So I re-watched one of my favorite movies on Netflix the other night, Apollo 13. Early in the movie, Jim Lovell (played by Tom Hanks) and his wife are sprawled out in lawn chairs in their backyard after hosting an Apollo 11 landing party on the evening of July 20, 1969. Lovell looks up at the full moon in the sky, and says:
It’s not a miracle. We just decided to go.
Miracles are some sort of supernatural event (outside the ordinary operation of the natural world) caused a divine agent (God, angels, or in earlier eras one of the many gods in polytheistic systems). Here’s a definition from Dictionary.com:
[A miracle is] an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.
The LDS view of miracles sort of hedges on the supernatural angle. Here’s the definition found in the LDS Bible dictionary:
Miracles should not be regarded as deviations from the ordinary course of nature so much as manifestations of divine or spiritual power. Some lower law was in each case superseded by the action of a higher.
Here’s another LDS definition, from LDS Beliefs: A Doctrinal Reference (Deseret Book, 2011) by Robert C. Millet and three other BYU religion profs.
A miracle is a manifestation of the supremacy of God’s law and will and is therefore impossible to explain on the basis of currently understood physical laws.
I’m not actually going to talk about miracles in general. Some Mormons think there are divine miracles happening all over the place, all the time. Some Mormons think they are rare events, granted only in unusual cases to a fortunate few. Some Mormons are inclined to doubt all reports of modern miracles, particularly miracles reported by any other denomination. But lots of Mormons can recount particular miracles that have occurred to them or to close family members and I don’t want to invite examples and then criticism of those accounts in the comments. If God has granted you or someone in your family a miracle, good on you mate. God be praised. Instead, I want to talk about revelation.
Revelation and miracles are really quite similar. Revelation is some sort of sign or vision or communication from God to some person or group. It has a supernatural aspect to it in the same way that a miracle has a supernatural aspect, an event or operation outside the normal set of causes and events that occur in the natural world. If Jim Lovell had been reading The Church News and reflecting on a story about this or that instead of looking up at the moon, he might have said:
It’s not a revelation. They just decided to do it.
What I’m thinking of here is the slew of administrative and policy changes that have been put in place since President Nelson took office on January 14, 2018. That was only 14 months ago. Since he took office, the term “revelation” is appearing quite frequently in LDS discourse. I think the term has become rather bloated. If the leadership decides to move to a two-hour block of meetings on Sunday instead of three, there is nothing supernatural about that. It’s not a revelation: they just decided to do it. Same for moving the youth out of Primary into the youth program a year earlier, putting out new curriculum materials, or changing the terms we are supposed to use to refer to the Church or the membership. These aren’t revelations, they just decided to do it.
Now how one views this issue is largely a function of the theological view of God’s involvement in the world. Those who take a strong view of God’s sovereignty and governance of the world are inclined to see miracles, God’s action in the world, almost everywhere. I’m sure there are folks working at the COB who think they couldn’t balance a checkbook or sing a hymn without God’s grace to assist them. There is some scriptural support for this view. Here’s Matthew 10:29-30 (Wayment translation):
Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And yet one of them will now fall to earth without your Father’s notice. All of the hairs of your head are numbered.
But that scripture notwithstanding, there are those who think God takes a much more hands-off approach to events here on planet Earth. There are lots of bad things that happen to very good people. There are unspeakable tragedies that befall towns and states and nations. It’s hard to reconcile the unvarnished chronicle of daily events or the historical record with the eagerly interventionist God depicted in the prior paragraph. Hence the view that God acts only from time to time. (Deism took this view to the extreme, holding that God created the universe and set it on its course, but that natural law has guided its development and all natural events since Creation.)
So let’s talk about revelation, not miracles, in the comments. Personally, I see only two candidates for revelation in the 20th century: the Second Manifesto of 1904, when Joseph F. Smith finally closed the door on the practice of polygamy within the LDS Church, and the priesthood and temple revelation of 1978 by Spencer W. Kimball. Everything else is just good leaders doing their best to make good decisions and be good stewards of God’s church.
