Maverick

I honestly don't know what parallel you were trying to draw. That's why I asked for clarification. Can please just explain what you meant instead of trying to read something into my question that isn't there?

To be clear, I am a huge proponent of the Proclamation on the Family and am strictly against gay sex, same-sex marriage, etc. And I do sincerely hope that the church never allows same-sex marriage or gay sex. And while certainly hope this never happens, I think there's a possibility that this could happen one day. And not necessarily in the very distant future either. One of the major arguments that proponents of same-sex marriage within the church make is that the D&C, Book of Mormon, and Pearl of Great Price do not condemn gay marriage or gay sex. The claim is that all the anti-gay teachings come from the bible and mostly from the Old Testament. They also claim that these passages in the Bible aren't actually condemning gay marriage in the first place. This could pave the way for a disavowal of the interpretations of these scriptures that the church has used in the past to condemn gay marriage. And if the church were to allow gay marriage and even perform them, all past teachings by church leaders could just be disavowed as theories taught with limited understanding. Again, I would be firmly against this and hope it never happens. But I wouldn't be shocked if it did happen in the next 10-20 years, especially if there's a dramatic shift among the church membership in accepting gay marriage as a valid marriage and lifestyle. And I think we're already seeing a pretty major shift in this direction from the younger generation.

Why must we assume that any changed teachings are in fact a correction and not an departure from light and truth? There are a number of things that I could point to, but I think this would get us off track from the question in the OP. I disagree with this. The scriptures make it clear that God will reveal his mysteries to those who are worthy and prepared to receive them, even if those around them are not. I wholeheartedly agree with this.

I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn't claiming that "Church members have cause to feel significantly and sincerely befuddled by conflicting 'church teachings.'" My point is that there have been significant differences in what has been taught as doctrine from various presidents of the church, acting in their official capacity. In the church's essay on Race and the Priesthood for example, the church disavows all past "theories" by presidents and apostles of the church on the reasons for the ban, even though they were taught as official doctrine at the time from the pulpit in General Conference, in official letters of the First Presidency to the church, and in official church publications. And this isn't limited to teachings on race and the priesthood. Quite a few other examples exist. Members need not be "significantly and sincerely befuddled" by this. But it does show that we can't just take what is taught as doctrine by the brethren as the direct word of God received by revelation.

No doubt many General Conference talks have been inspired. I guess the question is whether we should view the revelations published in the D&C quoting God's words directly through his prophet Joseph Smith the same way that we view Ezra Taft Benson's talk about pride? If the answer is that we should, then the logical question is if we should view all Conference talks by Presidents of the church the same way as the revelations in the D&C?

@mordorbund I'm just asking questions about why we haven't had a single official "thus saith the Lord" type revelation quoting the Lord's words directly presented to the church since 1847 or a single vision from a prophet presented to the church since 1918. I'm not content to merely assume since we sustain the first presidency and quorum of the 12 as prophets, seers, and revelators and we believe in continuing revelation that the brethren are by default still receiving these types of revelations and visions to guide the church, but just aren't telling us directly for some unknown reason. If they are receiving these types of revelations and visions, but not sharing them with the church, I'd like to know why. Because this seems awfully strange to me. And if they aren't receiving these types of revelations and visions, I would also like to know why the church is no longer being directed this way. Because this also seems strange to me, since one would expect prophets, seers, and revelators to being having these types of experiences. I understand that these questions can be uncomfortable, so I don't blame you for being a bit defensive and accusatory in your response. But I would ask you to please do your best not to make assumptions about me or feel like you have to defend the brethren from my "accusations" or something. I'm not accusing the brethren of anything or trying to cast doubt on anyone. That being said, let me respond to your most recent comments: It's not a matter of every revelation of Joseph Smith being "canonized" or not. Many of his revelations, I dare say the majority of them, were published as scriptures for the church, quoting the Lord directly. And the reason that we know that he had other revelations which weren't "canonized" is because they were recorded and made available to the church. This hasn't been the case in over 100 years in the church. There were a few "thus saith the Lord" type revelations and visions recorded by Brigham Young, John Taylor, and some of the other early leaders that weren't added to the scriptures for whatever reason. But we still know about them. This has been completely absent since 1918, at least as far as I'm aware. So with all due respect, no, I wouldn't share the same concern if Joseph Smith were alive today, unless he completely stop presenting any of his revelations and visions to the church. I made no mention of the "strength" of revelation or the "weakness" of inspiration. I think there's clearly a difference, though. Sure, but we also don't know what, if anything, the Lord actually said if there's no text of the revelation recorded anywhere. The apostles testified that they didn't hear the voice of God and didn't see a vision. They said that they felt very strongly by the spirit that their decision to lift the priesthood ban was right, that God had made it know that the time to lift the ban had come. Many members assumed that there must have been a vision for this, like when Peter had a vision to take the gospel to the gentiles, or an actual revelation text. Yet the apostles were very clear that this did not happen. I think you're missing the point. There actually was an official revelation from God commanding that baptisms for the dead be done, that a temple be built for this purpose, etc. So no, I wouldn't have the same concern if things were being done the same way as when Joseph Smith were alive. I think you're once again missing the point. It's not about "canonization" it's about official first person revelations, visions, etc. not being presented before the church at all. Not for over 100 years. It's true that the rate of official revelation dropped off dramatically after a few years, but it didn't altogether cease. He had planned to publish new revelations in the 1844 D&C before his death. The way President Nelson said "[T]he Lord instructed me to..." isn't quoting the Lord directly. All he's saying is that the Lord made such and such known to him. We don't know how it was made known to him. We don't know that he received literal word for word instructions from God, because he didn't quote any literal word's from God. President Nelson could just be saying that he pondered on it and felt good about calling these men to the 1st Presidency and Quorum of the 12 respectfully, and then after praying about it he received the prompting that this is who he should call.

