An Apostle Speaks . . . Hawkgrrrl Listens

By: hawkgrrrl

May 29, 2012

I recently attended a fairly small devotional (a few hundred people) here in Asia in which E. Oaks was the keynote speaker. I enjoyed Jake’s Q&A with E. Bednar a while ago, and I thought I’d share some of the insights from my devotional with an apostle. This is the second time I’ve heard E. Oaks speak in person, but the other time was at the Tabernacle in a multi-stake conference in Utah with thousands of people in attendance. The only other apostles I’ve heard speak are E. Benson (before he became prophet) in Hershey, Pennsylvania (also with thousands of members across the state in attendance), and E. Nelson (in the MTC). I also happened to sit behind E. Oaks at a very funny production at the Shakespearean Festival a few years ago. Apparently, E. Oaks is a magnet and I am steel.

When E. Oaks first came in, everyone stood, and he quickly and in a very friendly, self-deprecating way motioned for us to sit down. He also greeted a visiting dignitary (I wasn’t sure who it was but it seemed like a prominent figure from another religion because he had on some sort of ceremonial looking hat) very enthusiastically and with some awkward bowing.

When E. Oaks spoke he explained that when they go out to these kinds of meetings, they don’t prepare their remarks in advance. They speak on topics as prompted, often not knowing why. I’ll share some of my own thoughts I had on the topics he chose for this meeting. Since all of his topics were bloggernacle staples, I thought they would be of interest for further discussion here. I want to be clear that these notes are my personal recollections of what he said, mingled with what I heard. Recording of these sessions is not allowed, and if someone else were to share their impressions, they would doubtless recall things that didn’t make an impression on me. That’s the nature of the beast.

Our respect for authority

E. Oaks talked about the respect people showed when he entered the room, and he said that our respect should be for the office and never for the man. To illustrate his point, he brought a young boy up front and placed his own jacket on him. The boy looked silly with the too big sleeves hanging off the ends of his arms. E. Oaks said that the jacket represented the mantle of the callings we hold in the church (or our job titles at work) and that the mantle is always bigger than the man or woman. He repeated this a couple of times for emphasis. He said that no matter what calling we hold, for as long as we hold it, we are always striving to grow into it. And he said that in the case of some callings, like apostle, you will strive the rest of your life to do so because that’s how long the calling lasts, but you will never fully fit it. The mantle will always be bigger than the person.

I liked that he focused on the humility all of us should feel in filling callings, and also the image of our imperfect leaders (and selves) as a child trying on their dad’s clothing was a great metaphor that would give us some patience with leaders and ourselves.

Women and the priesthood

He tackled this topic without much transition from the prior topic. He said that many people wonder why women haven’t been given the priesthood. He made a joke that the wise ones don’t want it (I could hear the “Grrr” of my FMH friends in the back of my mind). He quickly said we don’t know why God hasn’t chosen to give women the priesthood, and that because we don’t know, it would be speculating to try to guess why (not that it stopped him!).

He talked about the importance of equality in our current society, and that equality has been a blessing to us. He spoke with passion about women receiving equal pay for equal work when they are equally qualified and perform equally to men in the same jobs. He said this was one of the important outcomes of the focus on equality in society. He added that he has lived through 3 generations, and this generation has placed a premium on equality compared to prior generations. He cautioned that equality is important, especially not discriminating against people or treating them unfairly, but that at the same time God doesn’t always give every gift to every group of people or every individual person.

He then spent a bit of time wandering down the alley of equating motherhood as a gift given to women with priesthood as a gift given to men. He talked about the creative powers of women to create and sustain life during pregnancy and that even outside of that in his own personal experience women are more creative generally than men are (is he talking about scrapbooking? telling lies? being better dancers?). (Equating motherhood with priesthood is not an argument feminists appreciate for many reasons, and I am no exception. To name a few: not all women give birth – including E. Oaks’ current wife who married in her mid 50s for the first time, childbearing is not something that occurs during the majority of a woman’s life, and reducing womanhood to fertility feels very limiting to women who want to be appreciated for more than their uterus). E. Oaks seemed tentative in these remarks, and he seemed to be aware he was speculating (from my perspective anyway). He talked about roles differing by sex and there being some inherent differences in the sexes that it is not in vogue to admit today because anything that appears to be in any way unequal is not acceptable to people in our current society. He said that the brethren are very aware of that, and that they do discuss it.

While I wasn’t a huge fan of what I perceive as sexual stereotypes, I also think it’s important to give credit where it is due. Both the opening and closing prayers were given by women, and of 5 speakers, 3 were men and 2 were women. E. Oaks quoted from Sis. Hallstrom’s talk repeatedly during his remarks and also referred to Eliza Roxcy Snow as his favorite voice in Mormonism several times, also quoting his favorite line of poetry from the the Eliza Snow hymn “How Great the Wisdom and the Love” (verse 6):

How great, how glorious, how complete
Redemption’s grand design,
Where justice, love, and mercy meet
In harmony divine!

I have to agree – it’s a great hymn, and a very elegant description of the atonement. Go, ‘Liza!

While we’re speculating on priesthood, I think a sociological argument can be made that priesthood service ties men to families and makes them feel needed in ways that they otherwise might not. In Spain, most men would spend their evenings in the bar with other men leaving the women at home to raise the kids, but when they joined the church, they became more family-centric and spent time serving others and supporting their families because it was their priesthood duty. Women already had a family-centric existence in that culture. If women also had the priesthood, it would reduce their reliance on men for those things. A role separation model may be more effective at creating family bonds (creating mutual reliance and respect for each other), improving the way men treat their families and others, and provide more support to children on the whole across large groups of people. Obviously, that’s more of an 80/20 principle – suitable to 80% of society, but not others.

In this sociological model, both motherhood and priesthood are duties and service provided to others, not gifts God gives to an individual. But E. Oaks didn’t say that. It’s my own slightly more palatable spin on what he said.

The nature of revelation

For his last topic, E. Oaks wanted to correct the “overstatement” or assumption that he had heard (he shared a specific example) that prophets speak to God face to face every day. He listed different ways that revelation happens: impressions, a feeling in the heart, answers to prayer, visions in the night or the day, and lastly, face to face discussions with heavenly beings. He also made it clear that all of these, including directly visiting with heavenly beings do happen in modern times, but that those encounters are much less frequent than simply following the spirit through impressions and so on, and certainly not daily. He was listing them more or less in order of frequency from most common to rarest. He said that well me!ning individuals make “overstatements” like that, not for evil intentions, but because they take something that is infrequent and portray it as common.

E. Oaks also looked up a scripture to share on his iPad, and he mentioned that Pres. Packer had made them all get iPads which has been a much more convenient and light way to carry his scriptures with him, although he confessed it was the only app he had on it still. I thought it was great that they are getting up on technology, and surprising that Pres. Packer was leading the pack!

So, was any of this surprising to you or just same old%rC same old? Some thoughts for discussion:

How do you feel about the “mantle” analogy? Do you think this would help to reduce the awe people have for authority (including their own)?
What do you think of the views shared on women and the priesthood? Is this explanation cold comfort? Do you feel there is a valid reason women don’t have the priesthood?
Do you like that E. Oaks was correcting overstatements about the role of prophets? (personally, I thought this was a great clarification for a place like Asia with a lot of deference for authority plus a lot of converts).
How did this devotional compare with other devotionals you’ve seen with apostles?
Do outlying areas like Asia get more direct access to apostles than more Mormon-dense areas in the US (that are outside of Utah)?

Discuss.

Tags: Apostle, dallin h. oaks, devotional, mantle

This entry was posted on May 29, 2012 at 3:27 AM and is filed under Church Policy, Faith, Mormon, Mormon Belief, Mormon Culture. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

