Too Sacred to Share?

[wtrdog]

I don't want to hijack the other thread re Paul Dunn.  Spin-off topic.  I know what the responses will be but would like to debate the point and test the underlying logic.  Is there such a thing as spiritual experiences / miracles which are too sacred to share?  Do the rules change if its someone in a leadership position?  Pearls before swine, all that, what are your thoughts?

Here's my basic position.  For the average member, sure, understandably an experience might be very personal and they are uncomfortable sharing it.  Cool, I'm not going to give them a hard time about this.  When it comes to leaders however, I flatly disagree with this.  Leaders, IMO, have a responsibility to be completely and totally transparent about their experiences.  The raw unfiltered truth.  Have you seen Christ or not?  A simple yes or no.  With your eyes in the middle of the day, when, where, every little detail.  No vaugery that would cause people to believe things that aren't true.

I like the way the Gospel Principles manual puts it.

Quote

Lying is intentionally deceiving others. Bearing false witness is one form of lying. ...There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.

An example of such dishonesty from Elder Packer in 2014 conference.

Quote

Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon recorded the following after a sacred experience:

“And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!

“For we saw him” (D&C 76:22–23).

Their words are my words.

The meaning of this has been debated all over the place.  Does this mean he's seen Christ?  Some say yes, others say no.  I was actually in a conference not that many years ago where Elder Packer was flatly asked by an audience member whether he had or hadn't, seen Christ that is.  His response was basically no, but without actually saying no, and basically just berated the person who asked the question for being inappropriate.  How is this inappropriate?  Why, because you feel insecure about the fact that you run around with the title Special Witness of Christ without having actually received any sort of special witness?  Honestly it was quite like how I would expect a liar to respond.  Instead of just being honest, they get upset at being called out and try to flip the situation.

On the other hand I've witnessed other apostles who were very down to earth and plainly say they've never seen Christ without hesitation.  

I think I've illustrated the point though.  Apostles/GAs say stuff like this all the time, where they speak in a highly prevaricating or sensational kind of way that's meant to build faith or conjure up spiritual feelings.  But it's not honest.  To the point, what really bugs me is I see this as being an anti-Christian kind of thing that is at odds with the stated plan of salvation.  An ingredient of agency is information.  How, for example, can a person exercise their agency and make a decision if they were misled or manipulated in some way?  Consider me, even, as an example.  For sake of argument let's say the gospel is true.  Without getting into nitpicky details, the basic theme of the plan of salvation is real.  Ok, well I personally am in a situation where I feel like I've been lied to and manipulated.  Consequently I do not trust the leadership of the church at all and regard them to be liars.  Beside putting me at odds with the corporate church, it then has the domino effect of also causing me to be suspicious and lose faith in the gospel/theology.  Etc. etc.

Long story short, shouldn't leaders have an obligation to share their spiritual experiences, whatever they may be?  People should not be manipulated either into or out of a testimony.  Critical decisions like serving a mission, getting married, career choices, having children, etc., should be made in the cold light of day with all cards faced up on the table.

Moreover, another way to look at all this.  We hear all these stories of great courage from the scriptures, stripes for Jesus and all that.  The idea of "too sacred" experiences is completely at odds with this.  The only reason to not share an experience, described as pearls before swine, is out of fear that those hearing it won't believe it.  They might even crack a grin or laugh because not only do they not believe it, but think it's silly.  Yes, that might happen, but so what?  

[Duncan]

I just read a book about this topic, would discuss more but I just got invited out to dinner.............by a woman! my sister but dinner is dinner!

 

https://deseretbook.com/p/i-know-he-lives-how-13-special-witnesses-came-to-know-jesus-christ?variant_id=154025-hardcover

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

I just read a book about this topic, would discuss more but I just got invited out to dinner.............by a woman! my sister but dinner is dinner!

