stemelbow Posted July 25, 2017 Posted July 25, 2017 Quote I know Him when I see Him, and I know His voice when I hear Him.” I've seen different allusions to having perhaps seen Jesus or spoken with him by different leaders. reading that interpreter essay I was introduced to the above. While speaking in his home ward President Packer said, more fully: Quote I want our family to know that they have heard grandpa bear his testimony," he said. "I know that Jesus is the Christ, that He lives, that the gospel is true, and that I know Him when I see Him, and I know His voice when I hear Him. I want you little ones to remember that you heard your grandfather bear a special witness of the Lord Jesus Christ and of the gift of the Holy Ghost http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/60298/President-Packer-shares-Christmas-testimony-Jesus-is-the-Christ.html Does anyone take this as an explicit claim of having seen Jesus? Should we take it as such? If so, why would he make the claim in a sacrament meeting rather than to the Church?
hope_for_things Posted July 25, 2017 Posted July 25, 2017 20 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I've seen different allusions to having perhaps seen Jesus or spoken with him by different leaders. reading that interpreter essay I was introduced to the above. While speaking in his home ward President Packer said, more fully: http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/60298/President-Packer-shares-Christmas-testimony-Jesus-is-the-Christ.html Does anyone take this as an explicit claim of having seen Jesus? Should we take it as such? If so, why would he make the claim in a sacrament meeting rather than to the Church? Its so vague just like the rest of the accounts. The number of explicit, I saw God with my waking eyes accounts in the modern church are virtually non existent. The cultural taboo of talking about spiritual experiences essentially has put a lid on people's willingness to talk about these things. I think this phenomena has been influenced by the wider culture as well, people that see things (spirits, ghosts) are looked down upon as hallucinating and aren't taken very seriously. I think this feeds the concept of not sharing these experiences, or being very secretive and selective. 3
ksfisher Posted July 25, 2017 Posted July 25, 2017 28 minutes ago, stemelbow said: If so, why would he make the claim in a sacrament meeting rather than to the Church? Why would you suppose that anyone here would know why President Packer chose to say on that occasion? 2
ksfisher Posted July 25, 2017 Posted July 25, 2017 (edited) 31 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Does anyone take this as an explicit claim of having seen Jesus? Should we take it as such? If we read this as a claim by President Packer to have seen Christ it would seem to be more of an implicit than an explicit claim by President Packer. Edited July 25, 2017 by ksfisher
Guest Posted July 25, 2017 Posted July 25, 2017 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: I've seen different allusions to having perhaps seen Jesus or spoken with him by different leaders. reading that interpreter essay I was introduced to the above. While speaking in his home ward President Packer said, more fully: http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/60298/President-Packer-shares-Christmas-testimony-Jesus-is-the-Christ.html Does anyone take this as an explicit claim of having seen Jesus? Should we take it as such? If so, why would he make the claim in a sacrament meeting rather than to the Church? I believe that some experiences are so personal, so Spiritual, that one must take great care as to the words they speak. I have two friends who have seen wonderful things. One was doing "Home Teaching", and made a little joke about a certain aspect...he told me later that "he saw the gates of hell opening before him", and at that moment he for the first time was "truly in fear of losing his immortal soul". The other, a friend for many years spoke in a whisper in the Temple of what he had seen, as he trembled, and cried. In my life, I have had Spiritual experiences that I have never spoken of, and others that I have in a testimony, were I could hardly speak of it. Experiences that have carried me though mighty rivers of doubt, hardships, and heartbreak. I assume you if God speaks to me, and gives someone as woeful as me such experiences, all may receive them. 2
Pete Ahlstrom Posted July 25, 2017 Posted July 25, 2017 1 hour ago, ksfisher said: Why would you suppose that anyone here would know why President Packer chose to say on that occasion? Historians and Lawyers infer motive or "why" all the time. So, I think it is a fair question to ask. Why is there such a reluctance to testify of spiritual experiences? Is the pressure to keep experiences private from the outside world? Is the emphasis on privacy advisable?
bluebell Posted July 25, 2017 Posted July 25, 2017 5 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said: Historians and Lawyers infer motive or "why" all the time. So, I think it is a fair question to ask. Why is there such a reluctance to testify of spiritual experiences? Is the pressure to keep experiences private from the outside world? Is the emphasis on privacy advisable? I think Hope's post is a good explanation of why people are hesitant to talk about spiritual experiences in public. 2
hope_for_things Posted July 25, 2017 Posted July 25, 2017 Some possible explanations from a scientific perspective. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/out-the-ooze/201507/why-some-people-see-ghosts-and-other-presences
ksfisher Posted July 25, 2017 Posted July 25, 2017 30 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said: Historians and Lawyers infer motive or "why" all the time. So, I think it is a fair question to ask. It's a fair question, but one that could be answered by nothing more that speculation at this point.
