Q for Mormons

[Allweather]

They were special only in the sense that they were the pioneers; they set an example for the rest to follow. They were not so special that we should go on a different track from them.

Certainly not a different track. These are the men Jesus himself chose from among all he could have chosen. So in that sense alone they are very special. They are also the men Jesus personally instructed for 3 years. At the end of the three years he ordained them into the Church that was about to be born at Pentecost, and gave them instructions to go into the world to hand on what he had given to them. They are examples, but also far more than just examples.

Yes, but look at all the trouble that that caused him! In the end he had to “unlearn” what he had learned in order to become an Apostle of Jesus Christ.

zerinus

I’m not getting that Paul had to “unlearn” much of anything. Far from it. He was ideally situated to do what God needed done in writing so much of the New Testament, and in spreading the Way into the Mediterranian world. Because he was an authority on Judaism, and was able to move about the Roman Empire as a citizen thereof, able to speak and write fluently in Hebrew, Greek, and undoubtedly Aramaic, he was positioned as no other. A lot of his NT writings are complex exegesis of OT as it is fulfilled in Jesus. Paul set the course for Christianity by, among other things, proving from the OT that Jesus was who he claimed to be. If he’d had to “unlearn” these things, he wouldn’t have been the effective Apostle that he turned out to be. I guess you could say that he had to “unlearn” the dogmatic Scriptural interpretations of the Jews of the first century. This probably wouldn’t have been possible without God knocking him off his feet and blinding him for awhile. With the aid of this divine intervention, it really didn’t take Paul all that long to learn the new Way. But, didn’t Paul also spend some three years in learning? Seems like I read that somewhere in Acts or another NT place. I will do some reading.

 

[thomasf]

That is another way of saying that you would rather ditch Peter and Paul, James and John, and Jesus and the rest, and reject the gift of the Holy Ghost, and settle for those who “teach for hire and divine for money” (Micah 3:11). That is a terrible indictment.

zerinus

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Look in the mirror, because you just completely described the mormon church.

 

[christianley]

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Look in the mirror, because you just completely described the mormon church.

I don’t believe Gordon B. Hinckley has ever worked for anyone besides the Mormon Church since he was a young man. He’s been a paid church employee since at least the 1930s. Several other Mormon General Authorities have worked in the Church Education system their entire lives when they weren’t in paid authority positions for the LDS Church. While it is true that people at the bottom aren’t receiving money from the LDS Church, those at the top have often made a pretty good living off of it.

We have a couple of priests and several paid ministerial staff at our parish in addition to lots of lay people who give a lot of their time freely. It’s a good mix and a lot of wonderful things are getting done that don’t get done at my wife’s LDS ward because the parish has people who know what they are doing. Additionally, the parish is assisting a Katrina damaged parish in Mississippi as well as an inner city parish with mainly Hispanic members. There is a regular ministry to the local homeless center, help for young mothers with special needs, etc., etc., etc. Having a local paid ministry is invaluable in helping administer many of these outreaches. The people who are getting paid are getting paid a lot less than what they could earn if they were in the private sector.

The Mormon Church unpaid ministry sounds good, but the results aren’t as good in my experience. It does however allow the bulk of the collected money to be sent to downtown Salt Lake City so that the LDS Church can build bigger malls. There simply is no prohibition on paid ministry in the Bible.

 

[zerinus]

They are examples, but also far more than just examples.

Yes, but it is the “example” bit that I am interested in at the moment.

I’m not getting that Paul had to “unlearn” much of anything. Far from it. He was ideally situated to do what God needed done in writing so much of the New Testament, and in spreading the Way into the Mediterranian world. Because he was an authority on Judaism, and was able to move about the Roman Empire as a citizen thereof, able to speak and write fluently in Hebrew, Greek, and undoubtedly Aramaic, he was positioned as no other. A lot of his NT writings are complex exegesis of OT as it is fulfilled in Jesus. Paul set the course for Christianity by, among other things, proving from the OT that Jesus was who he claimed to be. If he’d had to “unlearn” these things, he wouldn’t have been the effective Apostle that he turned out to be. I guess you could say that he had to “unlearn” the dogmatic Scriptural interpretations of the Jews of the first century. This probably wouldn’t have been possible without God knocking him off his feet and blinding him for awhile. With the aid of this divine intervention, it really didn’t take Paul all that long to learn the new Way. But, didn’t Paul also spend some three years in learning? Seems like I read that somewhere in Acts or another NT place. I will do some reading.

