Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

If New Revelation came...


Recommended Posts

If new revelation came how would you expect it to sound? The BoM and D&C were heavily couched in a KJV style wording and are very beautiful, is that the standard though or just the wording filtered through the minds of that generation?

Would it bother you if another revelation was brought forth that maybe sounded a bit clunkier, or is that an immediate red flag for you?

I've heard it said that the KJV wording is "the langauge of revelation" but I'm not sure that's doctrine. Does it really need to have certain phrases, wording, or "flow" to qualify as Gods word or can it just be much more plain. When a so called prophet, from Snuffer to the TLC, jumps ship and produces revelation I've seen the criticism that their revelations use to many different words that just don't "match the way God speaks." While I might agree that these men aren't necessarily prophets, is using the wording of their revelations really a good criticism or does God really care how it's worded? (Obviously he wants it to actually communicate what He said, but Joseph felt free apparently to arrange his revelations into poetic format and didn't feel that that was an offence since it communicated the same principles.)

Just curious on your thoughts! 

Edit: Duncan pointed out that I should clarify more since revelation is received pretty often, just not canonized or even quoted. I meant a revelation that would be read and canonized into the D&C. While I considered that a revelation was received, I don't consider OD2 to actually be that revelation but an announcement of it. Something like Section 76, 107, 84, or 132. 

Edited by SettingDogStar
Link to comment

I think you mean canonized revelation. Revelation comes all the time but the revelation typically is to do something and whatever that is is announced, not always how it is received. If you want how a canonized revelation is worded Check out OD2

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I think you mean canonized revelation. Revelation comes all the time but the revelation typically is to do something and whatever that is is announced, not always how it is received. If you want how a canonized revelation is worded Check out OD2

That's a better clarification. I meant a revelation that would be read and canonized into the D&C. While I considered that a revelation was received, I don't consider OD2 to actually be that revelation but an announcement that it had been received. Something like Section 76, 107, 84, or 132. 

Link to comment

Of course OD2 isn't itself a revelation.  It's a declaration that a revelation was received:

 

Quote

In early June of this year, the First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church.

 

 

Quote

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple.

 

Link to comment

But back to SettingDogStar's original question, God is so eager to speak to us that He will do it in any way that we might accept it.  If he has to use emojis, so be it.  😇  And given the Facsimilies of Abraham, I've always been hoping for new revelations in graphic novel form.

Edited by Lemuel
Link to comment

I would expect the language to be suited to today.

For me the key element of revelation is it's the word of the Lord.  God's words.  God speaking.  We haven't heard a single example to the Church in a century.

What we get told today is revelation are the words of men.  Hopefully sometimes inspired words, sometimes an explanation of inspired impressions or feelings.

What we don't get is God's actual words anymore.  But I would expect him to speak the language of the receiver.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Lemuel said:

Of course OD2 isn't itself a revelation.  It's a declaration that a revelation was received:

That's all we've been offered for a century.  The word of man promising us that they received the word of God.

It sure would be nice if God would use his own words again.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I would expect the language to be suited to today.

For me the key element of revelation is it's the word of the Lord.  God's words.  God speaking.  We haven't heard a single example to the Church in a century.

What we get told today is revelation are the words of men.  Hopefully sometimes inspired words, sometimes an explanation of inspired impressions or feelings.

What we don't get is God's actual words anymore.  But I would expect him to speak the language of the receiver.

I agree with this! It doesn't have to be "Thus saith the Lord" it could be "The Lord spoke and said 'I am displeased with the work of etc. etc..." or "I, the Lord, will send John Smith on a mission to Arizona to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ." Something mundane and unflowery is fine for me..but it's been awhile since I've heard the Lord speak in first person to the congregation of the church. I believe it was 82% of the doctrine of covenants that are first person and I hope maybe to hear that again in my lifetime!

