Has Modern Revelation stopped?

[Calm]

9 hours ago, supersc said:

That would be bad advice IMHO.  

We've recommended that all our children and grandchildren be themselves…..

Yes, unless one wants to pretend that one is dumb the rest of their lives eventually one’s intelligence is going to come through and if such actually matters to the man then he is going to feel deceived and manipulated (as he would be), possibly betrayed and likely very unhappy.  Not exactly the way to make a lasting marriage.  If it doesn’t matter to him, then no need to act dumb in the first place.  So best to be yourself.

My husband told me he was quite proud his wife was so smart.  He sees me as smarter than him, but while I am better at academic stuff, he is much better at social and casual relationship stuff.  I learned how to be social by studying him, lol.

Btw, no leaders or friends in the Church suggested the play dumb stuff, a couple popular girls a bit younger than me in the Church I could see behaving this way at times, but I don’t know where they got the idea from. It was certainly all over the general culture.  

My grandmother who thought I should downplay my brain to attract guys was a high school teacher, but had a very strong streak of status worship and worry about appearances. Her siblings were generally upper class and acted like it (though very nice overall), so I am guessing it was a family trait. My mother in a lot of ways modeled her life on the opposite of what her mother pushed so I didn’t get that kind of stuff at home, quite the opposite; my mom and dad expected all their children to use our brains all the time.  

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I can’t help but chuckle as I wonder how well this 1971 General Conference Address would be received by the members today’s church! The howling and blistering expressions of outrage would go on for months. The frog in the heating kettle of water analogy applies.

They have tested that. The frog jumps out whether it is hot at first or starts cool and slowly warms while the frog is in it. So the analogy itself is pretty dumb. Assume people are as dumb as frogs and then imagine frogs are dumber than they are and you can see that by slow change you can be led to hell. Of course slow change can also supposedly lead to heaven and its everlasting burnings so what is this analogy even about again?

The term “liberal Mormon” at that time had little or nothing to do with political beliefs right? The term wasn’t borrowed from politics but from “Liberal Christianity” and “Liberal protestantism” which were also not tied to political views.

So chuckle away in your enlightenment and point the finger of scorn at those debased souls who haven’t found their way to the great and spacious building where you are yet and…….oh wait, I am mixing metaphors again? Oops.

 

[Calm]

On 9/13/2024 at 4:04 PM, carbon dioxide said:

I would say to all young women if you want to increase your chances of dating and marriage, trend towards the conservative side. 

Why aren’t you advising the young men to trend towards the liberal side?

[The Nehor]

On 9/13/2024 at 5:04 PM, carbon dioxide said:

I partially misstated things.  Men are pretty stable.  It is the women that have gone off the rails.

"Forty-four percent of young women counted themselves liberal in 2021, compared to 25 percent of young men, according to Gallup Poll data analyzed by the Survey Center on American Life. The gender gap is the largest recorded in 24 years of polling. The finding culminates years of rising liberalism among women ages 18 to 29, without any increase among their male peers....

The share of men who identify as liberal has held fairly steady for almost 25 years, according to annual Gallup surveys. Roughly one-quarter of men ages 18 to 29 term themselves liberal, year after year.  Meanwhile, among young women, liberalism has exploded. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, fewer than 30 percent of women identified as liberal. The liberal camp grew through the second term of former President George W. Bush. It expanded further during the tenure of former President Obama. It reached 39 percent in 2017 with the inauguration of Trump. In the last two years, liberalism surged anew."

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3675477-young-women-are-trending-liberal-young-men-are-not/

 

As to men being more attracted to conservative women, I say attracted not in the physical sense of course and there are plenty of men that will have liberal girlfriends but being a guy and having watched a lot of videos on the subject, men trend towards more conservative women.  I would say to all young women if you want to increase your chances of dating and marriage, trend towards the conservative side.  

 

So men should logically trend liberal to increase their chances of dating and marriage.

But suppose a woman cares if the man she marries values her own bodily autonomy and health? What then?

[The Nehor]

Just now, Calm said:

Why aren’t you advising the young men to trend towards the liberal side?

They might go too far and end up dating me.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

They might go too far and end up dating me.

Could do worse. 

[manol]

On 9/10/2024 at 2:09 PM, bluebell said:

I wonder if [the seeming reduction in occurrence of revelation] is 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 you have an excellent point. Imo there is a direct connection between our thoughts and our experience in life, and we are unlikely to experience that which we are not really open to.

