Has Modern Revelation stopped?

[Nofear]

43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

Agreed.

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, 10THAmendment said:

western societies are in serious decline

“Decline” defined as how? (Feel free to ignore if you see this as too political)

Edited September 12, 2024 by Calm

[Nofear]

55 minutes ago, 10THAmendment said:

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

As much as I might agree at some level, I suspect that one's perception of the world is rather inaccurate (but that's true of just about everybody). I encourage some self quizzing: https://upgrader.gapminder.org/

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

“Decline” defined as how? (Feel free to ignore if you see this as too political)

There are a lot of areas that one could argue it is in decline from economic, cultural, religious, demographic, political, social, and moral, ect.  Probably the only real area that I see we are advancing is technology but even that is a double edge sword. 

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

“Decline” defined as how? (Feel free to ignore if you see this as too political)

Western Civilization has been in decline since the protestant rebellion.

 

[3DOP]

32 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Western Civilization has been in decline since the protestant rebellion.

 

Maybe we will need to look to the "dark continent" for wisdom.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

There are a lot of areas that one could argue it is in decline from economic, cultural, religious, demographic, political, social, and moral, ect.  Probably the only real area that I see we are advancing is technology but even that is a double edge sword. 

I find this odd to be honest.   Medicine and public hygiene, the level of food production, the ability to receive education, the expansion of leisure time to explore ways to appreciate life, to communicate and travel quickly all have has advanced the quality of life so much for so many, how can civilization be said to be in decline?

How many of those gifted in music would have been able to even possess an instrument beyond perhaps drums or a simple flute or string instrument in the past and receive training for it?  How often would they be able to create their own music, have it accepted and performed by others beyond their own village and remembered after their death?  Now someone in Utah can follow performers in Mongolia, Australia, Britain, Japan, India, Africa, etc.  and explore music from any time period that someone has taken the time to record.

Most importantly….

In the past, what percentage of the world’s population would have been able to enjoy the fruits of that allegedly higher civilization?

Education, quality shelter, quality clothing options, good quality and variety of food, and a long life to make use of such for self development?  

Relative safety from war?  To be able to own their own home and have legal redress if someone tries to take it from them?  Being able to have instant access to the world’s greatest literature, art, and music anytime and any place one wants?

My sister, an elementary school teacher, a single woman most of her adult life, is off to Paris this week for a vacation with a female friend without having to beg for permission or funds from a wealthy male family member and when she bought a car recently, she got a loan in her own name.  My daughter, diagnosed with diabetes at the age of 12 and an overactive thyroid at the age of 30 is still alive, if not functioning that great because of other issues that at least medicine is aware of and working on curing.  I have German, Swedish, Korean, Russian, Nigerian, Canadian, Austrian, Iranian friends and more that aren’t popping into my head right now….and we can easily communicate with each other.  I am middle class and I own hundreds and hundreds of books and I have some truly fantastic art on many of my walls, even if inexpensive reproductions.

But civilization is in decline….

Edited September 12, 2024 by Calm

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

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)

Probably not better. It is more that the main function of government is to execute violence and virtually always has been and the earth seems to be designed so that is the inevitable outcome. Whether it is the raids to drive out opposition out of the prime territory ideal for hunter gatherers or the seizure of administrative centers to get the best cropland or whatever the primary objective is violence. Even if you do idealistically aren’t interested in expansion you have the security dilemma where every action you take to make yourself safer increases the threat to others in the area so they react accordingly.

It is only in the last few centuries that war became economically unprofitable.

Edited September 12, 2024 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, 10THAmendment said:

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. 

Serious decline in what way? By virtually every standard things today are better than any other period of history and are particularly good if you live under a liberal democracy.

I love the idea that the gays and the trans are somehow the harbingers of the end of days. They are a minority of the population but somehow tolerating them is going to bring about a horrific doom.

You would think that if the sexual and gender practices of the most marginalized segments of the population were the most horrible thing ever that the prophets, Jesus, and the book written for our day would talk a lot more about them. Also interesting that God is going to destroy the world because of these small groups *checks notes* existing.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

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.

We have nothing to trace it by and marriages aren’t governments.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.

Yeah, got the wording wrong but still think the point stands. We don’t see any of these good governments God instituted in the distant past and they were virtually all disasters by Christian standards.

[Nofear]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, got the wording wrong but still think the point stands. We don’t see any of these good governments God instituted in the distant past and they were virtually all disasters by Christian standards.

Governments are basically social contracts to facilitate cooperative and peaceful interactions between members of that society. That God would encourage such peaceful and cooperative interactions is kind of a no-brainer. That men would misuse and abuse such social contracts is also a no-brainer -- but that doesn't make the concept of social contracts bad or undesirable. As much as I can appreciate your skepticism about "good government", one need only look at the the nations around the world where governments are not functioning and the horrors that exist there to recognize that their absence is far worse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_state).

 

[CV75]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

We have nothing to trace it by and marriages aren’t governments.

