Elder Uchtdorf's New Callings

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Then just say they are deceiving charlatans and be done with it. You are committing the same sin hinting at your beliefs about them that you accuse them of doing to gull the faithful.

In fact the similarity between how you communicate and how you imagine they do seems more like projection than anything else.

I don't understand your accusation or your use of the words charlatan or sin as I haven't used any of those words in my comments.  Seems like you're the one trying to project.  

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

They cannot and you know it. You could test the principle by living your life so you could have such experiences to test the idea a bit but demanding a sign is probably easier.

I mentioned this earlier, but it seems like its worth reemphasizing since you're taking some offense to my opinion that I've tried to carefully not attach any negative attributions to.  Regardless of whether these events are literal, tangible, empirical, testable by scientific standards, this doesn't mean I'm diminishing the reality of how powerful and impactful these experiences are for each individual.  They are just as powerful as literal/tangible experiences, so that distinction is not to diminish the effect of these experiences for believing individuals at all.  

[clarkgoble]

22 minutes ago, rongo said:

The bar for revelation has been lowered over the years to where it is described as almost exclusively simply impressions. I know from my own experience that the ministering of angels and powerful revelation is a true principle and still present. I wish that the Brethren didn't react defensively and angrily when asked about it, and hide behind "too sacred to share." They didn't used to.

I don't think that's correct. Joseph by all accounts rarely gave the First Vision. Indeed people here have used that to argue it was a later fraudulent addition by Joseph Smith. Further Joseph said "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 " Throw in the scriptures already mentioned like Alma 12:9, D&C 63:64, Matt 13:13-14 etc. and things seem pretty much as they were.

What's different is Joseph was commanded to talk about some things and a few events like the Pentacost experience at Kirtland were well known. However even most of the accounts from the early Utah period weren't known by most Saints. And most of the things we now take for granted Joseph taught were mainly taught only to an inner circle in Nauvoo.

The assumption the brethren were going around telling all their sacred experiences is just false. I'm not sure what time frame you're thinking of here. Take Woodruff for instance. He alludes in various places to appearances and was widely considered the most visionary figure of the era. But he never comes out and says it. We have a third hand account from John Lee Johns claiming Woodruff had said he met Christ in the Holy of Holies. But this was apparently said in a small setting and Woodruff never said this publicly. Which sounds pretty similar to what we have today. Interestingly Woodruff, according to the Johns account, also said the outpouring of spirit and revelation was stronger than any dedication he'd seen, including events at Kirtland. Yet if you try and see public accounts of this it's far more muted.

22 minutes ago, Gray said:

Do you think it has anything to do with the selection process? General Authorities are often come from high achieving corporate or professional backgrounds. I wonder if that's not quite the right personality type for visions and more dramatic expression of spirituality. These are really solid citizens with their feet on the ground. Someone like Joseph Smith, for instance, was wilder, more passionate, more emotional, even more erratic.

Except that many like Oaks do allude to such experiences. Again the time frame folks are discussing isn't quite clear. I assume they mean within the last 15 years since it's not hard to find examples from the 90's. But considering Nelson is now the President, this statement by him is rather interesting:

"As a special witness of Jesus Christ, I testify that He lives! I also testify that the veil of death is very thin. I know by experiences too sacred to relate that those who have gone before are not strangers to leaders of this Church. To us and to you, our loved ones may be just as close as the next room—separated only by the doors of death." 

Now I'm sure you'll say these are just allusions rather than coming right out and saying they saw a vision. And it's true. But if you go to say figures in the early 20th century that's mainly what we have too.

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

The difference is that all of them are, and are sustained as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators. All are called for life, and all serve for life, they are equals, not rivals.      

You seem to be missing the point.  These committees are different than local ward committees, this seems like an obvious observation to me.  Its like saying that there is a difference between the way a small town government operates when compared to a county, state and federal governments.  The size and scope and dynamics of who's involved and the amount of importance of these committees are all very different on a small local level vs. a centralized headquarters level. 

