Question concerning “Continuing Revelation”

[Maverick]

5 hours ago, LDSGator said:

My question is ignorant and I apologize for it, but is the family proclamation also considered revelation? 

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.”

[LDSGator]

10 minutes ago, Maverick said:

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.”

Ahh. Thanks! 

Edited April 9 by LDSGator

[Vort]

26 minutes ago, Maverick said:

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.”

A distinction without a difference.

[Maverick]

6 hours ago, Vort said:

A distinction without a difference.

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. 

Edited April 10 by Maverick

[Maverick]

11 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Nothing has changed.  And that is the problem.  The Lord was FORCED to open up new doctrines and knowledge to the people of the earth.  There is not time to wait any longer.  Consider that Jacob 5 is not just the history of the apostasy and restoration.  There is some very important information there for the last days.  He COULDN'T wait any longer.

But he only gave enough to give us a chance as individuals to learn more through the Spirit.  Any more knowledge in the public arena would bring even greater condemnation on the Church and the earth as a whole.  

This makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the thoughts. 

11 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Take a wild guess...

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. 

[Maverick]

9 hours ago, CV75 said:

That makes it sound weird, so apologies, let me rephrase: I am suggesting that "Thus saith the Lord..." needn't preface every communicated or published revelation a) when the flow of revelation is constant, as it is with the brethren directing the countless everyday tasks and projects currently underway, and b) the members are spiritually mature enough to not require this to focus their attention and understanding. Both come from the proliferation of endowed priesthood power among the members and brethren.

Perhaps a social backdrop to this, in the USA anyway, is that the common religious language has changed from the 19th century, probably due to secularization of the  language overall, and the practical expediency for religious speakers (to combat resistance and alienation by potential converts) to frame their communication to the modern hearer. Those with ears to hear will hear as they always have (the saints will recognize the Lord's voice nevertheless).

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?

[Maverick]

13 hours ago, ZealoulyStriving said:

In spite of their problems, many were sacrificing everything, some including their lives, to follow the truth. We celebrate that we only have to go to church for 2 hours- and some people think even that is still too much. And now their being asked to go to the Temple as often as possible?

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? 

13 hours ago, ZealoulyStriving said:

The wheat and tares are coming to maturity. The separation is coming.

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. 

[mordorbund]

On 4/7/2024 at 11:18 PM, Maverick said:

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?

AskGramps posted some thoughts on this subject. In summary:

1. Not all of Joseph Smith's revelations were canonized (either narrowly-scoped, redundant, or the revelation simply wasn't recorded) and many of today's revelations are of the same sort

2. You seem to draw a distinction between "thus saith the Lord" revelation and "inspiration". When Elijah (representative of "the Prophets") receives revelation as "a still small voice", I think it's worth checking our assumptions about what constitutes "revelation" versus "inspiration".

3. Even meeting minutes are records of revelatory experience. One example has even been canonized.

4. Elder Widtsoe classified latter-day revelation as "foundation" - doctrines and Church offices that need to be revealed only once -- and "daily guidance" which has the narrower scope -- given for a specific circumstance, time, or person.

Gramps concludes that if Joseph Smith were alive today you would likely find yourself asking the same question of him.

I would add that given the decline of biblical literacy in recent history, modern revelations are not going to be couched in King James formatting. Instead of "thus saith the Lord" we may instead hear something more like:

Quote

I testify that the Lord instructed me to select President Dallin H. Oaks and President Henry B. Eyring to serve as my counselors in the First Presidency.

In like manner, I testify that the Lord inspired the call of Elder Gerrit W. Gong and Elder Ulisses Soares to be ordained as His Apostles.

 

[mirkwood]

9 hours ago, Maverick said:

It’s just as plausible that he isn’t receiving these types of revelations and that’s why he isn’t telling us.

 

Do you think that is what is happening?

[CV75]

11 hours ago, Maverick said:

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?

The first barrier that needs to be overcome is our own filters and fallibilities -- how are we hearing the prophets, how are we interpretating their message, and what are our well-reasoned opinions that arise from considering their message? The Holy Ghost helps with this, to align us with God's will and to know what is truly from God in the present.

