A Church Of Continuing Hunches?

[mnn727]

I have some people worrying about my conversion to Mormonism? Say it isn't so! Well, I guess I will drop ALL of my questions and get straight to pay, pray and obey because as a 46 yo man, I can't possibly live with the suspicion of strangers on the Internet.

Please understand that I lived for four DECADES without the benefit of living prophets, so it might take more than four YEARS for me to get completely comfortable with ceding my agency to 15 men who I never even heard of until 2011. That is why I ask these questions -- to gain such comfort. If I thought that the idea of prophets was completely ludicrous I wouldn't even bother to ask the question at all (I haven't started a thread on easterbunnydiscussions.org for MONTHS). So, believe it or not, I'm actually making progress.

IMHO You would do better to study and pray than to ask strangers on the internet

I would say the same thing if you were only taking what a Sunday School or Priesthood teacher had to say.

There is no substitute for personal study and prayer if you want knowledge, just look at Joseph Smith's example if you don't believe me

Edited October 2, 2014 by mnn727

[Tarski]

I see it more like this:

 

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 14:26

 

 

Thank you for the juxtaposition of your views to mine. It helps.   You also provide a case in point for some of the points I was making.  Your certainty and adherence to a very specific set of sectarian dogmas is duly noted. 

 

Too bad we do not have an equally literal minded and equally certain Muslim here to give their interpretation. That juxtaposition would also be instructive.

[Ahab]

You seem to have swallowed Bruce's statement that the revelatory experience then was "beyond what any then present had ever experienced" hook, line, and sinker. Think about that a little more.

[Raingirl]

I agree with you that I am far more contentious than necessary. Please accept my apologies.

I suspect that our very minor difference in opinion might be the result of an age difference. I'm only guessing but I suspect that you are probably 20 years younger than I am.

Please note that my advanced age does not make me any wiser than you. After all, there is no fool like an old fool. However, being an old fool means that I've had a lot more time to be wrong. I've also invested a lot more in being wrong. So when someone suggests an entirely new paradigm in which to view the world, it's harder for an old fool to give up a mindset that has born some good fruit in the past.

This isn't to say that I couldn't be "fruitier" going forward, but hopefully, it explains why my conversion experience might be different than yours.

I think you might be surprised at my age.

Everyone has a "different" conversion experience. They are deeply personal. My own was completely unexpected (hello, I was an Orthodox Jew!) and people are usually surprised by what I had to endure to get there. I am not even sure I fully appreciate/understand it myself. Especially when I hear a stake president say to a GA, "you have to hear her conversion story. It's amazing!". Don't we all have amazing stories?

Trust me, there are some things here and there in the church that I really don't get. Really. Don't. And I probably won't understand in this life. I think there is a lot of stuff that we won't understand in this life and I think a lot of people are fooling themselves on the things they think they have figured out. I have found some comfort and joy in - at least for now - embracing the fact that the prophets and apostles do know more than I do and I can trust them. Even more so, I know I can trust my Heavenly Father most of all, and knowing he's the one in charge of the church, I am okay not having the answers. Well, most of the time. I do have my ornery moments.

I offered the example of the rabbi's advice because I would like to see you happy in the church. You don't seem to be. I realize I could be wrong.

[DJBrown]

In another thread, someone pointed me to the following description of the process by which the Brethren received the revelation to remove the priesthood ban.

 

http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/sperry-symposium-classics-doctrine-and-covenants/23-official-declaration-2-revelation

 

To be clear, I am NOT asking about the propriety of the ban itself.  Whatever position you hold on that issue, I agree with you.  I really don't care about that issue because I am far more troubled by what I read about the process by which the Brethren received their revelation.

 

As I understand it, the Brethren gathered for their regular monthly meeting in June 1978.  One of the topics for discussion was lifting the priesthood ban, which they discussed for about two hours, concluding that they should lift the ban (contingent upon HF's confirming revelation).  They then went before the altar in fervent prayer, led by President Kimball himself, and received a spiritual witness that they should indeed lift the ban.  Here is how Elder McConkie described it:

 

"It was during this prayer that the revelation came. The Spirit of the Lord rested mightily upon us all; we felt something akin to what happened on the day of Pentecost and at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple. 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, received the same message, and became personal witnesses that the word received was the mind and will and voice of the Lord . . . On this occasion, because of the importuning and the faith, and because the hour and the time had arrived, the Lord in his providences poured out the Holy Ghost upon the First Presidency and the Twelve in a miraculous and marvelous manner, beyond anything that any then present had ever experienced.” [emphasis added]

 

This sounds just like the kind of continuing revelation that I would expect from the modern-day prophets.  Except that, according to Elder McConkie's own words, this was a one-of-a-kind experience (BEYOND ANYTHING THAT ANY THEN PRESENT HAD EVER EXPERIENCED).  So my question is how do the Brethren make the rest of their decisions if they don't ever actually hear the word of God?

