Too Sacred To Share?

[mormonnewb]

Can someone explain to me the concept of "too sacred to share"; particularly, in the context of giving a testimony?  Just about every FT meeting, someone will get up and say, "Because of spiritual experiences too sacred to share, I KNOW ..."  To me, this is the Mormon equivalent of "Because I said so ..."

 

Where did this idea of "too sacred to share" even come from?  I don't remember any event in scripture being described as "too sacred to share."  In fact, our very own JS shared his experiences in significant detail.  Can you imagine how the sacred grove narrative would have caught on had he said, "I went into that grove and then had an experience that was too sacred to share, but I KNOW that the Church has been restored on earth"?  I can't imagine that there would be 15 Mormons today; nevertheless, 15 MILLION.

 

So when did this "too sacred to share" stuff start?  And why does it continue?  By it's very definition, a testimony is a description of sights, sounds and events.  "I saw two personages ..." "There was a bright light ..." "I heard a voice that said ..."  If you went into a court of law and said, "I KNOW the defendant is guilty because of an experience I had that was too sacred to share," the judge might arrest you for contempt.  She certainly wouldn't allow a jury to even consider what you had to say.

 

In the same light, imagine if a friend tried to convince you to dine at his favorite restaurant and said, "I've had experiences there that were too culinary to share, but I KNOW Applebee's is the true restaurant."  Would you run out and make reservations for your wedding anniversary?  Not if you want to stay married, I imagine.

 

So why do we think that our "too sacred to share" experiences should have any more influence in spreading the Gospel?  And, by the way, from whom are we keeping these experiences secret from?  Can we tell them to our spouses and close friends?  Are we just keeping them secret from those pearl-loving swine?

 

Can someone provide me an explanation, provided it's not too sacred to share?

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[teddyaware]

Can someone explain to me the concept of "too sacred to share"; particularly, in the context of giving a testimony?  Just about every FT meeting, someone will get up and say, "Because of spiritual experiences too sacred to share, I KNOW ..."  To me, this is the Mormon equivalent of "Because I said so ..."

 

Where did this idea of "too sacred to share" even come from?  I don't remember any event in scripture being described as "too sacred to share."  In fact, our very own JS shared his experiences in significant detail.  Can you imagine how the sacred grove narrative would have caught on had he said, "I went into that grove and then had an experience that was too sacred to share, but I KNOW that the Church has been restored on earth"?  I can't imagine that there would be 15 Mormons today; nevertheless, 15 MILLION.

 

So when did this "too sacred to share" stuff start?  And why does it continue?  By it's very definition, a testimony is a description of sights, sounds and events.  "I saw two personages ..." "There was a bright light ..." "I heard a voice that said ..."  If you went into a court of law and said, "I KNOW the defendant is guilty because of an experience I had that was too sacred to share," the judge might arrest you for contempt.  She certainly wouldn't allow a jury to even consider what you had to say.

 

In the same light, imagine if a friend tried to convince you to dine at his favorite restaurant and said, "I've had experiences there that were too culinary to share, but I KNOW Applebee's is the true restaurant."  Would you run out and make reservations for your wedding anniversary?  Not if you want to stay married, I imagine.

 

So why do we think that our "too sacred to share" experiences should have any more influence in spreading the Gospel?  And, by the way, from whom are we keeping these experiences secret from?  Can we tell them to our spouses and close friends?  Are we just keeping them secret from those pearl-loving swine?

 

Can someone provide me an explanation, provided it's not too sacred to share?

