Has Modern Revelation stopped?

[mburgess1982]

I watched this video by Connor a few months ago and have been thinking about it ever since.  A lot of those antagonistic to the church will claim that the Modern Day Prophets and apostles are not prophets seers and revelators because they claim they do none of those things. Years ago my mother in Law left the church and this was one of her main claims she kept making to me. I didn't really have a great answer for her, or at least an answer that satisfied her. 

I understand that the Church was said to be under condemnation back in 1832 because they treated lightly that which they had been given. In my opinion this has something to do with it as Connor points out but I would love to hear others thoughts on this

 

 

[blackstrap]

If we consider the sections of the Doctrine and Covenants to be ' revelations ' , then some of those are callings and administration types and are still ongoing today. Others like 76 and 88 are more rare. I doubt there will be another situation that calls for the Prophet to personally translate a newly found manuscript , but could happen. 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, mburgess1982 said:

I watched this video by Connor a few months ago and have been thinking about it ever since.  A lot of those antagonistic to the church will claim that the Modern Day Prophets and apostles are not prophets seers and revelators because they claim they do none of those things. Years ago my mother in Law left the church and this was one of her main claims she kept making to me. I didn't really have a great answer for her, or at least an answer that satisfied her. 

I understand that the Church was said to be under condemnation back in 1832 because they treated lightly that which they had been given. In my opinion this has something to do with it as Connor points out but I would love to hear others thoughts on this

 

 

There's a summary somewhere of key instruction and counsel President Nelson has given so far during his tenure. I think those, and the timing of them, are great examples of modern revelation. 

[bluebell]

I think it's a good idea to ask whether or not revelation in the church today would look like it did "back then"?

Think about the revelatory needs of the church now compared to when the church was coming into existence, the priesthood and ordinances were being restored, the church was being persecuted from state to state, and members were being exiled en mass from the country.  The needs are vastly different, so in my mind it makes sense that the types of revelations and frequency would be as well.

Speaking personally, the revelation that I receive in my everyday 'normal' life is a lot different than what I get in the midst of severe trials or times of change/growth.  It makes sense to me that revelation in the church would work in a similar way.

 

[let’s roll]

I didn’t watch the video.  But revelation hasn’t stopped for me.  Has it stopped for you?

God has asked us to love Him and has promised if we do, He will share His wisdom with us and guide us as we navigate mortality, including understanding what He has revealed to His prophets.  What can a video tell me that God can’t?

Godspeed to you in your search for wisdom.
 

[Frank11]

I can live with the fact that there were more revelations at the time of the foundation than there are today, but there is no explanation for the fact, that there were so many visions of different personages and beings back then and for decades there have only been “spiritual inspirations”.

The church leadership is probably more honest about the subject today.

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, Frank11 said:

I can live with the fact that there were more revelations at the time of the foundation than there are today, but there is no explanation for the fact, that there were so many visions of different personages and beings back then and for decades there have only been “spiritual inspirations”.

The church leadership is probably more honest about the subject today.

I’ve wondered about this myself.

I wonder if it’s a manifestation of the differences in expectations that exist in the church due to changes in our cultural beliefs about things like visions and miracles.

If we stop believing that that is a reasonable way for God to interact with us then it seems like we would have less of such interactions (assuming that they are possible).  I think it was Moroni who taught in the Book of Mormon that faith was essential in the manifestation of miracles. Maybe it’s not just faith in Christ that is necessary but faith in the likelihood of something that miraculous occurring.

I’ve also wondered if perhaps our relatively cushy existence as members of the church right now hasn’t produced enough faith for those kind of miracles.  Members of the church “back then“ had many severe trials and tests of faith. Can we expect to have the same levels of interactions from God as they did when we struggle so much to stay true in much less trying times? (Sincerely asking)  

I remember hearing somebody talk about how we have lost so many members over the idea of polygamy when our church ancestors were asked to actually live polygamy and managed to retain their faith.  Maybe the differences in those two levels of willingness to exercise faith manifests as a much thicker veil than the Saints used to have the privilege of?

[Kevin Christensen]

For much more revelation, than is generally commented upon, see these articles by Greg Smith.

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/passing-up-the-heavenly-gift-part-one-of-two/

and

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/passing-up-the-heavenly-gift-part-two-of-two/

Also, I recall a talk on this topic of ongoing revelation by Elder Packer, from 1974, which I recall from my mission.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1974/05/we-believe-all-that-god-has-revealed?lang=eng

And of course, I was in Salt Lake City in July of 1978, when the revelation on the priesthood happened.  And I have noticed just how very inspired President Nelson has been.  Prepping the church for COVID was notably inspired.