What do you think? Do you think revelation happens all the time? Or are you in the once-in-a-while or even the once-or-twice-in-a-century camp? I think all these views fit within the broad LDS spectrum of belief about how God acts in the world, so this isn’t a case of being right or being wrong. You can hold any view you want. You can even be a Mormon Deist if you want.
Wheat & Tares 
I’ve been bothered by the description of P.Nelson’s midnight yellow pad revelations. I’m an artist and the description of his process is Creativity 101. It happens to tons of people (including individuals living so, so far from church teachings). I believe there have even been brain studies on creativity that explores the midnight bursts of inspiration. No idea how to work that out, but I’m definitely a believer in a God that set up a system that we then work within. True miracles are very rare.
I think that revelation at an institutional church level is an odd beast. Are Prez Nelson’s changes “revelation”? Yes, they kind of are. Is it revelation when a Bishop calls a person to a calling who isn’t in a position to do it, or do it well? Yes, it probably is. When I prepare a talk for sacrament meeting, and pray and get inspiration about it, is that revelation? Yes, it kind of is.
On the other hand, are we experiencing a flood of revelation as Bednar claims? Well, sort of, if you classify policy changes as revelation. To be fair, some of it is big news. For some people, the three-hour block is the only way they’ve ever experienced the church. Is that a big, important change? Yes, it is. Was the change to the 2 hour block revelation? Yes, it probably was. Will that (and things like the changes to youth) make a difference in our lives? Of course it will. Is it evidence that this is the Lord’s true church led by apostles and prophets? Yeah, not so sure on that one.
The question is what do we think revelation really is. Is it policy changes, some of which are important at an institutional level, or is revelation personal life and/or nation changing communication from God? It’s a difficult question to answer. On one level, ALL of it is revelation if the Lord inspires it or at least agrees to it and says so. Is it revelation like Isaiah received? Or is it like revelation that Peter received (ie: the animals and the sheets)? It’s probably the latter, but also not quite as dramatic in the greater scheme of things.
When the “ministering” thing came out and replaced home teaching, I was like: “Isn’t this what we’ve been supposed to be doing all this time anyway?” Sure, it’s a bit different, but they’re mostly cosmetic changes. To me, that was an opportunity to refocus on home teaching/ministering etc along with some institutional changes. To some others, it was literal light of heaven streaming down into our lives. The 3-hour to 2-hour is the same. It’s a big change in our lives, but I hardly think the annals of history are going to praise the time when Prez Nelson sent us home an hour earlier. Sunday School has always (for me) been a wasteland of critical, intelligent thought and examination of the scriptures. Now it’s the same, but goes for an hour. EQ has always been a bust for me, with dull lessons and bored elders at the end of 3 dull hours of church. Now it’s an hour of it and I still haven’t gone to one yet (I will at some point, I promise).
When I was a missionary, I was chatting to my trainer, who had since gone on to be an assistant. When I commented on the dumb idea to put to specific missionaries together, he sighed and put an arm around my shoulder. “Ah, Elder,” he said. “Let me tell you something. Sometimes when we pray about missionary assignments , it’s angels, and choirs and pillars of light of heaven. And then other times, it’s okay, sure, why not?”
I think there are several degrees of revelation: Revelation (with a capital “R”), which might involve visitations or visions giving new knowledge; revelation (lower-case “r”) when new information is given, but without the directness and outright clarity, and possibly not with as much general application; and inspiration, which can be as little as a feeling that maybe you ought to text your kid or person you minister right now. Personally, I feel I’ve had a couple experiences that might border on lower-case “r” (I was home teaching with my father as a young man, bored out of my mind, when the sick old man we were visiting said something about my dad becoming bishop and suddenly I knew that he would be — I always thought of him as a bit of a rebel, so it was completely out of the blue, but I was sure, and it turned out that he was called a couple months later) and those rare experiences are absolutely awesome. You can poo-poo Pres. Nelson’s claim that he’s receiving revelation because what he’s claiming doesn’t impress you, but it might feel pretty impressive to him (my “revelation” that my dad was going to be bishop isn’t impressive either — just teenage realization — but it was impressive to me).
