Too Sacred to Share?

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Look what people think of those who do share these kinds of fantastic spiritual experiences.  They get a reputation for being weird.

I repped you because I agree...I used the wrong word here.  I hope you know what I really mean. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

I repped you because I agree...I used the wrong word here.  I hope you know what I really mean. 

I do, and you're right in that there are some weird people, and they do say some weird things sometimes.  

But that's what makes this a hard subject.  Unless circumstances are just right and people's hearts are prepared (as in the spirit is present and able to witness to the people you are speaking to and they are open to hearing it) telling someone you've talked to Jesus is just going to sound weird.  Even if it was true you'd still sound delusional to most people.   

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, wtrdog said:

....................  Is there such a thing as spiritual experiences / miracles which are too sacred to share?  Do the rules change if its someone in a leadership position?  Pearls before swine, all that, what are your thoughts?

......................... For the average member, sure, understandably an experience might be very personal and they are uncomfortable sharing it.  Cool, I'm not going to give them a hard time about this.  When it comes to leaders however, I flatly disagree with this.  Leaders, IMO, have a responsibility to be completely and totally transparent about their experiences.  The raw unfiltered truth.  Have you seen Christ or not?  A simple yes or no.  With your eyes in the middle of the day, when, where, every little detail.  No vaugery that would cause people to believe things that aren't true.  .....................................................

An example of such dishonesty from Elder Packer in 2014 conference.

The meaning of this has been debated all over the place.  Does this mean he's seen Christ?  Some say yes, others say no.  I was actually in a conference not that many years ago where Elder Packer was flatly asked by an audience member whether he had or hadn't, seen Christ that is.  His response was basically no, but without actually saying no, and basically just berated the person who asked the question for being inappropriate.  How is this inappropriate?  Why, because you feel insecure about the fact that you run around with the title Special Witness of Christ without having actually received any sort of special witness?  Honestly it was quite like how I would expect a liar to respond.  Instead of just being honest, they get upset at being called out and try to flip the situation.

On the other hand I've witnessed other apostles who were very down to earth and plainly say they've never seen Christ without hesitation.  

I think I've illustrated the point though.  Apostles/GAs say stuff like this all the time, where they speak in a highly prevaricating or sensational kind of way that's meant to build faith or conjure up spiritual feelings.  But it's not honest.  To the point, what really bugs me is I see this as being an anti-Christian kind of thing that is at odds with the stated plan of salvation.  An ingredient of agency is information.  How, for example, can a person exercise their agency and make a decision if they were misled or manipulated in some way?  Consider me, even, as an example.  For sake of argument let's say the gospel is true.  Without getting into nitpicky details, the basic theme of the plan of salvation is real.  Ok, well I personally am in a situation where I feel like I've been lied to and manipulated.  Consequently I do not trust the leadership of the church at all and regard them to be liars.  Beside putting me at odds with the corporate church, it then has the domino effect of also causing me to be suspicious and lose faith in the gospel/theology.  Etc. etc.

Long story short, shouldn't leaders have an obligation to share their spiritual experiences, whatever they may be?  People should not be manipulated either into or out of a testimony.  Critical decisions like serving a mission, getting married, career choices, having children, etc., should be made in the cold light of day with all cards faced up on the table.

Moreover, another way to look at all this.  We hear all these stories of great courage from the scriptures, stripes for Jesus and all that.  The idea of "too sacred" experiences is completely at odds with this.  The only reason to not share an experience, described as pearls before swine, is out of fear that those hearing it won't believe it. ...............................................

A pretty harsh critique by you, in which your beliefs and expectations become normative, your reasoning very narrowly based.  Jesus, for example, frequently asked that his actions and claims not be made public.  He himself was very reticent about making august self-declarations, to the degree that nowadays some actually doubt that he ever declared  himself to be the Messiah or Son of God.  It seems rather hypocritical of you to allow ordinary members to keep certain sacred experiences secret, while demanding (with a snarl) that general authorities tell all.  Indeed, you may be a parade example of the reason for the saying about not casting one's pearls before swine.

[Avatar4321]

5 hours ago, Nevo said:

No, I don't think so.

Today I was reading from Oliver Cowdery's 1836 journal. On January 19th, he recorded: "Wrote blessings: this day I felt more like dedicating myself to the Lord than usual. O my God, my soul desires to see thee as thy favored ones in days of old."

