A day of warning, and not a day of many words


The Folk Prophet
 Share

Recommended Posts

D&C 63:58

 

"For this is a day of warning, and not a day of many words. For I, the Lord, am not to be mocked in the last days."

 

What do we think it means that it is not a day of many words? How does that tie into it being a day of warning and that God will not be mocked?  I thought there could be some interesting discussion around this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe we should be quick to remember the words of the lord. 

Don't be asking for something bigger, more complex, when you've been told to go wash in the river and be healed.

You get peace and the warning of your wrongs before the great and terrible day of the lord. Just because you don't think you are suffering now, or think that God is silent, doesn't mean that you won't suffer and that he won't speak at some point. Sometimes it's wisest to let go of something that we may think is good, for something better.

Just a few thoughts.

(not communicated very eloquently mind you, but it's what came to mind.)

Edited by Crypto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it's saying that WE shouldn't use "many words". As the Lord said during his mortal ministry, we should use "yea, yea, nay, nay", and what comes of more than this is sin. Too often in all our talking, we talk around the central point. It's common in forums such as this to see discussion where the very meaning of divine words is turned on its head, which is mockery of God's words.

 

Or perhaps it means that GOD will not give "many words" of public revelation by his own voice to us. Since the death of Joseph Smith, the total amount of divine revelation given the world in the first person consists of Section 136. (I think; maybe I'm forgetting something.) Divine revelation will never cease, but I have little doubt that if we were more righteous and took the word of God much more seriously, we would be receiving more of it, personally and as a people, and perhaps even first-person revelation such as Joseph Smith received and published.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

D&C 63:58

 

"For this is a day of warning, and not a day of many words. For I, the Lord, am not to be mocked in the last days."

 

What do we think it means that it is not a day of many words? How does that tie into it being a day of warning and that God will not be mocked?  I thought there could be some interesting discussion around this.

he's avoiding political correctness?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it's saying that WE shouldn't use "many words". As the Lord said during his mortal ministry, we should use "yea, yea, nay, nay", and what comes of more than this is sin. Too often in all our talking, we talk around the central point. It's common in forums such as this to see discussion where the very meaning of divine words is turned on its head, which is mockery of God's words.

 

Or perhaps it means that GOD will not give "many words" of public revelation by his own voice to us. Since the death of Joseph Smith, the total amount of divine revelation given the world in the first person consists of Section 136. (I think; maybe I'm forgetting something.) Divine revelation will never cease, but I have little doubt that if we were more righteous and took the word of God much more seriously, we would be receiving more of it, personally and as a people, and perhaps even first-person revelation such as Joseph Smith received and published.

 

I'd go more with your first point. I don't think it's valid to say we haven't had revelations just because we haven't had them turned into new scripture. Off the top of my head...missionary age change, blacks and the priesthood, family home evening. I'm sure the list of new revelations would literally (and by "literally" I mean "figuratively") be endless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd go more with your first point. I don't think it's valid to say we haven't had revelations just because we haven't had them turned into new scripture. Off the top of my head...missionary age change, blacks and the priesthood, family home evening. I'm sure the list of new revelations would literally (and by "literally" I mean "figuratively") be endless.

To be fair, I did say "first-person" revelation, as in, "Thus saith the Lord."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ie blunt, straightforward, to the point, and etc... also quite likely that he won't warn and warn and warn and warn and warn us all day.

 

So...are we to be the same? As representatives of Christ (which we all should be) are we also mean to be blunt, straightforward, to the point, etc.? Because I have found this gets you into trouble really quick, particularly in light of the "always be courteous" teaching (most recently from Oaks), wherein straightforward talk gets you accused of discourteously very quickly. Is there a conflict in these ideas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, I did say "first-person" revelation, as in, "Thus saith the Lord."

 

Right. I'm just not sure that's an important distinction to make. Is there some inherent value that makes said "first-person" revelations more valid, more important, etc.? Probably not, right? So my thought is that your idea that we'd be getting more if we were more righteous and took the word of the Lord more seriously may not be entirely sequitur. Maybe though. Interesting thought either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So...are we to be the same? As representatives of Christ (which we all should be) are we also mean to be blunt, straightforward, to the point, etc.? Because I have found this gets you into trouble really quick, particularly in light of the "always be courteous" teaching (most recently from Oaks), wherein straightforward talk gets you accused of discourteously very quickly. Is there a conflict in these ideas?

depends on the situation. there are times when we will be warned all the day long and there will be others where we will only be given a warning once.

 

Same for us

Some days you may have to be eloquent and patient, some days you may have to be as abinadi.

sas to when what approach you should use, i'd say that having inspiration from the holy ghost would be extremely helpful in this case.

i'd say if you don't have the inspiration.. choose the blunt and straightforward route, and accept the consequences.

