Has Modern Revelation stopped?

[mburgess1982]

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.

If you put your ramblings on a podcast and they were interesting I would probably listen to that too. Let me know if you ever do and Ill be your first subscriber lol

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, mburgess1982 said:

If you put your ramblings on a podcast and they were interesting I would probably listen to that too. Let me know if you ever do and Ill be your first subscriber lol

Laughing my head off at the thought….jumping from one topic to the next at the least trigger and people having to slow down the speed to understand me most likely because once I get going it’s warp speed…and never knowing how to close it, so likely it would be my current catchphrase “so anyway” followed by “that’s it, bye”.

Edited September 11, 2024 by Calm

[Stargazer]

24 minutes ago, mburgess1982 said:

If you put your ramblings on a podcast and they were interesting I would probably listen to that too. Let me know if you ever do and Ill be your first subscriber lol

I, too, would subscribe to @Calm's podcast in a heartbeat!

[Stargazer]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Laughing my head off at the thought….jumping from one topic to the next at the least trigger and people having to slow down the speed to understand me most likely because once I get going it’s warp speed…and never knowing how to close it, so likely it would be my current catchphrase “so anyway” followed by “that’s it, bye”.

I can narrate a script pretty good, but having experimented with the podcast format... oh no, that doesn't work for me. Like you, I'd be all over the place.

But maybe you'd do better than you think you would.

Edited September 11, 2024 by Stargazer

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I, too, would subscribe to @Calm's podcast in a heartbeat!

You guys are insane, lol

[Calm]

16 hours ago, Stargazer said:

But maybe you'd do better than you think you would.

Knowing me, I would kill myself getting it perfect and end up sucking the life out of it.  One or other extreme these days…

Edited September 11, 2024 by Calm

[Nofear]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

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  

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not hold, nor claim, a monopoly on revelation, inspiration, divine assistance, and recognition and use of by God. Nor do we want a monopoly. The more who seek and follow inspiration from God the better!

Do we believe that the ordinances and covenants entered into by mortals in other organizations besides the Church having binding authority beyond death or is otherwise recognized as authoritative by governances post-mortality? No. But, we have plans for that too.

 

[mburgess1982]

1 hour ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

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.

I don't disagree with you, I think you make some good points. One of the reasons I started this thread is because I was having a conversation with somebody a few days ago and they were claiming that there is no revelation in the church because President Nelson is a false Prophet and therefore he receives no revelation. I asked why he thought he was a false prophet and he responded with this talk from Hugh B Brown that supposedly lays out the characteristics of what qualifies a prophet to be a prophet and President Nelson doesn't meet the criteria in his opinion
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2006/06/the-profile-of-a-prophet?lang=eng


I responded by saying that God establishes the Criteria of who he calls, not me or you or Hugh B Brown. A true prophet can't be confined to a rigid set of criteria because God's ways and choices are often beyond human understanding, and a Prophet can't be fit into a mold. The answer of course didn't satisfy him, he said that god established a pattern and President Nelson doesn't satisfy it. My answers as I mentioned in my original question to my mother in law didn't satisfy her either

I may have framed my original question incorrectly making it seem like I don't believe in modern day revelation, I do, but have a hard time in trying to explain it to others, come up with examples etc to those antagonistic to the faith. Maybe it is just like you said, those with an eye to see and ear to hear

[Anonymous Mormon]

28 minutes ago, mburgess1982 said:

I don't disagree with you, I think you make some good points. One of the reasons I started this thread is because I was having a conversation with somebody a few days ago and they were claiming that there is no revelation in the church because President Nelson is a false Prophet and therefore he receives no revelation. I asked why he thought he was a false prophet and he responded with this talk from Hugh B Brown that supposedly lays out the characteristics of what qualifies a prophet to be a prophet and President Nelson doesn't meet the criteria in his opinion
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2006/06/the-profile-of-a-prophet?lang=eng


I responded by saying that God establishes the Criteria of who he calls, not me or you or Hugh B Brown. A true prophet can't be confined to a rigid set of criteria because God's ways and choices are often beyond human understanding, and a Prophet can't be fit into a mold. The answer of course didn't satisfy him, he said that god established a pattern and President Nelson doesn't satisfy it. My answers as I mentioned in my original question to my mother in law didn't satisfy her either

I may have framed my original question incorrectly making it seem like I don't believe in modern day revelation, I do, but have a hard time in trying to explain it to others, come up with examples etc to those antagonistic to the faith. Maybe it is just like you said, those with an eye to see and ear to hear

The problem with this argument is that Hugh B Brown gave this talk in 1955 when David O McKay was prophet (Hugh B Brown at the time was an assistant to the 12 apostles). I am certain Hugh B Brown accepted President McKay as the prophet at the time. So obviously he recognized that there was more nuance than just what was said in this talk. Most likely he was establishing Joseph Smith as a prophet who restored the church and then set up the succession of prophets that followed.