And besides there, I learned from the story of the death of Lazarus in John 11 that there are always people who can arbitrarily raise the bar and ask for more than the abundance they have. 

37 And some of them said, Could not this man, which opened the eyes of the blind, have caused that even this man should not have died?

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

 

[MustardSeed]

200 years is not such a terribly long time IMO.  Perhaps actual visitations are only needed for things like restoration. 
Revelation happens quite often in my life, I imagine it happens often for leadership as well. 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, mburgess1982 said:

I watched this video by Connor a few months ago and have been thinking about it ever since.  A lot of those antagonistic to the church will claim that the Modern Day Prophets and apostles are not prophets seers and revelators because they claim they do none of those things. Years ago my mother in Law left the church and this was one of her main claims she kept making to me. I didn't really have a great answer for her, or at least an answer that satisfied her. 

I understand that the Church was said to be under condemnation back in 1832 because they treated lightly that which they had been given. In my opinion this has something to do with it as Connor points out but I would love to hear others thoughts on this

 

 

Who is Connor and why should we invest time in listening to a video of his? (Serious question)

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Frank11 said:

The church leadership is probably more honest about the subject today.

Do you mean they were presented as visitations and details added that didn’t happen when really only inspiration similar to what happens today (iow, how it happens today has been always how it happens) or that the Church is now more honest about the difference between then and now than it was say 50 years ago?

Edited September 10 by Calm

[the narrator]

I think the issue is that the Church today claims to be unique in that it still receives revelation in the same way as the prophets in the Bible and as Joseph Smith. However, in practice, what the Church calls revelation today is entirely indistinguishable from what other denominations claim for the decision making process of their leading bodies. Whether it be a Methodist Council, a conference of catholic bishops, a local pastor, or the LDS First Presidency and Quorum of the 12, they all claim to be seeking the will of God through prayer and study and then trying to decipher the answers given to them by the Spirit. The organizational and hierarchical structure may differ, but the process is the same.

[CV75]

13 minutes ago, the narrator said:

I think the issue is that the Church today claims to be unique in that it still receives revelation in the same way as the prophets in the Bible and as Joseph Smith. However, in practice, what the Church calls revelation today is entirely indistinguishable from what other denominations claim for the decision making process of their leading bodies. Whether it be a Methodist Council, a conference of catholic bishops, a local pastor, or the LDS First Presidency and Quorum of the 12, they all claim to be seeking the will of God through prayer and study and then trying to decipher the answers given to them by the Spirit. The organizational and hierarchical structure may differ, but the process is the same.

And it seems to me that tis is one of the ways prophets in the Bible and Joseph Smith received revelation. Sometimes they got it alone, and sometimes with others. It doesn't matter what the Church calls revelation today, but how individuals, having experience with it, distinguish it from whatever other denominations call their decision-making and revelatory processes.

[Nofear]

Quote

Elder Lee asked me, as a newly sustained bishop, if I would join him at a press conference. There, an intense young reporter challenged Elder Lee. He said to him, “You call yourself a prophet. When was the last time you had revelation, and what was it about?” Elder Lee paused, looked directly at him, and responded in a sweet way, “It was yesterday afternoon about three o’clock. We were praying about who should be called as the president of the new stake, and it was made known to us who that individual should be.”  -- Elder Hales (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2007/10/personal-revelation-the-teachings-and-examples-of-the-prophets?lang=eng)

[MiserereNobis]

29 minutes ago, the narrator said:

I think the issue is that the Church today claims to be unique in that it still receives revelation in the same way as the prophets in the Bible and as Joseph Smith. However, in practice, what the Church calls revelation today is entirely indistinguishable from what other denominations claim for the decision making process of their leading bodies. Whether it be a Methodist Council, a conference of catholic bishops, a local pastor, or the LDS First Presidency and Quorum of the 12, they all claim to be seeking the will of God through prayer and study and then trying to decipher the answers given to them by the Spirit. The organizational and hierarchical structure may differ, but the process is the same.

This is what I have long felt/observed and commented on here. The words may be different sometimes, but I don't see any difference in claimed process. What the LDS church appears to do does not seem unique from what the Catholic Church appears to do.

[the narrator]

13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It doesn't matter what the Church calls revelation today, but how individuals, having experience with it, distinguish it from whatever other denominations call their decision-making and revelatory processes.

And how would you distinguish it?

[MustardSeed]

1 minute ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is what I have long felt/observed and commented on here. The words may be different sometimes, but I don't see any difference in claimed process. What the LDS church appears to do does not seem unique from what the Catholic Church appears to do.