117 Responses to An Apostle Speaks . . . Hawkgrrrl Listens

Stephen M (Ethesis) on May 29, 2012 at 6:41 AM
“In this sociological model, both motherhood and priesthood are duties and service provided to others, not gifts God gives to an individual.”
I think that Oaks starts with that as a fundamental assumption, one it probably does not occur to him to voice.
“Priesthood = duty to serve” is a core concept, best emphasized with Christ washing the apostles feet, which was his response to the apostles jockeying about position and embracing the model of “priesthood = authority/hierarchy.”
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? 8
Stephen M (Ethesis) on May 29, 2012 at 6:43 AM
BTW, the strong implication is that if a group wants the priesthood or to be ordained because they see it as “priesthood = authority/hierarchy” they are seeking the priesthood for the purpose of unrighteous dominion.
That leads to an analysis that pretty much is likely to irritate many people.
On the other hand, if you seek priesthood in order to serve, and have started by seeking out and serving, that is another story.
Part of what I addressed when I wrote about becoming a [p]rophet (with a small “p”) earlier.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? 8
Paul on May 29, 2012 at 7:58 AM
I think the mantle / coat discussion is a great one, and hopefully has the effect that you describe. It is a message consistent with what I’ve heard from a number of general authorities, and is well recommended to leaders at all levels in the church.
I also think his comment about prophets and revelation was likely very well suited for your particular audience (which seems to have included locals as well as expats?) Anytime we can shed light and truth instead of folklore, it’s a good thing.
The few times I’ve seen an apostle in person, it’s been outside of Utah (except at 12-stake firesides and devotionals at BYU when I was attending with 20,000 of my closest friends…).
Like this comment? 2
question on May 29, 2012 at 8:15 AM
so did he say that any of the current GAs had seen a heavenly being? has that ever been claimed?
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? 7
rah on May 29, 2012 at 8:21 AM
I think watching the way they answer these questions is very instructive and this seemed like a particularly insightful session given other similar ones I have seen (all those dumb questions…though in fairness finding good ones that they will answer isn’t easy). Watching him reason over gender issues is fascinating. I am so glad he was so outspoken about women’s rights in the workplace. I hope that someday this translates into the church advocating for or at least recognizing the good of family and women friendly work place policies. Also, hearing that a lot of his logic in trying to understand equality between the sexes in our theological context seem very speculative and rooted deeply in the gender thinking of the age is instructive. “We don’t know why” speaks volumes I think.
Hawkgirrl where is Asia was this if I may ask?
Like this comment? 1
ji on May 29, 2012 at 8:29 AM
I appreciate everything you shared! These are good messages that we need to hear.
Like this comment? 2
mh on May 29, 2012 at 8:35 AM
This talk of women and priesthood reminds me of the antiquated talk of “separate but equal”as justification for segregation. It is just better to treat women equal in the church, and the better analogue to motherhood is fatherhood. I don’t get why anyone, especially with a law background thinks separate but equal is a valid argument for denying women priesthood.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? 16
Hawkgrrrl on May 29, 2012 at 8:41 AM
question – Honestly, I don’t believe he was that explicit, but he did say those things “happen in modern times” just not as often as other forms of revelation. It sure sounded like he meant in our day, not just in our dispensation, but Oaks was a lawyer byktrade, so if I read the transcript back, maybe there was a loophole. Or maybe I’m the one overthinking what he said!
This was Singapore.
Like this comment? 3
NewlyHousewife on May 29, 2012 at 9:23 AM
“We don’t know”–best answer yet.
Though honestly, and tell me if I’m reading into it, it seems like he said the GAs do talk about women not having the priesthood.
Like this comment? 2
living in zion on May 29, 2012 at 10:53 AM
I’m speculating that Pres. Packer has stock in or a family member working for Apple.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? 10
Bonnie on May 29, 2012 at 10:55 AM
I love hearing these “notes” from GA talks. There is such a wonderful, casual atmosphere in these that is almost conversational. I appreciate that they can’t live in General Conference mode all the time and we need to give them that freedom as well. All members of the Church need this access to them as human beings.
Regarding the question of having seen heavenly beings, I find it impertinent and immature. Nobody who has is going to discuss it widely because it’s a pearl. There is reason that it gets discussed when we are dead, because we work to protect the individual from the poison of adulation, something they’re free of when they aren’t walking about here anymore. It also completely misses the point made so eloquently by the Lord to Alma I in Mosiah that it doesn’t matter how people come to him (believing on a vision or believing on the words of someone else’s vision), they will be blessed, and equally so he implies. The point is the internal conversion, not the external activity that stimulates it.
Regarding women and the priesthood, I am glad to hear that the conversation is occurring among the brethren. I land more conservatively than most of the bloggernacle on that one for my own reasons, but I do always appreciate when the GAs speak about it, no matter what they say.
Thanks for this recitation.
Controversial! What do you think? 7
Stephen M (Ethesis) on May 29, 2012 at 11:53 AM
I may do a post on the priesthood for Friday.
Like this comment? 1
Brad on May 29, 2012 at 12:39 PM
Re: women and the priesthood. Is that the best he could do? Really?
After reading that, I better understand the mantle analogy now. I don’t need to venerate the man, as he seems to be lost trying to rationalize the disparity in the church.
Like this comment? 4
BHodges on May 29, 2012 at 12:55 PM
Awesome, thanks for sharing the notes. I liked his jacket analogy, a nice visual thing to remember, and to remind us all that we’re growing, apostles not excepted. Thanks again for taking the time to write some notes.
Like this comment? 1
alice on May 29, 2012 at 1:39 PM
If heavenly beings are communicating with apostles I would hope it would be for the benefit of the entire community of saints. As a result, I think, should any heavenly being appear with a message, it would be important for The Brethren to share it. How would we have a BOM if Joseph Smith took his apparition to be a personal message regarding which established church he, as an individual, should join?
Meanwhile, if there are no communications I think that’s significant to the whole church community as well. Speculation that never resolves, disappointment, confusion over what are the imperfect human pronouncements v the divinely inspired ones, false expectations (mistaking the mantle for the man, as it were) are counterproductive as is allowing them to persist. If we are to sustain authorities it’s only reasonable to know what we are sustaining and what we are not.
I think calling a perfectly understandable wish for clarity immature or impertinent when an apostle himself inserts the possibilty is unfair.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? 19
Bonnie on May 29, 2012 at 2:17 PM
You make an excellent point, Alice, and support it well. I could point to Amos saying that when a prophet speaks it is as if God speaks (and I think that’s valid) but it is truly muddied by apostles themselves acknowledging that sometimes they speak for God and sometimes they don’t. I agree, it would be helpful to have a way to tell the difference. Wait, we do…
In my experience, people who want to know about angelic visitations are celebrating the exceptional at the expense of the common, not because they are humbly seeking clarity. For the benefit of those who are more interested in what the angel might say than the circumstances of the visit and its “wow factor” – I would clarify “it is often impertinent and immature.”
Most of the gospel is a common connection with the spirit, a daily seeking and finding, line upon line, a slow growth into the face of God, and it comes without fanfare. I think we do the spirit and that long connection a disservice when we focus on the sensational.
Controversial! What do you think? 7
Paul on May 29, 2012 at 2:43 PM
Bonnie, I tend to agree with you. I attended a regional leadership meeting in which President Packer spoke and answered questions. One well-meaning (I believe) brother asked President Packer to bear his testimony.
President Packer said he would do that in due time (duh!) but made the point at that junction that some will ask the brethren if they’ve had heavenly visitations. His response was that those experiences are very sacred and are therefore not widely discussed. He did not say if he did or did not have such experiences himself (and all but said we shouldn’t ask).
The comparison with Joseph Smith is interesting, since Joseph was charged with the restoration. Now that the priesthood and ancient scripture and the church have been restored, one wonders what the role of heavenly visitations would be. (And I have no answer to that question.)
I had a close friend who told youth regularly that since Joseph already saw Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ, and so testified, it is less likely that any of us would see them for the same reason Joseph did; that purpose had been fulfilled.
I suppose if one of the apostles had a heavenly visitation with instruction to share it, then he would.
Is the demand (and I don’t necessarily suggest that any of the commenters are making that demand) that there are modern heavenly visitations publicly discussed a form of sign seeking? What would we do if one of the brethren reported such a visitation?
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? 8
Bill on May 29, 2012 at 2:59 PM
I was at a Stake Conference evening adult session where President Packer was talking about the calling of an apostle. He said that when a man is called to the Twelve, he is instructed to “become an apostle,” as that an apostle’s job is to bear witness of the reality and divinity of Christ. Pres. Packer then said, “That solemn witness I now bear to you.” Have to admit it gave me shivers.
Controversial! What do you think? 6
Bob on May 29, 2012 at 3:13 PM
#16: Bonnie,
I once read all “Miracles” are given as a WOW-factor. A way of turning the unfaithful to faithful. If that is true_ why would you not talk about “appearence” miracles?
Like this comment? 1
MH on May 29, 2012 at 3:30 PM
Alice, the early saints had angelic appearances and did talk about them, so I agree with Bonnie that such visitations are available to all. There was a Mormon Stories episode with a man named Denver Snuffer who (like Bonnie) claims to have had angelic visitors, and he has even written a book that such visits are available to all. I’ve downloaded it on my Kindle, but haven’t read it, and I may have to do a transcription of the interview. It was interesting, but I was surprised that John really only talked about it for the last 15 minutes or so. I was intensely curious.
Christianity Today had an article not too long ago and asked why women seem to have more spiritual experiences than men. I wasn’t aware of a disparity among genders, but it was interesting to see the rationale. The author of the article claimed that one needs to use “imagination” to experience the divine, and said that too often we think “imagination” in a negative light. It said that women are more likely to use imagination than men, so women have more spiritual experiences (which could mean more angelic visitors in connection to this post.) Anyway, it’s food for thought.
Like this comment? 2
Brian on May 29, 2012 at 4:57 PM
“Regarding the question of having seen heavenly beings, I find it impertinent and immature. Nobody who has is going to discuss it widely because it’s a pearl.”
I believe that anyone who claims or intimates that they or theirs have seen, smelled or talked to a visitor from another planet (as Spencer Kimball put it one time) deserves whatever question they get.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? 15
Bonnie on May 29, 2012 at 5:38 PM
Bob, I disagree that the purpose of miracles is wow-factor or that they turn the unfaithful to faithful. In fact, we’ve been told they don’t. Miracles are just the gift of a kind God who is merciful because he can be and he knows that a miracle can pull someone who has already demonstrated faith through something really tough.
