clarkgoble Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 2 hours ago, Gray said: I think it's become important for various reasons. I don't know why it was discussed in the JOD, but in more recent years it's been used as a revelation about the nature of the Godhead. I think from at least the death of Joseph onward it was hugely important, magnified by the history being put in both the original English Pearl of Great Price and then the Utah Pearl of Great Price. I don't think it's really been more significant since then. We can of course debate whether it should be. While I think the First Vision is very important, I tend to think it pales relative to the appearance of Moroni and the plates. I tend to not think the First Vision can do the work it's often appealed to in order to do. Honestly saying it wasn't important seems so at odds of everything I read in the 19th century I think it needs some evidence along with an argument saying why people saw it as unimportant. Canonizing the First Vision in the 1870 just seems to go completely at odds with such a thesis. 3 hours ago, Gray said: What do you think he's referring to when he's talking about keeping secrets until dooms day? To me that sounds like keeping polygamy a secret. I think it's more masonic culture myself. While polygamy was wrapped up with that (see the Zina Huntington statement about some things too sacred to talk about) I think it's much more the idea of the fulfillment of the endowment. So more angels, visits and so forth. Admittedly speculative but I think there's a fair bit of evidence for that since they talk the same way even in the Utah period when polygamy was in the open. 3 hours ago, Gray said: Sure, that's pretty universal among religious and even non-religious groups Well not all religious groups. You'll find it less among say mainline Protestants for instance particularly those of more liberal theology. What's sometimes interesting is listening to interviews with pastors who are theologically liberal and how they view their congregations who tend to see God as far more interventionist. The congregation will see miracles and pastor won't believe in them. My point though was just that it seems odd to say these things aren't happening when so many people are talking about them happening including GAs. There's a bit of a bind there. 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 (edited) 7 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I'm talking about something verifiable, observable, holding up to testing. Not something that just one eye witness claims to see, that's not verifiable through testing and experiment. Empiricism, by definition, is all about eyewitnesses. The 'verifying' comes when the first eyewitness shares her/his experience and invites others to obtain their own. But in the end, the whole structure is built on personal experience and observation Quote As for personal revelation and institutional, this isn't a new idea and its not unique to Mormonism ... I'll try to see if I can think of some good books to recommend that you might find friendly and would go into greater depth on this idea. No, thanks. Why would I be more interested in what someone might have put in a book versus what I have repeatedly experienced and observed for myself? That would, in fact, not be very empirical of me. Edited January 25, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan 1
Stargazer Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 8 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Thank you for the explanation, if this is an accurate reflection of what people think, then I agree with what you've stated here. If the audience and stewardship are the only differences, then I have no concern. What I've heard expressed by others in the past, and I thought I was hearing it again on this thread, is that the apostles/prophets of the church have more miraculous spiritual experiences than the average member, by virtue of their calling. I might have contributed to this thought that those in higher leadership roles in the Church have more miraculous spiritual experiences. And I don't necessarily agree that they don't have more miraculous ones. I recently wrote down every single significant spiritual experience I have had thus far in my life (I'm 66), just for the sake of keeping a record, and I would say that the frequency of these experiences was not very high. I might go a decade without one. And the ones that I had were of great importance to me, personally, but as for the church they were unimportant. So my experiences have been "lesser" simply by measure of their impact. And "lesser" by measure of their frequency. What happens in the meetings of the FP & the Q12, however, have far more impact, and I would submit that they happen much more frequently, simply because those men have great responsibilities, and what they decide is of great importance to the Church as a whole. As for how miraculous those have been, compared to mine? I don't know. I've been present for mine, but not theirs. 1
Guest Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 4 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Its not really important to me at all actually. The part that's frustrated me is that I'm trying to communicate something that seems so clear and intuitive to me, and that I also believe you are completely missing the point on. The starting point that I think we should be able to agree on is that there exists some kind of difference in roles, responsibilities, and influence between a FP member and a regular apostle in the quorum. This seems like a basic clear and indisputable fact, and I don't know why we both can't agree on this starting point. All your other comparisons between other kinds of presidencies at a local level, might have some analogous elements, and may have many different elements (how can either of us know, we have no insight into the actual day to day dynamics involved in the FP.) I thought I addressed this in my last post. So let me use a true story, that might answer your question. When President Harold B Lee, became President of the Church, Spencer W. Kimball was the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. It was expected that Harold B. Lee, being much younger than most in recent times would have been President of the Church for a very, very, long time. Then "Apostle" Kimball needed dangerous heart surgery. Due to his many other health problems, age, etc., President Kimball did not what the surgery. He did so at the urging of President Lee. Then about 18 months into President Lee's time as Prophet, he had a very serious heart attack. When President Kimball arrived at the hospital, he asked, President Romney (then a counselor in the First Presidency) for instructions as to what needed to be done. During this exchange, the doctors informed both that President Lee had passed. President Romney was no longer a member of the First Presidency turned to now (the President of the 12) and asked the same question. That being, what do you need "me" to do. The irony of this story, our now President and Prophet of the Church, is the doctor who operated on and extended the life of, President Spencer W Kimball. 1
Calm Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 10 hours ago, Gray said: There were a lot of secret doctrines in early Mormonism, but secret visitations and visions? Not sure about that - unless they were connected to secret doctrines. People seemed to be sharing visionary material all the time, no? How would you know if they were kept secret? 4
hope_for_things Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 53 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said: I thought I addressed this in my last post. So let me use a true story, that might answer your question. When President Harold B Lee, became President of the Church, Spencer W. Kimball was the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. It was expected that Harold B. Lee, being much younger than most in recent times would have been President of the Church for a very, very, long time. Then "Apostle" Kimball needed dangerous heart surgery. Due to his many other health problems, age, etc., President Kimball did not what the surgery. He did so at the urging of President Lee. Then about 18 months into President Lee's time as Prophet, he had a very serious heart attack. When President Kimball arrived at the hospital, he asked, President Romney (then a counselor in the First Presidency) for instructions as to what needed to be done. During this exchange, the doctors informed both that President Lee had passed. President Romney was no longer a member of the First Presidency turned to now (the President of the 12) and asked the same question. That being, what do you need "me" to do. The irony of this story, our now President and Prophet of the Church, is the doctor who operated on and extended the life of, President Spencer W Kimball. That’s a great story but I don’t see how it answers my question. After 4 or 5 back and forth comments I think it’s best to let this rest because we aren’t connecting.
