Mormon Missionaries (MM): Do you want to know more about Christ?
Random Man on the Street (RMOTS): What makes your church different from any other Christian church?
MM: We have a living Prophet that receives revelation from God for our day
RMOTS: Wow, that is great, tell me what he has revealed to you recently..
MM: Well, lets see (long pause), he told us to stop referring to ourselves as Mormons. He shortened our meeting from 3 hours to two hours, renamed Home Teaching to Ministering, so we can just send e-mails now and don’t have to visit every month.
RMOTS: I’m in a hurry, I’ll see you guys around.
I wrote about Revelation three years ago, in which I wondered why the current Prophets don’t add to our book of revelations (Doctrine and Covenants). At the time I thought maybe they had not received anything significant enough to add. Does changing the way we Home Teach merit a new section of the D&C?
Now some of you are thinking I’m just picking some minor items (name of the church, shortening church) so that it looks bad that there are not more meaningful revelations. But it’s just not me. The Blog “Book Of Mormon Central” posted a list of items that Elder Robbins of the 70’s gave to a Stake Conference in Houston that “show that the Prophet and Apostles receive revelation from God that directly benefits our lives” [1]
For years, while he was President of the Quorum of the Twelve, Pres. Nelson emphasized improving our personal Sabbath Day observance. See his General Conference address, “The Sabbath is a Delight,” Sunday, April 5, 2015. Now in the COVID era, it is up to each of us as individuals to honor the Sabbath Day and keep it holy Exodus 20:8.
In General Conference on Sunday, April 1, 2018, Pres. Nelson announced that home teaching and visiting teaching would be replaced by a new, holier form of serving others called “ministering.” Now in the COVID era, how many ministering brethren have helped those they serve partake of the Sacrament in their homes?
Home-centered, Church-supported worship with time in Church reduced from 3 to 2 hours was announced in General Conference by Pres. Nelson and Elder Cook on Saturday, October 6, 2018. Now in the COVID era, we know what home-centered, Church-supported really means.
On Monday, December 31, 2018, families in the Church began using a new unified curriculum entitled “Come Follow Me.” For the first time ever, Primary children, young men and young women, men, and women were all studying the same material during the week and on Sunday. Now, in the COVID era, we realize how important it is to have the entire family unified in their gospel study.
Monday, May 6, 2019, The First Presidency announced a policy change that couples could now be married civilly and then immediately thereafter get sealed in the Temple. Now, in the COVID era, how many couples have been able to be married civilly, knowing they can be sealed eternally as soon as the Temples open up for live ordinances?
Wednesday, October 2, 2019. Pres. Nelson announced the policy change that women could be witnesses in baptisms and sealing ordinances in the temples. Some thought the Church was simply bowing to political pressure. Now in the COVID era, how many baptisms have been done with only the immediate family present and women the only available witnesses?
Tuesday, Nov. 19, 2019 Elder Gerrit W. Gong in a Face to Face explained details of the new youth activity program that took effect January 1, 2020. The program has youth setting and achieving individual goals with much less emphasis on group activities. Now in the COVID era, with not only Church, but school disrupted, we realize how important it is for young people to set and achieve individual goals.
Book Of Mormon Central Blog
Each of the above could well be though of as revelation, but is that what the random man on the street thinks of when he hears that we have a prophet that receives revelation? Have we as a church devalued the significance of revelation, from something that started with “Thus Saith the Lord”, telling us something big (see multiple examples in the D&C) to “we are going to let women witness baptisms in the temple”. Is that the current state of revelation in the church? If so, how did we get here? Is it our (my) fault that we are not more open to seeing God’s hand in the work? I’m I too jaded? And how do we convince the RMOTS that what passes for revelation in the church today is every bit as significant as what we see in the Bible?
[1] I noticed Elder Robbins left out the revelation that kids of gay people can’t be baptized. Maybe because God changed his mind that it wasn’t included.
Wheat & Tares 
I have noticed Oaks using the term “inspired policies” since being in the first presidency. That’s his way to lay claim to everything that changes in the handbook being a revelation. They won’t add to D&C because they aren’t bold enough to set forth anything as revelation that will stand the test of time and not need “adjustment” by their successors.
This is another topic that what we were taught does not manifest it self in the present day.
I am sure anyone who served a mission was asked this question. Again the TBM answer is satisfying to the TBM.
But any one with critical thinking skills, would think, “that’s revelation for the world? ” For that you need a prophet ? These are all management decisions.
Then the response back is ” only a wicked and adulterous generation seeks for a sign.”
So the illogical circle ensues. “the world” thinks Mormons are shallow in accepting this as revelation. The Faithful continue to honor the Q15 a Prophets, seers and revelators. However, for some TBM, their eyes are open and then they see the illogical relational used. That is why the POX effected so many.
The world in its current state could use a spiritual leader, but these decisions are not prophecies or really even that helpful.
I see most of these prophecies as correcting their poor decision making in the past.
If it were the business world, they would have already been replaced !
“the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. Rev. 19:10
“the true spirit of prophecy … is the testimony of Jesus” (TPJS, p. 300).
“It is through the spirit of prophecy that God’s continuing revelations are brought to the people of the earth, not only through his ordained prophets but also through all those who have received a testimony of Christ.” Louise Plummer, Spirit of Prophecy, The Encyclopedia of Mormonism.
Maybe our insular Mormon culture lays too much on those who hold the ecclesiastical title “prophet.” Is pre-pandemic eagerness to shake hands with a visiting authority a figurative falling “at his feet to worship him”? “See thou do it not…” Rev 19:10
“how do we convince the RMOTS that what passes for revelation in the church today is every bit as significant as what we see in the Bible?”