ksfisher Posted July 25, 2017 Posted July 25, 2017 32 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said: Why is there such a reluctance to testify of spiritual experiences? Is the pressure to keep experiences private from the outside world? Is the emphasis on privacy advisable? I don't find that apostles are reluctant to testify of spiritual experiences at all. Conference talks are full of examples of such. If you are speaking specifically about a reluctance to speak about visitations of the Savior, I imagine that it is He that has asked them not to share these things with the world in general. 1
JLHPROF Posted July 25, 2017 Posted July 25, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, stemelbow said: I've seen different allusions to having perhaps seen Jesus or spoken with him by different leaders. reading that interpreter essay I was introduced to the above. While speaking in his home ward President Packer said, more fully: http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/60298/President-Packer-shares-Christmas-testimony-Jesus-is-the-Christ.html Does anyone take this as an explicit claim of having seen Jesus? Should we take it as such? If so, why would he make the claim in a sacrament meeting rather than to the Church? I have no problem with faithful members seeing Christ. But as Joseph pointed out " It is one thing to be on the mount and hear the excellent voice, etc., and another to hear to voice declare to you, You have a part and lot in that kingdom." Many in Church history saw the Savior in vision. This is very different from: "When any man obtains this last Comforter, he will have the personage of Jesus Christ to 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 teach him face to face, and he may have a perfect knowledge of the mysteries of the Kingdom of God;" President Packer's statements may refer to the vision and not the presence. And as an Apostle he has the right to bear that witness when he chooses. If the presence, that is private and personal, and there is no reason he should ever share that. Edited July 25, 2017 by JLHPROF 1
Duncan Posted July 25, 2017 Posted July 25, 2017 There is a blog I follow and the author is writing a book about this topic, http://www.truthwillprevail.xyz/2017/04/new-book-coming-about-special-witnesses.html the following blog posts are snippets from his forthcoming book and he even talks about Pres. Packer 1
Pete Ahlstrom Posted July 25, 2017 Posted July 25, 2017 38 minutes ago, ksfisher said: I don't find that apostles are reluctant to testify of spiritual experiences at all. Conference talks are full of examples of such. If you are speaking specifically about a reluctance to speak about visitations of the Savior, I imagine that it is He that has asked them not to share these things with the world in general. That could be, but it seems to me a reluctance to testify about the main reason they are "special" is problematic. They did change it to "special" witnesses of his "name," however. So I guess they can avoid the issue that way.
stemelbow Posted July 25, 2017 Author Posted July 25, 2017 2 hours ago, ksfisher said: Why would you suppose that anyone here would know why President Packer chose to say on that occasion? Actually beats me. just curious if anyone had an idea.
stemelbow Posted July 25, 2017 Author Posted July 25, 2017 2 hours ago, ksfisher said: If we read this as a claim by President Packer to have seen Christ it would seem to be more of an implicit than an explicit claim by President Packer. Fair enough.
Duncan Posted July 25, 2017 Posted July 25, 2017 5 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said: That could be, but it seems to me a reluctance to testify about the main reason they are "special" is problematic. They did change it to "special" witnesses of his "name," however. So I guess they can avoid the issue that way. it's been like that since DC 107:23, is there anything stopping us to get our own witness? we aren't obviously called to the Q12 but we can know as they do that Jesus is the Christ 1
stemelbow Posted July 25, 2017 Author Posted July 25, 2017 47 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: I have no problem with faithful members seeing Christ. But as Joseph pointed out " It is one thing to be on the mount and hear the excellent voice, etc., and another to hear to voice declare to you, You have a part and lot in that kingdom." Many in Church history saw the Savior in vision. This is very different from: "When any man obtains this last Comforter, he will have the personage of Jesus Christ to 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 teach him face to face, and he may have a perfect knowledge of the mysteries of the Kingdom of God;" President Packer's statements may refer to the vision and not the presence. And as an Apostle he has the right to bear that witness when he chooses. If the presence, that is private and personal, and there is no reason he should ever share that. So, he made a mistake by sharing?
JLHPROF Posted July 25, 2017 Posted July 25, 2017 12 minutes ago, stemelbow said: So, he made a mistake by sharing? Not at all. It is his duty as an Apostle to bear witness of the Savior, especially if he saw him. Just as Joseph and Oliver and Lorenzo Snow and many others have done. If he has seen the Savior he should fulfill his calling. His potential own personal calling and election meeting with the Savior however, should not be for public consumption. And since he would know this principle to when he said: . "I know that Jesus is the Christ, that He lives, that the gospel is true, and that I know Him when I see Him, and I know His voice when I hear Him. I would assume he is not speaking of his Calling and Election, but of a vision he was permitted to receive as an Apostle. 1
Guest Posted July 26, 2017 Posted July 26, 2017 7 hours ago, stemelbow said: Actually beats me. just curious if anyone had an idea. Let me come to the aid, and help with the; why and I don't know? Often (especially), Apostiles and Prophets speak of know, or know "God voice" when he speaks. There are a number of Prophets and Apostles (in our lifetime) he have stated emphatically that they have "seen and heard", many in the early first years in the Church. Apostles are "special witnesses", and if you use that in NT, or BoM, or D&C, you will find that is part of their ministry, they saw the "living God". Many in the Christian would believe (as stated in Scripture all called Apostles in the early Church saw Jesus in life, and after the resurrection. When the time came to replace Judas, one called to replace him was a witness to Christ's live and ministry. Also person can look upon the face of Jesus Christ and remain in the flesh.