Two days later he recorded: "At about three O'clock P.M. I assembled in our office garret, having all things prepared for the occasion, with presidents Joseph Smith, jr. F. G. Williams, Sidney Rigdon Hyrum Smith, David Whitmer, John Whitmer and elder John Corrill, and washed our bodies with pure water before the Lord, preparatory to the annointing with the holy oil. After we were washed, our bodies were perfumed with a sweet smelling oderous wash. At evening the presidents of the Church, with the two bishops and their counsellors, and elder Warren Parrish, met in the presidents' room, the high councils of Kirtland and Zion in their rooms. Those named in the first room were annointed with the same kind of oil and in the man[ner] that were Moses and Aaron, and those who stood before the Lord in ancient days, and those in the other rooms with annointing oil prepared for them. The glorious scene is too great to be described in this book, therefore, I only say, that the heavens were opened to many, and great and marvelous things were shown."

The next day, he recorded: "In the evening Elder Marsh called at my house: we talked much upon the subject of visions: he greatly desired to see the Lord. Brother Marsh is a good man, and I pray that his faith may be strengthened to behold the heavens open."

Oliver seems to indicate that he was one of those who experienced the heavens open and saw "great and marvelous things" on January 21st, but apparently felt they were too sacred to write even in his personal journal. The context suggests he may even have seen a vision of the Savior. But he was obviously very careful with such things and reticent to put anything into writing (compare D&C 63:64).

Hate to derail but how do you have Oliver's journal??

[Nevo]

24 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Hate to derail but how do you have Oliver's journal?

I read this transcript: https://user.xmission.com/~research/mormonpdf/cowderysketchbook.pdf

But you can see the real thing here: https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE4802683. (If the link doesn't work for you, search "MS 3429" on the Church History Library website, then click "View Finding Aid.")

[Benjamin Seeker]

Maybe a less extreme version of this argument is that it would be beneficial for the current apostles and prophets to share specific spiritual experiences, particularly revelations, visions, visitations or manifestations that are relevant to the church membership. More often than not, we only get general statements or inferences (addressed by the OP). Basically, it sure seems like more could be said than is currently. 

[thatjimguy]

So, are they supposed to have seen Jesus once they become a leader? Or is this just Mormon folklore?

I would imagine that if any of them have really seen him, they wouldn't really be able to hide it...even if they didn't say it.  You could probably tell by reading them. I don't see something like that happening to someone able to contain themselves. 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, wtrdog said:

I don't want to hijack the other thread re Paul Dunn.  Spin-off topic.  I know what the responses will be but would like to debate the point and test the underlying logic.  Is there such a thing as spiritual experiences / miracles which are too sacred to share?  Do the rules change if its someone in a leadership position?  Pearls before swine, all that, what are your thoughts?

Here's my basic position.  For the average member, sure, understandably an experience might be very personal and they are uncomfortable sharing it.  Cool, I'm not going to give them a hard time about this.  When it comes to leaders however, I flatly disagree with this.  Leaders, IMO, have a responsibility to be completely and totally transparent about their experiences.  The raw unfiltered truth.  Have you seen Christ or not?  A simple yes or no.  With your eyes in the middle of the day, when, where, every little detail.  No vaugery that would cause people to believe things that aren't true.

I like the way the Gospel Principles manual puts it.

An example of such dishonesty from Elder Packer in 2014 conference.

The meaning of this has been debated all over the place.  Does this mean he's seen Christ?  Some say yes, others say no.  I was actually in a conference not that many years ago where Elder Packer was flatly asked by an audience member whether he had or hadn't, seen Christ that is.  His response was basically no, but without actually saying no, and basically just berated the person who asked the question for being inappropriate.  How is this inappropriate?  Why, because you feel insecure about the fact that you run around with the title Special Witness of Christ without having actually received any sort of special witness?  Honestly it was quite like how I would expect a liar to respond.  Instead of just being honest, they get upset at being called out and try to flip the situation.

On the other hand I've witnessed other apostles who were very down to earth and plainly say they've never seen Christ without hesitation.  