So some may say, "but from the beginning it was not so." Adam and Eve's stewardship over their dominion constituted a government for the family order, which models the commonality between a marriage and a government and the functions each provides.

We can also trace it through the Evolutionary Theory of Government where the first governments evolved naturally from the family leadership dynamics which then expanded into clans, tribes, networks and alliances between such, etc., with each level recognizing common leadership, laws and their enforcement, large-scale projects and endeavors, etc. This goes back a long time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_as_a_model_for_the_state#:~:text=The first known writer to,as children obey their father.

There are other theories, but even these (e.g., Divine Right of Kings, Force, etc.) have their foundation in human relationships which are initiated in families and how they are governed.

[Bernard Gui]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

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)

I understand it to mean that in His plan for the earth He included the concept of governance to maintain order among His children, with the caveat that those who govern unrighteously shall answer to Him in the great reckoning and that those whom they abused will receive just compensation. This is also true at the family and other levels. 

[Bernard Gui]

11 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Western Civilization has been in decline since the protestant rebellion.

 

Well, for sure since Alan Freed came along. I’m serious, by the way. 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Nofear said:

Governments are basically social contracts to facilitate cooperative and peaceful interactions between members of that society. That God would encourage such peaceful and cooperative interactions is kind of a no-brainer. That men would misuse and abuse such social contracts is also a no-brainer -- but that doesn't make the concept of social contracts bad or undesirable. As much as I can appreciate your skepticism about "good government", one need only look at the the nations around the world where governments are not functioning and the horrors that exist there to recognize that their absence is far worse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_state).

 

That is Hobbes view. That is not how governments have worked through most of history. Governments were imposed violently. In the age of liberal democracies there is something to the social contract but the idea that the bulk of the subsistence farmers throughout most of history voluntarily entered into a social contract is just silly.

Failed states in the current world are mostly a disaster. There are examples in history where failed states were a boon to the people living in them. Not all of them but some. This usually only happened in marginal lands though. If the government fails in desirable land then another government quickly imposes itself, usually an external occupier.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

So some may say, "but from the beginning it was not so." Adam and Eve's stewardship over their dominion constituted a government for the family order, which models the commonality between a marriage and a government and the functions each provides.

We can also trace it through the Evolutionary Theory of Government where the first governments evolved naturally from the family leadership dynamics which then expanded into clans, tribes, networks and alliances between such, etc., with each level recognizing common leadership, laws and their enforcement, large-scale projects and endeavors, etc. This goes back a long time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_as_a_model_for_the_state#:~:text=The first known writer to,as children obey their father.

There are other theories, but even these (e.g., Divine Right of Kings, Force, etc.) have their foundation in human relationships which are initiated in families and how they are governed.

That doesn’t trace it to any divine original government.

[bluebell]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, got the wording wrong but still think the point stands. We don’t see any of these good governments God instituted in the distant past and they were virtually all disasters by Christian standards.

I think it really depends on how you define 'good' here.  Governments, for example, are one reason that we have things like air travel, internet, any kind of real health care, the amount of food that we have, cell phones, etc.  

All the things that have increased our lifespan, allowed global travel, and world wide communication (and a lot more) come from the existence of governments, which provide enough stability and resources for people to live above a 'village' existence.  The industrial revolution would never have existed without governments to make that industry possible.

The spreading of the gospel to all the world, and the entire world being administered by one church is possible because of everything that governments have allowed to come into existence.

I think you are defining good as 'righteous' but governments can be 'good' for us without being actually good.

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

the bulk of the subsistence farmers throughout most of history voluntarily entered into a social contract is just silly.

Even in small village government?  Where basically a village head and maybe a few elders to settle disagreements?  

[CV75]

45 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That doesn’t trace it to any divine original government.

divine original government. = dog = God spelled backwards as in a mirror darkly (hence the capital "G")

At this point, to what are you referring as "it"? And what on earth is a "divine original government"?

I would in any case, point out that both family and government have their heavenly counterparts and original models.

[Nofear]

42 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That is Hobbes view. That is not how governments have worked through most of history. Governments were imposed violently. In the age of liberal democracies there is something to the social contract but the idea that the bulk of the subsistence farmers throughout most of history voluntarily entered into a social contract is just silly.

David Hume would agree with you that a "social contract" has not been the norm. But neither does he exclude the idea that it should be the norm.

 

Quote

My intention here is not to exclude the consent of the people from being one just foundation of government where it has place. It is surely the best and most sacred of any. I only contend that it has very seldom had place in any degree and never almost in its full extent. And that therefore some other foundation of government must also be admitted.

I believe that God is the author of the idea of a social contract. I don't believe the commandments of God are but what we have consented to obey them. I hold that we covenanted to obey some basic commandments as condition for coming to mortality and that we are allowed to covenant to obey greater laws if we choose. Indeed, we will not enter into any of the degrees of glory (kingdoms) but we willingly consent to the conditions of their governance. I disagree with Jefferson who asserts that "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."