That being said, I am under the impression individuals like John the Revelator, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Joseph Smith are relatively few and far between. On the other hand individuals arguably more like Alma the Younger - those who have had a transformational experience, such as a near-death experience or near-death-like experience – probably number in the millions and many of their accounts are readily accessible. Never before in human history, to the best of my knowledge, has there been anything remotely like this. 

 

On 9/10/2024 at 8:59 PM, mburgess1982 said:

... 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.

 

On 9/10/2024 at 10:53 PM, 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. 

Is it possible for a “prophet” (person with a direct message from God) to be someone who doesn't meet the criteria of being President of the LDS Church, and perhaps is not even associated with the LDS Church?

To put it another way, would it be appropriate for Latter-day Saints to be open to the possibility of non-LDS "prophets" (people with a direct message from God)? 

If there is a “checklist”, imo it might include something along these lines: “Do this person's teachings taste delicious to my soul? Do they fill me with the pure love of Christ? Do they cause me to love God with all of my being and without reservation, and to love my neighbor as myself?”

In my opinion the early LDS Church - specifically Joseph Smith - was very much a portal through which revelation came. My opinion is that ongoing revelation – that which God does NOW reveal – is mostly coming from outside the LDS Church. 

Edited September 15, 2024 by manol

[CV75]

24 minutes ago, manol said:

I think you have an excellent point. Imo there is a direct connection between our thoughts and our experience in life, and we are unlikely to experience that which we are not really open to.

That being said, I am under the impression individuals like John the Revelator, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Joseph Smith are relatively few and far between. On the other hand individuals arguably more like Alma the Younger - those who have had a transformational experience, such as a near-death experience or near-death-like experience – probably number in the millions and many of their accounts are readily accessible. Never before in human history, to the best of my knowledge, has there been anything remotely like this. 

 

 

Is it possible for a “prophet” (person with a direct message from God) to be someone who doesn't meet the criteria of being President of the LDS Church, and perhaps is not even associated with the LDS Church?

To put it another way, would it be appropriate for Latter-day Saints to be open to the possibility of non-LDS "prophets" (people with a direct message from God)? 

If there is a “checklist”, imo it might include something along these lines: “Do this person's teachings taste delicious to my soul? Do they fill me with the pure love of Christ? Do they cause me to love God with all of my being and without reservation, and to love my neighbor as myself?”

In my opinion the early LDS Church - specifically Joseph Smith - was very much a portal through which revelation came. My opinion is that ongoing revelation – that which God does NOW reveal – is mostly coming from outside the LDS Church. 

The light of Christ abounds and virtually everyone in the world accesses and shares it. Improvements in mass communication facilitate this. The Church represents only 17M of the world’s population, so yes, most of the light of Christ is transmitted outside the Church, and always was.

I would say the Church is a subset of the “church of the Lamb of God…” (“there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God”): “the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God… the saints of the church of the Lamb, and …the covenant people of the Lord…” which was restored. These represent more of God’s gifts and will than the products of the light of Christ, but which could not be enjoyed without it.

[manol]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

The light of Christ abounds and virtually everyone in the world accesses and shares it. Improvements in mass communication facilitate this. The Church represents only 17M of the world’s population, so yes, most of the light of Christ is transmitted outside the Church, and always was.

I was talking about revelation, along these lines (but I'll come back to the light of Christ later in this post):

"Could you gaze into heaven five minutes, you would know more than you would by reading all that was written on the subject."  - Joseph Smith

Seems to me there are far more individuals describing their experiences of “gazing into heaven five minutes” outside of the LDS Church (meaning outside of its ecclesiastical lines of authority) than inside of it.

And, along similar lines, coming again from someone who "gazed into heaven five minutes":

"We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true Mormons."

“One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.”

“Mormonism is truth; and every man who embraces it feels himself at liberty to embrace every truth... The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men."  (emphasis mine)

So obviously there is no prohibition on learning from those outside the Church who have “gazed into heaven five minutes”. Do you think there could be any utility in it?

 

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I would say the Church is a subset of the “church of the Lamb of God…” (“there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God”): “the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God… the saints of the church of the Lamb, and …the covenant people of the Lord…” which was restored. These represent more of God’s gifts and will than the products of the light of Christ, but which could not be enjoyed without it.

When I was active LDS my paradigm went something like this: “What we have is so much better than what everyone else has because they only have the light of Christ, which is not special.”

My paradigm has shifted, and I now think the light of Christ is actually the highest of things, and that every good thing (whether inside and outside of the LDS Church) is there to assist us towards becoming manifestations of Christ and embodiments of Christ.

