A Church Of Continuing Hunches?

[stemelbow]

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.

Agreed.

[cinepro]

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.

 

As far as I can tell, one of the key principles of the Presidency in the LDS Church is diminished expectations.  Certainly, one of the most common accusations against a critics of the Church is that they expect too much from the Prophets. 

 

We simply need to accept that a Prophet is never more than he needs to be, nor is he less.  He does exactly what he needs to, regardless of whether it impresses us or not (or is at all like the things previous Prophets have done).

Edited October 3, 2014 by cinepro

[halconero]

It seems that so many are filled with a false nostalgic romanticism concerning the revelation among Church leadership. We look back on the Biblical burning bushes, heavenly visitations, or voices from heaven and forget that Elijah once felt a still small voice, that Jesus used the equivalent of folk-magic to heal people on multiple occasions, that the apostles once picked a successor by rolling some dice, and that the extension of baptism to Gentiles wasn't decided by revelation, but by the collective leadership in Jerusalem saying "well, we all know from the scriptures that it was going to happen one day" and then just going with it. 

[cinepro]

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.

 

I think the problem was Elder McConkie's implication that everyone heard the voice.  There's a difference between a voice that you privately hear in your head, and an audible voice that can be heard throughout the room.

 

Obviously, the word "voice" can be read in different ways, but I think President Kimball knew which way many members of the Church would read it, and he felt that wasn't an accurate description of what happened.  Apparently, it would have been more accurate to say "we all had the same impression" instead of "we all heard the same voice".  But Elder McConkie was a lawyer, and I think he probably knew what he was doing when he used that wording.

[Duncan]

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

 

 

Sure, in 1946 he toured the Mexican Mission and told an audience (he may have told other audiences but I have no idea) and had a dream or a vision of some kind 

 

 “Maybe the Lord was showing to me what great things this people would accomplish…I no longer saw you [as] the servant of other people, but I saw you as the employer, the owner of banks and businesses…I saw you in legislative positions where as good legislators and good Latter-day Saints you were able to make the best laws for your brothers and sisters. I saw many of your sons become attorneys. I saw doctors, as well as lawyers, looking after the health of the people…I saw the Church growing in rapid strides and I saw wards and stakes organized. I saw stakes by the hundreds. I saw a temple" Church News, 19 Feb. 1977, p. 3.

 

that is by no means all the revelation that Pres. Kimball received but it is a source

 

I have no source for this but I wonder if the initial start for smaller Temples came from Pres. Kimball but was implemented years later by Pres. Hinckley, the ideas was brewing for sometime, just a hunch though!

Edited October 3, 2014 by Duncan

[Robert F. Smith]

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

So, just to clarify, you are not saying that a revelation is not real unless written down or published?  And you realize that a real revelation may take various forms, including visual (plain or symbolic), auditory, sensory, dialogic, etc.?  And that those present do not necessarily all have the exact same experience?

 

Moreover, do you think it difficult to distinguish a revelation from an hallucination in some instances?

[Robert F. Smith]

I think the problem was Elder McConkie's implication that everyone heard the voice.  There's a difference between a voice that you privately hear in your head, and an audible voice that can be heard throughout the room.

 

Obviously, the word "voice" can be read in different ways, but I think President Kimball knew which way many members of the Church would read it, and he felt that wasn't an accurate description of what happened.  Apparently, it would have been more accurate to say "we all had the same impression" instead of "we all heard the same voice".  But Elder McConkie was a lawyer, and I think he probably knew what he was doing when he used that wording.

Perhaps, but I am not convinced that McConkie's personal experience was duplicated by all present.  Speaking of an audible voice being heard by everyone makes an assumption which McConkie may very well have taken from the event, and which he really believed everyone else experienced.  That doesn't mean that he was correct.  The same applies to the discordant descriptions of the experience of St Paul on the road to Damascus.  The text I cited disagrees as to whether he and those with him heard the voice.  Pres Kimball certainly had his own version of events, which he apparently objectified for all present -- which may be a baseless assumption.  The Holy Spirit presumably is not hemmed in by our narrow assumptions, and can communicate with those present individually.  The result may be something different than we assume it to have been based on our secular-scientific modes of thought.