Maybe we don’t. Maybe the RMOTS and we have overblown expectations that “revelation” and “prophecy” must be something of earth-shattering significance. Maybe such revelations of general and great significance are simply rare and always have been. See, e.g. the Bible. 🙂
Also, there’s a lot in the Bible that we don’t (and the RMOTS) don’t find significant. So maybe we don’t convince them — unless we find, and first persuade them, that the testimony of Jesus in contemporary times (whether to persons holding ecclesiastical titles or RMOTs or whomever) as significant as the testimony of Jesus in the Bible.
I think a good prophecy could have come about two years ago warning of the family isolation for an extended period. Then steps could have revealed about things we needed to change to prepare for those times.
The church instead tried to use hindsight to show that changes they made fit a prophetic model.
I remember prescribed missionary “discussions” citing Amos 3:7 “Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.” I suppose the writer(s) of those “discussions” may not have realized that they were implicitly suggesting that the Lord does little or nothing. On the other hand, I doubt Amos had the god of lost keys in mind. 🙂
In order of revelatory appearance, is a pilot program (Come Follow Me) the chicken or the egg?
Would love to see (not really) the retrofitted explanations for missionary reassignments including not being able to go to the MTC after the shutdown 03/16/2020.
If the items listed above are indeed legitimate revelations from God, it begs the question if God’s only priority in this world is the operational minutia of the church.
The most important point made here is: “The world in its current state could use a spiritual leader.” I would phrase it slightly differently : The world in its current state needs a spiritual leader. So far, contemporary Mormonism has managers, not spiritual leaders. Our “revelations” are almost uniquely procedural and organizational. Words like miracle and revelation have been seriously devalued.
You might also have mentioned Bednar’s assertion that people answering their phones and working together constitutes a miracle. Using Amos 3:7 as a guide, we’d have to embrace a pretty permissive definition of ‘secret’ to believe that shortening Sunday meetings by an hour constitutes revelation. Wouldn’t the evidence simply suggest that Joseph Smith was both a genius-level religious thinker who was actively building a modern American religion and that almost every leader since him has been a bureaucratic functionary trying to hold the organization together? The may be too dismissive a general statement, I think, but when the organization compiles a separate piece of scripture in which to compile revelation and then doesn’t add to it after the death of the founder, one has to wonder if there isn’t benefit in NOT defining revelation so anything and everything can be labeled as such. I would think that ‘revelations’ on polygamy and and the priesthood ban would warrant inclusion in the D&C, but they aren’t there. For me, a general rule is that if McKinsey and Company could have come up with it, it’s a management decision, not a revelation.
Agree with Faith and rogerdhansen. The use of the term “revelation”, as the OP points out, is almost laughable in the context of the world outside Mormonism. This is merely another example (in a long line) of how Mormonism’s insularity renders us subject to ridicule rather than respect. I’d prefer the term “inspired policy changes” (and even that term is problematic) to “revelation”. I’ve always thought of revelations as pretty big deals. As in, if God revealed to RMN how to easily convert sea water to fresh water, or how to solve world hunger or, as some have mentioned above, how to deal with the coming COVID pandemic, those I would consider to be revelations. The examples given in the OP and some of the comments are spot on: They are mainly administrative course corrections, nothing more, and could have been initiated by any semi-competent middle manager.
Last fall, we permanently moved our scheduled Sunday dinner time from 3 pm to 3:30. It went well, giving us more time to prepare our meal and ourselves. Looking back, we realized this decision was more than inspired – it was a revelation. It is now forever memorialized in our journals as the Miracle of our Sunday Dinner Schedule.
We are awaiting further instructions and revelations on how to improve additional meaningless facets of our lives.
This reminds me of something I saw on Facebook on “Prophets that receive revelation.” The person said that in the 60 years the only significant “revelation” was that blacks could receive the priesthood, only to learn that as far back as David O. MacKay was telling others that the priesthood (and temple) ban was a policy. Policies shouldn’t need to have revelation to overturn. Now if that change was “revealed” in 1955, before the US civil rights movement – then you might have a case of it being able to be described as revelation.
Since the Brethren have watered down the definition of revelation, they shouldn’t mind if we delude how seriously we take it.
How about RM/WOTS instead of RMOTS? It’s a bit more contemporary 😉
Besides the Q15, are there other religious leaders in the world who claim to be receiving revelation from God? If so, who are they and what have they revealed lately?
I admit that I am deeply troubled by the idea that Brigham Young received a “revelation” that Blacks could not hold the priesthood. That slowly drifted into being a “policy” during the subsequent fifty years, which was then overturned by “revelation” fifty years after that.
Then for many decades, the Church actively promoted the name “Mormon,” even using it in publicity campaigns. Then, a “revelation” prohibited the very name that the Church told its members was a part of their very identity.
Perhaps that is a large part of if the problem: “revelation” has become synonymous with changes based on the personal preference of leadership. That is not what the world thinks “revelation” is or should be.
What good are prophets, seers, and revelators if they stay silent during the largest global crisis most of us will ever experience? Sure, we could buy the claim of Elder Robbins that all these minor changes were to prepare us for 2020, but that really falls flat to me since for most of us out here in Red State Zion church was barely interrupted.
Perhaps in April we should sustain Anthony Fauci as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator.
Whole lotta Texas sharp-shooting and pointing to nothingburgers as evidence of revelation and prophecy. Also redefining revelation to mean light house-cleaning and minor policy changes. Oh you thought it meant something more amazing and phenomenal? Silly you.
