Jump to content

Cisterns and Living Water


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

There are plenty of general conference talks (easily Googled) about "Living Water" but none that I could find about broken cisterns.

Since we are writing a bit about revelation, I would like to clarify something about which I am uncertain. I remember reading, possibly on this forum that general conference talks are indeed considered revelation, perhaps on a par with Scriptures. Is this correct? Do most/all LDS folks agree? On par with Scriptures? I seem to remember reading about a lot of debate about President Woodruff's manifesto (1890) as to whether or not it was a product of revelation? Ditto for Joseph F Smith's Second Manifesto. I know a manifesto is not a conference talk. Can/will someone please clarify this question for me? Would the Statement on the Family be considered revelation? I guess I am just a bit uncertain about what that is non-scriptural is revelation and what is not. Thanks so much.

Link to comment
57 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Since we are writing a bit about revelation, I would like to clarify something about which I am uncertain. I remember reading, possibly on this forum that general conference talks are indeed considered revelation, perhaps on a par with Scriptures. Is this correct? Do most/all LDS folks agree? On par with Scriptures? I seem to remember reading about a lot of debate about President Woodruff's manifesto (1890) as to whether or not it was a product of revelation? Ditto for Joseph F Smith's Second Manifesto. I know a manifesto is not a conference talk. Can/will someone please clarify this question for me? Would the Statement on the Family be considered revelation? I guess I am just a bit uncertain about what that is non-scriptural is revelation and what is not. Thanks so much.

General conference talks (like anything else) may be a product of revelation, but it should not be assumed that all conference talks are revelation.  That is not what we teach.  All genuine revelation, I believe, is on par with scripture in terms of it being God's will and word for mankind.  Canonization simply makes it officially binding on the church, so it definitely has some more heft in that regard, but it is no more or less the word of God.  I have had personal revelations that I value more than all of canon, because it is personalized.   To read God's word is one thing, to experience it is something else entirely.  

We are taught to approach non-canonized revelation the same way we approach the canon - James 1:5, Moroni 10:3-5, and Alma 32.  We rely on personal guidance to discern the legitimacy of both.  There is no other way.  We discern revelation by personal revelation. 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, pogi said:

General conference talks (like anything else) may be a product of revelation, but it should not be assumed that all conference talks are revelation.  That is not what we teach.  All genuine revelation, I believe, is on par with scripture in terms of it being God's will and word for mankind.  Canonization simply makes it officially binding on the church, so it definitely has some more heft in that regard, but it is no more or less the word of God.  I have had personal revelations that I value more than all of canon, because it is personalized.   To read God's word is one thing, to experience it is something else entirely.  

We are taught to approach non-canonized revelation the same way we approach the canon - James 1:5, Moroni 10:3-5, and Alma 32.  We rely on personal guidance to discern the legitimacy of both.  There is no other way.  We discern revelation by personal revelation. 

Thanks my friend. You have a wonderful way of making things clear. I will have to ponder a bit on the concept that it takes personal revelation to discern revelation. Given human differences and preconceptions, that seems very subjective. But maybe for the LDS enthusiast, that is the point. I have never thought of it in that way - but just having written that I acknowledge I am inconsistent.

I believe in prayer and in answered prayer. I believe in the promptings of the Holy Spirit as I study and prepare sermons. Certainly all that is subjective in that it is a revelation provided just to me. It is what we would deem as "special revelation." Virtually all non-LDS Christians believe in personal special revelation. This is why I have such a hard time when folks here say things like Protestants, Evangelicals, or non-LDS Christians in general disbelieve in revelation beyond Scripture (the Bible). The truth is that we believe in and make generous use of revelation as we seek to interpret the Bible. It takes revelation to determine scriptural revelation. But, that is what you just said - so maybe I don't need to ponder on it, just agree with it! Best wishes.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Since we are writing a bit about revelation, I would like to clarify something about which I am uncertain. I remember reading, possibly on this forum that general conference talks are indeed considered revelation, perhaps on a par with Scriptures. Is this correct? Do most/all LDS folks agree? On par with Scriptures? I seem to remember reading about a lot of debate about President Woodruff's manifesto (1890) as to whether or not it was a product of revelation? Ditto for Joseph F Smith's Second Manifesto. I know a manifesto is not a conference talk. Can/will someone please clarify this question for me? Would the Statement on the Family be considered revelation? I guess I am just a bit uncertain about what that is non-scriptural is revelation and what is not. Thanks so much.

Any revelation in any form is only as profitable as the spiritual connection between the parties involved and God, and the quality of the transmission and media. This would include testimony and devotional expressions along with scripture and the content of instructional material. I think it is safe to accept that General Conference talks are revelatory by design, and in some ways they are like testimonies, in others like the Sunday School manual, and in others like scripture. My reference to them is solely to offer a sampling of the Church’s teachings on “living water”.

