Too Sacred to Share?

[clarkgoble]

3 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?

If you buy into the paradigm model (and there are compelling reasons to be skeptical of Kuhn - even Kuhn later admitted he conflated and equivocated with the term) then modifications are the most common approach. So for example the old pre-copernican paradigm famously had more and more epicenters added. The Ptolemy and Copernican paradigms both explained the evidence given the accuracy of the data available at the time. What tend to lead to the paradigm shift, according to Kuhn, were other issues like parsimony, simplicity and many other factors. For instance the general move against Aristotle during the renaissance.

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

I think it's all in context of people in the Church who were so trusting and felt so comfortable with their faith in the Church having to come to grips with that which they never knew.  I think it was Fiona who used the term insular and I took it to mean that the Church often treats people as outsiders, when they have faith issues.  They feel pushed out. Immature faith seems to suggest, as I gathered, that the Church really does well in keeping people in lower levels of say Fowler's stages of faith.  As such it seems to promote an immature faith. 

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

I can agree with you there too. 

[Ginger Snaps]

I would add that language is such an imperfect means of communication. It can be difficult or impossible to verbalize a profound spiritual experience. So I often wonder if it's less about reticence and more about simply being incapable of telling or describing accurately. 

Additionally, the Holy Ghost needs to be present to seal the testimony for both the person sharing and the person receiving. We live in a designated deaf ward and my daughter, who is learning ASL, likened the Holy Ghost to an interpreter during a discussion we had the other day. I thought it was a really good analogy. Both parties need the interpreter present to understand one another well.  

So often I've seen where people want leaders to share or admit something and say that if they would only do so, THEN could they believe. But it doesn't work that way. The person who had the experience could talk all day about it, but if the person listening isn't adequately prepared to hear it (in a "he that hath ears to hear let him hear" kind of way) and the Spirit isn't present, then the sharing of the experience will do very little. 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

17 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

If you buy into the paradigm model (and there are compelling reasons to be skeptical of Kuhn - even Kuhn later admitted he conflated and equivocated with the term) then modifications are the most common approach. So for example the old pre-copernican paradigm famously had more and more epicenters added. The Ptolemy and Copernican paradigms both explained the evidence given the accuracy of the data available at the time. What tend to lead to the paradigm shift, according to Kuhn, were other issues like parsimony, simplicity and many other factors. For instance the general move against Aristotle during the renaissance.

I don't particularly buy into it but the paradigm model is discussed here periodically and the other poster used it in his post to which I responded.

Edited September 28, 2017 by Pete Ahlstrom

[Duncan]

In the '70's there was an LDS author named Joseph Heinerman and he wrote two books about manifestations, one was "Temple Manifestations". He documented ocurrences of visions of the after life, I have them somewhere in my room but I would have to put down my Pepsi to dig them out, maybe there is some about Christ appearing?

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I think it's all in context of people in the Church who were so trusting and felt so comfortable with their faith in the Church having to come to grips with that which they never knew.  I think it was Fiona who used the term insular and I took it to mean that the Church often treats people as outsiders, when they have faith issues.  They feel pushed out. Immature faith seems to suggest, as I gathered, that the Church really does well in keeping people in lower levels of say Fowler's stages of faith.  As such it seems to promote an immature faith. 

I'll confess to finding Fowler to be complete nonsense so if they were thinking of faith in those terms I'm deeply disappointed.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I'll confess to finding Fowler to be complete nonsense so if they were thinking of faith in those terms I'm deeply disappointed.

They didn't.  I just used it as an example.  

[mfbukowski]

21 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. 

On the other hand we have the Paul Dunn/ President Monson thread.

Would you believe them if the DID share the stories??  What good would it do?  

My spiritual experiences are as sacred to me as being with my wife if not more.  Every married person probably has those experiences, but not everyone has had the experiences which are unique to me

Why are they unique to me?   Am I special?  No they are unique to me because MY circumstances are uniquely mine and no one else's.   No one else was born on my birth date with those social influences, no one moved to the same cities as a kid had the same education and exposure to religion or had the same needs for guidance from God

Such experiences are deeply deeply personal and specifically FOR me.  They are more sacred than intimate moments by far, and no, I aint talking about those either, no one would.

Both are uniquely mine and yours are uniquely yours.

[mfbukowski]

21 hours ago, thatjimguy said:

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. 

