Has Modern Revelation stopped?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Sign me up, I'd love that!

But what would I talk about that hasn’t been done tons already on quite polished versions?  I supposed I could call it The Nitpicker’s Guide to Anything and just choose whatever article or podcast out there strikes my fancy that day and proceed to take it apart down to its wee bits, lol.  That could be fun. 

But seriously, if I did a podcast I would want it to be constructive, not destructive and that would require so much effort. 

[Tacenda]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

But what would I talk about that hasn’t been done tons already on quite polished versions?  I supposed I could call it The Nitpicker’s Guide to Anything and just choose whatever article or podcast out there strikes my fancy that day and proceed to take it apart down to its wee bits, lol.  That could be fun. 

But seriously, if I did a podcast I would want it to be constructive, not destructive and that would require so much effort. 

A former neighbor of mine, has a podcast with her daughter. There are subjects that are really helpful for many out there. Mainly that of her daughter's friends that committed suicide. But other topics as well. 

Maybe you and your daughter could speak on the health issues the both of you have suffered or do other subjects as well.  

Edited September 11, 2024 by Tacenda

[Frank11]

19 hours ago, Calm said:

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?

Today's church leaders have often described how they receive revelations. They do not physically see Jesus, Peter, James or John, but they have the strong impression of a divine revelation through their feelings. You could also say that the eyes of understanding are opened. I am convinced that Joseph Smith did not physically see anything either. But perhaps he himself had the impression that these spiritual inspirations were divine revelations and called them visions, because so many claimed to have divine visions at that time. 
I have had some very strange experiences in my life, as most of us probably have. Because I am a believer in God, I associate these particular experiences with God and have the impression that the hand of God must have been involved.  An atheist would interpret these experiences as good luck or great coincidence. A Hindu or Buddhist would perhaps draw different conclusions based on their faith. 
This means that the perception of a special experience or spiritual inspiration is also very subjective. A man who grew up in the burned over district during the Second Great Awakening sees inspirations from his subjective point of view somewhat differently than a former heart surgeon or former airplane captain in the 21st century.

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

A former neighbor of mine, has a podcast with her daughter. There are subjects that are really helpful for many out there. Mainly that of her daughter's friends that committed suicide. But other topics as well. 

Maybe you and your daughter could speak on the health issues the both of you have suffered or do other subjects as well.  

Maybe if we could have an animated character as a stand in for her, lol…for me too!  That would be so much easier…not tech wise obviously, just nervousnesswise.

[the narrator]

4 hours 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. 

Do you mean a year before Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act--when Hawaii was considering legalizing same-sex marriage, leading to a national discussion on same-sex marriage, and the Church needing an official statement of doctrinal opposition to SSM for an amicus brief to be filed before the end of September of that year in support the legal opposition to SSM in Hawaii, and hence Hinckley demanding that the Relief Society change their plans for their General Conference session that month so that he could read the statement and make it official for the brief?

Seems it was much more relevant 30 years ago then now when opposition to SSM has largely been dropped--and even the Church actively supporting the protection of SSM as long as certain religious protections were also provided.

4 hours ago, 10THAmendment said:

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. 

Saints were saying the same thing nearly 200 years ago with much stronger and explicit warnings of Second Coming's immanence.

[the narrator]

whoops

Edited September 11, 2024 by the narrator

[the narrator]

whoops

Edited September 11, 2024 by the narrator

[the narrator]

whoops. Guess I should have checked it actually didn't post before hitting post multiple times.

Edited September 11, 2024 by the narrator

[10THAmendment]

20 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Do you mean a year before Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act--when Hawaii was considering legalizing same-sex marriage, leading to a national discussion on same-sex marriage, and the Church needing an official statement of doctrinal opposition to SSM for an amicus brief to be filed before the end of September of that year in support the legal opposition to SSM in Hawaii, and hence Hinckley demanding that the Relief Society change their plans for their General Conference session that month so that he could read the statement and make it official for the brief?

Seems it was much more relevant 30 years ago then now when opposition to SSM has largely been dropped--and even the Church actively supporting the protection of SSM as long as certain religious protections were also provided.

Saints were saying the same thing nearly 200 years ago with much stronger and explicit warnings of Second Coming's immanence.

Judge ye

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Frank11 said:

Today's church leaders have often described how they receive revelations. They do not physically see Jesus, Peter, James or John, but they have the strong impression of a divine revelation through their feelings. You could also say that the eyes of understanding are opened. I am convinced that Joseph Smith did not physically see anything either. But perhaps he himself had the impression that these spiritual inspirations were divine revelations and called them visions, because so many claimed to have divine visions at that time. 

