The Apostolic Charge(s)

[mfbukowski]

On 2/28/2017 at 7:50 AM, hope_for_things said:

Thats fascinating.  We had a Sunday School lesson a couple years back where the teacher in the class asserted that the Apostles all have a "special interview" with the Lord.  I hadn't head this term "interview" talked about before, so thanks for sharing.  The implication is that the Lord interviews each of them prior to their calling as an Apostle.  

Also, its interesting that he says they've been "commanded not to" share their experience with people.  Why would this be the case?  Is there anything in scripture or early Mormon precedent that points to a commandment not to share experiences like this?  What about modern prophets who've made statements that they have never had an experience like this implied interview.  Were they lying when they said that, or did they feel like they had to lie to follow a higher commandment to not share the experience?  What do you think? 

I think "interview is just an euphemism for a visitation.  If the Lord knows our hearts and every thought, he certainly doesn't need an "interview"

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It's not new. Alma 12:9 "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."

Likewise it appears part of the reason Jesus used parables was to keep aspects of what he said secret from the masses but understood only to an inner group. So Matthew 13 has this

This is why I always crack up at members complaining that the church today doesn't exercise the gifts of the spirit the way the old church did. First off most of those accounts from the 19th century we know only because diaries and the like were made public. A lot of those things simply weren't published publicly. Second whether one believes in their veracity or not, one doesn't have to go far to find lots of church leaders claiming revelations, visions and the like. They just don't tend to speak of them in public. Indeed since the rise of Facebook and company I notice they're even more loath to speak of them in public meetings like Stake Conference evening sessions or the like.

I'm aware of the scriptural references but you have to take those statements in the context of all the other scriptures where angelic manifestations are written down and shared as a testimony of the experiences people had.  

Some of the break off groups throughout the history of the Mormon restoration movement have largely left the mainstream church over issues like this.  I tend to agree that the early Mormonism of the 1830s was much different than the Modern church, especially with respect to supernatural claims, manifestations, more charismatic gifts of the spirit (speaking in tongues - glossolalia and others).  

It wasn't that their private diaries were discovered by later generations of people and then published without their consent.  These people were openly talking about their experiences during their lifetimes.  People don't speak of these things in public for a variety of reasons today, but perhaps one of the most compelling reasons is that the culture of our day doesn't have the same kind of expectations for supernatural experiences as those people in the 19th century.  

Things have changed a lot, which can help us think about the perspectives of our ancestors in a new light, not to say that these experiences they had weren't real or true for them, but that today we may interpret their experiences through a very different lens of understanding.  

[hope_for_things]

18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I think "interview is just an euphemism for a visitation.  If the Lord knows our hearts and every thought, he certainly doesn't need an "interview"

I agree that there is an implied visitation, this is the mythos that is intentionally spread by the brethren.  It gives them great clout, and they never have to directly deny it, but can leave the implications out there for people to continue to perpetuate.  They could quickly dispel these misperceptions, and at times of candor, we've seen some statements made that run counter to these perceptions.  

My belief is that God speaks to us according to our own expectations and understanding, and for most people this doesn't include visitations.  Visitations aren't given to people based on their worthiness or their positions in the church, but visitations might be received by someone who has a supernatural expectation that God communicates this way.  That's how I see it.  

Edited March 2, 2017 by hope_for_things

[mfbukowski]

26 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

 

My belief is that God speaks to us according to our own expectations and understanding, and for most people this doesn't include visitations.  Visitations aren't given to people based on their worthiness or their positions in the church, but visitations might be received by someone who has a supernatural expectation that God communicates this way.  That's how I see it.  

And of course apostles have this expectation, therefore.... it happens.

I think that is called "faith".

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

And of course apostles have this expectation, therefore.... it happens.

I think that is called "faith".

Actually, I don't think Apostles have this expectation, and I could share with you quotes of Apostles who's made statements to the effect otherwise, I'm sure you're familiar with these.  The most famous ones being Joseph F. Smith in front of congress (Smoot trials), or Heber J. Grant who not only said he'd never had an experience like this, but knew of no other GAs who have these experiences, to the most recent Elder Oaks at the Boise rescue.  