I'm asking for a comparison between the work that a first presidency member conducts vs. the work accomplished by an apostle in the quorum that's leading some committees.  At work one of my responsibilities as a leader is evaluating the job descriptions of employees that report to me, making sure that their duties and responsibilities can be quantitatively measured and their performance can be measured as best as possible.  Sometimes comparisons of different job titles comes into play when determining compensation and job requirements if we're filling a position, what skills and education are required.  

It seems to me that someone with the knowledge of how these positions work could compare the differences between Elder Uchtdorf's old job description and his new job description and evaluate the differences.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 

This, really, is the crux of the matter. I think we all project our personal experiences with revelation onto the prophets. I know I do. In my case, I refuse to believe that somehow the ordained apostles of God are in possession of less (or fewer kinds of) revelation than I am.

When I read or hear their words, I therefore interpret what they say -- carefully worded by divine command -- in light of what my personal experiences have been.

It's a bit like reading a storybook about a strange land vs reading a storybook about a place one has frequently visited. It is impossible in the latter case not to fill in all the unwritten details as one reads. In the former case, it's natural to approach the setting as make-believe.

This is a case in point example of how hard it is to change perceptions in the church.  No matter how many statements Elder Oaks or Elder Ballard makes to try and lower expectations and to say that their spiritual experiences are just like your average church member, there will be those that refuse to believe what they are saying.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What makes you think anyone is interested in providing you with "concrete empirical evidence" of their own spiritual experiences?

What makes you think that anyone could provide concrete empirical evidence if they were interested in trying.  

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I believe that this idea that experiences come with a command not to share, is not at all how the early church developed.

Why do you think that? Honestly. Because we know Joseph rarely told the First Vision. We know many of the accounts at best have fragmentary descriptions, such as the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood. We know that this command not to share is in many of the scriptures Joseph shared. We know people from the era of Joseph frequently said some things were too sacred to share. (Not necessarily appearances but other private teachings including say Zina Huntington's marriage to Joseph) 

So say Brigham Young taught: Should you receive a vision or revelation from the Almighty, one that the Lord gave you concerning yourselves, or this people, but which you are not to reveal on account of your not being the proper person or because it ought not to be known by the people at present, you should shut it up and seal it as close, and lock it as tight as heaven is the you, and make it as secret as the grave. The Lord has no confidence in those who reveal secrets, for he cannot safely reveal himself to such persons." (Discourses of Brigham Young, 40-41) Also: "The man who cannot know things without telling any other living being upon the earth, who cannot keep his secrets and those that God reveals to him never can receive the voice of his Lord to dictate him." (ibid)

I just don't see any evidence in the least this is a new thing. Some things are commanded to be revealed. Many of Joseph visions fit that category. It seems from the accounts we have, most were not shared publicly.

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Or we could be in a long dry spell for visions and visitations and most people would never know. Christianity never would have gotten off the ground if they'd had a self-imposed ban on relating visions of Jesus.

That implies its self imposed of course. However the common refrain through the history of the church is that this is commanded.

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This is a case in point example of how hard it is to change perceptions in the church.  No matter how many statements Elder Oaks or Elder Ballard makes to try and lower expectations and to say that their spiritual experiences are just like your average church member, there will be those that refuse to believe what they are saying.  

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Where did he say that? Don't get me wrong. I suspect the majority are like mine. But I suspect he has quite a few quite different from me and rather suspect his ability of discernment is much better than mine.

Edited January 24, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Not sure what "proving" has to do with it. In context I was saying "Why can't they [share their experiences]?"

And The Nehor's specific statement that your questioned was in direct response to the following:

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I think the burden of proof is on those having the experiences to prove that they are literal.  I haven't ever seen concrete empirical evidence to support claims for literal visitations. 

 

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Why do you think that? Honestly. Because we know Joseph rarely told the First Vision. We know many of the accounts at best have fragmentary descriptions, such as the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood. We know that this command not to share is in many of the scriptures Joseph shared. We know people from the era of Joseph frequently said some things were too sacred to share. (Not necessarily appearances but other private teachings including say Zina Huntington's marriage to Joseph) 

I think there is a pattern with the FV and the priesthood restoration narratives that were developed many years later.  This pattern will open a can of worms if I get into it on this thread.  Suffice it to say, I don't believe it was because of commandment not to share experiences, I believe it was out of a response to criticisms and a desire to build up the official narrative of the church.  

