A Church Of Continuing Hunches?

[mfbukowski]

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?

So they should make a statement about what every member MIGHT misunderstand about the gospel, and set everyone straight on every issue- is that your point?

 

Is every possible misinterpretation of the scriptures and every childish notion that has arisen or might arise in the future their job to correct?

 

Has it ever occurred to you that we are here to be grownups and figure out these things for ourselves, and to help others who do not have that ability?

 

We can't even decide what "doctrine" is, and now they are supposed to issue pronouncements on every possible error that is NOT doctrine?

 

For some reason I think we are supposed to be able to figure these things out for ourselves.  I guess we are quite willing to give all our personal responsibilities away to others now, and expect to be fed like babies.

[mfbukowski]

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.

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.

So which is it? Do they want their prophets to see the angels in Kirtland or don't they?

Should they live in awe of prophets who's experience is far beyond their own possibilities for religious experience or not? do you think they should live in illusion or be set straight?

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.

Thanks for making my point so well. Edited October 3, 2014 by mfbukowski

[HappyJackWagon]

"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

Good quotes- They aren't really difinitive though. They could be hinting at greater manifestations or they could be hyperbolic. We don't know. We can only assume.

[HappyJackWagon]

So which is it? Do they want their prophets to see the angels in Kirtland or don't they?

Should they live in awe of prophets who's experience is far beyond their own possibilities for religious experience or not? do you think they should live in illusion or be set straight?

They should live in reality and believe truth. We shouldn't get trapped into accepting exagerations or hyperbole as literal. We want to see prophets for who and what they are. We don't want to be led to believe prophets are one thing and then find out they are something else.

 

Should we be in awe of a prophet? No. We don't worship them even if they do have miraculous experiences. We should respect them but that respect should be based on truth. It shouldn't be based on inaccurate assumptions about what they can do and how they should do it.

 

If they listen to the still small voice like the rest of us. Great. We should build our trust around that, not around miraculous manifestations and visions if that's not what is happening.

[ksfisher]

Good quotes- They aren't really difinitive though. They could be hinting at greater manifestations or they could be hyperbolic. We don't know. We can only assume.

 

I can see how they could be read as hyperbole or non-definitive, except for the last sentence from President Eyring:

 

"I know that He lives as surely as did Joseph Smith when he saw the Father and the Son..."

 

How did Joseph Smith know that the Father and the Son lived?  He saw them.  President Eyring is saying that he knows the same way.

[mfbukowski]

They should live in reality and believe truth.

So what is the "truth" about what Elder McConkie experienced? And how would you or anyone else know what the truth is in this situation?

Did he hear a voice or not? Do you think HE knows if it was audible or "just in his mind"?

How precisely does anyone know what is "real" vs what is "in their mind"?

Suppose the voice was "audible" but he is the only one who heard it? Suppose the others were not ready to hear an audible voice?

Should he expose them all as phonies?

Edited October 3, 2014 by mfbukowski

[JLHPROF]

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.

 

It must be pointed out that there are two kinds of sacred things in this context.

One of the covenants a person is put under when they receive their higher temple blessings preparatory to receiving their Calling and Election is that they won't reveal that they've received them.

If Pres. Packer, or McConkie (or apparently Eyring and Holland) have received their Calling and Election Made Sure, they are almost certainly under covenant NOT to reveal it.  These carefully worded allusions are probably as close as they can get.

 

Further, Joseph was absolutely able to disclose the other kind of visitation by the Savior - the First Vision, Kirtland, etc because these were the kind of visions/visitations that weren't meant to be personal, that they were meant to bear witness of.

But I dare you to pinpoint the day Joseph had his Calling and Election Made Sure.  We can guess, but he never revealed it (my money is on Liberty Jail).

 

Anyway, if Pres. Packer is referring to his personal C&E he would have NO right to disclose it publicly, even to bear witness.  If he is referring to direction for the Church from the Savior then he (or the prophet) would be allowed to bear witness.  Two different things.

[JLHPROF]

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?

 

Isn't that so sad?

Most people on this board will read a statement from a prophet of God saying "this is from the Lord" and call it speculation or opinion.  They will say we have further light.  They will say he didn't really "know". 

When did we become such a congregation of doubting Thomases? 

"What do you mean the man we buried last week is walking down the street?  That's impossible."

 

I'd rather be laughed at.  It's nothing new.

[HappyJackWagon]

So what is the "truth" about what Elder McConkie experienced? And how would you or anyone else know what the truth is in this situation?

Did he hear a voice or not? Do you think HE knows if it was audible or "just in his mind"?

