Source
r/mormon•
MillstoneTime

Do modern Prophets and Apostles see/speak with God, Jesus or Heavenly Messengers?

Institutional

A similar question was posed in another sub. Some responses included:

"When Quentin L Cook came to my stake conference he testified that he knew the Savior and “knew His face”. Take that for what you will but I kinda took it at face value, assuming he meant exactly what he said."

"... in my mission when Richard G. Scott visited. He testified of Christ and specifically stated there are other ways he knows that Christ lives but that he is not allowed to share why but that he knows the spirit with tell us how. It was pretty clear to me that he has seen him face to face."

"Elder Cook came to stake conference at my ward and said he wants to bare the same testimony as Joseph Smith that"He lives, for we saw him"

Now lets see what Dallin H Oaks has to say about visions of heavenly messengers:

"I’ve never had an experience like that and I don’t know anyone among the 1st Presidency or Quorum of the 12 who’ve had that kind of experience."

🤔

Posted Sep 1, 2023, 2:12 PM UTC

11
AutoModeratorMOD•

Hello! This is a Institutional post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about any of the institutional churches and their leaders, conduct, business dealings, teachings, rituals, and practices.

u/MillstoneTime, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in section 0.6 of our rules.

To those commenting: please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's rules, and message the mods if there is a problem or rule violation.

Keep on Mormoning!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1
Spensauras-Rex•

Have there been any recorded revelations from Christ lately? Like, has there ever been a "thus sayeth the Lord" moment from prophets in modern church history?

If they're really visiting with Christ on a regular basis, I wonder why they don't share whatever they're talking about with the rest of the church.

1
Intrepid-Quiet-4690•

A prophet doesn't have to say thus sayeth the Lord for it to be from God.

1
Spensauras-Rex•

Sure, but has there been an actual recorded revelation recently? If not, that kinda defeats the purpose of prophets, right?

1
Intrepid-Quiet-4690•

Speaking with God face to face is not required to receive revelation. Happens often.

1
Spensauras-Rex•

I know that. Do you have any examples of actual recent revelations though? That's what I'm asking.

1
MillstoneTimeOP•

Do you think they see/speak with heavenly messengers as they seem to imply? If so, what do you think of Dallin Oaks saying they don't?

1
NauvooLegionnaire11•

Could you cite some examples of prophecies in the past 5 years.

1
BittenByKittens005•

There is a key distinction here. Biblical prophets say "thus sayeth the Lord" to bring you a message they claim is God's will. The Q15 say "thus sayeth the lord" as an appeal to bolster their own authority. They do not claim its a message from God; rather, they claim their opinions ARE god's opinions.

This is a consistent pattern in mormonism - when a leader is challenged, they drop the revelation nuke to silence that criticism. See the exclusion policy as one example of many. By contrast, find me a message from "God" delivered by the Q15 that is against their interest or desires. This should be a huge giveaway of the source of their revelations. Now let's talk about how saying goddam is taking the name of the lord in vain.

1
ididnteatit•

Closest thing I can think of is when Rusty said children of LGBTQ+ parents were unable to get baptized, get blessings, or any other ordinances until they disavow the actions of their parents and move out of their house.

Rustys comments in regards to that revelation,

"...when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson." https://kjzz.com/news/local/lds-church-rules-change-reverses-2015-revelation

and

"Speaking in January 2016, when he (Nelson) was still an apostle and had not yet replaced the late Thomas S. Monson as president of the church, Nelson said the ban was the result of top church leaders’ meeting “repeatedly in the temple” to seek God’s guidance. God, Nelson said, had “inspired his prophet … to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord” with the LGBT ban." https://religionnews.com/2019/04/04/mormon-leaders-reverse-lgbt-policy-raising-the-question-what-is-revelation/

Then after some extensive backlash we got the ol reliable, 'God changed his mind, deal with it.'

"Nelson says it’s now the Lord’s will to reverse that policy — and that this is also a revelation.