Also, as for the commandment not to share, I believe Richard Bushman gave an explanation for this specific time period where Joseph was responding to anti Mormon criticisms, and his being very guarded and secretive as a response to these criticisms, but the levels of guarded behavior definitely changed over time and in response to different events happening inside and outside the church.  I think your statement that Joseph didn't share visionary experiences because of a command not to is way over simplified, and contradicted by evidence to the contrary.  We have records of Joseph claiming a multitude of visionary experiences throughout his life.  According to this LDS living article, we have evidence of over 24 different angels that visited Joseph Smith.  He was not one to hide his ecstatic experiences.  

http://www.ldsliving.com/24-Angels-Who-Visited-Joseph-Smith/s/79521

All of this behavior in 19th century Mormonism can be explained as part of the magical world view of that time period, and as society modernized supernatural ways of thinking diminish.  Anthropologists see this same phenomenon happening in less developed societies today, and as those societies modernize this same pattern is repeating for those communities. 

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

And The Nehor's specific statement that your questioned was in direct response to the following:

 

Couldn't the same be said to those that claim Alien encounters or Big Foot sightings.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

 There is a real aversion, bristling, and defensiveness among the Brethren when asked about this in good faith when they visit local areas.

I sometimes think that you and I belong to two completely differently churches that coincidentally share the same name, rongo. Or maybe the same church but in parallel universes that intersect solely in this forum?

I have previously shared on this forum the last leadership training we had with our last area president. He had recently returned from training at Church headquarters in conjunction with General Conference. In our meeting with him, he shared with us how, at the end of the training, the leadership of the Seventy had turned to Pres Eyring, who was attending on behalf of the First Presidency, and asked him if he had anything to share. He said he did, and then preceded to share with them the vision of the Father and the Son he had had whilst in this very meeting and the specific instruction that arose from that experience.

I'll add to this that one of the Twelve visited our city about eight years ago for a member meeting. His very message was that the Restored Church of Jesus Christ contains all of the same blessings and attributes of the original Christian church, and he invited all present to enjoy those blessings to the fullest. He then bore personal witness to visions, healings, revelation, etc.

Edited January 25, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

59 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

No matter how many statements Elder Oaks or Elder Ballard makes to try and lower expectations and to say that their spiritual experiences are just like your average church member, there will be those that refuse to believe what they are saying.  

Oh, I believe 100% that the prophets' experiences with revelation are 'just like your average church member's'. I don't, however, think that's a lowering of expectations in any way. If anything, it's a reminder to average Church members of what their privileges truly are. Once again, I suspect you are projecting your own experiences with revelation not just onto the apostles and prophets but onto your fellow Saints. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

38 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Couldn't the same be said to those that claim Alien encounters or Big Foot sightings.  

Yes. Exactly. And what would it take to get you to believe in such a thing? For me, it would require an 'alien encounter or Bigfoot sighting' of my own, and probably more than one or even a few.

I have a hard time comprehending how you as a member of the Church still don't seem to grasp the very basic epistemology that has been in place literally since the beginning of the Restoration.

On this point, I like how it has been expressed by historian Kathleen Flake:

Quote

Joseph Smith was the Henry Ford of revelation. He wanted every home to have one, and the revelation he had in mind was the revelation he'd had, which was seeing God.

So seeing God was what it was to be religious, and he sets about duplicating that original experience for everybody else, trying to come up with a system. One way to understand Smith is to say that he's trying to figure out which church is true, and he believes God comes to him and gives him this answer. And of course that becomes the model not only for finding out which church is true, but all kinds of other questions.

 

[Stargazer]

21 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

As have I. This seems to be another one of those things that finds its vitality in the wishful thinking of certain internet posters.

The 'simple' solution, of course, is to know these things for ourselves.

The funny thing is, that if I, a mere widget in a ward organization, have gotten direct messages (DM me, God! -- is He on Twitter?) from the Divine from time to time, why shouldn't it be reasonable for those with great responsibility in the Church to get more?

I noticed a trend once among those who did drugs regularly, that they assumed that most everyone did drugs.  When I got back from my military service in Germany, I happened upon a man of about my own age who was clearly into chemical amusements ask me "How are the drugs there? I've heard they are pretty good!"  In all seriousness.