I find no reason to disagree with you. 

[MiserereNobis]

3 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Quote

Elder Lee asked me, as a newly sustained bishop, if I would join him at a press conference. There, an intense young reporter challenged Elder Lee. He said to him, “You call yourself a prophet. When was the last time you had revelation, and what was it about?” Elder Lee paused, looked directly at him, and responded in a sweet way, “It was yesterday afternoon about three o’clock. We were praying about who should be called as the president of the new stake, and it was made known to us who that individual should be.”  -- Elder Hales (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2007/10/personal-revelation-the-teachings-and-examples-of-the-prophets?lang=eng)

And a Catholic bishop could say the exact same thing: "Yesterday I was praying about who should be the next priest for the Parish of the Sacred Heart, and it was made known to me who that priest should be."

We both claim revelation, so the LDS claim to modern-day revelation is not a unique claim.

And actually, there are a heck of a lot of claims in Catholicism of angels and Marian apparitions, so I'd say we've got you beat on supernatural visitors, too  

[mburgess1982]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Who is Connor and why should we invest time in listening to a video of his? (Serious question)

His name is Connor Boyack, he makes a weekly video where he discusses his opinions on certain gospel topics that he calls sunday musings. I listen to 6-7 hours of material daily while working, so I understand how others may not have the time that I do to go through this stuff but I found this one interesting 

Edited September 10 by mburgess1982

[Frank11]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Do you mean they were presented as visitations and details added that didn’t happen when really only inspiration similar to what happens today (iow, how it happens today has been always how it happens) or that the Church is now more honest about the difference between then and now than it was say 50 years ago?

It was no different then than it is now, but the time was different. Almost all the leaders of the various sects and religions in the area had visions back then.
If you look at the first sentence of the famous Kirtland Temple vision in D&C 110, it sounds a lot less miraculous and more like an inspiration. 

1 The veil was taken from our minds, and the eyes of our understanding were opened.

[Stargazer]

7 hours ago, mburgess1982 said:

I watched this video by Connor a few months ago and have been thinking about it ever since.  A lot of those antagonistic to the church will claim that the Modern Day Prophets and apostles are not prophets seers and revelators because they claim they do none of those things. Years ago my mother in Law left the church and this was one of her main claims she kept making to me. I didn't really have a great answer for her, or at least an answer that satisfied her. 

I understand that the Church was said to be under condemnation back in 1832 because they treated lightly that which they had been given. In my opinion this has something to do with it as Connor points out but I would love to hear others thoughts on this

 

 

First and foremost I think one should ask oneself a question even closer to home, and that question is "When was the last time I received a revelation?"

In Numbers 11 it is recorded that the Spirit of the Lord rested upon 70 of the elders of Israel so that they prophesied in the Tabernacle. But two of them, Eldad and Medad went out and prophesied in the camp of Israel. One young man who witnessed this ran to Moses's "entourage" to tell them of this, and Joshua, one of Moses' "entourage," demanded that Moses put a stop to it:

"And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of Moses, one of his young men, answered and said, My lord Moses, forbid them. And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them!" [Numbers 11:28-29]

We Latter-day Saints who are raised in the church are admonished even before we are old enough to be baptized to pray about the Book of Mormon, according to those powerful verses in Moroni 10, in order to know whether the book is true. We ask and even require that our investigators read and pray about the Book of Mormon before they are baptized, that they may know that it's true. We Latter-day Saints are admonished constantly to seek for personal revelation in General Conference! Now I ask you, if our leaders weren't getting any, why would they keep asking us to seek for it? 

I'm old. I've been around a block or two, but I'm nobody special. Nevertheless I have had personal revelations about important matters in my life, and I know that God is with us -- if only we will seek, then we will find. If I, a mere nobody in the kingdom, have received revelation from God, then how could I possibly assume that the Lord's prophet and apostles upon the earth don't receive any?