 

 

Suppose you had such an experience and shared it.  What would be the reaction?  I have shared some mild spiritual experiences- none even close to seeing the Savior, just how I have been directed at specific times in my life.

What was the reaction?

"There's no way that really happened- why hasn't it happened to me???  Does God love you more than ME?   Who the heck to you think you are that you expect us to believe THAT?

God does not interfere  in human lives like that- it seems you simply want to brag about how special you are!"

So fergitaboutit.

If I ever had a vision etc, there is no way I would share it.

[Benjamin Seeker]

12 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

 

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

On the other hand we have the Paul Dunn/ President Monson thread.

Would you believe them if the DID share the stories??  What good would it do?  

My spiritual experiences are as sacred to me as being with my wife if not more.  Every married person probably has those experiences, but not everyone has had the experiences which are unique to me

Why are they unique to me?   Am I special?  No they are unique to me because MY circumstances are uniquely mine and no one else's.   No one else was born on my birth date with those social influences, no one moved to the same cities as a kid had the same education and exposure to religion or had the same needs for guidance from God

Such experiences are deeply deeply personal and specifically FOR me.  They are more sacred than intimate moments by far, and no, I aint talking about those either, no one would.

Both are uniquely mine and yours are uniquely yours.

There are many reasons to not share. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be generally beneficial if more was shared than the current status quo. Snuffed and others would have less alure. The general membership would have a better idea of how revelation functions. There would be more transparency and trust. Some would be more excited about the gospel. I'm sure for every reason not to share there is a better reason to share. I've had many revelatory experiences, and I have only gotten a feeling that it's innapropiate to share them when sharing would seem boastful. 

[clarkgoble]

18 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

There are many reasons to not share. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be generally beneficial if more was shared than the current status quo. Snuffed and others would have less alure. The general membership would have a better idea of how revelation functions. There would be more transparency and trust. Some would be more excited about the gospel. I'm sure for every reason not to share there is a better reason to share. I've had many revelatory experiences, and I have only gotten a feeling that it's innapropiate to share them when sharing would seem boastful. 

I'm not sure it'd make the Snuffer crowd less appealing to the few it appeals to. His main claim to fame is the idea of easy spiritual experiences to meet Christ. That's why to many of us well before his excommunication he was offering counterfeits of the real thing. 

I definitely don't think it lead to a better idea of how revelation functions. If anything it'd do the opposite and make people misunderstand if they haven't had such experiences. If anything I think we could do with a bit more focus on the counterfeits or misunderstandings that people confuse with the spirit. 

Likewise I'm quite skeptical it'd lead to more trust. If anything I suspect we'd just have more claims of fraud by the current Apostles. As for transparency, again I don't get the idea of transparency as an intrinsic good. But I've written on that ad nauseam. In general I think it tends to do the opposite. In this case if some Apostle doesn't say they saw Christ people will dismiss him as ineffective, untrustworthy, or worse. Which is crazy IMO.

But again, regardless of what we might like, there's a fair bit of consistency in all this. That's why I quoted Joseph and Alma on the matter. Those who have them clearly don't discuss them frequently. That appears to be a constraint by the spirit.

Edited September 29, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Benjamin Seeker]

31 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm not sure it'd make the Snuffer crowd less appealing to the few it appeals to. His main claim to fame is the idea of easy spiritual experiences to meet Christ. That's why to many of us well before his excommunication he was offering counterfeits of the real thing. 

But part of the draw is that Sniffer (typo but leaving it cause it's funny!) actually talks about his revelation.

Quote

I definitely don't think it lead to a better idea of how revelation functions. If anything it'd do the opposite and make people misunderstand if they haven't had such experiences. If anything I think we could do with a bit more focus on the counterfeits or misunderstandings that people confuse with the spirit. 

I mean that people would see how rare certain types of revelation are, and they would also see the details of more common revelatory types spelled out in ways they could model and learn from. Skills are typically learned by modeling after all, even spiritual ones.

Quote

Likewise I'm quite skeptical it'd lead to more trust. If anything I suspect we'd just have more claims of fraud by the current Apostles. As for transparency, again I don't get the idea of transparency as an intrinsic good. But I've written on that ad nauseam. In general I think it tends to do the opposite. In this case if some Apostle doesn't say they saw Christ people will dismiss him as ineffective, untrustworthy, or worse. Which is crazy IMO.

Trust and transparency go hand in hand. There is, of course, the possibility of backfiring.