I observe that people living in the past 100 yrs or so, have a much different expectation for the supernatural than Joseph and the early saints did, and that personal angelic visits, or even a theophany is not something people are conditioned to believe in.  

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree that there is an implied visitation, this is the mythos that is intentionally spread by the brethren.  It gives them great clout, and they never have to directly deny it, but can leave the implications out there for people to continue to perpetuate.  They could quickly dispel these misperceptions, and at times of candor, we've seen some statements made that run counter to these perceptions.  

My belief is that God speaks to us according to our own expectations and understanding, and for most people this doesn't include visitations.  Visitations aren't given to people based on their worthiness or their positions in the church, but visitations might be received by someone who has a supernatural expectation that God communicates this way.  That's how I see it.  

I'm not sure the brethren indicate that myself. I seem to recall Pres. Hinkley saying he hadn't had such a visit although he may have had them after. But quite a few other figures have certainly claimed visitations of angels or the like. Typically though the common refrain is what I mentioned earlier that some things are too sacred to speak of publicly. 

Edit: just to be clear by 1998 Hinkley is strong indicating he's had such a visit. I was alluding to certain statements prior to that time.

Edited March 2, 2017 by clarkgoble
Clarify point

[clarkgoble]

24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Actually, I don't think Apostles have this expectation, and I could share with you quotes of Apostles who's made statements to the effect otherwise, I'm sure you're familiar with these.  The most famous ones being Joseph F. Smith in front of congress (Smoot trials), or Heber J. Grant who not only said he'd never had an experience like this, but knew of no other GAs who have these experiences, to the most recent Elder Oaks at the Boise rescue.  

I observe that people living in the past 100 yrs or so, have a much different expectation for the supernatural than Joseph and the early saints did, and that personal angelic visits, or even a theophany is not something people are conditioned to believe in.  

Note that Grant after that comment later said he'd had the experience. So some time after 1926 but before 1942 he (and by his word others) had the experiences. Also note that in 1926 it may well be that some had had the experience but merely hadn't communicated it to him. Also of course he knew people when he was a junior apostle who'd claimed the experience such as Lorenzo Snow.

Smith is even more famous since of course a few years after the Smoot Hearings he received D&C 138. So it's odd that people point to him. One can distinguish between a vision and a visitation of course. And of course most of his vision was of things in the past. But he certainly had at minimum that style of visionary experiences. 

A lot of people who point to Grant or Smith on these matters are being more than a little disingenuous by taking one quote as if that reflects their whole life. (Note not claiming that of you since I assume you're just repeating what you've read -- but the actual history is more complex)

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm aware of the scriptural references but you have to take those statements in the context of all the other scriptures where angelic manifestations are written down and shared as a testimony of the experiences people had.  

But not all were clearly and some certainly were in the 20th century. It's not hard to find them especially from the 1940's onward. I know some claim anyone with the experience would share it but that seems a bit questionable. Even Joseph didn't really share the first visions much initially as historians have noted for some time. With many 20th century figures you find references in journals or the like but not in major public statements over the pulpit. (Say Romney's journal on the matter)

Quote

Some of the break off groups throughout the history of the Mormon restoration movement have largely left the mainstream church over issues like this.  I tend to agree that the early Mormonism of the 1830s was much different than the Modern church, especially with respect to supernatural claims, manifestations, more charismatic gifts of the spirit (speaking in tongues - glossolalia and others).  

Yes, but I just think they're wrong in thinking they aren't present. I think all these things are not at all uncommon if only in claims. I can think of several examples of tongues for instance I've heard in church by people experiencing it firsthand.

Edited March 2, 2017 by clarkgoble
finish

[Benjamin Seeker]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree that there is an implied visitation, this is the mythos that is intentionally spread by the brethren.  It gives them great clout, and they never have to directly deny it, but can leave the implications out there for people to continue to perpetuate.  They could quickly dispel these misperceptions, and at times of candor, we've seen some statements made that run counter to these perceptions.  