 

https://deseretbook.com/p/i-know-he-lives-how-13-special-witnesses-came-to-know-jesus-christ?variant_id=154025-hardcover

I hear you on the dinner thing...yeah..I like dinner with my  brothers..dinner is definitely dinner.  Thanks for the link.

(You might get lucky and your sister brings the woman of your dreams)!!

[JLHPROF]

In my opinion, first we have to recognize that there are two kinds of spiritual experiences - the personal and the official.
In Mormonism there are revelations for the Church and personal revelation.  There are blessings given to individuals and blessings given for use in the Church.

Nobody would expect President Monson to share the full text of his Patriarchal blessing.  That is personal.
People do expect that President Monson share a revelation directing the Church or containing new doctrine to be revealed to the Church (whether any has been received is another issue).

And in the Boyd K. Packer scenario we are actually asking two separate questions.
1. Had President Packer as an Apostle of Christ actually seen the Savior to provide a witness to other that he lives?
2. Had President Packer the man received a visitation from the Savior, along the lines of his Calling and Election?

The first would be his responsibility to bear testimony.  The second would be nobody's business and should not be revealed.
The muddy waters come if answering question number one requires a violation of question number two.  Or answering number one in the negative reveals the personal spiritual level of question number two.

With the exception of Joseph Smith we have numerous examples of prophets and apostles admitting they'd seen the Lord, but very few answer question number two.
What do we think would happen if a general authority today said in General Conference that they had been visited by the Savior?  They'd be eaten alive by the press, the critics, and probably half the members.  The sacred would become the profane.
 

[Jeanne]

On the OP...in early days, they shared those experiences..at least that is what we thought...all those visitations and things we read in the D&C...they only served the church well..which is why I don't understand why at least the leaders are quiet about certain things.  In my early years I would have readily been hungered and received such divine communication.  Trust in leaders is equivalent to a trust in God when they say they speak for Him.  So..I feel I got burned having regularly accepted Paul Dunn's fireside messages.  Should leaders speak out if they have an experience??  I say yes...but should they lie....it will serve purpose..but hurt so many.  I dunno...this is really hard for me.  I don't believe that anyone has spoke to anyone lately....but only if it spoken to my own heart do I believe.  That being said..I share that whenever I can.

[wtrdog]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

In my opinion, first we have to recognize that there are two kinds of spiritual experiences - the personal and the official.
In Mormonism there are revelations for the Church and personal revelation.  There are blessings given to individuals and blessings given for use in the Church.

Nobody would expect President Monson to share the full text of his Patriarchal blessing.  That is personal.
People do expect that President Monson share a revelation directing the Church or containing new doctrine to be revealed to the Church (whether any has been received is another issue).

And in the Boyd K. Packer scenario we are actually asking two separate questions.
1. Had President Packer as an Apostle of Christ actually seen the Savior to provide a witness to other that he lives?
2. Had President Packer the man received a visitation from the Savior, along the lines of his Calling and Election?

The first would be his responsibility to bear testimony.  The second would be nobody's business and should not be revealed.
The muddy waters come if answering question number one requires a violation of question number two.  Or answering number one in the negative reveals the personal spiritual level of question number two.

With the exception of Joseph Smith we have numerous examples of prophets and apostles admitting they'd seen the Lord, but very few answer question number two.
What do we think would happen if a general authority today said in General Conference that they had been visited by the Savior?  They'd be eaten alive by the press, the critics, and probably half the members.  The sacred would become the profane.
 

I get what you're saying, but it doesn't jive for me.  Leaders, just like politicians, are subject to a level of scrutiny that would not be normally accepted.  I don't think they should be allowed any "personal" experience exceptions whatsoever.  I wouldn't expect them to share their patriarchal blessing, I can give them a pass on that, but basically just about everything beside that is fair game IMO.  It comes with the calling.  And I simply can't believe that an honest god would put a truly inspired leader in such a compromising situation either.  

