New Revelations and the Future

[The Nehor]

44 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I am less concerned with the things the prophet isn't giving as the words of God, than I am with the assumptions made by members that the words of the prophets always represent the word of God when God has said nothing on the record in a century.

I'd be perfectly fine if God never gave another revelation in words if people would quit assuming every choice made by the Church came by revelation when there are no revelations to investigate.

Revelation’s primary purpose was never to give you words to investigate and critique.

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎4‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 7:42 PM, Avatar4321 said:

If anything the ministering we are called to is a higher law

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

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

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

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

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

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Revelation’s primary purpose was never to give you words to investigate and critique.

Who said anything about critique?

We read, investigate, study, and are blessed by the recorded revelations of the scriptures every day.  The Church spends countless hours teachings us from the recorded revelation and constantly admonishes us to study them.  The body of recorded revelation is held up as the measuring stick by which all other teachings, practices, and doctrines of the Church are judged.
Moroni 10:4 is quoted ad nauseum as the litmus test for the revelation known as the Book of Mormon.

But no, recorded revelation has been presented for anything revealed or implemented by Church leaders in decades.  Perhaps their "revelations" are too spiritual to be treated as scripture.  When the recent administrative change to the priesthood quorums was made, an uncanonized revelation to John Taylor was used as backing.  Yet no record of God's opinion on the change exists.  Same for almost every change made in the Church in the last century.

Edited April 10, 2018 by JLHPROF

[Stargazer]

20 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

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

That's very amusing.

Confirmation bias doesn't usually speak to you in words. What do you think the still, small voice is, anyway?  You don't hear it with your ears, but you hear it.  Sometimes it's not words, but a distinct feeling that one recognizes as confirmation through the spirit.  I once had the "stupor of thought" that is also mentioned in the scriptures.  I had decided to take a particular course of action, and decided to get confirmation in prayer. So I prayed, and as I prayed and came to the matter at hand, I suddenly couldn't speak.  I could not even think of the words I needed to ask what I wanted to ask.  It was as if I went suddenly aphasic.  I knew what I wanted to ask, but couldn't express it.  And then, when I realized what that meant, speech returned to me and I thanked the Lord for correcting me.

You might want to call that "uncomfirmation bias", I suppose.  But I wouldn't.

[CMZ]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

One can be very spiritual and not be religious at all.  Being a member of an organized religion isn't what causes a person to be a spiritual person, IMO.

This is why the Church encourages people to become spiritual and to increase their capacity to receive personal revelation.

[ALarson]

23 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

My faith does not claim to have a monopoly on revelation or miracles.

I agree with you.  I believe that other religious or spiritual leaders (and people) receive revelations or inspirations from God and spirit.  Even those who are not particularly spiritual see miracles in their lives or are inspired at times.  

I am a bit puzzled over why so many members seem so ecstatic over these new changes.  I consider them mainly changes of policy or procedure.

I feel that President Nelson does like to use the word "revelation" to describe his experiences that some past Prophets also had who did not term them to be "revelations".  He loves that word and I know he believes in it.  He's a wonderful man and a great leader, but so was President Monson and others who never claimed any announcements or policy changes were revelations (from what I remember).

The change of the missionary age was considered to be a revelation by some.  Overall that has not worked out very well for the church and for many of the younger missionaries (and their families as well).  Some wonder if this will be reversed (at least back to an older age for young men...back to the age of 19 years).  So, was that a revelation or just something that was discussed by the 15 and then a decision was made?  Or is that the same as having a revelation?  I just think it depends a lot on who is classifying it as such.  That's just my impression of how things are currently run by our leaders.

Edited April 10, 2018 by ALarson

[CMZ]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

But no, recorded revelation has been presented for anything revealed or implemented by Church leaders in decades.  Perhaps their "revelations" are too spiritual to be treated as scripture.  When the recent administrative change to the priesthood quorums was made, an uncanonized revelation to John Taylor was used as backing.  Yet no record of God's opinion on the change exists.  Same for almost every change made in the Church in the last century.

I still don't know of a requirement that says that the exact words of God have to be given for something to be done in the Church.

Doctrine & Covenants 1:38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

[CMZ]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

The change of the missionary age was considered to be a revelation by some.  Overall that has not worked out very well for the church and for many of the younger missionaries (and their families as well).  Some wonder if this will be reversed (at least back to an older age for young men...back to the age of 19 years).  So, was that a revelation or just something that was discussed by the 15 and then a decision was made?  Or is that the same as having a revelation?  I just think it depends a lot on who is classifying it as such.  That's just my impression of how things are currently run by our leaders.

Everyone has to keep in mind that the change in missionary age does not mean that a boy has to leave when they are 18 nor that a girl has to leave on a mission when she's 19, just that they now have the option to. Some will be ready then and some won't. Each individual case has to be judged on its own merits.

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Everyone has to keep in mind that the change in missionary age does not mean that a boy has to leave when they are 18 nor that a girl has to leave on a mission when she's 19, just that they now have the option to. Some will be ready then and some won't. Each individual case has to be judged on its own merits.