Edited by Blackmarch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right. I'm just not sure that's an important distinction to make. Is there some inherent value that makes said "first-person" revelations more valid, more important, etc.? Probably not, right? So my thought is that your idea that we'd be getting more if we were more righteous and took the word of the Lord more seriously may not be entirely sequitur. Maybe though. Interesting thought either way.

 

More valid? No. More important? Mmmmm...probably not, at least in the sense that the most important revelations we receive are always private revelations.

 

But in another sense, yes, perhaps more important. Why are so many of the revelations Joseph Smith received given in the first person -- that is, with God speaking directly? Is it merely a stylistic point, or is there something more substantial behind it? I think the latter. When God is building his kingdom anew, it seems he gives such direction through his prophet in the first person. Even Brigham Young, who did not consider himself any sort of equal to Joseph Smith, gave the revelation in Section 136 in the first person, speaking directly for God.

 

My supposition is that if we as a Church were more righteous and quicker to live up to our covenants, we might well be building Zion in a more dramatic way, something that might well include God speaking in the first person again. But this is all just supposition, an idea given as a possible answer to your question of what God meant when he said "not a day of many words". I assume this possible answer is at best a partial answer, if not outright incorrect. But it's there for your consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

D&C 63:58

 

"For this is a day of warning, and not a day of many words. For I, the Lord, am not to be mocked in the last days."

 

What do we think it means that it is not a day of many words? How does that tie into it being a day of warning and that God will not be mocked?  I thought there could be some interesting discussion around this.

 

I am thinking this has direct reference to spiritual clues testified to by the Holy Ghost and not so much our cleaver words to describe our eloquent opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what I think of when I hear "many words"; Joseph Smith History; "

 Some time in the second year after our removal to Manchester, there was in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion. It commenced with the Methodists, but soon became general among all the sects in that region of country. Indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it, and great multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties, which created no small stir and division amongst the people, some crying, “Lo, here!” and others, “Lo, there!” Some were contending for the Methodist faith, some for the Presbyterian, and some for the Baptist.

 For, notwithstanding the great love which the converts to these different faiths expressed at the time of their conversion, and the great zeal manifested by the respective clergy, who were active in getting up and promoting this extraordinary scene of religious feeling, in order to have everybody converted, as they were pleased to call it, let them join what sect they pleased; yet when the converts began to file off, some to one party and some to another, it was seen that the seemingly good feelings of both the priests and the converts were more pretended than real; for a scene of great confusion and bad feeling ensued—priest contending against priest, and convert against convert; so that all their good feelings one for another, if they ever had any, were entirely lost in a strife of words and a contest about opinions."

 

Then it was later described to him this way; "19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

 

In other words (not many), we don't want to dance around the truth or pretend to have the truth, the truth is direct and in preparation for the second coming.  The warning is related to the whole reason for the restoration of the gospel, to prepare for the second coming.  Introduction of the Book of Mormon, "Those who gain this divine witness from the Holy Spirit will also come to know by the same power that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world, that Joseph Smith is His revelator and prophet in these last days, and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord’s kingdom once again established on the earth, preparatory to the Second Coming of the Messiah."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

D&C 63:58

 

"For this is a day of warning, and not a day of many words. For I, the Lord, am not to be mocked in the last days."

 

What do we think it means that it is not a day of many words? How does that tie into it being a day of warning and that God will not be mocked?  I thought there could be some interesting discussion around this.

 

 

When I think of this quote these are the scriptures that enter my heart and mind:

 

1) 2 Nephi 33: 5-6, "And it speaketh harshly against sin, according to the plainness of the truth."  Sin is sin.  Gay marriage, adultery, fornication, etc...is sin, and plainness of speech is something we glory in, "I gory in plainness; I glory in truth."  We do not need to justify before the world God's laws and commandments.  

 

2) Jacob 4:13, "For the Spirit speaketh the truth and lieth not.  Wherefore, it speaketh of things as they really are, and of things as they really will be; wherefore, these things are manifested unto us plainly, for the salvation of our souls." 

 

3) Matthew 5:37 (already mentioned), "But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.  Wrong is wrong.  Right is right.  Rationalization leads to more than "Yea, yea, Nay, nay."

 

4) "The Family: A proclamation to the World", not many words but sufficient for the spirit of truth and plain, "WE WARN that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."

 

5) Alma 41:10, "Wickedness never was happiness," is an excellent warning and not of many words.

 

6) The statement God will not be mocked brings to my heart and mind the question, "Who do I love more -- mammon or God"? Do I invert the first two great commandments, and if so, "I mock God," because I fear men who can destroy my body, rather than revering deity who could destroy my soul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps, be blunt, but with love?