I think leaders should be completely and totally transparent even to the point of bureaucratic record keeping.  I'd give them a form to fill out.  Have you ever seen Christ?  Have you ever experienced a vision while awake?  Have you ever had what you thought to be a visionary dream?  How often have you had experiences like this?  Once your life or every week?  When you receive revelation, what does this look like?  Describe it, be specific.  Did you simply get a feeling?  Or did you hear a voice?  Did an email appear on your computer that was of extraterrestrial origin? 

I'm trying to be funny here, but am also serious at the same time.  I don't expect leaders to tell me about a tender experience they had with their relative in the hospital or something along these lines.  But what I do expect is for them to de-mystify the whole thing of being an apostle, to be bold and tell the truth.  Are you being guided through supernatural means as was explicitly claimed by Joseph Smith and others in the scriptures, or are you just a regular dude with completely common experiences church and even world wide?

In the case of Packer, what is your explanation?    If he had a #2 experience that is not to be shared, then why is he totally flirting with people and speaking in a way that is obviously designed to make them think, wink wink, he's totally seen Christ.  Leaders of the church aren't stupid.  They know the popular gossip.  They know that huge percentages of members believe a whole bunch of magical things about what goes on inside the COB that isn't true.  Every Thursday afternoon they meet with Jesus in the temple and have a correlation meeting.  How many members have heard about elevator shafts built in the temple?  The stories are endless.  If the story is too sacred, he shouldn't be talking like this.  And if it's not too sacred, he shouldn't be such a tease.  

[JLHPROF]

32 minutes ago, wtrdog said:

I get what you're saying, but it doesn't jive for me.  Leaders, just like politicians, are subject to a level of scrutiny that would not be normally accepted.  I don't think they should be allowed any "personal" experience exceptions whatsoever. 

I don't agree at all.
But that being said many of the prophets and apostles have born this testimony.

For example - 

• Apostle John W. Taylor - "I know our Savior lives because I have seen Him face to face! "  And his last words were "“Hush, the Savior is passing.”
• President George Q. Cannon - " I know that God lives. I know that Jesus lives; for I have seen him! I know that this is the Church of God, and that it is founded on Jesus Christ, our Redeemer. "
• L. John Nuttall, FP Secretary - "I have seen the Savior Jesus Christ and conversed with Him face to face and He has talked with me. "

 

[rongo]

This was *the* big issue for a man I was asked to meet with to discuss his concerns stemming from the CES letter. We spent hours discussing BoM, BoA, polyandry, etc. and he kept coming back to concerns over whether or not the Brethren had seen God. I told him that I believe that some have, and some haven't, but that their special witness stems from their ordination as apostles and isn't dependent on them seeing God. He strongly disagreed, and I told him that he had his assumptions, and I have mine. I shared with him statements from Heber C. Kimball and Orson Pratt where they specifically state that they have *not* seen God or Jesus (he also was upset with perceived "caginess" on the part of modern apostles in giving the impression they have, while not saying they have, and reacting angrily when asked). 

For that matter, I believe that there are rank-and-file non-apostles who have seen and conversed with God. 

[Nevo]

7 hours ago, wtrdog said:

Long story short, shouldn't leaders have an obligation to share their spiritual experiences, whatever they may be?

No, I don't think so.

Today I was reading from Oliver Cowdery's 1836 journal. On January 19th, he recorded: "Wrote blessings: this day I felt more like dedicating myself to the Lord than usual. O my God, my soul desires to see thee as thy favored ones in days of old."

Two days later he recorded: "At about three O'clock P.M. I assembled in our office garret, having all things prepared for the occasion, with presidents Joseph Smith, jr. F. G. Williams, Sidney Rigdon Hyrum Smith, David Whitmer, John Whitmer and elder John Corrill, and washed our bodies with pure water before the Lord, preparatory to the annointing with the holy oil. After we were washed, our bodies were perfumed with a sweet smelling oderous wash. At evening the presidents of the Church, with the two bishops and their counsellors, and elder Warren Parrish, met in the presidents' room, the high councils of Kirtland and Zion in their rooms. Those named in the first room were annointed with the same kind of oil and in the man[ner] that were Moses and Aaron, and those who stood before the Lord in ancient days, and those in the other rooms with annointing oil prepared for them. The glorious scene is too great to be described in this book, therefore, I only say, that the heavens were opened to many, and great and marvelous things were shown."