I think I've illustrated the point though.  Apostles/GAs say stuff like this all the time, where they speak in a highly prevaricating or sensational kind of way that's meant to build faith or conjure up spiritual feelings.  But it's not honest.  To the point, what really bugs me is I see this as being an anti-Christian kind of thing that is at odds with the stated plan of salvation.  An ingredient of agency is information.  How, for example, can a person exercise their agency and make a decision if they were misled or manipulated in some way?  Consider me, even, as an example.  For sake of argument let's say the gospel is true.  Without getting into nitpicky details, the basic theme of the plan of salvation is real.  Ok, well I personally am in a situation where I feel like I've been lied to and manipulated.  Consequently I do not trust the leadership of the church at all and regard them to be liars.  Beside putting me at odds with the corporate church, it then has the domino effect of also causing me to be suspicious and lose faith in the gospel/theology.  Etc. etc.

Long story short, shouldn't leaders have an obligation to share their spiritual experiences, whatever they may be?  People should not be manipulated either into or out of a testimony.  Critical decisions like serving a mission, getting married, career choices, having children, etc., should be made in the cold light of day with all cards faced up on the table.

Moreover, another way to look at all this.  We hear all these stories of great courage from the scriptures, stripes for Jesus and all that.  The idea of "too sacred" experiences is completely at odds with this.  The only reason to not share an experience, described as pearls before swine, is out of fear that those hearing it won't believe it.  They might even crack a grin or laugh because not only do they not believe it, but think it's silly.  Yes, that might happen, but so what?  

Why would it matter to you if others had these experiences or not?

Shouldn't we be finding this out for ourselves?  Should we have faith in Brother Packer or Christ- and most importantly in our selves?

Why would you give this power over your personal testimony to another?

I have this bridge I am selling.... it's a great deal and I have made tons of money myself, and if you buy it, I will be glad to throw in............

[Sine Saw Square]

10 hours ago, wtrdog said:

Consider me, even, as an example.

I have read your posts in multiple threads and I have been considering where you are coming from. You seem to be stuck with an adolescent conception of the Church organization and expectations. I don't mean that as an insult! I've been there too, bruv. You appear to be intelligent and equipped with experience and learning that one gains with adulthood. I hear in your posts anger and frustration that you've experienced at some point and it seems to me that those experiences have inhibited your capacity to consider the Church wholly. I don't know what it was that made you feel hurt but I believe that until you can let it go it will continue to get in the way of positively engaging with the Gospel... which you seem to want? 

There are other paradigms from which you can view the Church society and beliefs but those kinds of changes tend to come only with intentional action unless your name is Alma.  

I have to go to the gym, sweat, work hard, and be uncomfortable to gain strength. It doesn't just happen.

FWIW

Edited September 28, 2017 by Sine Saw Square
clarity

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, Sine Saw Square said:

I have read your posts in multiple threads and I have been considering where you are coming from. You seem to be stuck with an adolescent conception of the Church organization and expectations. I don't mean that as an insult! I've been there too, bruv. You appear to be intelligent and equipped with experience and learning that one gains with adulthood. I hear in your posts anger and frustration that you've experienced at some point and it seems to me that those experiences have inhibited your capacity to consider the Church wholly. I don't know what it was that made you feel hurt but I believe that until you can let it go it will continue to get in the way of positively engaging with the Gospel... which you seem to want? 

There are other paradigms from which you can view the Church society and beliefs but those kinds of changes tend to come only with intentional action unless your name is Alma.  

I have to go to the gym, sweat, work hard, and be uncomfortable to gain strength. It doesn't just happen.

FWIW

Like everything, if it seems to good to be true, it probably isn't. The church sold it's members some incredible information, and now they are having to come out with the real church and then expect us infantiles in the church to be okay with it. 

[The Nehor]

The argument is always that prophets in the past shared everything so our apostles and prophets should share everything. We know the prophets in the past shared the things they shared. The problem is how do we know they did not have other experiences they did not share. Jesus told some he healed to say nothing. We most likely know about it because that person blabbed.

The reality is we have no fundamental right to know what God has told the apostles and prophets. The best way to find out is to live your life so God will tell you too.

[clarkgoble]

10 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Maybe a less extreme version of this argument is that it would be beneficial for the current apostles and prophets to share specific spiritual experiences, particularly revelations, visions, visitations or manifestations that are relevant to the church membership. More often than not, we only get general statements or inferences (addressed by the OP). Basically, it sure seems like more could be said than is currently. 

