Maverick

Why wouldn’t this have been equally applicable 100+ years ago, when the revelations and visions were being made publicly available?

Well, then I guess I am going to respectfully decline answering any more of your questions. This isn’t an interrogation, where I have to explain what I think about the ins and outs of how revelation is received and conveyed, while you decline to do the same.

Nope. He said he received it by revelation from God and Joseph Smith.

I am very well versed in the Adam-God doctrine. It was definitely taught as a true doctrine received by the prophet of the church by revelation from God. Make of that what you will.

This isn’t accurate. Several different opinions have been presented by multiple people. And it’s been a discussion of different ideas, not an argument for a single position This is the reaction to Adam-God many people had, which is why it stopped being taught in the church. It’s however not true that Brigham Young’s teachings on Adam-God are “contrary to eternal supportive doctrine” and not “supported with scripture.” It was taught repeatedly in GC, and not just by Brigham Young, either.

I would like to know what you think? Where do you think revelations that quote the Lord directly come from? How are they received? Are they actually what the Lord said or not?

This still doesn't explain why these types of revelations and visions haven't been shared with the church in 100+ years. Why were they shared before and then discontinued completely?

I provided a clear example of what could be considered the Lord taking away light and truth from the church. You're welcome to respond to this example or ignore it. That's up to you.

I actually don't conclude that it is as a distinctly possible that the Lord would "take away light and truth from the restored Church on account of the membership no longer being able to handle many of the hard truths and deeper doctrines" because of the 100+ year absence of revelations quoting the words of God directly being presented before the church. My conclusion is based on careful observation and study of the evolution of church teachings, policy, and practice over the past 100+ years. I'm a little bit reluctant to provide specific examples, because I don't want to upset anyone or come of as criticizing the church or its leaders. And this discussion isn't about that, either, nor do I want it to turn into that. But I tell you what, I will give an example of something that could be considered evidence of this: Brigham Young clearly, plainly, and repeatedly taught that Adam is God the Father and the literal father of Jesus Christ. He taught that Adam and Eve came to this earth with Celestialized resurrected bodies, which they had received from being resurrected following a previous mortal probation on another planet. That they then fell and their bodies became mortal so they could provide physical bodies for all of their spirit children (all of mankind on this earth). Brigham said that this truth was revealed to him by Joseph Smith and by revelation from God. He taught this for 25 years in the church. It was taught in the General Conference, priesthood meetings, meetings of the first presidency and quorum of the 12 apostles, and in the temple. But this teaching was very controversial and many members of the church had a very hard time accepting it. It was deeply troubling and even disturbing to many. Others readily accepted it as truth and rejoiced in what they had received. For many others it was somewhere in between. Eventually the leaders stopped talking about it and even told the members to stop talking about it. Then many years later some leaders even said that these teachings about Adam and Eve were false. If what Brigham Young taught was true, and a higher truth and deeper doctrine (as he claimed), then this would be a textbook example of light and truth being taken from the church because the members couldn't handle it.

I meant to reply to this earlier, but it slipped my mind. I apologize for the delay. The talk was actually from 2010 and I didn't remember the wording quite right. In his talk, President Packer stated that The Family: A Proclamation to the World, "qualifies according to definition, as a revelation..." The printed version states that the proclamation "is a guide that members of the Church would do well to read and to follow." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2010/10/cleansing-the-inner-vessel?lang=eng

I think if a prophet of God quotes the words of God directly in a revelation we can trust the accuracy and preciseness of the words. That's not to say that the wording wouldn't be slightly different depending on which prophet received it. I guess the question I would have is what is being suggested in this comment and other similar ones on this thread? Is it being suggested that the words in the revelations in the D&C quoting God's words directly aren't really God's direct words, but actually the manner in which Joseph Smith decided to convey truths that he had received by the Holy Ghost? Instead of quoting the words of God directly as he did, he could have just as easily said it in his own words, like a General Conference talk, and there would be no difference? Perhaps trust is the wrong word. I would say that we can have confidence that the Lord instructed him. But we should still seek the guidance of the Holy Ghost for confirmation, as Zil pointed out.

Yes, this is true. But this doesn't explain why there hasn't been a single revelation quoting the words of God directly that has been added to our scriptures since 1847. The question is why this is? My question is actually not about the specific phrase "thus saith the Lord." It's about revelations that quote the words of God directly, in his own voice in the first person. The New Testament is full of God's words being quoted in the first person, so is the Pearl of Great Price. So we actually have a pattern of prophets quoting God's words like this all throughout scripture, and yet in the modern church this has essentially completely stopped. I understand the assumption that because the church is growing and lead by men who are called as apostles that our leaders must of necessity be receiving visions. But if they are, we aren't they bein shared with the membership? In the scriptures and early days of the church many visions were shared. Why not today or in the past 100 years?

