Women recieving the priesthood

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

I don't think the initial policy change nor the reversal where actually done via revelation from God, though President Nelson claimed both were done via revelation. I believe both were done by the brethren on their own.

I actually don't see any evidence of revelation in the church at present. There's some inspiration, but no revelation in the sense of how Joseph Smith and the prophets received "thus saith the Lord" revelations from on high.

I'm inclined to agree.  But this discussion has been had on the board in the past and the most intriguing argument was put forward.

If the instructions are from God does it matter what method he chooses to use?
I too recognize the significant difference between "inspiration" and "revelation" but if God uses either one to make his will known what difference does it make?

My only response to that argument is that I feel inspiration is a little more prone to misinterpretation and that inspiration isn't available for the lay member to study as a written revelation would be.
But isn't it God's prerogative to choose whatever method he likes?  Burning bush, angel with a drawn sword, still small voice, Balaam's donkey, dreams, visions etc.
I do think the lack of recorded revelation is significant, but I'm not entirely sure what it means.

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, LDS Watchman said:

I don't think the initial policy change nor the reversal where actually done via revelation from God, though President Nelson claimed both were done via revelation. I believe both were done by the brethren on their own.

I think it was a bit of both.  As I said earlier:

Quote

I think the policy was an effort by the Brethren to address a difficult issue.  They formulated the idea of adapting the Church's longstanding policy pertaining to people from polygamous families to apply to people from same-sex marriage families.  They discussed it, they prayed about it.  They took it to the Lord, who ratified and approved it (somewhat comparable to how the Lord ratified and approved the sixteen stones idea formulated by the Brother of Jared). 

That it lasted three years doesn't really matter.  There are all sorts of revelations that have a limited shelf life.  Consider Matthew 2, where an angel appeared in a dream to Joseph and told him to take Mary and Jesus and flee into Egypt (to escape Herod).  He did.  After a while Herod died, and an angel appeared to Joseph again and told him to return to Israel.  He did.

Personally, I think the policy was fine.  It was the absurd and hyperbolic (and, to an extent, orchestrated) overreaction to the policy that created difficulties.

I think the Lord ratifies all sorts of things the Brethren do in fulfillment of D&C 58:27 ("Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness.").

1 hour ago, LDS Watchman said:

I actually don't see any evidence of revelation in the church at present.

I see a lot of evidence.  

1 hour ago, LDS Watchman said:

There's some inspiration, but no revelation in the sense of how Joseph Smith and the prophets received "thus saith the Lord" revelations from on high.

I think we sometimes misconstrue what "revelation" means, how it functions, how in manifests.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think we sometimes misconstrue what "revelation" means, how it functions, how in manifests.

Undoubtedly. 

I think this goes both ways --- both for claims of not enough, and for claim of too much. 

I think of the title quote from my FAIR paper on prophetic infallibility  https://www.fairmormon.org/archive/publications/well-nigh-as-dangerous

“It is well nigh as dangerous to claim too much for the inspiration of God in the affairs of men as it is to claim too little. By the first men are led into superstition, and into blasphemously accrediting their own imperfect actions, their blunders, and possibly even their sins to God; and by the second they are apt to altogether eliminate the influence of God from human affairs. I pause in doubt as to which extreme would be the worse.” — B. H. Roberts, A Defense of the Faith and the Saints (Provo: Maasai, 2002), p. 346.

Just as it's possible to be too critical or demanding of prophets, it is also possible to be too permissive. For some, it is literally impossible for the Brethren to say or do anything that is not 100% the mind and will of God. In a circular type of logic, by definition anything said or done must be the mind and will of God, or it wouldn't have been said or done. When pressed, these people take umbrage at this, but when asked if they can think of any examples, crickets. 

Unlike Elder Roberts, I think that too much faith in inspiration is better than too little. But, both are "well nigh as dangerous." 

[LDS Watchman]

51 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I'm inclined to agree.  But this discussion has been had on the board in the past and the most intriguing argument was put forward.

If the instructions are from God does it matter what method he chooses to use?
I too recognize the significant difference between "inspiration" and "revelation" but if God uses either one to make his will known what difference does it make?