Also, Pres. Nelson’s changes will affect the church quite a bit going forward. There’s a huge accompanying attitude change that’ll be more apparent a decade from now. From the outside, these changes may seem insignificant, but from the perspective within the organization, they’re significant. Peter’s vision of the blanket and beasts was simply a policy change (“r”evelation — there really wasn’t any new knowledge given), but it radically affected the trajectory of the church in those days.
I would at least count the vision of the redemption of the dead as a major 20th century revelation. The term doesn’t need to be limited to matters of church policy
I don’t even know if I can fully agree with your 2 occurrences of revelation. Your first seems more pressure from outside than God given. And same with the second, but that has the additional head scratchers like the recording of LeGrand Richards saying “just normal old business when we decided to change that” and then the essay on race and the priesthood leaving me feeling even less comfortable about it.
This seems an awful lot like post hoc reasoning to justify a desired conclusion (the paucity of modern revelation). And, admittedly, I do find it somewhat interesting that you had earlier asserted that these while “[t]hese revelations aren’t going into the D&C to get a proper title like ‘D&C 139’ or ‘D&C 140′”…”they are plainly revelations” with no explanation that I can see for your change in opinion.
It would seem, if you want to disprove the assertion of revelation from those with the best position to have the information and know the facts (in this case, the Brethren) the burden would be on you to make a plausible case to buttress your argument. You have failed to do so in this post — instead merely relying on naked assertion.
What’s the difference between a God that doesn’t intervene and exerts no clearly discernible influence in the world, and no God at all? For as long as mankind has been rational, it seems like humans have felt they could discern the mind and will of God. And yet, in retrospect, it appears clear (to me at least) that throughout the history of religion, humans have simply taken current understandings and paradigms and imparted them with the stamp of divinity. Making god in their own image, so to speak.
When I was a believer in divine intervention, I would seek out specific answers to prayers. Search, ponder, and pray. And often, I would receive flashes of insight and inspiration, often accompanied by feelings of peace and calm that I associated with the Spirit. Now, as a (sometimes) non-believer in this intervention, I can still ponder and think deeply about issues. And I still frequently get flashes of insight and inspiration associated with these same emotions. This phenomenon of continued “revelation” even as I don’t actively believe contradicts my former beliefs that revelation only comes as a reward for faith.
Perhaps God loves me and grants me this inspiration independently of my belief in Him delivering it. Or perhaps this is merely a human characteristic and completely separate from a divine process. I tend to favor the latter, mostly because people tend to receive these flashes in a way that reinforces their current beliefs or cultural values. It simply fits better in my mind to view “revelation” as a human characteristic rather than a divine intervention. But I can’t tell for sure.
Which brings me back to my original question. What’s the difference between a God who doesn’t intervene and no God at all?
(I’m still lost here in the confusion and muck of my faith transition. Apologies if my current lack of belief offends anyone).
Nelson has redefined revelation, to mean the 15 agreeing. It used to be that the prophet asked God for his approval to make a change (the examples in the post) or even that God is running the church and meets with the 15 weekly.
Even thought Nelson has said when he says revelation is the 15 agreeing, most members still believe version 3.
Very strange
In my opinion and personal experience, revelation usually comes after you “study it out in your mind”. You encounter a problem that you need to address.. You study it, consider it, look into it and find out as much as you can. You counsel with others. If you believe in God you pray over it. And insight comes (sometimes in the middle of the night), followed by hope and, if you choose, action. Anyone who seeks answers or insight can experience this process if they choose, whether or not they recognize God’s hand in it. He offers it to all his children.
And, if you are wise, you continue to study, consider, look etc etc because you know that there is room for correction and improvement still.