Two days later he recorded: "In the evening Elder Marsh called at my house: we talked much upon the subject of visions: he greatly desired to see the Lord. Brother Marsh is a good man, and I pray that his faith may be strengthened to behold the heavens open."

Oliver seems to indicate that he was one of those who experienced the heavens open and saw "great and marvelous things" on January 21st, but apparently felt they were too sacred to write even in his personal journal. The context suggests he may even have seen a vision of the Savior. But he was obviously very careful with such things and reticent to put anything into writing (compare D&C 63:64).

Edited September 28, 2017 by Nevo

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, wtrdog said:

Is there such a thing as spiritual experiences / miracles which are too sacred to share?  Do the rules change if its someone in a leadership position?

I have personally had religious experiences which I have never shared with anybody. And unless or until I am prompted to do otherwise, I have no intention of sharing them with anyone in mortality. I don't see why that would change if I my calling in the church merely happened to be different than what it is now. 

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, wtrdog said:

I don't want to hijack the other thread re Paul Dunn.  Spin-off topic.  I know what the responses will be but would like to debate the point and test the underlying logic.  Is there such a thing as spiritual experiences / miracles which are too sacred to share?  Do the rules change if its someone in a leadership position?  Pearls before swine, all that, what are your thoughts?

Here's my basic position.  For the average member, sure, understandably an experience might be very personal and they are uncomfortable sharing it.  Cool, I'm not going to give them a hard time about this.  When it comes to leaders however, I flatly disagree with this.  Leaders, IMO, have a responsibility to be completely and totally transparent about their experiences.  The raw unfiltered truth.  Have you seen Christ or not?  A simple yes or no.  With your eyes in the middle of the day, when, where, every little detail.  No vaugery that would cause people to believe things that aren't true.

I like the way the Gospel Principles manual puts it.

An example of such dishonesty from Elder Packer in 2014 conference.

The meaning of this has been debated all over the place.  Does this mean he's seen Christ?  Some say yes, others say no.  I was actually in a conference not that many years ago where Elder Packer was flatly asked by an audience member whether he had or hadn't, seen Christ that is.  His response was basically no, but without actually saying no, and basically just berated the person who asked the question for being inappropriate.  How is this inappropriate?  Why, because you feel insecure about the fact that you run around with the title Special Witness of Christ without having actually received any sort of special witness?  Honestly it was quite like how I would expect a liar to respond.  Instead of just being honest, they get upset at being called out and try to flip the situation.

On the other hand I've witnessed other apostles who were very down to earth and plainly say they've never seen Christ without hesitation.  

I think I've illustrated the point though.  Apostles/GAs say stuff like this all the time, where they speak in a highly prevaricating or sensational kind of way that's meant to build faith or conjure up spiritual feelings.  But it's not honest.  To the point, what really bugs me is I see this as being an anti-Christian kind of thing that is at odds with the stated plan of salvation.  An ingredient of agency is information.  How, for example, can a person exercise their agency and make a decision if they were misled or manipulated in some way?  Consider me, even, as an example.  For sake of argument let's say the gospel is true.  Without getting into nitpicky details, the basic theme of the plan of salvation is real.  Ok, well I personally am in a situation where I feel like I've been lied to and manipulated.  Consequently I do not trust the leadership of the church at all and regard them to be liars.  Beside putting me at odds with the corporate church, it then has the domino effect of also causing me to be suspicious and lose faith in the gospel/theology.  Etc. etc.