In private settings they do far more frequently.

I'd quoted Alma 12 (as did someone else before I clicked "save") but a more relevant quote with the same idea is this:

"The reason we do not have the secrets of the Lord revealed unto us is because we do not keep them but reveal them, we do not keep our own secrets but reveal our difficulties to the world even to our enemies then how would we keep the secrets of the Lord Joseph says I can keep a secret till dooms day He spoke of love what greater love hath any man than that he lay down his life for his friend then why not fight for our friend untill we die & many other things of interest was spoken." (Dec 19, 1841) 

Many scholars bring up masonry as an important context for the early members and that undoubtedly shaped how they viewed not just the endowment but spiritual experiences in general. We can of course disagree with that conception, but it does seem ubiquitous. Even for experiences in the 19th century we typically know about them due to journals or the like not because they were shared openly in print. The First Vision is one of the few exceptions but even there in the early Church it simply wasn't shared the way say the origins of the Book of Mormon was. It was arguably not until missionary work needed a basis that the First Vision started becoming important and then only after the account in our Pearl of Great Price was developed.

I know a talking point in the 90's that I suspect in part led to the snufferite movement was the idea that apostles always testified of seeing Jesus. But again it's not at all clear that was as common in the 19th century as portrayed. Further today they do happen. FAIR notes Elder Faust saying he'd seen Christ for instance. Further many 19th century accounts often are dreams. (Say the Whitney account which actually happened to him well before becoming an Apostle)

The argument that they should not only do this but do it openly (and not in more closed settings with no transcript) seems questionable to me theologically. As someone else noted, of those who have such experiences typically they are also (as Alma 12 suggests) constrained not to share it except in exceptional circumstances.

Edited September 28, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Amulek]

15 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I wish people like you would share, it helps people like me have hope. [...]

There is reason to hope.

And while I may not share every religious experience I have had in my life, I readily share the testimony that I have gained from those experiences. 

 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

9 hours ago, Sine Saw Square said:

I have read your posts in multiple threads and I have been considering where you are coming from. You seem to be stuck with an adolescent conception of the Church organization and expectations. I don't mean that as an insult! I've been there too, bruv. You appear to be intelligent and equipped with experience and learning that one gains with adulthood. I hear in your posts anger and frustration that you've experienced at some point and it seems to me that those experiences have inhibited your capacity to consider the Church wholly. I don't know what it was that made you feel hurt but I believe that until you can let it go it will continue to get in the way of positively engaging with the Gospel... which you seem to want? 

There are other paradigms from which you can view the Church society and beliefs but those kinds of changes tend to come only with intentional action unless your name is Alma.  

I have to go to the gym, sweat, work hard, and be uncomfortable to gain strength. It doesn't just happen.

FWIW

What paradigms?  The automatically believing paradigm?

[Bobbieaware]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Like everything, if it seems to good to be true, it probably isn't. The church sold it's members some incredible information, and now they are having to come out with the real church and then expect us infantiles in the church to be okay with it. 

The core of problem for those dealing with lapsed faith ikely stem from the fact that those so affected were likely spoon fed the gospel the whole of their lives and never realized the critical need to become prophets or prophetess in their own right. When one has a true spiritual witness of the divinity of the Restored Church of Christ and receives personal revelation on an ongoing basis, one's faith and testimony become unshakable so that the adversary's mists of darkness are quickly dispelled.

No man or woman can succeed living the gospel on borrowed spiritual light. In a universe and reality affirmed by allowing there to be total and diametric opposition in all things, those who have become prophets and prophetesses in their own right understand that God must allow there to be very powerful and convincing arguments against the gospel in order to test the faith of the children of men to the very maximum. But those who have the Spirit of prophecy and revelation have the power to see through spiritual darkness and quench all the fiery darts of the adversary.

Those with lapsed faith in the restoration will be left in their quandary until they become prophets and prophetesses in their own right. The place to start for those caught in such a predicament is to at least begin to have a hope that the restored gospel is true and then work upward toward greater spiritual enlightenment and power. But if there isn't even a faint hope or desire for the Church to be true, unless some dramatic form of divine intervention intercedes, it's almost a surety nothing will change.