The problem is that those who never get any personal revelation make the airy assumption that it never happens to anyone else, either.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

13 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

The problem is that those who never get any personal revelation make the airy assumption that it never happens to anyone else, either.  

Exactly. And those who swim in a river of it likewise assume that everyone else is wet too.

[Stargazer]

10 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Here are the two specific references I was thinking of.  The somewhat infamous Boise rescue from 2015, where Elder Oaks and Richard Turley conducted a fireside for the purposes of trying to control the influence of the Denver Snuffer movement in the Boise area.  It was recorded by someone, and I was able to find a transcript that someone else made online.  This portion happened 1hr and 4 mins into the meeting, and I know this has been discussed before on this message board, but here it is again.  

Turley says in a question and answer kind of format the following (an important question in the context of pushing back against the Snuffer followers who are promoting that individuals can have a personal experience with Jesus)

Oaks then replies with the following:

Quote

The first answer to this claim is that modern apostles are called to be witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world, Doctrine and Covenants 107:23. This is not to witness of a personal manifestation. To witness of the name is to witness of the plan, the work, or mission such as the atonement and the authority or priesthood of the Lord Jesus Christ, which an apostle who holds the keys is uniquely responsible to do. 
Of course apostles are also witnesses of Christ just like all members of the Church who have the gift of the Holy Ghost. This is because the mission of the Holy Ghost is to witness of the Father and the Son. In addition, while some early apostles and other members of the church have had the sublime spiritual experience of seeing the Savior and some have made a public record of this, in the circumstances of today we are counseled not to speak of our most sacred spiritual experiences, otherwise with modern technology that can broadcast something all over the world, a remark made in a sacred and a private setting can be said abroad in violation of the Savior's commandment not to cast our pearls before swine.

https://zeios.blob.core.windows.net/jtz-article-images/Boise Rescue-Transcript.docx

Elder Oaks is very careful with his language from my experience, and these statements seem to be clearly distancing the apostle experience from a personal manifestation of Jesus type experience to something much less miraculous sounding and equating it with the kind of Holy Ghost experiences that are generally promoted, the feeling peace in your heart type of thing.  

The second item I couldn't find a transcript for, but its from the November 2017 face to face discussion with Elder Ballard and Elder Oaks.  The first question from a participant was at the 11 minute mark, and person asks, and I paraphrase, how can I truly come to know the truth of what I've been taught and gain a testimony, this person prays for answers and confirmation from the spirit, but wants to know how to distinguish personal feelings from the influence of the Holy Ghost.  

The answer from Elder Ballard who speaks second is quite interesting, he talks about going to a quiet place to pray and ponder, and I'll quote the relevant section:

https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2017-10-2000-ysa-face-to-face-with-elder-oaks-and-elder-ballard?lang=eng

So hearing voices and having visions is not going to happen because they are very unusual, and feelings is how Heavenly Father ultimately answers prayers and converts people.  

There are other examples further back in history that I also alluded to where church leaders have made statements to lower expectations for visionary type experiences.  But I wanted to bring up two relevant and recent examples to answer your CFR.  

"This is not to witness of a personal manifestation."  You take that to mean that he's never had a personal manifestation.  What he says, quite precisely, is that he does not witness of a personal manifestation. This doesn't say that he didn't have one.  He might have had one that he is not permitted to give witness of.  One of a personal nature.

As far as Elder Ballard saying that a vision is very unusual, well of course they are.  Doesn't mean they don't happen, does it?  In other words "they are very unusual" is not equal to "not going to happen" .  What is very unusual, in your view?  No more than twice a year?  Once a decade?  

I think it is entirely reasonable for Church leaders to lower expectations for visionary type experiences.  And I'd say they are very unusual.  I've never had one, but I've had experiences with the spirit that I would not dare to deny were specific revelations to me.  I can believe that the Lord could and would provide one of these very unusual experiences, if He had a need for me to have one.  Thus far he hasn't.  I doubt he will.  But I am very convinced he could, and would, under emergent situations.

I am pretty convinced that, unless you are Saul of Tarsus on the way to Damascus to persecute the Saints, you're not going to get any kind of manifestation of the Spirit, if you don't believe the Lord can and will provide one if necessary.