Sometimes it is a quick process: a bolt of insight in an emergency situation or a sudden determination in a situation where there is an immediate time constraint. But the vast majority of the time it is a long, careful process,. And even in the quick ones, you must admit that they are not completely sudden as you consider that the influence of years of previous learning from life’s study and practice contribute to that groundwork for the ultimate insight..
So…two hour church, no more boy scouts, ministry redefined, facilitating family scripture study, abandonment of outdated YW manuals, missionaries calling home more often….all fit into this slow process definition of revelation. They have been under consideration and then study and and groundwork laying a long time.. There are other issues that have been undergoing the same discussions and study and prayer as well. And, since we currently have a church president that is inclined to be open to the hope and action phase of that process, and they are topics that many of us have been ruminating on for a long time as well, we are all noticing and exclaiming over it.
Having 15 people (plus any information gatherers they employ) involved in the determination before action, and, in some cases, whole new programs needing to be put together and tested as part of that study process before implementation, etc etc makes the revelation to action to implementation process both much slower and also generally broader in study than personal revelation. It’s a trade-off which is frustrating in its delay, but also creates more opportunity for more breadth of information gathering, input and perspective.before the action phase.
So for me, revelation starts with the nudge I feel to ask a question or find a better solution, and encompasses all of that study and learning as well. It is far more, and takes much longer in time, than the mind opening “Aha!” of the insight and answer that may result.
I appreciate President Nelson’s forthrightness about what constitutes revelation for him, which is more akin to the “It’s not a revelation. They just decided to do it.” model. Personally, I’ve come to believe thus it always was – including ALL the revelations to Joseph Smith. The fact that angels and personal manifestations of Jesus don’t happen now, and haven’t happened since the 19th century magical era, is a clue they probably never happened (and that 19th century propensity for embellishment is different from our norms.) The perniciousness of maintaining the magical view is the delay of making needed changes while waiting for an angel or a visitation from Christ. I believe that is why the church delayed making the obvious change to the priesthood ban decades after it should have happened. The angel never came and finally the leaders “decided to do it.” Unfortunately, the leadership still needed to couch that “revelation” in terms that at the time had some members believing Christ actually did appear to President Kimball.
It’s much better for President Nelson to continue to be truthful about the process and move the church in the direction of the “study it out in your mind” and follow perceived inspiration as the model for revelation. The church will need that flexibility to better keep up with such things as member access to the internet and discontent with women and LGBTQ policies. Eventually, maybe, the church’s revelations will move from keep-up mode to actually a forward looking mode – like they once did.
The “fact”. I know a handful of individuals who might disagree. Based on personal experience.
Tubes, I’m speaking about manifestations bearing further light and knowledge (FLAK) binding on the whole church – visitations that result in action by the Q-15, that result in scripture and instruction at conference. I’m not referring to manifestations resulting in private, personal comfort – the type that if you mentioned it to a member of the Q-15 they would say that’s nice, but keep it to yourself (and if you don’t, they ‘ll cast you out to the buffetings of Denver Snuffer)
When’s the last time the church received FLAK over the conference pulpit?
Thanks for the comments, everyone. I think the comments support my claim in the OP that there is a “broad LDS spectrum of belief about how God acts in the world.”
lehcarjt, the detailed descriptions of how Pres. Nelson has dreams and takes notes has certainly received some attention, either supportive or somewhat skeptical. It would be interesting if all who held the office of President in the Church were required to go on record with a description of how they receive “the word of the Lord,” or possibly with a disclaimer that they do not receive any such identifiable communication.
Mike R., good suggestion. I’m pretty sure you are referring to what is now D&C 138, the vision described by Joseph F. Smith in the last weeks of his life in 1918 and recorded by his son Joseph Fielding Smith, canonized by the LDS Church in 1981, initially added to the Pearl of Great Price, then later added to the D&C as section 138.
Happy Hubby, you certainly define one end of the spectrum.
