Mormon Prophets: Are They Still Seers and Revelators?

[_KimberlyAnn]

When was the last time a Mormon prophet received a new revelation or foretold the future?

What would the LDS think if President Monson used a seer stone the way Joseph Smith did to channel divine inspiration? Would anyone believe Monson if he produced a translation of the previously sealed portion of the Book of Mormon but couldn't produce the plates because they were whisked away away to heaven by an angel? Would his story be as easily believable to Mormons as is Joseph Smith's?

Curious,

KA

[_quaker]

They probably do use seerstones. Of course, I have absolutely no evidence. Not only does it have precedence, but it's sweet. I would only accept a call to be a seer and revelator if they could promise me some seerstones.

[_Sethbag]

They probably do use seerstones. Of course, I have absolutely no evidence.

Right. And you won't get any evidence, will you, even though they could just talk about it and you'd have all of the confirmation you needed. No, they're perfectly fine just not talking about any of this stuff at all, and letting people think what they will. It's sort of like none of the Apostles or the Presidents ever see God or Jesus in person, but most of the members believe that they really do. It's just assumed that they do. The GAs could, of course, set the record straight, but are perfectly happy with people believing as they do.

[_Mister Scratch]

The last "revelation" that occurred (at least publicly) was the lifting of the priesthood ban against Blacks. But, of course, this was not actually a "revelation"---rather, it was a political concession.

[_ludwigm]

The last "revelation" that occurred (at least publicly) was the lifting of the priesthood ban against Blacks. But, of course, this was not actually a "revelation"---rather, it was a political concession.

It was a declaration of asking of SWK to read a letter by NET about announcing a revelation. (Does this sentence make any sense? Could You rephrase it better?)

OFFICIAL DECLARATION—2
To Whom It May Concern:
On September 30, 1978, at the 148th Semiannual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the following was presented by President N. Eldon Tanner, First Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church:
In early June of this year, the First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church.
...
President Kimball has asked that I now read this letter:
...
He [the Lord] has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood
...
Sincerely yours, Spencer W. Kimball, N. Eldon Tanner, Marion G. Romney, The First Presidency
Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as the prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is proposed that we as a constituent assembly accept this revelation as the word and will of the Lord. All in favor please signify by raising your right hand. Any opposed by the same sign.
The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous in the affirmative.
Salt Lake City, Utah, September 30, 1978.

- this is not doctrine because it is not signed by the twelve
- we don't know the text of the mentioned revelation
- there is not a word about negroes or skin colors
- up to this time, every faithful, worthy man could receive the HP, but negroes were not worthy
- from this time, negroes become worthy and every faithful, worthy man could receive the HP as it was before

[_Danna]

Official declaration 2 here, does state that color and race are no longer impediments. According to the declaration it was approved by the 12 and the seventies, then the general conference, so it does qualify as doctrine I think.

Between Official declarations 1 and 2, there was D&C 138, which I have raised in another thread. so two? revelations in the last 100 years?

Crickey, Joseph Smith could crank out two revelations before breakfast on a slow day!

[_Pokatator]

They probably do use seerstones. Of course, I have absolutely no evidence.

I think they are confusing seerstones with er..... I think you are confusing seerstones with er...... I think someone is confusing seerstones with suppositories.

[_harmony]

When was the last time a Mormon prophet received a new revelation or foretold the future?

What would the LDS think if President Monson used a seer stone the way Joseph Smith did to channel divine inspiration? Would anyone believe Monson if he produced a translation of the previously sealed portion of the Book of Mormon but couldn't produce the plates because they were whisked away away to heaven by an angel? Would his story be as easily believable to Mormons as is Joseph Smith's?

Curious,

KA

Mormons, almost invariably, believe whatever comes out SLC. So if Pres Monson said he used a seer stone and God sent a revelation, the members would be just as much in awe as the members were of Joseph Smith... and with the same amount of proof demanded.

Revelation is revered in the LDS world. Members would immediately sustain whatever Pres Monson wanted sustained.

And the 1978 revelation is not the last revelation. It may be the last canonized one, but it's not the last one by any means. Our revelations now are usually nigh onto useless, but they pass the revelation test. (a prophet utters them and the members follow them). If we used the canonization process more, we'd have less messes like the earring thing.

[_mentalgymnast]

When was the last time a Mormon prophet received a new revelation or foretold the future?

KA

The church may have decided to become involved in the Prop. 8 amendment issue in Calif. in response to revelation/inspiration at the top levels, including the prophet, and group consensus that this was the right way to respond/go at this time.

Elder Whitney Clayton's remarks are illustrative:

Elder Clayton said the church didn't consider the vote a political issue, but a moral issue, and that whether the church will become involved to the same extent on future moral questions "depends on the issue and the time."

and

In addition to doctrinal concerns, Elder Clayton said the church's support for Prop 8 did involve concerns over "the potential loss of religious liberty. How and where that would play out I can't say, but we feel religious liberty is safer when marriage is legally defined as between a man and a woman.

Now, are you going to see a Church Newsroom article/entry mentioning revelation as being the impetus for the church's involvement in the Prop. 8 controversy? No. Why? It leaves and/or guarantees that individuals are ultimately left with the freedom to discern on their own, using their own agency, whether or not the church is doing "God's will".

This is as it should be.

This particular example may run parallel, at least to some extent, with others that could be mentioned in the modern church. God may be orchestrating things behind the scenes in conjunction and/or participation with his prophets and apostles, but on stage the outcomes/manifestations are seen and/or observed as men/women making decisions pragmatically/logistically.

Regards,
MG

[_cinepro]

When was the last time a Mormon prophet received a new revelation or foretold the future?

I think it depends on your tolerance for vaguely worded, ill-defined "prophecies". Some LDS would probably argue that we are constantly getting revelation, with new prophecies and foretellings at least every 6-months at conference. To outside observers, the answer would probably be somewhat different.

On a totally unrelated note, I know believers in Sylvia Brown are very convinced that she can predict the future. But to an outside observer, it looks more like vaguely worded scatter shot predictions with a laser like focus on her "hits", and a willful disregard for the "misses".

What would the LDS think if President Monson used a seer stone the way Joseph Smith did to channel divine inspiration? Would anyone believe Monson if he produced a translation of the previously sealed portion of the Book of Mormon but couldn't produce the plates because they were whisked away away to heaven by an angel? Would his story be as easily believable to Mormons as is Joseph Smith's?

Curious,

KA

If President Monson dictated the "sealed portion" and it resembled the complexity and patterns of the Book of Mormon in any appreciable way, I would be amazed, and it would really boost my testimony. Such an event would really obliterate the theory that Joseph Smith was somehow the "source" of the Book of Mormon. (Conversely, the fact that no subsequent LDS Prophet has been able to translate so much as a Bazooka Bubble Gum wrapper only supports the idea that The Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham were products of Joseph's unique talents, and not from a separate and supernatural source.)

I am on record as saying that I don't think any LDS Prophet will be able to dictate the sealed portion in any way that is comparable to the existing Book of Mormon, and that we will never see it. Any hope for the sealed portion coming forth (or the Book of Joseph) died in June of 1844.