Revelation

[Anonymous]

I read the talk that was linked to by flowerdrops in this thread.

http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1376

In that post, the author creates an interesting dialog between a non-member and a TBM about revelation. I have often been concerned over the seeming lack of revelation in the LDS church, and this has further sparked my thinking. Furthemore, yesterday in EQ the topic of revelation indeed came up. Of course everyone was praising our church and leaders for our continued revelation in the face of so many churches who cling to their canons.

It seems to be fairly obvious to TBMs that our leaders receive revelation. It is not, however, obvious to me. Clearly revelation that Joseph received (and that the CoC church seems to continue to receive) are very different things. Or, perhaps they are the same and the CoC and Joseph just more readily accepted “inspiration” as “revelation” and canonized it.

It feels to me like we have plenty of leaders who are “inspired” to say stuff to the church at large. But honestly, when do our leaders actually receive “revelation” in the way Joseph did? Even if Joseph’s “revelations” were really just “inspiration” at least we canonized them.

So, I think I have three questions:

1. do the leaders of the LDS church continue to receive revelation in the same way Joseph did? If so, where are they? If not, why not?

2. if the answer to #1 is “yes” and they are found in GC talks, etc. then why don’t we canonize them? Is this an effort to keep our “official doctrine” very small?

3. is it important to receive revelation in the same way Joseph did and canonize it?

[Anonymous]

This is an interesting topic.

I think mormon doctrine states that TSM and the prophets before him CAN receive revelation in the same way as Joseph did, but I don’t think they do.

I think this is why we revere the Prophet Joseph so much at church is because his revelations were so extensive and new. My whole life I thought that his revelations were just a result that he was called to do that. He was the prophet to bring those things about, and like when Oliver tried and couldn’t, it was just showing he had that ability that isn’t given to all. Other prophets were called to continue the word, and given a little different role as prophet. After reading Rough Stone Rolling, I felt like there might be more confusion around what were literal revelations, and what were just seen with the “mind’s eye” and it was just happening so often for so many church organization matters, they didn’t distinguish much between them, and maybe even got a little carried away with believing some (or wanting to believe some) because people wanted the spiritual manifestations so much at that time…to the point it became a problem in the church when too many people were claiming to have them, and Joseph had to do a little back-peddling to get control.

I guess I think firstly, it is good to distinguish between “revelation” and “inspiration”:

Elder Talmage explained:

Quote:

“Revelation signifies the making known of divine truth by communication from the heavens. …

“The word inspiration is sometimes invested with a [significance] almost identical with that of revelation, though by origin and early usage it possessed a distinctive meaning. To inspire is literally to animate with the spirit; a man is inspired when under the influence of a power other than his own. Divine inspiration may be regarded as a lower or less directly intensive operation of spiritual influence upon man than is … revelation. The difference therefore is rather one of degree than of kind.”-Articles of Faith

I think God mostly works through inspiration and small whisperings of the spirit, not the large angelic visits or revelations we often assume all prophets experience. I think those are fewer and further between happenings of just the mortal prophet receiving promptings. I think Joseph had a few big revelations, and I kind of wonder about some we have canonized if they might have not been much different than “inspiration” GBH got for the Family Proclamation or TSM gets today on something like declaring the 4th Mission of the Church. But since they collected a whole handful at one time for the Book of Commandments, they all went through all at once.

In other words, I don’t think it is too different today apart from a few exceptions that Joseph had some “big” ones, but we don’t see a need to canonize them like they did in the Book of Commandment and D&C days.

So to answer your questions:

1. do the leaders of the LDS church continue to receive revelation in the same way Joseph did? If so, where are they? If not, why not?

I think they CAN …but I don’t believe they do. I think the Lord used Joseph at a time when visitations were required and the Book of Mormon and D&C was needed to establish things…and now the modern prophets just receive inspiration to keep it going. But I think there might be a day when more revelation is needed to handle some of these issues the church is facing as it grows and they run into problems with their own history.

2. if the answer to #1 is “yes” and they are found in GC talks, etc. then why don’t we canonize them? Is this an effort to keep our “official doctrine” very small?

