Ultimate Source of Revelation (Truth)

[Traveler]

With the passing of the Pope and the election of a new Pope, I have been pondering some of the similarities we LDS have with our Catholic cousins.  We have a Prophet that guides us, and the Catholics have a Pope.  But these are men and regardless of how we may revere them – it is possible that they make mistakes.

Our Protestant cousins do not believe in a Pope or Prophet.  They believe that scripture is the infallible word of G-d.  The term “Sola Scriptura” which is laten for scripture alone is their ultimate source of revelation.  We also believe scripture to be the word of G-d but with a caveat that scripture needs to be interpreted correctly.

One of the more unique principles of LDS theology is the importance of personal revelation.  I should not have to remind anyone here that many falling into apostasy have done so thinking they have received for themselves a more sure revelation about various things.

So, it would seem that there is a question – What is to be more relied upon?  Prophets?  Scripture?  Personal Revelation?  What is the ultimate source of Revelation?

As I meditated on this problem a thought came to me.  What does Scripture say?  And then what do the Prophets say?  And again, what has the spirit revealed?  In essence, I believe that we LDS have what I would call a trifecta of ultimate source for revelation.  The best way to put this is – In the mouth of two or three witnesses will G-d establish the truth of his word.

We are taught by many witnesses to read and study the scriptures, listen to our prophets and to ask in sincere prayer what is true.  This is our ultimate source of truth and light – a minimum trifecta of ultimate means to be sure of revelation.  If scripture testifies, plus our prophets testifies and also the spirit testifies to us in personal revelation then we can be sure that we have connected and have the ultimate source of revelation.

And yet there is more?

 

The Traveler

[Still_Small_Voice]

“For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding” -- II Nephi 31:3

I believe the LORD will speak to us in a way that will best help us and in a way we will understand.  These mercies had been given to me over and over in my life thus far.

[mikbone]

58 minutes ago, Traveler said:

And yet there is more?

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2024/10/47eyring?lang=eng

The important / eternal / core Doctrine of Jesus Christ is simple.

Core doctrine is what our testimonies should be built upon.  Core doctrine is unmistakable.  It is reinforced repeatedly in scripture, modern revelation, and personal revelation.

Esoteric ‘doctrine’ is not important, rarely alluded to, confusing, and should never be one’s foundation of testimony. 

Edited Monday at 03:58 AM by mikbone

[MrShorty]

Sounds similar to something I have seen/heard Scott Woodward talk about on several occasions. Here's one of his youtube videos talking about his heuristic for what he calls "doctrinal confidence":

 

[CV75]

9 hours ago, Traveler said:

With the passing of the Pope and the election of a new Pope, I have been pondering some of the similarities we LDS have with our Catholic cousins.  We have a Prophet that guides us, and the Catholics have a Pope.  But these are men and regardless of how we may revere them – it is possible that they make mistakes.

Our Protestant cousins do not believe in a Pope or Prophet.  They believe that scripture is the infallible word of G-d.  The term “Sola Scriptura” which is laten for scripture alone is their ultimate source of revelation.  We also believe scripture to be the word of G-d but with a caveat that scripture needs to be interpreted correctly.

One of the more unique principles of LDS theology is the importance of personal revelation.  I should not have to remind anyone here that many falling into apostasy have done so thinking they have received for themselves a more sure revelation about various things.

So, it would seem that there is a question – What is to be more relied upon?  Prophets?  Scripture?  Personal Revelation?  What is the ultimate source of Revelation?

As I meditated on this problem a thought came to me.  What does Scripture say?  And then what do the Prophets say?  And again, what has the spirit revealed?  In essence, I believe that we LDS have what I would call a trifecta of ultimate source for revelation.  The best way to put this is – In the mouth of two or three witnesses will G-d establish the truth of his word.