Hi there mormonnewb,

There are several examples throughout the scriptures where prophets testified they knew of things, revealed to them by revelation from God, that were to sacred to share. If you want, when I have more energy I'll reference them for you. But for now I'll share this one example from the Apostle Paul (note the strange turn of phrase Paul uses speaking of himself in the third person is an attempt on his part to not appear boastful):

"2 I knew a man (Paul speaking of himself) in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)

4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter." (2 Corinthians 12)

 

Edited January 3, 2014 by teddyaware

[garza4411]

I imagine that there are some really, REALLY miraculous things that some members have experienced. Real or imagined, if shared publicly like during a testimony meeting, the near impossibility of such an experience would diminish it's importance. Maybe not for the person sharing their testimony, but something--some sacredness about it--would be lost. Even the attempt to verbalize something that was experienced might result in a mangled mess of words and description.

[cinepro]

I've never heard someone say that in a F&T meeting.

 

We did once have a woman get up and share an experience she once had with a "vision".

 

And based on the comments I've heard since, perhaps a really good reason not to share such things isn't because they are too sacred, but because other Church members might think you're weird and crazy.

[Duncan]

I've never heard someone say that in a F&T meeting.

 

We did once have a woman get up and share an experience she once had with a "vision".

 

And based on the comments I've heard since, perhaps a really good reason not to share such things isn't because they are too sacred, but because other Church members might think you're weird and crazy.

 

 

like when in my friend's ward a lady shared how my friend's deceased Grandmama's head...showed up in vision underneath the lady's kitchen sink (when the lady has no clue as to what my friend's grandmama even looked like but why quibble over details...)

[MorningStar]

Some experiences are personal and others are meant for everyone, such as with the First Vision.  There are experiences I share with family, but no one else because it's only meant for us.

[Garden Girl]

The idea is certainly in the scriptures. Apart from Jesus' warning not to cast pearls before swine, D&C 63:64 reads: "Remember that that which cometh from above is sacred, and must be spoken with care, and by constraint of the Spirit."

 

Those of my generation who served missions also encountered this idea in Boyd K. Packer's famous talk, "The Candle of the Lord":

 

It is the Savior himself in his Sermon on the Mount who counsels us to beware of casting our "pearls" where they can be mocked and "trampled." ... Matt 7:6 "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."

It is this concept as well as other scriptures such as in 2 Cor, as well as in BoM and D&C that follow this concept... when we receive our patriarchal blessings, we are counseled that these are sacred and to be shared only as the Spirit directs us...

It is not a new concept...

 

GG  

[mormonnewb]

I've never heard someone say that in a F&T meeting.

 

We did once have a woman get up and share an experience she once had with a "vision".

 

And based on the comments I've heard since, perhaps a really good reason not to share such things isn't because they are too sacred, but because other Church members might think you're weird and crazy.

I too suspect that this is the real reason as well. It's not so much too sacred to share as "too crazy to be believed." But why are we so unwilling to believe in other's supernatural experiences but expect others to place stock in our own UNSPECIFIED experiences?

What made a prophet like JS so compelling is that he had the nerve to tell "unbelievable" stories, even knowing that they might likely get him killed. He certainly received more than his share of mockery and derision for them.

So while I understand the admonition to not cast our pearls before swine, isn't there a time (sac meeting, relief society, EQ, etc.) where the swine have been cleared out and we can let the sacred fly?

[The Nehor]

Can someone explain to me the concept of "too sacred to share"; particularly, in the context of giving a testimony?  Just about every FT meeting, someone will get up and say, "Because of spiritual experiences too sacred to share, I KNOW ..."  To me, this is the Mormon equivalent of "Because I said so ..."

 

Where did this idea of "too sacred to share" even come from?  I don't remember any event in scripture being described as "too sacred to share."  In fact, our very own JS shared his experiences in significant detail.  Can you imagine how the sacred grove narrative would have caught on had he said, "I went into that grove and then had an experience that was too sacred to share, but I KNOW that the Church has been restored on earth"?  I can't imagine that there would be 15 Mormons today; nevertheless, 15 MILLION.

You picked a bad example. Joseph Smith did not talk much about the First Vision in the beginning. He shared it with some close friends but when he started talking about the Restoration he usually started with Moroni. The early missionaries did the same thing. Later the First Vision story got out more and it got conflated with the Moroni story and Joseph told the whole thing to prevent confusion. It seems he thought it was too sacred but shared it later for clarification.