Of course.  But that's not how many members absorbed or saw this change....they immediately started feeling that boys should leave right out of high school and that girls should go at 19 years of age.  I think many now are pulling back and realizing it's ok to wait (and it always was).  This is most especially true, IMO, with the young men.  I feel that the change of age for the young women has been very positive for most that I'm personally aware of.

[CMZ]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Of course.  But that's not how many members absorbed or saw this change....they immediately started feeling that boys should leave right out of high school and that girls should go at 19 years of age.  I think many now are pulling back and realizing it's ok to wait (and it always was).  This is most especially true, IMO, with the young men.  I feel that the change of age for the young women has been very positive for most that I'm personally aware of.

Yeah, members tend to see things differently from how they should quite a bit of the time. When President Monson first gave the announcement he clearly stated that individual circumstances should still be considered. People misunderstanding a policy doesn't mean there's a problem with the policy.

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, CMZ said:

I still don't know of a requirement that says that the exact words of God have to be given for something to be done in the Church.

Doctrine & Covenants 1:38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

There is none.
And I don't think there needs to be for most administrative decisions.
But not all decisions are administrative.

And that verse is taken incorrectly on a regular basis.  God says "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken" AND "my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled,".  

Then he states that this action of fulfillment is what shall be done by his own voice or the voice of his servants. The fulfilling of his word is the same no matter who fulfills it.
It has absolutely no reference to statements of the prophet's being just the same as if the Lord had spoken it.  It merely states that either can work to fulfill God's word.

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Yeah, members tend to see things differently from how they should quite a bit of the time. When President Monson first gave the announcement he clearly stated that individual circumstances should still be considered. People misunderstanding a policy doesn't mean there's a problem with the policy.

Once again, I agree.  However the results are the same and this has not been a positive change, overall.  So was it a revelation or just a policy change?

I think the word "revelation" is a trigger word for members.  If President Nelson had stated that the changes announced in General Conference were "policy or procedural changes", it would not have had nearly the huge affect that calling them "revelations" did.  That's my point here.   I also believe that members are starving or at least extremely anxious for and easily excited over hearing that one word.  They'll grab onto it and get ecstatic over the smallest change (or even big change).  There's nothing wrong with that, but I believe that is what happens.

Now were they revelations?  I believe that President Nelson believes they were.  As far as I can see, they are the same as other announcements that were made by other Prophets who did not term them as such.  Just my observations and opinions.  I know many will disagree.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Once again, I agree.  However the results are the same and this has not been a positive change, overall.  So was it a revelation or just a policy change?

I think the word "revelation" is a trigger word for members.  If President Nelson had stated that the changes announced in General Conference were "policy or procedural changes", it would not have had nearly the huge affect that calling them "revelations" did.  That's my point here.   I also believe that members are starving or at least extremely anxious for and easily excited over hearing that one word.  They'll grab onto it and get ecstatic over the smallest change (or even big change).  There's nothing wrong with that, but I believe that is what happens.

Now were they revelations?  I believe that President Nelson believes they were.  As far as I can see, they are the same as other announcements that were made by other Prophets who did not term them as such.  Just my observations and opinions.  I know many will disagree.

I am certain they prayed and asked the Lord before any of these changes were made.  I am certain they came to agreement and felt good about them.
I am even willing to think the Lord maybe wanted these changes and provided inspiration or prompting to bring them about, although I am not convinced of this.
And I trust their decisions in how the Church is administrated.  That's a tough job by any standard.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

I am certain they prayed and asked the Lord before any of these changes were made.  I am certain they came to agreement and felt good about them.
I am even willing to think the Lord maybe wanted these changes and provided inspiration or prompting to bring them about, although I am not convinced of this.
And I trust their decisions in how the Church is administrated.  That's a tough job by any standard.

Those are my feelings as well.

I just believe that the word "revelation" has come to mean or describe something different from what it did in the earlier days of the church.  But most members still apply the same meaning.  (Hope you know what I'm trying to say....I know many will disagree though....).

[CMZ]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I am even willing to think the Lord maybe wanted these changes and provided inspiration or prompting to bring them about, although I am not convinced of this.

That's why you get to pray about it!

[CMZ]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Those are my feelings as well.

I just believe that the word "revelation" has come to mean or describe something different from what it did in the earlier days of the church.  But most members still apply the same meaning.  (Hope you know what I'm trying to say....I know many will disagree though....).

Revelation is any form of communication from God to man. It's not restricted to God giving exact wording to the mind of his senior apostle on earth.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, CMZ said:

That's why you get to pray about it!

Why bother?
It's one thing to pray about the Book of Mormon for instance where my belief/disbelief matters to me.  Whether or not I think the change from home teaching to ministering came from God or man makes no difference to anything.  It is the new program to be followed in the Church.  It doesn't directly impact my salvation or exaltation.
It just is.
Praying about it doesn't make any difference.  Whether it came directly from God or not doesn't even make a difference.

The changes to things that do make a difference are sadly also beyond my control, but you can believe I have prayed about them a lot.