I believe that all God expects us to work with is what we experience in our own lifetime. The most important experience is a personal witness of the restored gospel and keeping the covenants. If a teaching of a president or apostle within our lifetime subsequently gets contradicted or corrected by later leaders in our lifetime, I would count it as a blessing that a correction has been made, or the product of continuing revelation. Or, if contradictions persist, seek the Lord's guidance on what to do. Do you have any examples of contradictions or corrections within your lifetime? Some of these seeming contradictions and corrections are addressed in the Gospel Topic Essays.

God will not give us a testimony of a past principle that has changed since we are no longer bound to keep it. For example, should we expect the Holy Ghost to bear witness that the law of Moses was true, or are we expected to use our reasoning on that one since there are more germane principles we need to live by now? Will a testimony of the Book or Mormon be any different depending on the edition you read?

In all circumstances, the basics are truly from God. And we can always pray and receive a witness of the truthfulness of any principle being taught. There is nothing else we can do in good faith but what we reason, accept or personally hear as coming from God. He will make sure we learn from our mistakes, and sometimes even intervene by grace after all we can do.

Edited April 10 by CV75

[Carborendum]

14 hours ago, Maverick said:

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). 

If I were to make a rough guess, I'd say that I've given close to 1000 blessings in my life.  Healing, comfort, promise of blessings, & prophecy.

Of those, I'd guess about 10% were very clear blessings where I KNEW there was power there.  About 10% were clearly empty.  I was "practicing the forms without the power."  Finally, the great majority were something in between.  I really couldn't tell.  I didn't necessarily feel like there was power there.  But it also didn't feel empty.

As you can imagine, those where I clearly felt the power -- these were always fulfilled.  Those where I knew were empty were never fulfilled.  Of the remaining?  Maybe 50% if I'm lucky were fulfilled.

I think you can draw some parallels.

[Maverick]

9 hours ago, mirkwood said:

 

Do you think that is what is happening?

I think this is the most likely explanation. 

[Maverick]

7 hours ago, Carborendum said:

If I were to make a rough guess, I'd say that I've given close to 1000 blessings in my life.  Healing, comfort, promise of blessings, & prophecy.

Of those, I'd guess about 10% were very clear blessings where I KNEW there was power there.  About 10% were clearly empty.  I was "practicing the forms without the power."  Finally, the great majority were something in between.  I really couldn't tell.  I didn't necessarily feel like there was power there.  But it also didn't feel empty.

As you can imagine, those where I clearly felt the power -- these were always fulfilled.  Those where I knew were empty were never fulfilled.  Of the remaining?  Maybe 50% if I'm lucky were fulfilled.

I think you can draw some parallels.

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?

[Maverick]

13 hours ago, mordorbund said:

1. Not all of Joseph Smith's revelations were canonized (either narrowly-scoped, redundant, or the revelation simply wasn't recorded) and many of today's revelations are of the same sort

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. 

13 hours ago, mordorbund said:

2. You seem to draw a distinction between "thus saith the Lord" revelation and "inspiration". When Elijah (representative of "the Prophets") receives revelation as "a still small voice", I think it's worth checking our assumptions about what constitutes "revelation" versus "inspiration".

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. 

13 hours ago, mordorbund said:

3. Even meeting minutes are records of revelatory experience. One example has even been canonized.

Are you suggesting that all meeting minutes of the brethren are “records of revelatory experience?” 

13 hours ago, mordorbund said:

4. Elder Widtsoe classified latter-day revelation as "foundation" - doctrines and Church offices that need to be revealed only once -- and "daily guidance" which has the narrower scope -- given for a specific circumstance, time, or person. 

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?

13 hours ago, mordorbund said:

Gramps concludes that if Joseph Smith were alive today you would likely find yourself asking the same question of him.

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. 

13 hours ago, mordorbund said:

I would add that given the decline of biblical literacy in recent history, modern revelations are not going to be couched in King James formatting. Instead of "thus saith the Lord" we may instead hear something more like:

Quote

I testify that the Lord instructed me to select President Dallin H. Oaks and President Henry B. Eyring to serve as my counselors in the First Presidency.