I have had some very strange experiences in my life, as most of us probably have. Because I am a believer in God, I associate these particular experiences with God and have the impression that the hand of God must have been involved.  An atheist would interpret these experiences as good luck or great coincidence. A Hindu or Buddhist would perhaps draw different conclusions based on their faith. 
This means that the perception of a special experience or spiritual inspiration is also very subjective. A man who grew up in the burned over district during the Second Great Awakening sees inspirations from his subjective point of view somewhat differently than a former heart surgeon or former airplane captain in the 21st century.

 

Urg…it refreshed and went back to the previous post rather than the one I was working on, which is a first, how odd, so now I have to go get the links again…so will be saving partway in case it decides to refresh again before I finish…ignore for a bit please…added:  okay, done.

I very much appreciate you answering my interrogations to satisfy my curiosity as I realize, even if I don’t feel a need to criticize you for them, there may be others who do criticize your beliefs and interpretations.

So given the underlined above, what do you see happening with the bolded below?  Is Joseph embellishing his experience so as to be more convincing, more persuasive, or more clickbaity to use modern parlance?  Or did he imagine he was seeing people even if he wasn’t because he expected to see them when he felt the communication? Or something else?

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?lang=eng

Quote

17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

IMO, revelation is mind/spirit to mind/spirit*** as that facilitates such experiences as below, but also, while I believe God is fluent in English, I think he likely speaks in his own language that is then transmitted to our mind/spirit, which then translates his words into what we can receive.  So there is probably a massive amount of information that is lost in transmission between his speech to what we think was said and someone more emotionally/mentally/spiritually prepared and open would receive more info than someone less prepared and open even if ‘hearing’ the same thing.

https://biblehub.com/acts/2-6.htm

Quote

each one was hearing them speak in his own language

*** can’t decide if the mind and spirit are two different parts of our being or the same part seen different ways.

Edited September 11, 2024 by Calm

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, Nofear said:

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

Maybe there are some other beings with agency that are involved somehow?

Also it might be horrifying but pretty sure you are supposed to think Lucifer’s actions are horrifying. The idea that God supports governments in general and even ordains them makes God a monster.

8 hours ago, Nofear said:

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.

D&C 134 is not profoundly true.

[The Nehor]

41 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Do you mean a year before Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act--when Hawaii was considering legalizing same-sex marriage, leading to a national discussion on same-sex marriage, and the Church needing an official statement of doctrinal opposition to SSM for an amicus brief to be filed before the end of September of that year in support the legal opposition to SSM in Hawaii, and hence Hinckley demanding that the Relief Society change their plans for their General Conference session that month so that he could read the statement and make it official for the brief?

Seems it was much more relevant 30 years ago then now when opposition to SSM has largely been dropped--and even the Church actively supporting the protection of SSM as long as certain religious protections were also provided.

This. The idea that this came out of nowhere is a myth that relies on members having goldfish memories.

41 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Saints were saying the same thing nearly 200 years ago with much stronger and explicit warnings of Second Coming's immanence.

This too.

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

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!

I hate it when that happens!

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

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.

Yet the current church is pretty far away from Madisonian principles. Madison would swallow his tongue at the idea of total obedience to church leadership. Also D&C 134 includes Madisonian provisos about who owes allegiance to a government and who does not and hints of when you should rise up and depose a government. You won’t find the Church teaching anything along those lines.

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

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.

Governments have historically been about monopolizing violence. It is only in the last few centuries that other priorities have come close to that objective. If God had been saying the US government was ordained by God that would have been weird and confusing but less scary. Saying all governments are ordained by God is scary. That is “divine right of kings” stuff.

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

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.

I like the Constitution. It was a break to a large degree from government in general. It was the first truly liberal government we know of. There were some quasi-liberal states in the Old World but this was a great experiment.

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

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.

So D&C 98 is saying that any government not based on these constitutional principles is evil. Again, then God wasn’t ordaining government in general as we have no records of any governments based on anything like those principles of freedom. This is contradicting section 134 which is why I stand by it NOT being revelation.

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

 

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.

Including the wisdom of enslaving inferior races, the 3/5ths compromise, the exclusion of women from political life, and all those other honorable and noble principles of the Constitution.

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

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?

Again, D&C 134 says all governments were ordained by God. I said that is horrifying. You show me one that is somewhat less horrifying and think that flips the argument somehow. If God ordains all governments having one that gets God’s approval doesn’t make all the other governments God ordained less horrifying. Hence why I think D&C 134 is not revelation. It is in our canon primarily due to inertia. Many of the ideas in it are good (I like Madisonian reasoning) but they aren’t divine wisdom.