So if your friend accepts this talk, does he accept Joseph Smith as a prophet? Does he accept that Hugh B Brown would agree that President McKay was a prophet?  Would your friend accept President McKay as a prophet? Is there something exceptional about President McKay that President Nelson doesn't have?

Lots of times people antagonistic to the church throw things at me that are said by a faithful member that they don't believe but I do, but when I point out that it's more nuanced or out of context they try to pigeon-hole me into this one quote or talk. Which is annoying because they don't even believe in that talk or quote and I do, so it's not really worthwhile for them to try to tell me why it's the whole context. 

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

Is there something exceptional about President McKay that President Nelson doesn't have?

A great head of hair?

President McKay’s hair really impressed me as a young child.  I thought it was beautiful.

Edited September 11, 2024 by Calm

[blackstrap]

I have to chuckle when I see someone say that so-and-so is not a prophet because of X. Have they not read the scriptures and seen the actions etc. of the prophets ? God picks a most diverse ( sorry  ) bunch of fellows to proclaim His message. 

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

 or even via committee (i.e., D&C 134).

D&C 134 wasn’t revelation. The Twelve put it and Oliver Cowdery’s article on marriage into circulation without the prophet’s approval. One is now an embarrassment because of plural marriage and section 134 is more a statement of Madisonian principles of natural law and not a revelation. Also the idea that God ordains governments is horrifying if taken seriously.

[Nofear]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Also the idea that God ordains governments is horrifying if taken seriously.

The idea that God leaves everything to do with governments to the meddlings of Lucifer is pretty horrifying too.

On revelation: original wordings need not always come directly from God. Sometimes His childrene write or otherwise express things that are true or profoundly true and the revelation is, “yep, you pretty much got that right; good job, I approve”.

Both of your positions in that post seem to want to paint God in a box—hither God may not come! Silly mortal.

[Stargazer]

14 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

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  

And you've got a marvelously organized system for verifying miracles, too! I'm not sure if Half as Interesting comes off as being catty in this, but I found it interesting. I'm assuming he's reporting facts.

 

[Stargazer]

14 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

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  

And famed explainer C.G.P. Grey explains how to become Pope, which briefly includes choosing priests. I'm assuming he's correct on the facts. I wanted do a similar one on how to become President of the CoJCoLDS, but my animation skills are sadly lacking.

 

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

And you've got a marvelously organized system for verifying miracles, too! I'm not sure if Half as Interesting comes off as being catty in this, but I found it interesting. I'm assuming he's reporting facts.

 

Oh, we're all about categorizing everything, making lists, checking them twice, process process process.

[mburgess1982]

10 hours ago, blackstrap said:

I have to chuckle when I see someone say that so-and-so is not a prophet because of X. Have they not read the scriptures and seen the actions etc. of the prophets ? God picks a most diverse ( sorry  ) bunch of fellows to proclaim His message. 

They latch onto a certain set of criteria and if the current prophet doesn't exactly match that said criteria then they claim they aren't a prophet. I had a lot of discussions with my mother in law about this before she left the church years ago

[Kevin Christensen]

19 minutes ago, mburgess1982 said:

They latch onto a certain set of criteria and if the current prophet doesn't exactly match that said criteria then they claim they aren't a prophet. I had a lot of discussions with my mother in law about this before she left the church years ago

I occasionally report that I gathered Biblical references for 28 distinctive tests for true and false prophets in the Bible.  I also studied 70 or so arguments given Biblical peoples to justify rejection of true prophets, and Bible passages that describe what a person should to do see truth.  It happens that there is a correlation between the arguments given and the points of failure to follow the recommendations for seeing truth.  I have realized that the reason that the tests are not well known and discussed is that it is easier to control the outcome if you apply subjective tests of your own devising.  That is, rather than identifying prophets by their defining characteristics (figs versus thistles, grapes versus thorns), most people would rather do it terms of "It's not what I think, and not what I want."

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/prophettestsfv5.pdf

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Stargazer]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

D&C 134 wasn’t revelation. The Twelve put it and Oliver Cowdery’s article on marriage into circulation without the prophet’s approval. One is now an embarrassment because of plural marriage and section 134 is more a statement of Madisonian principles of natural law and not a revelation. Also the idea that God ordains governments is horrifying if taken seriously.

