Question concerning “Continuing Revelation”

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2010/10/cleansing-the-inner-vessel?lang=eng
 

Compare with the audio at about 1:05

Yes, it is as I said.  You'll notice that he kind of pauses as he defines it as revelation.  His eyes are going to different places. 

So, he's not reading it directly, but kind of paraphrasing as he goes.  He glances at each of the prompts as required.  But he is in no way reading it directly.

Also notice that there are several other places where he uses different words than the written version.  But I don't see anyone making a big stink about those.

Edited April 11 by Carborendum

[askandanswer]

A latter-day Prophet describing how he received revelation

https://www.thechurchnews.com/1998/8/1/23250349/inspiration-came-for-smaller-temples-on-trip-to-mexico/

[Carborendum]

45 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

... if the Lord does reveal everything to the prophets, the prophets don't then pass everything on to us. 

Joseph once said that he could reveal 100 times more about the degrees of glory than what was revealed in the various sections of the D&C, as soon as the Saints were prepared to receive it.

Joseph knew.  But he also recognized that the Saints were not ready to hear it.

He said

Quote

There has been a great difficulty in getting anything into the heads of this generation. It has been like splitting hemlock knots with a corn-dodger [a piece of corn bread] for a wedge, and a pumpkin for a beetle [a wooden mallet]. Even the Saints are slow to understand.”

If it was that difficult for what might (in the Church) be considered "the greatest generation" imagine what our generation is prepared for?

Are they the great and noble generation saved for the last days? 
Or are they the lost generation being tossed about by every wind of doctrine?

When I look at the many youth in the four stakes I've been frequenting, I'd say "Yes."

Edited April 11 by Carborendum

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

Quote

Fifteen years ago, with the world in turmoil, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” the fifth proclamation in the history of the Church. It is a guide that members of the Church would do well to read and to follow.

Audio:

Quote

Fifteen years ago, with the world in turmoil, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” the fifth proclamation in the history of the Church.  It qualifies, according to definition, as a revelation and, uh, would do well is a guide that the members of the Church would do well to read and to follow.

By the way, whatever answer you find for the discrepancy here, you should also be applying to the BoM.  Thing is chock full of such discrepancies.  The scribe's notes don't match the printer's manuscript doesn't match the first copy of the first print run doesn't match the last copy of the first print run doesn't match the copy you have on your shelf doesn't match what you find at www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures.

https://criticaltext.byustudies.byu.edu/

[Maverick]

10 hours ago, CV75 said:

Of course, changed teachings could theoretically represent a departure from the Lord’s will.

It's not only theoretically possible, it's a very distinct possibility. And it wouldn't necessarily be because the brethren are asleep at the wheel, either. How would you expect the Lord to take away light and truth from the church, because the membership can no longer handle many of the hard truths and deeper doctrines? It would undoubtedly be in a very similar manner to what we've seen in the church for over a hundred years now.

10 hours ago, CV75 said:

I would encourage you to provide examples and ask the same OP question concerning it. An academic, object lesson.: Why hasn’t there been a revelation to correct this departure from the original X “Thus saith the Lord…” revelation?

There are many examples that I could provide. But I think the answer to the question would be what I said above about the Lord taking away light and truth from the church on account of the membership no longer being able to handle many of the hard truths and deeper doctrines.

[Maverick]

9 hours ago, mikbone said:

That’s pretty simple minded.

I don't think its simple minded at all. I think it gets to the root of the issue. If we have a "thus saith the Lord" revelation quoting the words of God directly we know that these words came from God. When the president of the church speaks or writes something in his official capacity as church president in his own words we don't know if those words were given to him by revelation from God or if he's just giving his well-reasoned opinion, or somewhere in between. 

9 hours ago, mikbone said:

If you believe in God, the Light of Christ, and the holy Ghost, and you have honed your spirit of discernment; then you personally know what is right and wrong, fringe and grey.

Sure, but having to discern between what words our leaders speak from the pulpit come from God, which ones come from men, and which ones are somewhere in between is a lot different than having a revelation directly from God presented in his own words. There's no question where those words came from then.

[Maverick]

10 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I wonder - what does it mean to you to be "against gay sex"

It means that you oppose it. You consider it to be a moral and social evil and preach against. You do what you can to prevent it from happening and do all you can to help those who have committed this very serious sin to completely repent of it, receive forgiveness, and never return to it again.

10 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

what does it mean to you to have the church "never allow" it?