 

Are they just winging it?  Or is it the case that they receive some lesser form of spiritual witness?  Perhaps, a burning in the bosom or just a general feeling of peace with their decision?  And no, I'm not trying to be flippant, but to actually understand how they make decisions in the absence of this once-in-a-lifetime experience that they had in 1978.

 

More importantly, I'm trying to understand why I should have such absolute confidence that they are acting in accordance with God's will when they don't seem to be that all-fire sure themselves.  After all, by this point, Elder McConkie must have gone to that altar, say, 200-300 times over the years.  Yet, not ONCE, had he EVER experienced a witness as firm and clear as the one they all received in June 1978.  By implication, this means that they must have received a LESS firm and clear witness in regards to HUNDREDS of decisions they put into place over the years.

 

Given that, are we to treat some prophetic pronouncements as more "firm" than others?  And, if so, which ones?  And no, I'm not being difficult for the sake of being difficult.  I'm really confused as to how I can have so much faith in "every word that proceedeth" from the mouth of the prophets if they are not always COMPLETELY clear about their own spiritual witnesses?

 

What am I missing here?

 

I think the vast majority of decisions made by the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles are based upon the still small voice- nothing most would consider impressive manifestations.  I think that is the way the Lord wants it.  The greater the faith, the less miraculous the communication needed.

 

That being said, I believe there have been and are impressive manifestations that occur to the brethren and others.  But maybe the purpose of those manifestations is different than simply answering questions or communicating a need.  There have been some amazing statements in General Conference in recent years that are so easy to miss.  

 

I so loved and appreciated President Packer's statement in April:

 

"After all the years that I have lived and taught and served, after the millions of miles I have traveled around the world, with all that I have experienced, there is one great truth that I would share. That is my witness of the Savior Jesus Christ.

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."

[Buzzard]

Well, at least the Lord is consistent. Remember how Elija described hearing his voice? (psst. receiving revelation): 19th Chapter of Kings.

 

¹¹ And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the LORD. And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake;but the LORD was not in the earthquake:

¹² And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.

I also recall President Hinckley referring to this scripture in describing how he received revelation. 

[Calm]

 

As for myself I am cynical...it's funny I make a decision, then I pray to make sure that it is the right decision before I act on it, and I feel good about it while I pray. Here is the kicker I always feel better when I pray, it makes me feel good. So is God talking to me or do I just generally just feel good when I pray? 

Do you always get the feeling that the decision is good?

Edited October 2, 2014 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

That he was just embellishing to give pause to anyone who may have been inclined to doubt that the change was inspired.

 

 

 

I feel confident that the kind of experience they always have is no different that what any bishop or missionary experiences when they feel inspired.

In fact, since I am a critic of this kind of thing no one will be surprised when I say that I think the process is one of coming to a decision based on any number of considerations, practical or political, and then mustering a sense of confidence.  The sense of confidence is attributed to the spirit since that is how it is supposed to work in LDS theology.

And how would know if that attribution is correct or not, and why does it matter?

 

A decision based on prayer, or translated into secular terms- a decision based on deep pondering and a confident harmony within one's self that it is the best possible decision at the time- is to me, the same thing.

 

And who is to say it is not?  How could that be established?

 

The difference is semantic.

[mormonnewb]

I think you might be surprised at my age.

Everyone has a "different" conversion experience. They are deeply personal. My own was completely unexpected (hello, I was an Orthodox Jew!) and people are usually surprised by what I had to endure to get there. I am not even sure I fully appreciate/understand it myself. Especially when I hear a stake president say to a GA, "you have to hear her conversion story. It's amazing!". Don't we all have amazing stories?