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Revelation is any form of communication from God to man. It's not restricted to God giving exact wording to the mind of his senior apostle on earth.

Then what's the point of a Prophet calling something a "revelation" vs. him admitting he received a "form of communication from God to man" just like any of us can receive who are praying and in tune?

What is the difference?

[CMZ]

28 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

There is none.
And I don't think there needs to be for most administrative decisions.
But not all decisions are administrative.

And that verse is taken incorrectly on a regular basis.  God says "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken" AND "my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled,".  

Then he states that this action of fulfillment is what shall be done by his own voice or the voice of his servants. The fulfilling of his word is the same no matter who fulfills it.
It has absolutely no reference to statements of the prophet's being just the same as if the Lord had spoken it.  It merely states that either can work to fulfill God's word.

I guess you can be in a quandary forever and require things that God himself does not require. But there are other approaches that can be taken.

Quote

 

Elder Andersen, April 2018 Conference:

Some will try to overly dissect the prophet’s words, struggling to determine what is his prophetic voice and what is his personal opinion.
In 1982, two years before being called as a General Authority, Brother Russell M. Nelson said: “I never ask myself, ‘When does the prophet speak as a prophet and when does he not?’ My interest has been, ‘How can I be more like him?’” And he added, “My [philosophy isto] stop putting question marks behind the prophet’s statements and put exclamation points instead.” This is how a humble and spiritual man chose to order his life. Now, 36 years later, he is the Lord’s prophet.

 

[CMZ]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Why bother?
It's one thing to pray about the Book of Mormon for instance where my belief/disbelief matters to me.  Whether or not I think the change from home teaching to ministering came from God or man makes no difference to anything.  It is the new program to be followed in the Church.  It doesn't directly impact my salvation or exaltation.
It just is.
Praying about it doesn't make any difference.  Whether it came directly from God or not doesn't even make a difference.

I only brought it up because you seem so worked up over it. I have gone through the same phase of wondering why there wasn't at least one new section added to the Doctrine and Covenants each year or more. But is demanding it going to help anything? It's really just one way we can receive revelation.

Edited April 10, 2018 by CMZ

[CMZ]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Then what's the point of a Prophet calling something a "revelation" vs. him admitting he received a "form of communication from God to man" just like any of us can receive who are praying and in tune?

What is the difference?

I'm not sure we are ever getting to the the essence of the topic here. The Church does have recorded revelations since John Taylor's time. Maybe things are being directed by the Lord about what gets out for the time being and how it gets out. The vision that Joseph F. Smith had in 1918 wasn't canonized until 1976. But it didn't stop people from being edified by it before that time.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Who said anything about critique?

We read, investigate, study, and are blessed by the recorded revelations of the scriptures every day.  The Church spends countless hours teachings us from the recorded revelation and constantly admonishes us to study them.  The body of recorded revelation is held up as the measuring stick by which all other teachings, practices, and doctrines of the Church are judged.
Moroni 10:4 is quoted ad nauseum as the litmus test for the revelation known as the Book of Mormon.

But no, recorded revelation has been presented for anything revealed or implemented by Church leaders in decades.  Perhaps their "revelations" are too spiritual to be treated as scripture.  When the recent administrative change to the priesthood quorums was made, an uncanonized revelation to John Taylor was used as backing.  Yet no record of God's opinion on the change exists.  Same for almost every change made in the Church in the last century.

What do you think is the biggest problem - no first-person revelation from God in more than a century, or almost no new canonized revelation regardless of format?

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Revelation is any form of communication from God to man. It's not restricted to God giving exact wording to the mind of his senior apostle on earth.

I disagree in part.
Inspiration and revelation are not the same thing.
God could have inspired Michaelangelo to create his design for the Sistine Chapel.
God revealed to Brigham Young the design of the Salt Lake Temple in vision.
God could have inspired Kahlil Gibran to write some passages in the Prophet.
God revealed the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith.
God could have inspired the Constitution to provide freedom of religion in this country.
God revealed the Ten Commandments when he wrote them on tablets of stone with his finger.
 

Being inspired and receiving revelation are not the same, yet all too frequently inspiration is described, yet revelation is claimed.
It's Aaronic & Melchizedek.  It's milk and meat.  It's praying as we do publicly versus temple prayer.
It's why Joseph said that "I want every man that goes to be a king and a priest. When he gets on the mountains he may want to talk with his God".

It's the First Comforter - the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
versus
the Second Comforter - When someone obtains the Second Comforter, Jesus Christ will appear to him from time to time, will reveal the Father, and will teach him face to face.

[kllindley]

23 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Then what's the point of a Prophet calling something a "revelation" vs. him admitting he received a "form of communication from God to man" just like any of us can receive who are praying and in tune?

What is the difference?

Stewardship. 😀

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, Gray said:

What do you think is the biggest problem - no first-person revelation from God in more than a century, or almost no new canonized revelation regardless of format?

The first I suppose.
Canonization is meaningless and always has been.  Things not from God have been canonized.  Things from God have never been considered (that we know of) for canonization.