Revelation and the LDS Church – Question time

[Watchmen]

About "Revelation and the LDS Church – Question time" As a former member of the church, i find your statements to clearly represent what I once learned and believed. I am wondering, however, what it was you hoped to accomplish with your post.
I do know, from personal experience, that the pros and cons -specifically the cons - are not permitted by The Church, questions (such as you might seem to be soliciting) are prohibited. I'm wondering, are you attempting to use this thread as a missionary-teaching moment or are you genually interested in the perceptions of others regarding revelation and prophets?

Someone asked the author of the OP about revelation in a different thread and the author of the OP created this thread so the topic might be fully discussed.

I'm wondering, did you ever stop and consider this is a "religious forum" where people might genuinely talk about...religion?

 

[Autodidact]

Would that be a nice way of saying you pity us? Thanks, but we don't need your pity, Auto.

I meant exactly what I said, and I did not say anything about what you need.

 

[Autodidact]

Someone asked the author of the OP about revelation in a different thread and the author of the OP created this thread so the topic might be fully discussed.

I'm wondering, did you ever stop and consider this is a "religious forum" where people might genuinely talk about...religion?

No, that's not what happened. Someone--me, challenged the OP on a point related to revelation, and the OP chose to start this thread.

 

[DadBurnett]

Someone asked the author of the OP about revelation in a different thread and the author of the OP created this thread so the topic might be fully discussed.
I'm wondering, did you ever stop and consider this is a "religious forum" where people might genuinely talk about...religion?

I seem to have riled you a bit ... sorry about that. Not knowing about the previous thread, I still think my questions were relevant. More to the point, my inquiry was of a genuine religious nature ... I'm a bit confused by the response ...
Sorry, to have gotten off on the wrong foot here ...

 

[chosen4greatness]

This probably deserves its own thread. If you create one we would be happy to answer your question in depth. But the short answer is we believe God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost to be 3 separate beings who are united in purpose.

Um, okay. If Jesus says "I and the Father are one." And,"If you have seen me you have seen the Father." And Let US make man in OUR own image". How are they 3 seperate beings? To say Jesus isn't God makes no sence. Here's what I mean. The Bible says that ONLY GOD can forgive sins right? Exodus 34:6-7 says that but then in Mark 2:5 Jesus says Your sins are forgiven. How can God and Jesus BOTH forgive sins if they a seperate?

 

[Watchmen]

No, that's not what happened. Someone--me, challenged the OP on a point related to revelation, and the OP chose to start this thread.

Wow. Our versions are so amazingly different, auto.

 

[Watchmen]

I seem to have riled you a bit ... sorry about that. Not knowing about the previous thread, I still think my questions were relevant. More to the point, my inquiry was of a genuine religious nature ... I'm a bit confused by the response ...
Sorry, to have gotten off on the wrong foot here ...

No worries. Many will tell you I'm the resident a-hole. I hope to have many great discussions with you in the future.

 

[DadBurnett]

No worries. Many will tell you I'm the resident a-hole. I hope to have many great discussions with you in the future.

Thanks ...

 

[misanthropic_clown]

Let's keep everything civil. I think I have seen enough to start compiling now. It will take me a while, though.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

About "Revelation and the LDS Church – Question time" As a former member of the church, i find your statements to clearly represent what I once learned and believed. I am wondering, however, what it was you hoped to accomplish with your post.
I do know, from personal experience, that the pros and cons -specifically the cons - are not permitted by The Church, questions (such as you might seem to be soliciting) are prohibited. I'm wondering, are you attempting to use this thread as a missionary-teaching moment or are you genually interested in the perceptions of others regarding revelation and prophets?

I intend to create an article on LDS revelation, particularly relating to the issues surrounding the official declarations which signaled significant shifts in the practices of the church. I decided that rather than go into it blind, I would take questions from members of this forum to ensure that I discuss issues on the topic that they are curious about. Reflecting on the contents of this forum, I am evidently going to have to be more encompassing than I originally anticipated.

I am genuinely interested in the opinion of others, though I must admit they have not presented anything unexpected. I do intend to have critical analysis in the article - the church is not perfect and there is therefore reason for criticism. Obviously I will never be able to satisfy any individual skeptic of my religion given that faith is an inevitable element of it. I am not out to convert, merely educate.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

Why do religionists think that:

1. Others are interested in their practices.
2. They are an unbiased source of information about their own religions.
3. Others are ignorant about same.

