LDS Revelations

[TexanKnight]

Historically, we are told that when a prophet speaks, and says 'thus saith the Lord" when he does, he is claiming revelation. When that revelation is confirmed (again, by revelation…the Holy Ghost) by the Quorum, then it becomes scripture, or the same thing as scripture.

General Conference talks MAY be ‘the word of God,’ They ARE usually pretty good advice. How we know is the way we know anything is true, religiously: we read it, we study it, and we pray about it, and get the confirmation ourselves through the Holy Ghost.

This method of discerning religious truth is available to everybody.

…but if you are asking about ‘scripture,’ and how something gets to that level, then it is revealed to the prophet, and confirmed by revelation to the Quorum or the Twelve.

Whether something is religiously ‘true’ or not? That we each have the right, and the responsibility, to ask God about, ourselves. At least, I believe that.

Actually, there have been prophets who disagree with you.

But that does not answer my question.

Prophets speak of God. Are we allowed to believe what they say? Or, does the lds God allow prophets to speak about Him inaccurately?

 

[LivingWaters7]

I know you did not, but the sites themselves, at first glance, certainly seem to be from an LDS supported site. I would have made the same comments if someone had posted something critical of Catholicism, and the source, at first glance, SEEMED to be a ‘good’ Catholic site, but in truth, was not.

It’s simply a matter of information and notification of bias. Whether one agrees with the content of a post or not, it’s always good to know what the bias of the author is.

Again, none of this is relevant, and is a continued diversion from the actual topic. The two articles were presented so that those interested could read them and understand that perspective on the LDS prophets and revelation, a perspective that I happen to agree with. I find nothing deceptive about the actual site itself, and see nothing on it that would make it seem to be an “LDS supported site” at first glance (at first glance, it seems to be a site of someone interested in discussing LDS matters, who seems to have some connection to it, not that it is a pro-LDS site), and again, it is not relevant.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Historically, we are told that when a prophet speaks, and says 'thus saith the Lord" when he does, he is claiming revelation. When that revelation is confirmed (again, by revelation…the Holy Ghost) by the Quorum, then it becomes scripture, or the same thing as scripture.

General Conference talks MAY be ‘the word of God,’ They ARE usually pretty good advice. How we know is the way we know anything is true, religiously: we read it, we study it, and we pray about it, and get the confirmation ourselves through the Holy Ghost.

This method of discerning religious truth is available to everybody.

…but if you are asking about ‘scripture,’ and how something gets to that level, then it is revealed to the prophet, and confirmed by revelation to the Quorum or the Twelve.

Whether something is religiously ‘true’ or not? That we each have the right, and the responsibility, to ask God about, ourselves. At least, I believe that.

When was the last time a prophet said “thus saith the Lord”?

It seems as if LDS many times cannot agree on when a prophet was speaking as a prophet, and when he was speaking as a man. We see this very phenomena right now over at Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board, where they are arguing about whether God the Father was once a man that became God, whether Elder Bednar was correct in stating in General Conference that we know by revelation that April 6th is the birthday of Jesus Christ, among other things. One person prays about something a prophet says and gets a confirmation that it’s true and he was speaking as a prophet, while another does not get the same thing. Who is right?

When General Conference comes up, we see ads like this:

http://mormonwoman.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/lds-general-conference-2012.jpg

We further read in manuals like Gospel Principles that General Conference talks become like scripture to us. Is it logical to think that we are being invited to listen to “living prophets” give false teachings? Or is it that we are being invited to listen to living prophets speak authoritatively to the world?

From all of this, there seems to be no objective way to know when a prophet is speaking as a prophet of God, unless of course that way is as you describe, when what they say is confirmed by the Twelve, but then, this rarely happens.

 

[Stephen168]

Silent Revelations

I was once told by an ex-Mormon the reason he left started with realizing the prophet does not prophesize, so I read this one article. It helps me understand more of what he was saying.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Did prophets like Moses, Noah, and Abraham need to have their revelations confirmed by others before they were accepted as such? Aren’t LDS prophets claimed to be prophets like them?

 

[LivingWaters7]

I was once told by an ex-Mormon the reason he left started with realizing the prophet does not prophesize, so I read this one article. It helps me understand more of what he was saying.