To be fair, a whole lot of the D&C is just administrative policies that have been changed. I’ve always found it hard to believe that God is really THAT interested in the details of the financing of Nauvoo House as to give a whole long section 124 about it. Like, “excuse me, why does God need a starship?” levels of mundane detail that seems pretty irrelevant to the big questions of Life, the Universe, and Everything. And the two sections that are word-for-word identical mission calls are just like the word-for-word identical mission calls today, yet they’re both Revelation so today’s form letter mission calls are also Revelation. Judged against things like the Vision in D&C 76 things like the 2 hour block and the POX/unPOX and calling the use of “Mormon” a victory for the devil are small potatoes … not so much against D&C 124:60-80ish, or most of the Law of Moses. Why does/did God care about individual stock holdings in Nauvoo House being not less than fifty dollars and not more than fifteen thousand dollars? Beats me.
@bwbarnett I am not aware of any (sane) person with the audacity to claim to be speaking for God, but I see all sort of prophets out there preaching a message that really is critical to the world. Some are Mormon, many are not.
None of them are in the Q15, except maybe Uchtdorf when he’s not muzzled.
The church has come out in opposition to the Equality Act, on the basis that it damages religious freedom. Was this the result of revelation?
Would they dare do it without consulting God?
In Australia religious freedom is the right to practice your religion, not sure how the church is restricted/damaged by the act?
Not sure how much longer it will be acceptable to discriminate against women or gays?
@PontiusPython “excuse me, why does God need a starship?”
I just watched that movie yesterday! Thank you for the lol moment on a Monday morning!
Jesus had some pretty harsh words to say against the people of His day who rejected prophets.
Matt 23
30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
Throughout history, the Lord’s prophets have been rejected and many were killed. Eventually the people/nations/civilizations responsible for this were destroyed, enslaved, carried away, etc.
@Elisa used the word “sane”, saying that she was not aware of any sane person with the audacity to claim that they spoke for God — inferring that anyone who HAD the audacity to claim that they spoke for God was “insane”. One common definition of the word “insane” is: “Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.” If we reject the Lord’s prophets in our day and we expect a different result than what has happened time and time again over the course of history, that would make US insane, not the prophets.
With the exception of the occasional fanatic who pops up every now and again, the Q15 are the only men on earth that we are aware of who claim to speak for God. Sometimes their counsel is hard to receive. Jesus experienced the same thing when He was here:
John 6
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
The Q15 are prophets and speak on behalf of the Lord. We should listen to them and heed their words “as if from [the Lord’s] own mouth”.
Sorry bwb but I can only see geratric supervisors of a wealthy organization who are occasionally “unleashed” to make policy adjustments.
“POX/unPOX” is the perfect way to describe it, especially if you hear it in Dwight Schrute’s voice. “Un-shun! Re-shun!”
bwbarnett raises an interesting point about Jesus’ condemnation of those who rejected prophets. The problem is our prophets in the CoJCoLDS bear little resemblance to the prophets Jesus was talking about. They are not radical figures crying from the wilderness against powerful institutions. They’re not Samuel the Lamanite—they are the archers. Just ask Sam Young or Kate Kelly.
IMO, the kids holding rainbow lights on the Y are the true prophets, crying from the literal wilderness with a message of radical love, falling largely on the deaf ears of a hundred billion dollar empire.
Okay, bwbarnett, but then you have to explain why “the lord’s own mouth” put the POX in place and then undid it, faced with backlash. You have to explain why “the lord’s own mouth” is okay with Mormon as a moniker and then later he isn’t. The original post was asking whether anything the church calls revelation is inspiring to non-members. It’s not enough to say, “because men we call prophets said so.” I respect your tenacity, but you’ve yet to present an argument other than “we should listen to their prophecy because they are prophets.” The content of their words also matters, and the “we don’t always understand God’s ways” will also not inspire non-members to listen. It’s not even working on a large number of members anymore.
bwbarnett,
As a missionary wanting to understand better some of the people I was trying to work with, I took a correspondence course in Catholicism from a monastery in Austria. The one thing I remember clearly from that decades-old effort is being struck with how similar that version of Catholicism was to the LDS view of how God leads/guides the Mormon church. I recall it being a described as through divine authority/ordination, tradition over time guided subtly by God, and “revelation.” The term “revelation” is also used in some Catholic pronouncements about papal infallibility. Of course, the infallibility dogma is widely misunderstood. I believe it is limited to the Pope speaking “ex cathedra” which has been done maybe a couple times since about 1850.
So, yes, there are those who other than the Q15 who claim revelation. But at least those Catholics who do so don’t seem to try to elevate every pope’s or cardinal’s words to that level or to apply the concept to policy decisions.
There is also a sect of Islam, founded I’m told about 1830, which rejects the notion that Mohammad was the last prophet and claimed contemporary prophets receiving revelation at least as late as the 60s when I was a missionary in Europe teaching some of its members about our church. I wonder if that Islamic sect continues to exist and have prophets.
I have great respect for the Dalai Lama. He has become an ambassador for world peace. And has traveled the world with his message. He is also a great respecter of all life. But foremost is a spokesman for his embattled people. And the Dalai Lama is a strong proponent for religious freedom. On his last trip to SLC, the FP declined to meet with him, probably over fears of offending the Chinese government (the Church leadership has bragged of its interest in constructing a temple there). The Tibetans and the Uyghers bedamned.
Mormonism’s shallow version of religious freedom (maintain the right to discriminate against LGBTQ+ community) pales in comparison to the Dalai Lamas efforts.
Mother Teresa did her best to provide medical assistance to the poor in India. To bring the world’s attention to their plight. She is an inspiration (saint if you will) to Pope Francis, another strong advocate for the downtrodden. The Church’s version of help pales in comparison to one woman’s efforts. Despite the fact that her faith wavered during her lifetime, Mother Teresa carried on her humanitarian work.