Edited September 15, 2024 by manol

[CV75]

43 minutes ago, manol said:

I was talking about revelation, along these lines (but I'll come back to the light of Christ later in this post):

"Could you gaze into heaven five minutes, you would know more than you would by reading all that was written on the subject."  - Joseph Smith

Seems to me there are far more individuals describing their experiences of “gazing into heaven five minutes” outside of the LDS Church (meaning outside of its ecclesiastical lines of authority) than inside of it.

And, along similar lines, coming again from someone who "gazed into heaven five minutes":

"We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true Mormons."

“One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.”

“Mormonism is truth; and every man who embraces it feels himself at liberty to embrace every truth... The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men."  (emphasis mine)

So obviously there is no prohibition on learning from those outside the Church who have “gazed into heaven five minutes”. Do you think there could be any utility in it?

 

When I was active LDS my paradigm went something like this: “What we have is so much better than what everyone else has because they only have the light of Christ, which is not special.”

My paradigm has shifted, and I now think the light of Christ is the highest thing there is, and that every good thing (whether inside and outside of the LDS Church) is there to assist us towards becoming manifestations of Christ and embodiments of Christ.

Yes, the first kind of revelation you describe, to me, is a function of the light of Christ and is available to all who will receive it, inside and outside the Church. The earth is more populated today and people communicate these revelations more broadly than ever before. I think the utility is in the good that we choose to do with that light, what we choose to do with what we have done with that light, and more fundamentally than these, the agency which is stimulated by its presence.

My LDS paradigm, from John 17, is that the light of Christ is special, and everyone has it to find the way to become one in Christ. His covenant path is illuminated by His light, but both the path and the light can be used and misused by choice. When I read the words of this Chapter, I take power and glory to be the light of Christ; His name, work and word to be the covenant path; and receiving and keeping and the covenant path (as opposed to hating and losing it) forms a relationship with God that keeps us from the evil, sanctifies us and perfects us, yielding joy, oneness and eternal life by knowing Him. This paradigm includes a personal covenant relationship with God along with His light (the highest thing there is) to fulfil His light (the manifestations and embodiments).

[rodheadlee]

On 9/10/2024 at 8:00 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

 

 

Even when they give a proclamation half the people in the church do not believe it. As soon as the proclamation of the family came out there was dispute whether it was Revelation or just the words of the church leaders. Just because they didn't say "thus saith the Lord"

I believe the church teaches that we're all supposed to be prophets Seers and revelators as regarding our own area of responsibility. Occasionally I see serious revelation for the well-being of my family. Those would not be possible without a serious relationship with Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father.

Edited September 16, 2024 by rodheadlee

[rodheadlee]

On 9/11/2024 at 12:44 PM, 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.

 

Yes. One of the most important revelations in the life of my family was a wide awake dream that I had while driving on Interstate 5 during heavy traffic. I have no idea how I kept from crashing the car. Of course I pulled over as soon as it dawned on me what was going on and it took a day to figure out exactly what to do about it. The results were excellent and saved my wife's life.

[The Nehor]

21 hours ago, Calm said:

Could do worse. 

Could also do worse. Plus being with me means going straight to hell. Not exactly a strong incentive.

[The Nehor]

On 9/12/2024 at 11:08 AM, bluebell said:

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.

Yes, but these positive things came mostly due to modern liberal democracies. If you asked a European king centuries back what his policy was on health care he would be very confused. Just about all the good things we get from government weren’t a government priority until modern times. Sometimes they weren’t even a low priority. Modern liberal democracies can (for all their many flaws) do a lot of good. Step away from that path and it gets ugly really really fast.

[The Nehor]

On 9/12/2024 at 11:19 AM, Calm said:

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

Yes, go back a few centuries and many of those setups verged on totalitarianism.

[The Nehor]

On 9/12/2024 at 11:35 AM, Nofear said:

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.

That is nice but it doesn’t change history.

On 9/12/2024 at 11:35 AM, Nofear said:

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."

The problem with the social contract being the ideal is that God did not set up a world conducive to it. At least not until the last few centuries.

[Nofear]

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The problem with the social contract being the ideal is that God did not set up a world conducive to it. At least not until the last few centuries.

I largely agree that most of the world's history hasn't been conducive to it as well. I don't think we are seeing radically different data sets. We just interpret things differently. That's ok. Well, maybe, maybe not.