We are taught by many witnesses to read and study the scriptures, listen to our prophets and to ask in sincere prayer what is true.  This is our ultimate source of truth and light – a minimum trifecta of ultimate means to be sure of revelation.  If scripture testifies, plus our prophets testifies and also the spirit testifies to us in personal revelation then we can be sure that we have connected and have the ultimate source of revelation.

And yet there is more?

 

The Traveler

I think there is a difference between the source, the means (trifecta), the receipt and the application of truth.

My read of the scriptures (and my experience) is that the Son of God is the source of all truth for this world. He conveys it in many ways, from the sustenance of all existence and life on earth to the immortal parallels in eternity. The means of conveyance, which requires the involvement of the Holy Ghost, depends on how much and how well the existing organized entity can act or be acted upon. Elements act very little, life forms act somewhat, and people act very much. The "receipt" of truth is addressed in Elder Kearon's last General Conference talk. As we put forth a good faith effort in following Christ a disciples, we get better and better at it. A great part of receiving the truth is applying it to the glory of its Source. How well we receive and apply truth will determine how well the trifecta works. But the Lord has promised that He will bless even a particle of faith or even the desire to believe.

The Holy Ghost has several roles of increasing conveyance: witnessing the truth of a matter, an intermediary of sorts in prayer (a form of quickening); serving as a constant companion to illuminate our choices; acting as the agent for purification and sanctification; confirming or validating the fulfillment of covenants in alignment with with Christ's atonement (Holy Spirit of Promise).

 

[laronius]

A fourth but much rarer source of truth would be a personal manifestation of the Lord Himself. Such as with Joseph Smith, Paul, the Nephites, etc.

And could we classify creation as a source of truth? Truth is revealed in everything around us. 

[HaggisShuu]

On 5/19/2025 at 4:00 AM, Traveler said:

But these are men and regardless of how we may revere them – it is possible that they make mistakes.

I watching a video which described a concept called "The collective prophetic witness" which basically purports that core doctrine has been established by the prophets from Adam to Russell M Nelson. 
 

If a prophet makes a false declaration the way to verify its authenticity as truth is to compare it to what "the prophets" have collectively testified of. If it contradicts, then it is false, if it aligns, it is true and if there isn't any precedent, let the spirit confirm it's truth to you. 
 

[mordorbund]

10 hours ago, HaggisShuu said:

I watching a video which described a concept called "The collective prophetic witness" which basically purports that core doctrine has been established by the prophets from Adam to Russell M Nelson. 
 

If a prophet makes a false declaration the way to verify its authenticity as truth is to compare it to what "the prophets" have collectively testified of. If it contradicts, then it is false, if it aligns, it is true and if there isn't any precedent, let the spirit confirm it's truth to you. 
 

How do you see that working with continuing revelation? Joseph Smith brought forth baptisms for the dead and promised “things which never have been revealed from the foundation of the world”. And in a moment of desperation he was also promised knowledge “that has not been revealed since the world was until now”.

Joseph Smith also changed the universal understanding of the heaven/hell dichotomy to degrees of glory. A number of saints report they were ready to jump ship over that for the reasons you describe above.

You could argue nuance, but that won’t address what Wilford Woodruff did. Previous prophets established that you wanted to be sealed to apostles so you have an unbroken chain to an exalted family. Wilford said your own parents are good enough for such an honor.

You could argue that it was merely a practice or policy, but what about what Joseph F. Smith did? Peter taught that Jesus taught the disobedient in the days of Noah. Joseph F. says that’s incorrect, Jesus sent ministers instead.

[HaggisShuu]

5 hours ago, mordorbund said:

How do you see that working with continuing revelation? Joseph Smith brought forth baptisms for the dead and promised “things which never have been revealed from the foundation of the world”. And in a moment of desperation he was also promised knowledge “that has not been revealed since the world was until now”.

 

There is biblical precedent for baptisms for the dead, additionally, I said:

16 hours ago, HaggisShuu said:

if there isn't any precedent, let the spirit confirm it's truth to you.