 

[teddyaware]

On 9/10/2024 at 11:00 AM, 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

 

 

The present-day church is totally awash in revelation, and if one possesses the spirit of revelation this truth becomes as clear and undeniable as observing the summer sun rising over the sea on a cloudless dawn. What many fail to understand is that this is a day in which it’s imperative for each member to possess a sufficient measure of the spirit of revelation for himself if he’s ever going to be able to survive spiritually in the coming days of mass deception and persecution. Why? Because it’s now too dangerous for the church leaders to spell things out in black and white for those who’ve failed to do what’s necessary to keep a sufficient measure of the spirit of revelation in their lamps. Mockers will surely mock and laugh, but the day is soon coming when the truth of God will no longer be deniable, that is unless he’s one who’s is willing to deny that the sun is shining in the full glory of noonday.

Edited September 11, 2024 by teddyaware

[The Nehor]

28 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

The present-day church is totally awash in revelation, and if one possesses the spirit of revelation this truth becomes as clear and undeniable as observing the summer sun rising over the sea on a cloudless dawn. What many fail to understand is that this is a day in which it’s imperative for each member to possess a sufficient measure of the spirit of revelation for himself if he’s ever going to be able to survive spiritually in the coming days of mass deception and persecution. Why? Because it’s now too dangerous for the church leaders to spell things out in black and white for those who’ve failed to do what’s necessary to keep a sufficient measure of the spirit of revelation in their lamps. Mockers will surely mock and laugh, but the day is soon coming when the truth of God will no longer be deniable, that is unless he’s one who’s is willing to deny that the sun is shining in the full glory of noonday.

As opposed to previous dispensations where it was perfectly safe for prophets to spell things out. Just ask Jeremiah and Isaiah and Abinadi and Lehi. No negative repercussions there.

[Frank11]

 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

So given the underlined above, what do you see happening with the bolded below?  Is Joseph embellishing his experience so as to be more convincing, more persuasive, or more clickbaity to use modern parlance?  Or did he imagine he was seeing people even if he wasn’t because he expected to see them when he felt the communication? Or something else?

Very good question and the answer that first came to my mind may sound a bit strange: He changed his image of God.
The only handwritten version of the 1st vision by Joseph Smith himself is also the oldest documentation from 1832. There are no two personages at all. 
Only from 1835 is there a separation of God the Father and the Son into two personages. The official version dates from 1838.

If he remembered only one person in 1832 and two persons from 1835 onwards, his image of God had changed, but hardly as a result of the vision in 1820.
In this respect, the vision cannot have been that impressive for him. 
In fact, the first vision was unknown to the first Mormons.
 

Edited September 11, 2024 by Frank11

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Maybe there are some other beings with agency that are involved somehow?

Also it might be horrifying but pretty sure you are supposed to think Lucifer’s actions are horrifying. The idea that God supports governments in general and even ordains them makes God a monster.

That God can be involved in things doesn't make him culpable for them. For example, I'm pretty confident that some of those who suffered in the Cambodian killing fields sought and found some degree of comfort with God. Some might wish to say that God is to blame because he did not intervene to stop it and that offering comfort is a pathetic weakness and that it's far better to suppose that God just is absent all together. I do not take that line of thought.
 

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

D&C 134 is not profoundly true.

Well, either asserting or not asserting that wasn't my point. My point is that not all revelation requires that God be the direct author of it. Sometimes God may simply ratify things, elevating such ratified expressions to being "revelation".

[The Nehor]

37 minutes ago, Nofear said:

That God can be involved in things doesn't make him culpable for them. For example, I'm pretty confident that some of those who suffered in the Cambodian killing fields sought and found some degree of comfort with God. Some might wish to say that God is to blame because he did not intervene to stop it and that offering comfort is a pathetic weakness and that it's far better to suppose that God just is absent all together. I do not take that line of thought.
 

Well, either asserting or not asserting that wasn't my point. My point is that not all revelation requires that God be the direct author of it. Sometimes God may simply ratify things, elevating such ratified expressions to being "revelation".

You’re dancing around the point. D&C 134 says governments are ordained by God. Historically most governments are violent and awful. Talking about how God isn’t culpable is an argument but it doesn’t deal with the central point. If God ordains all governments God ordains a lot of bad governments and IS culpable. If God doesn’t ordain all governments everything makes more sense.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

D&C 134 says governments are ordained by God. Historically most governments are violent and awful. Talking about how God isn’t culpable is an argument but it doesn’t deal with the central point.