How precisely does anyone know what is "real" vs what is "in their mind"?

Suppose the voice was "audible" but he is the only one who heard it? Suppose the others were not ready to hear an audible voice?

Should he expose them all as phonies?

Great question. I don't know if he would know the answer or not. It seems possible that even Joseph Smith was unclear about where his thoughts left off and revelation began or even how the translation process occurred. This is often true for us as well when we think about personal spiritual experiences. Was that my thought or inspiration? Am I feeling an emotion or the spirit? We will likely come to different conclusions.

 

I certainly don't know if he heard a voice or not but referring to the "voice" of God is often metaphoric or hyperbolic and not literal. I don't know what it would be in this case. It's not clear.

 

So the truth is, without greater insight, different people can have different opinions about what the truth of the situation is but we should be careful not to read to much into things. I think we often try to read between the lines to find the miraculous when it isn't necessary. We should accept the basic and simple for what it is.

[mfbukowski]

Isn't that so sad?

Most people on this board will read a statement from a prophet of God saying "this is from the Lord" and call it speculation or opinion.  They will say we have further light.  They will say he didn't really "know". 

When did we become such a congregation of doubting Thomases? 

"What do you mean the man we buried last week is walking down the street?  That's impossible."

 

I'd rather be laughed at.  It's nothing new.

What one hears is "Why did you have that experience, when I have been praying for years and never gotten one, not even a little one?"

How does one answer that? I am here to try to help testimonies, not hurt them, and testifying of such experiences hurts more than it helps, in my opinion.

[JLHPROF]

I certainly don't know if he heard a voice or not but referring to the "voice" of God is often metaphoric or hyperbolic and not literal. I don't know what it would be in this case. It's not clear.

 

 

I have issues with this excuse people make.

 

The prophets were and are servants of God.  They are mostly humble and usually try to do exactly what the Lord would have them do.

 

That said, I don't know a single prophet that would be stupid enough to stand up and read a revelation that says "Thus saith the Lord unto you" and then put words that the Lord didn't actually say.

They might say "the will of the Lord is to you" but would they really be so foolish as to say:

 

D&C 1:24 - Behold, I am God and have spoken it;

D&C 6:2 - Behold, I am God; give heed unto my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow; therefore give heed unto my words.

D&C 10:70 - And now, remember the words of him who is the life and light of the world, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Amen.

D&C 58:11-12 - And after that cometh the day of my power; then shall the poor, the lame, and the blind, and the deaf, come in unto the marriage of the Lamb, and partake of the supper of the Lord, prepared for the great day to come.  Behold, I, the Lord, have spoken it.

D&C 93:1 - Verily, thus saith the Lord: It shall come to pass that every soul who forsaketh his sins and cometh unto me, and calleth on my name, and obeyeth my voice, and keepeth my commandments, shall see my face and know that I am;

D&C 132:2  -Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter.

when it was really just their interpretation of the spiritual impressions.

 

Can you honestly see the prophet meeting with the other Apostles and saying - I feel impressed that this is what God wants us to do so I wrote this revelation that quotes God directly?

I don't think any prophet with an ounce of sense would dare put so much as a syllable into the mouth of the creator and claim it fell from their lips.

The prophets aren't that arrogant to put words into the mouth of God.

Edited October 3, 2014 by JLHPROF

[HappyJackWagon]

 

But I dare you to pinpoint the day Joseph had his Calling and Election Made Sure.  We can guess, but he never revealed it (my money is on Liberty Jail).

We would only need to look through the Nauvoo records to see when he received his 2nd annointing, also known as Calling and election made sure.

 

 It must be pointed out that there are two kinds of sacred things in this context.

One of the covenants a person is put under when they receive their higher temple blessings preparatory to receiving their Calling and Election is that they won't reveal that they've received them.

If Pres. Packer, or McConkie (or apparently Eyring and Holland) have received their Calling and Election Made Sure, they are almost certainly under covenant NOT to reveal it.  These carefully worded allusions are probably as close as they can get.

Fair enough, but we're talking about a personal visit from Christ, not necessarily their 2nd annointing or calling and election. It would be possible to share the experience of a visitation without disclosing a covenant ordinance. I think most people would assume the Q15 have all received the 2nd annointing, which by the way, in no way proves a visitation from Christ. It is an ordinance like others performed in the temple with human's officiating. That's not to say Christ couldn't come but it doesn't mean he does.

[mfbukowski]

Great question. I don't know if he would know the answer or not. It seems possible that even Joseph Smith was unclear about where his thoughts left off and revelation began or even how the translation process occurred. This is often true for us as well when we think about personal spiritual experiences. Was that my thought or inspiration? Am I feeling an emotion or the spirit? We will likely come to different conclusions.