There is a lot of scripture about things being too sacred to share. Nephi was not allowed to write the end of his apocalypse. Jesus taught things the people could not record, Mormon and Moroni planned to put stuff in the Book of Mormon but were told not to, the sealed plates are still sealed. In the Bible Jesus told the Apostle not to talk about the Transfiguration experience until after Jesus rose from the dead, a few Old Testament prophets talk about seeing things they cannot share, the entire Book of Moses contains the caveat that it is for believers.

There is also the obvious problem of most such experiences never being shared or hinted at anywhere. Suppose president monson had a vision and was told not to share it. Would you claim it never happened because you never heard of such a thing?

I could give that very testimony that I know it is true because of experiences too sacred to share. I don't because I think it sounds pretentious but I have gotten revelations and experiences I have been told to keep almost entirely to myself. It happens quite a bit. I think it aids the faith of many to know these things still happen. If it sounds boastful oh well......we go around claiming we plan to become gods; the charge is pretty hard to refute.

[The Nehor]

So while I understand the admonition to not cast our pearls before swine, isn't there a time (sac meeting, relief society, EQ, etc.) where the swine have been cleared out and we can let the sacred fly?

If the Lord commands it. All of these stories I have heard were told in meetings more sacred and closed then the three hour block. Well, except the crazy ones but crazies tell their stories whenever they think they have an audience. I also don't believe them. God is smart enough not to trust these kinds of experiences and revelations to shameless blabbermouths.

[bluebell]

I too suspect that this is the real reason as well. It's not so much too sacred to share as "too crazy to be believed." But why are we so unwilling to believe in other's supernatural experiences but expect others to place stock in our own UNSPECIFIED experiences?

What made a prophet like JS so compelling is that he had the nerve to tell "unbelievable" stories, even knowing that they might likely get him killed. He certainly received more than his share of mockery and derision for them.

So while I understand the admonition to not cast our pearls before swine, isn't there a time (sac meeting, relief society, EQ, etc.) where the swine have been cleared out and we can let the sacred fly?

 

When the Spirit says it's o.k. for you to share a sacred experience you've had, then it's o.k.

 

Any other time-nope.

 

So, if it really bothers you, just assume that the people sharing their testimonies but not sharing their experiences, are doing exactly as the Spirit has said.   

[CV75]

Can someone explain to me the concept of "too sacred to share"; particularly, in the context of giving a testimony?

***

Can someone provide me an explanation, provided it's not too sacred to share?

 

 

I think it might have come from this very talk from 1971 (since  haven’t seen any other source): https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1971/04/the-spirit-beareth-record?lang=eng :

 

“There are some things just too sacred to discuss. We know that as it relates to the temples. In our temples, sacred ordinances are performed; sacred experiences are enjoyed. And yet we do not, because of the nature of them, discuss them outside those sacred walls.

 

“It is not that they are secret, but they are sacred; not to be discussed, but to be harbored and to be protected and regarded with the deepest of reverence.”

 

And:

 

“I have heard one of my brethren declare: “I know from experiences, too sacred to relate, that Jesus is the Christ.”

 

But even these quotes need to be taken (and, if critiqued, they need to be appraised) in the context and spirit of the whole talk, and in the context and spirit in which Elder Packer shared these and other examples and explanations. I can't think of a good reason why anyone would imitate the phrase, since the point of the whole talk is that it is the confirmation of the Spirit in the bearing of testimony that is important and key. But I also think we still have no reason to beat them up for it, especially if they are fearful or lacking judgment or delusional or ignorant or inarticulate or inexperienced or wrong or imitating what they've heard or seeking attention, praise or validation. But we all have to start somewhere!