Actually, you are wrong. He has a different story to tell to the Corinthian about where his wisdom came from:

1 Corinthians 2:

1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.

---

4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
Paul received all the wisdom and knowledge that he had by revelation from the Lord, and by the power of the Holy Ghost. He says that in his writings. Here is an example:

2 Corinthians 12:

7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

In other words, he was receiving so many revelations from the Lord that God had given him a “thorn in his flesh” to stop him from getting too arrogant and proud!

All the Apostles were taught of the Lord in this way, by the revelations of the Holy Ghost. They did not learn their wisdom from the theological seminary. Modern Apostles of Jesus receive their training and instructions from the Lord in the same way.

zerinus

 

[Allweather]

All the Apostles were taught of the Lord in this way, by the revelations of the Holy Ghost. They did not learn their wisdom from the theological seminary.

No, the Apostles were taught by the Lord Jesus Christ, the 2d person of the Blessed Trinity. The Holy Ghost came later, at Pentecost. Jesus speaks extensively of the Advocate, the Comforter, and in John says that unless he, Jesus, goes back to the Father, the Advocate could not come to the Apostles. I absolutely agree that the Apostles did not go to “theological seminary.” They got their training directly from the Lord, himself.

Wisdom. True wisdom comes only from God. No question. There is surely a human type of wisdom, but that is not a very wise form of it. This is what Paul is talking about.

No question, Paul received direct revelation. The Bible is clear on this. Paul also received instruction in the nuts and bolts of the faith from others. By that time, the Holy Ghost was active in the world, and was leading Paul unto God’s wisdom and righteousness. Paul went on to become a great teacher himself, using all that he already knew of Judaism, what he learned of Christianity, to lay out a theology that flowed from Judaism into Christianity.

Modern Apostles of Jesus receive their training and instructions from the Lord in the same way. zerinus

We certainly part company with you in regards to “Modern Apostles.” There aren’t any, of course, at least not according to the Biblical definition of Apostle. I recall you having said that the LDS apostles have all “seen” Jesus. Is that correct?

In any case, my strong guess is that your modern apostles get a tremendous amount of training in theology along the way. Don’t they? How about Zerinus? Has Zerinus had all his very extensive knowledge of Mormonism just infused into his brain by the Holy Ghost? Or did he have to study it out of books?

 

[jville14]

Everything wrong! It was not intended to be a paid job. When you turn it into a paid profession or job, you ruin it. You destroy it. That is in the nature of the beast.

Actually, no. The top leadership of the Church have nearly all led successful professional lives in their earlier years, and live off their pensions or savings like other people do. It is only when that is not sufficient for their needs that it is topped up by the Church. Many of them could still earn more money in their chosen field of profession than as a General Authority of the Church. Elder Russell M. Nelson had been an internationally renowned heart surgeon. He could still make more money as a consultant than as an Apostle. Elder Richard G. Scott had been a nuclear physicist. Elder Dallin H. Oaks had been a university academic and a successful lawyer. Elders Henry B. Eyring and L. Tom Perry had been successful business men. Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf had been an airline pilot. The same goes for the rest. None of them chose a professional career as a clergyman for their lives, because such a thing does not exist in the LDS Church. They were called to serve in their Church positions by the Lord, and they are taught how to do their job by the Holy Spirit. That is how it was in the early church. Peter and John and James had all been fishermen. Matthew had been a tax collector. Luke had been a physician. How did they learn to be Apostles? By the Holy Ghost: “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judæa, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth” (Acts 1:8). That is how they acquired their qualifications to be Apostles of the Lord. They didn’t go to college to get a theological degree in order to qualify. And that is how modern LDS Apostles receive their qualifications.

You mean apostate Christians. That is a distinct possibility! I wouldn’t be surprised about that at all. The LDS definition is the biblical one. It means the ability to communicate directly with God, and to add to the canon of scripture. A church that claims that the canon of scripture is closed is a dead church; not a living, breathing church.

zerinus

i dont see what your point is that catholic priest and protestant ministers get paid to do there job? what is so bad about that how are they supposed to live? in a cardboard box? people need income to survive in this world. and its not like they get millions of dollars a year, they get enough to buy food and get clothing and thats about it!

