Interpretation?

[mikbone]

Quote

1891, Sunday October 25, Brigham City

I wish to mak[e] the following remarks upon the principal of Revelation.  Some had thought that Revelation had sceased, But this is not the Case.  The Lord is with us & gives us Revelation.  But I will say for myself that I wish to Avoid saying Thus Saith the Lord as far as I Can when I give the will of the Lord to the people.  In the Days of Joseph Smith it was Thus saith the Lord almost Daily until the Revelations now embodied in the Book of Doctrines & Covenants had Been given.  Since that day President Brigham Young John Taylor & myself have seldom used the words (Thus saith the Lord) when giving the word of the Lord to the people.  In the 68 Sec of the Book of D & C we are informed that when men speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost it is [the] word of the Lord & Revelation.  

Source:  Waiting for World's End: The Diaries of Wilford Woodruff, Edited by Susan Staker.  p. 389

Edited December 15, 2018 by mikbone

[Fether]

12 hours ago, mikbone said:

 

Quote

1891, Sunday October 25, Brigham City

I wish to mak[e] the following remarks upon the principal of Revelation.  Some had thought that Revelation had sceased, But this is not the Case.  The Lord is with us & gives us Revelation.  But I will say for myself that I wish to Avoid saying Thus Saith the Lord as far as I Can when I give the will of the Lord to the people.  In the Days of Joseph Smith it was Thus saith the Lord almost Daily until the Revelations now embodied in the Book of Doctrines & Covenants had Been given.  Since that day President Brigham Young John Taylor & myself have seldom used the words (Thus saith the Lord) when giving the word of the Lord to the people.  In the 68 Sec of the Book of D & C we are informed that when men speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost it is [the] word of the Lord & Revelation.  

Source:  Waiting for World's End: The Diaries of Wilford Woodruff, Edited by Susan Staker.  p. 389

 

I feel like this quotation was cut short right before he was going to go into more detail. But as for what is there, I think he is sharing the same principle Ezra Taft Benson does in his talk “Fourteen Fundamentals in following the Prophet” (https://www.lds.org)

”The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.”

[CV75]

17 hours ago, mikbone said:

Source:  Waiting for World's End: The Diaries of Wilford Woodruff, Edited by Susan Staker.  p. 389

Yes I think D&C 68 relieves them from the necessity of prefacing everything with "This saith...". It was more of a formality or custom in the first place. There are cases where specific phrasing was given (baptism, sacrament prayers, etc.); this is not one of them.

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Yes I think D&C 68 relieves them from the necessity of prefacing everything with "This saith...". It was more of a formality or custom in the first place. 

Right; but it imputes a necessity of the statement’s originating via inspiration from the Holy Ghost; and D&C 50:17-22 then comes into play.  

[CV75]

54 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Right; but it imputes a necessity of the statement’s originating via inspiration from the Holy Ghost; and D&C 50:17-22 then comes into play.  

I'm not understanding what you're saying. What  imputes what... what is "it"? 

I don't take the "word of truth" to be the exact language and syntax used in expressing the will of the Lord. There are so many languages and words to use (Alma 29:8). A statement is different than a message; form is different than content (JS-H 1:19). The prophet can "preach the word of truth by the Comforter, in the Spirit of truth" without orally or verbally prefixing everything a precise way. That is why "the way" is "by the Spirit of truth and not by saying 'Thus saith the Lord' first, and why "the way" refers to "the power thereof" and not the form.

Edited December 15, 2018 by CV75

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I'm not understanding what you're saying. What  imputes what... what is "it"? 

I don't take the "word of truth" to be the exact language and syntax used in expressing the will of the Lord. There are so many languages and words to use (Alma 29:8). A statement is different than a message; form is different than content (JS-H 1:19). The prophet can "preach the word of truth by the Comforter, in the Spirit of truth" without orally or verbally prefixing everything a precise way. That is why "the way" is "by the Spirit of truth and not by saying 'Thus saith the Lord' first, and why "the way" refers to "the power thereof" and not the form.

In other words:  the words of a prophet are ultimately authoritative not because of the fact that a prophet happened to say them; but because of the power of the Holy Ghost which acts on the hearer as well as the speaker.  