There are literally no revelations like the ones Joseph Smith received, where the Lord is directly quoted word for word in the first person, or any visions like the ones he received presented to the church. Revelation can and does come through the still small voice. I’m not discounting this. But this doesn’t explain the complete absence of any “thus saith the Lord” revelations or visions being presented to the church from our prophets in over 100 years. Are you suggesting that all meeting minutes of the brethren are “records of revelatory experience?” So you don’t believe that there have been any specific circumstances, time, or people that have required a revelation quoting God directly or a vision in over 100 years? I don’t think this is very likely, unless the Lord instructed him to stop revealing the revelations and visions he received to the church. I guess I don’t see where the language of the King James Version being outdated fits into this. It’s not like they couldn’t quote the Lord directly using more modern language.

I’m not exactly sure what parallel you are trying to draw here. Are you suggesting that 10% of what has come from the heads of the church over the past 180 years or so has been true revelation from God, 10% completely uninspired, and another 80% somewhere in between?

I think this is the most likely explanation.

I agree that the early members of the church sacrificed a great deal more for the kingdom of God than most of us members today do. When it comes to church being reduced from 3 hours to 2, it begs the question why that is? Why are we being asked to sacrifice less and less all the time? This seems to be the explanation. The Lord is keeping the wheat and the tares growing together by making it as easy as possible for the tares to remain in the church until the time of the decreed separation arrives. Unfortunately, the presence of such a large percentage of tares intermixed with the wheat has a very negative impact on the state of affairs within the church.

Thank you for the clarification. The problem I see with both of these potential explanations for the complete absence of official revelations quoting God’s words directly or visions being presented before the church, and instead only receiving teachings from our prophets in their own words, is that we can never say for sure which of their teachings really come from God or which are merely their well-reasoned opinions. Plenty of teachings of past prophets, both presidents and apostles, have been abandoned by the church later on or later prophets have made contradictory or conflicting statements. How are we to know what is truly from God in these circumstances?

This makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the thoughts. I’m sure you mean through prayer and receiving an answer by the power of the Holy Ghost. Problem is that many people have pondered and prayed on this and received conflicting answers (or at least think they have). So I think it’s safe to say that with the complete absence of official revelations quoting the words of God directly or visions being presented before the church, it is really a matter of faith that these types of revelations are being received by the President of the church and he just isn’t allowed to tell us. It’s just as plausible that he isn’t receiving these types of revelations and that’s why he isn’t telling us. And this wouldn’t mean that he doesn’t hold the keys or is a false prophet or anything. It would just mean that he and the other brethren are running the church using their best judgment, while seeking inspiration from God in their decisions. Regardless of which of these two possibilities are actually true, or if the truth lies somewhere in between, I’m grateful that the brethren aren’t making up revelations quoting the supposed words of Christ to bolster their prophetic claims.

If there’s no difference why change it from being considered a “revelation” to “inspired council?” Whoever made the change obviously thought there was a difference significant enough to warrant the wording needing to be changed.

