Rain Posted February 2, 2021 Posted February 2, 2021 2 hours ago, LDS Watchman said: 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. 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. 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? 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. Is it possible God has been speaking to them and they have told us what He said, but they paraphrased rather than quoted it? Does it have to be quoted for you to consider it revelation? 2 hours ago, LDS Watchman said: 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. 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.
Bernard Gui Posted February 2, 2021 Posted February 2, 2021 (edited) On 1/26/2021 at 6:58 AM, AtlanticMike said: So I've studied more about church history in the past 6 weeks, then my entire life. I'm, shocked at the changes, but in a good way. I never knew a woman had never prayed at a general conference till 2013 and tell you the truth, I cant believe how naive I've been. Also, I've researched the Community of Christ and it seems to me we're usually 30 or so years behind them when it comes to fundamental changes in either our policies or doctrine. In their version of Mormonism, women received the priesthood in 1998. Personally, I believe in the next 30 years women will receive the priesthood in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Any thoughts? I don’t think this will happen. Fundamentals of our doctrine would have to be radically changed. For example, the essential Father/Son relationship in the Godhead, the right of the Firstborn, the fore-ordination of men to the Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God as described in Alma 13, the 1909 Declaration of the First Presidency “The Origin of Man,” and the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles’ 1916 Declaration “The Father and the Son.” Edited February 2, 2021 by Bernard Gui 2
Bernard Gui Posted February 2, 2021 Posted February 2, 2021 (edited) duplicate Edited February 2, 2021 by Bernard Gui
LDS Watchman Posted February 2, 2021 Posted February 2, 2021 10 minutes ago, Rain said: Is it possible God has been speaking to them and they have told us what He said, but they paraphrased rather than quoted it? Yes of course this is possible, but it isn't in accordance with the pattern of how prophets have communicated the word of the Lord spoken directly to them to the people. All throughout the scriptures from Genesis to the end of the D&C we have God's actual words as quoted by the prophets who received them. In those same scripture we also have inspired teachings by the prophets without quoting the actual words of the Lord. So both ways are acceptable. However, neither is how it is done in the church today. We NEVER have the actual words of the Lord quoted to us. And while we are expected to believe that whatever our current church President says and does is straight from God, we don't consider the words of past church presidents to be scripture and the word of God. Here's an interesting fact for you. Several years ago Boyd K Packer gave a talk in conference in which he referred to the the Family Proclamation as a revelation. Then when the printed version of his talk came out his words were changed from the proclamation being a "revelation" to being "inspired counsel." Why was that changed? It's because it wasn't a revelation. There hasn't been any revelation in the scriptura sense from our prophets since before the manifesto. 26 minutes ago, Rain said: Does it have to be quoted for you to consider it revelation? I think for it to be considered an actual revelation from God it needs to be in God's own words. At the very least the prophet could make it clear that God had spoken to him and then relay in his (the prophet's) own words the essence of what God or an angel had told him. Or perhaps what he had seen in a dream or vision. None of this EVER happens, however. Again, I don't expect this sort of thing constantly, but is every once in a while in over 100 years asking, too much, especially since we are told that our church President is a true prophet, seer, and revelator like the ones in the scriptures?
LDS Watchman Posted February 2, 2021 Posted February 2, 2021 37 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: But writing words down doesn't alter that situation in any way. Sure it does. If it's written down we can compare it to the rest of the scriptures to see if it is consistent with the previously revealed word of God. We also know with absolute certainty that the prophet is claiming to speak for God in that instance and not from himself. If the revelation turns out to be false then we know the man who received it is actually a false prophet. And if it turns out to be true, then we know he's a true prophet. That's how we have been told to judge prophets, by their fruits. Prophecy, revelation, and seership are the expected fruits of prophets, seers, and revelators. If they don't produce these things we have no fruit to judge them by. Nice inspiring talks and counsel don't constitute the fruits of true prophets, seers, and revelators in the fullest sense.
AtlanticMike Posted February 2, 2021 Author Posted February 2, 2021 6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: I don’t think this will happen. Fundamentals of our doctrine would have to be radically changed. For example, the essential Father/Son relationship in the Godhead, the right of the Firstborn, the fore-ordination of men to the Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God as described in Alma 13, the 1909 Declaration of the First Presidency “The Origin of Man,” and the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles’ 1916 Declaration “The Father and the Son.” I understand why you feel this way. But i believe our church is built for a revelation that would include women holding priesthood. How many other Christian churches actually believe in a Heavenly mother, a Goddess. I'm not basing my opinion on the past or even established doctrine, I'm basing it on the fact we believe in continuing revelation. To me, this is the exact reason we have a prophet, to bring about change that might be hard for most members to accept, not policy change after policy change after policy change.
Calm Posted February 2, 2021 Posted February 2, 2021 54 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said: How many other Christian churches actually believe in a Heavenly mother, a Goddess What is the current view of the CoC on Heavenly Mother? Also of the relationship between mankind and God? Do they see the unbridgeable gap between creature and creator as so many mainstream Christian faiths do or are humans actually of God’s family?
smac97 Posted February 2, 2021 Posted February 2, 2021 14 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Quote 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." Is this, in your view, a difference of kind? Or degree? Also, how did you arrive at this distinction? 14 hours ago, JLHPROF said: I'd love more words to give heed to. Oh, so would I. I would particularly like to have further revelatory guidance on topics about which substantial disagreement exists in the Church. A revelation about same-sex marriage, for example. And also revelation regarding women and the priesthood. On which topics would you like further revelation? In the main, however, I feel like there is plenty that we can work on in the here and now. I am concerned that there is more that we as individuals can do with what we have already received. I am reminded of D&C 60: Quote 1 Behold, thus saith the Lord unto the elders of his church, who are to return speedily to the land from whence they came: Behold, it pleaseth me, that you have come up hither; 2 But with some I am not well pleased, for they will not open their mouths, but they hide the talent which I have given unto them, because of the fear of man. Wo unto such, for mine anger is kindled against them. 3 And it shall come to pass, if they are not more faithful unto me, it shall be taken away, even that which they have. In an era when so many of us have free time, what percentage of that time are we using to study the scriptures, share the Gospel, perform family history work, exercise our bodies, enjoy nature, build on our talents, attend the temple, and serve our fellow man? Are we spending too much time on YouTube, Netflix, gaming, social media, etc.? "Time is the school in which we learn, / Time is the fire in which we burn." - Delmore Schwartz "For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors." - Alma 34:32 14 hours ago, JLHPROF said: 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. So for you "revelation" = "canonized scripture?" The voluminous talks from General Authorities we receive every six months are not "revelation that {you} can study, highlight, cross reference, and give heed to?" 14 hours ago, JLHPROF said: 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 are your thoughts about OD-2? What are your thoughts about The Family: A Proclamation to the World? What are your thoughts about The Living Christ: The Testimony of the Apostles? 14 hours ago, JLHPROF said: What we get now are reports of revelation but nothing to study. So probably really inspiration. I'm not sure I can go along with the inspiration-as-distinct-from-revelation thing. Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted February 2, 2021 Posted February 2, 2021 (edited) 23 hours ago, LDS Watchman said: Quote I see a lot of evidence [of the brethren receiving revelation from God]. Can you please provide some examples. A few come to mind: 1. Personal confirmation through study and prayer. 2. Statements from persons whom I trust. 3. The quality and content of the General Conference addresses, and experiences I have had in listening to and applying their counsel. 4. The transition to a "home-centered, Church-supported integrated curriculum" (particularly prior to COVID). 5. The Family: A Proclamation to the World. 6. The addition of the Fourth Mission of the Church. 7. Improved treatment of gays and lesbians. 8. Improved and restructured narrative of the foundational elements of the Church. 9. Increased candor about the Church's history and controversies. 10. Ongoing moral and ethical guidance that is sound and clear and scriptural and reasoned. 11. Continued emphasis on the Book of Mormon and the Restoration. And more. The thoughts just keep coming. Thanks, -Smac Edited February 2, 2021 by smac97 2
Popular Post smac97 Posted February 2, 2021 Popular Post Posted February 2, 2021 16 hours ago, rongo said: Quote 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. "Not enough" and "too much" pertaining to the Roberts quote below (as to the quantity of "the inspiration of God in the affairs of men"), correct? 16 hours ago, rongo said: 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. I suppose. If by "too permissive" you are referring to notions (express or implied) of infallibility. I think the Lord gives His servants a lot of responsibility and a lot of leeway to do their best and act according to the light and knowledge that they have received. "For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things" and all that (D&C 58:26). I've commented on this previously here: Quote We do not unthinkingly accept just any statement {from the Brethren}. We are supposed to analyze and evluation and determine for ourselfs the inspiration of our leaders. I think we should operate from a position of faith. I also think we should give the Brethren the benefit of the doubt. That is, I think we should generally "decide that you will believe someone, even though you are not sure that what the person is saying is true." I think such a presumption would a healthy thing. I also think such a presumption would be subsequently vindicated almost all of the time. ... So my rule of thumb is to give a presumption of good faith to the Brethren. To give them the benefit of the doubt. To assume that what they are saying is in accordance with the Standard Works, and with the Spirit. Again, I think such a presumption would be subsequently vindicated almost all of the time. However, although I give the Brethren the benefit of the doubt, this is - in legal vernacular - a rebuttable presumption. That is, I leave open the possibility that a leader in the Church may, in the words of President Smith above, issue remarks which "do not square with the revelations." That he may say "something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works." That he may say "something that contradicts what is found in the standard works." We must leave that possibility open, because our leaders have told us that it is a possibility. So if a leader in the Church says something that I feel may be problematic, I feel obligated to test it. To think about it. To study it. To discuss it with those whom I find trustworthy. To weight it against the Standard Works. And most of all, to pray about it. I have had a few times where this presumption has been well and truly rebutted. I had a particular experience on my mission. And a few since. 16 hours ago, rongo said: 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. I think the Priesthood Ban, and subsequent explanations/justifications of it, are good examples. Amasa Lyman. Some of the excesses of Brigham Young (in his rhetoric). Again, the experience I had on my mission. In the main, I think members of the Church are not keen to obsess over and dwell on the failures of the leaders of the Church, particularly "when pressed" to do so. I think doing so, in regular and emphatic and public ways, runs the risk of us falling into faultfinding. I've previously commented on this here: Quote I think we need to stop speaking evil of the Lord's anointed, both past and present. We can and should address disagreements in the Church, but in the right time, and place, and manner. I think we need to remind ourselves of Mormon 9:31. Often. "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been." For the love of pete, we need to cut the early members of the Church some slack. A lot of slack, actually. It's not like the Lord gave them books entitled "How to Establish the Kingdom of God in Ten Easy Steps," or "Apostleship for Dummies," or "Everything You Want to Know About Revelation (But Are Afraid to Ask)." The early leaders of the Church were functioning in their leadership capacities with little or no "institutional knowledge" regarding the ins and outs of church governance. So when Brigham Young became an apostle, and then the Presiding High Priest, he had very little in the way of training from more experienced general authorities to teach him how to run the LDS Church. And he had very little in the way of formal education (which, in the 19th century, would have been fairly limited anyway). The same goes for his predecessor, Joseph Smith, his contemporaries, and his successors. And the Church was in tremendous turmoil and under much hardship for many years (persecutions in Nauvoo, the initial trek west, the ongoing flow of immigrants in the ensuing years, the settlement of the west, the creation of towns, the feeding and provisioning of thousands of newly-minted and -arrived church members, international missionary work, building the Salt Lake Temple, Johnston's Army, Mountain Meadows, polygamy, and on and on and on). I am deeply impressed at the accomplishments of the early leaders of the Church. Their experiences, their successes, and their failures, have been helpful to the subsequent generations of leaders and members of the Church. One of the benefits which are now accruing to today's leaders is the ability to look back and see what was done by past leaders, including perhaps some occasional tendency to publicly conflate personal opinion with scriptural/revelatory precepts. I think today's leaders are much better about differentiating between the two, and focusing on the latter to the exclusion of the former when making public, formal remarks in their capacities as General Authorities. These men and women had to deal with many more life-and-death issues, moral conundrums, matters of civil governance, and so on, than we do. It's easy for us to sit in front of our computers and presume to dole out judgments against people we've never met, who faced situations we've never seen, and dealt with challenges we've never endured. "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (3 Nephi 14:2) If a person really wants an acknowledgment of fallibiltiy, I think then-Pres. Uchtdorf's 2013 comments are both circumspect and sufficiently candid: Quote Sometimes there is a difference of opinion as to what the “facts” really mean. A question that creates doubt in some can, after careful investigation, build faith in others. And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine. I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us—His imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes. In the title page of the Book of Mormon we read, “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.” This is the way it has always been and will be until the perfect day when Christ Himself reigns personally upon the earth. In our current "Cancel Culture" era, I think we may need to re-visit our expectations a bit. 16 hours ago, rongo said: Unlike Elder Roberts, I think that too much faith in inspiration is better than too little. But, both are "well nigh as dangerous." I really like this FAIR article by McKay Jones that touches on this topic: “Well Nigh as Dangerous”: Latter-day Prophecy and Revelation; Infallibility and Blind Obedience Thanks, -Smac 5
Bernard Gui Posted February 2, 2021 Posted February 2, 2021 (edited) 7 hours ago, AtlanticMike said: I understand why you feel this way. But i believe our church is built for a revelation that would include women holding priesthood. How many other Christian churches actually believe in a Heavenly mother, a Goddess. I'm not basing my opinion on the past or even established doctrine, I'm basing it on the fact we believe in continuing revelation. To me, this is the exact reason we have a prophet, to bring about change that might be hard for most members to accept, not policy change after policy change after policy change. If this is the case, then anything and everything can be changed. The two First Presidency Declarations would have to be rewritten. Can you address the specific citations I provided? They are doctrine, not policies. For example, the Father/Son relationship and the fore-ordination of men to the Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God? Can this doctrine be changed without undermining the gospel? Edited February 2, 2021 by Bernard Gui 2
rongo Posted February 2, 2021 Posted February 2, 2021 2 hours ago, smac97 said: I really like this FAIR article by McKay Jones that touches on this topic: “Well Nigh as Dangerous”: Latter-day Prophecy and Revelation; Infallibility and Blind Obedience I'm kind of partial to it, myself (cough, cough). 3
JLHPROF Posted February 2, 2021 Posted February 2, 2021 3 hours ago, smac97 said: So for you "revelation" = "canonized scripture?" The voluminous talks from General Authorities we receive every six months are not "revelation that {you} can study, highlight, cross reference, and give heed to?" Well we're frequently told that these do no represent official Church doctrine. That perhaps they are only the speaker's opinion. But of course I read and study those too. But if they don't even rise to the level of doctrine I'd hardly call them revelation. Doctrine, like God, is constant and unchanging. Church policies and procedures may change over time, but doctrine does not. - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/inspiration/latter-day-saints-channel/watch/series/now-you-know/what-is-doctrine-now-you-know?lang=eng At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader past or present necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well considered, opinion not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. -https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2012/04/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng Quote What are your thoughts about OD-2? What are your thoughts about The Family: A Proclamation to the World? What are your thoughts about The Living Christ: The Testimony of the Apostles? These come closer to revelation. They are inspired words or an inspired account of an event. We are still left to determine what God actually said on each matter, but we know what the Apostles think he meant.
JLHPROF Posted February 2, 2021 Posted February 2, 2021 3 hours ago, smac97 said: That's really funny. 1
MiserereNobis Posted February 2, 2021 Posted February 2, 2021 6 hours ago, AtlanticMike said: How many other Christian churches actually believe in a Heavenly mother, a Goddess. The Blessed Virgin Mary comes awfully close I like the (semi-) joke: why ask God to do something when you can ask His Mother to ask Him to do it? Who is He going to listen to more? 😁 2
Ahab Posted February 2, 2021 Posted February 2, 2021 3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Well we're frequently told that these do no represent official Church doctrine. That perhaps they are only the speaker's opinion. But of course I read and study those too. But if they don't even rise to the level of doctrine I'd hardly call them revelation. Doctrine, like God, is constant and unchanging. Church policies and procedures may change over time, but doctrine does not. - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/inspiration/latter-day-saints-channel/watch/series/now-you-know/what-is-doctrine-now-you-know?lang=eng At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader past or present necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well considered, opinion not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. -https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2012/04/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng These come closer to revelation. They are inspired words or an inspired account of an event. We are still left to determine what God actually said on each matter, but we know what the Apostles think he meant. I receive/take in whatever you say as your own opinion/perspective and I receive/take in whatever anyone else says as their own opinion/perspective, too. And I don't ever assume anyone is speaking for anyone else without knowing first that they are an authorized representative of the person they are speaking for, as an authorized messenger of that other person. This perspective helps me to cut through a lot of problems as I sort through who I should choose to believe, and why I might choose to believe what someone is saying, as I trust in God/our Father to help me to know what is true. With this perspective I can also see that there is no person on this planet who speaks for the entire Church of Jesus Christ, given the fact that all of the members do not have the same opinions/perspectives. There is not even a way it would be possible for one person to speak for everybody while everyone has a different opinion/perspective. Some members of the Church believe the President of the Church speaks for every other member of the Church but some other members do not agree with them or him and they will state that they do not agree with him, which shows the President is not speaking for all of the members. He could say something is Church doctrine, or simply teach something as doctrine, and some members would still not agree with him. So what is it that makes anyone think anyone in the Church is teaching Church doctrine or that some teachings are not official Church doctrines? And what difference would it make anyway whether or not some teaching is official Church doctrine? All we need to know is whatever God wants us to know and when God wants us to know something he will tell us, personally, and we will know what God has told us. Otherwise whatever we hear/receive/take in from anyone else is simply that other person's opinion/perspective.
MiserereNobis Posted February 2, 2021 Posted February 2, 2021 I think I agree with @LDS Watchman and @JLHPROF here, which is funny for a Catholic to say, eh? I've brought this up before, because it is an issue I have with the LDS church. The LDS church makes pretty grandiose claims: a living prophet who guides the church by continuing revelation from God. Whoa! But then when I look into how that actually manifests, it is no different than what the Catholic Church claims. It's just different words. (of course, it actually boils down to which church is Christ's church, but I'm focusing on the claims here) I'm told the amazing story of Joseph Smith and can read 100+ revelations he received from God -- God spoke to him! We can read what God said! Now, that at least looks like a prophet and looks like continuing revelation. But now? Not so much at all. Policy changes. Tweaking with ordinances (after 8 years on this board I've got your terminology down, ha). The Pope does the exact same stuff, but we don't call him a prophet or claim that he is receiving revelation (of course, our churches use the word revelation differently). The Catholic Church claims inspiration from and protection by the Holy Spirit. It seems that the LDS church claims a lot more than that, but the appearance is that things operate much the same. In other words, it appears like false advertising to me. I know that might sound a little harsh, but I guess it just seems quite clear to me as an outsider that the words don't match up. The same is true of the claim that the LDS church has an open canon. If I'm reading LDS Watchman correctly, the last time the canon was added to was in the mid 1800s. That doesn't seem like an open canon. For the vast majority of the LDS church's existence, there has been no addition to your scriptural canon. It may just be an issue of semantics, but there is the sticky fact that the early LDS church appeared to be led by a prophet receiving God's words a lot more than the current LDS church is. In other words, I'm going to go join some fundamentalist LDS sect now 4
Ahab Posted February 2, 2021 Posted February 2, 2021 11 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: I think I agree with @LDS Watchman and @JLHPROF here, which is funny for a Catholic to say, eh? I've brought this up before, because it is an issue I have with the LDS church. The LDS church makes pretty grandiose claims: a living prophet who guides the church by continuing revelation from God. Whoa! But then when I look into how that actually manifests, it is no different than what the Catholic Church claims. It's just different words. (of course, it actually boils down to which church is Christ's church, but I'm focusing on the claims here) I'm told the amazing story of Joseph Smith and can read 100+ revelations he received from God -- God spoke to him! We can read what God said! Now, that at least looks like a prophet and looks like continuing revelation. But now? Not so much at all. Policy changes. Tweaking with ordinances (after 8 years on this board I've got your terminology down, ha). The Pope does the exact same stuff, but we don't call him a prophet or claim that he is receiving revelation (of course, our churches use the word revelation differently). The Catholic Church claims inspiration from and protection by the Holy Spirit. It seems that the LDS church claims a lot more than that, but the appearance is that things operate much the same. In other words, it appears like false advertising to me. I know that might sound a little harsh, but I guess it just seems quite clear to me as an outsider that the words don't match up. The same is true of the claim that the LDS church has an open canon. If I'm reading LDS Watchman correctly, the last time the canon was added to was in the mid 1800s. That doesn't seem like an open canon. For the vast majority of the LDS church's existence, there has been no addition to your scriptural canon. It may just be an issue of semantics, but there is the sticky fact that the early LDS church appeared to be led by a prophet receiving God's words a lot more than the current LDS church is. In other words, I'm going to go join some fundamentalist LDS sect now To know which Church you should join or be a member of all you need is for God to tell you, personally, or through Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, which Church is the true church of Jesus Christ. And then you should simply join that one.
MiserereNobis Posted February 2, 2021 Posted February 2, 2021 2 minutes ago, Ahab said: To know which Church you should join or be a member of all you need is for God to tell you, personally, or through Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, which Church is the true church of Jesus Christ. And then you should simply join that one. I already have, Ahab. Thanks
Ahab Posted February 2, 2021 Posted February 2, 2021 Just now, MiserereNobis said: I already have, Ahab. Thanks Okay. I believe you believe that and I am not the one who will be your final judge on whether or not it was God who told you that. Hmm. Or at least I don't think I will be.
smac97 Posted February 2, 2021 Posted February 2, 2021 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: Quote So for you "revelation" = "canonized scripture?" The voluminous talks from General Authorities we receive every six months are not "revelation that {you} can study, highlight, cross reference, and give heed to?" Well we're frequently told that these do no represent official Church doctrine. We are? Where? When? Who has said this? 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: That perhaps they are only the speaker's opinion. How do you account for D&C 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." Also, how do you account for D&C 68:4? "And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation." Also consider this statement: Quote It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols., (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954–56), 203. I also like this summary by "AskGramps": Quote Are General Conference talks considered scripture for our day? Nov 7, 2020 Question Gramps, The recent general conference was full of excellent talks and council for all of us. Which makes me wonder if we could conclude that the conference talks can be considered scripture for our day? Lloyd Answer Lloyd, The quick answer is: ASOLUTELY!!! 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. D&C 1:38 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation. D&C 68:4 The only conditions I’d put on the answer to your question are: “For our Day” “Canonization” When you say “for our day” we must understand the difference between that which is for the entire dispensation vs for the year or generation we live in. I’ve heard it commonly said that the May and November issues of Conference ought to sit side-by-side with our standard works for that six month period which they cover. This does not mean that the doctrines expounded are less truthful after that six month period. But it does mean that the emphasis may be greater for that period. I also tend to think that any particular warnings are more important for that period. Regardless, there are always principles we are always commanded to stay true to whether they are mentioned last conference or not. And these are held in those books which we call “canonical”. These are what we refer to as our “standard works”. Those publications which have been adopted as applicable to the entire dispensation regardless of whether we emphasize them or not. They are always applicable. So, we always use the Standard Works as our basis or “constitution”. The policies of the Church and the emphasis we hear in Conference may change. But the Standard Works remain until a new revelation is given and we have a vote on it through solemn assembly. Also this statement by Orson Pratt: Quote Orson Pratt has said, “The very moment that we set aside the living oracles we set aside the revelations of God. Why? Because the revelations of God command us plainly that we shall harken to the living oracles. Hence, if we undertake to follow the written word, and at the same time do not give heed to the living oracles of God, the written word will And this one by Pres. John Taylor (same link) : Quote President John Taylor said, “We require a living tree—a living fountain—living intelligence, proceeding from the living priesthood in heaven, through the living priesthood on earth. … And from the time that Adam first received a communication from God, to the time that John, on the Isle of Patmos, received his communication, or Joseph Smith had the heavens opened to him, it always required new revelations, adapted to the peculiar circumstances in which the churches or individuals were placed. Adam’s revelation did not instruct Noah to build his ark; nor did Noah’s revelation tell Lot to forsake Sodom; nor did either of these speak of the departure of the children of Israel from Egypt. These all had revelations for themselves, and so had Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Jesus, Peter, Paul, John, and Joseph. And so must we, or we shall make a shipwreck.” (The Gospel Kingdom, [Deseret Book Co., 1944], p. 34.) And this by Pres. J. Reuben Clark (same link) : Quote President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., pinpointed today’s need: “What we need today is not more prophets. We have the prophets. But what we need is more people with listening ears. That is the great need of our generation. “There are those who insist that unless the Prophet of the Lord declares, ‘Thus saith the Lord,’ the message may not be taken as revelation. This is a false testing standard. For while many of our modern revelations as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants do contain these words, there are many that do not.” (Church News, July 31, 1954.) Thoughts? 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: But of course I read and study those too. But if they don't even rise to the level of doctrine I'd hardly call them revelation. Why not? How do you square this with D&C 1:38 and D&C 68:4? 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: Doctrine, like God, is constant and unchanging. Church policies and procedures may change over time, but doctrine does not. - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/inspiration/latter-day-saints-channel/watch/series/now-you-know/what-is-doctrine-now-you-know?lang=eng At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader past or present necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well considered, opinion not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. -https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2012/04/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng These come closer to revelation. They are inspired words or an inspired account of an event. We are still left to determine what God actually said on each matter, but we know what the Apostles think he meant. I'm just not on board with the "inspiration-but-not-revelation" distinction. Thanks, -Smac 1
smac97 Posted February 2, 2021 Posted February 2, 2021 1 hour ago, rongo said: I'm kind of partial to it, myself (cough, cough). Oh. Did I "out" you? Sorry!
JLHPROF Posted February 2, 2021 Posted February 2, 2021 2 minutes ago, smac97 said: I'm just not on board with the "inspiration-but-not-revelation" distinction. Oh, I know that. Nor are most members. And it only rarely makes any difference even for us that do differentiate. Also, D&C 1:38 doesn't mean what is so often implied.
ksfisher Posted February 2, 2021 Posted February 2, 2021 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: Doctrine, like God, is constant and unchanging. Church policies and procedures may change over time, but doctrine does not. How does something like the Law of Moses fit in with this? Was it not doctrine for it's time?
Recommended Posts