Question concerning “Continuing Revelation”

[askandanswer]

3 hours ago, Maverick said:

This still doesn't explain why these types of revelations and visions haven't been shared with the church in 100+ years. Why were they shared before and then discontinued completely?

To publish the revelations in a publicly available book is to make them available to the world and we know who is the god of this world. I can see some advantages in not signaling your moves to the opposition. 

I'm not saying this is the reason why the revelations are no longer made publicly available in the way that they used to be, but this possibility does have some plausibility

[mordorbund]

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

This is not a criticism of the brethern. It’s an honest question that has puzzled me for some time now. Any thoughts?

 

3 hours ago, Maverick said:

I would like to know what you think? Where do you think revelations that quote the Lord directly come from? How are they received? Are they actually what the Lord said or not?

Respectfully, I'm going to deflect on this one for now. You've received several answers in this thread that many find satisfactory but you don't. At this point I don't think you need my thoughts and assumptions, you need to sort out what your thoughts and assumptions are.

Specifically, What is it about "The Lord said, 'call Dallin H. Oaks'" that instills more confidence than "The Lord instructed me to call Dallin H. Oaks"? and As a matter of mechanics, how do you think the “thus-saith-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?

At what point, either through medium or process, is a revelation accurate and precise enough in its language that we can have confidence in it?

[mikbone]

1 hour ago, Maverick said:

Nope. He said he received it by revelation from God and Joseph Smith.

I’m out.  

Good luck on your journey.

[Maverick]

3 hours ago, mordorbund said:

I'm going to deflect on this one

Well, then I guess I am going to respectfully decline answering any more of your questions. This isn’t an interrogation, where I have to explain what I think about the ins and outs of how revelation is received and conveyed, while you decline to do the same.

Edited April 13 by Maverick

[Maverick]

4 hours ago, askandanswer said:

To publish the revelations in a publicly available book is to make them available to the world and we know who is the god of this world. I can see some advantages in not signaling your moves to the opposition. 

I'm not saying this is the reason why the revelations are no longer made publicly available in the way that they used to be, but this possibility does have some plausibility

Why wouldn’t this have been equally applicable 100+ years ago, when the revelations and visions were being made publicly available? 

[Maverick]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

Sorry, you did not. You provided an acceptable hypothesis with no factual basis for a conclusion and seem to be ignoring the requirement to do so. That is up to you.

The situation with what was taught and then discontinued about Adam-God does support the possibility that light and truth has been slowly taken away from the church because the majority of the members cannot bear it. 

The alternative is that a prophet of God taught false doctrine about the character of God for 25 years in GC, other official church meetings, and in the temple, while claiming to have received this doctrine by revelation. 

 

[mordorbund]

20 minutes ago, Maverick said:

4 hours ago, mordorbund said:

Respectfully, I'm going to deflect on this one for now. You've received several answers in this thread that many find satisfactory but you don't. At this point I don't think you need my thoughts and assumptions, you need to sort out what your thoughts and assumptions are.

Well, then I guess I am going to respectfully decline answering any more of your questions. This isn’t an interrogation, where I have to explain what I think about the ins and outs of how revelation is received and conveyed, while you decline to do the same.

As I said before, you came here with a question and several answers were given. None of these seem satisfactory to you, which tells me that you're at least implicitly using a model that's different from the rest of your responders. I'm not intending an interrogation but rather a discovery of what your model is. Your model is baked into your question, but we're all just dancing in the dark here if you don't tell us what it is. I rather suspect that you may not even be aware of what model you're working with, which is another reason I wanted to focus on your thoughts and not mine since your thoughts will be more relevant to the general discussion you yourself started.

If you don't want to engage, I wish you the best in your search for understanding.

 

[askandanswer]

2 hours ago, Maverick said:

Why wouldn’t this have been equally applicable 100+ years ago, when the revelations and visions were being made publicly available? 

1. Because methods of publication and distribution were not as fast or as widespread as they are now. Compare with how long it took to publish and disseminate the Book of Mormon to England and Canada with how long it takes to do the same with a publication today. 

2. Because there were fewer organisations and individuals that were inclined to make the kinds of attacks we are now seeing.  Levels of hate, and the organisations of the haters seem to be higher and better organised now than previously. 

3. Those who were inclined to make such attacks were focussed on bigger targets rather than a new and obscure group that only had a significant presence in a few US states. 

I've noticed some changes in the world since I've been in it, and no doubt there were some changes between 1830 and my arrival. Changed circumstances sometimes require a response and sometimes that response involves doing things differently.

Edited April 13 by askandanswer

[Maverick]

3 hours ago, mordorbund said:

you came here with a question and several answers were given. None of these seem satisfactory to you,

You must not have been paying attention then. I have expressed agreement with several answers that have been given. 

3 hours ago, mordorbund said:

Your model is baked into your question, but we're all just dancing in the dark here if you don't tell us what it is. I rather suspect that you may not even be aware of what model you're working with, which is another reason I wanted to focus on your thoughts and not mine since your thoughts will be more relevant to the general discussion you yourself started.

