What is God telling the prophets?

[_Equality]

How are you so sure the men are at fault here and God wasn't just being an ass?

I've long thought the Mormon god is a lot like Loki.

[_maklelan]

Great news! Good to hear, maklelan. Now, just one request. Please point us to a statement from the current prophet or any of the Big 15 that God has, in fact, told them anything specific on any of those matters.

I can't think of any of the top of my head. Why is this relevant?

[_Equality]

Great news! Good to hear, maklelan. Now, just one request. Please point us to a statement from the current prophet or any of the Big 15 that God has, in fact, told them anything specific on any of those matters.

I can't think of any of the top of my head. Why is this relevant?

Well, it's relevant to the OP. To my life, not much at all. The so-called prophets leading the Corporation of the President are mostly irrelevant to me anymore, though sometimes they interject themselves into the public discourse in a way that profoundly affects people close to me and I like to express my opinions about that, but yeah, I agree, Monson and his fellow travelers are, in the grand scheme of things in this great big world of ours, irrelevant.

[_Quasimodo]

Doesn't this put you in the awkward position of refuting a divine revelation from the Prophet?

What divine revelation?

Maybe I misunderstand. I'm quoting a quote from a quote here:

"The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization

Isn't that what this means?

[_maklelan]

Maybe I misunderstand. I'm quoting a quote from a quote here:

Isn't that what this means?

Did you not read my comments? You responded to them, so I assumed you read them, but you don't appear to be cognizant of them in your previous question. They cannot point to any commandment or revelation. The notion that it was a commandment was just conventional wisdom. If I'm refuting a divine revelation, then point to the revelation I'm refuting. A vague secondary reference to some revelation somewhere doesn't cut it.

[_Quasimodo]

Maybe I misunderstand. I'm quoting a quote from a quote here:

Isn't that what this means?

Did you not read my comments? You responded to them, so I assumed you read them, but you don't appear to be cognizant of them in your previous question. They cannot point to any commandment or revelation. The notion that it was a commandment was just conventional wisdom. If I'm refuting a divine revelation, then point to the revelation I'm refuting. A vague secondary reference to some revelation somewhere doesn't cut it.

I did read your posts. I went back and reread them. I could only find this:

The First Presidency statement hardly constitutes in my opinion an indication that God is actually behind it.

I understand that it is your opinion, but it doesn't really refute the First Presidency statement. It's just your own personal feelings about it. Who is to be believed? The First Presidency or you?

[Guest]

They cannot point to any commandment or revelation. The notion that it was a commandment was just conventional wisdom. If I'm refuting a divine revelation, then point to the revelation I'm refuting. A vague secondary reference to some revelation somewhere doesn't cut it.

The same thing can be said in reference to the end of the priesthood ban. The proclamation references a revelation, but said revelation has never been published. So, just as the 1949 statement references a commandment ie revelation, the end of the ban also indirectly refers to revelation.

Did neither revelation occur? Neither is available.

Convenient that.

[_maklelan]

I understand that it is your opinion, but it doesn't really refute the First Presidency statement. It's just your own personal feelings about it. Who is to be believed? The First Presidency or you?

That's up to you, but the fact remains that the First Presidency did not indicate any specific revelation, and I am aware of none.

[_Morley]

I understand that it is your opinion, but it doesn't really refute the First Presidency statement. It's just your own personal feelings about it. Who is to be believed? The First Presidency or you?

That's up to you, but the fact remains that the First Presidency did not indicate any specific revelation, and I am aware of none.

Neither did the 1890 Manifesto to end polygamy. Do you discount it as well?

[_maklelan]

The same thing can be said in reference to the end of the ban. The proclamation references a revelation, but said revelation has never been published. So just as the 1949 statement references a commandment ie revelation, the end of the ban also indirectly refers to revelation.

Did neither revelation occur? Neither is available.

Convenient that.

Actually that revelation has been published. It is not canonized, but many of those present have published accounts. McConkie states:

[It was as though another day of Pentecost came.] On the day of Pentecost in the Old World it is recorded that cloven tongues of fire rested upon the people. They were trying to put into words what is impossible to express directly. There are no words to describe the sensation, but simultaneously the Twelve and the three members of the First Presidency had the Holy Ghost descend upon them and they knew that God had manifested his will. . . . I had had some remarkable spiritual experiences before, particularly in connection with my call as an apostle, but nothing of this magnitude.

All of the Brethren at once knew and felt in their souls what the answer to the importuning petition of President Kimball was. . . . Some of the Brethren were weeping. All were sober and somewhat overcome. When President Kimball stood up, several of the Brethren, in turn, threw their arms around him.

and:

this was done by the Lord in this way because it was a revelation of such tremendous significance and import; one that would reverse the whole direction of the Church, procedurally and administratively; one that would affect the living and the dead; one that would affect the total relationship that we have with the world; one . . . of such significance that the Lord wanted independent witnesses who could bear record that the thing had happened.

L. Tom Perry wrote:

While he was praying we had a marvelous experience. We had just a unity of feeling. The nearest I can describe it is that it was much like what has been recounted as happening at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple. I felt something like the rushing of wind. There was a feeling that came over the whole group. When President Kimball got up he was visibly relieved and overjoyed.

President Hinckley wrote:

There was a hallowed and sanctified atmosphere in the room. For me, it felt as if a conduit opened between the heavenly throne and the kneeling, pleading prophet. . . . And by the power of the Holy Ghost there came to that prophet an assurance that the thing for which he prayed was right, that the time had come. . . .

There was not the sound “as of a rushing mighty wind,” there were not “cloven tongues like as of fire” as there had been on the Day of Pentecost. . . .

. . . But the voice of the Spirit whispered with certainty into our minds and our very souls.

It was for us, at least for me personally, as I imagine it was with Enos, who said concerning his remarkable experience, “. . . behold, the voice of the Lord came into my mind.

. . . Not one of us who was present on that occasion was ever quite the same after that.

Elder Haight wrote:

The Spirit touched each of our hearts with the same message in the same way. Each was witness to a transcendent heavenly event.

and:

I was there. I was there with the outpouring of the Spirit in that room so strong that none of us could speak afterwards. We just left quietly to go back to the office. No one could say anything because of the heavenly spiritual experience.