Like this comment? 0
Bonnie on May 29, 2012 at 5:42 PM
Brian, touche, and well-said, and probably why the more intelligent keep their mouths shut.
Like this comment? 1
Stephen M (Ethesis) on May 29, 2012 at 6:30 PM
Bonnie, I think you and Paul are thinking of Alma’s words on this subject.
Like this comment? 2
Bob on May 29, 2012 at 6:51 PM
#22:Bonnie,
I am talking more about feed 5.000 with one fish, calming the sea, turning the day to night, water to wine, a star in the sky, etc.
Like this comment? 2
Bonnie on May 29, 2012 at 7:04 PM
Okay, Bob, but the purpose of feeding 5000 was not to convince them, it was to feed them, and it was to enlarge the vision of the apostles. The 5000 followed him around wanting food and miracles and got bored with lessons on changing their souls and being humble. Miracles are for the believing, not the questioning.
We don’t believe in the restoration because Joseph Smith said he saw an angel; that’s ridiculous and makes people who say so look ridiculous. We believe because we have been converted by faith. Any angelic visit is, to the disbeliever, going to look ridiculous, so there’s no reason to discuss it, and why apostles don’t cast those pearls about. Although Elder Scott made inference to a lovely visit from his wife, and I thought that was very touching.
Controversial! What do you think? 3
Bob on May 29, 2012 at 7:24 PM
@26:Bonnie’
Then you dismiss Paul’s road to Damascene?
Like this comment? 1
Bonnie on May 29, 2012 at 7:54 PM
Nope, but the same sort of thing didn’t do much for Laman and Lemuel. It was something besides the wow-factor that converted Paul and Alma II.
Like this comment? 3
Bob on May 29, 2012 at 10:06 PM
#28: Bonnie,
Do ‘Miracles’ create Faith, or does Faith create miracles?
This is not my question, but one fought for hundreds of years. Feel free to Google it and enjoy hours of reading :)
Like this comment? 3
Jon on May 30, 2012 at 7:11 AM
So did E Oaks tell people that they shouldn’t stand up when any leader comes in a room? It’s always made me feel a bit uncomfortable when that happens. It’s like the bishop getting the sacrament first, shouldn’t he be the servant? Being the servant would imply that he gets the sacrament last wouldn’t it?
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? 12
Jon on May 30, 2012 at 7:17 AM
As for women and the priesthood. Don’t they already practice like they do in the temple by performing ordinances in there? You can’t tell me that they work under the priesthood of the men because that would fundamentally change what the doctrine is taught on the subject. That would be like saying that you don’t need the priesthood to baptize as long as you have permission to baptize with someone that has the priesthood.
So the question should be, do the brethren have a great desire that women have the priesthood and have they wrestled with God to let them have it? With as many single mother homes wouldn’t it be good to give them the priesthood when we pretty much acknowledge they already have it when they do their endowments?
How did the blacks get the priesthood? Did not the brethren wrestle with God and say they wanted the blacks to have it? I don’t know, maybe someone with more knowledge of history would.
McKay said the blacks not having the priesthood was policy, i.e., tradition, is it not the same for women?
Like this comment? 3
Jon on May 30, 2012 at 7:27 AM
As for the brethren not telling if they have seen God and claiming that it is too sacred to say if they have or not. I say, in the (old testament) scriptures it says it quite often that someone saw or talked to God. Is it not fair to tell people this if you expect them to go into an interview and ask them if they believe the brethren are big P prophets, seers and revelators? Is it not fair then that a person that is expected to answer that question to ask for proof or at least the word (i.e., witness) of the people that are claiming to be such what claims do they make for me to believe that they are Prophet, seers, and revelators?
In conference they make the claim that they can speak on any subject but cannot we ask by what authority? What have the brethren experienced that let’s me know that I should give deference?
Some claim that the church is in small a apostasy. What claim do the brethren have that this is not the case? Is it not reasonable to ask that proof or claims be made by the brethren to show that this is not the case?
The scriptures tell us to be weary of leaders as such might lead us astray and to destruction. Is it not reasonable to ask what claims said leaders make to know that they aren’t leading us astray. What point is the scriptures if they don’t talk to us and liken them to our day. The BoM says that the Israelite religious leaders led the Israelites astray. Do we not liken this to our generation, what makes us think we are so special that we won’t be led astray either?
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? 15
Paul on May 30, 2012 at 7:49 AM
#32 Jon, it seems that comments like yours are at least one reason the brethren may be reluctant to divulge their most sacred experiences to wider audience. In an environment where there is a public demand for them to prove their status as prophets, seers and revelators, they are likely to do anything to prove it to those who do not already believe.
Consider Abinadi, who saw an angel and said he saw an angel, but was rejected by those who demanded he was wrong. Only the one among them with a receptive heart was able to hear his message.
Those prophets in the old testament of whom you speak were rejected by many despite their claims of heavenly messengers.
In the end, they shared their experiences because the Lord told them to. If the Lord chooses not to tell today’s prophets to share those sacred experiences, who am I to argue with him?
The proof (for me, and I can speak for no one else) is written in my own heart.
Like this comment? 3
Paul on May 30, 2012 at 7:51 AM
Sorry — mis-typed. Should read: “They are UNlikely to do anything to prove it to those who do not already believe.” And just to be clear, my meaning is not that they may be unwilling, but the unbelievers are not likely to accept any proof they offer.
Like this comment? 3
Jon on May 30, 2012 at 7:57 AM
Paul, are not the saints to be persecuted? Your reasoning says it is born of fear and not wanting to be persecuted that these experiences are not shared. Is not being persecuted worth losing the one lost sheep that might otherwise be saved?
I know that in the end it is the individual witness that oneself has that matters but do we not have witnesses in the BoM to its veracity? Why can we not have a witness? Why does God not want to talk to us?
Like this comment? 3
Jon on May 30, 2012 at 7:58 AM
Paul,
I think my questions are valid. I don’t ask them lightly nor out of a desire to destroy faith or out of a desire to persecute or make fun of. I ask honestly.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? 4
Bonnie on May 30, 2012 at 8:06 AM
I think it has less to do with fear of persecution, Jon, than a simple recognition that contention drives away the spirit. We’re better off not to argue than to slam a foot down and insist that we’re right about something tender (a la turn the other cheek.) Shall I shout at you how much the love of God has changed my life?
The Lord went to some pretty significant lengths to “save” Laman and Lemuel and I often think that is in there to show us that it just doesn’t work unless we want it to.
You can’t exercise faith if you have proof, Jon. It’s just that simple. You either take the leap of faith or you don’t; there are no handrails after a certain point. It’s okay if you don’t want to, but you can’t rewrite the rules about gaining knowledge through faith.
Controversial! What do you think? 4
Paul on May 30, 2012 at 8:13 AM
Jon, I said nothing about fear. I said that whatever they say, they are not likely to convince the unbelieving. Second I said that if God wanted them to reveal these sacred expereinces, he would instruct them to.
Stephen cited Alma earlier. That teaching applies.
Like this comment? 1
Jon on May 30, 2012 at 8:13 AM
Bonnie,
I’m not trying to be contentious, I am asking valid questions. If you look at my questions they are questions. If you read it as shouting that is your choice, but that is not my intentions.
It worked for Alma the younger, it worked with Paul the apostle. What the scriptures show is that it works for some and not for others.
Did the Lord not say “prove me herewith,” so can I not ask for witnesses, did he not say ” and in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.”
We believe in a God of reason. Did God not reason with Joseph as one man reasons with another? Can I not ask God to reason with me and show me witnesses and cannot I ask for this proof that he says he will give us?
I hold still that my questions are valid and should not be treated as if they are not.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? 5
Jon on May 30, 2012 at 8:30 AM
Paul,
Yes, you didn’t specifically say anything about fear. I put my case forth of why they should say if they have seen God or not, you have not refuted any of my points. Why would God choose not to have them talk about these experiences when the scriptures show a different pattern?
Can you be more specific on what Alma said?
Like this comment? 1
Will on May 30, 2012 at 8:49 AM
Great post Hawk..
Jon,
“Did the Lord not say “prove me herewith”
He also said a wicked and adulterous generation seeks for a sign. What he meant by “prove me herewith” is that you live the commandment and I will provide a testimony it is true. Case a point is Tithing (which is where he said prove me herewith). The only way to truly understand it is ordained of God is to live this law.
Like this comment? 2
Bonnie on May 30, 2012 at 8:53 AM
Jon, nobody accused you of either shouting or being contentious, nor did anyone dismiss your questions, as you can see that we are still engaged.
There is a difference between humbly asking for a witness (Alma 32) and demanding a sign. There have been more than two witnesses and the scriptures abound telling us that we are equally blessed whether we see an angel ourselves or believe on someone else who has.
God speaks to us according to our understanding (reason) but he is not limited to that course when it is not in our best interests. Appearing to someone who will not do the very basics of listening to his witnesses and experimenting on the word himself to gain the tiniest witness and then follow through line upon line would invite damnation, because there is not enough soil of personal effort to support a vigorous seed.
There are no shortcuts. We approach God on the path of the beatitudes and humility, meekness, repentance, and forgiveness are first on the list. There’s no checkoff for “angelic visitation.”
Controversial! What do you think? 4
Jon on May 30, 2012 at 9:13 AM
Will,
You are right, that is the correct context of that quote. But I see no problem after showing that it works to be shown even greater signs, is it not? OK, I see that giving away a portion of my money has not led me to poverty but has helped me to become responsible, but then I cannot conclude that it was God, could it just be a general principle of life? So could I not ask for more proof that it was God but not the natural consequence of my actions? So what we prove is that the principle is true.
Now I listen to a prophet, my life goes well, I have then proven that the principle is good, but not that the man is a prophet. So asking that the man tell me why he thinks he is a prophet and what is special that puts him separate them me isn’t bad. Neither is it “wicked.” It is the same as asking that someone else, besides Joseph sees the plates. Now all I ask is, “You say you are a prophet, what witness have ye?”
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? 8
Jon on May 30, 2012 at 9:23 AM
Bonnie, You implied in #37 that I was being contentious and shouting.
I see nothing wrong, after proving God, for more testimony of the veracity of His existence and proof of His existence, neither do I see anything wrong of asking the same of the brethren. OK, you speak of Christ and then you ask me to do all these things and to testify that you are prophets and apostles, I see the fruit is good, but I see the fruit of others is good too, what more can you give me so I will be willing to testify of these things?
You say that you are a seer, what have you seen? The scriptures talk of prophets that say they have seen but do not see. Can I not ask what has been seen? Can I not ask what has been revealed? Is not this but seeking for testimony and witness from the brethren? Not necessarily a “sign” but a witness.