"And in nothing doth man offend God, or against none is his wrath kindled, save those who confess not his hand in all things, and obey not his commandments." --D&C 59:21

 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Nofear said:

I largely agree that most of the world's history hasn't been conducive to it as well. I don't think we are seeing radically different data sets. We just interpret things differently. That's ok. Well, maybe, maybe not.

"And in nothing doth man offend God, or against none is his wrath kindled, save those who confess not his hand in all things, and obey not his commandments." --D&C 59:21

 

That is a horrifying verse. God is behind this child’s smile, this charitable act, that school shooting, and that genocide. Confess his hand in all things!

Good luck with your theodicies now!

[Nofear]

I can appreciate your appeal to reductio ad absurdum. It's a valid argument. But, it applies the other direction too. When, if at all, does God have a hand in anything. It seems to some that he never does, but only watches. Yet this is an absurd God too.

The way out of the absurd inactive God or the absurd cause of all things God is agency. Having his hand in all things (as discussed earlier) does not mean he is the cause of all things. But he is not far. He is there, at some level. The moment we exercise our agency and reach out to take his hand, be we the victim or the perpetrator of whatever horrible injustice we can conceive of, or whatever natural disaster we can imagine, God is available. He is mindful and ready to help or meet out justice. He is there. Most often we ignore him and dismiss him. Yet, he is still there, rn all things, ready for us. Always. We must accept the hand. He won't force us to take his help. Ever. Always.

[bluebell]

On 9/16/2024 at 4:28 PM, The Nehor said:

Yes, but these positive things came mostly due to modern liberal democracies. If you asked a European king centuries back what his policy was on health care he would be very confused. Just about all the good things we get from government weren’t a government priority until modern times. Sometimes they weren’t even a low priority. Modern liberal democracies can (for all their many flaws) do a lot of good. Step away from that path and it gets ugly really really fast.

That's all part of the ladder that leads to modern liberal democracies though.  You can't skip those rungs and get to where we are.  Line upon line fits as much for governments as it does for everything else.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

That's all part of the ladder that leads to modern liberal democracies though.  You can't skip those rungs and get to where we are.  Line upon line fits as much for governments as it does for everything else.

Why not start there though? So that people could choose their own faith which is a largely modern phenomenon yet seems to be crucial to achieving steps towards eternal progression.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Nofear said:

I can appreciate your appeal to reductio ad absurdum. It's a valid argument. But, it applies the other direction too. When, if at all, does God have a hand in anything. It seems to some that he never does, but only watches. Yet this is an absurd God too.

The way out of the absurd inactive God or the absurd cause of all things God is agency. Having his hand in all things (as discussed earlier) does not mean he is the cause of all things. But he is not far. He is there, at some level. The moment we exercise our agency and reach out to take his hand, be we the victim or the perpetrator of whatever horrible injustice we can conceive of, or whatever natural disaster we can imagine, God is available. He is mindful and ready to help or meet out justice. He is there. Most often we ignore him and dismiss him. Yet, he is still there, rn all things, ready for us. Always. We must accept the hand. He won't force us to take his help. Ever. Always.

I fell on my face too often reaching for that hand to believe that it is reliably there.

Also I don’t buy that God is meting out anything approaching justice in this life.

Edited September 18, 2024 by The Nehor

[Nofear]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I fell on my face too often reaching for that hand to believe that it is reliably there.

Also I don’t buy that God is meting out anything approaching justice in this life.

I can empathize some with your response. Sometimes it seems so very often my prayerful pleadings ask for the wrong thing and are denied. For my part, though, I have not chosen to abandon God instead trying to change my way of thinking and hence the nature of my requests to more closely align with the designs of Providence. I also consider the delay in justice a great mercy. Were it not so, I surely would have been destroyed long ago. I can't expect that mercy of me and not others, no matter how vile they may be. Nevertheless, justice cometh to all in the end if not cleansed by the Atonement.

[Peacefully]

On 9/15/2024 at 2:56 AM, Calm said:

Why aren’t you advising the young men to trend towards the liberal side?

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner. 

[Peacefully]

On 9/16/2024 at 5:28 PM, The Nehor said:

Yes, but these positive things came mostly due to modern liberal democracies. If you asked a European king centuries back what his policy was on health care he would be very confused. Just about all the good things we get from government weren’t a government priority until modern times. Sometimes they weren’t even a low priority. Modern liberal democracies can (for all their many flaws) do a lot of good. Step away from that path and it gets ugly really really fast.

Also, the world is watching us, especially right now. Such violence in what is supposed to be a beacon of light is very concerning to all.