I originally saw this idea in a discussion about gay marriage, and how the Church would never change its stance, because to do so would be an outrageous contradiction to what every prophet has taught since the days of Adam. I would suggest that it applies only to core doctrines and occasions when a prophet may contradict one. 

 

6 hours ago, mordorbund said:

You could argue nuance, but that won’t address what Wilford Woodruff did. Previous prophets established that you wanted to be sealed to apostles so you have an unbroken chain to an exalted family. Wilford said your own parents are good enough for such an honor.

I would argue that the logistics of who it is appropriate to be sealed to is secondary to the fact that we have this privilege to be sealed in the first place. There is biblical precedent for sealings, but in the first decades of restored church this was a new practice, and so incorrect attitudes were bound to prevail. Correcting the course on a issue like this isn't nearly as severe as allowing same sex sealings for example.

 

 

6 hours ago, mordorbund said:

You could argue that it was merely a practice or policy, but what about what Joseph F. Smith did? Peter taught that Jesus taught the disobedient in the days of Noah. Joseph F. says that’s incorrect, Jesus sent ministers instead.

I would argue you've framed this is a dishonest way. 
 

Quote

29 And as I wondered, my eyes were opened, and my understanding quickened, and I perceived that the Lord went not in person among the wicked and the disobedient who had rejected the truth, to teach them;

30 But behold, from among the righteous, he organized his forces and appointed messengers, clothed with power and authority, and commissioned them to go forth and carry the light of the gospel to them that were in darkness, even to allthe spirits of men; and thus was the gospel preached to the dead.

31 And the chosen messengers went forth to declare the acceptable day of the Lord and proclaim liberty to the captives who were bound, even unto all who would repent of their sins and receive the gospel.

32 Thus was the gospel preached to those who had died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets.

This clarifies how the work was carried out. The principle that Christ entered the spirit the preach the gospel remains. He went to the righteous, preached and sent them forth unto the wicked. This is a clarification not a rejection, and differing accounts of events across scripture help to deepen an understanding of it. 

The birth of Christ is another example:
Is Matthew saying that Luke is incorrect, because Matthews account has the Magi present, and Lukes account does not? Or is that just a silly way of looking at it?

Fundamentally, Jesus went to the spirit world, Peter says he preached to the spirits. D&C 138 states he sent ministers. Either way, Jesus still oversaw the efforts which took place, the work was still done. 1 Peter doesn't make D&C 138 wrong, and D&C 138 doesn't make 1 Peter wrong, they work together. 

[MrShorty]

Is this Jacob Hansen's version, or some other? Maybe it doesn't matter, because I see the same kinds of questions no matter whose version of "aggregate across multiple prophets" model I encounter. In theory, I think it is a good idea. Questions that I think tend to muddy the waters:

1) How do we determine who is and is not a prophet? Within a given tradition, there is usually consensus, but that also usually leaves some claims to prophethood (canonized scripture) out. We LDS accept Biblical and Book of Mormon figures as prophets, but reject Muhammad's. We accept Brigham Young through Russel M. Nelson, while rejecting Joseph Smith III through Staci Cramm (presumptive). I think it is worth acknowledging that your choice of prophets to include and exclude will impact the conclusions you end up drawing.

2) Once you've decided who to include in your list of prophets, then you need to determine what they said. This gets particularly difficult the further back in history you go. Did Moses really say all those things that are attributed to him? What about the letters of Paul? Even as recently as Joseph Smith, we end up going round in circles trying to determine what Joseph Smith said versus what his contemporaries claim he said. A lot of the time when I see someone like Hansen promoting this model, there seems to be an underlying assumption that we can accurately recall across years and generations and millenia what prophets taught.

3) Then there is the ever present question of interpretation, which, like the previous point, becomes increasingly difficult across time and culture and language.

I think a "collective prophetic witness" type of model can be useful in getting at truth, but only if we are also willing to recognize where it will struggle.