Popular Post SteveO Posted July 26, 2017 Popular Post Posted July 26, 2017 (edited) I remember on my mission, I heard one of the last times President Faust speak in this life. I don't remember the occasion, I believe it was a multi stake conference in Mexico. I won't give specifics, as it was a very special experience, but he rather forcefully and specifically gave his personal testimony of the Savior. One of those things I'll always remember and never forget. The brethren don't go around sharing those experiences in every situation they find themselves speaking--but to say visions aren't experienced today just isn't true. Edited July 26, 2017 by SteveO 5
Hamba Tuhan Posted July 26, 2017 Posted July 26, 2017 (edited) 43 minutes ago, SteveO said: But to say visions aren't experienced today just isn't true. Something we should all know personally at some point ... Edited July 26, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan 1
hagoth7 Posted July 26, 2017 Posted July 26, 2017 20 hours ago, hope_for_things said: The cultural taboo of talking about spiritual experiences essentially has put a lid on people's willingness to talk about these things....I think this feeds the concept of not sharing these experiences, or being very secretive and selective. Yep. And we can be pretty clear on who inspired the byword that we supposedly shouldn't discuss religion and politics. (The same one who inspired Tacitus to claim 2,000 years ago that doing any investigation regarding the visit of God's son to northern Europe would somehow be imprudent/impious, and that it is somehow more pious to remain ignorant of such things.) When those are the two things (religion and politics) that absolutely *must* be discussed and out in the open if we're gonna make headway together.
Robert F. Smith Posted July 27, 2017 Posted July 27, 2017 On 7/25/2017 at 11:52 AM, Pete Ahlstrom said: Historians and Lawyers infer motive or "why" all the time. So, I think it is a fair question to ask. Why is there such a reluctance to testify of spiritual experiences? Is the pressure to keep experiences private from the outside world? Is the emphasis on privacy advisable? Historians and lawyers? You seem confused about the difference between sacred and secular matters, as though each is the same as the other. For you, reason and inspiration are virtually the same thing. Right? Is that a fair question to ask? 1
CV75 Posted July 27, 2017 Posted July 27, 2017 (edited) On 7/25/2017 at 0:02 PM, stemelbow said: I've seen different allusions to having perhaps seen Jesus or spoken with him by different leaders. reading that interpreter essay I was introduced to the above. While speaking in his home ward President Packer said, more fully: http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/60298/President-Packer-shares-Christmas-testimony-Jesus-is-the-Christ.html Does anyone take this as an explicit claim of having seen Jesus? Should we take it as such? If so, why would he make the claim in a sacrament meeting rather than to the Church? I think the explicitness is determined by each person's interpretation. We see and hear with spiritual as well as physical senses, which can provide just as, if not more authentic an experience than the media of physical senses. I don’t think it matters whether His grandchildren understand him to be speaking of physical or spiritual (or both) sight and hearing; the message for them is meant to be spiritual.. On 7/25/2017 at 0:26 PM, hope_for_things said: Its so vague just like the rest of the accounts. The number of explicit, I saw God with my waking eyes accounts in the modern church are virtually non existent. The cultural taboo of talking about spiritual experiences essentially has put a lid on people's willingness to talk about these things. I think this phenomena has been influenced by the wider culture as well, people that see things (spirits, ghosts) are looked down upon as hallucinating and aren't taken very seriously. I think this feeds the concept of not sharing these experiences, or being very secretive and selective. That may be one explanation for some people in some instances, but I dot get the sense that this was President Packer’s concern—look at all the other counter-cultural religious things he’s said, and he didn't come across as one who was timid about saying what was on his mind. On 7/25/2017 at 1:52 PM, Pete Ahlstrom said: Historians and Lawyers infer motive or "why" all the time. So, I think it is a fair question to ask. Why is there such a reluctance to testify of spiritual experiences? Is the pressure to keep experiences private from the outside world? Is the emphasis on privacy advisable? I don't think we know it is reluctance, or always assume it is reluctance. When I am sharing such things, I use my best judgement, discernment and best sense of alignment with the Lord’s will, typically with the aim of best serving the people I'm sharing with. Edited July 27, 2017 by CV75 1
Pete Ahlstrom Posted July 27, 2017 Posted July 27, 2017 12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Historians and lawyers? You seem confused about the difference between sacred and secular matters, as though each is the same as the other. For you, reason and inspiration are virtually the same thing. Right? Is that a fair question to ask? I think "inspiration" is probably the subconscious brain at work.
Recommended Posts