If God is a god of reason cannot I ask the same of Him as I ask others, that I will test them to see if they speak truth, and I will take them on if they do, but I will continually test to make sure they aren’t fooling me. I do so with everything else, why can I not ask the brethren to do the same? If they say they are special witnesses, why cannot I ask why they say they are special witnesses? If the scriptures talk of apostasy of God’s church why cannot I ask for more than just lineage as a proof that they truly are men of God?
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? 7
Jared on May 30, 2012 at 9:28 AM
hawkgrrrl,
Thanks for you post. I enjoyed the read.
Last night I read the following from Sheri Dew. I think it says something very important.
I’ve seen what happens to men and women who embody this truth—meaning, whose lives and attitudes and even faces reflect the good cheer borne of testimony. My first trip to Africa was life-changing in this respect. From our first day there, my traveling companions and I commented on how happy the people were—particularly the women. We saw them walking alongside the road carrying bundles and burdens bigger than they were, and they were always smiling. Though the privation with which many of them dealt was obvious, they spoke readily about the joy of their lives: their testimonies of Jesus Christ.
An episode in Accra, Ghana, is unforgettable. I had asked a large group of women, all Church leaders, to help me understand the unique challenges they faced. They were slow to respond and seemed to struggle with the question. Finally a beautiful African woman raised her hand and said, “Sister Dew, we do have challenges here, but we believe in Jesus Christ, and so we are happy.” And they were happy—perhaps the happiest group of women I’ve ever met or observed. As I flew back to the United States, I couldn’t help but reflect that far too often those of us who live in America have everything except happiness. Those women who had so relatively little of the world’s goods had nothing but happiness. The reason: their faith in the Lord and that He would provide for them.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? 9
Nick Literski on May 30, 2012 at 9:35 AM
I’m just impressed that anyone’s reporting a fireside speech by Oaks that doesn’t center on GLBT people as a threat to “religious liberty.” For the last 2-3 years, that seems to have been his theme in nearly every reported appearance.
Like this comment? 1
Bob on May 30, 2012 at 9:59 AM
How many times did Jesus show His nail holes to prove he was Christ?
How many times did He appear after his death to prove he was Christ?
How many times did He add a miracle to His sermons to prove His Christness?
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? 10
Mike S on May 30, 2012 at 11:32 AM
Thank you for this post.
I am torn on this. On one hand, I understand the reticence of leaders to “cast their pearls before swine” where things could be taken out of context and mocked. I also understand the idea to “not seek a sign”.
At the same time, I think there is something amazingly important about an apostle’s witness. We teach that there are literally 12 men out of the 7 billion people on this earth who are special witnesses for Christ. To me, there is something (or should be something) special about that calling that is different from you and me. I would expect that if anyone on the earth still literally walks and talks with Christ, it would be one of His 12 apostles, just like in times of old. And hearing a bold witness of that fact would be profound.
Perhaps it’s just me, but if apostles say they basically just do what seems right by the spirit (like you and me); and if prophets, seers and revelators don’t reveal or prophecy; it largely reduces their role to administrators. And that’s somewhat of a letdown to me.
I want them to be more. I want them to be a conduit between me and the Divine. Perhaps that’s the problem on my end – perhaps that’s wanting too much. Perhaps their role largely IS to be administrators in the Church, and there shouldn’t be anyone between me and God. Perhaps we try to place too much emphasis on their office, when they are just men trying to fulfill a calling the best way they can. Perhaps we ask too much.
But it would still be really cool to have one of Christ’s apostles come out and say like in times of old, “I have seen Christ. I have talked to Him face to face, just like I am talking to you. He lives.”
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? 19
whizzbang on May 30, 2012 at 11:58 AM
http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1990/10/witnesses-of-christ?lang=eng
here is a talk from Elder Oaks in GC 1990. I see Apostles and Prophets as giving their witness to help us get our own witness so that we are not dependant on others or living on “borrowed light”. How they get their witness and we ours is the same and to paraphrase Joseph Smith the same everything available to the apostles is available to everyone, they are no different then us. They are different in the sense that they are leaders in the Church and are recognized as such but I can travel the world over and bear my testimony of Christ but I am not a leader of the Church and don’t have the authority to be such
Like this comment? 1
Stephen M (Ethesis) on May 30, 2012 at 1:02 PM
Bishops get the sacrament first because they are supposed to stop and request a correction if the prayers are not said right. If they were last on the list it would make that a much different experience some times.
Like this comment? 2
Jon on May 30, 2012 at 1:15 PM
Thanks Stephen, I’ve been wondering why that was for forever. When I was kid we just looked up and he nodded yea or nay. So, I still wonder why some other system can’t be derived so the bishop can be last because, when it is done, it feels more like he is being put up on pedestal even if that is not the intention that is what it feels like, so, if my bishop just does the head nod, then why does he still get the sacrament first? Why not just start passing to everyone equally just after the nod?
Really, to me, it feels more like a control thing where the bishop is looked to as being above everyone else when it is done this way, even when he does the nod. I know most bishops probably don’t want to be looked at that way, or maybe there fine with the “mantle” being looked on this way. Either way it makes me feel uncomfortable for the reasons I stated.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? 6
Mike S on May 30, 2012 at 1:46 PM
Stephen / Jon:
I actually disagree with that as the reason. In our ward, it is typically the counselor who gives the priests the “head nod”.
In reality, it is a recognition of one’s position in the “hierarchy”, with the highest person getting the “honor” of getting the sacrament first. For example, in our ward, even though the bishop (and/or his counselors) is responsible for making sure the prayer is said correctly, if a member of the stake president is there, he gets the sacrament before the bishop. We have a member of the 1Q70 in our ward. If he is there, he preempts the stake presidency. And a few times a year we have an apostle in our ward. If he is present, he trumps everyone else in getting the sacrament first – and he’s surely NOT the person making sure the prayers are said right.
The hierarchy is followed even in something as mundane as picking chocolates, where the more senior apostles get to pick a chocolate before the more junior ones.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? 7
Nick Literski on May 30, 2012 at 2:14 PM
Here’s a wild thought: Suppose that what LDS believe about Jesus, the LDS first presidency, and LDS apostles is correct. Maybe Jesus isn’t actually thrilled with the nearly-idolatrous adoration that many LDS invest in their priesthood leaders. Maybe he’s punishing the LDS for that misplaced “worship” by not making “in person” visitations to their leaders, so there aren’t any visitations to talk about these days…
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? 6
ethie on May 30, 2012 at 3:13 PM
I agree largely with Mike S in #48. I want to address some of the arguments against our apostles sharing a personal witness of Christ.
I do not believe that many of those wishing to hear a personal witness from the brethren are seeking a sign, just as those asking God about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon are not seeking a sign. They are seeking confirmation, a reason for their faith.
Apostles are not called to bear “proof” but to bear “witness.” I do not believe that the majority of church members desire to hear these sacred experiences to prove the validity of the latter-day gospel, since most already have faith and hope. And since most faithful LDS already assume these experiences take place, keeping them from church members (if they do indeed happen) only serves to create questions and doubt in some.
I have often heard it said that the reason we need living apostles and prophets is because the revelation of former times is not always sufficient for our time. In the same way, the witness of living apostles is necessary in a living church, otherwise their role as “special witnesses” seems moot; we can simply rely on the witness of former apostles.
It doesn’t make much sense to me that the brethren ought to guard their personal testimonies because they fear they would be rejected by the world. OT prophets didn’t, Paul didn’t, Abinadi didn’t, Joseph and Sidney didn’t. They bore their witness in spite of the world.
Furthermore, is there a good reason for Christ to tell his apostles to not share their personal witness? I can think of none. Do we have any examples in all of scripture where Christ wanted those who witnessed his mission, resurrection, or other manifestation to “seal their mouths”? I can think of none. (If these examples exist they are few and definitely the exception.)
Just the opposite, in fact. It seems to be fairly common practice in the scriptures and the early latter-day church that those who see the Savior, if not specifically commanded to declare it, cannot help but share the good news with others. The nature of the experience is such that they cannot keep the witness to themselves. I imagine most LDS members today would feel similarly after a personal manifestation.
I find the statements from present General Authorities regarding their personal experiences with the Divine to be purposefully ambiguous — intended to leave the door open to major spiritual manifestations without ever confirming a personal experience as such.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? 21
FireTag on May 30, 2012 at 4:36 PM
I find it fascinating that this is how LDS Mormons have to meet their leadership. I guess there are certain advantages to being in a small church.
Our Apostles have been known to make house calls, especially in the hinterlands like the East Coast. :D
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? 4
Phoenix on May 30, 2012 at 4:46 PM
The question isn’t whether or not the apostles should share their personal spiritual experiences. They don’t and thats a fact. There is an insinuation on this thread that means they don’t have such experiences. Well, there is a way to find that out. Pray and ask God if they are real prophets and if they have such experiences.
We don’t depend on the prophet for our testimonies, we depend on God. We can ask Him to prove or disprove any concept and He will.
Personally, I don’t share powerful experiences because they are sacred and I treat them as such. I have been given spiritual gag orders from sharing them. I imagine its the same with the Apostles.
(Oh and BTW sometimes they do share them, just with specific audiences.)
Controversial! What do you think? 3
Nick Literski on May 30, 2012 at 4:49 PM
Yes! I’ll always remember meeting Grant McMurray, then president of the Community of Christ (then RLDS, of course), at an annual conference of the Mormon History Association in Kirtland, Ohio. He was warm, engaging, and personable as we chatted together at an opening reception. Later, during an event held in the Kirtland Temple, he noticed me looking for a seat, so he made room and motioned for me to sit next to him on his pew. He was humble, genuinely kind, and a wonderful ambassador for his faith.
Like this comment? 2
Bob on May 30, 2012 at 5:38 PM
#56:Phoenix,
The difference is that’s their calling.
They are called to give their personal witness of Christ. They are called to speak it openly and wholely , not hide it.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? 11
Bonnie on May 30, 2012 at 7:46 PM
Mike #48 – we recently had a discussion on the downside to brokering the spirit within the church. It seems like sometimes we want both things: to be independent and have access to the spirit ourselves and then also to look at the spiritual experiences of others and have them serve as a conduit between us and the divine. I think a certain amount of both occurs, FWIW. I think that’s part of the divine tension.