Doubting Tom, well said. I’m going to repeat your first paragraph: “What’s the difference between a God that doesn’t intervene and exerts no clearly discernible influence in the world, and no God at all? For as long as mankind has been rational, it seems like humans have felt they could discern the mind and will of God. And yet, in retrospect, it appears clear (to me at least) that throughout the history of religion, humans have simply taken current understandings and paradigms and imparted them with the stamp of divinity. Making god in their own image, so to speak.”
Dave C., we’re on the same page. I just sort of roll my eyes when a leader gives an extended description of a “we just decided to do it” process, then pronounces it big-R Revelation or others chime in with the claim.
Tubes, you’ve been around the Bloggernacle a very long time. Thanks for commenting.
I’d second Tubes comments. These things are often addressed just in a more veiled way. People just want big announcements of miracles at general conference and that doesn’t happen. But a lot of the events we treat as paradigms of such things were themselves not talked about as openly at the time as many assume from reading them today.
Dave C, it’s weird we read the same accounts and you take it as a “just do it, no revelation” model whereas I take it as the exact opposite. From the accounts of Nelson and his wife it seems like he is getting explicit revelations and perhaps more given the times he tells his wife to leave because of what God is telling him.
From what I can tell most of the big changes that have happened were already in the system. They hadn’t been implemented in part due to Pres. Monson’s illness and dementia. For instance the two hour block had been tested in several places over the years under Monson. (I’ve heard of test programs in a few Arizona stakes as well as up in Tremonton) I suspect next week we’ll get a lot more changes.
I’ve had some very strong spiritual manifestations. I was sure I knew what they meant. Half the time I was wrong. When we grant our leaders de facto infallibility regarding their interpretation of the spiritual feelings they have, we are playing with fire. I’ve seen Church leaders bear testimony about the truth of things that are bald-faced nonsense. True revelation, I believe, is very rare. And often difficult to discern. We need to be very careful about what we claim as revelation. God gets blamed for a lot of stuff that’s just human wishfulness or prejudice.
Clark,
I’m not disputing President Nelson feels inspiration. But as lehcarjt points out, it is the same type of inspiration or creativity we all receive. It’s the study it out in our mind process we use when deciding to buy a car or a house. We know from our experience the process is not infallible (for instance see Wally’s comment). However, as Dave B points out, the church has tended to turn church leader experiences into big-R Revelation. That makes it much more difficult to overturn bad decisions when we’ve considered them set in stone and written by the hand of the Lord Himself.
I am hopeful, as President Nelson talks about receiving revelation in the same manner the rank and file are used to receiving inspiration, his intent is to help manage member expectations about that process at the Q-15 level. I suspect part of that expectation management may be to help make it easier and quicker to correct mistakes down the line by removing the infallible element from the church’s understanding of the revelation process.
Another reason for being open about the process is to address the looming problems with church history. The church’s standard narrative, which comes from a magical worldview, is not holding up to scrutiny. By getting people used to how revelation is really received by current prophets, seers, and revelators it may help shift the paradigm to that’s how it is always done with prophets, seers, and revelators. That will go a long way to help the church reconcile problems within its history.
I’m not disputing President Nelson feels inspiration. But as lehcarjt points out, it is the same type of inspiration or creativity we all receive.
How do you know that?
I feel creativity and literary inspiration all the time. I also experience revelation. It’s fairly easy to distinguish the two. Now I’m completely open to say someone giving a priesthood blessing and drawing upon more literary inspiration which is just accessing innate cognitive processes. Anne Taves of course makes a lot of this in her analysis of religious experiences in terms of cognitive science. However it’s not at all clear to me that’s all there is.
In saying that I’m aware of all the usual arguments. So, for instance, in looking at “fortune tellers” or the like it seems they may unconsciously be drawing on information being communicated subtly. Various magician make use of this as well. So when you look at say supposed counting animals and so forth there’s a lot of evidence of non-verbal communication that is being made use of unconsciously. When you control for such communications by blocking them suddenly the abilities dry up. Now I can completely understand why a naturalistic skeptic would say all revelation is actually just that.