I like to approach such questions in terms of, “How can general conference talks be considered revelation? How are Scriptures considered revelation? Likewise, Proclamations and Manifestos? In what ways are these texts similar, and how do they differ? How, or under what circumstances, are any of these might not be considered revelation? What kind of revelation would not fall under D&C 68:3-4?"

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Thanks my friend. You have a wonderful way of making things clear. I will have to ponder a bit on the concept that it takes personal revelation to discern revelation. Given human differences and preconceptions, that seems very subjective. But maybe for the LDS enthusiast, that is the point. I have never thought of it in that way - but just having written that I acknowledge I am inconsistent.

I believe in prayer and in answered prayer. I believe in the promptings of the Holy Spirit as I study and prepare sermons. Certainly all that is subjective in that it is a revelation provided just to me. It is what we would deem as "special revelation." Virtually all non-LDS Christians believe in personal special revelation. This is why I have such a hard time when folks here say things like Protestants, Evangelicals, or non-LDS Christians in general disbelieve in revelation beyond Scripture (the Bible). The truth is that we believe in and make generous use of revelation as we seek to interpret the Bible. It takes revelation to determine scriptural revelation. But, that is what you just said - so maybe I don't need to ponder on it, just agree with it! Best wishes.

What you call "special revelation" (I like that!) we call "personal revelation".  Personal, or special, revelation is just that - it is personal.  It is not intended for the general membership whom we have no authority/stewardship over.  There is another kind of revelation which is given for the church and for all mankind in general which can only come by means of a living prophet.  We cannot speak for the church by means of personal revelation.  That is the type of revelation we are speaking of when Protestants and Evangelicals, etc. claim that the heavens are closed with the Bible.   I have heard that countless times throughout my life - there is no more prophetic revelation for the church as a whole. 

Ultimately, if we are not relying on the spirit of revelation to discern revelation, then we are relying on the arm of flesh.  I will place my trust in God.  There will inevitably be inconsistencies as you are right, we all have different biases and backgrounds by which we interpret revelation through.  That is to be expected. It is a process, like everything else.  We just keep palpating that elephant, until we understand more fully the word of God.  As long as we have good seed and good earth (heart), then we are on the right path to good fruit. 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Since we are writing a bit about revelation, I would like to clarify something about which I am uncertain. I remember reading, possibly on this forum that general conference talks are indeed considered revelation, perhaps on a par with Scriptures. Is this correct? Do most/all LDS folks agree? On par with Scriptures? I seem to remember reading about a lot of debate about President Woodruff's manifesto (1890) as to whether or not it was a product of revelation? Ditto for Joseph F Smith's Second Manifesto. I know a manifesto is not a conference talk. Can/will someone please clarify this question for me? Would the Statement on the Family be considered revelation? I guess I am just a bit uncertain about what that is non-scriptural is revelation and what is not. Thanks so much.

I hate to toss the ball back into your court, My Friend, but consider these scriptures:

In Doctrine and Covenants 68:4, while the Lord is speaking specifically of missionaries and of missionary work, this, I think, is more broadly applicable:

Quote

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.

What the Lord had in mind in Doctrine and Covenants 68:4 becomes even clearer, perhaps, when considered in light of what He said in Doctrine and Covenants 50.  In this scripture, the Lord refers to the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of Truth (which would make sense, because I hope that no believer, of whatever stripe, would believe that the Holy Spirit can lie! 

Quote

 

17 Verily I say unto you, he that is ordained of me and sent forth to preach the word of truth by the Comforter, in the Spirit of truth, doth he preach it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?

18 And if it be by some other way it is not of God.

19 And again, he that receiveth the word of truth, doth he receive it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?

20 If it be some other way it is not of God.

21 Therefore, why is it that ye cannot understand and know, that he that receiveth the word by the Spirit of truth receiveth it as it is preached by the Spirit of truth?

22 Wherefore, he that preacheth and he that receiveth, understand one another, and both are edified and rejoice together.

23 And that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness.

24 That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day.

 

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, pogi said:

What you call "special revelation" (I like that!) we call "personal revelation".  Personal, or special, revelation is just that - it is personal.  It is not intended for the general membership whom we have no authority/stewardship over.  There is another kind of revelation which is given for the church and for all mankind in general which can only come by means of a living prophet.  We cannot speak for the church by means of personal revelation.  That is the type of revelation we are speaking of when Protectants and Evangelicals, etc. claim that the heavens are closed with the Bible.   I have heard that countless times throughout my life - there is no more prophetic revelation for the church as a whole. 

