Several of you didn’t like the choices last week when I asked who was the most likely apostle (among the top 6 in seniority) to give us a new revelation. So, let’s ask the question again, amongst the bottom half of the apostles! (Note this is listed by seniority.)
I would have voted for Dieter but the probability of him ever becoming president is too low. *sigh*
Are you positing that most of these men will resist God in doing God’s will? And that only one or a few will be honest enough to relay God’s message?
Or are you wondering which of these men will be man enough to create his own “groundbreaking” text and pass it off as revelation?
If God has anything “groundbreaking” to say, He will find a way to communicate it. It is God’s choice, not man’s.
Pres. Uchtdorf has about the same probability of becoming church president as Elder Hinckley did early in his term in the Q15.
Bednar has the best chance for making changes due to likelihood of long service tenure.
Uchtdorf, followed by Renlund. Both are the farthest theologically and culturally from historic apostolic norms. Both were raised outside the Mormon Corridor, and have a grace- rather than works-based view of salvation.
Renlund has a career/working wife, and recently recommended going out of our way to accommodate a friend that wants alcohol with their meal.
Uchtdorf gets vote though, because (1) he’s charismatic enough that the membership would follow him, and (2) he has the influence of being in the first presidency.
I biwve the scriptures and our history are pretty replete with prophets and apostles resisting doing God’s will from Jonas to Peter, to refusing to stop.polygamous marriages at the behest of prophetic declaration, to teaching and perpetuating racist doctrines from our most sacred pulpits and digging in their heels even as the tide turned.
So yes I think there is good reason to believe that any or all of our current leaders aren’t immune from resisting the will of God or being open to the will of God when it goes against deeply held attitudes amd beliefs. In fact, to suggest otherwise would be to deny most of sacred history.
I voted for Dieter, but really, I agree with M Todd.
One way to look at it is that God will answer or reveal his will according when people are prepared to receive it. If leaders aren’t asking particular questions or guidance on a particular issue then they may not receive ianswers to those issues. Secondly, apparently revelation requires unanimity among the 12, and not everyone arrives at the same place at the same time. It takes a particular type of leader to persuade others.
*believe* and *Jonah*
JI, why do you question motives behind the question? Why don’t you answer this question in a way that doesn’t question anyone’s motives? (Please answer these questions–they are not rhetorical.)
I question your motives in your comments and find you are a sinful judge of character. It seems to me that you tend toward conspiracy theories, always questioning motives of others, and I’m going to give you a hard time until you quit unrighteous judgment of others. I don’t like it at all.
I am creeping up on 50 and I am struggling to look back on my life on revelation given during that time – as in “revelation to the church as a whole”. Something we vote on as a church to change the cannon or something. The only candidate has been the revelation on the ban of blacks and the priesthood (and temple work). But that in my mind has been discounted since that was just a “policy” per the essay. A policy does not need revelation to change. It seemed to me to only was required to be framed that way to knock of the heads (and most dissension) from those that deeply held on to racism.
It almost seems there is a fear to change anything because that will mean earlier “revelation” must have been wrong. Therefore earlier church leaders were wrong, thus current church leaders might also be wrong.
I assume most can guess I picked “I don’t expect any of these men to issue a new revelation”
I am with Happy Hubby. While it is possible that God has had some impact on the personal attitudes of the 15 as they slowly (and oft times, repeatedly) changed their policies on polygamy, evolution, eliminating the priesthood ban, showing more respect to women, the use of artificial (and natural, for that matter) birth control, condemning and abhoring gays…then showing them more love…then shunning their children, He hasn’t noticeably been “revealing” anything since Joseph Smith died.
It seems that He isn’t interested, doesn’t see such issues as His job to manage, or isn’t there.
On the other hand, it is the best motivator we have to preach and teach and believe that He is highly involved–even having a unique “plan” for each of us.
I am in agreement with most of what Happy Hubby said. Except for one little thing. While revelation may not be required to change a policy, it may help in changing some people.
But I’m not holding my breath for new revelation. I would define groundbreaking revelation as something canonized by proclamation and sustaining vote that adds to or substantially changes the current doctrine or behavior of the church. Few apostles become prophets, and few prophets provide revelation as I have defined it.
A broader definition for revelation could be used, but then it would be difficult to determine when revelation is or isn’t received.
Groundbreaking as in going against dominant views of churchmembers? Or groundbreaking as going against the dominant views of that particular church leader? President Woodruff’s 180-degree turn on polygamy seemed just as shocking to him as much as it was to many other church leaders/members. With the priesthood ban, I get the feeling there had been considerable discussion among leaders about it for decades.
Groundbreaking as in blowing away the mindset of the leader himself – Oaks or Bednar. Groundbreaking as in surprising the membership but leaders have been debating it for years – Christofferson.
Canwe have a blog explaining why we have the present succession system, so we can get that questioned?
