Sign in to follow this  
Bini

New revelation?

Recommended Posts

I'm asking for my own curiosity. What are recent revelations from prophets since Joseph Smith? If there aren't any, through speculation, what subjects might be addressed by new revelation? If you are a member, do you accept new revelation without question, or do you seek confirmation from God through fasting and prayer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The most obvious to us would be the 1978 revelation to Spencer W. Kimball granting Priesthood blessings to all people, regardless of ancestral background. Wilford Woodruff's "Manifesto" would also qualify as such a revelation. Certainly Doctrine and Covenants Section 136, given by Brigham Young, and Section 138, given by Joseph F. Smith, qualify as the word of God to us.

 

In my view, the day-to-day operation of the Church, including such things as the directing of missionary work, are all determined by divine revelation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my view, the day-to-day operation of the Church, including such things as the directing of missionary work, are all determined by divine revelation.

 

This ^.

 

And this has been confirmed repeatedly over the pulpit. But people still choose to disbelieve that anything but the "Thus saith the Lord..." sort of pronouncements count.

 

As to the accepting it without fasting, prayer, and direct confirmation question, that has been argued quite a bit. I'll restate my view for the sake of the thread though.

 

I not only believe that fasting, prayer, and seeking a direct witness every time anything new is brought up is unnecessary, I actually believe that it is problematic. It crosses into sign-seeking. I don't have a problem with someone doing this on a specific issue that they struggle with. That is good and right. Doing so for every single thing before accepting it...not so much.

 

If we have a spiritual witness that the prophet is the prophet, that God leads the church through His prophet, etc., then we already know we need to follow. Seeking for individual confirmation beyond that (particularly for every single thing) is plainly unnecessary. We already know. If someone feels the need to confirm every single thing, it might suit said person to consider their testimony of the prophet's prophet status. Improve that testimony and then follow.

 

As I know the trendy fallibility of prophets issue will likely arise I'll address that as well.

 

Irrelevant!

 

The prophet has authority to guide. If we have a witness that he is the prophet then we should follow. If he makes a mistake, we are duty bound to follow per said witness of his position and authority. Following will render blessings. Rebellion will render the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canonized Doctrine/revelation:

  1. 1830, Bible and Book of Mormon were officially accepted with the organization of the Church
  2. 1835, Doctrine and Covenants, first 103 sections were officially accepted
  3. 1880, Doctrine and Covenants additional 32 sections were accepted along with the Pearl of Great Price
  4. 1890, Polygamy was repealed (Official Declaration, p. 291)
  5. 1976, D&C sections 137 & 138 were officially accepted
  6. 1978, The priesthood was made available to all worthy males regardless of race (Official Declaration 2, p. 292)

Our Prophets and leaders are inspired to lead us and guide the Church in these latter days, they receive revelation for the people of this church you can listen to it during conference. I believe that the stream of revelation is open to our leaders, but not how most people think that it is. I do not think that Pres. Monson is having sit downs with Jesus  (he may be) but that is not how he leads his church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The most obvious to us would be the 1978 revelation to Spencer W. Kimball granting Priesthood blessings to all people, regardless of ancestral background. Wilford Woodruff's "Manifesto" would also qualify as such a revelation. Certainly Doctrine and Covenants Section 136, given by Brigham Young, and Section 138, given by Joseph F. Smith, qualify as the word of God to us.
 
In my view, the day-to-day operation of the Church, including such things as the directing of missionary work, are all determined by divine revelation.

 

 

The 1978 revelation to Spencer W. Kimball was about granting Priesthood blessings to coloured people, official declaration / announcement 2,  Wilford Woodruff's revelation was about polygamy, official declaration / announcement 1, Oct. 1890. Brigham Young's revelation (Section 136) at Winter Quarters, Omaha-Nation,  1847, was about how to organize the Mormon exodus to the Salt Lake valley, and Joseph F. Smith's revelation, 1918 (Section 138), was about the Redeemer's appearance and the teachings of the Gospel in the Ghost World and how the teachings are organized there, where people resurrect the first time before the Judgement.

 

I would agree with your assumption that the day-to-day operations, including directing of missionary work, are determined by divine revelation.