So what is our prophet doing. Relabeling the Church, providing it with a new logo. Reducing the time Church attendance is required, etc. Yawn. The Church has vast financial and human resources and we are wasting them. We need a visionary, spiritual prophet.
Based on Wondering’s added information:
…
Catholic/Islam missionaries (C/IM): We have a living Prophet that receives revelation from God for our day.
RMOTS: Wow, that is great, tell me what he has revealed to you recently.
CM: Well, lets see (long pause), during our lifetimes nothing, but since 1850, he has spoken twice for God.
IM: Well, lets see (long pause), during our lifetimes nothing, I think he said something back in the 1960’s.
RMOTS: I’m in a hurry, I’ll see you guys around.
Is this it? Is this the alternative? How is this better than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? How is my mortal and post-mortal life improved by believing as Chet – “I can only see geriatric supervisors of a wealthy organization who are occasionally ‘unleashed’ to make policy adjustments.” How is my life improved, happier and more fulfilling by disregarding, dismissing, diminishing what the only men on earth who have the audacity to claim current revelation from God have to say? I have yet to hear from anyone I have spoken to in person, here, or anywhere a reasonable alternative. It’s usually just something like, “After distancing/leaving the church, I feel so much more free and happy. I can pursue the lifestyle I feel is right and now there is no guilt associated with it.” I don’t recall anyone ever saying that they found some other congregation/religion that that stands up to the rigorous criticism that they applied to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints prior to leaving. I don’t recall anyone explaining a new lifestyle that is founded on the teachings of Christ in the Old and New Testament. I’m all ears on this one.
@jaredsbrother: Hey jb, I appreciate your response. Let’s assume that I could provide compelling reasons why POX was put in place and then undone. Let’s assume that I could explain why the Mormon moniker was okay to use until a few years ago, why LGBT cries seem to fall on deaf ears, why the early Saints practiced polygamy, why the blacks were not allowed to hold the priesthood until the 1970’s, etc., etc., etc… I mean let’s really assume that I was able to produce the truth about all of those issues. Would that suffice? Maybe for a while, until the next thing that the prophets said didn’t sit well. Or until someone else came along with some lies/falsehoods that seemed to discredit what I had said. Also, since I am just some ordinary guy, why would anyone choose to believe me even if I did present the truth? With regards to spiritual/religious truth, the burden of proof is not on me and God set it up that way for a good reason. I’m under no obligation to prove to anyone if something is true. The burden of proof is on each of us individually. None of us can push the burden of proof onto another mortal. It’s up to us to find out for ourselves from the source of all truth – God. We have prayer, we have scriptures, we have His duly ordained Apostles to assist in that search for truth.
@rogerdhansen: I respect the Dalai Lama and Mother Teresa too. I think their contributions to goodness in the world have been incredible. Yet is still remains that neither claim to be God’s prophet and receive revelation from Him for the guidance of the world. (Correct me if I’m wrong.)
I don’t know if either has received “revelation” from God. But at least they know important issues when they see them: world peace, religious freedom (not freedom to discriminate), assisting the poor and downtrodden, etc. They may not have received revelation, but they certainly inspired. Are you suggesting that maybe the GAs are asking the wrong questions? Are you really suggesting that many of the recent organization changes were really revelations? I am convinced that the GAs are asking the wrong questions.
bwbarrett, your assertions are tautological. No one can tell you that what you believe is wrong, and I won’t suggest that it is. Your faith is your own, but you keep saying that the church is led by prophets because they issue what they call prophecies. We haven’t established what constitutes a legit prophecy, but clearly for most respondents in this thread, a respectable prophecy has some heft, some seriousness, some gravitas, some purchase in actually improving the lives of the less fortunate of this world. Until we reach some agreement of what constitutes worthwhile prophesy, we’re talking past one another, but I for one can’t accept that the Q15 are prophets because they keep saying they are. And, again, the initial thread was about modern prophecies that might sway a non-member.
@rogerdhansen: I don’t think that the recent organizational changes are the groundbreaking/shocking type of revelation that we attribute to revelations like “all worthy males can now hold the priesthood.” But why would one come to the conclusion that the Q15 are not receiving revelation from God just because these types of revelations are so infrequent? It’s kind of like the story of Naaman, the leprous Syrian commander who sought healing from the prophet Elisha. He felt insulted when Elisha told him to wash in Jordan 7 times. Rather than humbling himself and accepting something akin to an “organizational change” revelation as the word of God through his prophet, he expected some grand “all worthy males can now hold the priesthood” revelation for his healing. He dismissed the prophet’s counsel as insignificant. Fortunately for him he had a servant that convinced him otherwise.
I don’t have access to any additional church records than you guys have, but from what the Brethren have shared in GC and Ensign(Liahona) articles, my calculations show that Latter-day Saint Charities (Humanitarian Aid) provided economic relief of around 100 million a year for the past 25 years across the world. On top of that, there are Fast Offerings, the Welfare Program, Perpetual Education Fund, LDS Family Services, and Helping Hands. All of these help the “poor and downtrodden”. I think it’s pretty naive for any of us to assume we could handle the Lord’s funds better. We hear the church has billions of dollars and our first thoughts are, “These guys are greedy! These guys are selfish!”. Naive.
I don’t think the GAs are asking the wrong questions. I do think they are asking broader questions, when some of us are thinking they should be asking more specific ones. For example, one question I know the GAs asked a few years ago was “How can we increase faith in Jesus Christ in our members?” The revelation they received by asking that question was that we as a church needed to better keep the Sabbath Day holy. Many of you will remember the emphasis placed on Sabbath Day observance a few years back. Is that revelation? Lately we’ve heard a lot about learning to “Hear Him” and the Gathering of Israel. I don’t know what question(s) were asked by the GAs that prompted them to emphasize these things, but I can venture a guess or two. It wouldn’t surprise me if a question may have been, “What can we do to prepare the church for coming trials?” Learning to Hear Him would seem like a reasonable answer to that question. The Saints, all the Saints – the white ones, the black ones, the straight ones, the gay ones, the poor ones and the rich ones – won’t survive coming days without knowing how to hear and heed Him, the Lord. Perhaps another question was, “What can we do to prepare for Christ’s Second Coming?” to which the Lord responded, “Gather Israel!” Revelation?