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

I agree with this! It doesn't have to be "Thus saith the Lord" it could be "The Lord spoke and said 'I am displeased with the work of etc. etc..." or "I, the Lord, will send John Smith on a mission to Arizona to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ." Something mundane and unflowery is fine for me..but it's been awhile since I've heard the Lord speak in first person to the congregation of the church. I believe it was 82% of the doctrine of covenants that are first person and I hope maybe to hear that again in my lifetime!

I wouldn't hold my breath.  It's harder to retract a revelation if God actually said it.

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, Judd said:

How about section 138?

Technically this was received by Joseph F. Smith during the last months of his life, his passing away happening in November 1918. So technically the hundred years statement is mostly correct, though the vision was not canonized until years later. It's like canonizing a previously unknown or unpublished revelation of Joseph Smith. While it would be amazing to add more of Josephs revelations, it wouldn't count as modern revelation being produced from a living prophet. 

Edit: the thread is mostly about what we would expect the a new revelation to sound like, look like, or be about. Like is a more biblical wording required? Or is something more "mundane" okay?

Edited by SettingDogStar
Link to comment
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

What we don't get is God's actual words anymore. 

You seem to be suggesting that the only way to hear God speak in His own words (and voice) is to listen to someone else quote Him for us. I wholeheartedly reject that position. I’ve certainly got ‘God’s actual words’ on multiple occasions. 

Link to comment

The KJV language is not critical. The Spirit does not use it with me unless it is bringing scripture to my remembrance.

The key problem with the fraudulent revelations is the forced way they try to imitate the language. You see the same thing in literary imitators. There is a weakness in the language when it is a masquerade.

My favorite example is in the shift the RLDS/Community of Christ took in their D&C. Read the pablum in some of their revelations.

Link to comment
Just now, The Nehor said:

The KJV language is not critical. The Spirit does not use it with me unless it is bringing scripture to my remembrance.

The key problem with the fraudulent revelations is the forced way they try to imitate the language. You see the same thing in literary imitators. There is a weakness in the language when it is a masquerade.

My favorite example is in the shift the RLDS/Community of Christ took in their D&C. Read the pablum in some of their revelations.

I was going to say that. While I don't think the wording is important, sometimes it's a clue to an impostor. If you've ever read "The Second Book of Commandments" it's a good example of trying way to hard to match up to Joseph's way of communicating. Of course the wording is not important BUT I still think the revelations are going to have two caveats 1) they will be first person since the Lord is speaking and 2) they'll be simple and to the point. This is, what I believe, to be a pattern setup by the Lord in the biblical texts.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

I was going to say that. While I don't think the wording is important, sometimes it's a clue to an impostor. If you've ever read "The Second Book of Commandments" it's a good example of trying way to hard to match up to Joseph's way of communicating. Of course the wording is not important BUT I still think the revelations are going to have two caveats 1) they will be first person since the Lord is speaking and 2) they'll be simple and to the point. This is, what I believe, to be a pattern setup by the Lord in the biblical texts.

I am not convinced they have to be first person. In the Bible and the Book of Mormon there is some of that but not most of it.

The Word of God is rarely humdrum or prosaic. Reading the CoC’s revelations (outside of callings and releases) it seems obsessed with basic goodness and platitudes about equality and niceness. There is little of the call to repentance or harsh and difficult commandments. No doctrine or understanding of the eternities, just pleasing words no one could find objectionable. It is not God talking.

Edited by The Nehor
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am not convinced they have to be first person. In the Bible and the Book of Mormon there is some of that but not most of it.

The Word of God is rarely humdrum or prosaic. Reading the CoC’s revelations (outside of callings and releases) it seems obsessed with basic goodness and platitudes about equality and niceness. There is little of the call to repentance or harsh and difficult commandments. No doctrine or understanding of the eternities, just pleasing words no one could find objectionable. It is not God talking.

I've thought about that too. The D&C calls out many of the apostles, emma, and even Joseph multiple times decently harshly. That's not to say that those rebukes haven't be received by later presidents of the church, but Joseph didn't seems to be hesitant in publishing revelations that sometimes put him and others in the leadership in a "bad light."