 

[zerinus]

No, the Apostles were taught by the Lord Jesus Christ, the 2d person of the Blessed Trinity. The Holy Ghost came later, at Pentecost. Jesus speaks extensively of the Advocate, the Comforter, and in John says that unless he, Jesus, goes back to the Father, the Advocate could not come to the Apostles. I absolutely agree that the Apostles did not go to “theological seminary.” They got their training directly from the Lord, himself.

Wisdom. True wisdom comes only from God. No question. There is surely a human type of wisdom, but that is not a very wise form of it. This is what Paul is talking about.

No question, Paul received direct revelation. The Bible is clear on this. Paul also received instruction in the nuts and bolts of the faith from others. By that time, the Holy Ghost was active in the world, and was leading Paul unto God’s wisdom and righteousness. Paul went on to become a great teacher himself, using all that he already knew of Judaism, what he learned of Christianity, to lay out a theology that flowed from Judaism into Christianity.

What has all that got to do with what we were talking about? You had argued that Paul’s Pharisaic training had qualified him for his ministry as an Apostle, and I had informed you that it hadn’t.

We certainly part company with you in regards to “Modern Apostles.” There aren’t any, of course, at least not according to the Biblical definition of Apostle.

Please yourself. We know better.

I recall you having said that the LDS apostles have all “seen” Jesus. Is that correct?

You recall wrong. I have never said that. All I said was that judging by what I know of their character, integrity, virtue, and righteousness, I am satisfied that they are in a position to be able to see Him should it be His will to reveal Himself to them. That is not the same thing as saying that they have seen Him. I have always had a problem with you misstating my assertions; and I don’t suppose that problem will ever go away.

In any case, my strong guess is that your modern apostles get a tremendous amount of training in theology along the way. Don’t they?

Actually, they don’t. They study the scriptures, the teachings and writings of their predecessors and living Church leaders, and anything else that they happen to be interested in, like the rest of us do. They are well grounded in Church policies and procedural matters of course; but they gain that through experience more than anything else. They rise through the ranks, and in the process they acquire the skills and experiences, and the knowledge of Church policies and practices that they need to serve as leaders of the Church—assisted in all things by the Spirit of the Lord which always accompanies them. But their primary source of knowledge of gospel theology is the scriptures—the standard works—and they advise the rest of us to do the same.

How about Zerinus? Has Zerinus had all his very extensive knowledge of Mormonism just infused into his brain by the Holy Ghost? Or did he have to study it out of books?

First of all, I do not have an “extensive knowledge of Mormonism”. Secondly, I derive my knowledge in the same way as they do—primary through the study of the standard works. That is my primary source of LDS theology and doctrine. Secondly, I very much acknowledge the role of the Holy Spirit in my studies. Without that, all my scripture reading would get me nowhere.

zerinus

 

[Tmaque]

What has all that got to do with what we were talking about? You had argued that Paul’s Pharisaic training had qualified him for his ministry as an Apostle, and I had informed you that it hadn’t.

Please yourself. We know better.

You recall wrong. I have never said that. All I said was that judging by what I know of their character, integrity, virtue, and righteousness, I am satisfied that they are in a position to be able to see Him should it be His will to reveal Himself to them. That is not the same thing as saying that they have seen Him. I have always had a problem with you misstating my assertions; and I don’t suppose that problem will ever go away.

Actually, they don’t. They study the scriptures, the teachings and writings of their predecessors and living Church leaders, and anything else that they happen to be interested in, like the rest of us do. They are well grounded in Church policies and procedural matters of course; but they gain that through experience more than anything else. They rise through the ranks, and in the process they acquire the skills and experiences, and the knowledge of Church policies and practices that they need to serve as leaders of the Church—assisted in all things by the Spirit of the Lord which always accompanies them. But their primary source of knowledge of gospel theology is the scriptures—the standard works—and they advise the rest of us to do the same.

