DiscussMormonism.com

Ok, catchy title, eh? Let me explain.

Many if not most Mormons will claim to believe in actual revelation from God to human beings. The form of this revelation can be varied, but can include direct conversation as between two beings face to face, the hearing of a voice, either with one's ears or in one's head, the seeing of a vision in one's mind, either waking or in the form of a dream, inspiration urging one to a particular course of action, etc.

However, when push comes to shove, they don't really believe this. In fact, a common "doctrine", or belief, pretty much militates against such belief.

This is the idea of someone else receiving revelation. By way of example, I will refer back to the recent FAIR article slamming Mr. Rodney Meldrum's theories and how "Mr. Meldrum" has gone about attempting to influence others in believing them. Specifically, they body-slammed him for telling others that he had confirmation from the Lord that his theories were correct, that he had received confirmation through revelation that the course of "research" he was on was something the Lord wanted him to continue, etc. The FAIR authors slammed Meldrum for backing up his beliefs with his own personal revelation experiences.

Now, someone like the FAIR author will explain it thusly: everyone in the church is entitled to personal revelation, however, that revelation is not valid for anyone other than themselves, or those over whom the person (ex officio) holds spiritual jurisdiction of some kind.

What they're really saying is that they don't believe Meldrum's claims of revelation. If Meldrum says that God revealed to him that the Book of Mormon took place in the territory of modern-day America, for example, they don't believe that God would really tell him this. They doubt his claim to this revelation.

I've had Mormons tell me that they had received confirmation through revelation from the Lord that the Flood of Noah was real, literal, and global in scope, and took place several thousand years ago, in accordance with the typical Biblical timeline. Many other Mormons would deny this. Probably many if not most of the FARMS folks would deny this. What this means is that they do not believe in the revelation that this person has said they received.

Here's the crux of the issue. To say that it is "inappropriate" for one person to use their own personal "revelation" experiences to back up their claims is non-sensical. Either what the person had revealed to them is true, or it isn't true. Facts of history either reflect what really happened, or they don't. Noah can't really have saved the human race (and all animal species) from extinction in a large wooden boat, in a global flood several thousand years ago, to one person, and yet not have done all of this, to another. These claims are mutually exclusive. Either God really did tell one person something, or he did not.

Mormons don't really believe in revelation from God of truth. If they did, then they must accept that either:
A) Meldrum is lying, and really made it up
B) Meldrum is mistaken, and simply misinterpreted his own thoughts as coming from God
C) God really did reveal this stuff to Meldrum, and Meldrum is therefore spot on with his theories

Both A and B are problematic, because Meldrum appears to be sincere, and because accusations of lying between any particular groups of LDS members who disagree with one another would be incredibly disruptive to the community. B is problematic because it undercuts the claims to personal revelation at all, ie: if Meldrum can be so sure he's received legitimate, from God, revelation, and yet be wrong, how can I be confident that I'm not being mislead in the same way Meldrum is, in my own identification and interpretation of my own personal revelation?

C is obviously problematic because it opens the flood gates of contradictory "revelations" being used by members to prove their own personal beliefs to each other. The fact is you can find people in the church who have had "revealed" to them all kinds of things which many other LDS would reject as probably or even certainly not true.

The fact is, really, bottom line, that LDS don't really believe that people out there are receiving personal revelation on things from God. They claim that through the power of God one can know all things, but then will not believe someone else who says that they received something from God, and shares that with them.

Even Prophets and Apostles find, at least after their deaths, that their supposedly inspired or revealed truth can be dismissed as mere personal opinion by other members. Just look at Bruce R. McConkie. How many Mormons would claim to believe that Bruce probably at some point in his life actually saw and conversed directly with Jesus Christ, but aren't willing to accept that all sorts of things this Special Witness of Jesus Christ said are actually true, and not just his own personal opinion?

Mormons believe in personal revelation from God when it's their own experience, when they perceive God telling them something. They don't believe it when it's someone else's experience, when someone else perceives God tells them something, and then share it with someone else. You see, that's "inappropriate", which is code for "no, I don't really believe that really happened."

Bah, I typed too much. I'm sorry I didn't boil that down into something more succinct.

I wanted to make another example though.

Assume, for the sake of argument, that I am still a believing LDS, fully worthy, active, etc.