Ultimately, if we are not relying on the spirit of revelation to discern revelation, than we are relying on the arm of flesh.  I will place my trust in God.  There will inevitably be inconsistencies as you are right, we all have different biases and backgrounds by which we interpret revelation through.  That is to be expected. It is a process, like everything else.  We just keep palpating that elephant, until we understand more fully the word of God.  As long as we have good seed and good earth (heart), then we are on the right path to good fruit. 

This really helps. Thank you. I agree with your perspective that non-LDS Christians generally believe there has not been nor will there be more revelation for the Christian church "as a whole." That would have to come from God in a way that was clearly understood by all. Of course, God is God and can do whatever He wants in speaking to us. Having said that there is plentiful opportunity for revelation for individuals via prayer, contemplation, the seeking of God's will, and reliance on the direction of the Holy Spirit. This is a primary methodology for "rightly dividing the word of truth" or correct interpretation of existing scripture. That possibility is why many of us in the non-LDS Christian community are allergic to detailed statements of faith.

Where I get confused is where my LDS friends go beyond "personal revelation to that which comes by means of a living prophet that relates to "all mankind" or to even to "the LDS church as a whole" as one small branch of Christianity. Is there some kind of codified list of such revelations that have already been given? Is that the intent of the D&C, even though it seems to apply specifically to the LDS church? It seems that after a swarm of personal revelations provided to leaders between 1833 or so and 1844, the LDS heavens were more or less closed as well. The message that they are still open seems to be one of hope or aspiration, not of actual reality. What am I missing? I think there is much in the LDS church that is aspirational.

I have been studying LDS history and doctrine for 33 years now and have been in regular attendance in a ward for five years. I have never in that time been aware of any instance of this kind of revelation having been provided by any living prophet. What am I missing? Can you give me an example of a special revelation given directly by God to a living prophet in the LDS church in the last 33 years that has been sustained as such? Even better, one that applies to all Christianity? Please, that is a sincere question - it is in no way a challenge. I want to better understand what you mean by revelation? Thanks so much. What am I missing?

 

Edited by Navidad
clarity
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I hate to toss the ball back into your court, My Friend, but consider these scriptures:

In Doctrine and Covenants 68:4, while the Lord is speaking specifically of missionaries and of missionary work, this, I think, is more broadly applicable:

What the Lord had in mind in Doctrine and Covenants 68:4 becomes even clearer, perhaps, when considered in light of what He said in Doctrine and Covenants 50.  In this scripture, the Lord refers to the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of Truth (which would make sense, because I hope that no believer, of whatever stripe, would believe that the Holy Spirit can lie! 

 

Thanks. I always enjoy your posts.

Edited by Navidad
Changed my mind!
Link to comment
34 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Where I get confused is where my LDS friends go beyond "personal revelation to that which comes by means of a living prophet that relates to "all mankind" or to even to "the LDS church as a whole" as one small branch of Christianity. Is there some kind of codified list of such revelations that have already been given? Is that the intent of the D&C? It seems that after a swarm of personal revelations provided to leaders between 1833 or so and 1844, the LDS heavens were more or less closed as well. The message that they were still open seems to be one of hope or aspiration, not of actual reality. What am I missing?

The only official list we have is what has been canonized (the standard LDS works - which is not insignificant compared to non-LDS scripture), but revelations and direction from the Lord for the church goes beyond what is "codified".  As mentioned previously, this can only be known through personal revelation and by listening/heeding the prophets voice.  Some may dismiss much of it as just "general good advice", but it is more than that if it is revealed by God for his church at this specific time - it is exactly what we need, right here, right now - it is God's will for us.  That is something no other church can claim - to be able to speak for God to his church to direct our attention in very specific ways.  

In terms of canonized revelations, you are not missing anything as there doesn't seem to be much going on there.

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, pogi said:

to be able to speak for God to his church to direct our attention in very specific ways.

Thanks again for your clear and candid post. I really appreciate you and it.

I would only suggest this - I sought to speak for God (be His voice) to His church (all Christians within the sound of my voice) to direct their attention in very specific ways every time I mounted a platform and stood behind the sacred desk to proclaim the Word of God. I have had the honor to preach from Kenya to Liberia to Central America to Europe, in Mexico, Canada and all over the United States. I couldn't possibly tell you which or what branches of Christianity were in attendance or heard my voice via radio.

God's church is a huge, wonderful, vibrant, and diverse amalgamation of groups. God's will is a powerful reality. It is sometimes hidden (His sovereign will), it is sometimes clearly stated in scripture (His moral will), and it is often provided in the still small voice of the Holy Spirit (His individual will). Last, it is often made clear by the loyal faithful ministry in word and deed of those called by God through their groups (including bishops, missionaries, and others of the LDS church) to share His Word with all who would hear. There is no greater privilege than that!