Edited September 28, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[stemelbow]

9 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

The core of problem for those dealing with lapsed faith ikely stem from the fact that those so affected were likely spoon fed the gospel the whole of their lives and never realized the critical need to become prophets or prophetess in their own right. When one has a true spiritual witness of the divinity of the Restored Church of Christ and receives personal revelation on an ongoing basis, one's faith and testimony become unshakable so that the adversary's mists of darkness are quickly dispelled.

No man or woman can succeed living the gospel on borrowed spiritual light. In a universe and reality affirmed by allowing there to be total and diametric opposition in all things, those who have become prophets and prophetesses in their own right understand that God must allow there to be very powerful and convincing arguments against the gospel in order to test the faith of the children of men to the very maximum. But those who have the Spirit of prophecy and revelation have the power to see through spiritual darkness and quench all the fiery darts of the adversary.

Those with lapsed faith in the restoration will be left in their quandary until they become prophets and prophetesses in their own right. The place to start for those caught in such a predicament is to at least begin to have a hope that the restored gospel is true and then work upward toward greater spiritual enlightenment and power. But if there isn't even a faint hope or desire for the Church to be true, unless some dramatic form of divine intervention intercedes, it's almost a surety nothing will change.

I'd agree with Fiona Givens and Patrick Mason in this podcast I just relistened to.  The Church needs to get passed the very insular, immature style of faith and religion particularly as it comes to the notion of specific cases of the members.  If it doesn't then it remains a very immature religion.  It is showy and stubborn, which is really quite childlike.  The problems only grow.  I think pretending as though those who lose faith are the only problems here is exactly the type of stuff they would call childlike.  Unfortunately it seems to be the exact practice that pushes people out, thereby creating more insularity and more immaturity.  It takes a more open imagination to accept that what people describe is something more than a mean to figure out how to judge them as lacking faith. 

 

[clarkgoble]

(Sorry just testing posting -- I've had two long posts on the T Shirt thread end up in oblivion and a screen saying the firewall was blocking my IP for a while)

Edited September 28, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Sine Saw Square]

20 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

What paradigms?  The automatically believing paradigm?

The opposite in fact. That's what I was trying to say with my (poor?) gym analogy. 

The automatic belief paradigm is one of childhood... it's not even adolescent. You just believe what your parents told you. There's a place for that when you are 5 because you have no experience, education, and little capacity to understand the consequence of decisions. The rebellious teen sees everything in a black and white context- questioning but with out maturity. Either the "automatic belief" of their childhood on the one hand or "it was all a malicious lie designed to keep me down".  Every person with a mature faith is going to have their own path to the Tree of Life. There are a plenty of examples on this forum of other paradigms.

One approach that has worked for me is found in "Letters to a Young Mormon" by Adam S. Miller. In which he explains that Christ asks that we sacrifice our story about ourselves on the alters of our hearts. What ever your story is, Christ asks us to give it up and replace it with his. So whether you see yourself as a stalwart member or a victim of misleading leaders- Christ asks you to give it up.

Resolving friction one has personally with issue X isn't something that can be imposed by an external force. If you find it desirable to be involved in the faith and feel that something is hanging you up then you gotta go to the spiritual gym and lift heavy.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

14 minutes ago, Sine Saw Square said:

The opposite in fact. That's what I was trying to say with my (poor?) gym analogy. 

The automatic belief paradigm is one of childhood... it's not even adolescent. You just believe what your parents told you. There's a place for that when you are 5 because you have no experience, education, and little capacity to understand the consequence of decisions. The rebellious teen sees everything in a black and white context- questioning but with out maturity. Either the "automatic belief" of their childhood on the one hand or "it was all a malicious lie designed to keep me down".  Every person with a mature faith is going to have their own path to the Tree of Life. There are a plenty of examples on this forum of other paradigms.

One approach that has worked for me is found in "Letters to a Young Mormon" by Adam S. Miller. In which he explains that Christ asks that we sacrifice our story about ourselves on the alters of our hearts. What ever your story is, Christ asks us to give it up and replace it with his. So whether you see yourself as a stalwart member or a victim of misleading leaders- Christ asks you to give it up.

Resolving friction one has personally with issue X isn't something that can be imposed by an external force. If you find it desirable to be involved in the faith and feel that something is hanging you up then you gotta go to the spiritual gym and lift heavy.