@jaredsbrother I think it would be great to find some common ground regarding what constitutes revelation/prophecy. Do you have some concrete examples of what you would consider legit prophecy? “Heft”, “seriousness”, “gravitas” are too subjective. Maybe you could suggest some concrete examples from either modern or ancient times??
@bwbarnett have to agree with @jaredsbrother. Your definition of a prophet seems to be “someone who claims to be a prophet.”
By that definition, I stand by my earlier assertion that most people with the audacity to claim to be “prophets” are crazy / dangerous / mentally ill. David Koresh comes to mind. There are many others. So self-declaring as a prophet is IMO an absurd metric to define someone as a prophet, and the fact that the Q15 so claim is no basis whatsoever to believe that they actually are. I would have to see actual prophesying, seeing, and revealing to demonstrate as much. In other words – by their fruits ye shall know them, as Jesus said. He definitely never said “you’ll know them because they’ll tell you who they are” – in fact, he warned us of wolves in sheep’s clothing (which could include someone clothing themselves as a prophet when in fact he is not).
You may be right that some folks will always find something wrong that a supposed prophet says, but you seem to believe they can do no wrong, which is a bit scary.
@jaredsbrother said “And, again, the initial thread was about modern prophecies that might sway a non-member.”
I can appreciate the desire not to stray too far from the initial thread here at W&T, But we all know that discussing modern prophecies that might sway a non-member isn’t the only thing this thread is about as evidenced by what “most respondents” have said. Another thing this thread is about is letting people voice their disapproval of the Q15 in various and sundry ways. My comments that you think are off-topic are my way of voicing my approval of them in direct opposition to “most respondents” 😉
bwb:
“CM: Well, lets see (long pause), during our lifetimes nothing, but since 1850, he has spoken twice for God.
IM: Well, lets see (long pause), during our lifetimes nothing, I think he said something back in the 1960’s.”
Those seem to seriously mischaracterize or misunderstand what I reported.
bwb: “I don’t recall anyone ever saying that they found some other congregation/religion that that stands up to the rigorous criticism that they applied to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints prior to leaving. I don’t recall anyone explaining a new lifestyle that is founded on the teachings of Christ in the Old and New Testament”
While I don’t know whether Cody Hatch’s choice was a matter of “rigorous criticism”, he might have something to say to this. I found much to respect in his posts. Maybe he’ll post again.
I like bwb’s concept of broader questions. Though I’m not sure the answers cited either required or resulted from “revelation”, I’m also not prepared to conclude they didn’t have some revelatory basis. Maybe they did. They are a heck of a lot different from POX/unPOX, nickname use, and 2-hour church.
@Elisa
Definitely one qualifying characteristic of a prophet would be that he claims to be one. It’s not the only one. @jaredsbrother and I are going to try to identify a definition of what constitutes revelation as it pertains to a prophet. This would be another qualification. Gospel Topics – Prophets lists many other things that define a prophet.
@Wondering: I did not mean to mischaracterize what you reported, just trying to make a comparison, any comparison. You were the only one who provided any sort of non-Q15 revelation. Is there better data that what you reported? The idea was to just plug in the other data and see how the OP’s opening story sounded. Does it sound even more absurd (as we are supposed to think) that the MM version?
As for what would convince an RMOTS – I don’t know. I used to think our teachings on eternal families were unique and appealing, but then I found out after sharing that belief with many people of other faiths that we are certainly not alone in that belief and that in fact we have a *more* restrictive view of eternal families because it only applies to certain families who jump through certain hoops. I think you could point out things that Joseph Smith taught that improved upon Christianity in the 19th century, but I’m afraid that our current leaders have stayed a bit stuck in the 19th century whereas there are beautiful strains of progressive Christianity that have continued to evolve and improve.
I can think of some conference talks and books that were beautiful and helpful and that I’ve shared with friends, but I think those would fall more in the category of “good advice” than “prophesy.”
bwb, just two last thoughts. You shouldn’t need a revelation to correct the mistakes of Church leaders (think BY here). The 1978 “revelation” was a practical decision. The Church had an opportunity for spectacular growth in Brazil and Africa. Clearly the Church’s Black ban was problematic and a hindrance to missionary work in both geographic areas. If it was really a revelation, why did it take long? The biggest Civil Rights movements were in the 60’s. The Church was, at a minimum, 15 years late to the party.
The Church’s $100M/yr contribution is pathetically small. It’s annual budget is estimated at over $7B. By adjusting budget priorities, it could contribute $1B/yr. In addition, if it took $2.5B a year from its $100B (this wouldn’t endanger the principal), it would have $3.5 to assist the global poor. And that $3.5B wouldn’t have much affect on Church’s existing programs. If you would like a deeper analysis, join others and me in encouraging leaders to release Church financial records.
@bwbarnett: I suppose the adjectives I used are subjective, but then I see no objective way to define ‘revelation’ to the satisfaction of all. I can think of no more subjective a definition than the circular logic of “I’m a prophet because I said so.”
I read through the Gospel Topics – Prophets essay and it employs the same circularity: God ordains prophets, and aren’t we lucky that they so happen to be presiding over our church (support with scripture created by our religion.) Then there is this chestnut from the essay: “At times, they may be inspired to prophesy of future events for our benefit.” I don’t think this has ever happened. Am I just ignorant?