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Thanks again for your clear and candid post. I really appreciate you and it.

I would only suggest this - I sought to speak for God (be His voice) to His church (all Christians within the sound of my voice) to direct their attention in very specific ways every time I mounted a platform and stood behind the sacred desk to proclaim the Word of God. I have had the honor to preach from Kenya to Liberia to Central America to Europe, in Mexico, Canada and all over the United States. I couldn't possibly tell you which or what branches of Christianity were in attendance or heard my voice via radio.

God's church is a huge, wonderful, vibrant, and diverse amalgamation of groups. God's will is a powerful reality. It is sometimes hidden (His sovereign will), it is sometimes clearly stated in scripture (His moral will), and it is often provided in the still small voice of the Holy Spirit (His individual will). Last, it is often made clear by the loyal faithful ministry in word and deed of those called by God through their groups (including bishops, missionaries, and others of the LDS church) to share His Word with all who would hear. There is no greater privilege than that!

I applaud you in your preaching and service.  I have no doubt that you were an effective mouthpiece of God.  But as you noted, you cannot and do not claim to speak for God to the church in a prophetically revealed and directed way.   While they may appear to be similar in delivery, only one can be prophetically directed by revelation to speak for God to the church.   If you don't believe there is a difference, than why do you believe that the prophets have ended?  

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Navidad said:

Since we are writing a bit about revelation, I would like to clarify something about which I am uncertain. I remember reading, possibly on this forum that general conference talks are indeed considered revelation, perhaps on a par with Scriptures. Is this correct? Do most/all LDS folks agree? On par with Scriptures? I seem to remember reading about a lot of debate about President Woodruff's manifesto (1890) as to whether or not it was a product of revelation? Ditto for Joseph F Smith's Second Manifesto. I know a manifesto is not a conference talk. Can/will someone please clarify this question for me? Would the Statement on the Family be considered revelation? I guess I am just a bit uncertain about what that is non-scriptural is revelation and what is not. Thanks so much.

Yes, I've heard that general conference talks are on par with the scriptures. The statement on the family is not quite up there though because the rumor ? is that it came from a draft by Kirton & McConkie, so not quite revelation IMO. EDIT: But most likely Kirton & McConkie first received it from the church leaders before drafting.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/teachings-of-the-living-prophets-student-manual/chapter-6?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-seminary-teacher-manual-2014/section-7/lesson-159-the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world?lang=eng

https://wheatandtares.org/2014/10/30/proclamation-written-by-lawyers/

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment

I've heard that general conference talks are on par with the scriptures. The statement on the family is not quite up there though.”


Scripture isn’t identical with revelation as it contains multiple types of religious writings, only some of them based on revelation, so I think the the Proclamation fits right in.

Since “scripture” is defined as “[w]hen holy men of God write or speak by the power of the Holy Ghost, their words “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” (Doctrine and Covenants 68:4), General Conference talks often qualify as scripture.  Hopefully they rarely don’t miss that standard, but I personally think it best not to assume simply because an apostle or prophet says something, even if across the pulpit or in the Canon, that it is revelation until it is confirmed through the Spirit for you…or rather perhaps a better approach would be to assume instruction is revelation as long as there is no conflict with what you have received through revelation before, but earnestly look for confirmation as needed (if you are going to invest significant effort and resources in following instruction of prophets, old and new, surely wisest to pray and confirm this is what God desires of you; if it takes less thought or adjustment to engage, why not act while waiting for confirmation as it may come in the form of seeing the value of following the instruction).

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
7 hours ago, pogi said:

I applaud you in your preaching and service.  I have no doubt that you were an effective mouthpiece of God.  But as you noted, you cannot and do not claim to speak for God to the church in a prophetically revealed and directed way.   While they may appear to be similar in delivery, only one can be prophetically directed by revelation to speak for God to the church.   If you don't believe there is a difference, than why do you believe that the prophets have ended?  

I remember being a bishop, needing someone to call to some position, praying, and just seeing someone in the congregation pop out almost like a light was shining on them. 

Now I look out at the congregation. 

No "lights".  ;)

 

Link to comment
12 hours ago, pogi said:

I applaud you in your preaching and service.  I have no doubt that you were an effective mouthpiece of God.  But as you noted, you cannot and do not claim to speak for God to the church in a prophetically revealed and directed way.   While they may appear to be similar in delivery, only one can be prophetically directed by revelation to speak for God to the church.   If you don't believe there is a difference, than why do you believe that the prophets have ended?  

Hi my friend. When have I ever said that I "believe that the prophets have ended?" Perhaps we both believe in the possibility of modern-day prophets, but have a different definition for the same? I have indeed often noticed how the Saints and Evangelicals use a common language, but often with definitional differences. Many OT prophets were called to a specific ministry at a specific time to a specific people. They (OT prophets) often served both a forth-telling and a fore-telling purpose.