Not in my opinion. It is curious that we claim the Book of Mormon is valid because God won’t stop talking to His children, but then we pretty much believe he stopped with Joseph. But I go back to my #2 response, and see that the church is growing and successful without it…so it doesn’t appear to need that, even if it is curious. But I think the church leaders leave the door open it COULD happen, but they don’t claim to have those same experiences, so I think it is mostly inspiration that they run off of.

[Anonymous]

Euhemerus wrote:

…Clearly revelation that Joseph received (and that the CoC church seems to continue to receive) are very different things. Or, perhaps they are the same and the CoC and Joseph just more readily accepted “inspiration” as “revelation” and canonized it.

I think your first observation is likely the most accurate. I think that Joseph Smith had faith (and the prophetic gift, if that’s any different) to a degree that we have not seen in any other LDS prophet since. BY said as much concerning himself. I would say in addition, though, that the breadth and scope of spiritual experiences and revelations that Joseph had was disparate enough to overlap in almost every way with what the following prophets experienced. Even all taken together though, they don’t begin to compare in terms of sheer ‘breadth and scope’.

For example, the prophets that followed Joseph saw God in vision, received visions in public settings, altered scripture, further developed the temple endowment, redefined the nature of God, and much more. I think the difference is that Joseph was a founder, a dispensation Head, one who said: “What many people call sin is not sin; I do many things to break down superstition, and I will break it down.” He demonstrated this by declaring civil marriages null & void, producing additional scripture, and many other truly radical things. He was radical! So in a nutshell, I think that his calling was fundamentally different from those who followed him.

And I think that this kind of prophet is like a two-edged sword. Cutting both ways, no one was safe. I would be scared to death to follow a man like he was, yet I yearn within myself to know the true man, as he was. Can I possibly characterize him correctly, having never met him? I would love to meet the man who gave the King Follett sermon, yet I would fear to follow the instigator of ‘Celestial Marriage’.

Euhemerus wrote:

So, I think I have three questions:

1. do the leaders of the LDS church continue to receive revelation in the same way Joseph did? If so, where are they? If not, why not?

No, I really don’t think so. I think they are inspired quite often, and even get revelation from time to time. But I don’t think they have the faith or intelligence (in the D&C sense) or frankly, the same calling.

Euhemerus wrote:

2. if the answer to #1 is “yes” and they are found in GC talks, etc. then why don’t we canonize them? Is this an effort to keep our “official doctrine” very small?

Less is good.

Euhemerus wrote:

3. is it important to receive revelation in the same way Joseph did and canonize it?

It would shake our world beyond imagining. I’m happy with the occasional revelation here & there. And I do think it is perfectly reasonable to expect our leaders to get direction and revelation in the role of custodian. And maybe more.

HiJolly

[Anonymous]

Well, said, HiJolly.

I’d also add another thought…I think it is consistent today with what we see in other periods of time. Joseph is pretty comparable to Moses. Those that came after or assisted (Aaron or Joshua) didn’t have the same calling or experiences. So I guess I’d submit that it is not unlike other times when God intervenes for a small moment, and then allows inspiration to guide the work after that for a period while the tame and wild olive trees do their thing. Then He comes back to check the vineyard again. So there isn’t constant supervision.

[Anonymous]

Very interesting. I have the following follow-up questions:

1. From both Heber, and HiJolly I am inferring then that real “big” revelation is reserved for new dispensations, or other times after which the supposed stewards have strayed away. Does this imply then that the LDS church will be led astray at some point?

2. Why is less – good? I quite like the idea of continuing revelation, mostly because it’s the only model I think actually makes sense. If the world were static and unchanging, nothing new would be needed. But people change, life changes, new substances are created, etc. For example, I would actually really like to see a new revelation on the WoW. Maybe such a revelation would debunk the current “interpretation” of the WoW, or perhaps it would augment it to include other things. In the form that Joseph gave it, I don’t think one can conclude the current interpretation. That implies, especially from a TBM point of view, that revelation was received to further interpret it. But that revelation is over 150 years old – do we need an update? In other words, I might agree if all the revelations Joseph received were merely doctrinal. But many of them are just practical guidelines (it would seem).

3. What do you make of the claims to such revelation that have come to pass in the CoC church? Was Joseph Smith III merely a fraud? Were his revelations valid? IOW, I look to the CoC church, and I see a church that, IMHO, is in many ways more like what I think Joseph envisioned and was trying to build.