 

I certainly don't know if he heard a voice or not but referring to the "voice" of God is often metaphoric or hyperbolic and not literal. I don't know what it would be in this case. It's not clear.

So the truth is, without greater insight, different people can have different opinions about what the truth of the situation is but we should be careful not to read to much into things

So far, so good, we agree.  No one knows.

 

I think we often try to read between the lines to find the miraculous when it isn't necessary. We should accept the basic and simple for what it is.

OOPS.

You seem to contradict here what you affirm above.

How do we know what IS "basic and simple" and how do we KNOW "What it is"?

 

And what is wrong with trying to "read between the lines to find the miraculous"?

 

Will we ever find the miraculous if we are not looking for it?

[JLHPROF]

We would only need to look through the Nauvoo records to see when he received his 2nd annointing, also known as Calling and election made sure.

 

Nope.  2nd Annointing is to prepare a person to meet the Savior.  The made sure is when the Savior lays his hands up a persons head and tells them the've done enough.  Don't confuse the ordinance with the confirming visit of the Savior.

 

To clarify - look at the temple (and I'll be as vague as possible).

 

1. When you receive your first endowment you are promised you will become something.  (Called)

2. When you receive your second endowment you are ordained to that something. (Chosen/Elected)

3. When the Savior confirms that ordination personally it is the guarantee - the Second Comforter.  (Made sure)

Edited October 3, 2014 by JLHPROF

[mfbukowski]

I have issues with this excuse people make.

 

The prophets were and are servants of God.  They are mostly humble and usually try to do exactly what the Lord would have them do.

 

That said, I don't know a single prophet that would be stupid enough to stand up and read a revelation that says "Thus saith the Lord unto you" and then put words that the Lord didn't actually say.

They might say "the will of the Lord is to you" but would they really be so foolish as to say:

when it was really just their interpretation of the spiritual impressions.

 

Can you honestly see the prophet meeting with the other Apostles and saying - I feel impressed that this is what God wants us to do so I wrote this revelation that quotes God directly?

I don't think any prophet with an ounce of sense would dare put so much as a syllable into the mouth of the creator and claim it fell from their lips.

The prophets aren't that arrogant to put words into the mouth of God.

On one hand I don't want to belabor this, but on the other, I want to point out that perhaps it needs to be belabored.

 

YET AGAIN you are assuming that the prophet or apostle can tell the difference between "what is in his mind" that God said VS "what God really said"

 

How is ANYONE supposed to make that distinction and see that difference??

 

Again- did Elder McConkie hear an audible voice or not?  How would he know?  How would YOU know?

 

That's it- I'm done with the point.   I think you either see it or you don't.

 

The idea that there is a knowable difference is a total illusion, and if you don't see that, there isn't much more to say.  All this slicing and dicing to revelation is semantic silliness.

 

People say what they experienced.  You either believe them or not, and the only way you can tell is by your own experience of the spirit confirming it or not.

 

That's all we have, that's all there is.

[HappyJackWagon]

Nope.  2nd Annointing is to prepare a person to meet the Savior.  The made sure is when the Savior lays his hands up a persons head and tells them the've done enough.  Don't confuse the ordinance with the confirming visit of the Savior.

 

To clarify - look at the temple (and I'll be as vague as possible).

 

1. When you receive your first endowment you are promised you will become something.  (Called)

2. When you receive your second endowment you are ordained to that something. (Chosen/Elected)

3. When the Savior confirms that ordination personally it is the guarantee - the Second Comforter.  (Made sure)

Can you elaborate on that. The ordinance must be sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise but I've never heard it required that Christ must lay hands and confirm it. The officiator stands as proxy for God/Savior in administering the 2A. I'm very open to being taught on this subject.

[mfbukowski]

I am so glad so many have had the experience of having their calling and election made sure, and are such experts on it.

 

How come you have had this and I haven't?   Am I not good enough?   That's it.  I am leaving the church.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

How do we know what IS "basic and simple" and how do we KNOW "What it is"?

 

And what is wrong with trying to "read between the lines to find the miraculous"?

I was referring to basic/simple things like promptings of the spirit which are more common place than miraculous things like visitations, audible voices from heaven, fingers writing on tablets etc.

 

The problem is, basing a testimony on things that we read to be miraculous but turn out to be the more simple is building a testimony on a sandy foundation. If I believe that the prophet literally sits with Christ in the SLC temple holy of holies every week in a PPI to direct the work of this church I am likely building my faith in something that isn't real. If, on the other hand, I can accept that God inspires his servants by the holy ghost, then I have a more realistic view of how God, the prophet and hte church operates.