[Robert F. Smith]

As far as I can tell, one of the key principles of the Presidency in the LDS Church is diminished expectations.  Certainly, one of the most common accusations against a critics of the Church is that they expect too much from the Prophets. 

 

We simply need to accept that a Prophet is never more than he needs to be, nor is he less.  He does exactly what he needs to, regardless of whether it impresses us or not (or is at all like the things previous Prophets have done).

Depends very much on whether a prophet rises to the occasion, or falls below expectations (Jonah being a prime example).  All prophets are fallible, some get punished for their recalcitrance or disobedience (as was Moses).  There is no exactitude there.  Just the human element which can be magnified.

[Avatar4321]

I marvel that anyone can look at the leadership of the church and say that methods of revelation have changed in the slightest. After all who received the revelations I. D&C 8 and 9 teaching us how revelation is received and how we receive answers to prayers? The spirit works the same way now that it did for Moses, Elijah, Adam and all the rest.

I am also amazed at how the apostles can testify clearly that they have seen the Lord, like President Packer has, and yet some pretend as if he is ambiguous or only hinting at visitations.

oh ye of little faith. Is it any wonder the Lord has been holding back the blessings that could be ours if we simply were humble and had faith?

[HappyJackWagon]

 

I am also amazed at how the apostles can testify clearly that they have seen the Lord, like President Packer has, and yet some pretend as if he is ambiguous or only hinting at visitations.

 

Do you have a reference? Link?

[JLHPROF]

The spirit works the same way now that it did for Moses, Elijah, Adam and all the rest.

 

I am also amazed at how the apostles can testify clearly that they have seen the Lord, like President Packer has, and yet some pretend as if he is ambiguous or only hinting at visitations.

 

Now, that is just both true and false. 

 

Yes, the spirit answered their prayers the same way it answers ours - the still small voice, in our mind and all that.

Yes, people still can receive a vision of the Lord.

But there are marked differences in the way the Lord manifested his will prior to this century and today.

 

All the prophets prior to our most recent century have also recorded many more spectacular visions, visitations, manifestations, and revelations.  And many of them were to direct God's will, not only as a personal witness to a worthy man.

Things HAVE changed, at least if you're paying attention.

[Avatar4321]

Do you have a reference? Link?

it's already been quoted in the thread.

[JLHPROF]

I am also amazed at how the apostles can testify clearly that they have seen the Lord, like President Packer has, and yet some pretend as if he is ambiguous or only hinting at visitations.

Do you have a reference? Link?

 

Well, here's what it comes down to - it's the quintessential ambiguous hint, similar to the one made by Elder McConkie.

 

 

“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.

I believe and I am sure that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that He lives. He is the Only Begotten of the Father, and “by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God” (D&C 76:24).

I bear my witness that the Savior lives. I know the Lord. I am His witness.  - Boyd K. Packer 2014 April Conference - The Witness

 

He also referred to other Apostles who made similar allusions to him that he took to mean the same thing:

 

I have heard one of my brethren declare: “I know from experiences, too sacred to relate, that Jesus is the Christ.” I have heard another testify: “I know that God lives; I know that the Lord lives, and more than that, I know the Lord." Boyd K. Packer June Ensign 1971

So, does that mean he's seen the Lord?  Vision or visit?  Calling and Election?  Very possible.

Did Elder McConkie also receive this blessing?  Quite possible.

I don't expect Pres. Packer and others to openly discuss something so sacred.  That would be wrong.  But like it or not, these ARE allusions/hints that leave members to guess.  These are NOT clearly presented as referring to a specific event in their life.

 

Compare this to the accounts of Joseph Smith, Lorenzo Snow, Moses, Adam, and pretty much every other prophet prior to the 1920's.  They left NO room for speculation.

Perhaps we are supposed to take more on faith these days.

[mfbukowski]

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.

There seems to be a serious inconsistency in your approach to these problems.

 

On one hand you appear to want to help people by seeing things from a less literalistic perspective, and then you turn around and say things like this which take a less literal perspective and criticize it as "severely lowering expectations"

 

I saw the same kind of thing in your campaign to take Elder Bednar to task for thinking that April 6 was Jesus' birthday, etc.

 

I am honestly wondering who's side you are on lately- you seem to intentionally take whatever side will stir the pot.  When I stir the pot, I do so to resolve conflicts by pointing out semantic  errors, but you seem to like to bring them up.