I am unaware of any modern-day prophets with a fore-telling ministry. I am aware of a number of people who might be deemed as prophets with a forth-telling ministry in the modern era. Ephesians 4: 11-16 validates the continuation of the apostolic and prophetic ministry in the NT church. Since we are still in the dispensation of the NT church, I would assume a prophetic ministry continues, especially in a forth-telling sense. I think the ministry of the evangelist and the prophet are closely linked as are the separate gifts of pastor and teacher.

I know of many in the 50s-70s  who often talked and/or preached about prophecy and prophetic gifts, but only in the sense of communicating their interpretation of OT and Book of Revelation-type prophecy. While some certainly embellished or asserted great confidence (including my father), they didn't seek to add to it, but to interpret what was already written in the Bible and/or Book of Mormon as prophetic genre given the times. Hugh Nibley wrote essays (Churches in the Wilderness, for example) that except for their specific-LDS references could have been written by my father. I clearly remember the first week of June, 1967. Israel and the Arabs were in a war and there was a huge blackout in the northeastern US. We lived in Pennsylvania. My father was certain the the two events were related and prophecies in Ezekiel 38 concerning Gog, Gomer, and Magog were coming true. It was the end-times. Of course the northeast blackout was caused by a wayward squirrel in Canada (I think it was). In the 21st century, that type of preaching, at least in the Evangelical community has really died down.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Hi my friend. When have I ever said that I "believe that the prophets have ended?" Perhaps we both believe in the possibility of modern-day prophets, but have a different definition for the same? I have indeed often noticed how the Saints and Evangelicals use a common language, but often with definitional differences. Many OT prophets were called to a specific ministry at a specific time to a specific people. They (OT prophets) often served both a forth-telling and a fore-telling purpose.

I am unaware of any modern-day prophets with a fore-telling ministry. I am aware of a number of people who might be deemed as prophets with a forth-telling ministry in the modern era. Ephesians 4: 11-16 validates the continuation of the apostolic and prophetic ministry in the NT church. Since we are still in the dispensation of the NT church, I would assume a prophetic ministry continues, especially in a forth-telling sense. I think the ministry of the evangelist and the prophet are closely linked as are the separate gifts of pastor and teacher.

I know of many in the 50s-70s  who often talked and/or preached about prophecy and prophetic gifts, but only in the sense of communicating their interpretation of OT and Book of Revelation-type prophecy. While some certainly embellished or asserted great confidence (including my father), they didn't seek to add to it, but to interpret what was already written in the Bible and/or Book of Mormon as prophetic genre given the times. Hugh Nibley wrote essays (Churches in the Wilderness, for example) that except for their specific-LDS references could have been written by my father. I clearly remember the first week of June, 1967. Israel and the Arabs were in a war and there was a huge blackout in the northeastern US. We lived in Pennsylvania. My father was certain the the two events were related and prophecies in Ezekiel 38 concerning Gog, Gomer, and Magog were coming true. It was the end-times. Of course the northeast blackout was caused by a wayward squirrel in Canada (I think it was). In the 21st century, that type of preaching, at least in the Evangelical community has really died down.

I apologize if I misunderstood you.  I thought you were agreeing that there are no more modern prophets in the following post:

18 hours ago, Navidad said:

 I agree with your perspective that non-LDS Christians generally believe there has not been nor will there be more revelation for the Christian church "as a whole."

That is precisely what our prophet does, however.  He is the mouthpiece of God to reveal the will of God and direct the affairs of his covenant people.   

To give you an example of what I have encountered in the past from other Christians, you should read through this thread:

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-most-Christians-believe-there-are-no-more-prophets

You will see opinions on both sides, but I commonly here the following sentiment to that question from many Christians:

Quote

 

Because there aren't. The Bible has all the coming Prophecys . The Bible is complete. Therefore there is no need for human phrophets.

If anyone tells you they are a phrophet they are quite confused. Ignore them

 

Quote

 

After the last apostle died, the gifts of the spirit were no longer being transferred on to later generations. The text of the holy scriptures was all that was needed. As David also mentioned, the claim of being a “prophet” has often been by frauds that desired fame and power. That is why Paul warned about the coming of a “lawless” fraud that would only come to the fore when the last apostle passed away. This lawlessness resulted in an apostasy that had dominated the Christian scene for the past 18 centuries.

(2 Thessalonians 2:7) 7 True, the mystery of this lawlessness is already at work, but only until the one who is right now acting as a restraint is out of the way.

As the angel at Revelation told John, it would be the witnessing to who Jesus was and what was being provided by his ransom sacrifice that would be the source of prophecy.