It is not necessary for every new revelation that the Brethren receive to be published in the Doctrine and Covenants. For the most part, what is published is sufficient for the overall functioning of the church. Recent exceptions have been D&C 138 (which was received in 1918 but not added to the D&C until much later), and Official Declaration 2 in 1978. How often do the Brethren receive revelations? Harold B. Lee once wrote:

"Elder John A. Widtsoe of the Council of the Twelve once told of a discussion he had with a group of stake officers. In the course of the discussion someone said to him, "Brother Widtsoe, how long has it been since the Church received a revelation?" Brother Widtsoe rubbed his chin thoughtfully and said in reply, "Oh, probably since last Thursday." I think that surprised the people who asked.” [Stand Ye in Holy Places]

If you are looking for published revelations of great moment and importance, then you'll be disappointed. But you shouldn't be. It is not written "continual revelation," but "continuing revelation." And we frequently receive advice and admonitions from the Brethren that ultimately stem from the revelations that are received in the highest councils of the Church. And what then do we do with them? Some of us second guess, quibble, and object that what is being said conflicts with the wisdom of the world. And then ignore it. If we reject the revelation that comes to us by the Lord's servants, then they can receive all the revelation in the world, and it will be nothing to us. There's a scripture somewhere that talks about that.

Pray for your own revelation; the Lord is willing to provide. James 1:5. Matthew 7:7-8. If the Lord is willing to provide to you, why would he not provide to his servants the Prophets?

Just don't expect a new installment to the D&C every month.

 

[The Nehor]

On one hand we want the big scriptural revelations that hit hard and shift things and come via angels and earthquakes.

On the other hand the scriptures seem heavy on these but you could argue that they were spaced out a lot in time. The big revelations and spectacular miracles seem to be spaced out with a lot happening in short periods. The lives of Moses and Elijah and Jesus are all filled with these. You could argue that Joseph Smith’s time was such a time.

On the other other hand we keep talking about how these days are critical moments in history and scriptures proclaim loudly that the power of God will be made manifest in manifold and diverse ways in majesty and glory so shouldn’t these days be the spectacular kind of days?

So yeah…..I dunno.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, mburgess1982 said:

His name is Connor Boyack, he makes a weekly video where he discusses his opinions on certain gospel topics that he calls sunday musings. I listen to 6-7 hours of material daily while working, so I understand how others may not have the time that I do to go through this stuff but I found this one interesting 

So no different than me putting my ramblings here on a podcast?  No thanks then. People can easily skim my posts to see if there is anything worthwhile, something you can’t do with podcasts…and even my long ones don’t take 50 minutes to read.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Frank11 said:

It was no different then than it is now, but the time was different. Almost all the leaders of the various sects and religions in the area had visions back then.

Meaning what?  Our leaders are having visions like they did, but downplaying them in public (unlikely since you said they were more honest)?

Are our leaders seeing the same thing, only one sees the revelation as a vision and the other has an audio or enlightenment experience? (What would honesty have with different forms of perception)?

Or that they are all self deluded and there is no revelation (Honesty could make sense in this context if the leaders didn’t act like much happened, that it was just something they thought about even if they were wrong about the source)?

Or something else?

[Anonymous Mormon]

9 hours ago, mburgess1982 said:

I watched this video by Connor a few months ago and have been thinking about it ever since.  A lot of those antagonistic to the church will claim that the Modern Day Prophets and apostles are not prophets seers and revelators because they claim they do none of those things. 

The problem I see is that those who are antagonistic to the church don't accept the revelation that we as a church do receive. So there is no way to 'prove' this to them.

Take for example, the Proclamation to the World on the Family - this has been called revelation by Elder Oaks, Elder Ballard, and Elder Packer (also President Nelson I think, but I can't find a reference on this). However those antagonistic will say it doesn't match their definition of revelation because 'it was crafted a committee' or 'it wasn't called a revelation when it was released.' (which arguably it was when taking into account President Hinckley's reference to prophets when he released it).  But critics don't consider the multitude of different ways that Joseph Smith received what is accepted as revelation in D&C - via a seer stone, via the HG while standing in the midst of a group of people, via revelation as he was writing a prayer for a dedication, or even via committee (i.e., D&C 134). They also fail to see how many years it took to canonize some of these revelations.

The truths taught in the Proclamation are just as profound as any section of D&C, and just as prophetic in terms relevancy to the church body at the time it was given. It is super profound and amazing revelation at the time when it was most needed by the church and I hope it gets canonized in the D&C.

I don't think that those antagonistic to the church will ever accept a revelation from President Nelson or President Oaks (if he is the next prophet). It wouldn't matter if it an angel delivered it or if the prophet used Joseph's seer stone to receive it, or if it is written by a committee of the Quorum of the 12 and First Presidency. Critics won't accept it. If it were about sin generally, they would say it isn't profound enough. If it went contrary to the world's beliefs, then they will claim it's false and made up. And if it matches the world's beliefs and expectations then they say the church just capitulated (like they say about the polygamy manifesto or the '78 revelation).  No matter what, we can't prove anything to critics.

But those with an eye to see and an ear to hear can see the revelation flowing in the church.