 

I mean honestly, what is the purpose in asking this kind of question?   Do you honestly think that past prophets had theophanies on a daily basis?

 

Do you honestly think that God does NOT want us to learn line upon line, but instead appears to the prophets to give them all the answers?

 

I am just totally at a loss to figure out why you would bring something like this up- instead of trying to explain it to people who have the problem.

[mfbukowski]

As far as I can tell, one of the key principles of the Presidency in the LDS Church is diminished expectations.  Certainly, one of the most common accusations against a critics of the Church is that they expect too much from the Prophets. 

 

We simply need to accept that a Prophet is never more than he needs to be, nor is he less.  He does exactly what he needs to, regardless of whether it impresses us or not (or is at all like the things previous Prophets have done).

I guess we need a few thousand years of scribal embellishments and hero worship to match the bible.

 

Do you really think those things happened literally?

 

Why are we so good at debunking the Flood and rationalizing evolution while we still want to see pillars of fire and God's finger writing on stone tablets?

 

Why can't we just grow up and be reasonable people who believe that God's miracles are not for sign-seekers?

 

Do we think he dwells in our hearts or in fireworks of volcanic proportions?

[mfbukowski]

I think the problem was Elder McConkie's implication that everyone heard the voice.  There's a difference between a voice that you privately hear in your head, and an audible voice that can be heard throughout the room.

 

Obviously, the word "voice" can be read in different ways, but I think President Kimball knew which way many members of the Church would read it, and he felt that wasn't an accurate description of what happened.  Apparently, it would have been more accurate to say "we all had the same impression" instead of "we all heard the same voice".  But Elder McConkie was a lawyer, and I think he probably knew what he was doing when he used that wording.

Semantics yet again.

 

Sigh.

 

Will we ever grow up?

[mfbukowski]

Now, that is just both true and false. 

 

Yes, the spirit answered their prayers the same way it answers ours - the still small voice, in our mind and all that.

Yes, people still can receive a vision of the Lord.

But there are marked differences in the way the Lord manifested his will prior to this century and today.

 

All the prophets prior to our most recent century have also recorded many more spectacular visions, visitations, manifestations, and revelations.  And many of them were to direct God's will, not only as a personal witness to a worthy man.

Things HAVE changed, at least if you're paying attention.

What has changed is that we are now living in a skeptical age in which, if you openly say you have had a vision, people think you are a looney.

 

We are no longer allowed to speak openly about these matters without ridicule- THAT is the only thing which has changed.

 

Healings are now "the placebo effect", and visions are "hallucinations".  Hearing voices means that you are psychotic. 

 

I have had profound spiritual experiences myself- and whenever I get close to revealing them, all I get is ridicule.  Why would anyone else "confess" to such experiences?

[HappyJackWagon]

 

I don't expect Pres. Packer and others to openly discuss something so sacred.  That would be wrong.

Thanks for posting the Packer quote. I agree that there is no difinitive statement in there. I am curious about this statement.

 

Why shouldn't we expect prophets to share sacred things with us. They are special witnesses. This would be a great opportunity to witness in a special way. I don't see why this would be wrong to have prophets and apostles share these kinds of experiences...if they have them. Joseph Smith shared his experiences and his first vision and priesthood restoration became the foundation of the church.

[mormonnewb]

What has changed is that we are now living in a skeptical age in which, if you openly say you have had a vision, people think you are a looney.

 

We are no longer allowed to speak openly about these matters without ridicule- THAT is the only thing which has changed.

 

Healings are now "the placebo effect", and visions are "hallucinations".  Hearing voices means that you are psychotic. 

 

I have had profound spiritual experiences myself- and whenever I get close to revealing them, all I get is ridicule.  Why would anyone else "confess" to such experiences?

This is new? As I read the scriptures, prophets have ALWAYS been subject to the ridicule, scorn and quite often, assassination. So, to the extent you've suffered for your revelations, you are in good company.

In the immortal words of Super Chicken, "You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred."

[mormonnewb]

Thanks for posting the Packer quote. I agree that there is no difinitive statement in there. I am curious about this statement.

