Prophecy, Revelation Deficits, and Moral Exhortations

[Harry Tic]

A lot of the "revelation" in the early periods of the church came at the request or in response to actions of everyday members. The D&C is full of revelations of people asking questions of Joseph Smith. The RS was started by two women that were making shirts for temple workers (and subsequently led the woman's suffrage movement in Utah). The Primary had a similar founding. Neither organization were revealed to the prophet and then implemented...instead they were started (probably through inspiration) to members and then later adopted by the church.

Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately), questions sent to the prophet are returned to local leaders. I guess people are to rely on personal revelation more, which is probably a good thing. It's what gives me hope that certain things in the church will change and I tend to try and steer things in that direction. I deemphasize scouts and emphasize DTG. I don't teach homophobia, or avoiding interracial marriage, or social conservatism and instead teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I guess my short answer is that I believe the prophet does and will receive revelation, but I think a lot of the time it starts from below him...not above.

This is really worth thinking about. Maybe church members need to be more bold in seeking out revelation, both on their own behalf as individuals in their various stewardships, AND from church leaders. I sometimes wonder if we feel trapped in administrative minutiae, getting by on mere 'inspiration' (the more innocuous, non-committal substitute for revelation proper) because we don't ever expect to receive anything. Indeed, we sometimes talk as if we didn't need any more than we already have (e.g., "JS gave us this great body of revelation, we just need to study it" etc). Leaders--at whatever level--consequently feel more inclined to administer rather than reveal. I suspect that Pres. Uchtdorf's recent admonition to "live up to our privileges" applies all the way up and all the way down the line.

[DU Ute]

It's sad to me that in a Church with such a rich history of bottom-up changes has a large segment of members who think questioning any Church policy is inappropriate. Someone who questioned the priesthood ban on June 8, 1978 was in the wrong. Heaven forbid someone go as far to write a letter to the First Presidency before the ban was lifted. Some would consider it grounds for excommunication.

[Katy Lied]

This is a timely discussion as Lesson 6 in GD is on revelation for the common man.

Regarding keys that segment revelation: I've posted before on this incident, but have been thinking about it a lot lately.

In the which a couple was going through an acrimonious divorce. The wife went to the bishop with false accusations of physical abuse. The bishop requested that the husband leave the home for a cooling off period, which he did, but eventually police and ecclesiastical authorities found the claims unsubstantiated.

The wife then went to his Stake President and complained of abuse. She had moved out by then so his SP was not hers. His stake president found her charges baseless. So then she went to SLC. She wrote letter after letter and was very persuasive. This woman seemed very believable, and she wanted his TR pulled--his temple work was very important to him. Finally Church HQ called the SP and asked him about the incident. His SP essentially told SLC to back off, that only he had the keys to preside over the members in his stake. Very gutsy move if you ask me. And they backed off. And in this case, if they wanted the SP to pull the TR, they would have been wrong and he would have been right.

[All-American]

This is a timely discussion as Lesson 6 in GD is on revelation for the common man.

See? GD manual=inspired.

In your FACE, doubters!

[Northwestcoug]

Here's a good summary. I preferred the original version, but Elder Poelman, who passed away just over a year ago, was a good soldier and made the changes. I was skeptical, and still am, that concerns about how the fundamentalists would interpret the talk was the primary motivator for the changes. I was also amused that when they had him retape the talk for future broadcasts, they inserted a cough track to create the impression the talk was being given in front of a full tabernacle.

Stack also points out that “the cost of this video editing was between $10,000 and $15,000.” Church spokesperson Jerry Cahill was quoted as saying, “I don’t think that $10,000 is too much to pay to correct a possible misinterpretation. Besides, if the Brethren require it, we comply.”

The flippancy of the church spokesman in the article is jarring. That's a hefty chunk of someone's tithing.

I think the fundamentalist angle for the change is laughable. Especially when you read the 2 versions side by side.

[wuapinmon]

I miss Harry Tic. This thread never got its due.