Where we don’t have the confirmation for ourselves, it certainly behooves us to trust the priesthood authority while we make efforts gain that confirmation; and the priesthood authorities may rightfully impose discipline for our failure to toe the line as they deem appropriate for the greater good of the flock.  But when it comes to learning and doing what God expects of us individually, I think there are probably limits to how far God expects us to jump in the absence of a spiritual confirmation; and there is a point beyond which “the prophet said it, therefore, God wants it” probably isn’t terribly useful.  

Edited December 15, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[mikbone]

Thank you all that have posted.  

I shared this because I noticed something that I though was important.

When Joseph Smith led the Church under the direction of the Lord, It appears that he received direct revelation from our Savior.  When I read the Doctrine and Covenants I hear the voice of the Lord.  I love Joseph Smith's words, his banter, and logic but I can see a clear distinction between Joseph Smith's words and the Word of God.  I know that the Lord personally visited Joseph Smith on many occasions and I assume that not all of the sections of the D&C were from face to face revelations.  Perhaps some of the revelations came from visions, or from hearing the voice of God, or even the Holy Ghost whispering words to Joseph as if the comforter was speaking as the Lord himself.  Because of this line of revelation it was appropriate for Joseph Smith to say "Thus Saith the Lord."

When Brigham Young, William Woodruff, etc. presented revelation, we rarely received the material with the statement thus saith the lord.  Exception of course for D&C 136.

AND I AM OK WITH THIS.  When Joseph Smith restored the Church under the direction of the Lord he did a great job.  

The quote that I put forth in the original post was from Wilford Woodruff, it was given in a talk shortly after the Manifesto was presented to the Church.  The excerpt following Declaration 1 explains that President Woodruff saw in a vision the results that would occur if we continued practicing polygamy - and it would have been disastrous. 

Is it ok that the majority of revelation has come from the Holy Ghost instead of directly from the Lord since the martyrdom of Joseph Smith?  Yes!  Section 68 declares as much.  

 

When I see the "Fourteen Fundamentals in following the Prophet" I understand the importance of the material.  But, I don't follow President Nelson because of the 14 points.  I follow President Nelson because I have a testimony of the Book of Mormon (and the Standard Works), Joseph Smith, and most importantly, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  Following the prophet because of the 14 points is like trying to stuff a turkey through the beak!  (Thanks Holland, "Lord I Believe")

 

When I see the changes in policy that President Nelson has presented, I appreciate what he is doing and I sustain him.  

The most recent statement has given me great hope and excitement.

Quote

“We're witnesses to a process of restoration,” said the prophet. “If you think the Church has been fully restored, you're just seeing the beginning. There is much more to come. … Wait till next year. And then the next year. Eat your vitamin pills. Get your rest. It's going to be exciting.”

I don't see anything that President Nelson has done yet as a restoration.  But more of a pruning and refreshing of the original intent of the Church.

I am excited to see what will be forthcoming.  And I wouldn't be surprised if within the next 2 years we hear the statement "Thus Saith the Lord".  

[Just_A_Guy]

This is an interesting distinction between “pruning and refreshing” versus “restoration”, @mikbone.  Makes me wonder whether we will soon be seeing the canonization of the Proclamation on the Family; or something altogether different.

It’s funny, in retrospect—Nelson clearly said there were changes coming, but every one so far has caught me off-guard.  I don’t know what I’ve been expecting . . . but it surely wasn’t this.  

Edited December 16, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[JohnsonJones]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

This is an interesting distinction between “pining and refreshing” versus “restoration”, @mikbone.  Makes me wonder whether we will soon be seeing the canonization of the Proclamation on the Family; or something altogether different.

It’s funny, in retrospect—Nelson clearly said there were changes coming, but every one so far has caught me off-guard.  I don’t know what I’ve been expecting . . . but it surely wasn’t this.  

Or, decanonization of something or other.  It can go both ways.  Or a change in narrative, or change in approach.  It could result in any number of things.

Only a few probably know what is planned or in store.  I think he's had this idea of what he wants to do for a LOOONG time, and could have instituted it in one big blow.  However I think he (wisely probably) figured too much change at once would cause a great rift or concern, so instead is actually putting out the changes as slowly as he feels he can while it is barely slow enough for most of the church to absorb it.

For example, it was related to me by someone around Nelson's age (so yes, someone much older than I) who said that when they were going to become a deacon their ward did it much like how Nelson has changed it to be today.  That they got ordained as a group, and that some of them were actually younger than twelve years of age.  It could be that this happened with Nelson as well and this is simply a reversion to one of the ways they used to do it (can't confirm this, before my time and never really done research into this area of church history...at least not yet).

