callings was always "a thing" but for the most part we did not understand that before a few years ago. Nothing new, just an error in our understanding. Similar to the Lamanites in the Book of Mormon given the Baptism of Fire and not knowing it. They used it but the knowledge was a bit slow. Other superstitions fall away with more revelation. Joseph Smith said we must pull those superstitions down and we are.

Edited April 10, 2018 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Mormonism is also inseparably tied with pagan influences. Some of our pagan influences are more interesting than the usual Christian ones, though, including the pagan remnants not fully expunged from the Tanakh after the monotheistic reforms that purged the supporting cast of pagan gods and recast them as angels. We've got a mix of just about everything, I think. We've got the post-apostolic Greek-influenced orthodoxy mixed in with the old time Canaanite religion, a dash of Gnosticism, and who knows what else.

I actually like that some of the things in our faith smack of 'barbaric' paganism. Almost every Sunday I go to a specific building and eat the flesh and drink the blood of a dead but living God who created the sun, sends the rain, and causes the crops to grow. I go to a Temple to receive instruction in a story that holds manifold meanings for teaching the nature of reality and of God akin to the old mystery cults/religions. My scriptures suggest that the Earth itself is in some way alive and capable of communicating. I know that a simple handshake can determine the nature of angels and demons. I wear hidden symbols of the ordinances I have participated in and the covenants I have made on a daily basis. Don't get much more pagan than that.

Those seemingly primitive aspects to the faith, properly understood, are a good guard against a kind of intellectual religious snobbery. Plus I think even the pagan religions were refuse of the real gospel corrupted or parts of the gospel given independently for their edification and growth. So technically we reclaimed that paganism. And of course I am sure the Good Ship Zion has a few superstition barnacles still hanging out on the hull but we can get rid of those in time.

Edited April 10, 2018 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I was once up in the mountains riding my bike, literally 10 miles up a winding bike path with no cars for miles and I could not get the thought of a particular sister out of my head.  There was a problem.  My phone rang and it was the Relief Society president asking me if I had heard from that sister because she was on her mind.

I said I did not, but was 10 miles away from even a road with cars, much less the place I left MY car, and asked her to call her

The RS pres called her and got no answer.  She went over to her house.  The sister had fallen and could not get up- yes it was the classic "commercial" but in real life.  She called 911 and it all turned out fine.

I KNOW this stuff is for real.   No question.

Yeah, a friend of mine was at work and in the middle of the day was told to go home immediately. He went home to find his wife passed out on the floor due to some unforeseen complications in her pregnancy. He got her to the hospital in time. Of course we could probably trade stories like this all day.