Quote

But again, regardless of what we might like, there's a fair bit of consistency in all this. That's why I quoted Joseph and Alma on the matter. Those who have them clearly don't discuss them frequently. That appears to be a constraint by the spirit.

Considering how JS published his revelations and was one of the only prophets to publish his revelations, it's more likely that "constraint" is some exaggerated effect that developed leading up to or after his death. 

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

If you buy into the paradigm model (and there are compelling reasons to be skeptical of Kuhn - even Kuhn later admitted he conflated and equivocated with the term) then modifications are the most common approach. So for example the old pre-copernican paradigm famously had more and more epicenters added. The Ptolemy and Copernican paradigms both explained the evidence given the accuracy of the data available at the time. What tend to lead to the paradigm shift, according to Kuhn, were other issues like parsimony, simplicity and many other factors. For instance the general move against Aristotle during the renaissance.

Kuhn is just kind of the poster boy for Pragmatism as far as I am concerned because his book so was massively read.  The central ideas actually go back to William James, through 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Polanyi

 

[thatjimguy]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Suppose you had such an experience and shared it.  What would be the reaction?  I have shared some mild spiritual experiences- none even close to seeing the Savior, just how I have been directed at specific times in my life.

What was the reaction?

"There's no way that really happened- why hasn't it happened to me???  Does God love you more than ME?   Who the heck to you think you are that you expect us to believe THAT?

God does not interfere  in human lives like that- it seems you simply want to brag about how special you are!"

So fergitaboutit.

If I ever had a vision etc, there is no way I would share it.

3

Understandable. People can look at you weird with what would seem like a wild story. 

But I have to ask, is that really any different from the weird looks you may get when you say you know the church is true or that Jesus Christ is the savior? Those stories are weird too. 

All those reactions you mentioned you can get just from stating you know the Book of Mormon is true because you prayed about it and felt the Holy Spirit. 

 

 

 

[Bernard Gui]

On 9/27/2017 at 5:24 PM, Jeanne said:

Sometimes members share every other weird kind of thing during testimony meeting.  Why not have testimony meetings or these kinds of experiences to be shared?

We can do that at home with our family or with friends when we are moved by the Spirit.

[SteveO]

I have found that spiritual experiences are shared over the pulpit from leadership--but mostly it is during a time where the onus was on the members to be in the right place-- i.e. sitting in the pews present at the meeting, and not at home watching TV wondering why God doesn't speak through his prophets.

I've shared in another thread that one of my last memories of President Faust in this life was at a regional conference on my mission--where he very directly and very forcefully shared his testimony of the Savior.  I don't go into detail because as has been mentioned, it's a very sacred memory I have.  It was a testimony so powerful I've sometimes have been able to recall it and lean on in my moments of doubt.  And no, I'm not over exaggerating.  You just had to be there.  And that experience was available to all who gave up their Saturday night to attend.  But don't expect to go find the video recording on the internet.  

Elder Ballard also spoke two years ago here in Utah at a regional conference that I attended.  He shared a truly remarkable personal experience of his exercising the sealing power of the priesthood.  A tremendous modern day miracle--shared over the pulpit and blessing those in attendance.

Be where you're supposed to be, do what you're supposed to do, and live worthily of the spirit--and you'll find that the Lord is very much involved personally in our affairs today.

[clarkgoble]

10 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

But part of the draw is that Sniffer (typo but leaving it cause it's funny!) actually talks about his revelation.

Well somewhat. More or less what I think the issue is isn't personal revelation nor visitations so much as wanting to produce more formal scripture.

10 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I mean that people would see how rare certain types of revelation are, and they would also see the details of more common revelatory types spelled out in ways they could model and learn from. Skills are typically learned by modeling after all, even spiritual ones.

I actually think that is done quite a lot.

Quote

Trust and transparency go hand in hand. There is, of course, the possibility of backfiring.

Considering how JS published his revelations and was one of the only prophets to publish his revelations, it's more likely that "constraint" is some exaggerated effect that developed leading up to or after his death. 