to others: The problem with spiritual experiences shared is that they become common. Most of us know about Lorenzo Snow talking to his granddaughter about the Lord appearing to him in the hallway of the SL temple. He didn’t discuss it in conference. How was he supposed to share it? What the heck are you supposed to say? “I’d like you to know that I’ve seen the Savior”? It’s so crass.
I understand the member feeling that we own the apostles and their experiences, but I’m satisfied to listen quietly and feel between the lines of what they say. Who can forget Bruce R. McConkie’s final testimony, “I will not know any better then than I know now …”
I just wonder what it is we expect to experience when we read or hear of someone else’s experience. It seems kind of voyeuristic.
Controversial! What do you think? 2
Bonnie on May 30, 2012 at 7:49 PM
And what if personal experiences are widely discussed? What is the first tendency of human nature but to compare? When the Lord chooses so specifically those things and then doesn’t tell us why, it seems like it would cause more pain than it would relieve. As I’ve already commented, the Lord has been specific about saying that all are blessed who believe. Period.
Like this comment? 1
Silhan on May 30, 2012 at 8:32 PM
I used to have what I considered a very strong testimony of the truthfulness of the Church. Even though I had never seen an angel or the Savior, I considered the feelings that I based my testimony on to be just as valid as, if not better than, an actual supernatural experience. In my mind, our physical senses could be fooled, but our spiritual senses could not. At the time, I was 100% convinced that someday I would experience something supernatural as a reward for my faith and obedience.
But eventually I came to believe that supposed supernatural experiences–which no one ever talks about because they are too sacred–are very much like the Emperor’s New Clothes. Everyone assumes that other people are having them, but are themselves too afraid to admit that they are not.
It certainly is possible that other people really are having such experiences, but that God just doesn’t think I need them or deserve them. So until he decides otherwise, I’ll continue to believe that such experiences are purely psychological, as that seems to me to be the most likely explanation.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? 11
Bonnie on May 30, 2012 at 9:03 PM
Which is exactly why they are not discussed, Silhan. And the Book of Job is pretty specific about what God thinks about our decisions to put him in a box over what he does and doesn’t do for individuals.
Controversial! What do you think? 1
Joel on May 30, 2012 at 9:09 PM
I think the problem isn’t too much respect for the individual leaders but too much respect for the mantle itself. The mantle becomes something to hide behind, shielding leaders from any scrutiny. It prevents positive change or progress because that might lead to people doubting the sacredness of the mantle. It would be a lot healthier to recognize that there’s a lot more humanity at the head of the church than divinity than we think, and promoting mantle-worship only obscures that.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? 10
Douglas on May 31, 2012 at 12:46 AM
#53 – I’m looking out the windows for airborne swine, I’m actually agreeing with Nick L! Too often we LDS develop a “personality cult” about some of our leaders. I think of the late Paul H. Dunn and how he was such a great speaker to the young men. Then it comes out that he “embellished” some details of his past and got involved in questionable financial dealings. Is the problem with the Church? Not really, we have to pick our GAs from the “hew-mon” race, and the male portion thereof (proving that the Savior can take on the adversary with one hand tied behind His back), so the failing(s) of one man are of that man. Where we go wrong is to misplace worship of said men when (1) they’re not comfortable with it anyway, and (2) that worship is properly directed to the One that called them.
Good call on those that asked WHY someone wants the Priesthood. Do you want “status”? Well, status and a buck buys you a cup of coffee. But do you want to SERVE? Well, you don’t really need the Priesthood to serve in some capacity, but methinks it as some in this thread pointed out, that designating the Priesthood to men binds them to use it (hopefully) to serve their families. Think about it. LDS men, though not without their individual faults, seem far more family-centric than average. The irony is that often it’s their Church callings that make demands on their time not spent in being the breadwinner.
Asking what any GA has seen, IMHO, is a bit akin to asking “boxers vs briefs” (we KNOW the ANSWER, LoL), or about how often he and the missus rock the world, and so on…some matters are PRIVATE, PRIVATE, PRIVATE. Methinks that if the Savior appears to anyone with the assignment to “pass the word on down” as to what was experienced, it’d be through the Prophet, since the line of authority would be respected by He that established it. Anything else would obviously be on a “need to know” basis, so if you needed, you’d already know…
Like this comment? 3
Silhan on May 31, 2012 at 6:10 AM
To paraphrase Tyler Durden:
The first rule of Sacred Experience Club is: You do not talk about Sacred Experience Club. The second rule of Sacred Experience Club is: You do not talk about Sacred Experience Club.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? 9
hawkgrrrl on May 31, 2012 at 6:21 AM
I tend to think of actions the church takes in terms of how outsiders will perceive it. Honestly, I’m not sure how I feel about the apostles touting personal conversations with Jesus publicly. Does that give the church more authority or just more scrutiny? Does it make us look spiritual or just batty?
I also want to clarify that I most definitely did not hear Oaks saying that 99% of revelation is just doing what their own intuitions say anyway. I said: “He listed different ways that revelation happens: impressions, a feeling in the heart, answers to prayer, visions in the night or the day, and lastly, face to face discussions with heavenly beings. . . He was listing them more or less in order of frequency from most common to rarest.” It seemed clear to me that he was saying dreams and visions happen with some degree of frequency, and the way he said it, it sounded like meeting with heavenly beings was less frequent but that it happened. He probably listed a few other spiritual gifts as well, but that was what I remembered.
While he didn’t sign an affidavit or name heavenly beings with whom he had visited, he certainly implied that sort of thing happened in our church. I have also heard stories of these types of things from the rank & file. Compared to other churches, we have more of these types of stories per capita.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? 5
Bonnie on May 31, 2012 at 7:57 AM
Exactly, Hawk. The key is that we are reminded over and over that we have a direct line to God and that what occurs on that line is up to us and between us. While I don’t think of actions the church takes in terms of how others perceive it (instead believing that the purpose of the church is to keep the boat straightways with the waves well enough to let individuals have their opportunity to develop that individual line with God), I think there is a certain amount of reticence to discuss these private things because we live in a culture that is quick to shout TMI. Just as you point out, what a wonder that, contrary to this secular, cynical world, our apostles speak with an air of expectation that others besides themselves are experiencing the divine.
Like this comment? 2
Stephen M (Ethesis) on May 31, 2012 at 8:00 AM
I should note that the prior comment (which I am about to quote) is current practice but not the genesis. (this is not my ward in Texas. The following is a quote).
In reality, it is a recognition of one’s position in the “hierarchy”, with the highest person getting the “honor” of getting the sacrament first. For example, in our ward, even though the bishop (and/or his counselors) is responsible for making sure the prayer is said correctly, if a member of the stake president is there, he gets the sacrament before the bishop. We have a member of the 1Q70 in our ward. If he is there, he preempts the stake presidency. And a few times a year we have an apostle in our ward. If he is present, he trumps everyone else in getting the sacrament first – and he’s surely NOT the person making sure the prayers are said right.
Like this comment? 1
Jon on May 31, 2012 at 8:09 AM
I still hold that the comments put forth on why the brethren should readily testify if they have seen Christ or not still hold and are valid concerns. Yes, we do have a “direct line” but if Joseph can’t trust this direct line to always be correct then isn’t it OK for us to ask for further witness of the validity of the claims of the church? Cannot we ask for further witness that the current incarnation of the Church of Christ is truly His? Then, doesn’t it follow that the brethren should testify and witness if they have seen Christ?
I don’t think this is too much to ask for. I actually think this is a minimum we should be asking for.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? 8
Paul on May 31, 2012 at 9:05 AM
Jon, you asked for details on what Alma said. From Alma 12:9:
And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.
I maintain that it is God who determines what His servants share and don’t share.
Any asking we do should be of God.
Like this comment? 3
ethie on May 31, 2012 at 10:17 AM
It seems that the main arguments against modern day apostles and prophets sharing personal manifestations of the Divine boil down to two main types:
1)They are too sacred.
2)What would the world think?
I would simply ask, where is the justification for these perspectives coming from? This is not to say they are invalid, only that they are unscriptural, nontraditional, and unsupported. Please point out where this line of reasoning is consistently advocated in the scriptures or by our latter-day leaders — otherwise I will assume it is folk doctrine.
There are a number of examples from modern leaders explaining how they viewed their roles as prophets, or what receiving revelation means to them.
• During the Smoot hearings in 1907, Joseph F. Smith testified before Congress under oath that he did not have special visions or angelic visitations.
• Bruce R. McConkie described the confirmation received by the brethren on the 1978 priesthood revelation as a spiritual witness: “The Spirit of the Lord rested upon us all…. From the midst of eternity, the voice of God, conveyed by the power of the Spirit, spoke to his prophet…. And we all heard the same voice….” Elder McConkie equated “feeling the spirit” with “hearing the voice of the Lord.” It is important to note the careful wording used by Elder McConkie, an attorney.
• In media interviews during his presidency, President Gordon B. Hinckley repeatedly described the revelation he received as coming in a “still small voice.” One typical example: “We discuss it as a First Presidency and as a Council of the Twelve Apostles. We pray about it and then comes the whisperings of a still small voice…. This is a revelation.”
My point being, when our latter-day prophets are given the opportunity to share the reality of their personal manifestations in an honest, forthright way, they seem to explain that they receive the exact same “promptings” as you and I receive. This is not wrong. It is just not what most members expect.
I suspect that when Elder Oaks and others list types of revelation as he did here, he includes “visions” not because he is currently having them, but because they have been documented to happen in our Church’s history, and he leaves the door open to them occurring again. This might be similar to the Pentecostal gift of tongues practiced in the 19th century Church and enshrined in the 7th Article of Faith: not currently exhibited in the modern church, but definitely welcome if the Spirit directs.
Let me ask: are the latter-day prophets and apostles any less capable, or have less authority, if they in fact only receive spiritual promptings like the ones you and I receive? If not, then I don’t see the point defending a position that none of them has actually taken. Let’s take them at their word and not assume they are having secret manifestations that they insist on keeping from the rest of us.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? 9
Frank Pellett on May 31, 2012 at 11:02 AM