My only response to that argument is that I feel inspiration is a little more prone to misinterpretation and that inspiration isn't available for the lay member to study as a written revelation would be.
But isn't it God's prerogative to choose whatever method he likes?  Burning bush, angel with a drawn sword, still small voice, Balaam's donkey, dreams, visions etc.
I do think the lack of recorded revelation is significant, but I'm not entirely sure what it means.

 

I get what I you're saying about "inspiration." I actually don't think there's all that much genuine inspiration from the top leadership to be honest. I think for the most part their inspiration comes from them and not from God.

The lack of "thus saith the Lord" type revelations is a really big deal. There literally hasn't been a single one since the late 1800s and the last cannonized "thus saith the Lord" revelation was received by Brigham Young in 1847 in Nebraska before the Saints even got to Utah. This makes it a real stretch to insist that the church has been led by continuing revelation, when there's literally been none that we know of in 130 years or more. 

In regards to the lack of true revelation, on one hand it's certainly a sign that between our leaders and us something is seriously wrong. On the other, the Lord knew it would be this way, and perhaps even intended it to be so. 

I think that 1847 revelation to Brigham (D&C 136) sheds some light on why we haven't had any cannonized revelations since that time. 

Here's the final word to the church in this revelation:

41 Now, therefore, hearken, O ye people of my church; and ye elders listen together; you have received my kingdom.
42 Be diligent in keeping all my commandments, lest judgments come upon you, and your faith fail you, and your enemies triumph over you. So no more at present. Amen and Amen.

The Saints were told that they had received the kingdom and were commanded to be dilligent in keeping the commandments all of the Lord's commands. If we were not collectively dillengent in keeping ALL of the Lord's commandments, then judgments would come upon us, our faith would fail, and our enemies would triump over us. 

The final word from the Lord was, "No more at present. Amen and Amen."

By this I believe the Lord meant that there would be no more "thus saith the Lord revelations to the church for a long time. The saints were to be tested to see if they would stay true and faithful to the commandments and truths they had been given until the Lord again spoke from heaven. 

Compare that to what it says in Hosea 3:

3 And I (the Lord) said unto her (the restored church), Thou shalt abide for me many days; thou shalt not play the harlot, and thou shalt not be for another man: so will I also be for thee.
4 For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim:

The meaning here is the same. The church was to remain faithful in spite of not having revelation. 

The problem is that we haven't remained faithful. We've changed most of the ordinances. We have made many compromises with the world. We have abandoned or changed multiple doctrines and teachings from how they were originally given. Using the marriage motif from Hosea, we (the wife/church) have played the harlot and have been for other men besides the Lord our husband. And so the judgements of the Lord warned about at the end of D&C 136 will be coming upon us. 

Many, many scriptures document that this is sadly the case. 

[LDS Watchman]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I see a lot of evidence [of the brethren receiving revelation from God].

 

Can you please provide some examples. 

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, LDS Watchman said:

Can you please provide some examples. 

Revelation or inspiration - not sure which but I don't think it's a coincidence at all that President Nelson shifted the Church to a homebased ministry right BEFORE Covid hit and lockdowns happened all over the world.

Shorter meetings, more home gospel study, less formal home/visiting teaching.
I don't know that it was revelation but I absolutely see inspiration in preparing the membership for the social distance, lockdown, etc nightmare that followed soon after.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I too recognize the significant difference between "inspiration" and "revelation" but if God uses either one to make his will known what difference does it make?

Could you clarify this "significant difference between 'inspiration' and 'revelation?'"  I'm not sure I understand wha tyou are saying here.

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

But isn't it God's prerogative to choose whatever method he likes?  Burning bush, angel with a drawn sword, still small voice, Balaam's donkey, dreams, visions etc.

I think so.

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I do think the lack of recorded revelation is significant,

What do you mean by "lack of recorded revelation?"  

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

but I'm not entirely sure what it means.

Might this be more about our expectations about revelation, rather than revelation itself?

"I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and built the earth, my very handiwork; and all things therein are mine.  And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine.  But it must needs be done in mine own way..."  (D&C 104:14-16.)

There are all sorts of scriptural references to the Lord's "due time."  I am not sure that regularly-scheduled canonized revelations are an integral part of the overall plan.  

If we are lacking in revelation, we are better off examining for ourselves individually what we are doing (and not doing).

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Could you clarify this "significant difference between 'inspiration' and 'revelation?'"  I'm not sure I understand wha tyou are saying here.