1. People largely are curious about religion, though perhaps not to the extent of being interested in the mechanics of any one religion. However, this being a religious discussion forum, I am inclined to think that if there are any individuals interested in this topic, chances are they will be found here.

2. I find it an odd notion that people think religious people inherently lack the ability to have a sense of objectivity about their own faith. More than that, I actually find it insulting. I am evidently inclined to side with the church on a personal level, but that doesn't make me incapable of reasonable discussion on the topic.

3. Relating back to point one, there is a middle ground you need to consider, given that not everyone has the characteristics of your name. Oft times, the kind of people who are curious about the topic are not curious enough to go the the lengths to research the topic themselves. They may be inclined to appreciate someone bringing together information on the topic. This article will also hopefully serve to be a resource for the LDS on this forum too.

 

[DadBurnett]

I intend to create an article on LDS revelation, particularly relating to the issues surrounding the official declarations which signaled significant shifts in the practices of the church. I decided that rather than go into it blind, I would take questions from members of this forum to ensure that I discuss issues on the topic that they are curious about. Reflecting on the contents of this forum, I am evidently going to have to be more encompassing than I originally anticipated.

I am genuinely interested in the opinion of others, though I must admit they have not presented anything unexpected. I do intend to have critical analysis in the article - the church is not perfect and there is therefore reason for criticism. Obviously I will never be able to satisfy any individual skeptic of my religion given that faith is an inevitable element of it. I am not out to convert, merely educate.

I appreciate your reply … thanks. I would be greatly interested in the article you propose. I may not have up-to-date information, but it seems to me that there has been no official compilation of prophesies or official declarations since the Doctrine and Covenants. I’m curious why not … wouldn’t they indeed be scripture to be regarded and studied every bit as much as the BOM, D&C PofGP and the Bible?

Do you have an expectation that the official declarations of these modern day presidents of the church my somehow be well received by those outside of the church? Or would their purpose serve more to educate members?

You say the church is not perfect and there is reason for criticism, I find those statements interesting. When I, as a Mormon, made such statements some thirty years ago, my faith was called into question; my temple recommend was at risk. Has there been a significant shift - more freedom to discuss the practices (and history) of the church? Did such a shift come by way of an official declaration?

 

[idea]

Do you have an expectation that the official declarations of these modern day presidents of the church my somehow be well received by those outside of the church? Or would their purpose serve more to educate members?

[/quote]

God does not change, and niether do the basic principles set forth in D&C etc. A lot of info was needed when the church was being restored. Now it is restored, the new info is out there, there are very few things left to be revealed. I mean it is not like anyone is going to change the word of wisom, or how to perform a baptism, or how many apostles there will be, or how to give someone a calling.

We actually had an interesting 5th Sunday discussion awhile back about our roles as members - the handbook of instructions (what tells leaders what to do for what situations) has been drastically reduced in size - like 75% less pages in it now than there use to be. This is because members are expected to know how to acess the spirit for themselves, to rely less on leaders, and more on personal revelation. In other words, during this time, there is more guidance being given to individual members, rather than guidance given to the church as a whole. Current prophets, by not telling us what to do for each little thing, are telling us - you have the right and responsibility to be led directly by God yourself.

 

[DadBurnett]

I was an adult in the LDS church for over twenty years, Elder, in various presidencies and leadership callings ... I never encountered the handbook you mention (I left the church in 1980). What was emphasized while I was a member that personal revelation was strictly for personal affairs relating to family, etc. On matters of theology, doctrine, scripture understanding, matters of the priesthood we were to rely soley on the Church and its leadership.
"Idea" said in the previous post that "there are very few things left to be revealed..." I am reminded of the Hill Cumorah, said to contain much more that just the golden plates from which the BoM was translated. The teaching while I was in the church was that there is much more ot be revealed, but it is not being revealed simply because we have not yet learned to live in accordance with what little has been revealed so far ...
Having said all of that, I do fully believe in the importance of developing a deep abiding personal relationship with God and Christ, what tropubled me while in The Church was the persistand idea that The Church came first; that It would define my relationship with God ...