I think the argument that scripturally we have many records of manifestations of Jesus and angels doesn’t really work. In the BoM, we have record of just a few times in the course of a couple of thousand years. Even the times in the Bible are over a long persiod of time. I don’t think we can extrapolate from the scriptures how often prophets (or others) get angelic visits.
I think we do still get all the gifts of the spirit (healing, tongues, prophecy, etc), we just don’t broadcast them to the world, sinply because they weren’t -for- the world.
I think an additional reason to not spread about visitations is that it can currently be used to commit someone to a mental institution.
Like this comment? 1
Frank Pellett on May 31, 2012 at 11:05 AM
One more thing (if we haven’t had enough tangents).
I’ve been thinking about writing my thoughts on the recent devotional the Church History Library had with Elder Nelson. In this expending age of insta-distribution, are these off-the-cuff talks going to need to be scripted like Conference, so they don’t get taken out of context?
Like this comment? 1
Jon on May 31, 2012 at 12:25 PM
Ethie, #71,
Since the church was founded on the importance of modern day visitations and revelations (beyond feelings) I would say it does matter. If it doesn’t are we not saying that revelations are no more? If we are saying that then can’t we either say that A) The church and most of its members are in apostasy B) It was all made up C) There are no more visitations because of the wickedness of the members and world D) All religions are true and it isn’t left to just the LDS church E) God isn’t real and the visitations of the past weren’t real F) Not sure what else but there are more I’m sure.
Like I said, what differentiates the LDS religion if it claims no more visitations either? What witness do we have? Why isn’t the witness renewed?
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? 4
Paul on May 31, 2012 at 12:51 PM
Ethie, the third reason, which is scripturally supported, is that the Lord has either commanded them not to share the experience, or not commanded them to share it (see comment #70 above).
As for your question, “Let me ask: are the latter-day prophets and apostles any less capable, or have less authority, if they in fact only receive spiritual promptings like the ones you and I receive?” The answer is no, they are not.
Jon, the visitations that came to Joseph each had a role in the restoration — either of keys (eg, John the Baptist), scriptures (eg, Moroni) or specific knowledge that was lost (like the nature of the Godhead). If the restoration is complete, then why do we need more of those types of visitations?
Like this comment? 3
Mike S on May 31, 2012 at 1:34 PM
The biggest reason I see for sharing these types of things is one word: Hope.
In the early days of the Church and in the scriptures, we hear about becoming to worthy to even see the face of Christ in this life. We hear about heavenly manifestations. While perhaps uncommon, these provide a hope, a goal to strive for, a “dream” if you will.
If, however, even one of the current 12 apostles hasn’t seen Christ, what hope is there for some poor soul like me to even try? Hope is extinguished.
There is the argument made above that maybe they still do see Christ but just don’t tell anyone. But on a practical basis, whether they don’t have these experiences, or whether they do but don’t testify about them, it is the same to the rest of us.
At the end of the day, I will still do the same things. I will still pray and read scriptures and be a good person and go forward in faith. But if I knew that Christ still visited people on the earth today, it would offer me that glimmer of hope that maybe someday there would be that slightest chance that that might happen to me. It might not change my actions, but there would be that hope.
Maybe it’s a false hope.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? 9
Mike S on May 31, 2012 at 1:40 PM
I think we’ve stayed far from Joseph Smith’s bold testimony. He said what was. Some people derided him for it and as he said, his name is known for good and bad. But he just put it out there and let the cards fall where they may. And even though Brigham Young said some crazy things, he stated his mind boldly and testified of truth.
It seems we have become milquetoast. We have bland conference talks. We have leaders who talk “around” spiritual gifts and experiences with the same precision that Clinton did when he asked what the definition of “is” is. We don’t want to offend investors/developers in our multi-billion dollar malls. We have Hinckley saying he doesn’t really know what “As man is, God once was…” means. We have multi-million dollar ad campaigns showing that we’re just like everyone else.
It’s not working.
Conversion rates are down. Retention rates are down. People are leaving in increasing percentages. We are losing a generation in the Church. Could there be a correlation???
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? 11
Jon on May 31, 2012 at 1:42 PM
Paul,
I would say the biggest one is what Mike S said, hope. Also, it gives me reason to believe that there might be something special about the church differentiating it from other institutions. Otherwise I’m left to believe one of the things I listed in #74. My preference is to believe but I really have a hard time with that if God isn’t interacting more directly with the church, so I am left to wonder what else is out in the world, and there I will seek.
Like this comment? 0
Cowboy on May 31, 2012 at 1:53 PM
While it would certainly be a bold assertion, if the Apostles started claiming that they actually have seen Christ and had lunch with him, it is still a tenuous claim. No doubt those of faith would be energized by such a proposition, but from where I stand, it would be of little value. I like the idea presented by Mike S:
“In the early days of the Church and in the scriptures, we hear about becoming to worthy to even see the face of Christ in this life.”
If the religion had more than 12 institutional “witnesses”, but many Mormons who were willing to proclaim that they had “see[n] the face of Christ”, the doctrine on revelation and restoration would finally have some teeth. We have to wonder why the rhetoric has changed since the “early days”. Certainly seeing the face of Christ hasn’t fallen out of popularity, only unless the buck stopped at rhetoric only???
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? 4
whizzbang on May 31, 2012 at 2:13 PM
@79-There have been many Non Apostle people in the LDS Church who claim to have seen Christ, whether or not they actually have or not is not for me to decide.
Like this comment? 3
Brian on May 31, 2012 at 2:40 PM
“We have Hinckley saying he doesn’t really know what “As man is, God once was…”
That was a big one for me. I don’t personally recall another instance where I felt that public relations totally trumped truth.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? 11
ethie on May 31, 2012 at 3:20 PM
Jon #74
My question was rhetorical: there is no reason for faithful Mormons to argue that latter-day prophets and apostles must have Divine manifestations that they don’t share with the membership if in fact the absence of those kinds of direct experiences doesn’t lessen the truthfulness of the Church. That was based on a number of assumptions that most members hold, and that Paul in #75 confirmed.
My point was that for these members, like a few on this thread, it makes little sense to even argue this point. One can be contented that Church leaders have all the authority they need regardless of any other factors. We don’t need to defend the experiences that the brethren don’t even claim to be having.
However, it is a legitimate point of departure for those like you for whom these manifestations are a more vital sign of continuing revelation.
Paul # 75
I think that a better candidate for the “mysteries of God” referred to in the passage you cite would be LDS temple rituals, and not a visit from Christ or angels. Applying this passage to Divine visitations would indeed be a strange claim for a religion whose founding event is a heavenly visitation from God and Jesus, and is usually the first thing taught to the Church’s investigators.
Indeed, I do not see a pattern of the Lord telling his messengers to shut their mouths. The Lord visiting you or I might be for our personal edification, but His purpose in visiting one of His “special witnesses to the world” would be entirely different, and their responsibility to testify of Him would be greater.
Additionally, I think many would be surprised to learn that the restoration is complete. If so, not only do we no longer need angelic visitations, but we no longer need prophets and apostles. The list of things yet to be restored is long (numerous sealed records, the 12 Tribes, righteous animal sacrifice, polygamy [again], etc.), and could continue well into the Millennium.
Like this comment? 1
Frank Pellett on May 31, 2012 at 3:30 PM
Kinda hard to see a pattern of the Lord telling his messengers to shut their mouths. A scripture that said “I saw the face of God, but was insrtucted not to reveal it to the world” is kind of silly, as that would be explicitly ignoring the instruction not to tell the world.
Thre could be thousands more instances of angelic visitation than are in the scriptures but not mentioned. Its a thing impossible to measure.
Like this comment? 1
Bob on May 31, 2012 at 3:51 PM
Just one quick stop by Jesus on Jon Stewart. How hard would that be? How much would it mean?
Like this comment? 1
ethie on May 31, 2012 at 3:56 PM
#83 Frank
How about 1 Nephi 14:25-28? Nephi tells us that more was revealed to him, but the responsibility to bear witness of it belonged to John. Here we have a prophet both telling us that an angel revealed a vision to him, and there was a very good reason why he was told not to share it.
As I’ve stated above, “It’s too sacred” and “What will the world think?” are both put forward by members as reasons why modern manifestations are kept hidden. But the scriptures do not seem to support this reasoning.
Additionally, the fact that there are few direct Divine manifestations recorded in the scriptures just as readily supports the claim that very few prophets experience them, including today’s Church leaders.
Like this comment? 3
Cowboy on May 31, 2012 at 4:43 PM
If God is going to go about revealing himself to anybody, why not everybody? Why would he be so intent on maintaining the conflict of uncertainty surrounding his nature and very existence? These are some of the most basic questions that make the whole things questionable to me. The good philosophers spend so much energy on the “big questions” such as, “why do we exist”, “purpose means there is a God”, but they never really get down to the specifics of their theology. Why does this God, then, send so many mixed signals? If God is in total control, then he maintains the enviroment of confusion.
Like this comment? 4
Bonnie on May 31, 2012 at 6:28 PM
Why would we let PR dictate these bits of sharing? Because people are offended, and if they are offended, then they stumble on their path. I once shared something in testimony meeting that had me called in to the bishop’s office because it offended someone. I thought it was hopeful and empowering, but someone else thought it was inappropriate. And he was gently chiding: what right did I have to interfere with someone else’s progress, even in the name of something that was true to me? It made me think. What is more important? Sometimes just helping people stay where they can approach God their own way.
Controversial! What do you think? 3
alice on May 31, 2012 at 6:33 PM
#86 This is a very good question!
Why did he only appear to Joseph Smith and not to the larger US population at the time? Certainly that would have been within his powers. It would have had more impact both in terms of the larger audience who could have been set on the proper path and it also would have greatly reduced the number of people who could dismiss JS’ apparition.
Why not appear in Europe which was, at the time, a much larger population center? Why not in Asia which was a larger part of the world’s population still?
What would the point have been of reaching a small pinpoint of humanity and virtually ensuring that it would take centuries to increase to the 5% or so of the earth’s present population? What would be the point of writing off huge portions of the human population that didn’t share language and cultural links that make spreading the word practical?
NOT saying I have any idea what the answer is. It’s a genuine and heartfelt question.
Like this comment? 1
mh on June 1, 2012 at 1:03 AM
Alice, Jesus was born in the small town of Bethlehem, not Rome. Why was that?
Like this comment? 1
Bob on June 1, 2012 at 1:38 AM
#89: MH,
“Jesus was born in the small town of Bethlehem, not Rome. Why was that”?