Inspiration is when you feel you know the Lord's will by the spirit.  IE I took it to the Lord and received a confirmation of the Spirit.

Revelation is when God actually tells you with a method that you can record.  IE I took it to the Lord and he said "Behold, I am God; give heed unto my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow; therefore give heed unto my words."

I'd love more words to give heed to.

Quote

What do you mean by "lack of recorded revelation?"  

I mean a written record of a revelation that I can study, highlight, cross reference, and give heed to.
For examples from our dispensation see D&C 1-138.  (I think there are quite a few other recorded revelations I accept and study but they aren't "official").

What we get now are reports of revelation but nothing to study.  So probably really inspiration.

[JustAnAustralian]

3 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

I actually don't see any evidence of revelation in the church at present

What exactly do you think revelation looks like?

[Rain]

33 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Inspiration is when you feel you know the Lord's will by the spirit.  IE I took it to the Lord and received a confirmation of the Spirit.

Revelation is when God actually tells you with a method that you can record.  IE I took it to the Lord and he said "Behold, I am God; give heed unto my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow; therefore give heed unto my words."

I'd love more words to give heed to.

I mean a written record of a revelation that I can study, highlight, cross reference, and give heed to.
For examples from our dispensation see D&C 1-138.  (I think there are quite a few other recorded revelations I accept and study but they aren't "official").

What we get now are reports of revelation but nothing to study.  So probably really inspiration.

So you mean words right?  Not just feelings? 

Does It matter about length? 

[Stargazer]

On 1/26/2021 at 7:52 PM, rongo said:

Also, if the policy was a revelation, as then-Elder Nelson was at great pains to portray it as, then it shouldn't have been reversed and abandoned after only three years, regardless of member unwillingness to accept it. 

I am quite frankly surprised at this declaration of yours. As to "only three years", have you found some canonical standard in the scriptures that gives a minimum figure for how long a revelation needs to be in force before it qualifies for revocation? And the key is in the first quoted scripture below: "I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good".  After three years, after three months, after three seconds.

Perhaps we need to review some scriptures on the topic:

Doctrine and Covenants 56:4-6
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/56.4,5,6?lang=eng&clang=eng#p4,5,6
4 Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord.

Doctrine and Covenants 58:32
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/58.32?lang=eng&clang=eng#p32
32 I command and men obey not; I revoke and they receive not the blessing.

Doctrine and Covenants 75:6
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/75.6?lang=eng&clang=eng#p6
6 Therefore, verily I say unto my servant William E. McLellin, I revoke the commission which I gave unto him to go unto the eastern countries;

Doctrine and Covenants 19:5
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/19.5?lang=eng&clang=eng#p5
5 Wherefore, I revoke not the judgments which I shall pass, but woes shall go forth, weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, yea, to those who are found on my cleft hand.

Doctrine and Covenants 61:19
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/61.19?lang=eng&clang=eng#p19
19 I, the Lord, have decreed, and the destroyer rideth upon the face thereof, and I revoke not the decree.

 

[Stargazer]

13 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

What exactly do you think revelation looks like?

I think he thinks revelation needs to him hit on the head, like that apple did with Isaac Newton.

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

I actually don't see any evidence of revelation in the church at present. There's some inspiration, but no revelation in the sense of how Joseph Smith and the prophets received "thus saith the Lord" revelations from on high.

I see plenty of evidence. 

What exactly are you looking for? New additions to the Doctrine and Covenants?  And how frequently must they come to satisfy? The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of LDS used to do that. Now they're the Community of Christ and have abandoned all revelation apparently.

What do you think revelation looks like, come to think of it?  Heavenly visions only? Voices thundering out of the sky?  

Elijah got some pretty powerful visions, but there was something else...

1 Kings 19:9-12 - 9 And he came thither unto a cave, and lodged there; and, behold, the word of the Lord came to him, and he said unto him, What doest thou here, Elijah?
10 And he said, I have been very jealous for the Lord God of hosts: for the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away.
11 And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord. And, behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake:
12 And after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.

What is revelation? I can tell you I have had a number of personal revelations over the past five years, and none of them were visions, or booming voices. They were all a still, small voice.  Real words, but succinctly and quietly spoken to my mind. If a pipsqueak in the Church such as I gets such, then I trust that the Lord leads his leaders with far more than I get.