However is it? I really don’t think so. It really depends upon the nature of ones experiences one has had and what revelations have communicated. Speaking only for myself I feel like I’ve had enough information and enough actions that I don’t think it is unconscious cognitive processes. If I don’t feel that about myself, why would I think that about Pres. Nelson?
Yesterday I was discussing this and related topics wondering if some man came you you and said “I am Jesus”, how would you know that he is THE Jesus and not just any Jesus (of which there be many)? The answer requires revelation, it must be “revealed” to you, and the manner in which it is revealed to you depends on what you accept and the importance, to God (or other revealer) of that acceptance.
Now about some of these comments:
“The church’s standard narrative … is not holding up to scrutiny”
And yet the church is still here after nearly 200 years or so of not holding up to scrutiny.
“When we grant our leaders de facto infallibility … we are playing with fire.”
Besides that I like playing with fire, how exactly did anyone become your leader? You chose to follow! If you didn’t choose to follow then he’s not your leader.
“What’s the difference between a God that doesn’t intervene and exerts no clearly discernible influence in the world, and no God at all?”
In this life, not much difference. In the next life, a whopping big difference.
About “no clearly discernable influence”. What exactly would that be? Whatever God does, presumably he does it regularly, and like fish in water that have no knowledge of water, evidence of God would seem commonplace and natural, plainly visible to everyone! The problem is one of attribution more than mere evidence.
“Nelson has redefined revelation, to mean the 15 agreeing.”
What is your definition? How shall it be known to anyone else?
“True miracles are very rare.”
So it seems; but I believe it to be more a problem of attribution than performance.
“Personally, I see only two candidates for revelation in the 20th century: the Second Manifesto of 1904, when Joseph F. Smith finally closed the door on the practice of polygamy within the LDS Church, and the priesthood and temple revelation of 1978 by Spencer W. Kimball.”
Absolutely disagree. Those were administrative revelations. Those were policy changes, *major* policy changes, but policy nonetheless. Nothing new revealed. D&C 138 from 100 years ago was the last theological revelation.
D&C 138 was added in 1979, even though the vision was 100 years ago.
Clark,
We don’t know how other people feel exactly because we aren’t those people. But it’s a big leap to therefore imply President Nelson’s inspiration must be different in sureness. Given that his description of revelation is exactly how I’d describe the process in my life and how several others just in this thread have experienced it, I’m much more comfortable stating we are experiencing the same thing then to jump to a conclusion that somehow President Nelson’s inspiration is a surer, infallible inspiration. I don’t think he is making that case, but it seems you are.
President Nelson’s description of the process lines up exactly with D&C Section 9. It’s the pattern we are taught in the church. I’ve worked with members who have used that process, including Bishops and Stake Presidents. Sometimes they get it wrong. There isn’t anything magical that changes that process when someone becomes a general authority. I question assumptions or implications that once someone becomes a general authority, even the chief prophet, seer, and revelator, that the inspiration they get suddenly becomes infallible. Especially because we have so many examples of past prophets whose “inspired” pronouncements haven’t been infallible. Not only did Brigham Young not claim this, he warned otherwise:
“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.” Journal of Discourses 9:150
Things are hunky-dory when we both have confirmation from the Spirit of God. But when I don’t get a confirmation about a revelation from the prophet who is wrong? Several years ago I stopped automatically assuming it was me. This was after I saw this pernicious attitude, prevalent in the church, nearly destroy one of my family members. This is why I don’t leave the subject of prophetic infallibility alone. It is not only not true, it is dangerous.
“if some man came you you and said “I am Jesus”, how would you know that he is THE Jesus and not just any Jesus (of which there be many)? The answer requires revelation”
Yes. But also no. Sooooo many good people have received revelation to follow THE Jesus (whether that person used the name or not). So many of these people have 100% believed their revelations to be correct. Many of these situations have ended badly. Many of the situations contradict each other (Mormons and Catholics can’t both be doctrinally correct…) And yet the experience of the revelations (when drugs aren’t involved) are very similar.
