Elder Uchtdorf's New Callings

[hope_for_things]

18 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

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. 

Joseph liked to use this rhetorical flourish frequently which I think was sometimes used to avoid articulating positions and at other times to bolster a mystique.  

Another possible explanation is that these spiritual experiences are often difficult to put in words, and that isn’t unique to Mormonism.  I don’t buy the commanded not to share argument though.  

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

They were not asking whether he felt the Holy Ghost had guided his decisions. They were asking (based on the context in the transcript) for the kinds of revelations recorded in the D&C. He would have just confused them if he had said yes and then had to qualify what he means by revelation.

Joseph F. Smith also said this about revelation:

"This is a part of the gospel, but it is not peculiar to this dispensation. It is common in all ages and dispensations of the gospel. The gospel cannot be administered, nor the Church of God continue to exist, without it. Christ is the head of his Church and not man, and the connection can only be maintained upon the principle of direct and continuous revelation."

"The moment this principle (revelation) is cut off, that moment the Church is adrift, being severed from its ever-living head. In this condition it cannot continue, but must cease to be the Church of God and, like the ship at sea without captain, compass or rudder, is afloat at the mercy of the storms and the waves of ever contending human passions, and worldly interests, pride and folly, finally to be wrecked upon the strand of priestcraft and superstition."

"It should be understood that the servants of God have the right in their administrations to obtain immediate divine guidance, and thus, in their faith, they couple divine wisdom as the directing force to their labors, and when that is done it must render a people invincible in enterprises they undertake in the service of God."

"So we moderns stand in need, oh so greatly! of constant revelation, that we individually may fill our missions acceptably to our Father, and that we may the better work out our own salvation; and also that we may know the will of God concerning his Church, his people, and his purposes in regard to the nations. These are a few of the thousand needs that exist for revelation."

 

Does any of that sound like someone who believes he has never received a revelation of any kind?

[hope_for_things]

20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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. 

Well at least you understand what you’re doing.  It’s makes no reasonable sense to me.  

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Joseph liked to use this rhetorical flourish frequently which I think was sometimes used to avoid articulating positions and at other times to bolster a mystique.  

Another possible explanation is that these spiritual experiences are often difficult to put in words, and that isn’t unique to Mormonism.  I don’t buy the commanded not to share argument though.  

ANOTHER CHARLATAN UNCOVERED!!!!! Lying about what he can and cannot share for his own glorification and to hide his own ignorance and inability to communicate no doubt.

I recommend receiving a real "mysteries of God" type revelation. Then you will get the "commanded not to share" argument.

[Stargazer]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Joseph liked to use this rhetorical flourish frequently which I think was sometimes used to avoid articulating positions and at other times to bolster a mystique.  

Another possible explanation is that these spiritual experiences are often difficult to put in words, and that isn’t unique to Mormonism.  I don’t buy the commanded not to share argument though.  

Why not?  Does it cost too much?  If I feel constrained not to share the picayune experiences I have had, except when prompted by the Spirit to do so, don't you think that others might have more substantive things not to share except when given permission?

And of course someone who doesn't believe in such things would ascribe psychological motives to others, instead of allowing that maybe, just maybe, there was a legit experience that he dare not share.

[hope_for_things]

29 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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.

Never said it, never implied it.  Some common courtesy would be appreciated, I thought we were Batman buddies.  

[hope_for_things]

33 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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.

No good faith here even after I clarified my position.  I think I’m done responding to your false accusations.  It’s really unfortunate how often this has happened lately.  Disappointing and not conducive to respectful discussion.  

[hope_for_things]

14 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Why not?  Does it cost too much?  If I feel constrained not to share the picayune experiences I have had, except when prompted by the Spirit to do so, don't you think that others might have more substantive things not to share except when given permission?

And of course someone who doesn't believe in such things would ascribe psychological motives to others, instead of allowing that maybe, just maybe, there was a legit experience that he dare not share.

Everyone has motives and human nature applies to Joseph as much as anyone else.  I just think he’s a complicated individual with many good traits and many flaws at the same time.  No sugar coating needed here, this isn’t primary.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

Again, do you genuinely not understand the role of authority and priesthood keys in the Church of Jesus Christ? Revelation to prophets and apostles is 'more important' (your words) not because it is qualitatively different to all other revelation but because these men are the ones whom God has authorised to receive such revelation on behalf of the entire world.