I just fundamentally disagree that trust and transparency go hand in hand. While some transparency is needed, go beyond an ideal point and I strongly feel it undermines trust. (The push for greater government transparency being a great example)

[clarkgoble]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Kuhn is just kind of the poster boy for Pragmatism as far as I am concerned because his book so was massively read.  The central ideas actually go back to William James, through 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Polanyi

Some do of course. While Kuhn wasn't necessarily that well read philosophically - in many ways his approach is more historicist - I think he's part of a broad neo-Kantian and logical positivist tradition despite Polanyi's strong influence. Cassirer being an influence along with broader neo-Kantian trends. While he's very influenced by the neo-Kantians he obviously disagrees on some points such as on universal laws. You can see that in how he treats ontology when discussing theoretic convergence. It's also worth noting that the logical positivism of the time he wrote was quite different from the early positivism he'd critiqued. He also was heavily influenced by Meyerson who has a weird mixture of Hegelian-like dialectical evolution and neo-Kantianism.  Carnap by the time in question had a lot of views quite similar to Kuhn's paradigms. You'd like the Carnap of that era since he indexes claims to linguistic frameworks. (Although I think Carnap's fullbodied linguistic framework comes after Kuhn - I'd have to check to be sure) The main difference of Kuhn from the contemporary positivists is that Kuhn gives it a more historical rather than linguistic thrust.

While I'd never want to dismiss the importance of Kuhn, I do think that his key ideas reflect fairly broad trends from the early to middle 20th century. Everyone knows about Kuhn but few know about these broad trends in Cassirer, the positivists like Carnap, and Meyersons mixture of Kant and Hegel and of course Polanyi and the pragmatists like Dewey. It's unfortunate since I think as philosophy Kuhn's early work is problematic even if he was the main person popularizing the broad ideas.

Edited September 29, 2017 by clarkgoble

[JLHPROF]

11 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm not sure it'd make the Snuffer crowd less appealing to the few it appeals to. His main claim to fame is the idea of easy spiritual experiences to meet Christ. That's why to many of us well before his excommunication he was offering counterfeits of the real thing.

D&C 84:20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.
21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;
22 For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live.

Although I guess he claims the son, not the Father...

[clarkgoble]

20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

D&C 84:20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.
21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;
22 For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live.

Although I guess he claims the son, not the Father...

Right, the disagreement is over the nature of these ordinances. Of course in 1832 most hadn't been revealed yet. Although there are strong hints, like these verses, that more was coming. (I'd argue Alma 12-13 strongly indicates that as well not to mention other texts)

[Benjamin Seeker]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Well somewhat. More or less what I think the issue is isn't personal revelation nor visitations so much as wanting to produce more formal scripture.

Agreed. I'm unclearly grouping all of this together. I think some of the needs I'm pointing out could be fulfilled by either sharing the revelatory experiences or by sharing explicitly revelatory content.

Quote

I actually think that is done quite a lot.

I think it is done some. Richard G. Scott is the only one who I can remember addressing revelatory process beyond feelings of the spirit in depth.

Quote

I just fundamentally disagree that trust and transparency go hand in hand. While some transparency is needed, go beyond an ideal point and I strongly feel it undermines trust. (The push for greater government transparency being a great example)

Church finances are a lovely counter example.

Edited September 29, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

While I'd never want to dismiss the importance of Kuhn, I do think that his key ideas reflect fairly broad trends from the early to middle 20th century. Everyone knows about Kuhn but few know about these broad trends in Cassirer, the positivists like Carnap, and Meyersons mixture of Kant and Hegel and of course Polanyi and the pragmatists like Dewey. It's unfortunate since I think as philosophy Kuhn's early work is problematic even if he was the main person popularizing the broad ideas.

 

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Kuhn is just kind of the poster boy for Pragmatism as far as I am concerned because his book so was massively read.  The central ideas actually go back to William James, through 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Polanyi

 

Yep.

And I know Carnap well, thanks!  Honest, I am educated in this stuff!

 

Edited September 29, 2017 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I think it is done some. Richard G. Scott is the only one who I can remember addressing revelatory process beyond feelings of the spirit in depth.

Here's a good one too, from Elder bednar: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2011/04/the-spirit-of-revelation?lang=eng

[clarkgoble]

5 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I think it is done some. Richard G. Scott is the only one who I can remember addressing revelatory process beyond feelings of the spirit in depth.

I don't have time to look it up, but I seem to recall several talks on this especially by Oaks.

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And I know Carnap well, thanks!  Honest, I am educated in this stuff!

Sorry about that. I can't keep track in my memory of who is familiar with what. For some reason I had in my memory that you knew James, Dewey, Rorty, and Wittgenstein but was more familiar with the positivist from the time before Wittgenstein left and not their later development. I could have sworn we had a disagreement over Kuhn and Carnap, but I guess I misremembered. My apologies again.