Jump to content

D&C 138; why the last section of the Doctrine and Covenants?


Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, CV75 said:

What revelation have you received that came in the form of actual words from God's lips?

 

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I have heard first person words of the Lord.   At one time the answer I received addressed me as "my son".   Many have, much as the revelation the D&C.  You probably have too.

Our leaders simply don't declare the word of the Lord in that format any longer.  I am merely theorizing that the general membership may no longer be as accepting of that format.

Not everyone is addressed in first person words.  Revelations come in various forms.  Not all revelation is dialogic, and need not be.  Nor is there any evidence that the majority of LDS members would reject such old fashioned styles.

Link to post
Just now, Robert F. Smith said:

No, it is not "a perfect example."  You misunderstand what occurred. The 1978 revelation was never published, and not announced by his prophet.  Only an official declaration about it from the First Presidency.  There is more than one description of what took place in the meeting of the First Pres and Twelve, which was apparently an extraordinary revelatory event, but that was preceded by a personal revelation from God directly to Pres Kimball in the Salt Lake Temple.  None of us are privy to that event.  In other words, we have a series of revelatory events, culminating in a dry official declaration -- which you mistake for the original event.

I have read many descriptions of the event from numerous men present.  None of them that I recall included any actual words.  Again, not because there wasn't a revelation but because I don't think members in general would believe literal words from God's lips to the prophet occur.  Spiritual revelation sure.  But visions, visitations and "thus saith the Lord" bring out the skepticism in people today.

Link to post
2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

Not everyone is addressed in first person words.  Revelations come in various forms.  Not all revelation is dialogic, and need not be. 

I agree with this first part.

Quote

Nor is there any evidence that the majority of LDS members would reject such old fashioned styles.

I think the evidence of rejection is evident in the discourse surrounding anything claiming literal God spoken provenance.

Link to post
16 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't foresee a prophet claiming the actual words of Christ again.  Make of that what you will.

What of the final Prophet, he who will be the Prophet, that is serving when the “second coming”” occurs? Maybe not someone such as the Prophet Joseph Smith, who is called (or truly is) the “Prophet of the restoration”? But even D&C 138, seemed to have, and reflect the same style of writing as the revelations of Joseph Smith did, which differed from President Joseph F Smith’s daily, or even Conference language, and speaking. I don’t need more Doctrine and Covenants, but it would be great to once again read, and here revelations that helped establish this worldwide Faith. 
 

When I was young, and growing up in a small Church. My Father who was a minister, I asked him once; Why don’t we have the awe inspiring miracles found in the Bible. He told me, “Billy, the age of miracles has past”? As I grew older, and joined the Church, I not only witnessed people being healed of sickness, but also took part in blessings where they were healed. There have even been Church leaders who have even restored life to those recently deceased, and more miraculous miracles. Miracles that still occur, and not only among General Authorities. In fact there is a great book called, “Temple Manifestations”, that speaks of many such miracles, including the raising of a man who drown, while working on the Maniti Temple (I hope I spelled “Maniti” correctly). 
 

I don’t need new sections of the Doctrine and Covenants, I just wonder if we have lost something in the last centuries, and the words of Jesus Christ, given in the first person? Revelations that inspired new members to cross the Atlantic, all while knowing the terrible danger. Trips in, or on, tiny wooden ships where there was a 30-40% chance they would never make it. Words and revelations that gave the courage so many, to cross the plains of the Midwest, and having to bury their loved one’s along the way, in shallow or unmarked graves, in almost every death. The same with those crossing the Atlantic, burying those they love at sea, where they could never visit, lay flowers, to aide them in dealing completely with the grief. 
 

I look forward too, every General Conference, I record so I can watch and listen as much as I can. This to insure I can completely understand the mission and message. I love our leaders, and our Church, so these are just questions, or musings on my part. Just thinking out loud, seeking the answers, or opinions from those I love...meaning all here, as I love all of my brothers and sisters. 

Link to post
14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Official, major revelations nearly always come in answer to a question or need.  Could it be that we haven't had any pressing needs lately?  If we were to have a new revelation, what would it most likely cover?

Maybe to your first question, and to your second question...I don’t know what it would cover. Only the Prophet would know, whatever Prophet to whom it may be revealed. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I have heard first person words of the Lord.   At one time the answer I received addressed me as "my son".   Many have, much as the revelation the D&C.  You probably have too.

Our leaders simply don't declare the word of the Lord in that format any longer.  I am merely theorizing that the general membership may no longer be as accepting of that format.

Of course -- I think this change  has more to do with the shift from earlier cultural mores than anything else, and I include the prophets as no longer as accepting of phraseology that is no longer current, including expression that is indistinct in terms of literalness or figurativeness.

Link to post
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Not everyone is addressed in first person words.  Revelations come in various forms.  Not all revelation is dialogic, and need not be.  Nor is there any evidence that the majority of LDS members would reject such old fashioned styles.