 

Why shouldn't we expect prophets to share sacred things with us. They are special witnesses. This would be a great opportunity to witness in a special way. I don't see why this would be wrong to have prophets and apostles share these kinds of experiences...if they have them. Joseph Smith shared his experiences and his first vision and priesthood restoration became the foundation of the church.

You didn't get the memo, Brother? To many on this board, being a WITNESS of Christ means that you only share what you've seen and heard with those who have also seen and heard such things. It doesn't help to spread the truth, but it does help to divide the wheat from tares.

[HappyJackWagon]

I don't see your point MFBukowski. When we accept things in a non-literal way it allows us to see that maybe there isn't some giant spiritual barrier between us and the prophets. They receive inspiration and revelation the same way we do. This is a good thing BUT that is not the literalistic way most people see it and many even become upset or offended at the mere mention of the possibility that the apostles MAY not have all had a face to face chat with Christ. There's no evidence to suggest they have but people believe it and they are tied into these very high expectations for what a prophet is. It's an expectation that seems to be rather high and based on the past 100 years doesn't seem to prove out. 

 

Perhaps what you are reading as a criticism is simply a statement of perceived truth and not a criticism at all. In other words, it's possible you're bringing the bias to the way you are reading this.

 

DBMormon, on 03 Oct 2014 - 10:09 AM, said:

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.

MFBukowski:

There seems to be a serious inconsistency in your approach to these problems.

 

On one hand you appear to want to help people by seeing things from a less literalistic perspective, and then you turn around and say things like this which take a less literal perspective and criticize it as "severely lowering expectations"

[stemelbow]

What has changed is that we are now living in a skeptical age in which, if you openly say you have had a vision, people think you are a looney.

 

We are no longer allowed to speak openly about these matters without ridicule- THAT is the only thing which has changed.

 

Healings are now "the placebo effect", and visions are "hallucinations".  Hearing voices means that you are psychotic. 

 

I have had profound spiritual experiences myself- and whenever I get close to revealing them, all I get is ridicule.  Why would anyone else "confess" to such experiences?

This would be troubling. Is it a good idea for us to think the leaders of the Church do have in person conversations with the Lord but they are intentionally telling us they do not for fear that they will be mocked? Often when I read things like the NT I get the impression we ought to welcome mockery. Might as well, if we don't, then we probably aren't very open and honest, it seems to me.

[HappyJackWagon]

You didn't get the memo, Brother? To many on this board, being a WITNESS of Christ means that you only share what you've seen and heard with those who have also seen and heard such things. It doesn't help to spread the truth, but it does help to divide the wheat from tares.

This is a great point and can be illustrative for how many of the early saints viewed things as well. This mentality could impact the 3 & 8 witnesses of the BoM or the experiences of saints witnessing the transformation of Brigham to Joseph or miraculous events at the Kirtland dedication. Most people want to be part of the "in" crowd and if the requirement is that you also had a "spiritual experience or visitation" then it becomes easy to see how these witnesses may not be very reliable. In other words, people give in to social pressure. No one wants to be that one guy who didn't see angels in Kirtland.

[ksfisher]

Thanks for posting the Packer quote. I agree that there is no difinitive statement in there. I am curious about this statement.

 

Why shouldn't we expect prophets to share sacred things with us. They are special witnesses. This would be a great opportunity to witness in a special way. I don't see why this would be wrong to have prophets and apostles share these kinds of experiences...if they have them. Joseph Smith shared his experiences and his first vision and priesthood restoration became the foundation of the church.

 

"I bear witness of that gospel and that Church, with a particular witness of restored priesthood keys which unlock the power and efficacy of saving ordinances. I am more certain that those keys have been restored and that those ordinances are once again available through The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints than I am certain I stand before you at this pulpit and you sit before me in this conference."

 

Elder Holland - April 2014 Conference

 

 

 

"I am a witness of the Resurrection of the Lord as surely as if I had been there in the evening with the two disciples in the house on Emmaus road. I know that He lives as surely as did Joseph Smith when he saw the Father and the Son in the light of a brilliant morning in a grove of trees in Palmyra."

 

President Eyring - April 2013 Conferance

Edited October 3, 2014 by ksfisher

[Hamba Tuhan]

I could be wrong, but I suspect that most Saints understand the prophets and apostles to have at least the same kinds of experiences with revelation that they themselves have.

 

And therein can be found either perfect assurance or consternation.