[CV75]

2 hours ago, mikbone said:

I don't see anything that President Nelson has done yet as a restoration.  But more of a pruning and refreshing of the original intent of the Church.

From what he said, I see what he has done as part of the "process of restoration." As Elder Bednar taught these kinds of small threads weave into the creation of a rope.: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2018/10/gather-together-in-one-all-things-in-christ?lang=eng For example, "The fourth article of faith does not simply identify the fundamental principles and ordinances of the restored gospel. Rather, this inspired statement of beliefs gathers together in one all things in Christ: trusting in and on Him, relying upon Him, following Him, and pressing forward with Him—even in Him." Gathering together in one all things in Christ gets into the kind of restoration Alma was talking about in Alma 40-42. The restoration is that of entire Gospel, which is so many things and which the restored Church is part of.

[Rob Osborn]

And we aren't even speaking of doctrine yet, just policy. I have a really big feeling we will see doctrine changes.

[Traveler]

On 12/15/2018 at 7:22 PM, JohnsonJones said:

Or, decanonization of something or other.  It can go both ways.  Or a change in narrative, or change in approach.  It could result in any number of things.

Only a few probably know what is planned or in store.  I think he's had this idea of what he wants to do for a LOOONG time, and could have instituted it in one big blow.  However I think he (wisely probably) figured too much change at once would cause a great rift or concern, so instead is actually putting out the changes as slowly as he feels he can while it is barely slow enough for most of the church to absorb it.

For example, it was related to me by someone around Nelson's age (so yes, someone much older than I) who said that when they were going to become a deacon their ward did it much like how Nelson has changed it to be today.  That they got ordained as a group, and that some of them were actually younger than twelve years of age.  It could be that this happened with Nelson as well and this is simply a reversion to one of the ways they used to do it (can't confirm this, before my time and never really done research into this area of church history...at least not yet).

I do not know - I am guessing and speculating but I am inclined to believe that President Nelson had no idea what he would do until he became the president - and then everything changed.  I know for myself and the calling I have had - my ideas of such callings changed greatly when I was called and in most cases it was not at all what I thought it would be.

 

The Traveler

[mordorbund]

On 12/15/2018 at 9:22 PM, JohnsonJones said:

Or, decanonization of something or other. 

You've officially been put on notice, D&C 134.

[The Folk Prophet]

On 12/15/2018 at 3:53 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

In other words:  the words of a prophet are ultimately authoritative not because of the fact that a prophet happened to say them; but because of the power of the Holy Ghost which acts on the hearer as well as the speaker.

You know...I'm not sure I agree.

I'd dare say the words of the prophet are fully authoritative whether they are the words of the Lord or not. If the prophet says, "from now on we won't serve chocolate cake in any temple cafeterias" then I'm pretty darned sure we're going to see chocolate cake gone from the cafeterias whether that's the Lord's will or the prophet's distaste for chocolate cake.

[mordorbund]

On 12/15/2018 at 7:17 PM, mikbone said:

When Joseph Smith led the Church under the direction of the Lord, It appears that he received direct revelation from our Savior.  When I read the Doctrine and Covenants I hear the voice of the Lord.  I love Joseph Smith's words, his banter, and logic but I can see a clear distinction between Joseph Smith's words and the Word of God.  I know that the Lord personally visited Joseph Smith on many occasions and I assume that not all of the sections of the D&C were from face to face revelations.  Perhaps some of the revelations came from visions, or from hearing the voice of God, or even the Holy Ghost whispering words to Joseph as if the comforter was speaking as the Lord himself.  Because of this line of revelation it was appropriate for Joseph Smith to say "Thus Saith the Lord."

When Brigham Young, William Woodruff, etc. presented revelation, we rarely received the material with the statement thus saith the lord.  Exception of course for D&C 136.

AND I AM OK WITH THIS.  When Joseph Smith restored the Church under the direction of the Lord he did a great job.  

Of note, much of the variation in "the prophetic voice" was exercised by Joseph Smith himself (see here). So I don't think it's terribly beneficial to try to determine the level of inspiration in inspired teachings (not that you're doing this, I appreciate your caps disclaimer).

[Just_A_Guy]

7 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You know...I'm not sure I agree.