Stands to reason. 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Oh, I believe 100% that the prophets' experiences with revelation are 'just like your average church member's'. I don't, however, think that's a lowering of expectations in any way. If anything, it's a reminder to average Church members of what their privileges truly are. Once again, I suspect you are projecting your own experiences with revelation not just onto the apostles and prophets but onto your fellow Saints. 

I’m sure my thoughts are influenced by my personal experiences.  I wouldn’t claim otherwise.  

The spiritual experiences of leaders can’t be both qualitatively more important and the same as the rest of the members.  It’s either the same or different.  

[Stargazer]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I believe that this idea that experiences come with a command not to share, is not at all how the early church developed.  I'm glad people don't share these experiences, because it causes people to believe that these experiences are objective, tangible, literal, when in reality they are personal, mystical, ineffable.  I don't believe in the supernatural, and that is the reason many people don't have these kinds of experiences in Modernized societies, is that as communities stop thinking in those magical terms, they no longer interpret these experiences in the same way.  

The early church leaders do not need to have shared everything they received.

In the King Follett Sermon, as I recall, Joseph Smith said quite explicitly that he had had revelations that he dared not share.  I truly believe he got a lot more than he was allowed to give. 

Regular members may perhaps receive things that are personal and not to be shared.  Even to say that they have received something.  In the first volume of Hartman and Connie Rector's books "No More Strangers" there was a story from a man who had been a protestant minister before joining the church.  This former minister had had a revelation giving him a special sentence relating to the Book of Mormon that he had over-used, meaning used in contexts where he shouldn't have.  He reported that the sentence was taken away from him -- he didn't say what that meant, but I presume it was taken from his memory.  He said he got it back after he had learned his lesson, and from then on only used it when the Spirit told him it was OK.

I do not believe that what the Lord grants to the rank and file is more than he grants to those whom he has specially called out for service.

Edited January 25, 2018 by Stargazer

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Yes. Exactly. And what would it take to get you to believe in such a thing? For me, it would require an 'alien encounter or Bigfoot sighting' of my own, and probably more than one or even a few.

I have a hard time comprehending how you as a member of the Church still don't seem to grasp the very basic epistemology that has been in place literally since the beginning of the Restoration.

On this point, I like how it has been expressed by historian Kathleen Flake:

 

It would take more than person experience for me to believe in aliens, it would take empirical and verifiable evidence.  I actually think more reasonable Mormons would be the same on the Alien comparison.  

I agree with Flake that Joseph tried to systematize and replicate this idea of personal relationship with God.  I actually like that a lot.  Unfortunately as the institution grew the tension between personal revelation and institutional power has diminished the personal in preference for conformity and correlation.  

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Ahh, so you're telling me there is a chance!  :-) 

No, I consider it a near certainty. See, I think Apostles do not like to deceive so if they hint something happened I push it up to almost certainly did happen. Again, I do not take this to mean all apostles have had such a witness but I can name some that I am 99.9% sure have. 

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not talking about "changing rhetoric." I am referring to your assertion that "many" of the apostles no longer believe in divine manifestations.

Like Hamba said, how he understands the apostles talking of spiritual things, since he has had similar experiences, it is like being in a familiar land.

Thus hope_for_things, who doesn't believe in any of this, hears Elder Oaks say that he doesn't testify of his personal experiences, and naturally interprets that in such a way as to confirm his disbelief that such things ever happen.

In other words, reverse confirmation bias.  I guess.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't understand your accusation or your use of the words charlatan or sin as I haven't used any of those words in my comments.  Seems like you're the one trying to project.  

No, you didn't. I also didn't say that you are passive aggressively insinuating they are charlatans. But I didn't not say it either.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I mentioned this earlier, but it seems like its worth reemphasizing since you're taking some offense to my opinion that I've tried to carefully not attach any negative attributions to.  Regardless of whether these events are literal, tangible, empirical, testable by scientific standards, this doesn't mean I'm diminishing the reality of how powerful and impactful these experiences are for each individual.  They are just as powerful as literal/tangible experiences, so that distinction is not to diminish the effect of these experiences for believing individuals at all.  