Doesn't contrary evidence eventually lead one to abandon a particular paradigm? Or is stay the course and your questions will be resolved .... at some future date .... the course you would suggest?

Also, I think there are some serious questions revolving around the historical jesus and Christ of the gospels. There are a lot of inconsistencies in the new testament that cast doubt on who jesus really was. My main hang-up with christianity is that I think whatever God there is, that God always had the power to forgive whatever one may call sin. Jesus wasn't necessary.

[Duncan]

There have been instances in General Conference where Apostles and a some seventies shared a vision of Christ, Elders Haight, Elder George F. Richards, Elder Rulon S. Wells come to mind. Pres. Kimball shared something that indicated he had seen Christ, there is a first hand account of him sharing an experience of having a vision, shared to missionaries in the 1940's but it's on family search 

In the Bryant S. Hinckley autobiography he said that Pres. Joseph F. Smith told him he saw Christ, although when told him that it doesn't say as he would have seen him as per Section 138

Edited September 28, 2017 by Duncan

[SmileyMcGee]

On 9/27/2017 at 2:22 PM, wtrdog said:

I don't want to hijack the other thread re Paul Dunn.  Spin-off topic.  I know what the responses will be but would like to debate the point and test the underlying logic.  Is there such a thing as spiritual experiences / miracles which are too sacred to share?  Do the rules change if its someone in a leadership position?  Pearls before swine, all that, what are your thoughts?

Here's my basic position.  For the average member, sure, understandably an experience might be very personal and they are uncomfortable sharing it.  Cool, I'm not going to give them a hard time about this.  When it comes to leaders however, I flatly disagree with this.  Leaders, IMO, have a responsibility to be completely and totally transparent about their experiences.  The raw unfiltered truth.  Have you seen Christ or not?  A simple yes or no.  With your eyes in the middle of the day, when, where, every little detail.  No vaugery that would cause people to believe things that aren't true.

I like the way the Gospel Principles manual puts it.

An example of such dishonesty from Elder Packer in 2014 conference.

The meaning of this has been debated all over the place.  Does this mean he's seen Christ?  Some say yes, others say no.  I was actually in a conference not that many years ago where Elder Packer was flatly asked by an audience member whether he had or hadn't, seen Christ that is.  His response was basically no, but without actually saying no, and basically just berated the person who asked the question for being inappropriate.  How is this inappropriate?  Why, because you feel insecure about the fact that you run around with the title Special Witness of Christ without having actually received any sort of special witness?  Honestly it was quite like how I would expect a liar to respond.  Instead of just being honest, they get upset at being called out and try to flip the situation.

On the other hand I've witnessed other apostles who were very down to earth and plainly say they've never seen Christ without hesitation.  

I think I've illustrated the point though.  Apostles/GAs say stuff like this all the time, where they speak in a highly prevaricating or sensational kind of way that's meant to build faith or conjure up spiritual feelings.  But it's not honest.  To the point, what really bugs me is I see this as being an anti-Christian kind of thing that is at odds with the stated plan of salvation.  An ingredient of agency is information.  How, for example, can a person exercise their agency and make a decision if they were misled or manipulated in some way?  Consider me, even, as an example.  For sake of argument let's say the gospel is true.  Without getting into nitpicky details, the basic theme of the plan of salvation is real.  Ok, well I personally am in a situation where I feel like I've been lied to and manipulated.  Consequently I do not trust the leadership of the church at all and regard them to be liars.  Beside putting me at odds with the corporate church, it then has the domino effect of also causing me to be suspicious and lose faith in the gospel/theology.  Etc. etc.

Long story short, shouldn't leaders have an obligation to share their spiritual experiences, whatever they may be?  People should not be manipulated either into or out of a testimony.  Critical decisions like serving a mission, getting married, career choices, having children, etc., should be made in the cold light of day with all cards faced up on the table.

Moreover, another way to look at all this.  We hear all these stories of great courage from the scriptures, stripes for Jesus and all that.  The idea of "too sacred" experiences is completely at odds with this.  The only reason to not share an experience, described as pearls before swine, is out of fear that those hearing it won't believe it.  They might even crack a grin or laugh because not only do they not believe it, but think it's silly.  Yes, that might happen, but so what?  