I don’t want to suggest that you should not stray from the topic of the original post, even though I did. Tangents can be great. Tally ho! It’s just that there has to be a definition of revelation other than that provided by the revelator or we’re no better off. Elisa is right. If the only requirement of one with prophetic powers is for them to plant a flag and proclaim thus, then we’ll have to include David Koresh, Jim Jones and Ron Lafferty. Perhaps there should be a psychopathy clause. I could get behind that.
@rogerdhansen – This is not a sarcastic question… Do you have some sort of “insider info” on church finances? Your suggestions for budget adjustments, higher contributions not affecting existing programs, estimated annual budget, make it appear like you may know some things about church finances that others don’t. I haven’t actually looked around much for financial information, so maybe there is more out there than I am aware of. Also, I think the $100 M/yr is not fully representative of all moneys used to help the poor and needy. It was just the Humanitarian Fund.
@jaredsbrother: Right I agreed with Elisa as well that the definition of a prophet cannot simply be, “I’m a prophet because I said so.” That obviously does not work if that is the only qualification. Short of finding an objective way to define ‘revelation’, and thus being able to say something like “He is a prophet because he revealed such-and-such which conforms to the definition of revelation.”, I was hoping you could suggest some revelations that you personally consider “legit”. Of course, identifying such revelations would then also carry with it an admission that the person who revealed it was a prophet. And then admitting that this particular person was a prophet, would be an indication that we should follow his counsel. That could be scary.
@bwbarnett: No, I cannot identify a single revelation I consider legit, even though the angel with a flaming sword calls to me. I have no faith in prophets or revelation except to say that I think all individuals have access to common sense, inspiration and insight. I will add that I think the LDS church does itself a disservice–indeed, I think this is a tactical blunder of historic proportions–to so frequently label banal decisions as ‘revelation.’ Surround a purported revelation with facts and it goes up in smoke, e.g., I might have considered the 1978 decision a revelation, except that we know too much about the machinations that preceded that decision by decades, damn you Greg Prince. What was necessary for the extension of the priesthood to Black men was the death of the more bigoted general authorities. Now, does that mean the decision could absolutely not have been a revelation? Certainly, no. But the evidence points towards complicated human relationships, not divine intervention, as the dynamic that drove that particular decision.
And they lived happily ever after. The end.
And the people bowed and prayed
To the neon god they made.
And the sign flashed out its warning
In the words that it was forming.
And the sign said,
“The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls
And tenement halls”
And whispered in the sound of silence.
– Paul Simon
bwbarnett: Your reference to John 6 is not about rejecting prophets. It’s about disciples being yucked out by Jesus talking about them eating his flesh. You could say he was speaking prophetically in these verses, but come on. There’s a reason they “walked no more with him.” He literally sounded like he was advocating cannibalism! Was it a rejection of prophecy or a rejection of cannibalism??
Brother Barnett, I have a strong desire to respect your vigorous approach to living your faith. I have beloved family who do likewise, and in my own life, I’ve had that same approach. As I’ve grown older and gained experience and knowledge, I’ve naturally become more careful and thoughtful in the application of my faith to my own life. I’ve always been a firm believer in the 11th Article of Faith. Here, refresh your memory: “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.” I believe this applies to ALL humankind, men, women, and children of all faiths, including our own. Especially our own brothers and sisters.
Your statement – “How is my life improved, happier and more fulfilling by disregarding, dismissing, diminishing what the [current prophets] have to say?” – doesn’t address my experiences, and I only speak for myself, but those experiences broke me in ways you have no knowledge of, and I made necessary changes that others who also have no inside knowledge misconstrue as dismissing my faith. My faith is still here, planted and nurtured by revelation and prophecy , and still helps me to improve and fulfill my life, and brings moments of peace resembling the elusive happiness we all desire. When I checked the Articles of Faith just now, I re-read all of them, and I continue to use them as a guide.
You say “ I have yet to hear from anyone I have spoken to in person, here, or anywhere a reasonable alternative. It’s usually just something like, ‘After distancing/leaving the church, I feel so much more free and happy. I can pursue the lifestyle I feel is right and now there is no guilt associated with it.’ I don’t recall anyone ever saying that they found some other congregation/religion that that stands up to the rigorous criticism that they applied to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints prior to leaving.” Again I only speak from my own conscience, and you can only speak from yours, and your hypothetical quote from your imagined group of former believers misconstrues the real and varied lived experiences of all of them, and specifically mine. Your statement is such a flimsy facsimile of my experience, I have zero energy to educate you about my tender personal growth.
And you continue: “I don’t recall anyone explaining a new lifestyle that is founded on the teachings of Christ in the Old and New Testament.” My ‘lifestyle’ still has the same foundation as I built when I was younger, based on the teachings of Christ and his prophets. Please recall that in future.
I agree with the post and other commenters about the shallowness and relatively trivial nature of recent actions from church leadership. I feel the frustration of the contradictory new requirements we have received recently. I have to pilot my own life to preserve it, and I would welcome any revelation substantial enough to assist my struggling, but I can’t find it among the policy minutiae and vaguely worded admonitions that stand in for revelatory guidance given.
You may continue your vigorous and enthusiastic devotion if that works for you, and I will respect your approach, but only applied to your own life. I must figure out adjustments on my own in order to survive, because the specific guidance for my healthy devotion is absent, and I desire that you respect my approach in my own life.