If I see a vision and a prophet sees a vision, it is the same thing. If I hear the voice of God and a prophet hears the voice of God, it is the same thing. If I am instructed by an angel and a prophet is instructed by an angel, it is the same thing. If I receive a quiet answer to prayer and a prophet receives a quiet answer to prayer, it is the same thing. The only difference is in the intended audience (i.e. stewardship).

These are foundational truths in 'Mormonism'.

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

It would take more than person[al] experience for me to believe in aliens, it would take empirical and verifiable evidence (emphasis added).

I don't think you know what you're actually asking for. From Merriam-Webster.com:

Empirical:

1. originating in or based on observation or experience
2. relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
3. capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment

Quote

Unfortunately as the institution grew the tension between personal revelation and institutional power has diminished the personal in preference for conformity and correlation.  

I think you're projecting again. (Or just repeating another ex-Mormon internet meme.)

I don't experience any tension whatsoever between personal revelation and the institutional Church. In fact, I have experienced the exact opposite, and these experiences have actually increased over time. I can think of a number of occasions from just the past few years where I have been personally instructed by the Lord only to hear an apostle or one of the Seventy teach the very same thing shortly afterwards. It's an incredibly edifying (and confirming) experience.

One of the Twelve came to our region almost three years ago and held a priesthood leadership training meeting. At the very beginning, he asked us a question and took answers from the assembly. I had a clear answer well up in my heart, but I chose not to raise my hand. It felt like it was just for me, and it was certainly different to anything else being said around me. Then the apostle turned to our area president and asked him the same question. He gave the very answer, using the exact same words, that I had been repeating mentally to myself.

This has become one of my favourite things to look forward to from General Conference. In the weeks and months leading up, I will receive quiet impressions, correction, doctrinal clarity, etc. And then I wait for one of the prophets to preach the same. It pretty much happens every six months.

Edited January 25, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Never said it, never implied it.  Some common courtesy would be appreciated, I thought we were Batman buddies.  

So you think saying something intentionally deceptive to woo people (which is what you said you thought the apostles were doing) is not charlatanish? Do you sell timeshares?

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

No good faith here even after I clarified my position.  I think I’m done responding to your false accusations.  It’s really unfortunate how often this has happened lately.  Disappointing and not conducive to respectful discussion.  

"All I did was insult the leaders you all respect and say they were being intentionally deceptive for their own gain. Why is everyone being so mean to me?!?!?!?!" 

Edited January 25, 2018 by The Nehor

[Gray]

5 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

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

 

Thanks, I missed that!

[Hamba Tuhan]

17 minutes ago, Gray said:

Thanks, I missed that!

No worries!

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

They were not asking whether he felt the Holy Ghost had guided his decisions. They were asking (based on the context in the transcript) for the kinds of revelations recorded in the D&C. He would have just confused them if he had said yes and then had to qualify what he means by revelation.

Joseph F. Smith also said this about revelation:

"This is a part of the gospel, but it is not peculiar to this dispensation. It is common in all ages and dispensations of the gospel. The gospel cannot be administered, nor the Church of God continue to exist, without it. Christ is the head of his Church and not man, and the connection can only be maintained upon the principle of direct and continuous revelation."

"The moment this principle (revelation) is cut off, that moment the Church is adrift, being severed from its ever-living head. In this condition it cannot continue, but must cease to be the Church of God and, like the ship at sea without captain, compass or rudder, is afloat at the mercy of the storms and the waves of ever contending human passions, and worldly interests, pride and folly, finally to be wrecked upon the strand of priestcraft and superstition."

"It should be understood that the servants of God have the right in their administrations to obtain immediate divine guidance, and thus, in their faith, they couple divine wisdom as the directing force to their labors, and when that is done it must render a people invincible in enterprises they undertake in the service of God."

"So we moderns stand in need, oh so greatly! of constant revelation, that we individually may fill our missions acceptably to our Father, and that we may the better work out our own salvation; and also that we may know the will of God concerning his Church, his people, and his purposes in regard to the nations. These are a few of the thousand needs that exist for revelation."

 

Does any of that sound like someone who believes he has never received a revelation of any kind?