[Traveler]

On 5/19/2025 at 6:35 AM, CV75 said:

I think there is a difference between the source, the means (trifecta), the receipt and the application of truth.

My read of the scriptures (and my experience) is that the Son of God is the source of all truth for this world. He conveys it in many ways, from the sustenance of all existence and life on earth to the immortal parallels in eternity. The means of conveyance, which requires the involvement of the Holy Ghost, depends on how much and how well the existing organized entity can act or be acted upon. Elements act very little, life forms act somewhat, and people act very much. The "receipt" of truth is addressed in Elder Kearon's last General Conference talk. As we put forth a good faith effort in following Christ a disciples, we get better and better at it. A great part of receiving the truth is applying it to the glory of its Source. How well we receive and apply truth will determine how well the trifecta works. But the Lord has promised that He will bless even a particle of faith or even the desire to believe.

The Holy Ghost has several roles of increasing conveyance: witnessing the truth of a matter, an intermediary of sorts in prayer (a form of quickening); serving as a constant companion to illuminate our choices; acting as the agent for purification and sanctification; confirming or validating the fulfillment of covenants in alignment with with Christ's atonement (Holy Spirit of Promise).

 

I am thinking that this particular post needs a little clarification concerning my intent for this thread.  I realize it is somewhat of a technical point but the source of all truth, light and even the very plan of salvation is G-d our Father in Heaven.  When I am referencing the ultimate source of revelation – I am referencing what is available for mankind in this mortal existence to acquire knowledge.  In other words, what in the Plan of our Father are the means available to the masses to discover truth.   

Using your example – you referenced scripture in attempt to make a point of truth.  The trifecta I am making would suggest that you can also reference prophets and personal revelation to obtain more than one witness that the principle you reference is correct.  Sometimes prophets are referenced through conference talks and other public events.  It is the third element of the trifecta that is most often missing and often overlooked.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

Is this Jacob Hansen's version, or some other? Maybe it doesn't matter, because I see the same kinds of questions no matter whose version of "aggregate across multiple prophets" model I encounter. In theory, I think it is a good idea. Questions that I think tend to muddy the waters:

1) How do we determine who is and is not a prophet? Within a given tradition, there is usually consensus, but that also usually leaves some claims to prophethood (canonized scripture) out. We LDS accept Biblical and Book of Mormon figures as prophets, but reject Muhammad's. We accept Brigham Young through Russel M. Nelson, while rejecting Joseph Smith III through Staci Cramm (presumptive). I think it is worth acknowledging that your choice of prophets to include and exclude will impact the conclusions you end up drawing.

2) Once you've decided who to include in your list of prophets, then you need to determine what they said. This gets particularly difficult the further back in history you go. Did Moses really say all those things that are attributed to him? What about the letters of Paul? Even as recently as Joseph Smith, we end up going round in circles trying to determine what Joseph Smith said versus what his contemporaries claim he said. A lot of the time when I see someone like Hansen promoting this model, there seems to be an underlying assumption that we can accurately recall across years and generations and millenia what prophets taught.

3) Then there is the ever present question of interpretation, which, like the previous point, becomes increasingly difficult across time and culture and language.

I think a "collective prophetic witness" type of model can be useful in getting at truth, but only if we are also willing to recognize where it will struggle.

I will make a reference to scripture in the Book of Mormon – Moroni chapter 10.  Perhaps this is another element that is not often considered and something that adds to my trifecta.  In Moroni we learn that to every person that is born into mortality there are spiritual gifts given.  Indeed, every person has the light of Christ whereby they may judge.  But the spiritual gifts and the light of Christ are somewhat subjective and therefore ambiguous making the transfer of any obtained knowledge not directly available. 

Obviously whatever means are available for truth and light there are also meals available to Satan to distract and make truth and light difficult to obtain by any particular individual.  Perhaps this is the primary reason to secure multiple witnesses.

 

 

The Traveler