First of all, I do not have an “extensive knowledge of Mormonism”. Secondly, I derive my knowledge in the same way as they do—primary through the study of the standard works. That is my primary source of LDS theology and doctrine. Secondly, I very much acknowledge the role of the Holy Spirit in my studies. Without that, all my scripture reading would get me nowhere.

zerinus

zerinus,

I was talking to some LDS missionaries last Saturday and they claimed that the LDS apostles very likely had seen Jesus Christ. What say you?

 

[obadiah]

zerinus,

I was talking to some LDS missionaries last Saturday and they claimed that the LDS apostles very likely had seen Jesus Christ. What say you?

Todd, DO NOT LISTEN TO ANYTHING ZERINUS SAYS. He is a mormon, not worthy of a hearing, only refuting because of his horrible blasphemies against the All Holy Spirit.
Zerinus, GOD CURSE THE BOOK OF MORMON, DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS, and PEARL OF GREAT PRICE. They are evil writings inspired by SATAN.

 

[obadiah]

zerinus,

I was talking to some LDS missionaries last Saturday and they claimed that the LDS apostles very likely had seen Jesus Christ. What say you?

Todd, DO NOT LISTEN TO ANYTHING ZERINUS SAYS. He is a mormon, not worthy of a hearing, only refuting because of his horrible blasphemies against the All Holy Spirit.
Zerinus, GOD CURSE THE BOOK OF MORMON, DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS, and PEARL OF GREAT PRICE. They are evil writings inspired by SATAN.

 

[Tmaque]

i dont see what your point is that catholic priest and protestant ministers get paid to do there job? what is so bad about that how are they supposed to live? in a cardboard box? people need income to survive in this world. and its not like they get millions of dollars a year, they get enough to buy food and get clothing and thats about it!

Mormons get hung up on the “paid clergy” thing. They hang onto it because the NT church didn’t have paid, trained, clergy and they think this is evidence of apostasy. They, of course, ignore everything about the NT church that does not match modern LDS culture like celibacy, divorce, contraception, the Real Presence, speaking in tongues, temple ordinances, and on and on and on.

They also ignore the fact that LDS pay their “clergy” when they are devoted to full time church work. In addition, the only men that get into any real positions of authority are men that have the means to work less or not at all. I noticed this quite young as a LDS. When I was 17 we got a new bishop in my ward. There was a man in my ward who was the most wonderful, spiritual, God-loving person. He would have made a great bishop. But, he worked in a warehouse driving a forklift. He raised 12 kids and was quite poor. So, who did they make Bishop? My boss at the time. Jekyll on Sunday, Hyde at work. He was a racist (he had a black dog named ni**er), filthy minded, misogynistic, took the Lord’s name in vain continually, but he had money.

So I learned that If you want to be a bishop, you better have a good job. If you want to be a Stake President you better own your own business or have a great job. If you want to be a General Authority you need to be wealthy. It would be interesting to see a chart of the wealth in the LDS Church compared to positions of power in the church. You can bet that there’s a correlation.

 

[christianley]

Mormons get hung up on the “paid clergy” thing. They hang onto it because the NT church didn’t have paid, trained, clergy and they think this is evidence of apostasy. They, of course, ignore everything about the NT church that does not match modern LDS culture like celibacy, divorce, contraception, the Real Presence, speaking in tongues, temple ordinances, and on and on and on.

They also ignore the fact that LDS pay their “clergy” when they are devoted to full time church work. In addition, the only men that get into any real positions of authority are men that have the means to work less or not at all. I noticed this quite young as a LDS. When I was 17 we got a new bishop in my ward. There was a man in my ward who was the most wonderful, spiritual, God-loving person. He would have made a great bishop. But, he worked in a warehouse driving a forklift. He raised 12 kids and was quite poor. So, who did they make Bishop? My boss at the time. Jekyll on Sunday, Hyde at work. He was a racist (he had a black dog named ni**er), filthy minded, misogynistic, took the Lord’s name in vain continually, but he had money.

So I learned that If you want to be a bishop, you better have a good job. If you want to be a Stake President you better own your own business or have a great job. If you want to be a General Authority you need to be wealthy. It would be interesting to see a chart of the wealth in the LDS Church compared to positions of power in the church. You can bet that there’s a correlation.

I don’t think there is any evidence in the New Testament that church leaders didn’t receive assistance of some sort. Paul talks of himself as not receiving money, but he makes it clear he has the right to obtain support from those who he is teaching. He just chose not to. In 1 Corinthians Chapter 9 Paul is clearly stating that Christian ministers have the right to receive support for their preaching.