@MDearest: Wow, thank you for your kind and well-thought-out post here. Like you, I have family who have a vigorous approach to living their faith as well as others who have distanced themselves or left the church. I get along great with all of them. Like you, I believe in the Articles of Faith, including the 11th, and try my best to incorporate them into my life. Something I said must have made you think I wasn’t following the 11th very well, or you wouldn’t have highlighted that one. Not sure if it was something specific, or just the overall tone of my posts?? In a forum like W&T, a person’s intentions can easily get misinterpreted or a person can have trouble expressing his intentions clearly or both. For the record, I allow all men the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience. I acknowledge everyone’s right to do so, and it is not my intention to belittle anyone for believing differently than I. I can see how my words could have been received differently than intended.
An explanation of the intent of my words
As evidenced by most of the content here at W&T and the voting system in place, people like me are outnumbered 50 to 1 or more. So, the main intention of my words here is to offer my ideas, opinions, and truth in opposition to the majority of others here. I do this for a couple of reasons:
1) If someone who is going through a faith crisis happens to find this forum, he/she has more to read than just people complaining about, fault-finding with, and mocking the church or the leaders of the church. I mean think about it, remove my comments from this post and there’s nobody standing on the side of the church and its leaders.
2) Complaining, fault-finding, and mocking the church and its leaders bothers me, so I feel justified in being a voice in favor of the church and its leaders. Sometimes, maybe most times, what I say bothers others here, and there is plenty of evidence that they feel justified in speaking their minds in opposition to mine. Many are not as kind as you, so I thank you for that.
The intention of my comment that you dissected and responded to – the one about me not ever hearing of a good alternative to being a good, active, leader-sustaining member of the church – is not that I don’t acknowledge everyone’s right to do what they want. Go ahead, believe what you want and live your life the way you choose. I’m a huge advocate for freedom and choice. But rather than just point the finger of scorn at the church, how about additionally providing a clear alternate path to a happy and fulfilling life, both for the here and the hereafter. And not just *an* alternate path. If it’s really going to be convincing, it should be a significant step up. If it’s just the same level of happiness and fulfillment, or just slightly better, why would one want to switch? Someone may be able to come up with a convincing argument for the “here” portion, our mortal life, but what I’m really interested in hearing is a better path for the “hereafter”. As a member of the church, I have been shown a clear path for happiness and fulfillment in both this life and the afterlife. I completely understand that others feel like the church does not offer them one or both of those. You may be one such person. You and others like you may have distanced yourselves from or left the church because of this. That’s your choice, you are free to make it, and receive the consequences, whatever they might be.
You mentioned the word, “respect” a few times, saying you would respect my approach to living my life and asked that I respect yours. I want to be careful how I use that word because some definitions of it imply “admiration” or “worthy of high regard”. I sense that many here don’t admire my beliefs or hold them in high regard, nor do I theirs. We just disagree. We should be able to disagree and not be labeled as disrespectful. What I will say is that I acknowledge each of our rights to think, act, live however we choose. And then more along the lines of what I think you mean by respect, I don’t want to ever say anything false or demeaning about a person’s choice on how to live their life. If/When I do say something false or demeaning, and I am made aware of it, I will sincerely apologize.
In this lengthy post, I’m not trying to be difficult, I’m not trying to act like I’m a know-it-all and have all the answers, I’m not trying to act self-righteous (as I’ve been accused of). I’m just trying to be clear, to learn how to better communicate, and to be a voice in favor of gospel living as taught in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Finally, I understand that gospel living as taught in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not for everyone. I have seen it in my immediate family, and as you can imagine even based on the little you know about me and my belief system, it saddens me. It doesn’t make me antagonistic, rude, mean, etc., towards these family members and friends. I don’t judge them nor do I belittle them or their belief systems to their face or behind their backs. I still love them more than ever and show it like I always have. I just disagree with the choices they have made and feel a little sadness inside (which I keep to myself).
@Angela C: You’re welcome to your interpretation of John 6, and to some degree I agree with you, but ultimately their decision to “walk no more with Him” cost them their association with Jesus Christ. As it turned out, those who stayed did not end up literally eating Christ’s flesh. There was something they did not understand and they chose to leave rather than exercise faith that it would make sense some day.
@bwbarnett, I know many people who have walked away from Church activity (or at the very least reoriented their activity in a way you’d find disobedient). Some might be worse off. Others are definitely better off. If you truly don’t think there’s any alternative path to happiness out there, I honestly don’t know how hard you’ve looked or how open you would be to that idea. “Not very” is my assumption.
@Elisa, Thanks for the info. I believe there are many ways that people can experience happiness and fulfillment in this life. The one that’s worked for me the past 50+ years is living the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught in the COJCOLDS. I understand it doesn’t work for everyone. I also believe there are different categories or types of happiness and fulfillment in this life. I believe the same applies to the afterlife. I also believe that the path to happiness that we choose in this life, will affect the happiness available to us in the next.
Recall Christ’s parable of the two brothers: one by one their father asked each to work in his vineyard. The first refused, but then decided to lend a hand. The second willingly agreed, but didn’t do a thing.
Christ compared tax collectors and prostitutes to those who believed they were virtuous.
If there is a loving, just god, the hereafter will be sorted out by how each person lives their life and treats others. Such a god will take into account every whit of every person, their hardships & trials, their privilege & circumstance.
Outward appearances can mislead.
Well said Sasso. There is evidence of that doctrine in the BoM. Comparing the Lamanites and the Nephites it was said, “it shall be more tolerable for them in the day of judgment than for you,” (Alma 9:15) The circumstances of our lives play a big role in the day of judgment.
My 4-year old grandson drew me a cute picture today.
@bwb
Not going to give you any grief today. It takes courage to be a “lone voice” sometimes.
A lot of people who share thoughts on W&T are lone wolves in their daily lives. With large consequences to voicing the disconnects they recognize in our culture.