It would make things more interesting if they did open up about experiences. I don't think the BoM would have ever gotten much traction if it read like a contemporary church magazine or a collection of conference talks. 

But I don't blame public figures for wanting some privacy; I'm a private guy. If I am interested in visions, dreams, etc. then I'll work on my own spirituality and try to have my own experiences. Others' spiritual experiences don't do much for me. 

Edited September 28, 2017 by SmileyMcGee

[Kevin Christensen]

All of this reminds me of an account in one of my NDE books.  (I think, Moody's The Light Beyond).  An NDE researcher was giving a talk on the subject and a cardiologist stood up and said, "I've resuscitated hundreds of people and I've never heard of anything like this."  Before the researcher could respond, someone behind the cardiologist stood up and said, "I'm one of the last people you resuscitated and let me assure you that you are the last person I would ever tell about my experience."

When I was doing my research, and talking about it, I had a number of people volunteer their experiences to me.  They knew from the things that I said, and the way that I said them that I could be trusted with what they shared.

It also reminds me of an ongoing political feud in Lawrence KS, where the local Native American Tribe had some land, wetlands, that the local city government wanted to buy and use for a section of freeway.   The tribe considered the land sacred.  The city acted as though this were a negotiation ploy, and year after year kept on trying to offer this or that deal, showing that they just did not get the concept of "sacred."

A country that managed to elect someone like our current president does demonstrate that "sacred" is a not widely recognized notion or considered a high value concept.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Sine Saw Square]

2 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Doesn't contrary evidence eventually lead one to abandon a particular paradigm? Or is stay the course and your questions will be resolved .... at some future date .... the course you would suggest?

Also, I think there are some serious questions revolving around the historical jesus and Christ of the gospels. There are a lot of inconsistencies in the new testament that cast doubt on who jesus really was. My main hang-up with christianity is that I think whatever God there is, that God always had the power to forgive whatever one may call sin. Jesus wasn't necessary.

You seem to suggest there are only two courses:

Evidence leads one to abandon a paradigm (by which I think you mean one rejects their entire religious foundation)

OR 

Stay the course and hope future resolution (blind faith?)

Can not contrary evidence lead us to simply modify our paradigm?

Hoping to pull this back to the subject of the this thread, let's use it as a framework.  The stated concern seems to be "Why don't leaders today make direct public announcements of having seen Christ in person. I expect a special witness of Christ to do that".

The concern seems to really be about one's belief of others motivations and our own expectations of how things ought to be. Are there only two ways to process this concern? Either Church leaders are purposely misleading or "automatic belief". That seems simplistic and unnecessarily limiting.  The original question is an interesting one but approaching it with a sense of anger and reactive mistrust will prevent someone from exploring alternatives and ascribe motives to Leaders that may be inaccurate and unfair.

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'd agree with Fiona Givens and Patrick Mason in this podcast I just relistened to.  The Church needs to get passed the very insular, immature style of faith and religion particularly as it comes to the notion of specific cases of the members.  If it doesn't then it remains a very immature religion.  It is showy and stubborn, which is really quite childlike.  The problems only grow.  I think pretending as though those who lose faith are the only problems here is exactly the type of stuff they would call childlike.  Unfortunately it seems to be the exact practice that pushes people out, thereby creating more insularity and more immaturity.  It takes a more open imagination to accept that what people describe is something more than a mean to figure out how to judge them as lacking faith. 

I definitely disagree on many matters with both of them. But I'm not quite sure what one means here by insular and immature faith. If it means just not particularly caring about what people do, then I'd strongly disagree. As Donne notes, no man is an island. If the bell tolls for one it tolls for all. Now if we're talking about a faith that simply hides things in superficialities I'd agree. I'm far from convinced that's what we're doing.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

There have been instances in General Conference where Apostles and a some seventies shared a vision of Christ, Elders Haight, Elder George F. Richards, Elder Rulon S. Wells come to mind. Pres. Kimball shared something that indicated he had seen Christ, there is a first hand account of him sharing an experience of having a vision, shared to missionaries in the 1940's but it's on family search 

In the Bryant S. Hinckley autobiography he said that Pres. Joseph F. Smith told him he saw Christ, although when told him that it doesn't say as he would have seen him as per Section 138

Elder Eyring shared it in a temple dedication, I believe.