In like manner, I testify that the Lord inspired the call of Elder Gerrit W. Gong and Elder Ulisses Soares to be ordained as His Apostles.

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.

[mordorbund]

9 minutes ago, Maverick said:

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. 

If they aren't canonized then how would you know if Joseph, Brigham, or Russell received one? The point was that Joseph received "thus saith the Lord" revelations and they were never presented to the Church for a sustaining vote. If Joseph Smith were alive today you would have the same concern.

Quote

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. 

I'll state again that I think it's worth checking our assumptions about what constitutes "revelation" versus "inspiration". I think the fact that Joseph's revelations needed editing before publication shows that there's a level of wiggle room even for "thus saith the Lord" revelations. And baptisms for the dead seemed to progress as they were practiced. I don't think revelation is as strong as you think it is, nor inspiration as weak as you think it is.

Quote

Are you suggesting that all meeting minutes of the brethren are “records of revelatory experience?” 

No, I'm suggesting that just because we do not have the text of a revelation that does not mean that the revelation did not happen. The testimony of the apostles present make it clear that the lifting of the temple and priesthood ban came about because of revelation. The canonized record is the conclusion of such a meeting and not the revelation itself. That does not discount that a revelation was had. I do believe, and am suggesting that properly run council meetings become conduits of revelation and meeting minutes should reflect that. Joseph seemed to think the Lord sustained the high council's decisions enough to warrant including them in the Doctrine and Covenants. And although the practice of baptisms for the dead are mentioned in a revelation, the proper execution of the ordinance is explained in epistles -- not textual revelations. If Joseph Smith were alive today you would have the same concern.

Quote

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?

On the contrary, I believe there have been. I don't think they've warranted canonizing in the Doctrine and Covenants. I've seen saints stare in confusion when they read D&C 16 after reading D&C 15. What percentage of the D&C should we devote to the thousands of mission calls extended every year? Should we plan on adding a fresh revelation every time the First Presidency is reorganized? You'll notice the Doctrine and Covenants starts out with many revelations giving specific assignments to specific individuals, but once the assignment has been outlined the assignment revelations fade out. If Joseph Smith were alive today you would have the same concern.

45 minutes ago, Maverick said:

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 think that's debatable.

46 minutes ago, Maverick said:

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.

Let me see if I can make my point clearer. President Nelson, in his inaugural talk as prophet, says

The word of the Lord came unto me and said, My servant Russell, I have heard thy petitions and thou hast found favor in my sight this day. Inasmuch as you have sought my will concerning who should serve as your counsellors, verily I say unto thee that thou shalt appoint from thy fellow-servants Dallin H. Oaks and Henry B. Eyring; This is my word and will for the First Presidency. And now, as for thy concern over who shall sit among thy brethren the apostles, thus saith the Lord, Gerrit W. Gong and Ulisses S. Soares have I called for this work; And they shall serve as special witnesses to my name and testify of me. I will be with them and with thee in thy councils with the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. If ye will gather in my name, esteeming thy brother as thyself, then I will pour my power upon thee that thou shalt speak by the power of the Holy Ghost.

President Nelson would either have to speak like this his entire talk, or find a way to smoothly transition to it. This style seems to have fallen out of the common tongue early in the 20th century. Instead he said the following:

I testify that the Lord instructed me to select President Dallin H. Oaks and President Henry B. Eyring to serve as my counselors in the First Presidency.

In like manner, I testify that the Lord inspired the call of Elder Gerrit W. Gong and Elder Ulisses Soares to be ordained as His Apostles. I and we welcome them to this unique brotherhood of service.

When we convene as a Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, our meeting rooms become rooms of revelation. The Spirit is palpably present. As we wrestle with complex matters, a thrilling process unfolds as each Apostle freely expresses his thoughts and point of view. Though we may differ in our initial perspectives, the love we feel for each other is constant. Our unity helps us to discern the Lord’s will for His Church.