Try harder.

I think it would be more correct to say that you were trying to give yourself plausible deniability so you could claim you were trying not to be negative while you gave your opinion that the apostles are deceiving us by hinting at experiences they did not have for their gravitas and glorification. Your opinion is that the apostles deliberately attempted to deceive. You just did it in a roundabout way to try to give yourself rhetorical cover. Your fig leaves failed to hide your condemnation.

Edited January 25, 2018 by The Nehor

[hope_for_things]

38 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

This is not to witness of a personal manifestation."  You take that to mean that he's never had a personal manifestation.  What he says, quite precisely, is that he does not witness of a personal manifestation. This doesn't say that he didn't have one.  He might have had one that he is not permitted to give witness of.  One of a personal nature.

As far as Elder Ballard saying that a vision is very unusual, well of course they are.  Doesn't mean they don't happen, does it?  In other words "they are very unusual" is not equal to "not going to happen" .  What is very unusual, in your view?  No more than twice a year?  Once a decade?  

I guess there is nothing completely ruling out them leaving an opening for these experiences by your reading.  I imagine to some degree it doesn’t matter what the leaders say, even as Joseph F Smith testified under Oath that he’d never had a revelation, yet members still supported him as a revelator.  

[randy]

4 hours ago, rongo said:

Forget about proving empirically. How about simply mentioning or referring to it, ever? That's the shift. While I agree that some things are too sacred to share, I don't think God's intent is for them never to be shared. There is a real aversion, bristling, and defensiveness among the Brethren when asked about this in good faith when they visit local areas.

I find that Elder Roberts's observation about sectarian Christianity's downplaying of the supernatural applies to us as well. These are two slides from a community fireside I did on "Can Mormon Prophets Stand up to Scrutiny?" They contain paraphrases of B.H. Roberts quotes and pictures:

The bar for revelation has been lowered over the years to where it is described as almost exclusively simply impressions. I know from my own experience that the ministering of angels and powerful revelation is a true principle and still present. I wish that the Brethren didn't react defensively and angrily when asked about it, and hide behind "too sacred to share." They didn't used to.

I also freely acknowledge that seeing the Lord isn't a requirement for apostleship (being a special witness). I've had this discussion with CES Letter people who are troubled by this. I've shared with them direct statements from some Brethren that they have not seen the Lord (Orson Pratt and Heber C. Kimball). I think the Brethren are no different than we are in that blessings and privileges are what you look for, expect, and think is possible.  I think we are in an era where many, including many leaders, feel that corporate revelation, "counseling with councils," and impression-driven revelation is sufficient. The keys are here, and the faithful will always have full access to all blessings, but we as a church (locally and globally) aren't always firing on all the cylinders that we could be if we desired it. A lot of this has to do with being self-conscious about being thought of as "weird" in an age that mocks anything supernatural.

I have had two "mountain top" experiences,  the first one was with Pres. Kimball when my wife and I were 18yrs old and which I shared on this board a while ago,  the second one happened not all that long after that one.  Elder David B. Haight had just been called to the Apostleship about 2-3 weeks prior when he, Elder Dunn and nine Mission Presidents showed up at our Sacrament meeting in Independence, Mo.  unannounced.  Elder Haight gave a wonderful talk, but during is Apostolic blessing upon the congregation he bore a "somewhat detailed" account of his experience of being ordained and his experience in the Temple immediately afterword.  The part that I will never forget, and the spirit bore the same powerful witness of it's truthfulness, exactly as it had during my experience with Pres. Kimball....was when Elder Haight said that after his ordination and subsequent well wishes etc from the Brethren....he was getting ready to leave the Temple to meet his family.  He said Pres.Kimball politely invited him to stay in the Temple to reflect and ponder this new challenge and opportunity.  Elder Haight told him that he would come back to the Temple after his prearranged family get together. He said Pres. Kimball came up and cupped his face in his hands and said "David, you stay here".  Elder Haight said he did stay, and then bore the most powerful testimony of the Resurrected Christ that I have ever heard and felt.  I will never forget it, or how I felt.  I knew...and I knew that God knew.  It was plain and unmistakable.

Edited January 25, 2018 by randy