Edited January 4, 2014 by CV75

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Can someone explain to me the concept of "too sacred to share"; particularly, in the context of giving a testimony?  Just about every FT meeting, someone will get up and say, "Because of spiritual experiences too sacred to share, I KNOW ..."  To me, this is the Mormon equivalent of "Because I said so ..."

 

Where did this idea of "too sacred to share" even come from?  I don't remember any event in scripture being described as "too sacred to share."  In fact, our very own JS shared his experiences in significant detail.  Can you imagine how the sacred grove narrative would have caught on had he said, "I went into that grove and then had an experience that was too sacred to share, but I KNOW that the Church has been restored on earth"?  I can't imagine that there would be 15 Mormons today; nevertheless, 15 MILLION.

 

So when did this "too sacred to share" stuff start?  And why does it continue?  By it's very definition, a testimony is a description of sights, sounds and events.  "I saw two personages ..." "There was a bright light ..." "I heard a voice that said ..."  If you went into a court of law and said, "I KNOW the defendant is guilty because of an experience I had that was too sacred to share," the judge might arrest you for contempt.  She certainly wouldn't allow a jury to even consider what you had to say.

 

In the same light, imagine if a friend tried to convince you to dine at his favorite restaurant and said, "I've had experiences there that were too culinary to share, but I KNOW Applebee's is the true restaurant."  Would you run out and make reservations for your wedding anniversary?  Not if you want to stay married, I imagine.

 

So why do we think that our "too sacred to share" experiences should have any more influence in spreading the Gospel?  And, by the way, from whom are we keeping these experiences secret from?  Can we tell them to our spouses and close friends?  Are we just keeping them secret from those pearl-loving swine?

 

Can someone provide me an explanation, provided it's not too sacred to share?

There are many things too sacred to share, but I usually share mine through poetry. I had someone who was like a brother to me tell my I share too much though my poems. But we are also commanded not to speak of things outside the Temple, so some of it is being obedient. To use your example of "pearls before swine", too many times others ridicule...this is how it applies to these issues.

[strappinglad]

It is best to avoid saying that you know something but you are not going to tell. Unless told by the Spirit to reveal something, keep the experience totally to yourself.

[mormonnewb]

Thanks all. I actually understand the principle a little better now and I see where it has validity. I would like to point out from the newbie standpoint that I think we over and mis-use the whole pearl before swine admonition, particularly in our testimonies.

I THINK what Christ meant was that we shouldn't bother even arguing with some folks. What I don't think he meant was for us to say, "I have pearls that are too sacred for you swine, so you should just believe me anyway." And this is sort of what we do when we give a testimony based on experiences "too sacred to share." And just to be clear, I understand that there are some experiences that fall into that category. I'm simply saying that vaguely alluding to them as EVIDENCE for what you KNOW isn't likely to spark a testimony in others.

Also, we might want to be more careful in voicing our pearly reservations to the swine themselves. During my temple prep classes, I understandably couldn't be told beforehand all of the promises I would be making in the temple. When I asked why, I was told that some things had to be kept secret because we don't cast pearls before swine. I don't think my dear teacher realized that, in that context, I was the swine (oink, oink). Fortunately, I've been called MUCH worse, but I could imagine a well-meaning investigator not taking too kindly to being referred to as "swine." Perhaps, we should just stick with "too sacred to share."

Edited January 4, 2014 by mormonnewb

[mfbukowski]

Can someone explain to me the concept of "too sacred to share"; particularly, in the context of giving a testimony?  Just about every FT meeting, someone will get up and say, "Because of spiritual experiences too sacred to share, I KNOW ..."  To me, this is the Mormon equivalent of "Because I said so ..."

 

Where did this idea of "too sacred to share" even come from?  I don't remember any event in scripture being described as "too sacred to share."  In fact, our very own JS shared his experiences in significant detail.  Can you imagine how the sacred grove narrative would have caught on had he said, "I went into that grove and then had an experience that was too sacred to share, but I KNOW that the Church has been restored on earth"?  I can't imagine that there would be 15 Mormons today; nevertheless, 15 MILLION.