Trust me, there are some things here and there in the church that I really don't get. Really. Don't. And I probably won't understand in this life. I think there is a lot of stuff that we won't understand in this life and I think a lot of people are fooling themselves on the things they think they have figured out. I have found some comfort and joy in - at least for now - embracing the fact that the prophets and apostles do know more than I do and I can trust them. Even more so, I know I can trust my Heavenly Father most of all, and knowing he's the one in charge of the church, I am okay not having the answers. Well, most of the time. I do have my ornery moments.

I offered the example of the rabbi's advice because I would like to see you happy in the church. You don't seem to be. I realize I could be wrong.

 

You remind me so much of my wife (except for the Orthodox Jew part ... Hehe).  She seems to take the same attitude with regards to the stuff that she doesn't understand/agree with.  Sometimes after church, I'll say something like, "Did you hear what Sister So-and-So had to say during Sunday School?  She said [something that is patently wrong according to the Gospel of Me]!  Can you believe she said THAT?"

 

My wife will usually reply with something like, "Yes, I thought she was nuts for a minute too, but then I remembered that she cooked dinner EVERY night for the last three weeks for the family next door while Sister This-and-That is in Utah caring for her sick mother.  I guess she was too tired to be thinking straight this morning."  She (and apparently, you) are the Queen(s) of the 13th Article of Faith.

 

On the other hand, I am much more like my 10-year-old son; only less mature.  He LOVES Lego Minifigures.  Yet, you would never know it by the way he treats them because the very first thing he does when getting a new figure is to tear it apart.  He takes the head off, any hats or weapons, and more often than not, even the arms have to go.  He then begins to put those various parts on OTHER Minimonstrosities.  It isn't unusual to see him playing with a Aztec Minifigure with Luke Skywalker arms and holding a Lego pizza.  It simply isn't fun for him to play with the mini figures until he has deconstructed them and then reassembled them in a way that makes sense for him.  I'm the same way with Mormonism.  I must pull it apart and then reassemble it in a way that makes sense to me, even if it leaves people shaking their head and wondering whether they should call a therapist to see if that is "normal" behavior (a conversation that Mrs. Newb and I have had a few times about Little Newb).

 

But like Little Newb, I get some strange joy out of "playing" with Mormon Minidoctrines in this way.  Hey, it takes all kinds, right?

Edited October 2, 2014 by mormonnewb

[mormonnewb]

I'm strangely satisfied with the answers I received to my OP. The fact that the Holy Spirit manifested itself DIFFERENTLY on that one occasion doesn't mean that other manifestations of the Holy Spirit aren't just as valid, or equally discernible. For example, if I ask my wife if SHE wants to be the one to get out of bed to make sure that all of lights downstairs have been turned off, she might just nod her head "No." Or she might just give me THAT look. Or she might even say in an unmistakable tone, "Newby, please!" However, regardless of the particular manifestation, I come to KNOW that I better get my newb butt downstairs and turn off those lights.

I assume this is the point that several of you have tried to make, just not nearly as eloquently as yours truly.

Edited October 2, 2014 by mormonnewb

[HappyJackWagon]

You ask questions. But do you do it with an open mind and open heart? Or simply to be contentious? Because that is how you come across.

So you've only been a Mormon for four years. So what? I was baptized on 2011. Your point is...well....pointless.

And no one asked that you cede your agency.

But then, you only see and hear what you want to hear.

Not all of life has to be a battle.

Raingirl, is it that hard to understand that he has real questions and is seeking answers? Why are you assuming the worst of him? Is it because you are unacquainted with those who have serious questions? I think this is the case for many. It doesn't fit your personal experience so you assume others are just trying to make trouble. I see these questions as hearfelt, from someone who is trying to understand.

[phaedrus ut]

It would have been a great opportunity for the Prophet to publish a written revelation rather than make an announcement of policy change.  If lifting the priesthood ban wasn't worthy of a full revelation I suspect the days of actual published revelations have long since ended.

[Duncan]

It would have been a great opportunity for the Prophet to publish a written revelation rather than make an announcement of policy change.  If lifting the priesthood ban wasn't worthy of a full revelation I suspect the days of actual published revelations have long since ended.