Long story short, shouldn't leaders have an obligation to share their spiritual experiences, whatever they may be?  People should not be manipulated either into or out of a testimony.  Critical decisions like serving a mission, getting married, career choices, having children, etc., should be made in the cold light of day with all cards faced up on the table.

Moreover, another way to look at all this.  We hear all these stories of great courage from the scriptures, stripes for Jesus and all that.  The idea of "too sacred" experiences is completely at odds with this.  The only reason to not share an experience, described as pearls before swine, is out of fear that those hearing it won't believe it.  They might even crack a grin or laugh because not only do they not believe it, but think it's silly.  Yes, that might happen, but so what?  

I think that is a judgement call made by the sharer, whether he was placed by the Lord under a sacred covenant not to share or not.

Have you ever asked someone, “Have you seen Christ or not?” That person might answer the question in different ways depending on the context, the spirit in which the question is asked, and the Spirit’s involvement. Such a conversation is not best set up as a transaction but as a shared revelatory experience, so many factors come into the preparation and participation for the conversation.

Something said by an Apostle in a talk such as Elder Packer’s is a special witness of the name of Christ, meant for non-contentious consumption and conversation, according to 3 Nephi 11. “Special witness of the name of Christ,” to me, invites that approach when we look at the scriptures and see what the term “name of Christ” conveys. Some people get this naturally, without appealing to the scriptures.

No one should allow himself to be manipulated, whether into sharing something or believing what is shared. If he feels anything coming from a brother in the faith is untruthful or sensational, yet wishes to abide in the spirit of charity and not contention, there are certain things he can do about it, and ways to behave, and ways to address the concern.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, wtrdog said:

I get what you're saying, but it doesn't jive for me.  Leaders, just like politicians, are subject to a level of scrutiny that would not be normally accepted.  I don't think they should be allowed any "personal" experience exceptions whatsoever.  I wouldn't expect them to share their patriarchal blessing, I can give them a pass on that, but basically just about everything beside that is fair game IMO.  It comes with the calling.  And I simply can't believe that an honest god would put a truly inspired leader in such a compromising situation either.  

May I ask why you seem so animated or angry when it comes to this issue? Every "Spiritual Experience" is personal. The only thing public is the calling or office. Unless the "Spiritual Experience", is a revelation for the whole Church, it is not only personal, but private. It sounds a bit like you are saying that if they have seen Jesus Christ, they should say so because it will help your testimony; it won't. The only way it would help your testimony, is if you already have the belief that such things are possible, and happen. Otherwise, it will be nothing more than fodder for anti-Mormon types, and for the unbelieving, it would drive them away. Countless thousands saw Jesus Christ in the flesh, saw him perform great miracles, and yet his friends abandoned him and he died alone. Each running and hiding, despite seeing, despite knowing, despite of their declarations, they lost faith. More importantly those who followed them lost faith, were it not for the resurrection and the day of Pentecost, these men we now quote, we would never know their names. It was not enough to "see", they had to know, and that knowing, came by Faith.  

[Bobbieaware]

As usual, a lapsed -faith former member -- or lapsed-faith member -- seizes upon some anti-Mormon point that he thinks is going to be impossible to refute, the whole time either forgetting or not realizing there is a recurrent theme found throughout the scriptures that completely and utterly refutes the supposed irrefutable point.

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.

10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.

11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell. (Alma 12)

and...

8 And these things have I written, which are a lesser part of the things which he taught the people; and I have written them to the intent that they may be brought again unto this people, from the Gentiles, according to the words which Jesus hath spoken.

9 And when they shall have received this, which is expedient that they should have first, to try their faith, and if it shall so be that they shall believe these things (the lesser part of Christ's miraculous ministry among the Nephites) then shall the greater things be made manifest unto them.

10 And if it so be that they will not believe these things, then shall the greater things be withheld from them, unto their condemnation.

11 Behold, I was about to write them, all which were engraven upon the plates of Nephi, but the Lord forbade it, saying: I will try the faith of my people. (3 Nephi 26)

Edited September 28, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[cdowis]

Does anyone care what I think?