Ok, I'm talking to some other church members, and I let slip somehow that I have been visited by the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ, and that Jesus is actually black. Just to avoid the "deceived by Satan appearing as an angel of Light" angle, let's say I recount how I offered to shake hands with the being that appeared to me, and that Black Jesus stuck his hand out cheerfully and I shook it, felt the hand, and in fact even turned up the palms and saw the prints of the nails, etc.

Now, what are these other LDS to do? I have let slip "information" about Jesus Christ that has never been revealed before. I argue that the crux of the issue is really not whether I am "authorized" to reveal to anyone that Jesus is actually a brotha, but the real issue is that either I really saw Jesus personally, as I said I did, or I didn't. I claim I did. The bottom line is that probably most, if not every Mormon I have ever known would probably opt for "nope, didn't really happen."

The argument of who has the "authority" to reveal truth is really nonsensical. Either what people have "revealed" to them is true, or it isn't. Mormons just don't want to accept that other people, except maybe the Prophet, really, actually, truly gets stuff told to them by God, unless it's harmless s*** like the current location of their unaccounted-for car keys.

No, you didn't type too much. The crux of your argument, I believe, resides in your final paragraph:

Sethbag wrote:Mormons believe in personal revelation from God when it's their own experience, when they perceive God telling them something. They don't believe it when it's someone else's experience, when someone else perceives God tells them something, and then share it with someone else. You see, that's "inappropriate", which is code for "no, I don't really believe that really happened."

I think you hit the nail on the head. I especially think the middle sentence of that paragraph is conversation-worthy.

Lots of topics have been hashed and rehashed on the various boards, but this is a topic that I don't recall seeing very often, if at all.

I wish we could get our believing Mormon friends to tell us whether they believe that The Nehor really did converse with Jesus Christ face-to-face or not, as he claims.

The Brethren's most effective tool for covering this hole is the doctrine (espoused by Packer in Preach My Gospel, among other places) that personal revelations and spiritual experiences are not generally meant to be shared, and that by sharing them one loses the trust of the Spirit and the ability to receive them in the future. This prevents most of the ideas gotten by individual members by "revelation" from being part of the public Church discourse, and also avoids exposing the innumerable contradictions these ideas would hold with each other and with official doctrine.

Some of the most violent Gospel Doctrine and Priesthood arguments I've ever seen have been based around extradoctrinal teachings that a member claimed to have received in prayer or as a matter of inspiration. Someone inevitably compares this with official doctrine or their own set of personal revelations, and chaos ensues... hence the members are strictly instructed to keep to their manuals for Church lessons.

I accept that according to LDS doctrine he has no right to reveal things by revelation to the Church. Knowing this, I have doubt about his revelations. I also know that attempting to use spiritual gifts from God to attempt to get gain/profit and glory of the world is called priestcraft. Peddling things that have been revealed to you by revelation as revelation is priestcraft. He's getting gain (DVD sales are sole source of income) through this teaching and I suspect is seeking glory.

I hope he realizes what he is doing and repents.

Edit: Oh, and this Mormon does believe in revelation. Got some last night actually.

The Nehor wrote:I accept that according to LDS doctrine he has no right to reveal things by revelation to the Church. Knowing this, I have doubt about his revelations. I also know that attempting to use spiritual gifts from God to attempt to get gain/profit and glory of the world is called priestcraft. Peddling things that have been revealed to you by revelation as revelation is priestcraft.

I guess it's a good thing none of the "prophets, seers, and revelators" ever sell books containing their spiritual wisdom obtained through their years of service in the Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency. Whew! Wouldn't want any of them to be practicing priestcraft. And I guess it's good that the leaders of the LDS church never ask anyone for money to fund the corporation they are running under the guise of a religion.

This reminds me of the "everybody's stupid except me" attitude you see among some of the posters we have on this board. It's essentially the same thing. They think they're the only ones with insight, they're the only ones who really understand, and everyone else is simply misinformed. Only their own thoughts are "valid."

And just as you look at the Mormon who thinks he or she is the only one with true revelation in his/her back pocket, you can't help but view the "I'm smarter than everyone else" attitude as coming from a complete lunatic (at least, I can't). I suppose that's why I can't seem to help making fun of these kinds of folks, especially when they're so arrogant about it. Nobody's more deserving of ridicule than someone who's arrogant and wrong at the same time.

