Thus Saith the Lord
Posted by Connor on August 16th, 2006
So a thought came across my mind yesterday, and I’d like to see what you all think about it. I’m curious as to why we don’t have much scripture anymore that has a “thus saith the Lord” tone to it. When the church was founded, Joseph Smith received many revelations that were then canonized into scripture. Additionally, successive prophets have received revelations that were included in the Doctrine and Covenants.
We also have general conference, followed up by the Ensign, that contains the words of the modern prophets. But why don’t we hear much of “thus saith the Lord” anymore? Or do we, and I’ve been asleep at the wheel?
One argument, that seems logical to me, is that when the restoration occurred, and the church was organized, there were many revelations given since it was necessary for Joseph in order to know what to do, and lay a foundation for the restored gospel to rest upon. So once the church was organized, and the gospel restored, there weren’t as many “big” revelations needed for direction, since that direction had already been given.
Likewise, modern prophets have counseled us and given commandments, but it seems to me that most have not taken the tone of “thus saith the Lord”, and rather than saying what God has said, they issue the command in their own words.
I might be misguided here, but this thought just popped in my head yesterday. What do you all think about it? Is there a reason for the change? Is there no change at all? Am I missing something?
I have made that very point a few times in comments on other blogs from time to time. The point being that it is only logical that the bulk of the revelations would be given to the head of a dispensation. Then the work becomes more of a ministry, I suppose.
Elder Packer’s conference talk from October 2005 made me chuckle a bit. He addressed this question mainly by describing at length the efforts made at the LDS scriptures with the footnotes, bible dictionary, topical guide, scripture headings, etc. So at the end, I concluded that everything that has happened since Joseph Smith has been footnotes.
Anyway, the mission of the church has been rolling forward, and is an important work. Perhaps managing church growth is more important now.
Comment # 1 left by Eric Nielson on August 16th, 2006
I think there were also many instances when early leaders didn’t always say “thus saith the Lord” as well, although I was thinking about the actual number of revelations received early on. As Eric said, that only makes sense.
I tend to think that we can look at D&C 1, which says that the voice of the Lord’s servants is the same as the Lord’s own voice. Pres. Benson also once said that prophets don’t have to say “thus saith the Lord” to be speaking as prophets.
I think there is little to be lost from taking their words as prophetic, especially when we see patterns in them (per Elder Eyring’s counsel about paying attention when their words sound repetitive).
I can’t help but wonder, too, if this is a sort of test of faith for us. Will we look for excuses to say, “Oh, he didn’t say ‘thus saith the Lord’ so it’s just his opinion”? I think we’re inviting trouble with that kind of approach. But that’s just the way I see it.
Comment # 2 left by mullingandmusing (m&m) on August 16th, 2006
Connor,
Your point is certainly logical. However, a primary distinguishing feature of our religion is that God will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. There seems to be so much that we don’t know about exactly how all the nuts and bolts of the gospel work.
I have my own theory as to why this might be. I don’t think we, the membership of the Church, are ready.
The first problem is contention. I need only to travel as far as anywhere in the mormon blogosphere to see some of the seething hostility some get in debating the finer points of the Gospel. If our prophet were to get up tomorrow and give a “Thus saith the Lord sermon” on oh, why bad things happen to good people if God is no respecter of persons, or elaborating the role of women in the plan of salvation and gospel hierarchy, or progression between kingdoms or lack thereof, or use of evolution or lack thereof in the actual creation of life, the geography of Zarahemla, or whether Adam had a belly button, or whatever, there would be an unbelievable stir. Anything innovative and some group or other is going to be up in arms over it the next day. I see plenty who all ready to criticize the brethren for many, many things they personally take issue with. One need look no further than BRM to see the kinds of division a certain bold type of apostle caused.
I think we lack love, faith, something, that would help us accept the doctrines even if taken by our culture or perspective to be hard. Multiply this by a world full of cultures and the problem gets bigger. A little scrutiny about certain past events show that even the twelve have certainly not always been of one mind on things, with a surprising amount of division or split in certain instances. The lack of unity is a hindrance to the spirit.
The second problem obedience. I think clearly we hear some things repeated over and over and over again because we as a people have certain issues of practice with wchich we struggle. I believe that until we have more love, compassion, charity as a people, until we a re stripped of pride, the spirit is unable to unfold the greater things of the kingdom to our view. These things must remain sealed not because God does not want us to know, but because we won’t know. Until we live the gospel more fully, I think we cannot have the mysteries of God fully revealed.
In short I believe we will only receive more direct doctrinal revelation when we truly become a Zion people of one heart and one mind unified by Faith in Christ and filled with his spirit. I think the saints need a little more perfecting before they are ready for more of the picture.
Comment # 3 left by Doc on August 16th, 2006
We are not worthy as a Church to receive direct revelation for the Church as a whole–at least in the terms of “further light and knowledge”. This is my view. Why else would President Hinckley have to issue a “challenge/command” to read the Book of Mormon? It’s simply because we don’t read it as a Church. We neglect what we already have. Why then should we receive more? It doesn’t mean revelation does not occur. Rather, I believe it occurs on a personal level because, as Doc expressed, we aren’t prepared to receive it as a Church.
AWESOME picture!
Comment # 4 left by Wade on August 16th, 2006
Doc,
I think the saints need a little more perfecting before they are ready for more of the picture.
What do you think this entails? How might it be accomplished? How soon might it happen?
Comment # 5 left by Connor Boyack on August 16th, 2006
Doc and Wade,
Now you have me depressed….
Comment # 6 left by mullingandmusing (m&m) on August 16th, 2006
M&M:
You shouldn’t be depressed. As I said: It doesn’t mean revelation does not occur. Rather, I believe it occurs on a personal level. . . .
Comment # 7 left by Wade on August 16th, 2006
Connor,
I really am not entirely sure. I wish I knew. It seems to me that the challenge to read the Book of Mormon was a start. I get from that reading a real emphasis on being spiritually born of God, feeling to sing the song of redeeming love, receiving the image of Christ in our countenance, and I can honestly say this really happens from experience. I think revelation definitely happens on a personal level. I am just not sure how many of us really get there. I don’t think it is a majority, and even when we do, staying on that kind of spiritual plane can be difficult. When the Lord needs things to move forward, he typically finds a way, and historically that has always involved some degree of social upheaval. I’m not totally sure I would wish that upon anybody. So, I just work on my own spirituality and relationship with God and wait patiently.
Comment # 8 left by Doc on August 17th, 2006