My “mode” has nothing to do with the question of why there hasn’t been a single revelation quoting the Lord’s words directly or a vision presented to the body of the church from a president or apostle in 100+ years. 

The answer to this question has nothing to do with uncovering some subconscious assumptions I may have about exactly how past “thus saith the Lord” type revelations were received. 

3 hours ago, mordorbund said:

If you don't want to engage

I have engaged more than anyone in this discussion. No one has answered more questions than I have. 

3 hours ago, mordorbund said:

I wish you the best in your search for understanding.

By not answering my question about how you think revelations quoting the words of God directly are received and conveyed, after insinuating that the words may not be literally what God said? 🤔

Edited April 13 by Maverick

[ZealoulyStriving]

6 hours ago, Maverick said:

The situation with what was taught and then discontinued about Adam-God does support the possibility that light and truth has been slowly taken away from the church because the majority of the members cannot bear it. 

In the Journal of Discourses talk I read last night Brigham says he is going to start letting people settle were they want because they weren't listening to him anyways when he would tell them where to settle.

Based on a talk I listened to on FAIR it seems he started backing off on going deeper in to Adam-God because people didn't want to listen- which is unfortunate because we are left with this confusion about what exactly WAS Brigham trying to teach?

6 hours ago, Maverick said:

The alternative is that a prophet of God taught false doctrine about the character of God for 25 years in GC, other official church meetings, and in the temple, while claiming to have received this doctrine by revelation. 

 

 

Edited April 13 by ZealoulyStriving

[CV75]

9 hours ago, Maverick said:

The situation with what was taught and then discontinued about Adam-God does support the possibility that light and truth has been slowly taken away from the church because the majority of the members cannot bear it. 

The alternative is that a prophet of God taught false doctrine about the character of God for 25 years in GC, other official church meetings, and in the temple, while claiming to have received this doctrine by revelation. 

 

But just about anything supports possibility. So what -- "O then, is not this real?"

Bias does make an appealing possibility a working model us, but that dos not make the model reflective of what is light, good and known. "Real possibility," when it comes to answering spiritual truth, is an oxymoron. Faith in possibilities is not the same as faith in things not seen which are true.

[Maverick]

57 minutes ago, CV75 said:

But just about anything supports possibility.

No. And when it comes to Adam-God, it’s either

A) Light and truth being taken away because the members couldn’t handle it. 

or

B) A prophet of God taught false doctrine about the character of God for 25 years in GC, other official church meetings, and in the temple, while claiming to have received this doctrine by revelation.

Take your pick. 

[Vort]

2 hours ago, Maverick said:

No. And when it comes to Adam-God, it’s either

A) Light and truth being taken away because the members couldn’t handle it. 

or

B) A prophet of God taught false doctrine about the character of God for 25 years in GC, other official church meetings, and in the temple, while claiming to have received this doctrine by revelation.

Take your pick. 

C. We do not have the correct context to understand the so-called Adam God doctrine.

[Maverick]

42 minutes ago, Vort said:

C. We do not have the correct context to understand the so-called Adam God doctrine.

This is really a variation of option A, since the Adam-God doctrine would have stopped being taught because of the inability of the members to understand it. 

The Adam-God doctrine is also not difficult to understand. It’s just difficult to accept because it conflicts with our traditional understanding of the relationship between God and Adam, which understanding is very similar to what mainstream Christianity believes. 

[Maverick]

6 hours ago, ZealoulyStriving said:

In the Journal of Discourses talk I read last night Brigham says he is going to start letting people settle were they want because they weren't listening to him anyways when he would tell them where to settle.

Based on a talk I listened to on FAIR it seems he started backing off on going deeper in to Adam-God because people didn't want to listen- which is unfortunate because we are left with this confusion about what exactly WAS Brigham trying to teach?

 

It’s true that by the end of his life, Brigham basically said that people could take or leave what he was teaching them about Adam-God, and stopped expanding on it. 

Undoubtedly there’s more to the doctrine than what Brigham Young revealed, but as someone who has studied Adam-God extensively, what he taught is clear and easily understandable, at least to me.

[Vort]

3 hours ago, Maverick said:

4 hours ago, Vort said:

C. We do not have the correct context to understand the so-called Adam God doctrine.

This is really a variation of option A, since the Adam-God doctrine would have stopped being taught because of the inability of the members to understand it. 

No. Rather, it suggests a teaching given for those who have ears to hear.

Today's prophets have declared the Adam-God teaching to be false. That could be because it's false in its very nature, or it could be that we today do not have the keys of understanding needed for it, and therefore we interpret it falsely. So to us, i tmay be false, but to someone with the correct key to knowledge, it might well be true and enlightening.

Clearly you consider yourself one with understanding. That may be the case. But if it is, how is it that you seek to parade your superior status and shame those who do not have that key? Why would you come out in apparent open defiance of the teachings of recent prophets? Just to show your superiority, how much smarter and more spiritually mature you are than the rest of us? Or do you seek to undermine confidence in the words of our leaders, so that we doubt and wonder whom to follow and when? I'm struggling to see how your actions lead anyone to a good end, even if we assume you are actually correct in what you say.