 

So when did this "too sacred to share" stuff start?  And why does it continue?  By it's very definition, a testimony is a description of sights, sounds and events.  "I saw two personages ..." "There was a bright light ..." "I heard a voice that said ..."  If you went into a court of law and said, "I KNOW the defendant is guilty because of an experience I had that was too sacred to share," the judge might arrest you for contempt.  She certainly wouldn't allow a jury to even consider what you had to say.

 

In the same light, imagine if a friend tried to convince you to dine at his favorite restaurant and said, "I've had experiences there that were too culinary to share, but I KNOW Applebee's is the true restaurant."  Would you run out and make reservations for your wedding anniversary?  Not if you want to stay married, I imagine.

 

So why do we think that our "too sacred to share" experiences should have any more influence in spreading the Gospel?  And, by the way, from whom are we keeping these experiences secret from?  Can we tell them to our spouses and close friends?  Are we just keeping them secret from those pearl-loving swine?

 

Can someone provide me an explanation, provided it's not too sacred to share?

As I see it, the problem is more that words cannot capture the experience. Try to describe the color red to a blind person or the sound of a trumpet to a deaf person.

Or perhaps describe exactly an intimate moment with your wife. That would be too sacred to share.

Deeply personal experiences with God are of that nature, in my opinion. It's not about what happened- "I saw 12 angels with wings and two without"- that's not the point.

The point is trying to express the EFFECT the experience had on you and how profound it was. "My son died" is a fact- how you felt about that is "too personal/sacred to share" because words don't do it. It's just too profound.

In a real sense, it cannot be said at all. I think that's what Paul was talking about.

Edited January 4, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mormonnewb]

As I see it, the problem is more that words cannot capture the experience. Try to describe the color red to a blind person or the sound of a trumpet to a deaf person.Or perhaps describe exactly an intimate moment with your wife. That would be too sacred to share.Deeply personal experiences with God are of that nature, in my opinion. It's not about what happened- "I saw 12 angels with wings and two without"- that's not the point.The point is trying to express the EFFECT the experience had on you and how profound it was. "My son died" is a fact- how you felt about that is "too personal/sacred to share" because words don't do it. It's just too profound.

Too profound to articulate! I like that ALOT!

[mfbukowski]

Too profound to articulate!

I think that is what it really means when people say that.

[Kenngo1969]

The problem/challenge we have is that sometimes, the experiences we have, how we feel about them, and the fruit they bear in our lives may well transcend words, so trying to reduce them to words is, in a certain sense, futile.  

[Calm]

The problem/challenge we have is that sometimes, the experiences we have, how we feel about them, and the fruit they bear in our lives may well transcend words, so trying to reduce them to words is, in a certain sense, futile.  

And ends up reducing the experience itself....

 

And the way memory works, each time we take out an experience and go over it in detail, we are actually altering the memory.  I can see how such might actually shift the importance of it in time so that we end up losing that which is too profound to articulate precisely because we can't articulate it well and thus the memory ends up only being replayed with  those aspects that we have too often verbalized...the less profound and sacred aspects.  If one shares only when the Spirit instructs, the Spirit can aid imo in keeping the experience pure and centered on the meaning and purpose it served even as it can also be adapted to new situations where it may help illuminate new spiritual experiences as well.

 

I have an example I think that works.  My grandmother was visited by an angel for some reason in her young adulthood.  She was very committed to the Church and very committed to serving others though she did have a nasty streak of vanity in her (Mom was bald as a baby so Grandma cut a curl off a wig and glued it to a baby cap and had Mom wear that when they went out so it looked like she had luxurious curls), my personal opinion is she had the vision as a mercy from God to place her with a man who would encourage her to grow rather than someone who would just look on her as someone to amuse them, fill the role of the good hostess, etc.  Part of her vision was that she was instructed that it was right for her to marry my grandfather and from what my mother told me it was much more about choosing a husband who would be valiant in the faith and work with her as a companion in service and charity...however after many years of remembering and reprocessing the vision including through years where her better self was going to sleep due to not having to be exercised much since she had retired, lived alone as a widow and lived the life of a social butterfly rather than the previous life of active service, what she would describe to me was that she was such a popular woman who had so many engagement offers including from some very prominent families (and Grandpa was a 'nobody') that she didn't know what to do and so an angel came and told her who to marry.