I take that as a very large question, but have no answer.
Must one be born poor to be great? Must one be born outside the inter-circle to be effective?
Like this comment? 0
Cowboy on June 1, 2012 at 8:32 AM
MH:
I think that’s a good question. However, someone wishing to make a theological argument might say that Jesus’s primary mission was to effect the atonement, after which the missionary efforts would be carried out by his Apostles and disciples.
To me the bigger question is the whole “treasure hunt”. Mormon theology starts to make sense to me when I see at as something that was designed retrospectively, and a little naively, to address contemporary thought on religion, existence, and purpose. If however I try and place the starting point of my perspective to the grand councils in Heaven, I have hard imagining the Mormon plan of Salvation as the “perfect” Plan of Salvation.
I know these are arguments I have already stated, but Using scriptures, such as Abraham 3:22-26, I don’t understand the purpose of Apostasy, restoration, or even Church. If life is truly a test of sorts, and the nature of that test is to observe righteousness, then “treasure hunting” for the right Church seems to be an unnecessary distraction in that test. Nephi himself states:
14 And now, when I, Nephi, had heard these words, I remembered the words of the Lord which he spake unto me in the wilderness, saying that: aInasmuch as thy seed shall keep my bcommandments, they shall cprosper in the dland of promise.
15 Yea, and I also thought that they could not keep the commandments of the Lord according to the alaw of Moses, save they should have the law.
16 And I also knew that the alaw was engraven upon the plates of brass.
17 And again, I knew that the Lord had delivered Laban into my hands for this cause—that I might obtain the records according to his commandments.
(1 Nephi 4:14-17)
The apostasy, and conflict over which ideology is right seems to contradict the stated purpose in Abraham 3. So how do we rectify this problem? Salvation for the dead. Again, this seems like a solution that would be created looking back, not looking forward. It is a way to fix a problem in the manufacturing process. In product manufacturing we call this quality control, and has been in more recent years criticized as an unnecessary cost center in production. Better firms instead focus on building a system that does not produce defective products, thereby eliminating the need for rework. Perhaps I’m crossing over too much, but I just can’t imagine a perfect God creating a “perfect system” that has so much rework.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? 5
Nick Literski on June 1, 2012 at 9:25 AM
#89
Jesus was born in the small town of Bethlehem, not Rome. Why was that?
Allegedly, because Roman leaders imposed a bizarre requirement that every person under their realm travel to the hometown of their ancestors in order to be counted for a census. As no other historical records survive to confirm that such a census took place, we are left with the New Testament narrative.
We should be cognizant, however, that during the liftime of Jesus, messianic expectations were at a fever pitch. Numerous would-be messiahs actively created events in order to appear that they were fulfilling prophecy. For example, Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem on the white foal of an ass was no accident. Others, who were every bit as cognizant of the related prophecy as Jesus was, did the same thing. One cannot pretend that Jesus “fulfilled prophecy” unconsciously, particularly when the NT narratives specifically state that certain things were done “that the prophency might be fulfilled.” In other words, Jesus didn’t accidentally fulfill prophecies. Rather, Jesus took actions which were intentionally planned in order to satisfy prophetic expecations. Either that, or his NT “biographers” may indeed have created a narrative which was specifically designed to fulfill such expectations.
The prophecy of Micah had been interpreted as indicating that the messiah would be born in Bethlehem. It is interesting then, that the NT narrative makes such a point of Bethlehem as Jesus’ birthplace, despite acknowledging that he was evidently known throughout his life as a native of Nazareth. Essentially, the authors are saying, “Yes, we know that all the evidence says this guy was born in Nazareth, but we’re here to tell you, he was really born in Bethlehem, just like the prophecies said the messiah would be!” Later believers would accept the messiahship of Jesus as proof of the narrative, rather than the narrative as proof of Jesus’ messiahship, and before long the Bethlehem origin story becomes unquestionable.
Like this comment? 4
Nick Literski on June 1, 2012 at 9:48 AM
BTW, for those offended by #92, consider that LDS believe in at least two prophets who predicted the birthplace of the messiah. Micah prophecied approximately 737-690 B.C., making a statement others interpreted as saying the messiah would be born in Jerusalem. The writer of the Gospel of Matthew clearly relied upon this interpretation of Micah’s prophecy, 700 years later.
Lehi, on the other hand, prophecied in 600 B.C., saying that the messiah would be born “at Jerusalem.” FARMboys and FAIRies, of course, have strenuously argued that Lehi’s prophecy should be understood to somehow “include” Bethlehem, lest it be used to question The Book of Mormon as an authentic record. In reality, however, one could argue that Lehi, being a prophet subsequent to Micah. That Matthew would be stuck with Micah’s “outdated” prophecy would be no surprise, given that Lehi was promptly driven out of Jerusalem. In all likelihood there were no 600 year old “Book of Lehi” manuscripts lying around for Matthew to consult.
We end up with a messiah that was prophecied by one prophet to be born in Bethlehem, and by a later (but less documented) prophet to be born at Jerusalem. Messiahs being a bit rebellious against human expectations, however, we end up with a “Nazarene” described as “of Nazareth,” and derided by those who asked whether “anything good” could “come out of Nazareth.” Little wonder that committed believers a few decades later might feel compelled to “adjust” some details.
Like this comment? 3
Brian on June 1, 2012 at 11:57 AM
#91–To me the bigger question is the whole “treasure hunt”.
In addition to the “which shell is it under” idea, I have always been surprised that there is not much discussion of the “saved if you die under age of eight” doctrine. I’ve seen estimates (and they are staggering) of the number of humans who have died under 8. It seems to me that their numbers will dwarf the celestial beings that have actually passed the earthly test.
Then, consider the number of people who will be taught the gospel in the afterlife because they didn’t get the chance here, whether because the church wasn’t on the earth or word had simply did not reach them.
To me, the earth as a testing period really seems to fail the sniff test.
Like this comment? 4
Bonnie on June 1, 2012 at 12:46 PM
Brian, I’m fascinated by this question and actually spend a lot of time thinking about it. Alma says that the purpose of this life is to prepare to meet God, but as you note and I’ve often thought, a lot of people don’t get much time here (or as in the case of people with dramatic physical and mental handicaps, extreme poverty, and horrible experience, a reasonably fair shot at it) to do much of that preparing.
I feel like Moses a lot of the time, asking questions about what else constitutes our preparation, because it seems to clear to me that mortality on this earth is not even close to enough. JS’s discussion of our needing eons to approach perfection and his busy busy working in WW’s vision seem to imply that there is a lot more going on than we’re aware. It colors my view that the conditions of this life are fairly immaterial (pun intended) but I get the sense that we’re focusing on the wrong things when we do anything but repent and forgive.
Curious. Very curious.
Like this comment? 3
Cowboy on June 1, 2012 at 2:04 PM
“but I get the sense that we’re focusing on the wrong things when we do anything but repent and forgive.”
You drive hard bargain, as theologically I’m almost sold. But….repent of what? Should I repent of my poor thoughts and conduct toward my fellow man? Okay, that sounds good enough. Or Should I repent of my unwillingness to pay tithing or sustain Church leaders or even attend Church? But then we’re back to the question of why there should even be religion.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? 7
Mike S on June 1, 2012 at 2:12 PM
Brian and Bonnie:
I agree with this. Even just taking the current population, when the Church has been restored nearly 200 years and we have manpower and technology to literally take the gospel to every corner of the earth, consider simple numbers. Even given these “optimal” conditions, only around 0.08% of the population is active LDS (6 million / 7 billion), and only around 0.014% (1 million / 7 billion) are endowed members who can participate in all of the temple blessings.
It does make you wonder: if being LDS in mortality is so essential to fulfilling the plan, why isn’t the Church more successful. Shouldn’t there be something so compelling about it, or in such resonance with our souls, that more than 0.014% follow that to fruition.
What this says to me:
1) As Bonnie mentioned, mortality is likely just a blink in the eye in our preparations for eternity. We don’t understand it all.
2) Being Mormon in mortality is largely immaterial to our ultimate reward. Having faith in God and being good to our fellowman is really all that matters – or as Christ said, Love God, love your neighbor.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? 7
Bonnie on June 1, 2012 at 2:14 PM
It’s true; it’s a tension. I’ve wondered, though I don’t have any issue sustaining, why we need ordinances. My only guess is that the Lord would try us to see if we can listen to his voice instead of others quoting his voice (with their own additions and deletions) and that the ordinances serve as something for us to DO and the structure serves as an organizing tool to lift and strengthen the entire family of man. If I join the church I can hear the voice of a prophet, who can speak to lots of people efficiently, I can be networked in wards and branches or missions and have opportunity to serve as well as someone to watch over me, we will hopefully fellowship with one another and lift one another up and help each other to avoid distracting temptations, and we will all be saved faster and more efficiently. It’s one reason I see the benefits of a corporate church. From the perspective of God, it would seem that the more people involved in the structure, the more good the real gospel can do. The example of the Zoramites shows that a perverted idea of God is worse than no idea of God, so I’m in favor of an authorized religion just from that example.
Like this comment? 1
Rigel Hawthorne on June 1, 2012 at 7:07 PM
Elder Oaks has been a busy man. Speaking at the conference Hawkgrrl attended, organizing a stake in India last sunday, and will be participating in a stake presidency change and conference in Oregon next Sunday.
The opportunity to hear a GA speaks is often about the message they impart, but for me personally, it is about the degree of spirit that I can feel in their presence. I recognize that not everyone will acknowledge that to be meaningful, but it has been subjectively to me. I remember a visit by a member of the 70 during my mission that did not result in a personal spiritual witness of significance. Whether that was my failing to be in tune with preparation is another matter. I remember having the opportunity to be in an institute chapel with YSA peers being addressed by GBH (prior to the time when he was prophet). I was totally impressed by his ability to make all the participants in the conference feel comfortable in his presence and the humble manner that he carried himself. I felt sincerity. When my non-member acquaintances in Utah state their suspicion that the high ranking leaders are driven by greed, are intolerant, or out of touch, I have that experience that tells me othewise. You may say that I was influenced by the office and the culture surrounding the visitation of a GA, and you can, truthfully only learn so much from a public appearance, but I feel I have a pretty good BS meter.
I have read some comments by ex-Mormons about negative personal interactions with GA’s and most of them I can see that those negative reactions were driven by unrealistic expectations of the GA, including incomplete communications that were extrapolated negatively. The incomplete communications were often due to time constraints, direction to use more appropriate channels, or intermediaries that were attempting to shelter/serve the GA that in their attempt do so so, created offense.