Yes, the perspective given in that article is very common. You can search other LDS forums, such as MDDB, and you’ll find examples of people trying to understand this issue. It gets down to what is a “prophet”, how did the Biblical prophets function, and whether the modern LDS claimed prophets function as such (or whether they function as the non-prophet leaders of various other religions).

 

[SteveVH]

Whether something is religiously ‘true’ or not? That we each have the right, and the responsibility, to ask God about, ourselves. At least, I believe that.

And when two people sincerely ask God for the truth and pray to the Holy Spirit to guide them, and end up with completely different answers as to the truth, what then?

It seems that if we could each personally discern the truth by praying to the Holy Spirit, as you believe, we should come up with exactly the same answer. The fact that we do not is prima facie evidence that this is not, in fact, the case.

 

[JamesCollins]

What kind of revelation should we expect from the Mormon prophet at this time in LDS Church history? LDS say God has restored the priesthood as well as many other doctrines necessary for the salvation of humankind. I suspect the Mormon leaders think they are receiving revelation to help them carry out the work of the kingdom even though this may not require new revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants. Can you be led by a living prophet without actually receiving that much new revelation? Is the prophet’s role mainly to prophesy or is it to provide guidance on how to live?

I sure hope the Catholic leaders I am subject to are led by the Holy Spirit when it comes to moral issues, and I believe they are. I also think they are led by the Holy Spirit when they are choosing Bishops or creating new Dioceses, etc. In that way they are actually carrying out a prophetic role. Perhaps our understanding of revelation is too limited – there can be new revelation without adding to the canon. All revelation is is learning the mind and will of
God.

 

[TheIrishman]

With LDS revelations, there is always an underlying reason.

Look at the Word of Wisdom, why was it given? And where was it taken from? When I was mormon I thought, and was taught, that the word of wisdom was something “special” during the time it was “revealed”. That no other churches or beliefs taught the same things. Simple searches can disprove that. Also, Emma was a strong instigator for pushing the word of wisdom along. It’s almost like, Emma was acting as the prophet at that point. She was tired of cleaning up so she told Joseph to make some changes. Joseph prayed and got the WoW.

Take polygamy. Why was it given? Where did it come from? Then ask yourself, why did it stop? Amazing things happen when you start to look beyond the revelations themselves.

Blacks and the priesthood? same principles.

Missionary age change?

Temple Ordinances?

Adam-God (before it was decided that it was wrong)?

King Fallots Discourse?

Continuing Revelation?

Every revelation has a story behind it and reasons for them. None of which have to do with God. Everything to do with the circumstances.

 

[dianaiad]

And when two people sincerely ask God for the truth and pray to the Holy Spirit to guide them, and end up with completely different answers as to the truth, what then?

It seems that if we could each personally discern the truth by praying to the Holy Spirit, as you believe, we should come up with exactly the same answer. The fact that we do not is prima facie evidence that this is not, in fact, the case.

May I speculate a bit here? I admit, it’s pure speculation, but I have thought about this issue as well.

A lot.

I think that…all religions have truth in them, even the most outlandish (by our lights, anyway) Even if everything around this truth is offbase, the ‘truth’ is still there, and still ‘true.’

For instance, suppose we have a Catholic, a Mormon, and a Muslim…and they all teach the 'Golden Rule." (Most religions do).

Suppose that someone, praying to know the truth of this precept, gets confirmation from the Holy Ghost that yes, treating your neighbor as you would wish to be treated is 'the way to go."

Now I think that, in many cases, the investigator will take that confirmation of that one truth…and hang all the context in which that truth is found on it. So, if the rule is true in Islam, the believer might figure that everything else about Islam is true, too. The same would go for Catholicism and Mormonism and Hinduism and, and, and…

Like finding a diamond in the dirt and deciding that the rest of the mountain is diamonds, too, without really paying attention.

I think that’s a pretty good part of it. There are a lot of other factors, too.

Well, that’s what I think, anyway.

 

[dianaiad]

With LDS revelations, there is always an underlying reason.

Look at the Word of Wisdom, why was it given? And where was it taken from? When I was mormon I thought, and was taught, that the word of wisdom was something “special” during the time it was “revealed”. That no other churches or beliefs taught the same things. Simple searches can disprove that. Also, Emma was a strong instigator for pushing the word of wisdom along. It’s almost like, Emma was acting as the prophet at that point. She was tired of cleaning up so she told Joseph to make some changes. Joseph prayed and got the WoW.