[HappyJackWagon]

I am so glad so many have had the experience of having their calling and election made sure, and are such experts on it.

 

How come you have had this and I haven't?   Am I not good enough?   That's it.  I am leaving the church.

I'm not suggesting people should break a covenant not to reveal the 2A but of course it wasn't always a secret ordinance. It used to be referenced in obituaries in the newspapers.

[JLHPROF]

Can you elaborate on that. The ordinance must be sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise but I've never heard it required that Christ must lay hands and confirm it. The officiator stands as proxy for God/Savior in administering the 2A. I'm very open to being taught on this subject.

 

 

Joseph Smith taught: “After a person has faith in Christ, repents of his sins, and is baptized for the remission of his sins and receives the Holy Ghost (by the laying on of hands), which is the first Comforter, then let him continue to humble himself before God, hungering and thirsting after righteousness, and living by every word of God, and the Lord will soon say unto him, Son, thou shalt be exalted. When the Lord has thoroughly proved him, and finds that the man is determined to serve him at all hazards, then the man will find his calling and election made sure, then it will be his privilege to receive the other Comforter.” To receive the other Comforter is to have Christ appear to him and to see the visions of eternity. (Teachings, pp. 149–151.)  - Bruce R. McConkie

 

 

                1st key: Knowledge is the power of salvation.

                2nd key: Make your calling and election sure.

                3rd key: It is one thing to be on the mount and hear the excellent voice, etc., and another to hear the voice declare to you, you have a part and lot in that kingdom! (TPJS, p. 306)

 

 

Now what is this other comforter? It is no more nor less that the Lord Jesus Christ Himself; and this is the sum and substance of the whole matter; that when any man obtains this last Comforter, he will have the personage of Jesus Christ attend him, or appear unto him from time to time, and even He will manifest the father unto him, and they will take up their abode with him, and the visions of the heavens will be opened unto him and the Lord will reach him face to face, and he may have a perfect knowledge of the mysteries of the Kingdom of God; and this is the state and place the ancient Saints arrived at when they had such glorious visions--Isaiah, Ezekiel, John upon the Isle of Patmos, St. Paul in the three heavens, and all the Saints who held communion with the general assembly and Church of the Firstborn.

Edited October 3, 2014 by JLHPROF

[JLHPROF]

I am so glad so many have had the experience of having their calling and election made sure, and are such experts on it.

 

How come you have had this and I haven't?   Am I not good enough?   That's it.  I am leaving the church.

 

I have no idea who's had it. I certainly haven't.

But like everything else, every teaching (right down to the words of the ceremony) is well hidden in plain sight in the world's biggest database...whether it should be or not.

[mfbukowski]

 

The problem is, basing a testimony on things that we read to be miraculous but turn out to be the more simple is building a testimony on a sandy foundation.

You don't seem to be getting this.

 

How do you know the difference?  How can it be a problem if you can't see the difference?

 

This is the crux of the issue for the whole thread, but it seems no one sees it.  How do YOU KNOW what is "more simple" and what is not?

 

How was Elder Mc Conkie supposed to know if he heard an audible voice or not?

 

How does anyone know if visions and visitations - of Joseph or anyone else- are "in your head" or "more simple"?

 

How was Marley supposed to know if the ghost was caused by his supper or "real"??

 

IT CANNOT BE KNOWN.  WE CANNOT KNOW IF THESE ARE "HUNCHES" OR VISITATIONS FROM GOD.  NO ONE CAN.

[mfbukowski]

I have no idea who's had it. I certainly haven't.

But like everything else, every teaching (right down to the words of the ceremony) is well hidden in plain sight in the world's biggest database...whether it should be or not.

I wouldn't take that too seriously.  Discuss it with your temple president and see what he tells you about the ordinance.  I have done that, and I suggest you do as well.

 

I understand that occasionally there might be errors on the internet.

[DBMormon]

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

 

 

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

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.

To say it would be wrong seems too far.  Was Joseph Smith WRONG for saying he saw God and Christ?  Was Stephen WRONG for saying he saw God and Jesus on his right hand.  How about Paul, Brother of Jared, and others?

[DBMormon]

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.

why is severely lowering expectations a bad thing?  it has rescued my faith.  For most who I speak to and help who have found themselves in a faith crisis, their lowering of their expectations is what allows them to continue on.  And yes sometimes I seek to stir the pot.  But there are multiple pots.  I don't stir the doubters pot.  I don't stir the pot of those who empathize with the doubter.  But I do stir a particular pot... I grant that