I think old-fashioned styles would be mocked for style and detract from the revelation content. So, I think the prophets try to convey their revelation and inspiration publicly in "normal and natural ways." Who knows what they write privately in their journals, and given (as I understand it) these journals are now Church property, there may be some care in how revelatory accounts are recorded.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
6 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Refresh my memory as I’m not sure to what you’re referring?

Your comment showed up as a quote to what I posted. I did not even see it anywhere, except in your quote box. I am with you that, “JustanAustralia” made a comment of “what happened n 2015”, I would also like to be reminded, or told, since I have no idea what he is referring too, that happened in 2015. My recordings of General Conference, do not go back that far, nor do I have a point of reference where to start. Let me know if he responds to your request. 

Thanks for asking him the question. 

Link to post
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I have read many descriptions of the event from numerous men present.  None of them that I recall included any actual words.  Again, not because there wasn't a revelation but because I don't think members in general would believe literal words from God's lips to the prophet occur.  Spiritual revelation sure.  But visions, visitations and "thus saith the Lord" bring out the skepticism in people today.

I'm sure, having they keys they do, that they are inspired as to what and how much to share and say (given their cultural norms).

I think in a practical sense, people will primarily view the prophet's dialogue with God as being similar to their own. After that, they are just rationalizing or imagining for better or worse.

Link to post
3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

No, it is not "a perfect example."  You misunderstand what occurred. The 1978 revelation was never published, and not announced by his prophet.  Only an official declaration about it from the First Presidency.  There is more than one description of what took place in the meeting of the First Pres and Twelve, which was apparently an extraordinary revelatory event, but that was preceded by a personal revelation from God directly to Pres Kimball in the Salt Lake Temple.  None of us are privy to that event.  In other words, we have a series of revelatory events, culminating in a dry official declaration -- which you mistake for the original event.

Francis Gibbons pres Kimballs biographer says that President Kimball wrote it down on May 30 a couple days before the Th meeting on June1.

"Here, appearing through the veil in the upper room of the temple, was the prophet who, almost a hundred years before, had wrestled with a critical problem, plural marriage, which was resolved by revelation, the same way the problem President Kimball faced would be resolved.

The week following this incident, President Kimball again spent several hours alone in the Salt Lake Temple, asking the Lord for guidance. On Tuesday, May 30, 1978, President Kimball read to his counselors a tentative statement he had written in longhand removing all priesthood restrictions from blacks except those restrictions as to worthiness that rest upon all alike. He said that he had a “good, warm feeling” about it. There was a lengthy review of the statements of past leaders about the restrictions on blacks. It was decided that this aspect of the matter should be researched in detail. Elder G. Homer Durham, who was serving as the Church historian, was asked to do this. "

Edited by blueglass
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
3 hours ago, CV75 said:

What revelation have you received that came in the form of actual words from God's lips?

Two times. I have already discussed them both on here. I don't know that I should have done that.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
18 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Francis Gibbons pres Kimballs biographer says that President Kimball wrote it down on May 30 a couple days before the Th meeting on June1.

"Here, appearing through the veil in the upper room of the temple, was the prophet who, almost a hundred years before, had wrestled with a critical problem, plural marriage, which was resolved by revelation, the same way the problem President Kimball faced would be resolved.

Great reference but it confused me a bit.  I didn't recall President Kimball seeing President Woodruff.  That reference says it was LeGrand Richards who saw him.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
3 hours ago, blueglass said:

Francis Gibbons pres Kimballs biographer says that President Kimball wrote it down on May 30 a couple days before the Th meeting on June1.

"Here, appearing through the veil in the upper room of the temple, was the prophet who, almost a hundred years before, had wrestled with a critical problem, plural marriage, which was resolved by revelation, the same way the problem President Kimball faced would be resolved.

The week following this incident, President Kimball again spent several hours alone in the Salt Lake Temple, asking the Lord for guidance. On Tuesday, May 30, 1978, President Kimball read to his counselors a tentative statement he had written in longhand removing all priesthood restrictions from blacks except those restrictions as to worthiness that rest upon all alike. He said that he had a “good, warm feeling” about it. There was a lengthy review of the statements of past leaders about the restrictions on blacks. It was decided that this aspect of the matter should be researched in detail. Elder G. Homer Durham, who was serving as the Church historian, was asked to do this. "

So Pres Kimball wrote something down (which we don't have) about a mid May 1978 appearance to him of the angel of the Lord Wilford Woodruff.  A week later, Pres Kimball sought further guidance from the Lord, and then on May 30, Pres Kimball held a mtg with his counselors in which he presented something he had written in connection with a "good, warm feeling."  Church Historian G. Homer Durham then researched the matter in detail.  Mind you, we have none of this in writing.  Only third party description as hearsay.

Moreover, Pres David O. McKay had already had the matter fully researched decades before due to his similar concerns.  What am I missing here?

Link to post
5 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think old-fashioned styles would be mocked for style and detract from the revelation content. So, I think the prophets try to convey their revelation and inspiration publicly in "normal and natural ways." Who knows what they write privately in their journals, and given (as I understand it) these journals are now Church property, there may be some care in how revelatory accounts are recorded.