Most intriguingly, he noted that the church’s top leaders had continued to wrestle with the LGBT ban from 2015 to now: “These policy changes come after an extended period of counseling with our brethren in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles after fervent, united prayer to understand the will of the Lord,” he indicated.

In other words, Mormon leaders continued discussing and praying about the LGBT ban even after it had been presented to members as a revelation and a fait accompli." https://religionnews.com/2019/04/04/mormon-leaders-reverse-lgbt-policy-raising-the-question-what-is-revelation/

Maybe thats why they shy away from modern day revelations....it gets messy when the omniscient being running the church creates racist and discriminatory policies and then reverses them after some social backlash

1
Spensauras-Rex•

Wow thanks for responding. These modern day revelations are... disappointing, to say the least.

1
nominalmormon•

If they speak with god they either don’t listen well or hear him.

  • blacks and priesthood -salamander letter fiasco -sec scandal

Just to name a few. I’m gonna go with

“ they don’t see or talk to him”

1
ancient-submariner•

At the very least "indistinguishable from not seeing or talking to him"

1
BaxTheDestroyer•

Nope. Never did and still do not.

1
sblackcrow•

When an experience is "too sacred to discuss" or otherwise something the leader is "not allowed to share" ... then we're not allowed to consider and evaluate whatever it actually is. We can imagine, but not evaluate.

Which, come to think of it, is probably the point, since LDS leaders do like people imagining what they are, and also like people simply accepting and obeying what they have to say, without consideration or evaluation.

1
my2hundrethsdollar•

Another problem with the “too sacred to share” is Joseph claimed to have seen the Father and the Son. What can be more sacred than that?

I also wonder if folks use the phrase when they are alluding to the second anointing! They aren’t supposed to talk about it yet they want people to know about it.

To me, what makes most sense is it’s all made up. Man invented god. Not the other way around. And as much as people want to see Jesus, because they believe so intensely, it never happens because he died a long time ago.

1
Ok_Fox3999•

In a way I think they might have some kind of extra thing going on beyond the veil. It seems if the didn't one of them would have tipped us off that it is all a hoax. It is hard to believe that as many GA's as there are that a couple haven't held a press conference to say it's all totally a bunch of BS. Maybe they are allowed a peek of the other side just to keep them going. How can some many educated men believe in what seems to be a fantasy.

1
my2hundrethsdollar•

You have some good questions and assumptions that are worth investigating.

1
2ndNeonorne•

How can some many educated men believe in what seems to be a fantasy.

That goes for all the other churches and faiths as well. The cardinals of the Catholic church, the governing body of the Jehova's Witnesses, etc etc etc … Why don't they hold press conferences and tell us it's all BS?

1
Ok_Fox3999•

I was thinking from the sand oo.point that mormons are the only church that claims to be the true church and having active and living prophets but done't the catholic church claim to be the true church too. Isn't their nickname the great and abominable church. Shouldn't Dallin Oaks be kicked off the Q15 for denying the holy ghost by saying that no one has talked to God including himself. I t is actually their job to do this.

1
dprfe•

what scriptures are you reading ?from Adam Moses to Isaiah to Jesus the prophets had been revealed things that they were not allowed to mention. The face to face conversations with God seldom had all the details of the conversation

1
BaxTheDestroyer•

What a ridiculous dodge, you should be embarrassed. Are you really trying to say that “all the details of the conversation” is the same as “not confirming that anything even happened”? What a joke!

1
dprfe•

Jesus told the disciples directly not to tell anyone he was the Christ, and also told peter james and john to not tell anyone about what they saw in the mount of transfiguration, these were direct orders to not say anything.

Your discernment sucks too, this is not a burner account, its the only account I have

1
BaxTheDestroyer•

Sure, there are the Mt of Transfiguration and “Messianic Secret” (from Mark 8) examples but those are the exceptions.

If you take the Bible at face value (which I don’t), then everything in it was intended for distribution and consumption by followers. The fact that the events were recorded is, obviously, evidence that those apostles and prophets were intended to talk about their experiences.