If you won't recognize a revelation unless it be something significant, wrapped up in potent wrappings, then I have to tell you that the most likely source for such is the Adversary. No doubt someone will be more than willing to provide, if there's a ready consumer.

Edited February 2, 2021 by Stargazer

[JLHPROF]

31 minutes ago, Rain said:

So you mean words right?  Not just feelings? 

Does It matter about length? 

Why would it?

[Rain]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Why would it?

It wouldn't matter to me. I was just thinking if you wanted to "study" it then it might.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Inspiration is when you feel you know the Lord's will by the spirit.  IE I took it to the Lord and received a confirmation of the Spirit.

Revelation is when God actually tells you with a method that you can record.  IE I took it to the Lord and he said "Behold, I am God; give heed unto my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow; therefore give heed unto my words."

I once made a decision about something and took it to the Lord. I started to tell him what I had decided, and suddenly I couldn't make the words come out, and I couldn't even think what the words were. I knelt there for another five seconds trying to get it out, and then I recognized the answer: a stupor of thought. The answer was wordless, but even I could hear the word loud and clear: NO. I wrote it down in my journal, but I didn't need to. It was something to remember, all right. And unexpected, since I had fully expected the Lord to go along with my plan.

Granted, I've gotten actual answers with words, too, but nestled among them have been feelings of peace and burnings in the bosom.  All of them were revelations. Even the wordless ones.

Quote

I'd love more words to give heed to.

While I'd love more, too, I actually think we have more than enough already.  138 sections crammed with doctrines and covenants as well (not to mention those you've entered into in the templel), and you need more?  Greedy you are.

And maybe the revelation you should be seeking is the revelation that you receive, not what President Nelson receives. 

The first issue of the new church magazine, The Liahona, was about personal revelation. Do you not think that this underscores the importance of seeking for personal revelation? There is actually a degree of revelation in the choice of names they made for the magazine. 

Quote

I mean a written record of a revelation that I can study, highlight, cross reference, and give heed to.
For examples from our dispensation see D&C 1-138.  (I think there are quite a few other recorded revelations I accept and study but they aren't "official").

What we get now are reports of revelation but nothing to study.  So probably really inspiration.

I think your standard is too high and too worldly.

What did Christ say to those who demanded a sign?

Are you with @LDS Watchman, and desire a weekly, monthly, quarterly or annual "official" revelation before you'll accept that the Church is being guided by continuing revelation?  

 

Edited February 2, 2021 by Stargazer

[Hamba Tuhan]

18 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

And maybe the revelation you should be seeking is the revelation that you receive, not what President Nelson receives. 

Bingo. As the endowment so clearly teaches, hearkening to prophets brings us into personal contact with the Lord so that the revelation becomes personal.

I know from my own life that revelation, however defined (and I've experienced almost every form described in scripture), is currently being poured out upon the Saints. And I refuse to accept that the Lord is stingy with his authorised oracles when He has been so liberal with me.

I've long suspected that those most likely to look at the prophets and not see revelation are those who likewise don't see it in their own lives.

Edited February 2, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[LDS Watchman]

55 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

What exactly do you think revelation looks like?

Like the revelations in the D&C or all throughout the rest of scripture where God speaks to a prophet by his own mouth and that prophet then quotes exactly what the Lord says.

I'm not saying we have to have one of these types of revelations every week, month, or even every year. But it would be nice to have an actual thus saith the Lord revelation even one single time since the 1880s, let alone one that was eventually canonized and considered scripture, which we haven't had since before the Saints got to Utah.

All we've had is the president of the church announcing that he felt inspired to change something or simply changing something and expecting the members to just assume that God must have inspired him. That's not even kind of the same thing as the revelations in the scriptures.

[teddyaware]

4 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

Like the revelations in the D&C or all throughout the rest of scripture where God speaks to a prophet by his own mouth and that prophet then quotes exactly what the Lord says.

I'm not saying we have to have one of these types of revelations every week, month, or even every year. But it would be nice to have an actual thus saith the Lord revelation even one single time since the 1880s, let alone one that was eventually canonized and considered scripture, which we haven't had since before the Saints got to Utah.

All we've had is the president of the church announcing that he felt inspired to change something or simply changing something and expecting the members to just assume that God must have inspired him. That's not even kind of the same thing as the revelations in the scriptures.