“My experience over the years is that spiritual feelings are devilishly hard to decipher. I’ve been certain about what I felt were spiritual communications from time to time, but time and experience have proved me wrong as often as right.” Roger Terry, from “Bruder: The Perplexingly Spiritual Life and Not Entirely Unexpected Death of a Mormon Missionary”
“I feel creativity and literary inspiration all the time. I also experience revelation. It’s fairly easy to distinguish the two.” Clark, comment 3/27 at 1:43pm.
I have often wondered why it is that for some “spiritual feelings [or communications] are devilishly hard to decipher” and for others it is “fairly easy to distinguish” between revelation and other kinds of inspiration — and why revelation is reported by as a frequent experience and by others to be rare. As to the latter question, to the best of my observation (neither exhaustive nor reliable, I know), the difference has little or nothing to do with seeking or with righteousness. I rather doubt there is a simple answer to either question.
… by some as a frequent experience…
I used to think miracles were super special, extraordinary events, but then I tasted Miracle Whip.
To suggest an answer to JR: “I have often wondered why it is that for some “spiritual feelings [or communications] are devilishly hard to decipher” and for others it is “fairly easy to distinguish” between revelation and other kinds of inspiration”
I believe that is an operation of the gifts of God. It is unlikely any mortal has all of them; others will enjoy a succession of gifts activated as needed; some may specialize in discerning of spirits (for instance) and be called as Stake Patriarchs.
Most of the time I can tell immediately whether a blessing is going to go anywhere. Its like the dial tone on a telephone. I put my hands one someone’s head, still my thoughts, and there it is! But sometimes not.
ReTx why do you think the experiences are similar? It seems to me that even among Mormons there’s a lot of diversity in the nature of the religious experiences even when they’re pointing to the same answers.
JR, I’m not saying there aren’t some experiences hard to distinguish. However the experience of composing something seems radically different from the experience of receiving something. Much like it seems easy to discern when you’re in a dream state versus seeing or hearing things when awake. There’s lots of types of spiritual experiences and I’d not want to treat them all as the same. However some experiences just seem easy to distinguish.
Dave C, I can’t speak of how sure Nelson is, but I think there are prima facie reasons to assume he’d be better at it than I am. Doesn’t mean I’m right of course. But it seems a reasonable inference. But if we’re going to be cautious and skeptical, shouldn’t we at least say we don’t know if Nelson’s experiences are different from ours?
To the BY quote (which I agree with completely) I think he is both emphasizing the importance of personal revelation rather than getting into a passive state. However without checking the dates of when Young first discovered people were lying to him about Mountain Meadows, I half way wonder if he was referring to those who followed their leaders unthinkingly in that situation.
There’s most definitely huge importance in finding out if you leaders are really following God. However that itself seems to mean it’s important to learn to feel and recognize the spirit and be able to distinguish what it says.
Clark: “the experience of composing something seems radically different from the experience of receiving something. ”
I have experienced both and they have indeed been radically different. But they do not seem to be always radically different if we take seriously the claim that Joseph’s revelations in the D&C were “received” and are aware of his subsequent editing, additions, and perhaps deletions from some of those revelations as first published.. Some things may be received in words. Others may be impressions/revelations of concepts perceived “through a glass darkly” that one then struggles to compose (with inspiration or not) a verbal record. Similarly, even if one takes seriously then Elder Nelson’s January 2016 comment on the November 2015 policy as revelation, one must wonder why a “clarification” was necessary — unless there was some combination of receiving and composing going on in the original. I have not experienced or heard of many restorationist claims of receipt of revelation in words. (There could, of course, be many I’m unaware of.) It has seemed to me that the combination of receiving and composing may be more common, leading to difficulty in distinguishing what exactly was revealed from what may be erroneously understood from the experience. For me the radically different revelatory experiences have been very few and very far between. I don’t see much evidence (as apart from claims unverifiable except perhaps through one’s own receipt of revelation) of such experiences being very common for very many others. I don’t expect to know about any such generality, but Roger Terry is far from unique in learning from time and experience that he was often wrong about what he perceived as spiritual communications.