Take polygamy. Why was it given? Where did it come from? Then ask yourself, why did it stop? Amazing things happen when you start to look beyond the revelations themselves.

Blacks and the priesthood? same principles.

Missionary age change?

Temple Ordinances?

Adam-God (before it was decided that it was wrong)?

King Fallots Discourse?

Continuing Revelation?

Every revelation has a story behind it and reasons for them. None of which have to do with God. Everything to do with the circumstances.

With all due respect…of course they 'have to do with the circumstances!" ALL prophecy and instruction to the church is about that, and always has been.

Would you, for instance, dismiss the Lord’s instructions to Noah BECAUSE there was a flood coming (the flood coming being the reason Noah was instructed to build this humongous boat)? How about the instructions to Abraham and Lot regarding Sodom and Gomorrah?

Or perhaps, more to the point, would you dismiss the instructions given to Moses because almost everything God told him to do was in direct response to the circumstances Moses (and his people) found themselves in?

Most of the teachings of Jesus were in answer to questions real people had, because of the circumstances they found themselves in, and the things they were thinking about. Certainly all of His miracles were: stilling the waters, raising the dead…even turning water into wine was in response to a very ordinary problem of ‘running out at a party.’

Doesn’t it seem illogical to only give advice and revelation about things that are NOT important to the folks, and completely ignore the things that they are actually praying about?

You might have a problem with modern revelation being revelation; but it is utterly illogical to dismiss modern revelation just because it happens to be, er…timely and relevant.

 

[iepuras]

With all due respect…of course they 'have to do with the circumstances!" ALL prophecy and instruction to the church is about that, and always has been.

Would you, for instance, dismiss the Lord’s instructions to Noah BECAUSE there was a flood coming (the flood coming being the reason Noah was instructed to build this humongous boat)? How about the instructions to Abraham and Lot regarding Sodom and Gomorrah?

Or perhaps, more to the point, would you dismiss the instructions given to Moses because almost everything God told him to do was in direct response to the circumstances Moses (and his people) found themselves in?

Most of the teachings of Jesus were in answer to questions real people had, because of the circumstances they found themselves in, and the things they were thinking about. Certainly all of His miracles were: stilling the waters, raising the dead…even turning water into wine was in response to a very ordinary problem of ‘running out at a party.’

Doesn’t it seem illogical to only give advice and revelation about things that are NOT important to the folks, and completely ignore the things that they are actually praying about?

You might have a problem with modern revelation being revelation; but it is utterly illogical to dismiss modern revelation just because it happens to be, er…timely and relevant.

If it is illogical to only give advice and revelation on things that are not important, then why does it seem that LDS prophets only do just that? The latest and greatest I heard about was from a couple of weeks ago that related to caffeinated sodas. The so-called prophets ignore the inequality of women in the LDS church. Many young women (including myself when I was LDS) struggled with it. Our concerns were routinely ignored. Kate Kelly asks the Mormon prophets to pray about the ordination of women. Then they excommunicate her and a week later issue their statement on caffeinated sodas. Very timely and relevant, bless their hearts.

 

[Stephen168]

If it is illogical to only give advice and revelation on things that are not important, then why does it seem that LDS prophets only do just that? The latest and greatest I heard about was from a couple of weeks ago that related to caffeinated sodas. The so-called prophets ignore the inequality of women in the LDS church. Many young women (including myself when I was LDS) struggled with it. Our concerns were routinely ignored. Kate Kelly asks the Mormon prophets to pray about the ordination of women. Then they excommunicate her and a week later issue their statement on caffeinated sodas. Very timely and relevant, bless their hearts.

Excommunication is what happens when a Mormon prays to God for an answer and God gives them a different answer than the one authorized by the Mormon Church.

 

[RebeccaJ]

If it is illogical to only give advice and revelation on things that are not important, then why does it seem that LDS prophets only do just that? The latest and greatest I heard about was from a couple of weeks ago that related to caffeinated sodas. The so-called prophets ignore the inequality of women in the LDS church. Many young women (including myself when I was LDS) struggled with it. Our concerns were routinely ignored. Kate Kelly asks the Mormon prophets to pray about the ordination of women. Then they excommunicate her and a week later issue their statement on caffeinated sodas. Very timely and relevant, bless their hearts.