JI! If I remember rightly, Spencer Kimball prayed to find out what the lord wanted done about racism and the priesthood, then prayed to overcome his racism, then prayed for the Apostles to overcome their racism, so they could impliment the will of the Lord. The Lord did not initiate the revelation, and it was a struggle to get agreement among the 15 to get it implimented.
Some of the bretheren on the list would have to overcome some prejudices, before they could even ask about homophobia or sexism, they are so sure of the answer, they don’t ask. I hope the exception is Uchtdorf, but can’t understand why he doesnt speak out. The trouble is he will be 90 before he gets the top job, and what will be left of the church by then?
The other posibility is that homophobia and sexism become so offensive in the US, like they are becoming in other parts of the world, and the church has to change, like with racism.
Geoff – your comment has picked at a scab that I still can’t seem to let heal. You state that the world’s views may force the church’s hand to (as I see it) become more Christ-like. It seems this has happened several times in the past history of the church. I really deeply struggle with what help is having a prophet if we are one of the last groups to remove outright anti-Christlike teachings from our church? The arguments of “the church needs to be ready before the Lord will act” just don’t resonate at all with me. Was the church ready for Polygamy? It got the founder killed, members run out of state after state, nearly had the entire church taken over by the government, and many people left over it. Now the Ensign is saying, “Nah – everyone isn’t required to eventually join in a polygamous union to be in the top heaven? Gosh – It makes my head just spin as I try and make this work. Has anyone found spiritual dramamine?
This is just my personal opinion, but the answer to the conundrum is very simple. Joseph Smith was a charismatic (and, IMHO psychopathic) con artist. Whatever he said and did was for his own selfish ends. Nothing about the guy was from God. His legacy is a hodgepodge of inconsistent mythology and nonsense. Smith isn’t the first nutcase to leave behind a few stragglers wallowing in despair for decades (Mormons are a tiny, tiny fraction of humanity). L. Ron Hubbard gave us Scientology, Sun Myung Moon gave us the Unification Church, Shoko Asahara gave us Aum Shinrikyo, and so on. This is the elephant in the room nobody wants to talk about. Maybe the reason for all the inconsistency, chaos, and debate is that the founder was a crazy guy making stuff up for his own crazy reasons. If you have to spend all this mental energy defending indefensible stuff on blogs, maybe you are defending the wrong things, and it’s time to let go. Problem solved.
Did it not take a lot out of Joseph Smith to recieve revelation?
Do men in their 80s have that energy.
groundbreaking: pioneering a new endeavor
revelation: an instance of communication of disclosure of God’s will or God’s nature
Groundbreaking revelation issued by a prophet or prophetess: when a prophet or prophetess relays the understanding received in that instance of communication of disclosure of God’s will or God’s nature that he or she has received from God, and that revelation opens an opportunity, in the lives of the hearers to pioneer a new endeavor in their lives and ministry.
Canon: an ecclesiastical rule or law enacted by a council or other competent authority within a church, or books officially recognized as sacred within a church. People like these because they reinforce the things they believe, give official stamps of approval for things they think are important, or because they find them a good source of guidance.
I don’t think that groundbreaking revelation needs to include canonization in its definition.
If we require that in our definition it makes it hard for us to recognize groundbreaking revelation, the kind that makes some people (and sometimes even us—though mostly we are sure we already understand the important stuff) who are off on the wrong track go “Wait! What? Oh!” and calls them, and maybe us, to pioneer some serious and much needed and sometimes drastic reorientation and direction in their lives and in their local churches.
My experience is that such revelation is more common than we think. We just don’t notice it because our understanding doesn’t put us in the “Wait! What?” crowd for whom it is groundbreaking.
I also think that often we tend to restrict the definition of “groundbreaking revelation” to “when a prophet says something important I am beginning to understand and that I think most of the rest of the church doesn’t understand and really needs to and then he makes sure that everyone knows that its the real deal by making it official.”
It’s fun when that happens. But I think we limit ourselves and our own discipleship when we are inclined to define it that way.
The question’s premise is either one of the other of the options in my first comment. I believe both are false premises. Thus, the question seems to be a dishonest question.
However, just in case, I asked the original poster to clarify his intent.
It seems popular in some settings to paint a picture of the priesthood leaders of the Church as disconnected from God and from reality, and to suggest that God is willing to give the groundbreaking revelations affirming same-sex marriage and so forth as soon as the leaders ask for them. I think that is a sophistry and a lie. I think the priesthood leaders of the Church are honest men, and that God is quite capable of revealing His will to them. Indeed, I think He already has and still does.
You like to call me a sinful person. That may be so, but it isn’t because of anything posted here. But to the degree you are concerned about sin, please be careful in your seeking after a sign. Faith, hope, and charity, all centered in Jesus Christ, is what I seek after. I recommend it to others.