 

I don't buy that was the sole purpose of the vision nor that the major point of it was to demonstrate that not only men flocked around her, but even angels were so concerned with her love life and ensuring she was able to be a member of the 'better part of society' that they were willing to step in and do something about it.  The angel had become proof that men had wanted her, not something of value in and of itself.  The story had been altered by too much repetition and too much focus on what was going on in her life at the time around it (lots of social events and parties and then her massive reception) as well as her current needs in her loneliness and greater isolation as she aged rather than thinking of the experience itself which was a much greater wonder but something harder to deal with because it demanded something of her.  Much easier to focus on the mundane aspects of her life at that time and thus the vision became transferred to that and it became something to serve her ego rather than to help her serve.

 

When one is explaining such an experience, one has to place it in the context of the mundane world for others to understand it. If kept to oneself and only relived in one's mind, such isn't as necessary.  In time, the mundane can overtake the sacred if one is not careful or shares it when the Spirit isn't as strong; I see it as less likely to happen if one is very careful in how one uses the experience....never to just prove that such things happen to oneself, always under direction of the Spirit....

 

And I feel comfortable sharing this because her relating the story to me never felt like she was telling a spiritual experience, it was just one more of the social events of her early life as she related it to me...like the President of the US had shown up in her home.  I would have so preferred to have known the younger woman who went to the Lord in such sincerity and trust she was answered by an angel, I think I could have really loved and cherished and respected that woman.  It was a great sorrow to me that I had missed out on that and only knew her as a rather shallow, selfcentered person with a good heart but unable to really engage with others or appear like she actually cared about anyone save for how it reflected on her.

Edited January 4, 2014 by calmoriah

[thatjimguy]

It is the Savior himself in his Sermon on the Mount who counsels us to beware of casting our "pearls" where they can be mocked and "trampled." ... Matt 7:6 "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."

It is this concept as well as other scriptures such as in 2 Cor, as well as in BoM and D&C that follow this concept... when we receive our patriarchal blessings, we are counseled that these are sacred and to be shared only as the Spirit directs us...

It is not a new concept...

 

GG  

 

Isn't this about people who would not care or try to undermine the testimony? This shouldn't apply to a sympathetic audience right?

[Storm Rider]

Can someone explain to me the concept of "too sacred to share"; particularly, in the context of giving a testimony?  Just about every FT meeting, someone will get up and say, "Because of spiritual experiences too sacred to share, I KNOW ..."  To me, this is the Mormon equivalent of "Because I said so ..."

 

Where did this idea of "too sacred to share" even come from?  I don't remember any event in scripture being described as "too sacred to share."  In fact, our very own JS shared his experiences in significant detail.  Can you imagine how the sacred grove narrative would have caught on had he said, "I went into that grove and then had an experience that was too sacred to share, but I KNOW that the Church has been restored on earth"?  I can't imagine that there would be 15 Mormons today; nevertheless, 15 MILLION.

 

So when did this "too sacred to share" stuff start?  And why does it continue?  By it's very definition, a testimony is a description of sights, sounds and events.  "I saw two personages ..." "There was a bright light ..." "I heard a voice that said ..."  If you went into a court of law and said, "I KNOW the defendant is guilty because of an experience I had that was too sacred to share," the judge might arrest you for contempt.  She certainly wouldn't allow a jury to even consider what you had to say.