Any member of the Church who actually possesses the Spirit of revelation clearly realizes that the Church is awash in revelation and true divine guidance from the God of Heaven. And just in case you missed it, the President of the Church recently testified to the Church that the time has come for each of us to learn how to personally receive the revelation from God that’s essential for our own temporal and spiritual salvation. In other words, the time has come for each follower of Christ to become  prophets of God in their own right, within their own stewardships, responsibilities and spheres of influence. Yes, President Russell has solemnly warned each of us that we must personally receive the critically important personal revelations needed to enable us to safely navigate through the treacherous dangers we will all encounter in these days of tribulation leading up to the Second Coming of Christ. But I must say that since you already know more about the current state of the Church and it’s leadership than do the General Authorities, it should be no problem at all for you to receive all the revelations you’ll ever need. 

[LDS Watchman]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

What exactly are you looking for? New additions to the Doctrine and Covenants? 

Yeah, or at least revelations that are received in a similar manner as the ones in the D&C and the rest of the scriptures, where the Lord speaks to his prophet and then that prophet quotes the words the Lord told him to say, so that it is clear that the words came from the Lord and not from the prophet's own mind or heart.

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

And how frequently must they come to satisfy?

I don't know. More than ZERO in over 130 years (or 160 it we use the last cannonized revelation in the Lord's own voice). 

At least one from each prophet would be nice, that we know that God is actually speaking to them and know what he is saying. Maybe that's asking too much, but certainly more than ZERO since before the manifesto is not an unreasonable expectation. 

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of LDS used to do that. Now they're the Community of Christ and have abandoned all revelation apparently.

Are you seriously trying to say that it would be bad thing for our prophets to add revelations to the D&C? 

You're seriously suggesting that it would be bad for our prophets to receive actual thus saith the Lord revelations and then add these revelations from God to our scriptures, because if they did we would end up like the RLDS, whose false prophets added false revelations to their false church's scriptures?

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

What do you think revelation looks like, come to think of it?  Heavenly visions only? Voices thundering out of the sky?  

I think it's not unreasonable to expect that these things would occur occasionally in 160 years, but I don't expect this all the time. Just God actually speaking to his prophets and the prophets then quoting exactly what he said, like the revelations in the D&C and throughout the rest of scripture, would do just fine.

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

11 And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord. And, behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake:
12 And after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.

I know you think you got me here, but believe it or not this is exactly what I'm looking for; the Lord ACTUALLY SPEAKING to his prophets in the still small voice and those prophets then quoting what he said to the people. This is how nearly all of the revelations in the D&C were received, by the still small voice. 

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

I can tell you I have had a number of personal revelations over the past five years, and none of them were visions, or booming voices. They were all a still, small voice.  Real words, but succinctly and quietly spoken to my mind. If a pipsqueak in the Church such as I gets such, then I trust that the Lord leads his leaders with far more than I get.

You shouldn't have to just trust that the Lord leads his leaders by actually speaking to them. If he really is speaking to them, they should be quoting his words and publishing them, like the prophets before them have all done.

[LDS Watchman]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

Any member of the Church who actually possesses the Spirit of revelation clearly realizes that the Church is awash in revelation and true divine guidance from the God of Heaven. And just in case you missed it, the President of the Church recently testified to the Church that the time has come for each of us to learn how to personally receive the revelation from God that’s essential for our own temporal and spiritual salvation. In other words, the time has come for each follower of Christ to become  prophets of God in their own right, within their own stewardships, responsibilities and spheres of influence. Yes, President Russell has solemnly warned each of us that we must personally receive the critically important personal revelations needed to enable us to safely navigate through the treacherous dangers we will all encounter in these days of tribulation leading up to the Second Coming of Christ.

You just described what the typical member of the church believes. I'm sure it's comforting to look at things this way, but it doesn't change the fact that we haven't had a revelation in God's own words in over 160 years in the church. Not a single one. The brethren don't EVER quote the Lord's own words as delivered to them. You really don't see a problem here?

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

But I must say that since you already know more about the current state of the Church and it’s leadership than do the General Authorities, it should be no problem at all for you to receive all the revelations you’ll ever need. 

Was this dig really necessary?

It's in poor taste to mock me for searching the scriptures and seeking answers from heaven about the current state of the church I have been faithful to all my life. I have discovered troubling things about the current state of the church which I cannot unsee and God has plainly manifested to me that something is seriously wrong. What would you have me do, put my head in hole and pretend all is well? I have tried to do that in the past and it was offensive to God. 