 

[Allweather]

What has all that got to do with what we were talking about? You had argued that Paul’s Pharisaic training had qualified him for his ministry as an Apostle, and I had informed you that it hadn’t.

Paul’s pre-conversion training by Gamaliel (and undoubtedly others) did not in and of itself “qualify” him to be an Apostle. God qualified Paul to be an Apostle. But the training certainly helped position him to be the type of Apostle God wanted. He surely had other training as well, post-conversion. Around 17 years elapsed between his conversion and his appearance as an Apostle during which time the NT reports very little about his activities. One must assume that this was prep time, practice, training.

You recall wrong. I have never said that. All I said was that judging by what I know of their character, integrity, virtue, and righteousness, I am satisfied that they are in a position to be able to see Him should it be His will to reveal Himself to them. That is not the same thing as saying that they have seen Him. I have always had a problem with you misstating my assertions; and I don’t suppose that problem will ever go away.

This gets back to one of the Biblical qualifications for Apostle, which is stated to be someone who has seen Jesus, witnessed his teaching directly. Obviously only a very few men have this qualification, and certainly none living today, unless via divine action. If the LDS apostles don’t meet the Biblical definition of Apostle, then they could hardly be Apostles.

Actually, they don’t. They study the scriptures, the teachings and writings of their predecessors and living Church leaders, and anything else that they happen to be interested in, like the rest of us do.

That’s what I said. They study.

They are well grounded in Church policies and procedural matters of course; but they gain that through experience more than anything else. They rise through the ranks, and in the process they acquire the skills and experiences, and the knowledge of Church policies and practices that they need to serve as leaders of the Church—assisted in all things by the Spirit of the Lord which always accompanies them. But their primary source of knowledge of gospel theology is the scriptures—the standard works—and they advise the rest of us to do the same.

Experience, rising through the ranks, this is all study. Some knowledge is gotten out of books, some is gotten out of experience. It’s all knowledge. Undoubtedly very similar if not identical to the way Paul and the other Apostles learned what they learned. Jesus taught the Apostles through example, exegesis, parables, and at times vivid revelation, such as the Transfiguration. Later, the Holy Ghost enabled them to recall all that they’d been taught by Jesus, and helped them to understand what it all meant. But the Holy Ghost didn’t just pump info into their brains without their having to work to study it out.

First of all, I do not have an “extensive knowledge of Mormonism”. Secondly, I derive my knowledge in the same way as they do—primary through the study of the standard works. That is my primary source of LDS theology and doctrine. Secondly, I very much acknowledge the role of the Holy Spirit in my studies. Without that, all my scripture reading would get me nowhere.

zerinus

Your knowledge of Mormonism sure seems extensive to me! And, as you say, you get it through study. The Holy Ghost has a role to play in many ways, I’m sure. But Zerinus does all the hard work. The Holy Ghost doesn’t just implant knowledge into your brain directly. You chew on the material, pray about it, and over time you reach conclusions that seem to jive with what the Holy Ghost wants you to know. Is that about right?

 

[Tmaque]

I don’t think there is any evidence in the New Testament that church leaders didn’t receive assistance of some sort. Paul talks of himself as not receiving money, but he makes it clear he has the right to obtain support from those who he is teaching. He just chose not to. In 1 Corinthians Chapter 9 Paul is clearly stating that Christian ministers have the right to receive support for their preaching.

I agree with you that they often received assistance. But, in the beginning, they didn’t have a professional clergy like most churches do. That’s what LDS hang their hat on.

 

[zerinus]

zerinus,

I was talking to some LDS missionaries last Saturday and they claimed that the LDS apostles very likely had seen Jesus Christ. What say you?

“Likely” yes. But none of them have said so publicly, nor confirmed it to me privately, so I cannot say that they have with certainty.

zerinus

 

[Tmaque]

“Likely” yes. But none of them have said so publicly, nor confirmed it to me privately, so I cannot say that they have with certainty.

zerinus

I can say with certainty that they have not.