Perhaps the message was for Kate Kelly to have a Coke, so she’d be inspired to sing in perfect harmony.

 

[dianaiad]

Excommunication is what happens when a Mormon prays to God for an answer and God gives them a different answer than the one authorized by the Mormon Church.

Excommunication is what happens when someone preaches, publicly, that the church is teaching the wrong thing and that its doctrine is incorrect.

According to Catholic canon law, someone who does this…is a heretic, a schismatic or apostate incurs excommunication latae sententiae: that is, instant excommunication that is effective at the time of the offense/sin. One who has incurred this must have a hearing/trial/special permission to come BACK.

The LDS church has the hearing/trial before the apostate is excommunicated. Either way, whether it is Catholics or Mormons or anybody else, apostates are no longer considered members in good standing. I figure that’s fair; someone who doesn’t believe, and perhaps even opposes, the doctrine and beliefs of the system to which he belongs really shouldn’t stay there, and that system shouldn’t have to put up with him.

The Catholic system is a bit more efficient, and in some ways better for the repentant sinner; an 'I want to come home" hearing is a far more pleasant an event than a ‘we’re kicking you out if you continue this’ one.

But the original idea is the same. Both groups excommunicate apostates.

(edited to fix the link)

 

[Brandon_Cal]

I know you did not, but the sites themselves, at first glance, certainly seem to be from an LDS supported site. I would have made the same comments if someone had posted something critical of Catholicism, and the source, at first glance, SEEMED to be a ‘good’ Catholic site, but in truth, was not.

It’s simply a matter of information and notification of bias. Whether one agrees with the content of a post or not, it’s always good to know what the bias of the author is.

Why does any of this matter? You do realize that you’re engaging in the Genetic Fallacy, don’t you? Either the information on that site is correct or incorrect and the argument made by the author is valid or invalid. His being LDS or not LDS is entirely irrelevant, and for the love of God I wish Mormons would stop arguing that only active, believing Mormons are qualified to talk about Mormonism. It makes our community look really stupid.

Also, would you care to answer LivingWaters7’s question now? He’s posted it a number of times and you’ve responded to his other posts so we know you don’t have him on ignore. You’re clearly seeing his question and deliberately side-stepping the issue.

 

[Stephen168]

This method of discerning religious truth is available to everybody.
…
Whether something is religiously ‘true’ or not? That we each have the right, and the responsibility, to ask God about, ourselves. At least, I believe that.

Excommunication is what happens when someone preaches, publicly, that the church is teaching the wrong thing and that its doctrine is incorrect.

 

[Stephen168]

Why does any of this matter? You do realize that you’re engaging in the Genetic Fallacy, don’t you? Either the information on that site is correct or incorrect and the argument made by the author is valid or invalid. His being LDS or not LDS is entirely irrelevant, and for the love of God I wish Mormons would stop arguing that only active, believing Mormons are qualified to talk about Mormonism. It makes our community look really stupid.

And by default the argument appears to be correct because the Mormon cannot counter the argument.

Catholic: Mormonism is a cult because they follow the prophet and not Jesus Christ.
Mormon: No, you’re Catholic.

 

[pablope]

This is what all religions do, non?

For example…if a visionary is seeing a vision of Mary regularly and everyone believes she is and it looks like she is and she is tested, and miracles happen in front of people’s eyes…but then, Mary says something that is different than what the faith says she’d say…then the visionary is suddenly a fake or she’s possessed by a demon or something.

 

[Stephen168]

According to Catholic…

The Catholic system…

You clearly demonstrated during your last visit to CAF that you are not capable of understanding Catholic teaching even after you have read what you think is the teaching AND we try to explain it to you.

I recommend you never ever try to teach a Catholic what their Church teaches especially here on CAF. Just defend Mormonism or ask us what we believe and we will give you Catholic Answers

I do understand that is it almost impossible without bashing what you think is the Catholic Church.

The beauty of being Catholic is that I don’t have to put down Mormonism to defend Catholicism because I have science, history and reason on my side.

Now you can answer Livingwater’s questions.