[Anonymous]

I also like HiJolly’s response – especially since I’m not sure I would have thrived in the wild, chaotic frontier times of the early Restoration.

I also view this topic generally as Heber referenced with Jacob 5 – that the Lord of the vineyard occasionally steps in and prunes, digs about and dungs the vineyard, but generally he lets the tame and wild fruit grow together “for a season” between his direct activities.

Next, as I have said elsewhere about organizational restructuring, all successful organizations almost demand radical challenges and “revelation” (per se) at the beginning if they are to grow quickly. However, if that radical change pace continues for long, the organization risks splintering/shattering or imploding. I honestly don’t think the LDS Church could have survived another Joseph Smith.

Finally, major revelation almost by definition, must over-turn or alter previous understanding. (Think of the Manifesto and OD2.) Those things have the potential to shake the very foundation of an orgainzation, and that’s hard on an organization if it happens regularly.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Those things have the potential to shake the very foundation of an orgainzation, and that’s hard on an organization if it happens regularly.

Yes, I see this. But this is premised on the idea that the church is God’s true church – right? And hence, he must care/nurture the organization. In other words, we’ve talked a lot on this website about truth being found in many places, that there could be many “true” churches. Does God’s revelation really have organizational boundaries? It seems the obvious answer is no. So is there revelation out there being given that is better than what we’re getting here?

I guess I’m sort of trying to draw a distinction between the Gospel, and the church. Ray, in your view is the Lord of the vineyard also nurturing other vineyards in the same way as the LDS church, stepping in from time to time with new revelation?

[Anonymous]

Well, I guess I’ll throw in my 2 cents:

I think JS was rather clear on any new “revelations” that overturn another….

TPJS 368 … if any man preach any other gospel than that which I have preached he shall be cursed.

TPJS 214 How, it may be asked, was this known to be a bad angel? by his contradicting a former revelation. (emphasis mine)

Yes, that would cause the manifesto or OD2, which are sorta “to whom it may concern” statements,very problematic.

Many would view the heavens as having been closed after John Taylor’s revelation and/or the issuance ot the manifesto, come to think of it. I’ve reviewed the accounts of OD2, for example, and how it came to be published. “a cool breeze”, “a feeling of pentecost”, etc…..with respect to the brethren, I’ve felt that kind of thing myself and I’m sure you folks have too. Inspiration? Sure. Revelation? Hardly. I also don’t think there are many serious early Church history scholars who would argue the fact that Charles Penrose wrote the manifesto either.

Just my fundamentalist ramblings…ignore at will.

[Anonymous]

Euhemerus wrote:

Very interesting. I have the following follow-up questions:

1. From both Heber, and HiJolly I am inferring then that real “big” revelation is reserved for new dispensations, or other times after which the supposed stewards have strayed away. Does this imply then that the LDS church will be led astray at some point?

Well, yes and no. The door is always open for corrective revelation, yet we find things culturally creeping in that are problematic, such as the policy about blacks & the priesthood back in BY’s day.

Euhemerus wrote:

2. Why is less – good? I quite like the idea of continuing revelation, mostly because it’s the only model I think actually makes sense.

I agree. I was thinking about really radical change.

Euhemerus wrote:

3. What do you make of the claims to such revelation that have come to pass in the CoC church? Was Joseph Smith III merely a fraud? Were his revelations valid? IOW, I look to the CoC church, and I see a church that, IMHO, is in many ways more like what I think Joseph envisioned and was trying to build.

Not without the temple, I’m thinking.

I think JS III was a good man who tried to fulfill the desires of so many loved ones around him. Just my opinion.

HiJolly

[Anonymous]

I think, personally, that God inspires and gives revelation to MANY outside the LDS Church – and I don’t think that’s inconsistent at all with our scriptures, history and fundamental principles. I’m also of the opinion that MUCH of what we call revelation really isn’t different in nature than MUCH of what we call inspiration. I believe in instances of revelation that are more clearly divine communication than general inspriration, both for prophets and also in my own life, but, in general, we place WAY too high an importance on what I might call “radical and obvious revelation” – especially when there is so tiny an amount of it recorded even in our canonized scriptures.