 

 

maybe the lord told President Kimball "Do it" and so they did it and then wrote OD2 saying the Lord said to do it

[JLHPROF]

maybe the lord told President Kimball "Do it" and so they did it and then wrote OD2 saying the Lord said to do it

 

D&C 139:1 - Thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Spencer W. Kimball - Just do it already.

 

Imagine the Sunday school lesson...

 

 

(This was my first attempt at pure sacriliege?  How'd I do Nehor?)

[Robert F. Smith]

 

Wait!  Hold on!  Stop the presses!  Hold your horses!  Pause!

 

The following info is important in considering the words of Elder McConkie regarding this event.  From Ed Kimball's Bio of his father:

................................................

 

But a quick Google search shows the Elder McConkie's wording is extremely popular, and used frequently when the 1978 revelation is discussed.

The book shares other recollections of that event from Apostles that were there, and they are pretty uniform in describing it as a great spiritual manifestation, like "a rushing of wind" and akin to what was described on the Day of Pentecost. But no "voice".

And we have much the same difference of description of one event in Acts 9:7 and 22:9.  Was there a voice or not?  Did Elder McConkie hear a voice, and the others not?  Seems possible to me.  As on Pentecost, those present had a variety of experiences,  none of which invalidated those of the others.  We need not be narrow and demanding of uniformity.

[Robert F. Smith]

It would have been a great opportunity for the Prophet to publish a written revelation rather than make an announcement of policy change.  If lifting the priesthood ban wasn't worthy of a full revelation I suspect the days of actual published revelations have long since ended.

So "full revelation" = written or published revelation?  And you concluded that based upon what?

[Raingirl]

Raingirl, is it that hard to understand that he has real questions and is seeking answers? Why are you assuming the worst of him? Is it because you are unacquainted with those who have serious questions? I think this is the case for many. It doesn't fit your personal experience so you assume others are just trying to make trouble. I see these questions as hearfelt, from someone who is trying to understand.

Too funny.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

HappyJackWagon, on 02 Oct 2014 - 5:30 PM, said:

Raingirl, is it that hard to understand that he has real questions and is seeking answers? Why are you assuming the worst of him? Is it because you are unacquainted with those who have serious questions? I think this is the case for many. It doesn't fit your personal experience so you assume others are just trying to make trouble. I see these questions as hearfelt, from someone who is trying to understand.

Raingirl wrote:

 

Too funny.

What could possibly be funny about this? Please enlighten me.

[phaedrus ut]

So "full revelation" = written or published revelation?  And you concluded that based upon what?

 

If the revelation was published it would be a known revelation.  We know the published declaration of a revelation isn't complete because of changes made that are not included in the announcement. 

 

Phaedrus

Edited October 3, 2014 by phaedrus ut

[DBMormon]

 

Wait!  Hold on!  Stop the presses!  Hold your horses!  Pause!

 

The following info is important in considering the words of Elder McConkie regarding this event.  From Ed Kimball's Bio of his father:

 

 

 

 

But a quick Google search shows the Elder McConkie's wording is extremely popular, and used frequently when the 1978 revelation is discussed.

The book shares other recollections of that event from Apostles that were there, and they are pretty uniform in describing it as a great spiritual manifestation, like "a rushing of wind" and akin to what was described on the Day of Pentecost. But no "voice".

 

So the greatest divine manifestation that many of them had seen involved no heavenly messenger but rather a "no doubt about it feeling"..... doesn't that severely lower the expectation of what a prophet in this dispensation is?  We are not talking Moses or Noah or Abraham but rather the same interaction each of us have with the divine..... no bigger no smaller.

Edited October 3, 2014 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

I can see where you are coming from, but you are setting up a definition for revelation that I haven't even heard prophets themselves make. Every direct statemetn about revelation that I have seen describes it as very subtle, Pres. Hinckley compared it to a scripture that I can't recall right now to emphasize how "soft" it was. They were obviously describing a confirmation in the above situation...not God speaking to Moses kind of thing. I don't even think that really happened to Moses, either.  When I see complaints about no new revelations it begs the question of what revelation is...and it seems everyone thinks it is always of biblical proportion. I don't think the day to day stuff is any different than what we experience. I believe it was Elder Packer that said as much...as well as big events don't come along often for anyone.