No, it isn’t. Boyd K. Packer said in Conference back in 2013, I believe, that it should be considered a revelation, but then in the printed version of the talk it was changed to “inspired council.”

1847 is the last official revelation that quoted the words of God directly and 1918 is the last recorded vision of a president of the church that have been added to our scriptures. One being 177 years ago and the other 106 years ago. The question is why it’s been so long since we’ve had either presented to the church and added to our scriptures.

How can we know that there have been, since there haven’t been any presented to the church? Is this just a matter of faith? Not since 1847? Why not? What do you think is holding us back? I agree. But wasn’t this also the case prior to 1847 (or 1918)? In the D&C the Lord says this about the saints in the 1830s, yet they continued to receive revelation and more light and truth from God. Why do you think this changed?

I recently discovered that it’s likely that the brother of Jared was practicing plural marriage, with what would appear to be at least two wives at the same time. While Jared likely only had one wife. 40 And it came to pass that the Lord did hear the brother of Jared, and had compassion upon him, and said unto him: 41 Go to and gather together thy flocks, both male and female, of every kind; and also of the seed of the earth of every kind; and thy families; and also Jared thy brother and his family; and also thy friends and their families, and the friends of Jared and their families. (Ether 1) 20 And accordingly the people were gathered together. Now the number of the sons and the daughters of the brother of Jared were twenty and two souls; and the number of sons and daughters of Jared were twelve, he having four sons. (Ether 6) This is noteworthy because there are a growing number of members of the church who are rejecting the legitimacy of D&C 132 and the early practice of plural marriage in the restored church. One of their arguments is that the Book of Mormon is strictly against any form of marriage other than strict monogamy. These verses would appear to show that there is at least one example of plural marriage having been practiced by a very righteous man in the Book of Mormon, with whom God spoke face to face.

President Nelson has certainly placed a great deal of emphasis on temple attendance. When it comes to the temple, there is something that troubles me, namely the many changes to the ordinances of the temple. There have been some pretty significant changes over the years, including a number of significant changes during President Nelson’s tenure. I wonder why this is? Was there something wrong with the ordinances before? Were the changes because of the hardness of the hearts or limited understanding of the members today? Did God specifically command or authorize every change, or are the brethren just using their best judgment to adjust the temple ordinances to fit what they believe the majority of the members need or can bear at the moment? I wish there was a published revelation from God explaining the reason for the changes. Without this we are left to speculate or merely trust that all is well with the changes whatever the reason might be for them.

There have been many, many changes in the church since 1847. Why hasn’t there been any record of God commanding or authorizing any of these changes via a official revelation quoting God’s words? Perhaps it will be canonized some day, but I kind of doubt it. Boyd K. Packer called it a revelation in General Conference but then this was changed to “inspired council” in the printed version of his talk. There are also more and more members of the church who take issue with some of the things stated in the proclamation. A growing number of members consider it to be sexist and transphobic. I think the fact that the church has refused to call it a revelation hasn’t helped combat this. I think you make an excellent point here. And if we look at the words of Jarom from this time period we get some additional insights: 1 Now behold, I, Jarom, write a few words according to the commandment of my father, Enos, that our genealogy may be kept. 2 And as these plates are small, and as these things are written for the intent of the benefit of our brethren the Lamanites, wherefore, it must needs be that I write a little; but I shall not write the things of my prophesying, nor of my revelations. For what could I write more than my fathers have written? For have not they revealed the plan of salvation? I say unto you, Yea; and this sufficeth me. 3 Behold, it is expedient that much should be done among this people, because of the hardness of their hearts, and the deafness of their ears, and the blindness of their minds, and the stiffness of their necks; nevertheless, God is exceedingly merciful unto them, and has not as yet swept them off from the face of the land. 4 And there are many among us who have many revelations, for they are not all stiffnecked. And as many as are not stiffnecked and have faith, have communion with the Holy Spirit, which maketh manifest unto the children of men, according to their faith. 5 And now, behold, two hundred years had passed away, and the people of Nephi had waxed strong in the land. They observed to keep the law of Moses and the sabbath day holy unto the Lord. And they profaned not; neither did they blaspheme. And the laws of the land were exceedingly strict. 10 And it came to pass that the prophets of the Lord did threaten the people of Nephi, according to the word of God, that if they did not keep the commandments, but should fall into transgression, they should be destroyed from off the face of the land. 11 Wherefore, the prophets, and the priests, and the teachers, did labor diligently, exhorting with all long-suffering the people to diligence; teaching the law of Moses, and the intent for which it was given; persuading them to look forward unto the Messiah, and believe in him to come as though he already was. And after this manner did they teach them. 12 And it came to pass that by so doing they kept them from being destroyed upon the face of the land; for they did prick their hearts with the word, continually stirring them up unto repentance. Based on this, it would appear that the majority of the members of the Lord’s church in those days weren’t very righteous, but there were some who were. And the righteous minority were receiving revelations and prophesying. And the reason that these revelations and prophecies weren’t written on the small plates was due to a lack of space (and presumably because they were written on the large plates or other records). If this is indeed a parallel to our day, does this suggest that collectively as a people we are so unrighteous that we are not worthy of revelation and prophecy, and those few who are receiving revelations and prophecying are not permitted to publicly share them with the church membership?