I'd dare say the words of the prophet are fully authoritative whether they are the words of the Lord or not. If the prophet says, "from now on we won't serve chocolate cake in any temple cafeterias" then I'm pretty darned sure we're going to see chocolate cake gone from the cafeterias whether that's the Lord's will or the prophet's distaste for chocolate cake.

As a matter of institutional administration and governance, you’re surely right.  I was thinking more in terms of individual application.  

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, Just_A_Guy said:

As a matter of institutional administration and governance, you’re surely right.  I was thinking more in terms of individual application.  

Sure. I'd still say that's typically the case. Take, as an example, Pres. Hinkley's comment that we shouldn't have piercings but they had nothing to say about 1 pair of earrings for women. Let's pretend, just for a moment, that this wasn't necessarily something the Lord was actually concerned with, but was sage advice and Hinkley's opinion. I think that even knowing that fully well...even if he'd said, "this isn't revelation...just sage advice and my opinion"...that most faithful women in the church who happened to have more than one piercing per ear would have removed their extra piercings.

But the real point, I think, that needs to be gotten at in a case like that is -- should they? If someone prays and determines that the Lord doesn't actually care about multiple piercings in an ear, should they ignore said advice from the prophet or follow it anyway? And, if the Lord is, actually, indifferent on a matter such as that, will said person be blessed for following the prophet's advice regardless?

[Just_A_Guy]

18 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Sure. I'd still say that's typically the case. Take, as an example, Pres. Hinkley's comment that we shouldn't have piercings but they had nothing to say about 1 pair of earrings for women. Let's pretend, just for a moment, that this wasn't necessarily something the Lord was actually concerned with, but was sage advice and Hinkley's opinion. I think that even knowing that fully well...even if he'd said, "this isn't revelation...just sage advice and my opinion"...that most faithful women in the church who happened to have more than one piercing per ear would have removed their extra piercings.

But the real point, I think, that needs to be gotten at in a case like that is -- should they? If someone prays and determines that the Lord doesn't actually care about multiple piercings in an ear, should they ignore said advice from the prophet or follow it anyway? And, if the Lord is, actually, indifferent on a matter such as that, will said person be blessed for following the prophet's advice regardless?

I think intention matters, and probably in ways that we can’t completely parse without looking into someone’s mind in a way that isn’t currently possible.

But if, for example, I am walking in inch-deep snow and I see my three-year-old walking behind me, perfectly matching my own footprints:  is it necessary?  No.  Would I be upset if my kid were blazing her own path?  Of course not.  But, gol durnit, seeing her follow so intently sure is cute—and it makes me love her just a little bit more, and it may actually establish a good pattern that prepares her for the day we walk in deeper snow.

Whereas, if my three-year-old were doing the exact same thing only because she had got it in her noggin that I’d spank her if she did any differently—that perception, if uncorrected, may get her into real trouble someday; so we probably need to have a conversation.  

Edited December 19, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Whereas, if my three-year-old were doing the exact same thing only because she had got it in her noggin that I’d spank her if she did any differently—that perception, if uncorrected, may get her into real trouble someday; so we probably need to have a conversation.  

I need to have a conversation with my dog who ducks every time I move.

[Just_A_Guy]

56 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I need to have a conversation with my dog who ducks every time I move.

No, you need a conversation with the SPCA. 😠

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

No, you need a conversation with the SPCA. 😠

My dog has Stockholm syndrome. He'd testify on my behalf.

[Traveler]

On 12/16/2018 at 7:47 PM, Rob Osborn said:

And we aren't even speaking of doctrine yet, just policy. I have a really big feeling we will see doctrine changes.

Why?

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

4 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Why?

 

The Traveler

Because there are a few issues doctrinally that need fixed.

[Traveler]

It is my personal opinion that Moroni chapter 10 is one of the most important scriptures about revelation.  In summary I would point the reader to the many times that Moroni uses the term exhort.   The principle I think is important concerns spiritual gifts to which Moroni gives a partial list of spiritual gifts.  I believe spiritual gifts are another term for revelation.  Also note the Moroni indicates that revelation and spiritual gifts are pointed to individuals but to the congregation of covenant saints.  In short revelation and spiritual gifts are given that all may be "lifted" and benefited.  For this reason I believe revelation is withheld when the congregation of saints are creating "contentions" rather than testifying through the exercise of gifts which come by the power of the Holy Ghost.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

To think our doctrine is 100% accurate would be shortsighted.