My belief is that God speaks to us according to our own expectations and understanding, and for most people this doesn't include visitations.  Visitations aren't given to people based on their worthiness or their positions in the church, but visitations might be received by someone who has a supernatural expectation that God communicates this way.  That's how I see it.  

I agree with Hope's comments here. This approach goes a long way to explain the significant spiritual experiences people have across all the various religions of the world, and it also allows sufficient flexibility for a visionary like JS to have a revelation stating that salvation comes only through Christ while another visionary like Mohammed declares that Christians are infidels who will be punished for their misplaced faith. 

Approaching the topic from a different perspective, at least one neurologist has made a study of visionary experiences, and visitations fit in this category, which he documented in the book The Spiritual Doorway in the Brain. He makes a good case for visionary experience being dependent on certain brain functions, and showed that of his study population, the only ones who had visionary experiences were ones whose brain could experience a conscious state someplace between normal consciousness and REM consciousness. If that's the case, not only do we have cultural expectations affecting  what experiences are available, but we also have physiological and psychological aspects that affect the breadth of experiences that we might have.

Edited March 2, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[hope_for_things]

40 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Note that Grant after that comment later said he'd had the experience. So some time after 1926 but before 1942 he (and by his word others) had the experiences. Also note that in 1926 it may well be that some had had the experience but merely hadn't communicated it to him. Also of course he knew people when he was a junior apostle who'd claimed the experience such as Lorenzo Snow.

Smith is even more famous since of course a few years after the Smoot Hearings he received D&C 138. So it's odd that people point to him. One can distinguish between a vision and a visitation of course. And of course most of his vision was of things in the past. But he certainly had at minimum that style of visionary experiences. 

A lot of people who point to Grant or Smith on these matters are being more than a little disingenuous by taking one quote as if that reflects their whole life. (Note not claiming that of you since I assume you're just repeating what you've read -- but the actual history is more complex)

Good points, but I can see both sides over claiming when it comes to these kinds of quotes and mining.  Also, the Grant quote is unique in that he's not only claiming that he personally hasn't received any manifestation of that kind, but that he knows of no other leaders who have received that kind of manifestation either.  So thats a pretty broad claim.  Are you familiar with Elder Oaks statements recently at the infamous Boise Rescue where he's specifically speaking out against the Denver Snuffer movement when he said: 

Quote

The first answer to this claim is that modern apostles are called to be witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world, Doctrine and Covenants 107:23. This is not to witness of a personal manifestation. To witness of the name is to witness of the plan, the work, or mission such as the atonement and the authority or priesthood of the Lord Jesus Christ, which an apostle who holds the keys is uniquely responsible to do.

Also, the Lorenzo Snow experience if you're talking about his experience seeing Jesus in the temple, then wasn't that a second hand story from his grand daughter, published many years after his death?  

[mfbukowski]

13 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I agree with Hope's comments here. This approach goes a long way to explain the significant spiritual experiences people have across all the various religions of the world, and it also allows sufficient flexibility for a visionary like JS to have a revelation stating that salvation comes only through Christ while another visionary like Mohammed declares that Christians are infidels who will be punished for their misplaced faith. 

Approaching the topic from a different perspective, at least one neurologist has made a study of visionary experiences, and visitations fit in this category, which he documented in the book The Spiritual Doorway in the Brain. He makes a good case for visionary experience being dependent on certain brain functions, and showed that of his study population, the only ones who had visionary experiences were ones whose brain could experience a conscious state someplace between normal consciousness and REM consciousness. If that's the case, not only do we have cultural expectations affecting  what experiences are available, but we also have physiological and psychological aspects that affect the breadth of experiences that we might have.

That's a poor argument, sorry.  EVERY experience "goes through" and is interpreted by the brain- the question is defining "where" the experience "originates"

Thomas Nagel, an important philosopher, wrote a significant paper in 1974, discussing this argument in detail.  The bottom line is that descriptions of direct experiences cannot be made logically equivalent to statements about physical states.  There is always "something" left out, and that is the subjective description itself.  The statement "Bukowski is experiencing seeing the American flag" cannot be made equivalent with any statement of the form "Bukowski's brain is showing chemical activity of xyz at location abc."