 

[zerinus]

Paul’s pre-conversion training by Gamaliel (and undoubtedly others) did not in and of itself “qualify” him to be an Apostle. God qualified Paul to be an Apostle. But the training certainly helped position him to be the type of Apostle God wanted. He surely had other training as well, post-conversion. Around 17 years elapsed between his conversion and his appearance as an Apostle during which time the NT reports very little about his activities. One must assume that this was prep time, practice, training.

Again, I would inform you that he received it by revelation. Here is another quote:

Galatians 1:

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

---

15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace,

16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.

Galatians 2:

1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.

2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

In the above passages Paul explains how he acquired the knowledge of the gospel that he preached. He acquired it not from book reading, nor from being taught by any man, but by direct revelation from the Lord. In fact, his training and instruction from the Lord had been so private that when fourteen years later he went to Jerusalem, he dared not say publicly what he had taught, for fear least what he had taught was different from what the rest of the Apostles and disciples of Jesus had taught! He didn’t know what they taught! He needed to first make sure!

Your knowledge of Mormonism sure seems extensive to me! And, as you say, you get it through study. The Holy Ghost has a role to play in many ways, I’m sure. But Zerinus does all the hard work. The Holy Ghost doesn’t just implant knowledge into your brain directly. You chew on the material, pray about it, and over time you reach conclusions that seem to jive with what the Holy Ghost wants you to know. Is that about right?

Yes, you have got that about right. The only qualifying comment I would add is that when you study the scriptures by the Spirit, it more than just confirm your conclusions. It actually opens your eyes and enlighten your mind to enable you to comprehend things that you otherwise would not be able to comprehend.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

I can say with certainty that they have not.

You cannot.

zerinus

 

[MelanieAnne]

There’s only one glaring problem with this statement:

“when you study the scriptures by the Spirit, it more than just confirm your conclusions. It actually opens your eyes and enlighten your mind to enable you to comprehend things that you otherwise you would not be able to comprehend”

And the problem is this ~ if you truly studied the scriptures with the Holy Spirit and your eyes were truly opened and your mind was truly enlightened, you would never end up as a Mormon.

I have many many Mormon friends and they are very good people, without exception. Kind, giving, moral, every good thing you could possibly hope for. But they follow an invented religion and they have a completely misguided view of the Trinity. And the false practices only begin there. As a result, they are a faith that baptizes and calls itself “Christian” where that baptism is not accepted by the Catholic Church, which is exceptional since most Christian baptisms ARE recognized by the Catholic Church. But in view of the totally distorted understanding of the Trinity, a concept Mormons will sometimes refer to but without understanding the true nature of the Trinity, it is understandable why a Mormon baptism cannot be accepted.

So I invite Zerinus and any other Mormon to truly invite the HOLY SPIRIT into your life, into your prayers, into your study of the Bible. And then you will truly be led to “the truth” and you’ll find yourself at an RCIA welcoming very soon!

Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen

Melanie

 

[Tmaque]

You cannot.

zerinus

1st interview:

*President Gordon B. Hinckley, the current “living prophet” of the Mormon Church, has recently revealed in a newspaper interview that “revelation” does not come in the way most of us were brought up to believe:

"‘Revelation no longer comes by vision,’ Mr. Hinckley said, 'but in the “still, small voice,” like that heard by Elijah.
“‘We wrestle with a problem, we discuss it, we think about it, we pray about it,’ he said of the First Presidency, made up of Mr. Hinckley and his two counselors. ‘And the answer comes in a remarkable and wonderful way.’” (Washington Times, December 15, 1996, page 26)

2nd interview:

Q: And this belief in contemporary revelation and prophecy? As the prophet, tell us how that works. How do you receive divine revelation? What does it feel like?

A: Let me say first that we have a great body of revelation, the vast majority of which came from the prophet Joseph Smith. We don’t need much revelation. We need to pay more attention to the revelation we’ve already received. Now, if a problem should arise on which we don’t have an answer, we pray about it, we may fast about it, and it comes. Quietly. Usually no voice of any kind, but just a perception in the mind." (Interview with President Gordon B. Hinckley, as published on the Web site of the San Francisco Chronicle, April 13, 1997) *

Get that?
Revelation comes as a “perception in the mind”. And yet you believe that the apostles have seen Jesus Christ? Why wouldn’t Jesus just tell them his will when he was chillin’ with the apostles?