[Maverick]

36 minutes ago, Vort said:

No. Rather, it suggests a teaching given for those who have ears to hear.

Today's prophets have declared the Adam-God teaching to be false. That could be because it's false in its very nature, or it could be that we today do not have the keys of understanding needed for it, and therefore we interpret it falsely. So to us, i tmay be false, but to someone with the correct key to knowledge, it might well be true and enlightening.

Clearly you consider yourself one with understanding. That may be the case. But if it is, how is it that you seek to parade your superior status and shame those who do not have that key? Why would you come out in apparent open defiance of the teachings of recent prophets? Just to show your superiority, how much smarter and more spiritually mature you are than the rest of us? Or do you seek to undermine confidence in the words of our leaders, so that we doubt and wonder whom to follow and when? I'm struggling to see how your actions lead anyone to a good end, even if we assume you are actually correct in what you say.

I’m not parading any supposed superior status around, nor am I coming out in open defiance of recent prophets.

I was pressed to provide an example of something that would support the possibility that changed teachings in the church could constitute the Lord taking away light and knowledge from the general membership, because they couldn’t handle it, so I reluctantly did. 

And your accusatory response towards me is precisely why I was reluctant to do so. 

[Vort]

20 minutes ago, Maverick said:

I’m not parading any supposed superior status around, nor am I coming out in open defiance of recent prophets.

I was pressed to provide an example of something that would support the possibility that changed teachings in the church could constitute the Lord taking away light and knowledge from the general membership, because they couldn’t handle it, so I reluctantly did. 

And your accusatory response towards me is precisely why I was reluctant to do so. 

Fair enough, and I apologize that I sounded accusatory. I've been too meek for too long, and stand in danger of losing my hard-earned reputation on this list as an intolerant hard-nose.

But the response above more or less begs the question. You are arguing that the Lord is/might be taking away light and knowledge from the general membership because they reject it. Again, you may be correct; I have often posed similar questions to myself. But to what end are you asking such questions? If I accept your suggestion as truth, then what do I do to make things better? Should I be writing letters to Salt Lake? Should I be excoriating my fellow Saints in fast and testimony meetings for their faithlessness? Should I go around warning those in my ward and stake that we have already had much taken from us, and we are in imminent danger of losing more if we don't repent? Or is this merely idle speculation, something to chat about on an internet discussion list, not something to particularly worry about? Because it somehow feels urgent, yet I don't understand what that urgency is supposed to compel us (me) to do.

[Maverick]

22 minutes ago, Vort said:

But the response above more or less begs the question. You are arguing that the Lord is/might be taking away light and knowledge from the general membership because they reject it. Again, you may be correct; I have often posed similar questions to myself. But to what end are you asking such questions? If I accept your suggestion as truth, then what do I do to make things better? Should I be writing letters to Salt Lake? Should I be excoriating my fellow Saints in fast and testimony meetings for their faithlessness? Should I go around warning those in my ward and stake that we have already had much taken from us, and we are in imminent danger of losing more if we don't repent? Or is this merely idle speculation, something to chat about on an internet discussion list, not something to particularly worry about? Because it somehow feels urgent, yet I don't understand what that urgency is supposed to compel us (me) to do.

You already asked me something similar and I already answered. 

 

[Vort]

8 minutes ago, Maverick said:

You already asked me something similar and I already answered. 

 

Indeed. In reviewing your answer, I didn't see any response to the question of what it is we're supposed to do, which is why I asked again.

[Maverick]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

Indeed. In reviewing your answer, I didn't see any response to the question of what it is we're supposed to do, which is why I asked again.

I already provided that answer. If you didn’t see it, I suggest you review my response again.

[askandanswer]

6 hours ago, Maverick said:

It’s true that by the end of his life, Brigham basically said that people could take or leave what he was teaching them about Adam-God, and stopped expanding on it. 

Undoubtedly there’s more to the doctrine than what Brigham Young revealed, but as someone who has studied Adam-God extensively, what he taught is clear and easily understandable, at least to me.

Clearly there still exists enough light and truth about this doctrine for you to have studied it extensively. That makes it hard for me to see how this knowledge has been taken away. 

[Maverick]

22 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

Clearly there still exists enough light and truth about this doctrine for you to have studied it extensively. That makes it hard for me to see how this knowledge has been taken away. 

It was taken away from the general church membership. It stopped being taught, was contradicted, and it was even denied that it was ever taught for many years. For this reason most members had no idea that this was ever taught. 

It’s only because individuals have meticulously tracked down and compiled the recorded Adam-God statements of yesteryear that those who are interested can know what was actually taught by Brigham Young and other early church leaders. 

[LDSGator]

10 minutes ago, Maverick said:

It was taken away from the general church membership. It stopped being taught, was contradicted, and it was even denied that it was ever taught for many years. For this reason most members had no idea that this was ever taught. 

 

Is there official church teaching on it today?

[askandanswer]

I think we can agree on two things; 1) that the Adam-God theory was once taught in the church and 2) now it is not being taught in the church. I'm not sure, from those two facts, whether we can reliably come to the conclusion that it was a) taken away from the church and b) the reason for that presumed taking away was because of the wickedness of the church.