Edited by JimmiGerman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canonized Doctrine/revelation:

  1. 1830, Bible and Book of Mormon were officially accepted with the organization of the Church
  2. 1835, Doctrine and Covenants, first 103 sections were officially accepted
  3. 1880, Doctrine and Covenants additional 32 sections were accepted along with the Pearl of Great Price
  4. 1890, Polygamy was repealed (Official Declaration, p. 291)
  5. 1976, D&C sections 137 & 138 were officially accepted
  6. 1978, The priesthood was made available to all worthy males regardless of race (Official Declaration 2, p. 292)

Our Prophets and leaders are inspired to lead us and guide the Church in these latter days, they receive revelation for the people of this church you can listen to it during conference. I believe that the stream of revelation is open to our leaders, but not how most people think that it is. I do not think that Pres. Monson is having sit downs with Jesus  (he may be) but that is not how he leads his church.

 

There is something in the air. We agree. Again.

 

Sure, we differ on what constitutes "doctrine". But that's a definition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wilford Woodruff received angelic visitation directing him to perform temple work for the founding fathers and the dead presidents.

 

He also received a revelation that clarified that children should be sealed to their parents and not necessarily prophets or apostles.

 

Lorenzo Snow received a revelation from the mouth of the Savior to re-organize the First Presidency without delay. The 12 confirmed that it was the will of the Lord before he brought it up.

 

And for an example in the day-to-day affairs, I'll just leave this here:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wilford Woodruff received angelic visitation directing him to perform temple work for the founding fathers and the dead presidents.

 

He also received a revelation that clarified that children should be sealed to their parents and not necessarily prophets or apostles.

 

Lorenzo Snow received a revelation from the mouth of the Savior to re-organize the First Presidency without delay. The 12 confirmed that it was the will of the Lord before he brought it up.

 

And for an example in the day-to-day affairs, I'll just leave this here:

 

 

That video was awesome! Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wilford Woodruff received angelic visitation directing him to perform temple work for the founding fathers and the dead presidents.

 

He also received a revelation that clarified that children should be sealed to their parents and not necessarily prophets or apostles.

 

Lorenzo Snow received a revelation from the mouth of the Savior to re-organize the First Presidency without delay. The 12 confirmed that it was the will of the Lord before he brought it up.

 

And for an example in the day-to-day affairs, I'll just leave this here:

 

 

 

Mordorbund, the video with President Eyring is amazing.  Thank you.  I felt the Spirit as I watched it.  My testimony has been strengthened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I am confident that the rapidly increased number of temples is a result of revelation. I suspect that in many instances, maybe all instances, the location of those temples has also been influenced by revelation. I think that the lowering of the mission age was a result of revelation, and there was probably some sort of revelation/inspiration involved in the large increase in the number of missions around the world. I think that author of the Proclamation on the Family received inspiration/revelation as he wrote that document. I think that the counsel to get out of debt that was repeated so frequently and strongly during the mid 2000's was a result of revelation. I am confident that the Lord continues to guide and inspire, and reveal to His prophets how they should run His kingdom on earth. And of course, there is the oft repeated story of how President Woodruff received a revelation during a drought in which he promised the members in St George Utah that if they would pay their tithing the Lord would bless them with rain.

 

2. When a new Bishop or new Stake President or Prophet is called, I seek a divine confirmation whether or not the person has been divinely called to that position. Other than that, I trust that my leaders are doing the right thing and leading the church in the right direction. 

 

3. I believe that as the last days get ever closer, the volume of revelation will significantly increase, as the  church and the world transitions from an earthly organisation presided over by man, to God's kingdom, presided over by Christ. There will almost certainly be revelations associated with the re-establishment of church government in Missouri and the greatly needed increase in the rate of ordinances for the dead. 

 

My question is why is it that we, the members of the church, are not given copies of those revelations in the same way that the members of the church were during the time of Joseph Smith. What we get are the responses of prophets and apostles to the revelations and inspiration they receive, which is not the same as receiving the text of the revelations, as was the practice in time of Joseph Smith. When the revelations that make up the Doctrine and Covenants were first received, the church devoted considerable resources to getting them published and disseminated, and esteemed their “worth to the Church the riches of the whole Earth.”

The church today receives many revelations, but very few seem to be published or made public in the form in which they are received. 

Edited by askandanswer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The most obvious to us would be the 1978 revelation to Spencer W. Kimball granting Priesthood blessings to all people, regardless of ancestral background. Wilford Woodruff's "Manifesto" would also qualify as such a revelation. Certainly Doctrine and Covenants Section 136, given by Brigham Young, and Section 138, given by Joseph F. Smith, qualify as the word of God to us.
 
In my view, the day-to-day operation of the Church, including such things as the directing of missionary work, are all determined by divine revelation.

 

 

 

For me -personally-  Section 131 Doctrine and Covenants is of fascinating importance:

 

 

Es ist unmöglich, daß man in Unwissenheit errettet werden kann.