Again, this isn't to say that those kind of revelations aren't received but they haven't been made public and published by the body of the church. The moment Joseph died published revelations that were in first person, revealed new things, read to the congregation of the church, approved, and canonized rapidly dropped. It's more of a curiosity for me then a doubt or accusation.

Edited by SettingDogStar
Link to comment
18 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

I've thought about that too. The D&C calls out many of the apostles, emma, and even Joseph multiple times decently harshly. That's not to say that those rebukes haven't be received by later presidents of the church, but Joseph didn't seems to be hesitant in publishing revelations that sometimes put him and others in the leadership in a "bad light."

Again, this isn't to say that those kind of revelations aren't received but they haven't been made public and published by the body of the church. The moment Joseph died published revelations that were in first person, revealed new things, read to the congregation of the church, approved, and canonized rapidly dropped. It's more of a curiosity for me then a doubt or accusation.

Joseph Smith was one of those prophets that comes once a Millenium or so that somehow receives revelation with comparative ease (not ease in general). I have suspicions about why that is so for some like Joseph and Moses and Enoch but they probably constitute heresy so I should probably not share. ;) 

Recorded revelations still are received and exist. I was in a conference where an apostle told us that he would receive revelation word for word and record it but those were for him only and he had rather impressive digital security around those records. He tried to teach us how to get to the state where we could do the same. I thought he implied that there are written revelations only the apostles have access to but I could not find that in my notes so I am less sure he said that.

Edited by The Nehor
Link to comment
16 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Joseph Smith was one of those prophets that comes once a Millenium or so that somehow receives revelation with comparative ease (not ease in general). I have suspicions about why that is so for some like Joseph and Moses and Enoch but they probably constitute heresy so I should probably not share. ;) 

Recorded revelations still are received and exist. I was in a conference where an apostle told us that he would receive revelation word for word and record it but those were for him only and he had rather impressive digital security around those records. He tried to teach us how to get to the state where we could do the same. I thought he implied that there are written revelations only the apostles have access to but I could not find that in my notes so I am less sure he said that.

1) You should PM me because I love a good heresy, in fact I probably believe a few myself for sure. I just tend to try not to "stir the pot" since it doesn't do much good for anyone.

2) I'd love to know more about that talk? How cool is that! Maybe it would be better in a different thread or PM but I would love to hear more about that. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Recorded revelations still are received and exist.

Indeed. I repeat an experience I've shared before:

Early in my service as Young Men president, I took a very serious problem to my bishop. He was even newer in his calling than I was in mine, and to be honest, I didn't have a lot of confidence in him. In fact, when my housemate had predicted earlier that S--- K------ was going to be our new bishop, I told him I didn't think the Lord would burden us with a bishop who had only five firing brain cells. Regardless, this was the sort of issue that one has to take to a priesthood leader. It was complicated and filled with numerous potential pitfalls, both legal and spiritual. The wellbeing of a family was at stake, and I understood clearly that getting anything wrong was likely to create almost irreparable harm to at least some of the parties involved.

I explained in great detail the situation as I understood it and then asked, 'Bishop, what are we going to do?'

His response: 'I have absolutely no idea'. And he didn't, either. His eyes were blank, and his face was filled with fear. For several minutes he didn't say another word; instead, he just looked past me. I assumed he'd been paralysed by fear, so I sat still, awkwardly waiting for him to recover.

After several minutes of silence, his eyes cleared, and he looked back at me, all signs of panic erased. 'OK, now I know what to do', he said. He then grabbed a stack of A4 paper and a pencil, pushed them towards me and asked, 'Can you write?' I nodded, picked up the pencil and started writing furiously as he spoke without pause. I filled several pages. When he finished, he asked me to read back to him what I'd written. As I did so, I felt perfect peace. Something spoke powerful comfort to my heart and assured me that what I'd written down was of God. He asked, 'Do you think that will work?'

'Yes, Bishop. I do'. And so we began implementing the detailed instructions that he had dictated. He kept these in his drawer and frequently pulled them out to measure our progress or see what to do next.