This whole discussion is a spiritual twinkie.

[Jeanne]

Sometimes members share every other weird kind of thing during testimony meeting.  Why not have testimony meetings or these kinds of experiences to be shared?  As for leaders..just tell the truth an share the gospel...that is what you are supposed to do in the ministry.  (IMO)

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Sometimes members share every other weird kind of thing during testimony meeting.  Why not have testimony meetings or these kinds of experiences to be shared?  As for leaders..just tell the truth an share the gospel...that is what you are supposed to do in the ministry.  (IMO)

Look what people think of those who do share these kinds of fantastic spiritual experiences.  They get a reputation for being weird.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

I have personally had religious experiences which I have never shared with anybody. And unless or until I am prompted to do otherwise, I have no intention of sharing them with anyone in mortality. I don't see why that would change if I my calling in the church merely happened to be different than what it is now. 

 

I wish people like you would share, it helps people like me have hope. I try not to be so skeptical. My niece is a medium and she did a reading with me and it helped somewhat. 

[strappinglad]

Given the Kardashian - style questions that would follow a positive answer, as has been said , the sacred would immediately become the profane. How tall, what color hair, what type of clothing , etc , etc, ? Entitlement  requires transparency , horsefeathers!!!

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, wtrdog said:

I don't want to hijack the other thread re Paul Dunn.  Spin-off topic.  I know what the responses will be but would like to debate the point and test the underlying logic.  Is there such a thing as spiritual experiences / miracles which are too sacred to share?  Do the rules change if its someone in a leadership position?  Pearls before swine, all that, what are your thoughts?

Here's my basic position.  For the average member, sure, understandably an experience might be very personal and they are uncomfortable sharing it.  Cool, I'm not going to give them a hard time about this.  When it comes to leaders however, I flatly disagree with this.  Leaders, IMO, have a responsibility to be completely and totally transparent about their experiences.  The raw unfiltered truth.  Have you seen Christ or not?  A simple yes or no.  With your eyes in the middle of the day, when, where, every little detail.  No vaugery that would cause people to believe things that aren't true.

I like the way the Gospel Principles manual puts it.

An example of such dishonesty from Elder Packer in 2014 conference.

The meaning of this has been debated all over the place.  Does this mean he's seen Christ?  Some say yes, others say no.  I was actually in a conference not that many years ago where Elder Packer was flatly asked by an audience member whether he had or hadn't, seen Christ that is.  His response was basically no, but without actually saying no, and basically just berated the person who asked the question for being inappropriate.  How is this inappropriate?  Why, because you feel insecure about the fact that you run around with the title Special Witness of Christ without having actually received any sort of special witness?  Honestly it was quite like how I would expect a liar to respond.  Instead of just being honest, they get upset at being called out and try to flip the situation.

On the other hand I've witnessed other apostles who were very down to earth and plainly say they've never seen Christ without hesitation.  

I think I've illustrated the point though.  Apostles/GAs say stuff like this all the time, where they speak in a highly prevaricating or sensational kind of way that's meant to build faith or conjure up spiritual feelings.  But it's not honest.  To the point, what really bugs me is I see this as being an anti-Christian kind of thing that is at odds with the stated plan of salvation.  An ingredient of agency is information.  How, for example, can a person exercise their agency and make a decision if they were misled or manipulated in some way?  Consider me, even, as an example.  For sake of argument let's say the gospel is true.  Without getting into nitpicky details, the basic theme of the plan of salvation is real.  Ok, well I personally am in a situation where I feel like I've been lied to and manipulated.  Consequently I do not trust the leadership of the church at all and regard them to be liars.  Beside putting me at odds with the corporate church, it then has the domino effect of also causing me to be suspicious and lose faith in the gospel/theology.  Etc. etc.Long story short, shouldn't leaders have an obligation to share their spiritual experiences, whatever they may be?