Thama wrote:The Brethren's most effective tool for covering this hole is the doctrine (espoused by Packer in Preach My Gospel, among other places) that personal revelations and spiritual experiences are not generally meant to be shared, and that by sharing them one loses the trust of the Spirit and the ability to receive them in the future. This prevents most of the ideas gotten by individual members by "revelation" from being part of the public Church discourse, and also avoids exposing the innumerable contradictions these ideas would hold with each other and with official doctrine.

Some of the most violent Gospel Doctrine and Priesthood arguments I've ever seen have been based around extradoctrinal teachings that a member claimed to have received in prayer or as a matter of inspiration. Someone inevitably compares this with official doctrine or their own set of personal revelations, and chaos ensues... hence the members are strictly instructed to keep to their manuals for Church lessons.

What I find fascinating about the Meldrum situation is that we don't have a case of a crackpot believer claiming some revelation that is clearly at odds with established doctrine. Just the opposite is true. His personal "revelation" is simply confirming the things taught by all the prophets from Joseph Smith to Gordon B. Hinckley (Tommy Boy has yet to weigh in, I think). So the usual refrain of "personal revelation must be measured against the scriptures and the prophets" doesn't work. At the same time, if the apologists tried to claim revelation for their ideas, they would be going against established doctrine. That's the beauty of it, really. It just puts into such stark relief the fact that the apologists are the ones out of step with Mormon doctrine. You can't really believe literally in the LDS scriptures and the prophets and at the same time believe in science. That's the great dissonant fact that apologists just can't seem to face squarely.

Equality wrote:

The Nehor wrote:I accept that according to LDS doctrine he has no right to reveal things by revelation to the Church. Knowing this, I have doubt about his revelations. I also know that attempting to use spiritual gifts from God to attempt to get gain/profit and glory of the world is called priestcraft. Peddling things that have been revealed to you by revelation as revelation is priestcraft.

I guess it's a good thing none of the "prophets, seers, and revelators" ever sell books containing their spiritual wisdom obtained through their years of service in the Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency. Whew! Wouldn't want any of them to be practicing priestcraft. And I guess it's good that the leaders of the LDS church never ask anyone for money to fund the corporation they are running under the guise of a religion.

Yeah, but those books all have disclaimers saying they are their own work and do not then proceed off into new revelation never before heard for the Church. If the Prophet were to receive a revelation saying that the Book of Mormon took place in Paraguay and the Prophet then announced that he'd had a revelation of where it happened but to get the location and the details you had to buy his book I'd have a problem with it.

The Church asks for money to fund itself. Those monsters!!

Thama hit the nail on the head, and expressed some things in ways I'd wanted to, but didn't find the words last night.

How many times have we had LDS guys on this or other LDS boards tell us all, with a straight face, that if we really studied the scriptures hard and prayed about them, like they did, then we'd know all this really deep Truth like they do? That God would tell us all kinds of stuff, like he did for them?

We just had a guy by the handle of Jacob Welling do that just a couple of weeks ago on this board. And don't we have guys like Paul Ray from the MAD board, and quite a few others, insinuate or even flat out tell us (like Nehor does) that they've got all this really deep knowledge and insight about God through all the fantastic personal revelation through the Holy Ghost that they've received?

Thama is perfectly dead on here. We're all told by the likes of Boyd K. Packer that all of this is "too sacred" to discuss with each other, even with our own committed co-religionists, and for what reason? Because it's "deeply personal?" I would argue that in the context of our worldview and cosmology, Truth is universally true, ie: there is no "personal" version of truth about all of the things that pertain to God, the universe, human history, Jesus Christ, etc. If God reveals to me something about Jesus Christ, or about God himself, then that thing must be true, whether anyone else has publicly revealed that or not.

The real reason people are exhorted to keep all their deep revelations to themselves is because that way, nobody has to confront the fact that everyone is getting their own versions of truth, which aren't the same as each others' versions. When two "deeply spiritual" Mormons are together they can insinuate to each other, wink wink, that they've received some really deep s*** from God, that most people don't have, but as long as they just wink wink, knowing smile, keep the actual details to themselves, it doesn't have to hit them in the face that hey, no, what you just told me is way different than the way I heard it from God.

They can both revel in the fiction of personal revelation from God, without having to confront the fact that they're really syncretizing a unique, personal version of Mormonism from the wider Mormon culture and the experiences they've had, their own interpretations of scripture, and their own hunches or intuitions. In other words, they're making it up as they go along.