If we really stop and think about it, most of what we call revelation could be termed “visions” or “dreams” or such – and dismissed easily by those who don’t believe in such things. Certainly, that is the case with Joseph in Egypt, Ezekial, Paul, Joseph Smith, Jacob’s ladder, Wilford Woodruff, Spencer W. Kimball, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Jr., Gandhi, Muhammed, Nephi – and even Jesus, of Nazareth. I’m not saying that to disparage revelation in any way – but it does point to the heart of your question.

I don’t think there’s a thing I’m “missing” by being LDS – mostly because I believe I can and do tap into everything that is available to anyone else anywhere else – and more. (especially since I can study anything I want to study and remain firmly within the LDS Church) I really do believe there is something “extra” in the cosmology of Mormonism that is missing elsewhere – and I really do value that “something” as a source of inspiration and revelation. Iow, I believe both inspiration and revelation are available to all – but I also believe they both are more accessible generally within Mormonism than elsewhere.

I don’t say that lightly, and I don’t say it condescendingly – but I also think the very fact that we are having this conversation and acknowledging the possibility of “receiving” personal inspiration and revelation (in the manner in which we are discussing it) is more instructive than most people realize.

[Anonymous]

Well put Ray…

The gospel teaches us that we are all entitled to recieve personal “revelation” as it pertains to those that we are privileged to serve.

How many of us do? …and if/when we do, is it “revelation” or “inspiration?

Are we just arguing semantics or is there a difference?

Very good thread and great comments to ponder.

[Anonymous]

This whole idea of continuing revelation is very interesting. Armaund Mauss has said that for an organization to remain viable, it needs to become less radical. Certainly prophets today are much less radical than Joseph Smith was. For an organization to grow, it needs stability. In order for “the standard of truth [to have been] erected” and to “go forth boldly, nobly, and independent until it has penetrated every clime, sounded in every ear….” there needed to be greater stability than there was in the days of Joseph Smith. If we look at the evolution of the US government, we can see that our government leaders are also much less radical, and central power has been consolidated to become the strong central government we have today.

I did a post 2 years ago about a man named Montanus who lived in 170 AD. He complained that there were no more miracles or revelation any more since the death of the apostles. He said this was due to the worldliness of the church; frankly I found many similarities to Joseph Smith. See http://www.mormonheretic.org/2008/06/18/montanists-mormons-and-early-christian-doctrines/

Pragmatically, the church just couldn’t survive if it had maintained the tumultuous period of Joseph’s revelations: polygamy, temple ordinances, etc. If we look at other religions, we see that Muhammed was the great revelator, but nobody continued that either. Jesus and the Apostles had miracles, but we can see that in 170 AD, people were already lamenting that miracles had ceased. Even Moses is a different sort of prophet than any other Old Testament prophet. Following Moses and Joshua, there really weren’t miracles of the same magnitude any more. It is also important to realize that the Old Testament covers more than a thousand years. Miracles were often separated by decades, sometimes hundreds of years. The prophet Amos seems more like Thomas S Monson than Joseph Smith and Moses.

As Israel became a nation, central rule by kings became the norm, and prophets lost their power to lead in a governmental sense. So, the LDS Church seems to be following a pattern of decreasing revelation that many other religions follow. Yes, the CoC does seem to have more continuing revelation than our church does, but can anyone say that continuing revelation is causing that church to “go forth boldly, nobly”? A case can be made that recent revelations concerning women and the Priesthood, the changing name, and they new proposed revelation on gay marriage and baptism is actually causing the church to shrink. Organizational viability, and revelatory viability are often not compatible. Joseph could have simply been here to lay the foundation of Mormonism, just as Jesus laid the foundation of Christianity. Catholocism and Lutheranism are much less radical organizations than their original founders; I think that is the natural order of an organization.

[Anonymous]

In a bit of a hurry, but the thought that comes to mind when I think of this topic is: “A living dog is better than a dead lion.” Lions may be all majestic and whatnot, but there’s something to be said for what is contemporary.

[Anonymous]

A lot of the time with Gordon B. Hinckley, the family side apart, I couldn’t really think of much he was revealing. Which is troubling, since we live in such a strange and exotic age, with so many new challenges that none of our ancestors faced, that perhaps the need for revelation is more than ever.

[Anonymous]

Maybe the need for individual revelation is greater and the need for organizational revelation is not as great.

Just food for thought.

[Author]

Posts