Would life be better without most governments?  Could there be anything much larger than a village without government?  Most villages have a village head, do they not? (Not a challenge, serious questions as I am trying to imagine what life without government could be like and not seeing it as possible)

Edited September 11, 2024 by Calm

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

You’re dancing around the point. D&C 134 says governments are ordained by God. Historically most governments are violent and awful. Talking about how God isn’t culpable is an argument but it doesn’t deal with the central point. If God ordains all governments God ordains a lot of bad governments and IS culpable. If God doesn’t ordain all governments everything makes more sense.

Technically D&C 134 doesn't say "ordained". May wish to reread it. "1. We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society."
 

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Technically D&C 134 doesn't say "ordained". May wish to reread it. "1. We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society."
 

To me that sounds like the existence of government was instituted by God, but that men and women are accountable for how they govern as well as how they handle being governed.

[let’s roll]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Again, D&C 134 says all governments were ordained by God. I said that is horrifying. You show me one that is somewhat less horrifying and think that flips the argument somehow. If God ordains all governments having one that gets God’s approval doesn’t make all the other governments God ordained less horrifying. Hence why I think D&C 134 is not revelation. It is in our canon primarily due to inertia. Many of the ideas in it are good (I like Madisonian reasoning) but they aren’t divine wisdom.

 

Some thoughts.

First, I understand the belief expressed in the first verse that “governments were instituted by God for the benefit of man” is best understood as the articulation of the principle that God considers mortals organizing themselves via governmental bodies to address temporal issues as a laudable endeavor and not a violation of the commandments forbidding the creation of other gods.  

Second, I don’t see the logic in the idea that because God sees government as an acceptable vehicle for managing temporal affairs He condones everything done by every government.  The end of the first verse which says that government officials are accountable for acts done in the name of government seems be a clear signal that God understands that mortals exercising their agency in the name of government will sometimes act badly, or even atrociously, and will be held accountable for their actions.  God ordains government.  God ordains love as well, but God doesn’t condone everything done in the name of love or in the name of government.

Third, the preamble describes the language in the Section as the “opinion” of the authors on the subject of “earthly governments and laws in general.” Other prophets have shared their opinions on government…a BofM prophet opined that the best form of government is a benevolent monarchy.  Canonical opinions seems an apt description of both and I don’t consider that description as precluding them from being revelatory.

 

Edited September 12, 2024 by let’s roll

[CV75]

The section header to D&C134 says:

A declaration of belief regarding governments and laws in general, adopted by unanimous vote at a general assembly of the Church held at Kirtland, Ohio, August 17, 1835. Many Saints gathered together to consider the proposed contents of the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. At that time, this declaration was given the following preamble: “That our belief with regard to earthly governments and laws in general may not be misinterpreted nor misunderstood, we have thought proper to present, at the close of this volume, our opinion concerning the same.”

Each verse expresses a principle-based opinion point. None of the principles seem to be rooted in latter-day revelation to the authors of this section.

I don't take this section to be a revelation, but more of an outgrowth of the "articles and covenants" (as used in D&C 42:13). The Section 20 header shows how some articles and covenants came by revelation, but I can't tie any of this kind to D&C 134.

[CV75]

9 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

Some thoughts.

First, I understand the belief expressed in the first verse that “governments were instituted by God for the benefit of man” is best understood as the articulation of the principle that God considers mortals organizing themselves via governmental bodies to address temporal issues as a laudable endeavor and not a violation of the commandments forbidding the creation of other gods.  

Second, I don’t see the logic in the idea that because God sees government as an acceptable vehicle for managing temporal affairs He condones everything done by every government.  The end of the first verse which says that government officials are accountable for acts done in the name of government seems be a clear signal that God understands that mortals exercising their agency in the name of government will sometimes act badly, or even atrociously, and will be held accountable for their actions.  God ordains government.  God ordains love as well, but God doesn’t condone everything done in the name of love or in the name of government.

Third, the preamble describes the language in the Section as the “opinion” of the authors on the subject of “earthly governments and laws in general.” Other prophets have shared their opinions on government…a BofM prophet opined that the best form of government is a benevolent monarchy.  Canonical opinions seems an apt description of both and I don’t consider that description as precluding them from being revelatory.

 

I think it good to remember that the first government was a family (instituted by the marriage covenant in Eden), and then trace the (d)evolution of earthly governments from there.

[10THAmendment]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

This. The idea that this came out of nowhere is a myth that relies on members having goldfish memories.

 

Straw man. It wasn’t out of nowhere but it was absolutely ahead of its time. The emphasis on gender was especially prophetic. Nobody could have imagined in their wildest dreams where society would be 30 years down the road. 
 

Also the warnings at the end of the proclamation are interesting given that western societies are in serious decline.