I know I'm being a thorn in the side of those of you who believe all is well, so I guess I can understand the backlash. 

Edited February 2, 2021 by LDS Watchman

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, LDS Watchman said:

... where the Lord speaks to his prophet and then that prophet quotes the words the Lord told him to say, so that it is clear that the words came from the Lord and not from the prophet's own mind or heart. [emphasis added]

Is this actually the mechanism you rely on to determine the source of a revelation?

1 hour ago, LDS Watchman said:

... it doesn't change the fact that we haven't had a revelation in God's o[w]n words in over 160 years in the church. Not a single one.

I'm assuming this is an exclusive we. Cos I have!

[LDS Watchman]

29 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Is this actually the mechanism you rely on to determine the source of a revelation?

The problem is that with our current set up we never know for sure if what the prophet says comes from God or from him. It's left ambiguous and the members are left to determine for themselves whether what was said or done is from God or not. Most just assume everything the current prophet says or does comes from God. But then as soon as a the current prophet says or does something contrary to what the past prophet said or did, then the default position is that that either it was "continuing revelation" and that God said one thing before but then said something different later or that the previous prophet messed up and the Lord let it go and let the members believe that what the previous prophet said or did was from him, when it really wasn't. 

29 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm assuming this is an exclusive we. Cos I have!

I wasn't referring to personal revelation. I think most of us can attest that personal revelation has always existed in the church (and outside the church I might add). I was referring to revelation from God through the prophet to the entire church, in which the Lord's own words are quoted. We haven't had even a single one since before the manifesto. You really don't see a problem with that, especially considering all the changes that have happened since the last know thus saith the Lord revelation?

It would be one thing if we had periodic thus saith the Lord revelations and other times it was just inspiration. But seriously not a single verifiable thus saith the Lord revelation in at least 130 years. That boggles the mind for a church that claims to be the only true church led by continuing revelation from God to the living prophet. BTW the church today rejects the last few thus saith the Lord revelations because these revelations say that plural marriage would never be revoked, but I digress. 

Edited February 2, 2021 by LDS Watchman

[LDS Watchman]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Revelation or inspiration - not sure which but I don't think it's a coincidence at all that President Nelson shifted the Church to a homebased ministry right BEFORE Covid hit and lockdowns happened all over the world.

Shorter meetings, more home gospel study, less formal home/visiting teaching.
I don't know that it was revelation but I absolutely see inspiration in preparing the membership for the social distance, lockdown, etc nightmare that followed soon after.

I meant to reply to this comment earlier.

I actually don't see the reduced Sunday Meetings, the Come Follow Me manual, and the switch to ministering as having prepared us one bit for the Covid shut downs. How did this prepare us?

We were always supposed to be studying the gospel as a family. We've always had the scriptures and manuals similar to the Come Follow Me Manual. I'm actually not really impressed with the Come Follow Me manuals. I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but I look at the switch from 3 hours of church to 2 as a bad thing actually. I gained great strength from the 3 hours of church throughout my life. I actually really miss it. In my opinion the switch to ministering has been disastrous compared to home teaching.

Serious question, since you see these changes as a good thing how did you think they prepared us for the lock downs? Would members have been unable to learn about the gospel in their homes without the Come Follow Me manual? Would home teachers and visiting teachers have been unable to text their families to check in instead of visiting them in person? 

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, LDS Watchman said:

The problem is that with our current set up we never know for sure if what the prophet says comes from God or from him. It's left ambiguous and the members are left to determine for themselves whether what was said or done is from God or not.

But writing words down doesn't alter that situation in any way. After all, plenty of people have written down 'revelations' that were not from God! We're still left with the need to determine if those words are God's or not, no? And I struggle to believe that you would just accept things you dislike if they had been presented differently.

Personally, my sure knowledge doesn't depend on whether words are quoted for me or not. One of my favourite things is when the Spirit has been teaching me something personally, and then one of the apostles teaches that very thing in General Conference! It would be silly for me to reject his teachings in such a situation just because he didn't utter, 'Thus sayeth the Lord', at some point, no? If I already know who has been tutoring me, then I likewise know who has been tutoring him.

Edited February 2, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan