Why the change in the revelatory process?

[The Nehor]

37 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

So in the dispensation of the fullness of times right near the end of the earths temporal existence and the second coming of the savior which has been foretold as a time of direct revelation, the Lord has chosen to go silent as He has in the past.  My question is why?  I am just looking for your thoughts on why? 

You are conflating lack of dramatic publicly revealed revelation with a lack of revelation.

Revelation is happening. A lot of it. It is just not in the mode you are insisting and often when it is in that form it is not made public. Individuals and leaders can and do continue to get those kinds of revelations but it is not their place to loudly proclaim them.

[Freedom]

16 hours ago, kimpearson said:

So you are telling me that you have had angles and visions  guide you and therefore you are certain the living prophets do to?  If so, why not share the experiences like all those I mentioned?  Please don't give the old it's to sacred to share line.  It wasn't to sacred for Joseph Smith, Nephi and Lehi or any other prophet in the scriptures.  Why would it now be too sacred to share?  Why the change?

You have just dodged the question.  Why?  Why no sharing of direct revelation like Joseph Smith?  Why the implication that there is no need for revelation today?  I have actually talked to Richard Bushman and there was no visit of an angle nor vision in his patriarchal blessings, rather words would just come to his mind.  Miraculous yes but nothing to do with the role of a prophet or the direct revelations received in all the scriptures.  I wasn't asking about missionaries, bishops or stake patriarchs.  I am asking about prophetic revelation by prophets as recorded in the scriptures.  Why the change in the process for our prophets today?

I think you are presuming that all revelations were received in this manner. These were the exception rather than  the rule. As Elijah was told revelation is in the still small voice and not thunders and earthquakes. 

Other than the visit to get him back on track, there is no evidence that Alma enjoyed angelic visits. When needed, a physical visitation may occur. For Joseph Smith the visitations occurred less and less as he became more skilled at receiving prompting from the holy ghost.

[InCognitus]

59 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

I agree with this for us members but we have 15 men we sustain as prophets, seers and regulators.  Why in over 100 years has there been no direct revelation to our prophets that has been presented as such and canonized?  If I read your comment correctly, you are saying we simply don't need such revelation right now.  That is certainly a valid belief.  I just wonder about the fact that we are living in a time like no other near the end of God's work on this earth with some incredibly complex issues and why no direct revelation?  What changed?  Why is it now the council process?

I already answered this question.  We are in a period of time when we are applying what has been given and developing our own skills and gaining experience in maintaining and building the kingdom of God.   We don't need new published revelations to do that.  The church leadership receives revelation, and we can receive revelation for our own callings in the church.   It's the principle stated by Joseph Smith (which I also think is the way that God does it):  "I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves".   

But to elaborate on your end-times scenario, why do you think Jesus used the oil in the lamps symbolism in the parable of the ten virgins, and the preparations they were making for the coming of the bridegroom?   Do you think maybe the five foolish virgins were sitting around waiting for a new revelation to be published to tell them what to do?

Edited December 22, 2021 by InCognitus

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Freedom said:

For Joseph Smith the visitations occurred less and less as he became more skilled at receiving prompting from the holy ghost.

I dislike this premise but I've seen it put forth many times.  The idea that the prophets today are better skilled at receiving revelation than Joseph was is simply false.
That somehow they are beyond visions or visitations and only need the inkling of spiritual feeling to know the will of the Lord seems a bit silly.

When Christ was visited on the Mount of Transfiguration, in Gethsemane, or dealt with the adversary in person, none of these revelations showed he wasn't tuned enough to the spirit.
I don't consider the idea that more explicit revelation shows a limited spirituality to be valid.
 

[Freedom]

12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I dislike this premise but I've seen it put forth many times.  The idea that the prophets today are better skilled at receiving revelation than Joseph was is simply false.
That somehow they are beyond visions or visitations and only need the inkling of spiritual feeling to know the will of the Lord seems a bit silly.

When Christ was visited on the Mount of Transfiguration, in Gethsemane, or dealt with the adversary in person, none of these revelations showed he wasn't tuned enough to the spirit.
I don't consider the idea that more explicit revelation shows a limited spirituality to be valid.
 

These are not examples of receiving revelation. When Joesph was 14 he had no idea how revelation worked. Often the angelic visitations were needed to restore keys. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I dislike this premise but I've seen it put forth many times.  The idea that the prophets today are better skilled at receiving revelation than Joseph was is simply false.
That somehow they are beyond visions or visitations and only need the inkling of spiritual feeling to know the will of the Lord seems a bit silly.

When Christ was visited on the Mount of Transfiguration, in Gethsemane, or dealt with the adversary in person, none of these revelations showed he wasn't tuned enough to the spirit.
I don't consider the idea that more explicit revelation shows a limited spirituality to be valid.
 

The Mount of Transfiguration required physical intervention if I have an inkling of what was going on there. Gethsemane was the ultimate example of an exceptional circumstance.

I think more explicit revelation occurs at the beginning of dispensations (and often individual conversions) to aid at the beginning. They also occur for those in advanced stages of spiritual development (by advanced I mean by this world’s standards) but those are talked of far less due to the content of those communications. Much of what is revealed would probably do more harm than good if released publicly.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, kimpearson said:

You seem to be threatened by that question?  Why?

Please don’t go there. It is just such a silly question of someone who has been discussing these identical subjects for over a decade on this board and who knows how much elsewhere.  Anyone actually threatened by any idea posted on the board would have left long ago. Board rules do not offer enough protection from criticism for actually threatened people to want to hang around, I am guessing.

You are a new poster**** so you may not be aware, but you haven’t posted anything in general and I believe specifics even that I haven’t seen yet and if someone else is a longtime poster and frequent reader of most topics they would most likely have seen the same topics discussed that I have, though not everyone is obsessive as I am in reading posts. 
 

****added:  apparently not, since you registered years ago, though only have 112 posts and many (100 in the past year which means 12 previously if the profile is accurate) of those would be recent ones. All the more strange you think someone is threatened. 

Edited December 23, 2021 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Freedom said:

These are not examples of receiving revelation. When Joesph was 14 he had no idea how revelation worked. Often the angelic visitations were needed to restore keys. 

I disagree, but what else is new? 🤷

[Stargazer]

20 hours ago, kimpearson said:

So my question is why are there no direct communications now days that are shared with the Church.  All the prophets above shared their revelations and the process they were received with Church members and the world.  

An interesting experience happened to me a few years ago when I was a ward clerk. We were getting close to the time when the current bishop would be released (usual time of service being 5 years). We usually had bishopric meetings in the morning before sacrament meeting, like 6:30 am, so I would normally be there then. Sacrament meeting was at 9 am. One morning during this time I managed to sleep through my alarm, and showed up at the bishop's office around 8:30 am, I think. I thought we were still the only people in the building, but this turned out not to be the case.

I walked into the bishop's office and apologized for being late. Whereupon the bishop said, No problem, we learned we're being released today, so we've just been reminiscing about our time together.  I said Wow, or something similarly inane and asked if he knew who the new bishop was, to which he answered, Yes he did, but then he laughed and said he wasn't spilling the beans. There being no reason for me to stay, I decided to head to the chapel to get myself set up for the meeting.

I started down the corridor, and noticed that there was an open classroom with the light on. I had just barely thought to myself I should turn the light off as I pass by, when I "heard" in my head the words "The new bishop is in that room." So, instead of dealing with the light in the classroom, I popped my head in to see who it was. It was Bob. He was the ward mission leader and was in there, it turned out, because they had just fisnished with a ward missionary meeting. After greeting him, somewhat bemusedly, I continued on to the chapel. About an hour later he was sustained as the new bishop.

A few years after this, we had a general authority for our stake conference, and we also knew that our current stake presidency was going to be released. After the Saturday evening adult session, my wife and I were walking out of the building, had gone just a short distance down the sidewalk when my wife stopped, turned and indicated this one brother who had exited just a few moments after we did, who was now walking across the parking lot. She said quietly to me "He's the new stake president!" I asked how she knew, but she said she didn't know, but he was the one. Next day, he was the one who was called. She had never seen him before (he was bishop of one of the other wards at the time), and I had seen him a few times but never interacted with him.

These are two experiences that I feel comfortable sharing. I've had others that I don't share because they are too personal. I've not been visited by heavenly beings, but if I had I wouldn't be posting about the experience on message boards.

As @Hamba Tuhan has said, if little old me, a minor player in God's kingdom, has had experiences like this for my own personal benefit, I would find it to be a ridiculous idea that General Authorities do not receive similar and far more important revelations from God. And no, they are under no obligation to share these experiences with anyone, especially when they are not moved upon by the Holy Ghost to do so.

A long time ago, the Prophet Alma was preaching in Ammonihah, and after reducing sleazy lawyer Zeezrom to humility, Zeezrom started asking him honest questions. Alma gave an interesting answer:

9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.
10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.
11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell. (Alma 12:9-11)

I can well understand the desire to hear of glorious revelations, to read that the President Nelson has had an important vision, and to read it. I think the last such occurrence was on October 3, 1918, when President Joseph F. Smith received the vision which is now D&C 138. But what I don't understand is a desire to have frequent new canonized revelations. There was a huge outpouring of such when the church was new and much direct guidance and instruction was needed. Now we don't need to be guided so directly -- and that comports with my experiences in the Church. The Lord once said that it was not appropriate for Him to "command in all things." When you have a perfectly competent general leadership as prophets, seers, and revelators, I imagine that He doesn't see the need to spell everything out in detail. There's enough guidance already given, I believe.

Do we need new doctrine? Perhaps we do, but perhaps we don't. One sometimes hears someone say "Jesus take the wheel," when something seems to be going off the rails, but is that what we really expect? Or even want? I have the strong feeling that, given all the uproar about the subject, that there may very well be a serious clarification of doctrine at some point with respect to the LGBTQ+ issue that comes by canonized revelation. If I were a betting man, I'd bet you good money that it would cause a virtual (and perhaps also a literal) firestorm. Because if God doubles down on His pre-existing policies with respect to same-sex relationships being against His law, and directs the Church accordingly, there would be a big falling out of all those who are hoping that God changes His mind, and also among those who don't really believe but who have been hoping that the Church would "come to its senses" over the issue. Plenty of such folks would finally see the "light" as it were, and officially resign.

It's happened before. The Lord himself, when he was in his earthly ministry, made a pretty big point about a matter with some controversy behind it. This resulted in a good number of disciples abandoning him -- and he asked the apostles if they were going to bail, too. Which they didn't, but I bet some of them were disappointed that he didn't walk it back some. 

Edited to add: May I suggest a reading of this GC Talk by Elder Boyd K. Packer: The Spirit Beareth Record

 

Edited December 23, 2021 by Stargazer

[kimpearson]

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Ha! Nice deflection. I assure you that I don't find you -- or the content of your posts -- threatening in any way.

Instead, I find them stupendously wrong. Like this one: 'So in the dispensation of the fullness of times right near the end of the earths [sic] temporal existence and the second coming of the savior [sic] which has been foretold as a time of direct revelation, the Lord has chosen to go silent as He has in the past'.

That doesn't line up in any way with my personal experience ... or with my personal experience interacting with the revelations given to the Brethren.

One of my favourite experiences, not infrequent, is when the Lord reveals something to me personally, only to hear one of the prophets or other Church leaders teach that very thing in the next General Conference, at a regional training meeting, in the pages of the Liahona, etc.

As I have said repeatedly on this forum, people familiar with personal revelation are not the ones questioning whether the Brethren are currently receiving revelation. In this, the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times, the Lord has invited us to swim in the same revelatory stream as the prophets. What a wonderful time to be alive!

I guess you are saying your revelation trumps everyone else's.  I have my own revelations that have often been followed by Church leaders teaching the very same thing but I would never suggest to anyone else that my revelations trump your revelations.  I have never questioned whether the brethren are receiving revelation.  You made that conclusion.  I simply asked about the change in the type of revelation.  I assumed you were threatened because you had such a strong response.  Do you object to individual asking why questions about the Church?  I will also be honest that I believe there is substantial evidence that there are times when the 1st presidency and quorum of the 12 make pronouncements as if they were revelation but subsequent events show that all that was involved was personal feelings, opinions and experience with no revelation.  That doesn't mean they aren't inspired or called of God.  They are far from perfect and God let's them make mistakes just like the rest of us.  I will never close the door on any doctrine being changed with more revelation from heaven.

[rongo]

It's really interesting to me how Mormon explanations of revelation today mirror Catholic and Protestant explanations of revelation that we used to pound away at earlier in the Restoration. 

[Paraphrased due to length] Many Christians insist that the age of miracles stopped after the fourth or fifth century. Others insist that miracles have remained, but the miracles they describe after the fourth and fifth centuries pale in comparison to those described in the Primitive Church (e.g., sacred relics, pilgrimage sites, downplayed miracles, increasingly naturalistic explanations, etc.). --- B.H. Roberts, "New Witnesses for God" 1:99-101.

Insistence on the discontinuance of revelation comes from the realization that revelation is and has been absent for some time now. This explains the rise of explanations such as “these things are no longer needed,” or “these extraordinary things were needed as Christianity started, but are not needed now that it is well-established." --- B. H. Roberts, "New Witnesses for God" 1:136-137.

---

No Mormons say that revelation has been discontinued, or is no longer needed, but our descriptions of revelation, from the top down, does tend towards "downgrading" from earlier ones (revelation through councils, impressions, etc.). I think this is a defense mechanism as the way the Brethren talk about it has shifted for some time now. This is not to discount impressions, or to say that revelation is only ever dramatic, but impressions or "revelation in councils" is really the only way it is talked about at the top now. As many point out, many individuals and families have their own experience with dramatic revelation (ministering of angels, dramatic revelation beyond impressions, etc.), so individuals and families know firsthand that revelation is a real thing and that it works. But this causes some questions because how revelation is discussed institutionally has noticeably shifted. And, excuses that such things are "too sacred to share" don't make sense to many who have their own experiences with revelation. 

[Stargazer]

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

And, excuses that such things are "too sacred to share" don't make sense to many who have their own experiences with revelation. 

I don't know if this is true. I've had my own experiences, but some of them I could say are "too sacred to share" as a general rule -- without a definite push from the spirit to do so.

Once I was having an email conversation with a non-member who was a prominent science fiction author, and there was a turn in the conversation which seemed to bring church doctrine onto the table. I offered to explain some aspect of LDS theology to him, to which he agreed. When I tried to respond to this by explaining the principle involved, I got a strong negative impression through the spirit to not respond at all, and in fact to drop the conversation entirely. I don't know why. I assume there was a good reason, even if I didn't know it. He was busy enough (I surmise) that he never got back with me.

[Olmec Donald]

On 12/21/2021 at 11:19 PM, kimpearson said:

In the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price we read of a revelatory process between God and man that involved very direct literal revelations to prophets.  Adam spoke to God.  Enoch too.  Moses and Noah.  Isaiah had visions.  The Bother of Jared saw Jesus.  Nephi and Lehi had visions and angles visiting them.  Joseph Smith had more visions, angelic visits and direct communication with God than anyone else.

I have been following the Church's videos on councils.  Now the revelatory process appears to come through councils.  The process seems to follow the following formula.   An issue, question or change is brought up.  It is discussed by everyone on the council.  Council participants take the item home and ponder on it.  The council often requests information from other sources to guide in decisions.  The council reaches a decision only when there is unanimity.  If the council is a lessor council, it's decision must be ratified by a higher council.  The president of the Church has final say but there is no evidence that any direct communications from or with the Heavens occurs other than individuals indicating they feel the prompting of the Holy Ghost or ideas come into their heads.  Even the change in the availability of the priesthood to all worthy members involved no direct communications other than the feeling of the Holy Ghost per President Kimball's statements.

So my question is why are there no direct communications now days that are shared with the Church.  All the prophets above shared their revelations and the process they were received with Church members and the world.  

Please don't take this as an attempt to discredit our current leaders.  For the most part I have no problem with many of their decisions.  Some of those decisions feel very right to me to the point I feel it as a witness by the Holy Ghost.  But why the change?  What is different about today?

Since I'm no longer LDS, my thoughts as to why the leadership of the LDS Church is no longer publishing revelations are unlikely to be of use to anyone.

So let me toss out another, imo related, idea about revelation: Perhaps God really can (and really does) speak and act through channels other than the leadership of the LDS Church.

Perhaps because God has spoken one word, we need not suppose that he cannot speak another (2 Nephi 29:9).

Perhaps God has commanded men in the east and in the west, in the north and the south, and on the isles of the seas, to write the words that he speaks to them (2 Nephi 29:11).

Perhaps we are to seek wisdom out of the best books (D&C 88:118). And perhaps these books are not all within the canon of the LDS Church (John 21:25).

Perhaps there are so many things Christ has done that, if they were all written down, even the world itself could not contain all the books that would be written (John 21:25).

So here is my suggestion: If you are searching for what God has to say, consider widening your search radius beyond the walls of the LDS Church. God is not constrained to only speaking through a single people or religion, though giving credit where credit's due, at least the LDS Church worships a God who did not fall silent two thousand years ago!  You have the tools for recognizing truth and a (rare and precious) paradigm which empowers you to do so. Don't bury your talent, USE it!

My own widened search radius led me to books about near-death experiences (among other things). So, last but not least:

Perhaps if a person could gaze into heaven for five minutes, he or she would know more than if they had read all that ever was written on the subject (Joseph Smith). For those of us who have not yet gazed into heaven for five minutes, today we have countless opportunities to learn from the words of those who have.

Edited December 23, 2021 by Olmec Donald

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I don't know if this is true. I've had my own experiences, but some of them I could say are "too sacred to share" as a general rule -- without a definite push from the spirit to do so.

Once I was having an email conversation with a non-member who was a prominent science fiction author, and there was a turn in the conversation which seemed to bring church doctrine onto the table. I offered to explain some aspect of LDS theology to him, to which he agreed. When I tried to respond to this by explaining the principle involved, I got a strong negative impression through the spirit to not respond at all, and in fact to drop the conversation entirely. I don't know why. I assume there was a good reason, even if I didn't know it. He was busy enough (I surmise) that he never got back with me.

I agree that the Spirit sometimes restrains us from sharing --- that definitely happens. But, I don't like that "too sacred to share" has become sort of a default "pass" for never sharing such things, ever. I don't think that is what the Spirit makes clear all the time. Often, it's a discussion-stopper to prevent having to give detail or examples. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, kimpearson said:

I simply asked about the change in the type of revelation.

A change that you have assumed and put forward with zero evidence. I reject your assumption. The types of revelation I receive are all accounted for in the scriptures.

Quote

Do you object to individual asking why questions about the Church?

Nope. I do it all the time. I literally just finished an episode of doing so online with a fellow ward member.

[rodheadlee]

21 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I have and do, repeatedly. I have occasionally done so on this board. My apology, but I have zero desire or inclination to share such things with someone as angry as you.