Bro B, after reading your reply to my comment I felt a lot of things; it was so long, if it hadn’t been specifically directed at me, I wouldn’t have read to the end. One thing I didn’t feel was support or respect. You twisted my intention about respecting each other’s approach to living the gospel into something I do not intend at all. You said it’s not your intention to belittle or demean anyone, and the next series of paragraphs belittled and demeaned your straw-man (me?) as you mischaracterized my “lifestyle” and choices into something they are not; and criticized (me ?) for something I don’t believe or practice. And most harmful to me, ignoring my comments, not engaging with what I actually said is rejection, which I understand clearly.
You stated your purpose here is to be a voice of opposition to those who mock the church, and you feel justified because that bothers you. To me, this means that you don’t seek to understand or discuss, but only to be contrarian, and I have had an unhealthy quota of that in my life. I know what happens to me when my view is twisted into an easier target (mockery?) for someone to cut down with criticism. (Google “gaslighting”)
I don’t think we can have productive exchanges in future. Please don’t be sad.
Moving to home-centered church several years ago after Dallin H Oaks announced that the time was soon coming that we would have to have church at home seems like a big revelation. This was before Covid-19.
So, Covid-19 comes along and already in place is “Come Follow Me” home church curriculum. Add a bit of Zoom teleconference and presto, instant church at home.
Now at the time Dallin Oaks proclaimed we would be having church at home I envisioned that the Democrats would attack the church to the point where it had (again) ceased to be a functional legal entity. That could still happen; but the Covid-19 pandemic was unexpected and seems to fit the bill.
In reply generally to bwbarnett who says:
“Jesus had some pretty harsh words to say against the people of His day who rejected prophets.”
But he said things when teaching moments were appropriate. When facing Pontius Pilate, he appears to have said nothing. When he was challenged about the tax money, his answer was not for the Pharisees that were challenging him, but to by-standards; “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” has been wise words ever since. Did it convince the Pharisees? There is no indication of it.
W&T, like all blogs now or soon enough, gradually become echo chambers with less and less utility and fewer readers that are not part of the echo. When that happens they also become somewhat uninteresting as the remaining readers all think exactly alike, or are not willing to admit to not thinking exactly alike. Oh, there’s some straining at gnats but that’s about it.
Is it better on a TBM blog? I don’t know of any but such as I have briefly looked into are also echo chambers where no one dares voice a question or doubt; a thing that ought to be encouraged; but there’s a HUGE difference (IMO) between a doubt (expressed as “I don’t know but I want to find out”) and challenge (“you are wrong/mistaken/lying/stupid…”).
W&T does from time to time experience a bit of balance but as you noticed, tends to be extremely one sided. Many readers here reflexively downvote the moment they see my name; although it has been a long time since I posted anything. Nothing has changed. Same regulars have been here for years with the same complaints. It’s like Mickey D’s on a Wednesday morning with the old folks complaining about the same things they’ve complained about for the past 20 years.
I’ve hesitated posting this as it’s vulnerable for me to share, but here goes. I still attend church with my family. But I suppose I don’t believe much of what is said. I no longer read the Book or Mormon. I have replaced the scriptures by reading the books of mental health professionals who have dedicated their lives to helping people build healthy relationships with themselves and others. I quote to myself multiple times a day what I learned from Brene Brown, which is that I am enough; I am worthy of love. I’m reading Angela Duckworth’s “Grit” currently and am learning the qualities of people who engage with hard things. These few examples have helped me more in the past year than a lifetime of General Conference and platitudes like “doubt your doubts” or “stay in the boat” or “stay on the covenant path” or “don’t use the word Mormon.”
I still do my best to sustain the leaders of the church (at all levels) as I believe they have very difficult callings. They have to find meaningful ways to connect with the congregants while simultaneously performing a dance around the past issues of history, race, and gender, along with their own current issues like the November 2015 policy and April 2019 undoing of the same policy. I don’t envy their positions, and I am actually happy when the church makes progress towards a healthier organization and stops misusing words like worthy or modesty in such narrow ways.
I no longer worry about heaven. I worried more about heaven as a TBM because I was always worried about all the empty chairs in my family and my wife’s family. So it was actually stepping back from these beliefs that made my view of the hereafter a better one. Now the hereafter is a place of rest, not a place of populating planets with kids that will ultimately defy and reject me. Now the hereafter is a place of joy with those I love rather than a multi-tiered system of polygamy, celibacy, and missing loved ones.
To many who read this, I’m an apostate. Every individual is more expansive than any label we can give them.
@MDearest
It appears that we both feel like we are being misunderstood, mischaracterized and that our words are being twisted to mean something not intended. It seems like there are also too many points in the discussion, thus leading to lengthy posts, as I try to touch on them all. I think one of the most important ones though is this idea of respecting one another’s differences. If you’re open to it, I would love to discuss this with you and learn what it is about my comments that you consider disrespectful. I’m sure there are things about me that can be changed for the better on this subject.
I guess my first question would be:
1. Can I disagree with someone and not be labelled “disrespectful”? I’m going to assume “yes” to this question.
So the next questions would be:
2. What are some things to include in a respectful disagreeing response?
3. What are some things to avoid in a respectful disagreeing response?
I can review my comments above based on your answers to these questions, or if you’d like, you can point me to comments I made that could have been omitted or could have been changed to be more respectful.
I’m open to your suggestions.
@Bwbarnett
Try not being judgmental of other people’s views, comments, and choices. When you make the statement that someone will suffer the consequences of their choice, you insinuate that you are right and they are wrong. You may feel that way, but it disrespectful to those who don’t agree with you.
@JR in AR: Hi, thank you for your comment. I will try to be less judgmental, I think that is a great attribute to work on. I try to be careful with my word choice and sometimes I do fail at that.