In our meetings, the majority never rules! We listen prayerfully to one another and talk with each other until we are united. Then when we have reached complete accord, the unifying influence of the Holy Ghost is spine-tingling! We experience what the Prophet Joseph Smith knew when he taught, “By union of feeling we obtain power with God.” No member of the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve would ever leave decisions for the Lord’s Church to his own best judgment!

President Nelson quoted the Lord directly using more modern language and you missed it. "[T]he Lord instructed me to ...." I wonder if there's something specific you're looking for that's blinding you to what's already in front of you.

[mikbone]

There are some General Conference talks that are obviously inspired.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1989/04/beware-of-pride?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1977/04/our-great-potential?lang=eng

D&C 1:38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

Joseph Smith routinely gave us revelations in the voice of the Lord.  Ezra Taft Benson’s talk about pride is in his own voice.

The question is, do we appreciate those messages equally?

 

 

[Just_A_Guy]

I would respectfully add separately, @Maverick, that I rather think you rather overstate the degree to which Church members have cause to feel significantly and sincerely befuddled by conflicting “church teachings”.

That individual prophets and apostles can express personal views that may be wrong is, I think, increasingly well understood in the Church; as is the idea that we aren’t bound to offer unblinking obedience to such idiosyncratic statements.  The closest analogue is the statement in the supplementary matter to OD-1 about the Lord not allowing the prophet to lead the Church astray.  And even then, the statement is qualified to suggest not absolute infallibility but that any error will ultimately be harmless.

What we are covenantally bound to follow through our sustaining votes—where we risk falling into grave error if we disobey—are statements of the united voice of the Church’s governing councils.  And once we remember that Church practices and teachings are to some degree tailored to time and place and that what was needful in 1835 or 2015 may no longer be appropriate in 2019 or 2024 (a proposition that is baked into the whole process, else there would be no need for living prophets/continuing revelation at all), I think one becomes hard-pressed to find a single instance where the entire Q12 and Q15 were objectively, undeniably, soul-jeopardizingly wrong.  

The Church has no shortage of fringe theories, but it also has a theological mainstream.  And it’s really not that difficult to tell the difference—especially with the added benefit of personal revelation based in faith and sincere repentance, and even more so as we learn to block out the voices of the shrieking profligates who are pretty obviously motivated primarily by envy or libido.  

Take the aforementioned Proclamation on the Family, for example. We can split hairs over whether it is (or should be) canon, versus scripture, versus revelation, versus inspiration, versus just good sense, versus a complete product of its culture, versus a vestige of bigotry under which the Church groans for relief.  But the simple fact is that over a hundred LDS apostles, seventeen LDS presiding high priests, every currently-serving GA-level seventy, and every section of LDS canon that discusses the matter, disapproves of gay sex.  It’s not a close call in any way.  The Lord, of course, can reveal whatever He will reveal.  But as our theology stands right now there is literally a better chance that He will instruct the Church to start buying and importing indentured servants from slave markets in Mauritania or child brides from impoverished families in Saudi Arabia, than that He will instruct the Church to begin solemnizing gay marriages.  That’s the elephant that remains in the room in spite of all the kabuki theater and concern-trolling over just how seriously we should really take the POTF.

Edited April 11 by Just_A_Guy

[Maverick]

@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:

9 hours ago, mordorbund said:

If they aren't canonized then how would you know if Joseph, Brigham, or Russell received one? The point was that Joseph received "thus saith the Lord" revelations and they were never presented to the Church for a sustaining vote. If Joseph Smith were alive today you would have the same concern.

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.

9 hours ago, mordorbund said:

I don't think revelation is as strong as you think it is, nor inspiration as weak as you think it is.

I made no mention of the "strength" of revelation or the "weakness" of inspiration. I think there's clearly a difference, though. 

9 hours ago, mordorbund said:

No, I'm suggesting that just because we do not have the text of a revelation that does not mean that the revelation did not happen.

Sure, but we also don't know what, if anything, the Lord actually said if there's no text of the revelation recorded anywhere.