The church cannot allow this to be tolerated within the church. The church must always preach against it and take disciplinary action against those members who are known to have committed this serious sin. Those who engage in this sin, even if "married" according to the laws of the land, need to have their membership restricted or completely withdrawn until they fully repent. 

 

Edited April 12 by Maverick

[Vort]

14 minutes ago, Maverick said:

It's not only theoretically possible, it's a very distinct possibility. And it wouldn't necessarily be because the brethren are asleep at the wheel, either. How would you expect the Lord to take away light and truth from the church, because the membership can no longer handle many of the hard truths and deeper doctrines? It would undoubtedly be in a very similar manner to what we've seen in the church for over a hundred years now.

For the sake of argument, let us pretend for a moment that you are right. The Church membership is less spiritually robust than in past generations, have turned their back on certain elements of their covenants, and therefore have had some of the light and truth in their doctrines, practices, and temple covenants taken away by divine decree. What would you have us do? I mean, repent, of course—but that would be true in any case. What would you, Maverick, have us TH participants do? Should we contact the First Presidency and express our displeasure? Should we chain ourselves to the gates of the Seattle temple to show our unhappiness with the direction things are going? Should we, I don't know, get on public message boards and broadcast to all who will hear how the Church is drifting into apostasy and forgetting its covenant roots? Should we go all Jana Riess and start publishing as publicly as possible our displeasure, unrest, and rebellion against such things?

Or should we perhaps sustain our leaders in their challenges during these difficult times? Should we rather bear fervent testimony of the truthfulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, of the reality of the restoration of Priesthood keys, and of the existence of the kingdom of heaven right here on Earth, with Christ Himself at the head and His chosen apostles leading and administering?

I'm trying to figure out what it is you (Maverick) hope to accomplish in spreading your warning of wickedness and spiritual slothfulness among the Saints. As a result of the dire warnings given us by you, we should immediately do—what?

Edited April 12 by Vort

[Just_A_Guy]

12 minutes ago, Maverick said:

I don't think its simple minded at all. I think it gets to the root of the issue. If we have a "thus saith the Lord" revelation quoting the words of God directly we know that these words came from God. When the president of the church speaks or writes something in his official capacity as church president in his own words we don't know if those words were given to him by revelation from God or if he's just giving his well-reasoned opinion, or somewhere in between. 

Sure, but having to discern between what words our leaders speak from the pulpit come from God, which ones come from men, and which ones are somewhere in between is a lot different than having a revelation directly from God presented in his own words. There's no question where those words came from then.

As a matter of mechanics, how do you think the “thus-switch-the-Lord” revelations in the D&C (and for that matter, the rest of canon) were transmitted to their recipients?  Dream?  Waking Vision? Physical material visitation of a divine being?  Audible voice?  Trance?  Specific words coming to to the recipient’s mind?  A image coming to the recipient’s mind, which the recipient then had to articulate in his own words?  Something else?

Were *all* the “thus-saith-the-Lord” revelations in our canon transmitted through the same method?

Are you sure?

How do you know?

Oh, and on a completely unrelated tangent:  what do you think of Denver Snuffer and John Pontius/Thom Harrison?

Edited April 12 by Just_A_Guy

[Maverick]

24 minutes ago, Vort said:

For the sake of argument, let us pretend for a moment that you are right. The Church membership is less spiritually robust than in past generations, have turned their back on certain elements of their covenants, and therefore have had some of the light and truth in their doctrines, practices, and temple covenants taken away by divine decree. What would you have us do?

There's not much any of us could do about this at the church level. It's out of our control. 

24 minutes ago, Vort said:

repent, of course

Yes, individually we could and should repent. We can also seek out the mysteries and deeper doctrines and receive the light and truth that has been taken away from the general church membership for ourselves. 

24 minutes ago, Vort said:

Should we contact the First Presidency and express our displeasure? Should we chain ourselves to the gates of the Seattle temple to show our unhappiness with the direction things are going? Should we, I don't know, get on public message boards and broadcast to all who will hear how the Church is drifting into apostasy and forgetting its covenant roots? Should we go all Jana Riess and start publishing as publicly as possible our displeasure, unrest, and rebellion against such things?

No, definitely not. This would be a very bad idea.

24 minutes ago, Vort said:

Or should we perhaps sustain our leaders in their challenges during these difficult times?

Yes, we should definitely sustain them.  But sustaining doesn't mean blindly following or not recognizing that there are issues within the church and that light and truth has been taken away. 

24 minutes ago, Vort said:

Should we rather bear fervent testimony of the truthfulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, of the reality of the restoration of Priesthood keys

Yes, I believe that we should bear fervent testimony of these things.