In seeing a mirage, for example, the same brain activity would happen in seeing a pool of water.  In short, the brain would not "know" if the pool of water was "real" or a mirage, and that is why we have optical illusions, etc.  So this argument cannot be used to say that "visions are not real" - as difficult as that kind of proposition is anyway, since it implies a solid theory of what "reality" is.  But that is another issue, good luck on defining that!

Nagel:

Quote

We may call this the subjective character of experience. It is not captured by any of the familiar, recently devised reductive analyses of the mental, for all of them are logically compatible with its absence. It is not analyzable in terms of any explanatory system of functional states, or intentional states, since these could be ascribed to robots or automata that behaved like people though they experienced nothing.2 It is not analyzable in terms of the causal role of experiences in relation to typical human behavior—for similar reasons.3 I do not deny that conscious mental states and events cause behavior, nor that they may be given functional characterizations. I deny only that this kind of thing exhausts their analysis. Any reductionist program has to be based on an analysis of what is to be reduced. If the analysis leaves something out, the problem will be falsely posed. It is useless to base the defense of materialism on any analysis of mental phenomena that fails to deal explicitly with their subjective character. For there is no reason to suppose that a reduction which seems plausible when no attempt is made to account for consciousness can be extended to include consciousness. With out some idea, therefore, of what the subjective character of experience is, we cannot know what is required of physicalist theory. While an account of the physical basis of mind must explain many things, this appears to be the most difficult. It is impossible to exclude the phenomenological features of experience from a reduction in the same way that one excludes the phenomenal features of an ordinary substance from a physical or chemical reduction of it—namely, by explaining them as effects on the minds of human observers.4 If physicalism is to be defended, the phenomenological features must themselves be given a physical account. But when we examine their subjective character it seems that such a result is impossible. The reason is that every subjective phenomenon is essentially connected with a single point of view, and it seems inevitable that an objective, physical theory will abandon that point of view.

In the subjective point of view, you are feeling the emotion, seeing the event, etc.  In the physicalist point of view, you are describing something entirely different- chemical activity in someone else's brain.  It is the difference between first person statements and third person statements- they are not identical points of view and not equivalent.

Nagel's full article:

http://organizations.utep.edu/portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf

[mfbukowski]

55 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I agree with Hope's comments here. This approach goes a long way to explain the significant spiritual experiences people have across all the various religions of the world, and it also allows sufficient flexibility for a visionary like JS to have a revelation stating that salvation comes only through Christ while another visionary like Mohammed declares that Christians are infidels who will be punished for their misplaced faith. 

Approaching the topic from a different perspective, at least one neurologist has made a study of visionary experiences, and visitations fit in this category, which he documented in the book The Spiritual Doorway in the Brain. He makes a good case for visionary experience being dependent on certain brain functions, and showed that of his study population, the only ones who had visionary experiences were ones whose brain could experience a conscious state someplace between normal consciousness and REM consciousness. If that's the case, not only do we have cultural expectations affecting  what experiences are available, but we also have physiological and psychological aspects that affect the breadth of experiences that we might have.

Upon re-reading your comment above I realize I did not comment on your precise argument- I commented on what my jaded apologetic brain saw.  Sorry.

It appears all you are saying is that certain brain types are more prone to visions etc  To me that has no more spiritual importance than a case of color blindness where certain people cannot see certain colors etc.  

But that's ok because the other argument will come up soon, probably from our friend Johnny Cake.   9....8....7.....6.....5...

Edited March 2, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Benjamin Seeker]

31 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

That's a poor argument, sorry.  EVERY experience "goes through" and is interpreted by the brain- the question is defining "where" the experience "originates"

Thomas Nagel, an important philosopher, wrote a significant paper in 1974, discussing this argument in detail.  The bottom line is that descriptions of direct experiences cannot be made logically equivalent to statements about physical states.  There is always "something" left out, and that is the subjective description itself.  The statement "Bukowski is experiencing seeing the American flag" cannot be made equivalent with any statement of the form "Bukowski's brain is showing chemical activity of xyz at location abc."