(Revelation 19:10) . . .For the witness concerning Jesus is what inspires prophecy.”

Christians have an assignment, that of being preachers and teachers, and the holy scriptures would provide all that was needed.

.And there is this:

Quote

That is what I am used to hearing. 

I thought you were agreeing with that sentiment that no prophet speaks for God to the church or the world today. 

If I understand you correctly, however, it sounds like you are not denying the possibility of the role of prophets in modern times, but you are equating the work of preachers/teachers/pastors with the calling and role of a prophet.  In many ways I agree that the roles are similar, but the difference is that of scope and calling.  In the our church we speak a lot about stewardship.  Every calling has authority to receive revelation for their specific calling.  If I am a Sunday school teacher, I have authority to receive revelation on how to address the needs of the class.  If I am a Stake President, I have authority to receive revelation for the needs of the Stake.  But only a prophet who has been called of God has the authority to receive revelation and speak for God on behalf of the entire church, and for the world in general.   So, when you agreed that no one receives revelation for the church "as a whole", then you agreed (according to my definition of a prophet) that there is no prophet today.  


 


 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, pogi said:

I apologize if I misunderstood you.  I thought you were agreeing that there are no more modern prophets in the following post:

That is precisely what our prophet does, however.  He is the mouthpiece of God to reveal the will of God and direct the affairs of his covenant people.   

To give you an example of what I have encountered in the past from other Christians, you should read through this thread:

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-most-Christians-believe-there-are-no-more-prophets

You will see opinions on both sides, but I commonly here the following sentiment to that question from many Christians:

.And there is this:

That is what I am used to hearing. 

I thought you were agreeing with that sentiment that no prophet speaks for God to the church or the world today. 

If I understand you correctly, however, it sounds like you are not denying the possibility of the role of prophets in modern times, but you are equating the work of preachers/teachers/pastors with the calling and role of a prophet.  In many ways I agree that the roles are similar, but the difference is that of scope and calling.  In the our church we speak a lot about stewardship.  Every calling has authority to receive revelation for their specific calling.  If I am a Sunday school teacher, I have authority to receive revelation on how to address the needs of the class.  If I am a Stake President, I have authority to receive revelation for the needs of the Stake.  But only a prophet who has been called of God has the authority to receive revelation and speak for God on behalf of the entire church, and for the world in general.   So, when you agreed that no one receives revelation for the church "as a whole", then you agreed (according to my definition of a prophet) that there is no prophet today.  


 


 

Greetings again. I am sorry if I wasn't clear. I was saying that the role of evangelist and prophet were similar in Ephesians, as were the roles of teacher and pastor in that context. I was not equating or drawing any similarities between the prophet/evangelist and the teacher/pastor. In fact I believe those two sets of gifts are very different from each other. As far as the Quora or Reddit comments, I hope they simply reveal what I have been trying to assert in my years here, that the Evangelical, Fundamentalist, and Mainline non-LDS communities are quite diverse, different from each other (even within each subgroup) and resist generalization or normalization. I do believe that the antis (in any situation) are more vocal than the majority of people who simply go about their lives. Hence that vocal nature of those who post about such things would lead a reasonable person to believe that the majority are that way.

When I think of prophets from older revelations I think of them having both the gift of foretelling (prophesying about a different or specific location, people,  or time - usually the future) and forthtelling (expounding the words of God given to them with power, conviction, and force). Ezekiel is a good example of both. When I think of modern-day prophets I think of those who expound the words of God given to them through prayer, study, and supplication (collectively known as revelation) with power, conviction, and force (forthtelling). That is their gift with which they are uniquely gifted that most others are not - similar to that of the evangelist - something I could never aspire to.

It is not that I think the foretelling function could not or will not happen. It is that at 73 years of age I have never seen or heard of it happening in any church anywhere, including either mine or the LDS church, or any other. That is why I think the LDS church is to a great degree, an aspirational community. They are certain their prophets have the foretelling gift, but yet as far as I know (for all churches) the heavens have been shut in my lifetime to that kind of prophecy. I have listened to scores, if not more general conference talks and have read more. I have never heard or read anything that seems prophetic in the foretelling sense. Perhaps I am tone-deaf, but I listen for such a thing and have simply not heard it.

Stake presidents and apostles (especially those in the modern era - let's say 1900 and forward) may have the "authority" to receive foretelling revelation, but I am simply unaware of any who have received the same. Perhaps if you disagree on that point, you might point me to an instance where that has happened and of which I am simply uninformed. Wilbur Woodruff seemed to have experienced that, at least in his own mind in 1880 in the Sunset, desert, or wilderness revelation that he experienced. However when he was called to the Brethren and they listened, prayed, consulted with each other and even washed each other's feet (yeh!), they declined to declare their brother's revelation as valid for the whole church.