It worked. Every single pitfall was avoided. The family was kept safe. In the end, every person involved had been built up and blessed instead of harmed or hurt. I had been able to see no way out of this trouble that didn't involve ripping this family apart, but God did. He spoke to one of His humble servants, and it was my privilege to play the role of scribe. 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You seem to be suggesting that the only way to hear God speak in His own words (and voice) is to listen to someone else quote Him for us. I wholeheartedly reject that position. I’ve certainly got ‘God’s actual words’ on multiple occasions. 

I specifically said for the Church as a whole.

If you receive true personal revelation good for you.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

I was going to say that. While I don't think the wording is important, sometimes it's a clue to an impostor. If you've ever read "The Second Book of Commandments" it's a good example of trying way to hard to match up to Joseph's way of communicating. Of course the wording is not important BUT I still think the revelations are going to have two caveats 1) they will be first person since the Lord is speaking and 2) they'll be simple and to the point. This is, what I believe, to be a pattern setup by the Lord in the biblical texts.

I’m not sure, according to the Articles of Faith, that the Biblical texts can be said to have been set up by God to represent His pattern for syntax. His imprimatur upon them comes by grace after all that has been done to them, and He conveys what He will out of them by the Spirit to the faithful.

If President Nelson received a revelation in the First Person that is to be brought to the general conference for common consent sustaining, I think the language would be in the First Person. If he received it as impressions or if it was given in council with the other Brethren, it would not.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

1) You should PM me because I love a good heresy, in fact I probably believe a few myself for sure. I just tend to try not to "stir the pot" since it doesn't do much good for anyone.

2) I'd love to know more about that talk? How cool is that! Maybe it would be better in a different thread or PM but I would love to hear more about that. 

1) Probably not on this one. I don’t know enough to elucidate it well. It is just a suspicion that is based on other heresies I also suspect are true. My “take” on the Plan of Salvation does not match the church’s generally acceptable cultural narrative. I do not believe my version contradicts scripture or most of what has been said by Church authorities but it would be odd to most LDS ears. It does explain some oddities in the temple endowment presentation and begins to explain what Brigham Young may have trying to teach with what has become know as the Adam God theory. I do agree with Elder McConkie and others that the interpretation many gave to Brigham’s words is dead wrong but my understanding puts Michael in a much more prominent light and Eve even more so.

2) It was given before missionaries and I cannot go into much detail without relying on fallible memory. There is a reason we are asked not to share too much from such talks which is why I hesitate to even give the name of the apostle. He was teaching many things (he took almost four hours) focusing on the nature of callings and mantles and how to invite the Holy Ghost and also obliquely taught us about Calling and Election, Sanctification, and the Second Comforter and testified of the latter to those who could understand what he was saying.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I’m not sure, according to the Articles of Faith, that the Biblical texts can be said to have been set up by God to represent His pattern for syntax. His imprimatur upon them comes by grace after all that has been done to them, and He conveys what He will out of them by the Spirit to the faithful.

If President Nelson received a revelation in the First Person that is to be brought to the general conference for common consent sustaining, I think the language would be in the First Person. If he received it as impressions or if it was given in council with the other Brethren, it would not.

While I wouldn't be surprised if it was couched in KJV language since it's been the common feeling amongst the saints, I'm curious as to why the articles of faith are your reference for that? Those simply state, in reference to the bible, that that we believe it to be the word of God so long as it is translated correctly. Changing Thee to You or Saith to Said isn't really a translation as it is just a modern update. 

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

) Probably not on this one. I don’t know enough to elucidate it well.

I find this to be one of the more difficult things to do sometimes around others. Sometimes the "sources" for why I believe what I believe are so scattered through scriptures, blogs, talks, and historical records that it would be an adventure to try and organize the proofs for my beliefs. Plus I don't have the details on a lot of the stranger things I might believe, just on outline in my head on how they might work according to scripture but the Lord hasn't directly given enough info publicly to confirm my belief. 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...