[cujo22]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

Even in small village government?  Where basically a village head and maybe a few elders to settle disagreements?  

Sounds like the government camp in "The Grapes of Wrath".

[Bernard Gui]

"We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof."

"We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."

I consider this to be a prophecy that has come to pass in my lifetime. In 1978, Elder Maxwell said,

Quote

In the months and years ahead, events will require of each member that he or she decide whether or not he or she will follow the First Presidency. Your discipleship may see the time come when religious convictions are heavily discounted. Society will seek to disallow certain of people’s opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions. Resistance to abortion will soon be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened. Society will be condescending toward those who hold to traditional Judeo-Christian values. The secular church will do what it can to reduce the influence of those who still worry over standards such as those in the Ten Commandments.

• Today we are having to decide in many ways whether or not we will follow the First Presidency. 
• Religious convictions are being heavily discounted and even rejected.
• Religion-based pinions are being dismissed and censored.
• Resistance to abortion is not only being viewed as primitive but as reprehensible.
• Concerns over the institution of the family are dismissed, and the very concept of "family" has been distorted.
• Society repudiates those who hold to traditional Judeo-Christian values.
• The Ten Commandments and those who believe them are being marginalized.

Considering the LDS Church’s emphasis on self-reliance for the past 50 years and the huge spike in talks since 1960 that counsel the Saints to "prepare" and make "preparations," I wondered if the Lord does prepare his people for economic downturns. I searched for a few terms in the Corpus of LDS General Conference Talks https://www.lds-general-conference.org/x.asp and came across some interesting things. One may think they are coincidental...perhaps.

Here are the frequency of references to the law of tithing in General Conferences since 1850. Those of you who are smarter than me can figure out if these are significant, but I do note that references to tithing spike from 1890 to 1929 (the generation who would be adults or parents during the Great Depression). As far as I can tell, no speakers said, "Pay your tithing and the Lord will bless you during the coming Depression," but is it not possible that the Lord was preparing the Saints in His own way? I also note the spike in the 1870s and 1940s. This is significant? Who knows?

Quote

Conference talks that refer to the law of tithing:

1850s 174

1860s 209

1870s 375

1880s 168

1890s 395

1900s 434

1910s 234

1920s 322

1930s 229

1940s 294

1950s 175

1960s 196

1970s 149

1980s 137

1990s 192

2000s 292

2010s 91

Before the great stock market crash, Apostle George Richard’s April 1929 conference talk included this about tithing.

Quote

The subject of tithing has claimed considerable of the time of this conference. A most excellent discourse upon that subject was delivered at the priesthood meeting by President Grant. The importance of the subject demands that it have consideration in our conferences and that it have consideration in our homes. I desire my family to be blessed of the Lord. I therefore desire that they pay their tithing. We must be willing to lay down our lives if need be for the Gospel's sake. We may not be called upon to make such a great sacrifice but we are called upon to give one-tenth of our interest annually as a tithe, and sacrifices of this kind bring forth the blessings of heaven. I have proved it. Others have proved it. I know it is true. It brings a peace, a joy, a hope, and assurance.

In 1934, President Heber Grant said,

Quote

I am indeed grateful that in these times of distress there has been a remarkable increase in the tithes of the Latter-day Saints. Although I am sure that the actual income of some of the people has not been anywhere near what it was three years ago, yet our tithing is better than it was three years ago.

 

Edited September 13, 2024 by Bernard Gui

[Frank11]

On 9/11/2024 at 11:20 PM, 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.

Perhaps it is because of the date of the post, 9/11, that the rhetoric of the post reminds me of texts by fundamental Islamists. But it could also be due to the last sentence, which is similar to Surah 6:5 in the Quran: 

So they have indeed rejected the truth [Quaran and Muhammad] when it came to them; therefore the truth of what they mocked at will shine upon them.

[carbon dioxide]

22 hours ago, Calm said:

I find this odd to be honest.   Medicine and public hygiene, the level of food production, the ability to receive education, the expansion of leisure time to explore ways to appreciate life, to communicate and travel quickly all have has advanced the quality of life so much for so many, how can civilization be said to be in decline?

 

All of those things are reversible and much do to technology advances.

One could argue the decline in the western economy is amount of debt that western countries are in.   Also the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs to other countries making them more dependent on many things and are security risks to those countries.  A example of demographic decline in the western includes a declining birth rate which leads to aging populations where there are not as many younger people to support the larger older population.   Marriage rates are down in many places and at record numbers in the US with 25% of 40 year olds in the US have not been married.   This is only going to get worse through time.   There is a political gap between younger men and women that is growing in this country that will make marriage rates worse.  Younger Gen Z women are getting more liberal while the men are getting more conservative.  Men generally are not attracted to the more feminist type of women.   So if this trend continues, the younger men will either just not marry or seek women outside the US.  As the family goes downhill, so does the nation and society.   Yes there have been many advances over time with technology but those are not sufficient in my view to overcome the problems that exist and will grow worse as time goes on.