In seeing a mirage, for example, the same brain activity would happen in seeing a pool of water.  In short, the brain would not "know" if the pool of water was "real" or a mirage, and that is why we have optical illusions, etc.  So this argument cannot be used to say that "visions are not real" - as difficult as that kind of proposition is anyway, since it implies a solid theory of what "reality" is.  But that is another issue, good luck on defining that!

Nagel:

In the subjective point of view, you are feeling the emotion, seeing the event, etc.  In the physicalist point of view, you are describing something entirely different- chemical activity in someone else's brain.  It is the difference between first person statements and third person statements- they are not identical points of view and not equivalent.

Nagel's full article:

http://organizations.utep.edu/portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf

I didn't say that any of these spiritual experiences weren't real (my personal feelings on their reality don't actually affect my observation). My observation is that these spiritual experiences fit a pattern of experience that is limited by a brain function that not everyone has. No need to bring up the subjectivety of reality, etc.

EDIT: Just saw your 2nd post :). I'll leave my response here just to clarify for other posters/readers.

Edited March 2, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[Tacenda]

On 2/28/2017 at 7:23 PM, Avatar4321 said:

We should all have a special relationship with the Lord.

I don't think Bruce R. McConkie would agree with this statement.https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie_relationship-lord/

[clarkgoble]

59 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The bottom line is that descriptions of direct experiences cannot be made logically equivalent to statements about physical states.

Or as Davidson notes that's just because our mental description language includes strongly normative aspects while our discourse of physical science doesn't. Thus his anomalous monism. That is mental descriptions always have those other elements in. However we can of course strongly correlate types of experiences to types of physical states even if our descriptions can't fully be translated. Indeed I'd go so far as to say no translation is perfect if they come from different language systems.

That is the goal is reference and even if we can't eliminate these other aspects from our language we still manage quite well to refer to things in practice.

Of course to the original point even though I believe revelation is shaped by expectations and our language/experiences the question is how much. That probably depends upon the message God is giving and how vague it is. 

Edited March 2, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Are you familiar with Elder Oaks statements recently at the infamous Boise Rescue where he's specifically speaking out against the Denver Snuffer movement when he said

I wasn't although I don't disagree with his exegesis of D&C 107. I personally don't think a personal visitation is necessary. I think a vision or other manifestation is fine. My point is just that there are lots of people claiming visitations.

Quote

Also, the Lorenzo Snow experience if you're talking about his experience seeing Jesus in the temple, then wasn't that a second hand story from his grand daughter, published many years after his death?  

Oh, good question. I was just going by memory on Snow. I know the granddaughter account is the one that gets quoted, but it was part of why Snow reorganized the first presidency. I'd assume, without checking sources, that he'd have justified the act to the other apostles on the basis of Jesus directly telling him. But I don't know if there are any sources for that off the top of my head. So that is a good criticism. Edit: Apparently he told the story many times. Here's one account by his son. More significantly he notes that the story of Snow seeing Jesus was told with Grant present. Indeed Grant himself uses the account to justify reorganizing the First Presidency immediately.

Even if Grant didn't know about Snow's action there were enough claiming such things by the time of Grant's call to the apostleship (1882) that I think my claim is safe. 

Edited March 3, 2017 by clarkgoble

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I wasn't although I don't disagree with his exegesis of D&C 107. I personally don't think a personal visitation is necessary. I think a vision or other manifestation is fine. My point is just that there are lots of people claiming visitations.

Oh, good question. I was just going by memory on Snow. I know the granddaughter account is the one that gets quoted, but it was part of why Snow reorganized the first presidency. I'd assume, without checking sources, that he'd have justified the act to the other apostles on the basis of Jesus directly telling him. But I don't know if there are any sources for that off the top of my head. So that is a good criticism. Edit: Apparently he told the story many times. Here's one account by his son. More significantly he notes that the story of Snow seeing Jesus was told with Grant present. Indeed Grant himself uses the account to justify reorganizing the First Presidency immediately.