 

This is my take. But it's a very, very hard thing to do. In today's world respect, love, and tolerance are in the eye of the beholder. If you've hurt someone's feelings it is always your fault, seems to be the attitude. Tough love has been all but railroaded out of town.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what I think of when I hear "many words"; Joseph Smith History; "

 5 Some time in the second year after our removal to Manchester, there was in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion. It commenced with the Methodists, but soon became general among all the sects in that region of country. Indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it, and great multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties, which created no small stir and division amongst the people, some crying, “Lo, here!” and others, “Lo, there!” Some were contending for the Methodist faith, some for the Presbyterian, and some for the Baptist.

 6 For, notwithstanding the great love which the converts to these different faiths expressed at the time of their conversion, and the great zeal manifested by the respective clergy, who were active in getting up and promoting this extraordinary scene of religious feeling, in order to have everybody converted, as they were pleased to call it, let them join what sect they pleased; yet when the converts began to file off, some to one party and some to another, it was seen that the seemingly good feelings of both the priests and the converts were more pretended than real; for a scene of great confusion and bad feeling ensued—priest contending against priest, and convert against convert; so that all their good feelings one for another, if they ever had any, were entirely lost in a strife of words and a contest about opinions."

 

Then it was later described to him this way; "19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

 

As I read this I had the thought that maybe it means it's not a day of many word because IT IS A DAY OF ACTION!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is my take. But it's a very, very hard thing to do. In today's world respect, love, and tolerance are in the eye of the beholder. If you've hurt someone's feelings it is always your fault, seems to be the attitude. Tough love has been all but railroaded out of town.

Hmmmmmmm - the only way to get "railroaded out of town" is to give into the mentality of the crowd, herd, mob or whatever is the insanely  popular notion of the moment.  ;)

 

Who was it that said - "Only a fool is offended by someone that did not intend to offend them - but it takes an even bigger fool to be offended by someone that intends the offense."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

..be blunt, but with love..

This is my take. But it's a very, very hard thing to do. In today's world respect, love, and tolerance are in the eye of the beholder. If you've hurt someone's feelings it is always your fault, seems to be the attitude. Tough love has been all but railroaded out of town.

It's especially difficult in a forum consisting of mostly text and the occasional emoticon.. A huge amount of communicative clues, as to the real intent of the person speaking, aren't there... No clues from facial expressions, tone of voice, body posture, etc. I think occasional bluntness has it's place in effective communication. Getting right to the heart of the matter.. Think of President Uchtdorf's two-word sermon "Stop it!" .. Or President Spencer W. Kimball's "Do it!" .. Very effective.. Very to-the-point. But bluntness, though it can be very powerful, can also be very easily misused and abused, and by its very nature (and especially in print) can very easily be misunderstood. Just because somebody's feelings got hurt doesn't necessarily mean the fault is all their own and they should just get over it. Communication is still a two-way process .. And if mutual-understanding is truly the goal then both sides are responsible to some degree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if mutual-understanding is truly the goal...

 

Is this the goal? Why?

 

Seems to me that the goal should be to speak the truth as best we can. If any mutual understanding is to exist then it must only do so by those who have rejected truth in the past turning to accept it. Otherwise, by trying to set this embracing of mutual understanding as our primary goal, we face compromising truth. Something we should never do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

About the OP...I think context is important to help us understand this verse.  So I looked at the chapter heading and it says:

 

“In these infant days of the Church, there was a great anxiety to obtain the word of the Lord upon every subject that in any way concerned our salvation;"

 

So it seems to me that in this verse the Lord is saying that we should not seek to be "commanded in all things" that we need to  make some decisions on our own.  That is one of the paths to growth.

 

 

Is this the goal? Why?

 

Seems to me that the goal should be to speak the truth as best we can. If any mutual understanding is to exist then it must only do so by those who have rejected truth in the past turning to accept it. Otherwise, by trying to set this embracing of mutual understanding as our primary goal, we face compromising truth. Something we should never do.

 

I think you could be right in some instances (very few in my opinion but without specific examples I can't say).  But I think mutual understanding is important most of the time.  If your goal is to change someone else's opinion and or behavior, that is not going to happen if the person is feeling defensive.  Mutual understanding (in other words, not necessarily agreeing but understanding one another's position) is the first step towards agreement if that goal is to be reached at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you could be right in some instances (very few in my opinion but without specific examples I can't say).  But I think mutual understanding is important most of the time.  If your goal is to change someone else's opinion and or behavior, that is not going to happen if the person is feeling defensive.

 

I think our goal only very rarely is (or should be) to change someone's opinion. I think our goal is to preach the truth with the Spirit bearing witness. Whether that person changes his/her opinion is up to that person; if s/he feels the Holy Ghost but chooses to deny the witness, that is the inherent right of agency given to all children of God. I agree with TFP; our goal should be to teach the truth with clarity and with the Spirit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share