On the Newness of Revelation

I perceive that the LDS church is increasingly focused on public relations and marketing. As such, I suspect we won’t see many if any revelations – certainly nothing that will make the church more restrictive or weird. I’d image changes will continue to be presented as policies and declarations.

However I also believe that the church is constantly changing to be more mainline. Those changes just aren’t typically presented as revelation.

Also, I would suggest that the doctrine has been packaged and defined like never before – it’s much higher quality and better organized. The leaders of the church are absolutely very busy moving the work of the church forward. In the end they could be doing exactly what they are doing and be inspired and fit the bill as prophets. However, it’s hard to distinguish a prophet from a CEO.

Bruce in Montana wrote:

What used to be angelic visitations and visions that produced “thus saith the Lord” revelations has morphed into “still small voice” inspiration. Although some might call that “revelation”…depending upon who is receiving it.

I can’t think of a religion that changed with society to be more popular more than Mormonism did to acquire Utah statehood.

Many of our scriptures encourage us to be working toward a sort of socialist utopia with no rich or poor among us. We’re building shopping malls.

I seriously question whether any revelation by LDS or anywhere in scripture was a physical manifestation. Researching the testimony of the three or eight witnesses, which should have been as physical as anything, many of them talk about ‘spiritual eyes’. voices from burning bushes or talking asses is not exactly a physical manifestation.

I think in the primitive through nineteenth century worldview, a vision could have been a dream or a trance-like state. I’ve gone through nights with a repeating dream, usually something I’m subconsciously worried about or working on, and it seems real to me. The story of moroni (or was it nephi) visiting Joseph Smith over and over again in one night sounds a lot like that. The first vision account, with the initial attack of the adversary, leads one to think that it, too, was in an altered state of consciousness. Scripturally, no vision of god can be had without being ‘transfigured’, which means that physical eyes are out, and spiritual eyes are ‘in’.

I would go with the idea that ‘all truth is the gospel’ as being the single most important aspect of restoration. Here’s a quote I kind of like:

Ed Eyring, father of Henry Eyring, grandfather of Henry B. Eyring wrote:

I’m convinced that the Lord used the Prophet Joseph Smith to restore His Church. For me that is a reality. I haven’t a

---

ny doubt about it. Now, there are a lot of other matters which are much less clear to me. But in this Church you don’t have to believe anything that isn’t true. You go over to the University of Arizona and learn everything you can, and whatever is true is part of the gospel.

Now. if only the current leadership would actually adopt this position…

IMO, I think our current lack of “thus sayeth the Lord” declarations is simply due to institutionalization of authority in the Church. BY, then Q12 President, entered Sec 136 as a received revelation. Of course, this is the only revelation published in the D&C from BY. It’s pretty clear to me, that he came to think of his own mind as expressing the will of God, without the need or formality of distinguishing “revelation”. I know of at least one case, for example, where BY performed a sealing ordinance in his office… no need to go to the Endowment House, implying that BY thought of his own person as being in higher regard than the other requirements of the Gospel. That was a transition point, where “revelation” would only need to be declared in extraordinary cases, and inspired leadership became equated with modern revelation.

Well, I feel it would kind of clash with the ” my name is _____ and I’m a Mormon PR campaign. One one hand showing how everyday “normal” we are and them turn around and make revelations that don’t quite “jive” to new members and investigators. It could or even would confuse them to see this and then turn around shortly after and get a new or conflicting revolution. Possibly as well in today’s media where if you make a revolution and something doesn’t “gel” “click” or pan out it won’t get lost on them. It will be remembered and available everywhere. This would cause anyone in a prominent position to be cautious. With that said there are a number of really good quotes I have read in church history,journal of discourses that have really astounded me in a amazing way positively. I was thinking of starting a thread on unquie or genuine Mormon quotes that are positive and or unique especially from the JS or BY. With so much good lesser known quotes from the past. I think it would help to feel positive about some of our history by rejoicing I some of the lesser known good quotes.

SamBee wrote:

Quote:

as they realized they didn’t have anything really new added to our scriptures for several decades.

Declaration on the Family maybe?

I don’t think so….that insinuation from BKP conference talk was edited and removed.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

Quote:

Consider this – were there periods of decades in the old testament without new revelations? Were there periods during which the prophets only reiterated important truths and called people to repentance?

Good point. There were lots of times like that in the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon – and the entire New Testament fits that description with the exception of Paul’s converting vision and John’s Revelation.

We tend to conflate revelation and inspiration a lot. “To reveal” means to “uncover / make visible that which was covered / not visible”. To reveal is to make known the previously unknown or unknowable. “To inspire” means to “provide new insight into something already known / visible”.

When you get right down to it, not a whole lot in our scriptures is “pure revelation”. Most of it is inspriation to varying degrees – some to an amazing degree, but not truly revelatory at heart.

Ironically, that’s one of the reasons why I can sustain the apostles as prophets, seers and revelators. I see that role as being able to prophecy, see and reveal IF such things occur – NOT as being a constant or even regular (or perhaps even occasional) condition. I just see those things happening so rarely throughout our recorded religious history that I don’t expect anyone to experience them much, if at all. I can sustain lots of people as possible conduits for prophecy, foresight and revelation, so I have no problem doing so with the Church’s leadership. That for which I hope is a higher degree of regular (not constant) inspiration, and I think there is a very good argument for that among the apostles.

Jacob, I understand my view is not the Mormon mainstream view on this topic. It’s not the first time, and it won’t be the last.

I think it’s a fine line and completely subjective to the one who experiences whatever they experience. I think much of what Joseph Smith taught, for example, was pure revelation – and much of it was inspiration of varying degrees – and much of it was imagination and not inspired or revealed.

However, I can’t be totally certain about much of it. That’s why, in the end, I don’t sweat the wording. I try to judge each by its own fruits . I see rotten fruit that needed (and needs) to be pruned from the vineyard – but I see great strength in the root, as well.