24 minutes ago, Vort said:

I'm trying to figure out what it is you (Maverick) hope to accomplish in spreading your warning of wickedness and spiritual slothfulness among the Saints. As a result of the dire warnings given us by you, we should immediately do—what?

I haven't spread any "dire warnings" of "wickedness and spiritual slothfulness among the Saints. Nor have a called for any action to be taken. All I have done is point out that there hasn't been a single "thus saith the Lord" type of revelation quoting the words of God directly or any vision presented to the church from our church presidents in over 100 years, and asked the question of why this is. Then I have participated in the subsequent discussion about this. That's it. 

Edited April 12 by Maverick

[Maverick]

13 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

As a matter of mechanics, how do you think the “thus-switch-the-Lord” revelations in the D&C (and for that matter, the rest of canon) were transmitted to their recipients?  Dream?  Waking Vision? Physical material visitation of a divine being?  Audible voice?  Trance?  Specific words coming to to the recipient’s mind?  A image coming to the recipient’s mind, which the recipient then had to articulate in his own words?  Something else?

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

18 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Oh, and on a completely unrelated tangent:  what do you think of Denver Snuffer and John Pontius/Thom Harrison?

I consider them both to be deluded false prophets. Why do you ask?

[Maverick]

11 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

[1]  In general, these same sorts of exegeses (and others, suggesting that particular passages were directed to particular cultures/times/places and are no longer appropriate to our modern circumstances) could be made about any future change in doctrine/practice, right up to my earlier hypothetical about the Church approving human trafficking.  Heck, the nature of continuing revelation and the vagaries of the existing corpus of canon mean that one could make a straight-faced argument justifying a "revelation" affirming that the Atonement was actually done in 1956 by a Chicago plumber named Earl who died by choking on a piece of cake. 

Such is the nature of the belief in "continuing revelation." Theoretically literally anything could be changed. But I think in reality there are clear limits to what could reasonably be changed and the membership support it.

11 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

[2]  As you no doubt are keenly aware, such arguments are a red herring since both the Old and New Testaments explicitly condemn gay sex.  

I agree. But those who support same-sex marriage don't view it this way. They will point out that the Bible says nothing about same-sex marriage and that the most explicit condemnations of gay sex are all from the Law of Moses, which contains many laws that we no longer follow. 

11 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

[3]  As you no doubt are keenly aware, the Church has institutionally entrenched itself into a position on the perpetual sinfulness of gay sex and justifications thereof, in a way it never entrenched itself on the issue of the perpetual nature of or the detailed justifications for priesthood ban.  And as you are further no doubt keenly aware, the "theories taught with limited understanding" verbiage comes from Elder McConkie who was addressing one particular (and frankly not-very-authoritative) sub-corollary of the ban justifications which, unlike the other justifications, *did* suggest that the ban was effectively perpetual (at least until the Millennium)  But Elder McConkie himself continued to his dying day to maintain that the ban itself was divinely instituted and that in principle, the Lord takes the restored Gospel to different peoples at different times.  

Elder McConkie said to forget "everything" he or anyone else had said about the priesthood ban because they had spoken with limited understanding. He wasn't just referring to the teachings of Brigham Young about the curse not being lifted until after the millennium.

11 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

[4]  I think there are limits to how accommodating the Church leadership is to the idiocies of the Church membership.  There are not-insubstantial issues with young LDS adults breaking the law of chastity and concealing it from priesthood leaders (in my work, I just last month cross-examined a lovely young lady on a family law case who admitted that she, as a BYU student, had been shacking up with (and of course, fornicating with) her boyfriend for the last three months).  I daresay the Church leadership is aware of this as a general proposition; but they haven't gone so far as to say "fine, we changed our minds, go ahead and sex it up with whoever you want."  And one of the virtues of the Church's financial situation is that (absent the danger of violence or adverse government action) it can pretty much teach whatever it wants without regard to what the masses think about it or what those teachings do to its membership rolls or annual donation receipts. 

Those of the "younger generation" who are willing to pimp out their spiritual birthrights for the sexual revolution's mess of pottage can quit doing their thinking with their genitalia--or they can go to hell until they learn (or are forced) to ignore their genitalia, quit taking their theological cues from the shriekings of the sorrowing damned, and discern what God is actually telling them.

From what I've seen there isn't any movement to try and get the church to accept the typical gay sex scene of going from one one night stand to the next. Rather, more and more people within the church are calling for the church to allows same-sex marriage and then sexual relations within a same-sex marriage. 