The Nehor Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 (edited) Never mind. My halfhearted apology was probably too insulting so I think I will just delete it. Edited January 26, 2018 by The Nehor
Gray Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 17 hours ago, Calm said: How would you know if they were kept secret? How do we know they didn't secret meetings with aliens if it was a secret?
Guest Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 21 hours ago, hope_for_things said: That’s a great story but I don’t see how it answers my question. After 4 or 5 back and forth comments I think it’s best to let this rest because we aren’t connecting. Fair enough, just thought the story (the true story) illustrated that Counselors in the First Presidency do not outrank Apostles or the President of the 12, so going back to the Quorum is not a demotion. Either why, I have nothing more to add.
The Nehor Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 9 hours ago, Gray said: How do we know they didn't secret meetings with aliens if it was a secret? We don’t. When will we stop trying to make the great council at Adam-ondi-ahman all about just humanity. 2
why me Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 I don't think that he was demoted. When one is a counselor to the president, unless that person gets the top job, it can seem like a demotion. But how the church chooses a prophet would put that counselor back as an apostle. And that person will get new assignments. I see no demotion. It is just the way the church chooses its leader.
JLHPROF Posted February 2, 2018 Author Posted February 2, 2018 On 1/26/2018 at 10:38 PM, why me said: I don't think that he was demoted. When one is a counselor to the president, unless that person gets the top job, it can seem like a demotion. But how the church chooses a prophet would put that counselor back as an apostle. And that person will get new assignments. I see no demotion. It is just the way the church chooses its leader. Interesting apropos article in this month's Ensign - https://www.lds.org/ensign/2018/02/a-release-is-a-beginning-not-an-end?lang=eng These words from Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles came to mind: “We do not ‘step down’ when we are released, and we do not ‘step up’ when we are called. There is no ‘up or down’ in the service of the Lord. Such a short article - coincidental timing? Or since it says Elder Oaks perhaps it really is a coincidence and was prepared for publication before all this talk of demotion came up.
Calm Posted February 3, 2018 Posted February 3, 2018 (edited) It could have been anticipated. It is not like Pres. Monson' death was a shock. Could have been written sometime ago and then just held until needed. I dropped off my mom's Ensign today (I read the Ensign online or when visiting her) and noted there was a booklet about Pres. Monson included. I didn't get a chance to look at it closely, but I think there is a good chance much of that was prepared earlier as well to get it out so quick. Edited February 3, 2018 by Calm
kiwi57 Posted February 3, 2018 Posted February 3, 2018 Just a reminder of something that isn't all that obscure: When the President of the Church dies, the First Presidency dissolves. When the new First Presidency was constituted, both of the former counselors were members of the Quorum of the Twelve. Therefore, it is simply false to assert that either them was "demoted." It didn't happen that way. All three First Presidency positions became vacant when President Monson passed away; when the thirteen of them met to reconstitute the Presidency, nobody was in a position to be demoted. It. Didn't. Happen. 1
why me Posted February 5, 2018 Posted February 5, 2018 On 2/3/2018 at 1:54 AM, JLHPROF said: Interesting apropos article in this month's Ensign - https://www.lds.org/ensign/2018/02/a-release-is-a-beginning-not-an-end?lang=eng These words from Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles came to mind: “We do not ‘step down’ when we are released, and we do not ‘step up’ when we are called. There is no ‘up or down’ in the service of the Lord. Such a short article - coincidental timing? Or since it says Elder Oaks perhaps it really is a coincidence and was prepared for publication before all this talk of demotion came up. People who claim that it was a demotion or a put down are perhaps looking for a confrontation when no confrontation is there. It is just a natural policy adjustment. It is no good to see a 'monster' behind every bush.
Raymond Ellis Posted March 8, 2018 Posted March 8, 2018 I like president Uchtdorfs message in the 2018 February Ensign page 80. This is part of it: Isn't it a remarkable feeling to be in a church that embraces truth -- no matter the source -- and teaches there is much more to come, that we believe that God 'will yet reveal many great and important truths pertaining to the Kingdom of God': Articles of Faith verse 9.
Recommended Posts