- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I asked a body of priesthood how we are different from other religions — if we are no different then we are a commodity of religion. They commented on how we have new revelation. I asked, what about our revelation is “new”??? Long, long silence…as they realized they didn’t have anything really new added to our scriptures for several decades.
This then led to everyone saying that it’s the old stuff that sets us apart — that other religions change with society to be popular, and we don’t. We hold fast to our traditional values and that is what keeps attracting people to us.
I didn’t disagree as you know my goal is not to upset the apply cart, only to make people think.
However, I thought it would be interesting to discuss this here. Can we claim to have ongoing revelation when we have had no official declarations of revelation for several decades? And is it the old stuff that keeps people coming back? Or is it to our detriment that we haven’t changed with society?
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.
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.
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. Butin 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…Quote:as they realized they didn’t have anything really new added to our scriptures for several decades.
Declaration on the Family maybe?
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. This topic actually made a short appearance in our RS class yesterday and I was disappointed in the way it was handled. The sisters basically settled on the fact that there is truth all over, in most any church, religion, or ideology but we have moretruth, the fullnessof the truth. The teacher started going toward theosis but her comment was not much more than a small and very basic nod in that direction. She said something like ‘Other churches teach us to follow Christ but we are supposed to become like Him. Our church teaches this.’
There are some significant teachings that distinguish the restored gospel and I found it troubling that this was the closest the class got to identifying any. I don’t think having a modern “prophet” is even remotely the most unique or significant idea in Mormonism. Given the fact that (IIRC) the title of prophet, seer, and revelator wasn’t even given to any church presidents other than Joseph Smith until the McKay years, it hardly seems worthy of the mention we continually make of it. The Joseph Smith accounts were not about the heavens opening to a prophet. They were about the heaven’s opening to a youthful supplicant. And that message, that men can reach God outside a church structure, independently, is the founding principle of Mormonism.
Of course, you also have…
Universal salvation
Post-mortal provisions which allow for eternal progression and conversion beyond the grave
Theosis
Temple service as a priestly responsibility and ordinance by proxy
The persistence of social and familial ties (the same sociality) in the next life
The material nature of God
… and so forth.
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. For one opinion on this topic see hereA particularly irreverent excerpt:
Quote:I believe the Lord inspired President Monson to announce Peter Maurik as the speaker, and that God inspired Maurik to race to the temple to get there in the nick of time. For if Maurik hadn’t shown up, it would have been a catastrophe. Monson would have had to fill another hour himself, subjecting those poor German saints to his inane and pointless stories. God can sometimes seem cruel, but he’s never that cruel.
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
I believe it was revealedto President Hinckley that we needed to start building small temples in great numbers. 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? 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.
Ray, I think you are making a distinction that the Brethren don’t always necessarily make. I personally agree with what you said, but I think many of the Brethren would say that inspiration is merely a type of revelation instead of being something different. Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
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.
Quote:I believe it was
revealedto President Hinckley that we needed to start building small temples in great numbers.
I believe that this was revealed to Pres Hinckley in the same way that it was revealed to me which way to go to work this morning. Either we are all prophets or none of us are. I choose the former. I think we have been done a great disservice by myths having been allowed to propagate, or having been actively promoted, which lead us to believe that God communicates through a hierarchy and only in that way. In my view nobody should or need allow anyoneor anyt hingto get between them and God. 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?
Drawing any kind of definitive timeline about anything from the OT (or the NT, for that matter) is problematic. The OT is a hodge-podge of revelations put together and reinterpreted over the years by people such as you and I, who received revelation in precisely the same way you and I do. It is neither all-inclusive of God’s dealings with man, nor is it historically accurate in those dealings that it does describe.It’s natural that church members should wonder when the next section of the D&C is going to appear. They have been taught to anticipate such things. Our history is rife with appearances and miraculous divine communications of one kind or another. The 15 talk to Jesus in the temple on a regular basis. Surely He has something important that He wants passed on, otherwise what’s the point?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.