I am sure that apostles and evangelists from a number of churches have demonstrated the prophetic gift of forthtelling. I do believe that they have received special wisdom and insight from God that they were to share with His people just as did Ezekiel. As you might expect I certainly would not limit that forthtelling gift to the LDS church anymore than I would say it no longer exists. My own personal experience validates a special prophetic gift that some few have from a variety of Christian groups that includes sensitivity to the Spirit and an ability to communicate the same that I do not have. Thanks for taking your time to read this.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Greetings again. I am sorry if I wasn't clear. I was saying that the role of evangelist and prophet were similar in Ephesians, as were the roles of teacher and pastor in that context. I was not equating or drawing any similarities between the prophet/evangelist and the teacher/pastor. In fact I believe those two sets of gifts are very different from each other. As far as the Quora or Reddit comments, I hope they simply reveal what I have been trying to assert in my years here, that the Evangelical, Fundamentalist, and Mainline non-LDS communities are quite diverse, different from each other (even within each subgroup) and resist generalization or normalization. I do believe that the antis (in any situation) are more vocal than the majority of people who simply go about their lives. Hence that vocal nature of those who post about such things would lead a reasonable person to believe that the majority are that way.

When I think of prophets from older revelations I think of them having both the gift of foretelling (prophesying about a different or specific location, people,  or time - usually the future) and forthtelling (expounding the words of God given to them with power, conviction, and force). Ezekiel is a good example of both. When I think of modern-day prophets I think of those who expound the words of God given to them through prayer, study, and supplication (collectively known as revelation) with power, conviction, and force (forthtelling). That is their gift with which they are uniquely gifted that most others are not - similar to that of the evangelist - something I could never aspire to.

It is not that I think the foretelling function could not or will not happen. It is that at 73 years of age I have never seen or heard of it happening in any church anywhere, including either mine or the LDS church, or any other. That is why I think the LDS church is to a great degree, an aspirational community. They are certain their prophets have the foretelling gift, but yet as far as I know (for all churches) the heavens have been shut in my lifetime to that kind of prophecy. I have listened to scores, if not more general conference talks and have read more. I have never heard or read anything that seems prophetic in the foretelling sense. Perhaps I am tone-deaf, but I listen for such a thing and have simply not heard it.

Stake presidents and apostles (especially those in the modern era - let's say 1900 and forward) may have the "authority" to receive foretelling revelation, but I am simply unaware of any who have received the same. Perhaps if you disagree on that point, you might point me to an instance where that has happened and of which I am simply uninformed. Wilbur Woodruff seemed to have experienced that, at least in his own mind in 1880 in the Sunset, desert, or wilderness revelation that he experienced. However when he was called to the Brethren and they listened, prayed, consulted with each other and even washed each other's feet (yeh!), they declined to declare their brother's revelation as valid for the whole church.

I am sure that apostles and evangelists from a number of churches have demonstrated the prophetic gift of forthtelling. I do believe that they have received special wisdom and insight from God that they were to share with His people just as did Ezekiel. As you might expect I certainly would not limit that forthtelling gift to the LDS church anymore than I would say it no longer exists. My own personal experience validates a special prophetic gift that some few have from a variety of Christian groups that includes sensitivity to the Spirit and an ability to communicate the same that I do not have. Thanks for taking your time to read this.

Thanks for clarifying.  

I think it important to distinguish between gifts and callings.  There is the gift of prophecy (which is not limited to prophets - Acts 2:17-18), and there is the calling of a prophet.  In fact,  1 Corinthians 14, Paul encourages everyone to pursue the gift of prophecy.  The one has to do with gifts which are potentially available to all, and the other has to do with roles available only to those called/chosen.  Not all prophets were good at "forthtelling", for example Moses was slow of speech and tongue and largely relied on Aaron who better exemplified that gift.  Not all prophets were foretellers either, but served more to lay the foundation of the church by articulating the theological and ethical principles and ordinances which are binding on the body of Christ (Eph 2:20).  Beyond that, they are the mouthpiece of God in revealing His will for his people in providing prophetic warnings (which we do hear much of in modern times), prophetic promises (which we also hear much of), and prophetic counsel/instruction/direction (which we also hear much of).  I think that forthtelling and foretelling are perhaps overemphasized and not necessarily the calling of a prophet, but it may be a gift for some where God deems fit.