I don't agree at all.  Naturally there will always be some mockery, especially from anti-Mormons, but I do not see any hint of that from the general membership.

Link to post
6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

........................

I think the evidence of rejection is evident in the discourse surrounding anything claiming literal God spoken provenance.

I just don't see it.  Perhaps you have some evidence to support your contention.

Link to post
6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I have read many descriptions of the event from numerous men present.  None of them that I recall included any actual words.  Again, not because there wasn't a revelation but because I don't think members in general would believe literal words from God's lips to the prophet occur.  Spiritual revelation sure.  But visions, visitations and "thus saith the Lord" bring out the skepticism in people today.

You are talking about the anti-climactic meeting of the Twelve and First Presidency, which was certainly not the initial revelation, and certainly not an instance of dialogic revelation.  You seem to misunderstand the sequence of revelatory events.

Link to post
29 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I don't agree at all.  Naturally there will always be some mockery, especially from anti-Mormons, but I do not see any hint of that from the general membership.

I'm sure you agree that the prophets try to convey their revelation and inspiration publicly in "normal and natural ways." When I said, "I think old-fashioned styles would be mocked for style and detract from the revelation content," I meant it in [what i consider to be] the normal and natural sense, as in "enough to make a difference to the prophets who share the same social mores," not in a black-or-white  sense that all would be universally mocked.

Link to post
24 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I'm sure you agree that the prophets try to convey their revelation and inspiration publicly in "normal and natural ways." When I said, "I think old-fashioned styles would be mocked for style and detract from the revelation content," I meant it in [what i consider to be] the normal and natural sense, as in "enough to make a difference to the prophets who share the same social mores," not in a black-or-white  sense that all would be universally mocked.

I can't get into the minds of the Brethren, and so cannot make that determination.  All I can do is express my belief that they would not do that.

Link to post
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So Pres Kimball wrote something down (which we don't have) about a mid May 1978 appearance to him of the angel of the Lord Wilford Woodruff. 

No, the appearance was to LeGrand Richards.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

No, the appearance was to LeGrand Richards.

O.K.  So LeGrand Richards convey's his concern to Pres Kimball?

You will recall that Rev Wes Walters, in his personal interview with Apostle Richards, elicited Richards' concern with the pending opening of a Brazilian temple, and that he and others were  worried about how to determine that a heavily mixed African-Brazilian population could be admitted to that temple -- given then applicable LDS rules on race.  Walters then published the interview (which he surreptitiously recorded) for the anti-Mormon market.  Walters was hectored by the Tanners for that dishonest act, and he subsequently removed that published interview from circulation -- as best he could.

Jan Shipps has likewise commented on Richards' concerns along those same lines.  All part of the context of that revelation.

Link to post
11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I can't get into the minds of the Brethren, and so cannot make that determination.  All I can do is express my belief that they would not do that.

I'm sorry, I am not understanding: what is it you believe the Brethren would not do?

Link to post
19 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think old-fashioned styles would be mocked for style and detract from the revelation content. So, I think the prophets try to convey their revelation and inspiration publicly in "normal and natural ways." Who knows what they write privately in their journals, and given (as I understand it) these journals are now Church property, there may be some care in how revelatory accounts are recorded.

True, but the revelations received by the Prophet Joseph Smith, are ridiculed for their style, by using the 16th or 17th Century form of English, as does the 1611 KJV. Not so much in the Church, but certainly the critics, who are obsessed with attacking our Faith. Although, no matter the language, those who are full time critics, and those who are Apostates, will always find fault. They can’t help themselves, as they are left to, “kick against the pricks” (to quote Jesus Christ). 

Link to post
3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I'm sorry, I am not understanding: what is it you believe the Brethren would not do?

Quote

I'm sure you agree that the prophets try to convey their revelation and inspiration publicly in "normal and natural ways." When I said, "I think old-fashioned styles would be mocked for style and detract from the revelation content," I meant it in [what i consider to be] the normal and natural sense, as in "enough to make a difference to the prophets who share the same social mores," not in a black-or-white  sense that all would be universally mocked.

I do not agree.

Edited by Robert F. Smith
Link to post
2 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

True, but the revelations received by the Prophet Joseph Smith, are ridiculed for their style, by using the 16th or 17th Century form of English, as does the 1611 KJV. Not so much in the Church, but certainly the critics, who are obsessed with attacking our Faith. Although, no matter the language, those who are full time critics, and those who are Apostates, will always find fault. They can’t help themselves, as they are left to, “kick against the pricks” (to quote Jesus Christ). 

I agree the Brethren do not use old-fashioned, King James language and style for reasons other than to avoid being mocked. But if they did use it, I'm sure they would be mocked for it.

Link to post
56 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I do not agree.

That is fine with me. When I compare the thought of the Brethren conveying their revelation and inspiration publicly in abnormal and unnatural ways, and then in normal and natural ways, I am inclined to believe they would act more in line with my experience (normal and natural ways) :)

 

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...