Oh snap! Another old anti-Mormon chestnut shot to h—-  

Edited January 25, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[clarkgoble]

9 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Maybe you can demonstrate how that would work. You had a divine visitation last night. Provide us with 'concrete, empirical evidence' to prove that it was literal. Go!

Tape recorder? Video recording? I’m not saying it’s apt to work but in theory it’s doable.

 

 

[The Nehor]

53 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Tape recorder? Video recording? I’m not saying it’s apt to work but in theory it’s doable.

 

 

When the Second Coming hits some people will insist it is special effects and video editing.....as they burn up.

Edited January 25, 2018 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Oh snap! Another old anti-Mormon chestnut shot to h—-  

And some people say the “Teaching of the Prophets” manuals are not helpful. Even had a chapter about revelation to make it easy.  

[Gray]

15 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

I think the first vision experience was rarely discussed because it wasn't viewed as being that important. It's gained a lot more importance in Mormon theology only recently.

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?

We had a guy in our ward who would get up on fast Sunday and share his visions with the ward. We all thought he was crazy. I think he would have fit right in in the 19th century.

 

15 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

Yes, the visionary period in the church seems to have been the 19th century.

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Again, do you genuinely not understand the role of authority and priesthood keys in the Church of Jesus Christ? Revelation to prophets and apostles is 'more important' (your words) not because it is qualitatively different to all other revelation but because these men are the ones whom God has authorised to receive such revelation on behalf of the entire world.

If I see a vision and a prophet sees a vision, it is the same thing. If I hear the voice of God and a prophet hears the voice of God, it is the same thing. If I am instructed by an angel and a prophet is instructed by an angel, it is the same thing. If I receive a quiet answer to prayer and a prophet receives a quiet answer to prayer, it is the same thing. The only difference is in the intended audience (i.e. stewardship).

These are foundational truths in 'Mormonism'.

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.  

Edited January 25, 2018 by hope_for_things

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I don't think you know what you're actually asking for. From Merriam-Webster.com:

Empirical:

1. originating in or based on observation or experience
2. relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
3. capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment

What about this definition doesn't fit how I was using the term?  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.  

11 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I think you're projecting again. (Or just repeating another ex-Mormon internet meme.)

I don't experience any tension whatsoever between personal revelation and the institutional Church. In fact, I have experienced the exact opposite, and these experiences have actually increased over time. I can think of a number of occasions from just the past few years where I have been personally instructed by the Lord only to hear an apostle or one of the Seventy teach the very same thing shortly afterwards. It's an incredibly edifying (and confirming) experience.

One of the Twelve came to our region almost three years ago and held a priesthood leadership training meeting. At the very beginning, he asked us a question and took answers from the assembly. I had a clear answer well up in my heart, but I chose not to raise my hand. It felt like it was just for me, and it was certainly different to anything else being said around me. Then the apostle turned to our area president and asked him the same question. He gave the very answer, using the exact same words, that I had been repeating mentally to myself.

This has become one of my favourite things to look forward to from General Conference. In the weeks and months leading up, I will receive quiet impressions, correction, doctrinal clarity, etc. And then I wait for one of the prophets to preach the same. It pretty much happens every six months.

Ex-Mormon doesn't fit.  Many Mormon scholars have made these observations.  If you can't tell from reading my posts over the years, I'm respectfully engaging with these topics, not just trying to make fun and throw out insults (although some people do that at me).  

As for personal revelation and institutional, this isn't a new idea and its not unique to Mormonism.  It happens in virtually all large institutions and religions aren't immune.  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.  The only one that's coming to mind that has a chapter on this topic was the Given's Crucible of Doubt, but it was just one chapter if I remember right.   

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

I think the first vision experience was rarely discussed because it wasn't viewed as being that important. It's gained a lot more importance in Mormon theology only recently. 

I'm not sure that's true depending upon what you mean by "recent." Just doing a curious search of the Journal of Discourses finds it discussed a lot in there.

Why do you think it's only recent it's become important? 

2 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?

The quotes I provided clearly indicate the opposite. Both Brigham and Joseph taught the opposite and many of Joseph's revelations that I quoted teach the opposite. Just because some spiritual experiences are shared doesn't mean all are. Further I thought I gave examples of pretty prominent experiences that weren't shared. Even with Joseph Smith it appears he didn't speak much about the details of the experiences typically. 