9 hours ago, mordorbund said:

The testimony of the apostles present make it clear that the lifting of the temple and priesthood ban came about because of revelation.

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. 

9 hours ago, mordorbund said:

And although the practice of baptisms for the dead are mentioned in a revelation, the proper execution of the ordinance is explained in epistles -- not textual revelations. If Joseph Smith were alive today you would have the same concern.

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.

9 hours ago, mordorbund said:

On the contrary, I believe there have been. I don't think they've warranted canonizing in the Doctrine and Covenants.

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. 

9 hours ago, mordorbund said:

You'll notice the Doctrine and Covenants starts out with many revelations giving specific assignments to specific individuals, but once the assignment has been outlined the assignment revelations fade out. If Joseph Smith were alive today you would have the same concern.

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. 

9 hours ago, mordorbund said:

President Nelson quoted the Lord directly using more modern language and you missed it. "[T]he Lord instructed me to ...." I wonder if there's something specific you're looking for that's blinding you to what's already in front of you.

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. 

Edited April 11 by Maverick

[Maverick]

2 hours ago, mikbone said:

There are some General Conference talks that are obviously inspired.

No doubt many General Conference talks have been inspired.

2 hours ago, mikbone said:

D&C 1:38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

2 hours ago, mikbone said:

Joseph Smith routinely gave us revelations in the voice of the Lord.  Ezra Taft Benson’s talk about pride is in his own voice.

The question is, do we appreciate those messages equally?

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? 

[Maverick]

8 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I would respectfully add separately, @Maverick, that I rather think you rather overstate the degree to which Church members have cause to feel significantly and sincerely befuddled by conflicting “church teachings”.

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. 

Edited April 11 by Maverick

[Maverick]

15 hours ago, CV75 said:

If a teaching of a president or apostle within our lifetime subsequently gets contradicted or corrected by later leaders in our lifetime, I would count it as a blessing that a correction has been made, or the product of continuing revelation.

Why must we assume that any changed teachings are in fact a correction and not an departure from light and truth? 

15 hours ago, CV75 said:

Do you have any examples of contradictions or corrections within your lifetime?

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. 

15 hours ago, CV75 said:

God will not give us a testimony of a past principle that has changed since we are no longer bound to keep it.

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.

15 hours ago, CV75 said:

In all circumstances, the basics are truly from God. And we can always pray and receive a witness of the truthfulness of any principle being taught. There is nothing else we can do in good faith but what we reason, accept or personally hear as coming from God. He will make sure we learn from our mistakes, and sometimes even intervene by grace after all we can do.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. 

[Maverick]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Take the aforementioned Proclamation on the Family, for example. We can split hairs over whether it is (or should be) canon, versus scripture, versus revelation, versus inspiration, versus just good sense, versus a complete product of its culture, versus a vestige of bigotry under which the Church groans for relief.  But the simple fact is that over a hundred LDS apostles, seventeen LDS presiding high priests, every currently-serving GA-level seventy, and every section of LDS canon that discusses the matter, disapproves of gay sex.  It’s not a close call in any way.  The Lord, of course, can reveal whatever He will reveal.  But as our theology stands right now there is literally a better chance that He will instruct the Church to start buying and importing indentured servants from slave markets in Mauritania or child brides from impoverished families in Saudi Arabia, than that He will instruct the Church to begin solemnizing gay marriages.

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. 

[Carborendum]

11 hours ago, Maverick said:

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?

Ok.....

So, that's what you got from what I said.  ...  I don't even know where to go from here.

Good object lesson.

Edited April 11 by Carborendum

[Maverick]

7 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Ok.....

So, that's what you got from what I said.  ...  I don't even know where to go from here.

Good object lesson.

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? 

[Carborendum]

21 minutes ago, Maverick said:

Can please just explain what you meant

I can't.  

Sometimes when we're given revelation, we're not allowed to repeat it.

I was trying to simply point in a direction.  But just as pointing in real life would require our eyes to be in the same location with reference to the pointing finger, we're not aligned.  And you're seeing in a different direction than what I intended.