Even if Grant didn't know about Snow's action there were enough claiming such things by the time of Grant's call to the apostleship (1882) that I think my claim is safe. 

Thanks for the additional detail on the Lorenzo snow story.  Now I'm curious if we have any written accounts of this story that date to during Snow's lifetime?  We know from quite a few other faith promoting stories that they tend to get embellished overtime, thinking of the Brigham Young transfiguration or the seagulls story.  Some are not only embellished, but we have no contemporary evidence to support the story.  

 

Also, can you explain why Grant would have needed to give permission for a story about Snow to be shared?   Snow was the prophet and Grant a junior apostle, couldn't Snow just decide to share the story himself, or was this with respect to many years after Snow had passed away?  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I wasn't although I don't disagree with his exegesis of D&C 107. I personally don't think a personal visitation is necessary. I think a vision or other manifestation is fine. My point is just that there are lots of people claiming visitations.

Oh, good question. I was just going by memory on Snow. I know the granddaughter account is the one that gets quoted, but it was part of why Snow reorganized the first presidency. I'd assume, without checking sources, that he'd have justified the act to the other apostles on the basis of Jesus directly telling him. But I don't know if there are any sources for that off the top of my head. So that is a good criticism. Edit: Apparently he told the story many times. Here's one account by his son. More significantly he notes that the story of Snow seeing Jesus was told with Grant present. Indeed Grant himself uses the account to justify reorganizing the First Presidency immediately.

Even if Grant didn't know about Snow's action there were enough claiming such things by the time of Grant's call to the apostleship (1882) that I think my claim is safe. 

One more comment, just thinking of the Brigham Young transfiguration story again.  There are firsthand accounts from some individuals about this event, that later historical inquiry had proved these individuals weren't even present in Nauvoo on the date of the sermon.  For these reasons I think it prudent to be skeptical of these later stories about spiritual manifestations.  Human memory is a flawed and tricky thing.  

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Or as Davidson notes that's just because our mental description language includes strongly normative aspects while our discourse of physical science doesn't. Thus his anomalous monism. That is mental descriptions always have those other elements in. However we can of course strongly correlate types of experiences to types of physical states even if our descriptions can't fully be translated. Indeed I'd go so far as to say no translation is perfect if they come from different language systems.

That is the goal is reference and even if we can't eliminate these other aspects from our language we still manage quite well to refer to things in practice.

Of course to the original point even though I believe revelation is shaped by expectations and our language/experiences the question is how much. That probably depends upon the message God is giving and how vague it is. 

YAY! I nearly totally agree.  Correlating types of physical experiences with physical states is the job of science though, not philosophy and the science has nothing to do with the logic.  I think that is Davidson's "normative" aspect.  You can't get from science to anything normative.  That's Hume's Is vs Ought thingy.

EVERYTHING is shaped by expectations.  Ask any self-improvement guru from Napoleon Hill to Tony Robbins.

Again, "expectations"="faith

This is also known as "the placebo effect"   Both faith and expectations make things happen.  If you have ever started a business you know that.

 

[clarkgoble]

13 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

One more comment, just thinking of the Brigham Young transfiguration story again.  There are firsthand accounts from some individuals about this event, that later historical inquiry had proved these individuals weren't even present in Nauvoo on the date of the sermon.  For these reasons I think it prudent to be skeptical of these later stories about spiritual manifestations.  Human memory is a flawed and tricky thing.  

I think that's true but in this case the issue was just the discourse of seeing the savior was common. So I'm not trying to establish what you criticize (although I agree about the problem of distant memories)

[Duncan]

I'm reading an autobiography of a former General Authority right now and he said that when Elder Oaks was ordained an Apostle it was done so it front of all of the brethren and given his charge in front of everyone as well, kinda neat it was done like that

and in the Pres. Tanner bio it said that Pres. Brown has that vision of Christ prior to or just after the Washington DC Temple dedication

Edited March 27, 2017 by Duncan