As such, only a prophet who speaks for God can tell us which ordinances and covenants are acceptable to the Lord, and by which authority it should be performed.   Prophets/apostles are thus the foundation of the church with Christ as the chief cornerstone.  Our understanding/belief in this prophetic calling/role is precisely the source of much of the chafing you experience with our beliefs.  But we cannot change our perspective of the "church" to be more inclusive because the prophets are all united in prophetic voice on this foundational principle of authority/ordinance.   I am unaware of anyone in the Evangelical churches claiming to play such a role or respected as such, which is why many simply dismiss our prophets as false prophets because they can't accept the revelations they receive in regard to authority/ordinances, etc.   We hold that if they are true prophets, then only they have authority to lay the theological/ethical principles and ordinance foundations that are binding to the body of Christ.  It is a role that belongs to a prophet, not a teacher, or evangelist, or any other calling, and seems to be fairly unique to our church when considering Evangelicals, fundamentalists, and Mainline Christians.

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
57 minutes ago, pogi said:

As such, only a prophet who speaks for God can tell us which ordinances and covenants are acceptable to the Lord, and by which authority it should be performed.   Prophets/apostles are thus the foundation of the church with Christ as the chief cornerstone.  Our understanding/belief in this prophetic calling/role is precisely the source of much of the chafing you experience with our beliefs. 

You are very wise and correct (a great combination). I chafed just reading what you wrote. Just one thing to be clear - I chafe at the very idea that any LDS prophet would claim that God told him that Navidad's baptism and ordination was not acceptable to the Lord because it was not performed by an LDS priesthood holder. I also chafe at the very idea that any non-LDS Christian would claim that God told him that members of the LDS church are not fully Christian. The two are equally offensive to me. Having said all that and just as an aside, there are a significant number of non-LDS Christian groups who have prophets and especially apostles - mostly in the Pentecostal tradition. Take care my friend - you are a good person and brother in Christ, even if you don't accept my baptism and ordination. I sure hope you accept my marriage! Ha!

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Navidad said:

You are very wise and correct (a great combination). I chafed just reading what you wrote. Just one thing to be clear - I chafe at the very idea that any LDS prophet would claim that God told him that Navidad's baptism and ordination was not acceptable to the Lord because it was not performed by an LDS priesthood holder. I also chafe at the very idea that any non-LDS Christian would claim that God told him that members of the LDS church are not fully Christian. The two are equally offensive to me. Having said all that and just as an aside, there are a significant number of non-LDS Christian groups who have prophets and especially apostles - mostly in the Pentecostal tradition. Take care my friend - you are a good person and brother in Christ, even if you don't accept my baptism and ordination. I sure hope you accept my marriage! Ha!

Sorry for the chafing! That seems to be another sign of a prophet - they seem to have a gift for chafing people beyond their comfort levels in stretching and molding their minds to God's.  I would encourage you to take no offense at our beliefs though.  It is based purely in our faith in the words of our prophets and is not based on anything personal about you.  Quite frankly I am more concerned about the condition of a persons heart than I am about the current status of their baptism.  As you know, our doctrine speaks of more than one church.  There is membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which requires baptism, and there is membership in the Church of the Firstborn (which doesn't require baptism).  Of the 2, I think membership in the later is more important.  Not all baptized members belong to the later, so baptism isn't everything, but I do believe that all good hearts and members of the Church of the Firstborn will eventually find their way to baptism.   You are probably chafing at reading that too, but if anything it just speaks of my confidence in the integrity of your good heart and pure intentions - I wouldn't try to take it any other way.    I totally accept your marriage...and have hope for your eventual sealing too;)

Do Pentecostals fall under the Evangelical, Fundamental, or Mainstream branches?  I did a quick google search about these apostles and prophets.  It sounds like a good mix of Trump election deniers with the backing of prophecy, mixed with good-ol' multilevel marketing.  Heck, they'd fit right in here in Utah! 

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/02/18/how-christian-prophets-give-credence-to-trumps-election-fantasies-469598

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
1 hour ago, pogi said:

Do Pentecostals fall under the Evangelical, Fundamental, or Mainstream branches?  I did a quick google search about these apostles and prophets.  It sounds like a good mix of Trump election deniers with the backing of prophecy, mixed with good-ol' multilevel marketing.  Heck, they'd fit right in here in Utah! 

There are Pentecostals in all three non-LDS traditions. The interesting thing here where I live in the borderlands is that Pentecostals are conservative on both sides of the border. However, if you go to other places in the US, the Pentecostals are striving to be mainline. It is a movement in transition, especially in the US borderlands tradition. More academic work needs to be done on the study of Pentecostals in the borderlands. As with most Evangelicals, there is a wide diversity!

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

@Navidad

If I know anything about you, I know you have a good heart. :friends: 

Warm Regards and Best Wishes from a Brother in Christ,

-Ken

As we say in Mexico  . . . ¡Igualmente!

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Navidad said:

As we say in Mexico  . . . ¡Igualmente!

Mil gracias, Hermano! :D 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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