You’re pretending that not talking about “some” experiences is the same as not talking about “every” experience. It’s a dishonest false equivalence and obviously incorrect.

1
notJoeKing31•

Didn't they recently change one of their titles from "Special Witnesses of Jesus Christ" to "Special Witnesses of the Name of Jesus Christ"? But you should read some of the leaked reports of 2nd anointings and people that worked closely with the LDS Q15. There's a 0% chance these people are interacting with God and Jesus ever.

1
MillstoneTimeOP•

"Special Witnesses of the Name" is very funny to me

1
Possible_Anybody2455•

Yes. What exactly does that mean? It is anything but clear and understandable.

1
basicpn•

It is anything but clear and understandable

This perfectly sums up my experience with the Mormon church.

1
rough-n-readyFormer Mormon•

That’s actually the wording in D&C 107:23

1
TruthAndPrecept•

Do you have a link to these reports?

1
voreeprophet•

What they do is: they foster a sense of creative ambiguity. They say things that clearly are intended to make believers think they are talking to Jesus face to face, but without actually saying they do (which would be a lie).

Kinda interesting though; they don't hesitate to tell lies in other settings.

So what I wonder is whether there are interesting dynamics within the quorum. None of them actually talk to Jesus. But some of them (the new ones) probably wonder if the others do, so they're asking themselves "am I the only one who doesn't?" So they sort of fake it, go along with the ambiguity.

1
MillstoneTimeOP•

When can we have more leaked recordings of there closed door meetings? Or, dare I hope for, a tell all book by a rogue member of the Quorum!

1
ExUtMo•

If they do, they clearly don’t understand one another’s native language.

1
MomofosureMormon•

I fine it interesting that for these ambiguous statements, many members like to take them at "face value" (e.g. they're obviously implying that they've seen Jesus even though they don't come out and say that). Contrast to when the prophet clearly says something like "Missionary service is a priesthood duty—an obligation the Lord expects of us who have been given so very much," those same members like to massage it and claim "what he really meant to say was..." and change it to something more palpable to their views.

It's a double standard that particularly rubs me the wrong way.

1
MillstoneTimeOP•

What about when confronted with Dallin H Oaks saying neither he nor any other member of the FP or Q15 has spoken with heavenly messengers? What are the odds they take that at face value?

1
MomofosureMormon•

What are the odds they take that at face value?

None, since most take that quote as Dallin referring to gaining a testimony. E.g. None of the FP or Q15 had to see a heavenly messenger to gain a testimony, but that doesn't mean they haven't seen any after gaining a testimony.

1
MillstoneTimeOP•

Kind of have to ignore the word "never" to make that work! I'm sure they manage

1
BenMcRea•

Pres. Oaks made that comment at a fireside. A sister asked him whether he had had the same experience as Alma the younger who saw an Angel - Pres. Oaks said that those events were exceptional and he didn’t know anybody who had experienced anything like that.

1
PaulFThumpkins•

This is exactly the kind of apologetic wording I might have used while in the church to add some wiggle room to a pretty clear statement I didn't want to hear.

1
Strong_Attorney_8646Unobeisant•

That’s literally all it’s ever been. Religion is an iterative collaborative process a lot like improv where you take someone else’s claims and then re-negotiate it into your specific claims. Then, typically after you die, people do the same thing to you.

On this I wholly agree with Dan McLellan—Mormonism is a re-negotiation of Restorationist Protestantism. That itself is a re-negotiation on Catholicism. That is a re-negotiation of different takes on early Christianity. That is a re-negotiation on Christ’s message. Christ (and Peter and Paul) were re-negotiating Judaism. Judaism was re-negotiating Near-Eastern etiologies. And on and on. It’s turtles all the way down.

This is why I laugh when some Mormons today that the Church cannot change on their treatment towards LGBTQ members—that position is just totally ignorant of the history, not just of Mormonism, but all religion.