No kidding I have done so and regretted it.

[MiserereNobis]

I've commented on this topic before. My issue is that the LDS church loudly proclaims that there is a living prophet who receives revelation from God. However, when one delves into this, it is not as spectacular as the claim sounds. Revelation, which sounds like what Joseph Smith claimed, actually ends up being, well, inspiration. Many churches claim inspiration, mine (Catholic) included. We claim that our Church is guided and protected by the Holy Spirit. From my perspective, the modern LDS prophet operates much like the Pope.

Members of your church, like Hamba, report revelation through visitations, angels, communication with God. My church has the same. I'd actually posit that the amount of spiritual visitations claimed by LDS dwarf in comparison to Catholics. It's probably the numerical difference in membership, or perhaps the idea in the LDS church that such experience are too sacred to relate, but visitations of angels, Mary, and even Jesus abound in Catholicism.

If you have a prophet who receives revelations, can I see those revelations? If not, then perhaps you should tone down your rhetoric around it and not present it as something unique to Mormonism and absent in other denominations of Christianity.

[Hamba Tuhan]

26 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Many churches claim inspiration, mine (Catholic) included. We claim that our Church is guided and protected by the Holy Spirit. From my perspective, the modern LDS prophet operates much like the Pope.

I'm confident many churches (and their leaders) receive revelation. I've personally experienced it. I'd want it no other way.

But as you already know, the issue is not just one of revelation but of authority, including the authority to administer ordinances that are sealed in heaven.

[BRMC]

8 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I've commented on this topic before. My issue is that the LDS church loudly proclaims that there is a living prophet who receives revelation from God. However, when one delves into this, it is not as spectacular as the claim sounds. Revelation, which sounds like what Joseph Smith claimed, actually ends up being, well, inspiration. Many churches claim inspiration, mine (Catholic) included. We claim that our Church is guided and protected by the Holy Spirit. From my perspective, the modern LDS prophet operates much like the Pope.

Members of your church, like Hamba, report revelation through visitations, angels, communication with God. My church has the same. I'd actually posit that the amount of spiritual visitations claimed by LDS dwarf in comparison to Catholics. It's probably the numerical difference in membership, or perhaps the idea in the LDS church that such experience are too sacred to relate, but visitations of angels, Mary, and even Jesus abound in Catholicism.

If you have a prophet who receives revelations, can I see those revelations? If not, then perhaps you should tone down your rhetoric around it and not present it as something unique to Mormonism and absent in other denominations of Christianity.

I don't think we believe the "claim" is unique to our Church.  I think we claim that ours is the correct one.  Your church does the same thing, and your entire post could be turned around and directed at you.   

I think one main difference is that we believe there is some truth in most religions and anything that brings you closer to Christ is a step in the right direction.  Active catholics mostly believe that other religions are harmful and condemn you to purgatory, best case scenario.

[CA Steve]

On 12/22/2021 at 7:34 AM, The Nehor said:

How often did these angelic and God talking directly to people experiences happen? I think you overstate their regularity. In the Book of Mormon you have a bunch of it with Lehi and Nephi and a hint that Jacob say Christ at some point. Then it goes quiet on those revelations for centuries. Picks up a bit with angels with King Benjamin and Alma. Then sporadic experiences that probably average maybe once a decade until Christ comes.

In the Bible it is even more sporadic. You get the apocalyptic visions about once or twice a millennia. Talking to God you have Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Noah, Enoch, and Adam over a period of several thousand years. Angels show up rarely. Generously going by the record they show up maybe an average of once a century except for brief periods of a lot of activity like the life of Christ and the few years immediately afterwards or Moses getting the Law.

It might seem to be the norm in scripture but scripture tends to focus on those events because of their scarcity.

I don't remember where I read it so I can't CFR it, but I think Joseph Smith recorded something like 70 direct angelic or divine visits.