Dang it. I spent a considerable amount of effort putting together a scripturally cogent response to this, and then hit a wrong button, dumped my browser, and my response went up in virtual smoke. I hate it when that happens. So, I'm doing it again. THIS time I will not fail!

Quote

D&C 134 wasn’t revelation. The Twelve put it and Oliver Cowdery’s article on marriage into circulation without the prophet’s approval. ... [S]ection 134 is more a statement of Madisonian principles of natural law and not a revelation.

Maybe so, but given that Madison is considered the "Father of the Constitution" it seems that his principles may have been inspired and not merely pragmatic, given God's approval as expressed below in actual revelations.

Quote

Also the idea that God ordains governments is horrifying if taken seriously.

Horrifying? If God ordained a government this would be horrifying? What an odd notion! During the Millennium we'll have a God-ordained government. Will that one be horrifying? I'll show you horrifying, then.

I'm sure you've seen these before, but since I'm a huge fan of the Constitution, I thought I would put these quotations from actual revelations forward for your horrification. Emphasis added.

Men may have authored it, but its principles (Madisonian, if you will) were divinely inspired:

D&C 101:77 -> According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

D&C 101:80 -> And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.

D&C 101 is a revelation, and D&C 98, also a revelation, which was given a few months before, presages it:

D&C 98:4-7 -> And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them. And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

D&C 109 is the dedicatory prayer for the Kirtland Temple, which Joseph Smith stated was given by revelation:

D&C 109:54 -> Have mercy, O Lord, upon all the nations of the earth; have mercy upon the rulers of our land; may those principles, which were so honorably and nobly defended, namely, the Constitution of our land, by our fathers, be established forever.

In his talk during the April 2021 General Conference President Dallin Oaks spoke about the Constitution in very strong terms as a divinely inspired document: Defending Our Divinely Inspired Constitution.

On balance, I would say that the US Constitution establishes a government that is about as close as we can currently come to a government ordained by God. Is this truly horrifying?

[Stargazer]

25 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I occasionally report that I gathered Biblical references for 28 distinctive tests for true and false prophets in the Bible.  I also studied 70 or so arguments given Biblical peoples to justify rejection of true prophets, and Bible passages that describe what a person should to do see truth.  It happens that there is a correlation between the arguments given and the points of failure to follow the recommendations for seeing truth.  I have realized that the reason that the tests are not well known and discussed is that it is easier to control the outcome if you apply subjective tests of your own devising.  That is, rather than identifying prophets by their defining characteristics (figs versus thistles, grapes versus thorns), most people would rather do it terms of "It's not what I think, and not what I want."

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/prophettestsfv5.pdf

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Holy cow, Kevin! I clicked on the link, saw the first page, and thinking the document looked interesting, I decided to print it out so I could read it in meatspace rather than on a tablet or computer screen. Whoa! My mistake! My laser printer just kept pumping out the pages, and I wondered if something had gone wrong -- and it had! I had forgotten to check to see how many pages were going to spew out: 83!!!  Oh my gosh. 

AND, a closer look shows that the document is not intended to be printed out, but is heavily hypertext-oriented. So it is designed specifically to be used digitally rather than printed. 

I have my work cut out for me now. I printed it out from the browser, which was also a mistake, as it ended up with odd margins. It would have worked out better to download and then print from Acrobat on my PC. But, oh well.

You did a LOT of work on this!

Edited September 11, 2024 by Stargazer

[CV75]

16 hours ago, the narrator said:

And how would you distinguish it?

As I noted, by my personal, subjective experience with it.

When a Church leader says such-and-such came by revelation, I consider the role of "keys" and "gift of the Holy Ghost." I have lived with (and before baptism, without) both and distinguish them from other religious principles of knowledge and authority. Epiphanies and individual/group/council decisions that come by common sense, the light of Christ, professional expertise and constraints, etc. are something else. Elder Oaks discussed this somewhere in terms of administrative keys of authority within the Church articles and covenants (as D&C uses the phrase) for setting policy, conducting business, etc., and Church leaders enjoy and employ these also. When a leader from another denomination uses similar language (and they typically do not), I do not recognize that they posses the restored "keys" and "gift of the Holy Ghost." This takes nothing away from their open-mindedness to hear and learn from the views of their trusted colleagues or their ability to use common sense or the light of Christ in coming up with their organization's doctrine, covenants, policies and business decisions, etc. But I don't consider these revelation by virtue of priesthood keys and the gift of the Holy Ghost.