Paul received things that it was not lawful for him to utter. We are told similarly in 3 Nephi that the Lord forbade some things be told, so that He could try His people. 

Not everything can be told. Some receive things it is not legal for them to share:

Rev 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

I do not believe GAs should purposefully manipulate followers, but there may be things they are not free to share. However, it is legal to say they are not free to share, although that may not go over too well.

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, wtrdog said:

I don't want to hijack the other thread re Paul Dunn.  Spin-off topic.  I know what the responses will be but would like to debate the point and test the underlying logic.  Is there such a thing as spiritual experiences / miracles which are too sacred to share?  Do the rules change if its someone in a leadership position?  Pearls before swine, all that, what are your thoughts?

Here's my basic position.  For the average member, sure, understandably an experience might be very personal and they are uncomfortable sharing it.  Cool, I'm not going to give them a hard time about this.  When it comes to leaders however, I flatly disagree with this.  Leaders, IMO, have a responsibility to be completely and totally transparent about their experiences.  The raw unfiltered truth.  Have you seen Christ or not?  A simple yes or no.  With your eyes in the middle of the day, when, where, every little detail.  No vaugery that would cause people to believe things that aren't true.

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. (Alma 12:9)

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

I could be wrong, but I strongly suspect that those who've had experiences too sacred to share publicly might understand this point differently to those who haven't.

[rpn]

Fact is that one can know Heavenly Father, Heavenly Mother, or our Savior lives, can see them, without doing so with mortal eyes by themselves.   I get that people call it lying or misleading.  But it isn't either of those two things.  It is absolute knowledge, just not always gotten in the three dimensional space of mortality's five senses.

Edited September 28, 2017 by rpn

[Jane_Doe]

4 hours ago, wtrdog said:

Here's my basic position.  For the average member, sure, understandably an experience might be very personal and they are uncomfortable sharing it.  Cool, I'm not going to give them a hard time about this.  When it comes to leaders however, I flatly disagree with this.  Leaders, IMO, have a responsibility to be completely and totally transparent about their experiences.  The raw unfiltered truth.  

From where do you derive this duel standard?  Surely not scripture, which states God is no respecter of persons.

4 hours ago, wtrdog said:

To the point, what really bugs me is I see this as being an anti-Christian kind of thing that is at odds with the stated plan of salvation.  An ingredient of agency is information.  How, for example, can a person exercise their agency and make a decision if they were misled or manipulated in some way? 

No where in the Plan of Salvation does it say we get to know everything right now.  In fact, it expressly states the opposite.  If you want to know whether or not something is True, you just need to ask God.  

4 hours ago, wtrdog said:

Long story short, shouldn't leaders have an obligation to share their spiritual experiences, whatever they may be?

No, such would be anti-scriptural.  

4 hours ago, wtrdog said:

 We hear all these stories of great courage from the scriptures, stripes for Jesus and all that.  The idea of "too sacred" experiences is completely at odds with this.

Actually there are incidents in scripture where Christ's words are specifically withheld from being written due to their sacredness.  See 3rd Nephi for some examples. 

4 hours ago, wtrdog said:

The only reason to not share an experience, described as pearls before swine, is out of fear that those hearing it won't believe it.  

That is not true at all.

[Jane_Doe]

4 hours ago, wtrdog said:

I get what you're saying, but it doesn't jive for me.  Leaders, just like politicians, are subject to a level of scrutiny that would not be normally accepted.  I don't think they should be allowed any "personal" experience exceptions whatsoever.  I wouldn't expect them to share their patriarchal blessing, I can give them a pass on that, but basically just about everything beside that is fair game IMO. 

You're welcome to that opinion.  It goes completely against scripture and God's ways, but you're welcome to it. 

[SmileyMcGee]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

Does anyone care what I think?

This whole discussion is a spiritual twinkie.

Hey now...let's not go around insulting the world's most beloved spongecake. You ever had one deep-fried? It may cause you to rethink your analogy...