Essentially what they want is for the church to maintain it's current position that sex is only permissible within marriage, but then expand that to include it being permissible within same-sex marriages, too.

[Vort]

9 minutes ago, Maverick said:

Elder McConkie said to forget "everything" he or anyone else had said about the priesthood ban because they had spoken with limited understanding. He wasn't just referring to the teachings of Brigham Young about the curse not being lifted until after the millennium.

He was very clearly and explicitly referring to any teaching that would preclude the restoration of the Priesthood to all worthy men and the extension of the blessings of the temple to all worthy people. Are you referring to something else?

[Vort]

13 minutes ago, Maverick said:

Essentially what they want is for the church to maintain it's current position that sex is only permissible within marriage, but then expand that to include it being permissible within same-sex marriages, too.

On another forum, I encountered for the very first time (that I know of) someone who preached this strange, twisted gospel that, as long as they are legally "married", homosexual couples should be sanctioned in intimate sexual relations and still be able to hold callings (though not temple recommends) and otherwise serve in the Church. I may not have believed it if I had not read it myself.

[zil2]

45 minutes ago, Maverick said:

If we have a "thus saith the Lord" revelation quoting the words of God directly we know that these words came from God.

Actually, all you have is some man saying the words, "thus saith the Lord".  Whether he speaks those words or any other words, it would still be up to you to go to the Spirit and gain a testimony regarding whether the words are of the Lord.

I mean, I could quite easily say, "Thus saith the Lord, fountain pens are sacred writing implements and all others are an abomination before me."  Doesn't mean the Lord actually said that.  (Though He might have... )

58 minutes ago, Maverick said:

...How would you expect the Lord to take away light and truth from the church, because the membership can no longer handle many of the hard truths and deeper doctrines? It would undoubtedly be in a very similar manner to what we've seen in the church for over a hundred years now.

There are many examples that I could provide. But I think the answer to the question would be what I said above about the Lord taking away light and truth from the church on account of the membership no longer being able to handle many of the hard truths and deeper doctrines.

If you know that light and truth have been taken from the Church, then you must also know what that light and truth are.  So please give an example of one of these truths or deeper doctrines that has been taken away.

28 minutes ago, Maverick said:

I haven't spread any "dire warnings" of "wickedness and spiritual slothfulness among the Saints.

What then, is this:

[Maverick]

9 minutes ago, Vort said:

On another forum, I encountered for the very first time (that I know of) someone who preached this strange, twisted gospel that, as long as they are legally "married", homosexual couples should be sanctioned in intimate sexual relations and still be able to hold callings (though not temple recommends) and otherwise serve in the Church. I may not have believed it if I had not read it myself.

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

[Maverick]

41 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Actually, all you have is some man saying the words, "thus saith the Lord".  Whether he speaks those words or any other words, it would still be up to you to go to the Spirit and gain a testimony regarding whether the words are of the Lord.

Is this what you believe we need to do with each of these types of revelations we have received in the church thus far?

Or can we trust that they are from God?

42 minutes ago, zil2 said:

If you know that light and truth have been taken from the Church, then you must also know what that light and truth are.  So please give an example of one of these truths or deeper doctrines that has been taken away.

I never claimed to know anything. But progression from kingdom to kingdom being part if the process to become as God is would be one truth I believe has been taken away or obscured. 

45 minutes ago, zil2 said:

What then, is this:

Definitely not any kind of dire warning.

All did was share my perspective on eternal progression and the process it takes to become as God now is, based on my studies of the teachings of the brethren and the scriptures on the subject. 

[Traveler]

On 4/7/2024 at 9:18 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?

It is important to understand that not all that is spiritual or is revelation or that leaders have received for the people needs be or should be recorded in what is sometimes called the “standard” works of scripture.  In the Book or Mormon the Book of Jacob chapter 1 verses 2 though verse 6 (more if one intends to maintain the context) Jacob is commanded what to wright as scripture.

What Jacob commits to scripture is not all what was revealed to the Prophets of his day.  Note in verse 5 that Jacob indicates that there were things revealed concerning things that would happen to the people that were not included for preserved scripture.  Note what is not included in scripture was still revelation and important to the people.  Every 6 months the prophets and seers of our generation extend to the people of the Church and world things revealed and commanded concerning the next 6 months to the next Conference.  Often in Stake or regional conferences a sustained prophet and seer may attend to make known revelations received concerning those that are intended to listen.

The most important thing to understand is that all that G-d commands or reveals is recorded in scripture.