1
Active-Water-0247•

Before losing faith, I too would make vague statements about divine manifestations, considering the details too sacred to disclose. My testimony in Joseph Smith was the last thing to crumble because I considered myself to have had experiences similar to him. My first vision happened around age 14 as well, and I saw Jesus standing in the temple, felt as though the room were burning, and received a forgiveness of sins. By age 16, I was feeling the Spirit come as words to my mind. By age 25, it was the voice of Jesus, and my journal pages started resembling D&C sections (“For I the Lord…” etc.). These were sweet and faith-promoting experiences, but I generally kept the details to myself to avoid criticism and scrutiny. I was not the Prophet, after all. At most, I would bear testimony and mention having felt the Lord’s presence—maybe look awkwardly at the floor if a Sunday School teacher said, “Nobody here has seen Jesus.” I would not be surprised if Q15 have had similar experiences. The mind can produce some interesting things, especially in people with dementia.

1
DeliciousConfections•

Wow that’s fascinating. How do you view those experiences you had now?

1
Active-Water-0247•

Mystical experiences are fairly common and culturally normal. They pop up in various beliefs systems and worldviews.

1
MillstoneTimeOP•

It's interesting how many people, religious or not, experience visions of one kind or another at some point in their lives.

1
Arizona-82•

Exactly!!! Take a step back and look at the other side. Has there been others not of this faith or who do not believe has a similar story? The answer is always yes. I believe there were over 15-20 documented accounts of people in JS time in that areas also said they spoke to Christ face to face. Plus MartinH talking to Jesus in a Form of a Deer and talked to the deer (Jesus) like into a man. People of all faith had experience spiritual things that happen. And just as grand as any story we have heard in the church.

1
Active-Water-0247•

Yeah, I have met many people in my work as a therapist who have seen Jesus, angels, or deceased loved ones. I think it may be a little more common in Black and Hispanic populations (cultural differences), but it’s pretty normal.

1
Initial-Leather6014•

Or LDS or not. I enjoyed reading “Swedenborg’s Sampler “ by E. Swedenborg. That did it for me. Enjoy,

1
slskipper•

Of course not.

Next question?

1
Gutattacker2•

Ok.

Did the earth flood completely as a baptism within the last 6000 years as described by Elder Holland in a 1998 ensign article?

1
Budget_Comfort_6528•

This isn't found amongst his 1998 talks recorded in the Ensign. https://bencrowder.net/collected-talks/jeffrey-r-holland/

1
Gutattacker2•

You’re right. My mistake.

Donald Parry was the author of the 1998 Ensign article.

The Flood and the Tower of Babel

1
Budget_Comfort_6528•

Yes, the Worldwide Catastrophic Evidence Is Everywhere:

Evidence for Creation › Evidence from Science › Evidence from the Earth Sciences › Geological Processes Were Catastrophic» Up One Level

https://www.icr.org/worldwide-flood/

1
rickoleum•

Please listen to this radio free mormon podcast which delves into this question . . .

https://youtu.be/JBT5oTPiLiU?si=iuVWrcsdvl0CM7Fm

1
SoftlyMostFrom•

I was going to recommend the same thing, it's a great episode. He makes a pretty good argument that the Q15 are given specific wording to use around it. "I know in ways I can't describe", "I know in ways that are too sacred to share". They want to strongly imply that they do without stating it explicitly.

1
Strong_Attorney_8646Unobeisant•

One lesson we’ve learned fairly clearly over the past years since the Ensign Peak information was disclosed to the public is that senior leaders of the Church seemingly have no qualms about technically telling the truth while being super misleading. Some even seem willing to tell outright lies and fail to correct the record when asked to do so, like Oaks regarding electroshock therapy at BYU during his time there.

Prime example is the statements by Hinckley that are the focus of Huntsman’s tithing litigation: he technically told the truth, but the way it was presented was so misleading it is potentially fraudulent.