Regarding the priesthood leaders of the Church, I want to pay attention to God’s own instruction. D&C 112:20 is important and meaningful to me. In Joseph Smith’s day, some who were previously faithful turned on him and said he was a fallen prophet. I don’t want to join those today who say our prophets and apostles are fallen. So I choose, happily, to stand with the faithful in receiving the First Presidency (see D&C 112:20). I recommend it to others.
Note: I was asked a question in no. 8 — no. 18 is my answer.
Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Kirtland, Ohio, November 27, 1832.
Yea, thus saith the still small voice, which whispereth through and pierceth all things, and often times it maketh my bones to quake while it maketh manifest, saying:
Has anyone witnessed this quaking amount the brethren? Or read of it occurring with them? If not I vote for No groundbreaking revelation from any of them.
Don’t know that I’ve ever read that President Kimball prayed to overcome his racism or for the apostles to overcome their racism. In fact, I don’t recall anything in President Kimball’s account that even used the word racism.
Would be interested in hearing where you read that.
“Sinful judge of character”
Nothing judgmental or arrogant about that description is there!!
Ojisan, when JI writes “the question seems to be a dishonest question”, I hope your reaction is similarly “Nothing judgmental or arrogant about that description is there!!”
JI, It is apparent to me that you continue to make FALSE ASSumptions. I will continue to assert that not only is the beam in your eye, but you are continuing to make unrighteous judgments and are a sinful judge of character. Here are several false ASSumptions.
(1) “The question’s premise is either one of the other of the options in my first comment.” ASSUMPTION. NO WHERE DOES IT STATE ANY OF YOUR PREMISES. Therefore, your conclusions about whether it is a false premise is a false conclusion with NO EVIDENCE to back up any of your false assumptions.
(2) “It seems popular in some settings to paint a picture of the priesthood leaders of the Church as disconnected from God and from reality..” FALSE ASSUMPTION. This is stated no where but in your mind.
(3) “to suggest that God is willing to give the groundbreaking revelations affirming same-sex marriage and so forth” FALSE ASSUMPTION. This post states nothing about gay marriage. NOTHING. You are reading something into that. The previous post said NOTHING about gay marriage. It did say
There could be a revelation that says “God does not want women ordained. God does not want gay marraige.” According to this post, such a revelation would be WELCOMED. You’ve made an ASSumption about gay marriage that flatly isn’t written. YOU’VE MADE ASSUMPTIONS about the intent of the author that the author flatly did not say. Stop make false assumptions that these “men will resist God in doing God’s will.” Neither post says that. Why are you? Do you hate gays? Do you hate women with priesthood? Because from your comments you are making ASSUMPTIONS that mean more about you than the author. The author never stated any of your ASSUMPTIONS.
To quote you, “I think that is a sophistry and a lie.” Quit your sophistries and lies about the author of this post. You have not a single leg to stand on, and have called the author a liar (or one who engages with sophistry and lies) with absolutely no proof. This is the DEFINITION of unrighteous judgment, and you are guilty as sin. Stop it!
(4)”You like to call me a sinful person. That may be so, but it isn’t because of anything posted here.”
You are a sinful person, and your writings are proof of your sinful judgment, and lack of charity towards the author. On the other hand, you haven’t a single shred of evidence that the author has called you a person of “sophistry and lies.” Stop it.
(5) “In Joseph Smith’s day, some who were previously faithful turned on him and said he was a fallen prophet. I don’t want to join those today who say our prophets and apostles are fallen.”
Just where did the author call the prophets and apostles “fallen”? I’ll tell you that the only place “fallen” appears is in your comment. ANOTHER FALSE ASSUMPTION! STOP IT!!!!
(6) “So I choose, happily, to stand with the faithful in receiving the First Presidency (see D&C 112:20). I recommend it to others.”
I recommend that you quit false accusations based on your own false assumptions. Follow the First Presidency by invoking righteous judgment. Because your poor judgment of the author is the opposite of following Christ or the First Presidency. This is an awful display of horrendous hypocrisy. No doubt that Jesus spoke of you: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”
Please exercise the same charity for others as you do for the First Presidency. The author is deserving of the same charity you pretend to espouse.
“I don’t think that groundbreaking revelation needs to include canonization in its definition.”
Sure, fine, but the author asked specifically about canonizing a new revelation. In the past 120 years, only 2 new ones (both Official Declarations) have been canonized. Is there anything wrong with asking for a new revelation? JS didn’t seem to have a problem with people asking…
What new revelation do you want to see?
I’d like to see the revelation where you admit you harshly judged the author and are sorry for your unwarranted assumptions.
You have already decided that, haven’t you?
We usually think of revelation as something new. Besides, revelation will also be true, so the revelation you seek cannot come from God.
Have a good weekend! Let’s visit again on another thread.