I totally agree. And I think that this gets to the root of the problem. You could be right. Unfortunately we just don’t know. Why do you think lack of temple attendance is the reason why President Nelson isn’t revealing all he would like?

I also consider visions to the president of the church to be continuing revelation, but it’s still not the same thing as quoting the words of God directly. (Not saying it’s better or worse, just different) 1918 was also over 100 years ago. In your opinion, why haven’t there been any visions like this published since? Are you referring to the large body of revelations contained in the D&C or the continued teachings of the brethren since then (which aren’t presented as official revelations from God like the D&C revelations are)? It’s certainly being challenged by more and more members of the church, which is deeply troubling. The church has been clear that its an official declaration, which constitutes inspired council, and not a revelation. Which may be part of the problem why more and more members are challenging it. Believe me, so do I. Why not? What do you think has been holding us back since 1847 (or 1918)?

So, if I understand you correctly you are suggesting that we haven’t had a single formal published revelation of God’s precise words since 1847 because the members have received their endowments in the temple and are therefore so in tune with the spirit that formal revelations of God’s direct words are no longer necessary?

Obviously we don’t know all the specifics of how eternal progression works in the hereafter. But I don’t see any purpose in God not allowing someone to progress from one kingdom to the next. What would be the purpose in allowing someone to only make it to the highest degree of the Telestial kingdom and then cut off their progression? I agree with Wilford Woodruff, who said: “If there was a point where man in his progression could not proceed any further, the very idea would throw a gloom over every intelligent creature. God himself is increasing and progressing in knowledge, power, and dominion, and will do so, worlds without end. It is just so with us. We are in probation, which is a school of experience. (Journal of Discourses, Volume 6:120, December 6, 1857)

I’ve noticed this as well. In regards to those who inherit eternal life, I came across a very interesting statement by John Taylor as I was studying this topic of eternal progression: ”Under these circumstances, from time to time, he has made known his will to men. He has in different ages raised up men with whom he communicated, and to whom he revealed his will, and under certain circumstances to whom he committed his law, and he has made them his mouthpiece to the human family, and through them has revealed life and its principles, and has unveiled the heavens and given man a knowledge of the future, and has shown his condemnation, or evinced his hatred to evil and iniquity of every kind, and has shown through them the evil effects of pursuing this course. These men, in the different ages in which they lived, warned the people and the nations in regard to evil, and have tried to incite them to good, and held out to them the principle of lives, eternal lives hereafter to be obtained in the celestial, terrestrial or telestial kingdoms. (JD 21:15, John Taylor, February 8, 1880) This would suggest that inheriting the Terrestrial or Telestial kingdoms of heaven is also considered inheriting eternal life. And in my opinion this only makes sense if the people in these kingdoms are able to keep progressing to eventually inherit the Celestial kingdom.

One of the boldest claims the church makes is that the church is led by continuing revelation from God to the President of the church, who along with his counselors and the Quorum of the 12 apostles, we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators. While I don’t doubt that our leaders have often received inspiration and guidance in their callings, my question is why there hasn’t been a single revelation where the direct words of the Lord have been quoted added to our scriptural canon since the revelation Brigham Young received in 1847 in Winter Quarters (D&C 136)? This is literally the last “thus saith the Lord” type revelation quoting the words of the Lord directly added to our scriptures. This was 177 years ago. Why hasn’t there been any more revelations like this since? I understand that revelation doesn’t always have to come this way and that making prophecies of the future and declaring “thus saith the Lord” first person revelations isn’t all true prophets, seers, and revelators should be expected to do. But why hasn’t there been any of this in such a long time? This is not a criticism of the brethern. It’s an honest question that has puzzled me for some time now. Any thoughts?