2 hours ago, Gray said:

We had a guy in our ward who would get up on fast Sunday and share his visions with the ward. We all thought he was crazy. I think he would have fit right in in the 19th century.

Yes, the visionary period in the church seems to have been the 19th century.

Well I suspect many claiming experiences in the 19th century were inauthentic ones. Most of the experiences I read of weren't recounted in talks but in journals of the 19th century. Further many of the examples of important 19th century experiences often turn out to be folk tales. (Say Moroni visiting temple sites to dedicate them) There's no shortage of 3 Nephite stories or the like right now. I could relate a ton of such stories from my mission. Oddly the first hand version never appears. So by that standard I'm not so sure we're different at all.

[Gray]

32 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm not sure that's true depending upon what you mean by "recent." Just doing a curious search of the Journal of Discourses finds it discussed a lot in there.

Why do you think it's only recent it's become important? 

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.

 

32 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The quotes I provided clearly indicate the opposite. Both Brigham and Joseph taught the opposite and many of Joseph's revelations that I quoted teach the opposite. Just because some spiritual experiences are shared doesn't mean all are. Further I thought I gave examples of pretty prominent experiences that weren't shared. Even with Joseph Smith it appears he didn't speak much about the details of the experiences typically. 

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.

 

32 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Well I suspect many claiming experiences in the 19th century were inauthentic ones. Most of the experiences I read of weren't recounted in talks but in journals of the 19th century. Further many of the examples of important 19th century experiences often turn out to be folk tales. (Say Moroni visiting temple sites to dedicate them) There's no shortage of 3 Nephite stories or the like right now. I could relate a ton of such stories from my mission. Oddly the first hand version never appears. So by that standard I'm not so sure we're different at all.

Sure, that's pretty universal among religious and even non-religious groups

[The Nehor]

There were more openly shared visionary experiences in the early Church but in total I think we have more now.

It is hard to find evidence of visions and revelations not shared for obvious reasons. There is another source though. Things told to be hidden and revealed later. The doctrine of theosis taught to President Snow long before King Follett, plural marriage was known for years before being taught, and the experiences in the Kirkland Temple were originally kept close. Joseph Smith told them Wilford Woodruff and told him not to spread it around. The Book of Moses still has a command in it to share it only with those who believe. Many things were held close and either got out or were intentionally let out. Is it preposterous there was a lot more that never got out?

[Guest]

19 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

I can see this means a great deal to you. Counselors in the First Presidency, are most likely how counselors in other "Presidrentuary" callings are, and that is to help carry out the day to day requests and assignments passed down by the President. Unless of course if the sitting President becomes unable to carry out his day to day duties. Whereas, the calling of an Apostle, means serving in an ecclesiastical role, and as a "General Officer" of the Church. These men of the Quorum of the Twelve, and the Presiding Bishopic must see to the day to day functions of a worldwide corporation, that is tasked with caring for members Spirtiual and Temporal needs, as well as the millions who are in need who are not members. It would seem that of the many who seem to be struggling with this issue, the Apostle in question is not struggling with it. One thing that might be important to remember, Counsilors in the First Presidency, do not even have to be Apostles. This fact alone makes clear if there is any upward or download movement, it would only be for those who (when a President dies), the Councilors who were called from the general membership, go back to any number of callings, or no allying at all. But Apostles remain Apostles for their entire lives and beyond.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

I can see this means a great deal to you. Counselors in the First Presidency, are most likely how counselors in other "Presidrentuary" callings are, and that is to help carry out the day to day requests and assignments passed down by the President. Unless of course if the sitting President becomes unable to carry out his day to day duties. Whereas, the calling of an Apostle, means serving in an ecclesiastical role, and as a "General Officer" of the Church. These men of the Quorum of the Twelve, and the Presiding Bishopic must see to the day to day functions of a worldwide corporation, that is tasked with caring for members Spirtiual and Temporal needs, as well as the millions who are in need who are not members. It would seem that of the many who seem to be struggling with this issue, the Apostle in question is not struggling with it. One thing that might be important to remember, Counsilors in the First Presidency, do not even have to be Apostles. This fact alone makes clear if there is any upward or download movement, it would only be for those who (when a President dies), the Councilors who were called from the general membership, go back to any number of callings, or no allying at all. But Apostles remain Apostles for their entire lives and beyond.  

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.)  

Edited January 25, 2018 by hope_for_things