 

So etwas wie unstoffliche Materie gibt es nicht. Aller Geist ist Materie, aber er ist feiner oder reiner und kann nur von reineren Augen erkannt werden;

 

wir können ihn nicht sehen, aber wenn unser Körper einmal rein gemacht sein wird, werden wir sehen, daß Geist nichts anderes ist als Materie.

 

I also believe we can't be redeemed in a status of unconciousness, without having experienced God in a concious way, even if it's only in a split of a second before we die. Matter exists in the whole universe, also dark matter, different from its atomic structure to the kind of matter we know, and dark matter makes approx. 90 percent of all matter in this universe, approved by gravitational effects that can't be otherwise declared, and spirit is some kind of matter, in a status we can't find an explanation for because it strikes the borders of our scientific knowledge and experience. Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet, was a hundred miles ahead with his assumptions and revelations in comparison with other Christian churches and their knowledge and their doctrine.

Edited by JimmiGerman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2. When a new Bishop or new Stake President or Prophet is called, I seek a divine confirmation whether or not the person has been divinely called to that position. Other than that, I trust that my leaders are doing the right thing and leading the church in the right direction. 

 

So...just out of curiosity and for the sake of the discussion...what, exactly, would you do if you did not get this confirmation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me -personally-  Section 131 Doctrine and Covenants is of fascinating importance:

 

 

6  Es ist unmöglich, daß man in Unwissenheit errettet werden kann.

 

7  So etwas wie unstoffliche Materie gibt es nicht. Aller Geist ist Materie, aber er ist feiner oder reiner und kann nur von reineren Augen erkannt werden;

 

8  wir können ihn nicht sehen, aber wenn unser Körper einmal rein gemacht sein wird, werden wir sehen, daß Geist nichts anderes ist als Materie.

 

I finally started learning German a week ago, something I have wanted to do for most of my life. Fun to see this familiar scripture rendered in German. Fwiw, I believe v. 6 is primarily in reference to v. 5, which sort of ties in to what you said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

My question is why is it that we, the members of the church, are not given copies of those revelations in the same way that the members of the church were during the time of Joseph Smith. What we get are the responses of prophets and apostles to the revelations and inspiration they receive, which is not the same as receiving the text of the revelations, as was the practice in time of Joseph Smith. When the revelations that make up the Doctrine and Covenants were first received, the church devoted considerable resources to getting them published and disseminated, and esteemed their “worth to the Church the riches of the whole Earth.”

The church today receives many revelations, but very few seem to be published or made public in the form in which they are received. 

1. I don't think that our current leaders receive revelation the same way that Joseph Smith did.

2. The foundation has been laid, See number 1. We are now adding to that foundation by small bits and pieces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I don't think that our current leaders receive revelation the same way that Joseph Smith did.

 

Well, they certainly don't (usually) convey revelations the same way Joseph did; but I think it's a bit of a leap to say that they don't receive them in the same way.  Are we prepared to affirmatively state that Thomas Monson has never had a vision/visitation?  Are we prepared to say that he does not, and never has, used the seer stone that Joseph Smith possessed and through which Joseph received some of his revelations?  Are we prepared to say that the spiritual impulses that may lead Thomas Monson to express his impressions in an inter-office memorandum or to recycle a folksy decades-old Conference address, are qualitatively different than the ones that led Joseph Smith to express his impressions beginning with the phrase "verily, thus saith the Lord"?

 

 

2. The foundation has been laid, See number 1. We are now adding to that foundation by small bits and pieces.

 

I agree with this, though I think it's important to not let this idea lead to a "the day of visions and revelations is past" mentality.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not every revelation Joseph had made it into D&C.  In fact, many did not.  Joseph Smith said many things, and had many revelations, but most of them were not pertaining to the church as a whole, but rather to individuals, or situations.  Probably much like revelation received today.

 

True, we are not told how revelation is received.  But does it matter if President Monson has a sit-down with Jesus, or if he has a strong impression?  What's the difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So...just out of curiosity and for the sake of the discussion...what, exactly, would you do if you did not get this confirmation?

I would try again, and if necessary, maybe even again after that. If I still did not get the confirmation, I would examine myself to find out why I was not receiving it. If I felt that I had the necessary faith and worthiness to receive the confirmation, but had not received it, then I would be surprised and disappointed, but I like to think, and I hope, that my testimony and church involvement would continue unaffected. A few occasions of failing to receive a spiritual confirmation should not be enough to overturn a life time of testimony and many many other spiritual experiences. But, being human, I also suspect that if I did not receive a spiritual confirmation that my bishop and stake president had been called of God, I might not give quite as much heed to their counsel as I usually do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I don't think that our current leaders receive revelation the same way that Joseph Smith did.