 

The Traveler

[Maverick]

26 minutes ago, Traveler said:

It is important to understand that not all that is spiritual or is revelation or that leaders have received for the people needs be or should be recorded in what is sometimes called the “standard” works of scripture. 

I completely agree. 

26 minutes ago, Traveler said:

The most important thing to understand is that all that G-d commands or reveals is recorded in scripture.

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

[zil2]

43 minutes ago, Maverick said:

Is this what you believe we need to do with each of these types of revelations we have received in the church thus far?

Or can we trust that they are from God?

You seem to be asserting that the words alone somehow make the statement "more".  Whether the words are present or not, one needs a way to gain a testimony that they are the will of the Lord.  Whether you do that by having a testimony that the speaker is called of God and won't lead us astray, or whether you do that by prayerfully receiving confirmation from the Lord, or by some other means, if one is to accept it as from the Lord, one needs some way other than the words "thus saith the Lord".  Otherwise, you need to rid your house of all non-fountain-pens and repent!

47 minutes ago, Maverick said:

I never claimed to know anything.

So this:

2 hours ago, Maverick said:

But I think the answer to the question would be what I said above about the Lord taking away light and truth from the church on account of the membership no longer being able to handle many of the hard truths and deeper doctrines.

... was just a hypothetical, not an assertion that it's happening?

51 minutes ago, Maverick said:

But progression from kingdom to kingdom being part if the process to become as God is would be one truth I believe has been taken away or obscured.

Or greater light and knowledge has clarified that in their excitement over "eternal progression", they got some of the details wrong.

50 minutes ago, Maverick said:

All did was share my perspective on eternal progression and the process it takes to become as God now is, based on my studies of the teachings of the brethren and the scriptures on the subject. 

You asserted that a majority of the saints aren't living their covenants.  That sounds rather dire, but whatever.

[Maverick]

22 minutes ago, zil2 said:

You seem to be asserting that the words alone somehow make the statement "more".  Whether the words are present or not, one needs a way to gain a testimony that they are the will of the Lord.

Of course one still needs a testimony that they are the words of God, but when the president of the church quotes the words of God directly as he received them in God’s own words, we know for certain that he is claiming that God told him precisely this. 

This is not the case with messages in the president’s own words. 
 

22 minutes ago, zil2 said:

... was just a hypothetical, not an assertion that it's happening?

I was responding to a hypothetical scenario and answered using “think” and “would.” Does that sound like an assertion to you?

22 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Or greater light and knowledge has clarified that in their excitement over "eternal progression", they got some of the details wrong.

Or not. 😀

22 minutes ago, zil2 said:

You asserted that a majority of the saints aren't living their covenants.

No, I didn’t. @zil2, why do you keep trying to make me out to be an accuser? 

Edited April 12 by Maverick

[zil2]

23 minutes ago, Maverick said:

Of course one still needs a testimony that they are the words of God, but when the president of the church quotes the words of God directly as he received them in God’s own words, we know for certain that he is claiming that God told him precisely this. 

This is not the case with messages in the president’s own words. 
 

I was responding to a hypothetical scenario and answered using “think” and “would.” Does that sound like an assertion to you?

Or not. 😀

No, I didn’t. @zil2, why do you keep trying to make me out to be an accuser? 

Ok. Clearly I don't understand your way of communicating, so I'm done here. 

[askandanswer]

I have some uncertainties about the idea that there is a connection between the availability of the word of God and the wickedness/righteousness of the inhabitants of the world. If people are being bad then perhaps they need more of the word of God to help them become better. If people are being good, then they should be brought to a higher level through the receipt and application of more of the Word.

I also have some uncertainties about the idea that there has been a reduction in the quality and quantity of the word of God being received today because the people are wicked and undeserving / unheeding. I reject the notion that the word of God today is being held back because of the wickedness of the people. Never in the history of humanity, not even when Christ was on the Earth has there been such an abundance of the word of God as there is today. More of His word can be found in more places than ever before, and more comes almost every day. I don’t know if we can make any reliable conclusions about the wickedness and righteousness of the people today compared to other times but the multiplicity of temples around suggests that the balance today tips more towards being more righteous.

[Maverick]

6 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Ok. Clearly I don't understand your way of communicating, so I'm done here. 

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

[Maverick]

36 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

I reject the notion that the word of God today is being held back because of the wickedness of the people. Never in the history of humanity, not even when Christ was on the Earth has there been such an abundance of the word of God as there is today. More of His word can be found in more places than ever before, and more comes almost every day.

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