Like this comment? 3
hawkgrrrl on June 1, 2012 at 11:34 PM
Rigel – well, India’s only a 5 hour flight from me at least!
I was also struck by how vigorous and youthful he seemed. He’s no spring chicken! I suppose having a much younger wife helps.
Like this comment? 0
Jon on June 2, 2012 at 12:43 AM
I would hope that most people don’t think ill of the people themselves. I think it is important to question but not really say the people are evil or anything. It is difficult to see into the heart of people, we can see what their actions are, or their fruits, but not others hearts. I think without introspection many of us can’t see our own hearts let alone those of others.
Kind of like in politics, it’s not the individuals, just the system many times driven by belief rather than truth, and that is what we are all looking for in the end, at least I hope, is truth. It is difficult to see past the belief though, sometimes belief and truth are the same, sometimes they aren’t.
Like this comment? 1
whizzbang on June 2, 2012 at 8:50 AM
@99- I agree with Rigel. I have had some persoanl interations with the GAs-One of them even phoned me from his sickbed and talked with me for 10 minutes about something, to say the least I was totally blown away by it more then the info he gave me. I remember meeting another one his shoes couldn’t have been older and his scriptures were very, very well worn. I was impressed by what he gained from them and other experiences he has had. I know that not all people have had this or are were impressed by their interactions. My older sister yelled at a GA and kicked him out of the kitchen when he came to tour the mission and offered to have the elders do the dishes. But she is active today and laughs about it now. At the beginning of the day and the end of the day they are human and trying to do their best, and they aren’t all cut from the same cloth.
Like this comment? 1
Justin on June 2, 2012 at 6:53 PM
I know this thread is getting old — but I just read Paul’s question [#75]:
If the restoration is complete, then why do we need more of those types of visitations?
I was wondering if he’s aware that that’s the exact same rationale Christians use to explain why there could be prophets and miraculous works in the “old days” — but that since Jesus has finished His work, “those days” are over.
I think the Book of Mormon puts it:
and they deny the power of god
the holy one of Israel
and they say unto the people
hearken unto us
and hear ye our precept
for behold
there is no god today
for the lord
and the redeemer
hath done his work
and he hath given his power unto men
behold
hearken ye unto my precept
if they shall say there is a miracle
wrought by the hand of the Lord
believe it not
for this day
he is not a god of miracles
he hath done his work
[2 Nephi 28:5-6]
Though I guess Paul wasn’t saying we should eat, drink, and be merry like they say in verse 7…
Like this comment? 3
Paul on June 2, 2012 at 8:19 PM
Hold the phone. I did not say that visitations cannot or do not happen. I said that the visitations that framed the restoration have happened in our dispensation and are not required for restoration purposes.
There are plenty of miracles recorded in journals of faithful latter-day saints — those of the restoration and those of today.
In the end, God will reveal Himself as He chooses to and to whomever He chooses. And if He constrains those to whom He reveals Himself from sharing that sacred experience, then that also is His prerogative.
Like this comment? 1
Bob on June 2, 2012 at 8:33 PM
#104: Paul,
“…are not required for restoration purposes”.
Are you saying Baptism and the laying on of hands by “visitors” was not needed for the restoration?
Like this comment? 2
Stephen M (Ethesis) on June 2, 2012 at 10:34 PM
Brian
Read my post on Theosis here at W&T …
Like this comment? 0
FireTag on June 2, 2012 at 11:03 PM
Cowboy:
I think the universe is operating exactly as it is supposed to operate. I think the presumption that needs questioning is the one that says the “treasure hunt” of believing the right things is what’s important.
Mike’s numbers about the fraction of people who find the church are compelling. If, instead, God evolves many institutions to form many different functions, or even to perform similar functions with different starting materials (i.e., people and cultures), the design makes more sense.
Like this comment? 2
Bob on June 3, 2012 at 1:56 AM
#107: FireTag,
“I think the universe is operating exactly as it is supposed to operate”.
“Candide”? The best of all possible worlds?
Like this comment? 0
Stephen M (Ethesis) on June 3, 2012 at 8:40 AM
Indeed, Bob. Of all “possible” worlds.
Like this comment? 0
Cowboy on June 3, 2012 at 10:24 AM
Firetag:
I agree, and that the universe is operating just as it should. But then, one must wonder, does the “universe” have a choice to do otherwise?
Still, your point in your first paragraph was my point in comment #91. Expanding on your comment in your second paragraph, the idea about a complex design of many different path’s could only make sense if we knew what God’s ultimate intent was. The problem for me with that approach is that if God creates multiple paths, each (more or less) bearing signs saying “this is the only correct path”, then at very least those signs and guides on the path don’t understand the destination either. In other words if all or most path’s lead to God, is there a possible path that doesn’t?? And how would you know? Then, seeing as how everything we know about the destination to said path’s, is defined on the path, what can we even say for sure about that most important fact?
This argument comes down to a hard embrace of “God’s way’s are higher than our way’s”. So much so, that we are completely in the dark. Which begs the question of why we would even waste our time trying to seek God.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? 4
Douglas on June 3, 2012 at 9:13 PM
#94 – How does an assessment as to how many of Heavenly Father’s children die in infancy (and therefore have the BYE to their salvation) NOT pass this “sniff” test? Since we have no memory of our pre-mortal existence (BTW, I despise the oxymoronical term “pre-existence”), how can we presume that some of the spirits that sided with Jehovah against Lucifer in the “Great Battle” in the heavens are getting what amounts to preferential treatment?
It’s quite possible that there were many that so well proved themselves that all they had to do was go through the motions of mortal life and death. We have no way of knowing, in that scenario, what the criteria was. With our limited grasp while being, as the robot “Bender” from “Futurama” puts it, “MeatBags”, how can we know everything about what has transpired before this life and what will happen in the hereafter? Can’t it just suffice that we know the principles of the Gospel and do them as commanded by He that gave His all on our behalf?
Like this comment? 0
Cowboy on June 5, 2012 at 12:44 PM
Sorry in advance for the unsolicited clarification on this point. I’ve been trying to think of a better way to articulate this, and want to give it stab. Perhaps I just want it on the record.
My problem with the notion that God uses a complex design of world religions to bring about his purposes, is that it suggests that God’s actual purposes are much different than the stated purposes of the various world religions that he uses as vehicles to serve his ends. In such a scheme it could only make sense to me that God’s purposes for me have nothing to do with the decisions that I make. I couldn’t actually try and do God’s will, because my vehicle for understanding his will is the conflicting religious ideologies which are somehow universally all the expression of his will. In short, I am just a variable in God’s equation, but not an actor with agency that can be expressed in a thoughtful way that progresses me towards greater awareness.
Like this comment? 1
Cowboy on June 6, 2012 at 9:43 AM
Note – I am not a variable in God’s equation, but rather a datum. Religions are the variables, and God must just be observing interactions.
Sorry again for the rehash. For some reason I am trying to work this out in my mind.
Like this comment? 0
Why women want the priestood — a poll | Wheat and Tares on June 8, 2012 at 6:34 AM
[...] reference, this was a relevant comment from Hawkgrrrl: While we’re speculating on priesthood, I think a sociological argument can be made that [...]
Like this comment? 0
Rigel Hawthorne on June 9, 2012 at 11:41 PM
“I was also struck by how vigorous and youthful he seemed”
That was very amazing to me tonight as well, Hawkgrrl. I really enjoyed his talk and the humor and vigor infused into it. His speaking companion from the 70 quoted a verse from Eliza R. Snow’s ‘How Great the Wisdom and the Love’.
Like this comment? 0
Jon on November 28, 2012 at 8:18 AM
As for those that say an apostle shouldn’t say if they have seen God. Let us look at what the scriptures say on the subject:
And again, more blessed are they who shall believe in your words because that ye shall testify that ye have seen me, and that ye know that I am.
What else did Christ say on the subject?
Verily, verily, I say unto you, I give unto you to be the light of this people. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid. Behold, do men light a candle and put it under a bushel? Nay, but on a candlestick, and it giveth light to all that are in the house; Therefore let your alight so shine before this people, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven.
In other words. How are we to believe on the words of another if they never tell us?
This gives us a few options to believe:
1. God has changed his mind on this subject and it isn’t important to let people know if you have seen God or not anymore.
2. There is no God. So the men currently in office haven’t seen him because they aren’t using psychoactive drugs that help them see visions like the men of old.
3. The men currently in office are predisposed to seeing visions/hearing voices like those in the past that have served.
4. The church is in apostasy.
5. ????
These are real concerns of mine. It would make it easier to be a believer if I was given words that helped me believe. But it appears that it really is all made up.
Like this comment? 1
RockiesGma on February 22, 2013 at 8:58 PM
It looks like no one comes here any more, which is understandable given how long ago the post began. But I wanted to say that “hope” is a righteous desire to know that such visitations currently happen. They are going on daily in lives across the world as near-death experiences. These people are not always believed, but they aren’t condemned or hospitalized either. I would hope if they are happening to our leaders they would testify of them without revealing sacred details, unless commanded to do so. It does give a newness of hope, of confidence — not that they are true apostles — but that these things still happen today, as in the past. Moroni spoke of the members ceasing to believe in miracles in our day. Perhaps not “needing” such experiences to be shared is just as bad as not believing in them.
I, like many faithful, humble, mature members would appreciate “scripture stories” of our day to be like unto those stories of all other days. My testimony in no way hinges on such, but I treasure the stories of Jesus, and would love to hear them all. I grew up on faith-promoting stories and cherished them as they bore record of the truths we have. Then they began shutting our mouths, saying they are too sacred to share and if you tell, you are betraying a spiritual confidence…..or, as is so often the case now, these things are deemed fath-promoting rumor and gossip. What has happened to us?
It’s just as Moroni prophesied. And that’s very sad, indeed.
To those who are honestly seeking, don’t give up. Don’t give up. It’s not sign-seeking, or immature, or anything off-putting to our God. Just stay humble, prayerful, and faithfully ask, seek, and knock. The Savior really will answer. Believe. Don’t let anyone, me included, ever sway you in your honest quest.
Like this comment? 1

Read Before Commenting!

W&T Among Your Social Networks

Wheat & Tares at Facebook

In the News

Our Authors, Elsewhere

An Apostle Speaks . . . Hawkgrrrl Listens

Like this:

117 Responses to An Apostle Speaks . . . Hawkgrrrl Listens

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Recent Comments

Authors

Archives

Meta

Read Before Commenting!

W&T Among Your Social Networks

Wheat & Tares at Facebook

In the News

Our Authors, Elsewhere

An Apostle Speaks . . . Hawkgrrrl Listens

ShareThis:

Like this:

117 Responses to An Apostle Speaks . . . Hawkgrrrl Listens

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Recent Comments

Authors

Archives

Meta