When someone asserts that all these are the same thing (revelation), I insert "according to their paradigm and subjective experience with their understanding of revelation" in my interpretation. We are equally biased just in different directions.

[10THAmendment]

The Family Proclamation is an example of pure prophecy on the level that we read about in the scriptures. Every time I read that my jaw hits the floor that it was produced 30 years ago in a MUCH different world. 

Home centered church was rolled out just prior to Covid. 

President Nelson’s warnings to urgently prepare spiritually as the Second Coming is almost here is quite prophetic as well as I think we will see in the coming years. 
 

President Holland’s last conference talk was entirely based on either a vision or an actual visit he made to the spirit realm. 
 

There is probably more going on revelation wise than what is publicly disclosed.

[Kevin Christensen]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Holy cow, Kevin! I clicked on the link, saw the first page, and thinking the document looked interesting, I decided to print it out so I could read it in meatspace rather than on a tablet or computer screen. Whoa! My mistake! My laser printer just kept pumping out the pages, and I wondered if something had gone wrong -- and it had! I had forgotten to check to see how many pages were going to spew out: 83!!!  Oh my gosh. 

AND, a closer look shows that the document is not intended to be printed out, but is heavily hypertext-oriented. So it is designed specifically to be used digitally rather than printed. 

I have my work cut out for me now. I printed it out from the browser, which was also a mistake, as it ended up with odd margins. It would have worked out better to download and then print from Acrobat on my PC. But, oh well.

You did a LOT of work on this!

Yes, the document is designed to be used digitally.  Indeed, I think it works best as a digital document, because you can drill down to references, and come back up to overviews, rather having to plough through all the references.   I had spent decades working on it, unsuccessfully until I realized that I had the tools to do a digital version, which makes it work.  At one point over a decade before, I submitted a version to the Ensign and had some communication back.  But it was so unwieldy for publication then.  FAIR has had an HTML version up, but in the last year or so, the first page broke, and for navigation purposes, that is important.  They recently put the pdf back up.  And that is good because phones have much more memory and screen size and resolution.  I recently gave a copy to the missionaries in my ward and encouraged them to share it. 

One aspect that I ponder every time I see anyone discussing the question of true and false prophets, is that anyone could have done this, and no one had.  And now with it having been out there now for many years, few pay attention at all.  A few days ago, I ran across a Catholic Influencer video pod cast, claiming to test Joseph Smith as a a false prophet, based on the two Deuteronomy tests, which it happens, were also the weapons of choice during Jesus's ministry and trial, and which are, it happens the ones most qualified by examples in the Bible, and abused in practice in the Bible.  It is easier to control the answer with just those. When I first published these at FAIR, an Evangelical apologist who used to come to this board, accused me of throwing the study in his face, as though it was an insult and in poor taste to consider these passages collectively, and promised to publish a response.  Never happened.  Not a whisper.

And all of that is why the study also includes some discussions that try to set expectations about what these references can accomplish.  They do not constitute proof texts that can coerce another's submission, but represent an invitation to study and ponder.  To approach the question of true and false prophets with the capability of distinguishing figs from thistles and thorns from grapes, rather than just personal predilection and taste.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited September 11, 2024 by Kevin Christensen

[Tacenda]

14 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I, too, would subscribe to @Calm's podcast in a heartbeat!

Sign me up, I'd love that!

[Stargazer]

36 minutes ago, 10THAmendment said:

The Family Proclamation is an example of pure prophecy on the level that we read about in the scriptures. Every time I read that my jaw hits the floor that it was produced 30 years ago in a MUCH different world. 

Home centered church was rolled out just prior to Covid. 

President Nelson’s warnings to urgently prepare spiritually as the Second Coming is almost here is quite prophetic as well as I think we will see in the coming years. 
 

President Holland’s last conference talk was entirely based on either a vision or an actual visit he made to the spirit realm. 
 

There is probably more going on revelation wise than what is publicly disclosed.

Thanks for reminding me of that talk: Motions of a Hidden Fire

Quote

 

Another experience began 48 hours after my wife’s burial. At that time, I was rushed to the hospital in an acute medical crisis. I then spent the first four weeks of a six-week stay in and out of intensive care and in and out of consciousness.

Virtually all my experience in the hospital during that first period is lost to my memory. What is not lost is my memory of a journey outside the hospital, out to what seemed the edge of eternity. I cannot speak fully of that experience here, but I can say that part of what I received was an admonition to return to my ministry with more urgency, more consecration, more focus on the Savior, more faith in His word.