 

In the same light, imagine if a friend tried to convince you to dine at his favorite restaurant and said, "I've had experiences there that were too culinary to share, but I KNOW Applebee's is the true restaurant."  Would you run out and make reservations for your wedding anniversary?  Not if you want to stay married, I imagine.

 

So why do we think that our "too sacred to share" experiences should have any more influence in spreading the Gospel?  And, by the way, from whom are we keeping these experiences secret from?  Can we tell them to our spouses and close friends?  Are we just keeping them secret from those pearl-loving swine?

 

Can someone provide me an explanation, provided it's not too sacred to share?

 

Can you tell me about the first time you shared your first experience with your wife?  Can you recount all the experiences you had on your honeymoon? 

 

How about telling me, a stranger, about all of your most intimate moments with the divine?  Don't leave anything out; tell me everything. 

 

Your answer is same as any sane, rational person's would be, "Frankly, it is none of your business", if one is a bit brusk, or, "Frankly, friend, some things are just not what is easily shared or talked about", is one patient and kind.  

 

I suspect I am like you and don't enjoy the phrase, but I understand the need for keeping some things private. The Savior kept many of his teachings private and limited to just the Apostles and we have no recording of those teachings. 

 

You are merging a lot of ideas and comparing apples and oranges. Many of us can bear testimonies without sharing every last spiritual experience we have had. F&T is not spill your guts day or tell us all of your secrets. F&T is simply for bearing testimony. Some of us need to eliminate trite phrases that serve no purpose and focus on a testimony of Jesus Christ and him crucified, but when we don't, it is no big deal. When we become perfect we can start throwing stones at those that are so imperfect. 

[teddyaware]

Can you tell me about the first time you shared your first experience with your wife?  Can you recount all the experiences you had on your honeymoon? 

 

How about telling me, a stranger, about all of your most intimate moments with the divine?  Don't leave anything out; tell me everything. 

 

Your answer is same as any sane, rational person's would be, "Frankly, it is none of your business", if one is a bit brusk, or, "Frankly, friend, some things are just not what is easily shared or talked about", is one patient and kind.  

 

I suspect I am like you and don't enjoy the phrase, but I understand the need for keeping some things private. The Savior kept many of his teachings private and limited to just the Apostles and we have no recording of those teachings. 

 

You are merging a lot of ideas and comparing apples and oranges. Many of us can bear testimonies without sharing every last spiritual experience we have had. F&T is not spill your guts day or tell us all of your secrets. F&T is simply for bearing testimony. Some of us need to eliminate trite phrases that serve no purpose and focus on a testimony of Jesus Christ and him crucified, but when we don't, it is no big deal. When we become perfect we can start throwing stones at those that are so imperfect.

Distilled down to the essence, I think what mormonnewb is wondering about is why LDS people, especially in fast and testimony meetings, bother to mention that they had a powerful or miraculous spiritual experience that greatly strengthened their testimony, only to be followed by saying "but I can't tell you (the congregation) what that powerful spiritual experience is because it's too sacred to share." So after hearing this members of the congregation might  think "why bother to bring your powerful or miraculous spiritual experience up in the first place if it's too sacred to share?"

 

Frankly, it might seem to some that a member who makes a such public declaration of the fact that they were the recipient of some "supernatural" experience, but then goes on to say they can't with propriety tell the congregation what it is, may be perceived as boasting of their especial worthiness to receive such an extraordinary experience. Paul referred to this sort of behavior as acting in an "unseemly" manner; unseemly being defined as, "not in keeping with established standards of taste or proper form; unbecoming or indecorous in appearance, speech, conduct, etc.."

 

Of course, there may be some rare instances when the Spirit will inspire someone to share a sacred experience with a certain person or with a group of persons, but this would be a rare exception to the general Church rule that it's normally best to keep sacred things to oneself.

 

The principle that it's usually best to keep sacred experiences or knowledge to oneself is also taught in the scriptures, as it is here:

"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 accordingto 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)

Edited January 4, 2014 by teddyaware

[ERMD]

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.