All to say: why would we expect them to behave any differently with regard to these kinds of statements? No, I suspect they have some private definition of one of the words they use that makes them feel like they’re technically not lying—but I’d be willing to bet basically everything I own on the fact that the New Testament Jesus would have nothing to do with this group of business men and lawyers, let alone their gigantic hoard of earthly wealth.

1
BaxTheDestroyer•

“…technically telling the truth while being super misleading.”

Isn’t that called prevarication, u/Strong_Attorney_8646? 😁

1
Strong_Attorney_8646Unobeisant•

That would be one term for it. I could think of many others that I think rightfully apply too. The content rating of the other terms will vary largely based on my attitude towards them on that particular day.

1
FloppySlapper•

No, they don't. There's a recording of Oaks basically being asked the same question and he says none of the Q15 have ever seen Jesus or an angel.

1
TruthIsAntiMormonSpirit Proven Mormon Apologist•

The obfuscation that modern mormon prophets and apostles engage in to skirt around speaking plainly about what they have or have not seen is soo stupid IMHO and completely contradictory to being a claimed "Witness".

"I'm a witness of Jesus Christ."

"Oh, so you've seen him with your own eyes?"

"Let me bear my testimony, blah, blah, blah and I can't speak of these sacred things blah, blah, blah"

It's the modern equivalence of "I can't show you the plates because God commanded me not to show them to you."

Who gets duped by these claims in this day and age?

1
ProsperGuy•

I wonder if they fire up Joseph's old seer stone and hat and take a look at what's good...

1
MillstoneTimeOP•

I bet they're too chicken. There's probably a ton of unread messages on that thing.

1
PaulFThumpkins•

I think by the time you're an apostle you're good enough at the doublethink and rationalizations to know that trying to use the seer stone wouldn't go well, and that other apostles would discourage you against it - for the real reason that nothing would happen but with some other rationale. Church membership is full of those things.

1
ProsperGuy•

Lots of missed calls leading up to blacks and the priesthood, Prop 8 and the Exclusion Policy. They should hire a receptionist!

1
lando3k•

In the MTC in 2004, Elder Ballard told us about the time that he prayed in the sacred grove on his way home from his mission. He wanted a witness apparently. He said that he saw a light that got brighter and brighter... and then he abruptly moved on with his talk! I need to dig up my old mission journal because I know I wrote down what he said verbatim in there.

It's like they push it as far as they can without actually saying anything

1
PaulFThumpkins•

"I saw a beam of light, exactly the brightness of the sun, because it was the sun..."

1
lando3k•

Dang it why didn't I think of this. Should've worn sunglasses

1
ekmogr•

These morons wouldn't be able to keep their mouths shut about Jesus if they ever actually saw him.

Instead it's veiled assumptions that we have to guess at what they actually mean.

1
International_Sea126•

Dallin H. Oaks got caught on a hot mic while answering a question admitting that he and those he serves with have not seen angels, etc. The following is where you can listen to this admission in all its paradisecal glory and splendor: (quality of the recording is marginal).

Elder Oaks: None of the Brethren have seen God, Christ or Angels. (Internet and YouTube).

1
Possible_Anybody2455•

My opinion is that they're just lying, or attempting to deceive you into thinking they have seen Jesus through clever technical wording, in order to maintain the upper hand, and maybe to pump up their egos a bit.

Joseph Smith certainly didn't consider his experience 'too sacred to share'...he published it to the world, which seems in line with the job description of prophets and apostles. Why all of the sudden are the current apostles required to hide their experiences under a bushel?

1
dferriman•

The answer really depends on the church, in Community of Christ every prophet president has received revelation so they definitely have access to God in a way that other LDS churches do not, but they aren’t the only ones. I’ve put together a collection of revelations from across the movement called Doctrines of the Saints. There are a lot of prophets and prophetesses out there. I say, let me read and pray in your revelations and we’ll see what the Lord tells me. In think that’s fair. I’m not sure why anyone would be a member of an LDS church which prophets but no revelations. How would you know they are prophets?

1