 

If we really came here to learn and discover, it makes no sense to have to wait for a fax from God. It also strips agency from leaders, which is a theological impossibility in our doctrine.   Leaders are going to have to do the same repenting as anyone else. That we want them to be God is our problem (not that we haven't been nudged in that direction, which to Mormons is a call to "magnify" and boy, do we. Almost all of their advice is either based directly on scripture or just plain good advice derived from it.

 

So this is an "us" problem not a revelation problem. It takes some reformulating that is scary because it puts the burden squarely on us not them.

 

Not exactly Juliann.  I was taught that Moses, Noah, and Abraham spoke face to face with God and that we had prophets just like those men.  It was insinuated.  It was expected that I would see modern day prophets in that light.  It may be a faulty assumption, it may be unrealistic, but please don't say the Church never intended for me and others to walk away thinking that.

 

Take the Gospel Principles Manual

 

There have been prophets on the earth since the days of Adam. Experiences of these great men excite and inspire us. Moses, an Old Testament prophet, led thousands of his people out of Egypt and slavery to the promised land. He wrote the first five books of the Old Testament and recorded the Ten Commandments. Nephi, a Book of Mormon prophet, journeyed from Jerusalem to the Americas 600 years before the birth of Christ. This great leader and colonizer gave us many important writings in the Book of Mormon. John the Baptist was chosen to prepare the world for the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. Through Joseph Smith, a latter-day prophet, the Lord restored the Church. Joseph Smith also translated the Book of Mormon while a young man.

 

Each example is of one who saw God or Heavenly Messengers face to face and spoke with him/them..... then the next section begins....  "We have a prophet living on the earth today."

Edited October 3, 2014 by DBMormon

[Duncan]

So the greatest divine manifestation that many of them had seen involved no heavenly messenger but rather a "no doubt about it feeling"..... doesn't that severely lower the expectation of what a prophet in this dispensation is?  We are not talking Moses or Noah or Abraham but rather the same interaction each of us have with the divine..... no bigger no smaller.

 

you may be confusing what a prophet is and how the Lord chooses to communicate with him. We can't tell God how we want him to talk to us or when, he decides when and how.  Revelation is revelation. If I was invited to a banquet(the blessings that came from the 1978 revelation) I am not going to to trifle over the invite(how and when God chose to speak to his servants at the time)

 

remember too other Prophets in this dispensation, President Kimball included had visions, dreams etc. so the way revelation comes isn't all the same 

[HappyJackWagon]

 

remember too other Prophets in this dispensation, President Kimball included had visions, dreams etc. so the way revelation comes isn't all the same 

 

I'm not familiar with any revelations from Pres. Kimball's dreams or visions. Can you share your sources?

[stemelbow]

It seems to me that process of revelation, at least these days and the days since oh say 1900 is good decent men making decisions, taking those decisions to Heavenly Father in prayer and then after some discussion discerning whether the thoughts, impressions and feelings among the group gives them reason to draw certain conclusions.

In truth that is no different then the way I go about prayer, revelation and all that. I'm not saying this is a bad thing. I do think it'd be helpful if this was more universally understood among the membership. I'm not sure I've ever really felt that the leadership were sitting in a chair next to Jesus and discussing what we need to be doing, but it seems like some members think that or something similar.

[JLHPROF]

It seems to me that process of revelation, at least these days and the days since oh say 1900 is good decent men making decisions, taking those decisions to Heavenly Father in prayer and then after some discussion discerning whether the thoughts, impressions and feelings among the group gives them reason to draw certain conclusions.

In truth that is no different then the way I go about prayer, revelation and all that. I'm not saying this is a bad thing. I do think it'd be helpful if this was more universally understood among the membership. I'm not sure I've ever really felt that the leadership were sitting in a chair next to Jesus and discussing what we need to be doing, but it seems like some members think that or something similar.

 

That's because there are numerous records of pre-1920 prophets having those "visits" with Christ, angels or their own predecessors who have passed on.  The priesthood on the other side of the veil was recognized as directing the priesthood on this side of the veil.

 

The pattern was clearly established during the first century of the Church.

Now for the second century of the Church the pattern has changed.

 

That's hard for some people to come to terms with.  The only hints or allusions to visitations or direct interaction to receive direction in the last 100 years are a few personal testimonies that Christ lives.  Some members still long for the early days when it was felt God actually told us what to do rather than our leaders did their best to interpret impressions.

Edited October 3, 2014 by JLHPROF