So, what’s your take on why there hasn’t been an official revelation quoting the words of God directly added to the scriptures since 1847 or a vision since 1918?

I apologize that I was unable to communicate in a way that you could understand me.

Of course one still needs a testimony that they are the words of God, but when the president of the church quotes the words of God directly as he received them in God’s own words, we know for certain that he is claiming that God told him precisely this. This is not the case with messages in the president’s own words. I was responding to a hypothetical scenario and answered using “think” and “would.” Does that sound like an assertion to you? Or not. 😀 No, I didn’t. @zil2, why do you keep trying to make me out to be an accuser?

I completely agree. This appears to contradict your previous statement. Can you please clarify?

Is this what you believe we need to do with each of these types of revelations we have received in the church thus far? Or can we trust that they are from God? I never claimed to know anything. But progression from kingdom to kingdom being part if the process to become as God is would be one truth I believe has been taken away or obscured. Definitely not any kind of dire warning. All did was share my perspective on eternal progression and the process it takes to become as God now is, based on my studies of the teachings of the brethren and the scriptures on the subject.

Pretty wild isn’t. We live in some crazy times.

Such is the nature of the belief in "continuing revelation." Theoretically literally anything could be changed. But I think in reality there are clear limits to what could reasonably be changed and the membership support it. I agree. But those who support same-sex marriage don't view it this way. They will point out that the Bible says nothing about same-sex marriage and that the most explicit condemnations of gay sex are all from the Law of Moses, which contains many laws that we no longer follow. Elder McConkie said to forget "everything" he or anyone else had said about the priesthood ban because they had spoken with limited understanding. He wasn't just referring to the teachings of Brigham Young about the curse not being lifted until after the millennium. From what I've seen there isn't any movement to try and get the church to accept the typical gay sex scene of going from one one night stand to the next. Rather, more and more people within the church are calling for the church to allows same-sex marriage and then sexual relations within a same-sex marriage. Essentially what they want is for the church to maintain it's current position that sex is only permissible within marriage, but then expand that to include it being permissible within same-sex marriages, too.

Well, some of the "thus saith the Lord" revelations are known to have been received by the Urim and Thumim, others were likely by an audible voice, or the voice of the Lord speaking to the prophet the exact words to say. I don't claim to know the exact method, but I'm confident that the actually words of God were being conveyed in these revelations and not the words of the prophet conveying some knowledge he had received as if it were in God's own words. I consider them both to be deluded false prophets. Why do you ask?

There's not much any of us could do about this at the church level. It's out of our control. Yes, individually we could and should repent. We can also seek out the mysteries and deeper doctrines and receive the light and truth that has been taken away from the general church membership for ourselves. No, definitely not. This would be a very bad idea. Yes, we should definitely sustain them. But sustaining doesn't mean blindly following or not recognizing that there are issues within the church and that light and truth has been taken away. Yes, I believe that we should bear fervent testimony of these things. I haven't spread any "dire warnings" of "wickedness and spiritual slothfulness among the Saints. Nor have a called for any action to be taken. All I have done is point out that there hasn't been a single "thus saith the Lord" type of revelation quoting the words of God directly or any vision presented to the church from our church presidents in over 100 years, and asked the question of why this is. Then I have participated in the subsequent discussion about this. That's it.

It means that you oppose it. You consider it to be a moral and social evil and preach against. You do what you can to prevent it from happening and do all you can to help those who have committed this very serious sin to completely repent of it, receive forgiveness, and never return to it again. The church cannot allow this to be tolerated within the church. The church must always preach against it and take disciplinary action against those members who are known to have committed this serious sin. Those who engage in this sin, even if "married" according to the laws of the land, need to have their membership restricted or completely withdrawn until they fully repent.

I don't think its simple minded at all. I think it gets to the root of the issue. If we have a "thus saith the Lord" revelation quoting the words of God directly we know that these words came from God. When the president of the church speaks or writes something in his official capacity as church president in his own words we don't know if those words were given to him by revelation from God or if he's just giving his well-reasoned opinion, or somewhere in between. Sure, but having to discern between what words our leaders speak from the pulpit come from God, which ones come from men, and which ones are somewhere in between is a lot different than having a revelation directly from God presented in his own words. There's no question where those words came from then.

It's not only theoretically possible, it's a very distinct possibility. And it wouldn't necessarily be because the brethren are asleep at the wheel, either. How would you expect the Lord to take away light and truth from the church, because the membership can no longer handle many of the hard truths and deeper doctrines? It would undoubtedly be in a very similar manner to what we've seen in the church for over a hundred years now. There are many examples that I could provide. But I think the answer to the question would be what I said above about the Lord taking away light and truth from the church on account of the membership no longer being able to handle many of the hard truths and deeper doctrines.

Not in my book.