2. The foundation has been laid, See number 1. We are now adding to that foundation by small bits and pieces.

 

if it is the case that our leaders do not receive revelation in the same way that Joseph Smith did, (and that may or may not be true, but if it is true, I'm not sure if the method of receiving makes any difference) then perhaps the reason might be that our leaders today, having been raised in the church as a child, and having had many decades of church leadership experience, they are so in tune with what God desires and requires that they do not need the Lord to reveal to them, in the same manner, or the same level of detail, how to run His kingdom. 

 

The church needs to be far more than a foundation, If revelation was needed to lay the foundation, then no matter how good the builders are, more revelation may be needed for the walls and roof. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally started learning German a week ago, something I have wanted to do for most of my life. Fun to see this familiar scripture rendered in German. Fwiw, I believe v. 6 is primarily in reference to v. 5, which sort of ties in to what you said.

 

I'm not sure if v. 6 is only in reference to v. 5 - maybe it is in a primarily way, but I'm not absolutely sure. Verses 7 and 8 are undoubtliy in reference to each other. 

 

May I ask you for your motivation to learn German?  French is your native language, as you once told here you came from the Côte d'Ivoir?  (As far as I remember)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May I ask you for your motivation to learn German?  French is your native language, as you once told here you came from the Côte d'Ivoir?  (As far as I remember)

Nope, I'm American born and bred. I took French in high school, but I didn't really learn a foreign language until I served my mission in Italy. I want to learn German because I think it's a cool language, and because I'm a big fan of English, which is a Germanic language.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True, we are not told how revelation is received.  But does it matter if President Monson has a sit-down with Jesus, or if he has a strong impression?  What's the difference?

 

For my part, I don't care if a particular revelation came from a whispering of the Spirit, or a pillar of light, or the Lord conducting a stewardship interview with President Monson whilst sipping hot cocoa in matching armchairs in the Holy of Holies. 

 

But I do (maybe I shouldn't, but I do) feel a lot more comfortable accepting President Monson's counsel if I can believe that in general, his experiences with the Divine are at least equal to, and generally exceed, those of any person currently living.  If there is a living person on the earth who has seen the Savior (and I think there are many such persons), I have to believe that at some point the living prophet/presiding high priest of the Lord's church has seen Him, too.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For my part, I don't care if a particular revelation came from a whispering of the Spirit, or a pillar of light, or the Lord conducting a stewardship interview with President Monson whilst sipping hot cocoa in matching armchairs in the Holy of Holies. 

 

But I do (maybe I shouldn't, but I do) feel a lot more comfortable accepting President Monson's counsel if I can believe that in general, his experiences with the Divine are at least equal to, and generally exceed, those of any person currently living.  If there is a living person on the earth who has seen the Savior (and I think there are many such persons), I have to believe that at some point the living prophet/presiding high priest of the Lord's church has seen Him, too.

No way to know.  I don't presume any of them have seen the Savior, or have had anything even close to what Joseph Smith experienced.  They probably use the seer stone as a paper weight....  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would try again, and if necessary, maybe even again after that. If I still did not get the confirmation, I would examine myself to find out why I was not receiving it. If I felt that I had the necessary faith and worthiness to receive the confirmation, but had not received it, then I would be surprised and disappointed, but I like to think, and I hope, that my testimony and church involvement would continue unaffected. A few occasions of failing to receive a spiritual confirmation should not be enough to overturn a life time of testimony and many many other spiritual experiences. But, being human, I also suspect that if I did not receive a spiritual confirmation that my bishop and stake president had been called of God, I might not give quite as much heed to their counsel as I usually do. 

 

So unless you received a specific confirmation you would presume they were not called of God?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, I'm American born and bred. I took French in high school, but I didn't really learn a foreign language until I served my mission in Italy. I want to learn German because I think it's a cool language, and because I'm a big fan of English, which is a Germanic language.

 

What makes it a "cool" language for you? Is it the sound, the pronounciation? What makes German so attractive for you? And, yes, you are right. I've found some sites about Old English recently, and it was very similar to German indeed, not quite easy to understand, but not far away. But later it changed and the distance between English and German became greater. But the roots, of course, are the same. But what I'd like to know was: what does it make a cool language for you? Der Wiener Schnitzel... und der Sauerkraut? Demokratie: schtunk. Liberty: schtunk. Free sprechen: schtunk.

 

 

Edited by JimmiGerman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this