Leaders no longer get a personal visit of Jesus?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Thama
_Emeritus
Posts: 258
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 8:46 pm

Re: Leaders no longer get a personal visit of Jesus?

Post by _Thama »

StructureCop wrote:I must confess that this topic is one of the things that challenges my faith most. I'm willing to accept a lot of the supernatural claims from LDS history, but then we come to present time, and there seems to be a totally different practice regarding heavenly visits.

My other problem is, what exactly are they discussing during these visits? Apparently nothing of much substance. Like when Jesus appeared to President Hinckley, what was running through Hinckley's head?

"Well, I could ask what we should do about genocides in Sierra Leone and Rwanda... I could get some clarification on whether God the Father was once a man... I can find out if there really is global climate change..." and then the question he decides on is:
"Lord, how many earrings are appropriate for a woman to wear?"

I mean, WTF?


Your candidness just made you easily my favorite apologist.
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" Nothing beside remains.
_John Waite
_Emeritus
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:45 pm

Re: Leaders no longer get a personal visit of Jesus?

Post by _John Waite »

Rockslider wrote:
There was a time when seeking one’s calling and election would have been talked about in general conference.

Really? When was this? I’m sure I haven’t read the reports of every general conference ever held, but I find it hard to believe that this topic was ever very commonly referenced in that setting.

In my day, it might have been unspoken, but it was surely known (expected) by all members that all Apostles had been administered to personally by Jesus.

I’m not sure what you mean by “in my day.” But I am unfamiliar with anything that would suggest that an apostle must be “administered to personally by Jesus.” What leads you to believe that? And what do you mean to imply with the term “administered to personally”? What does that really mean? I have been “administered to personally” by Jesus, but I’m not an apostle. So I’m struggling to understand what you’re talking about.

What’s your take? Do you expect that all 15 of the top have seen Christ?

First of all, I don’t think a First Vision kind of visitation is necessary for a man to say he has received a “sure knowledge” of the reality and resurrection of Christ. But I’m also doubtful, based on the way you have phrased things in this thread, that you and I would define “seeing Christ” in the same fashion.

What do you mean by “seeing Christ”?
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Leaders no longer get a personal visit of Jesus?

Post by _harmony »

Welcome, John. :biggrin:

John Waite wrote:I have been following this message board for a while now. Among Mormon-oriented forums, it is probably the most adversarial I have seen.


Obviously you've never frequented RfM or probably even the Foyer.

Much more so than the FAIR/MAD board where I have posted occasionally in the past.


It's easy to distinquish between MDB and MAD: we're the ones who don't ban people for saying what they think.

It remains to be seen whether or not I can tolerate some of the stuff that goes on here.


Well, think "wild wild west", because that's kinda what we are. We strive for worthwhile discussion. That may not be what we always get, but that's what we strive for. We don't all think alike, we don't all communicate with equal clarity, and we don't all worship at the same altar, but we strive to maintain a sense of community that isn't based on one school of thought. We allow people their own foibles, their own beliefs, their own hot button issues, and their own defense of those issues. Some are LDS, some are former LDS, some are inactive LDS, and some are never-have-been LDS. Some were ex'ed, some simply walked away, some simply faded into the woodwork... and there's those of us who are active TR holding, calling holding, tithing paying members who stubbornly refuse to walk in lockstep with the rest of the church.

Anyway... welcome, and we hope you enjoy your stay. :cool:
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Leaders no longer get a personal visit of Jesus?

Post by _harmony »

John Waite wrote:What do you mean by “seeing Christ”?


What do you make of this:
History of the Church … in the Kirtland temple, Joseph Smith is ordaining the 12 and compels them with the following:

“Your ordination is not complete until Jesus lays his hands on your head …”


Is it different now? Or is this still true? Was it ever true?
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_Inconceivable
_Emeritus
Posts: 3405
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:44 am

Re: Leaders no longer get a personal visit of Jesus?

Post by _Inconceivable »

OK, here's the deal:

1 THE veil was taken from our minds, and the eyes of our understanding were opened.
2 We saw the Lord standing upon the breastwork of the pulpit, before us; and under his feet was a paved work of pure gold, in color like amber.
3 His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah, saying:
4 I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain; I am your advocate with the Father.
5 Behold, your sins are forgiven you; you are clean before me; therefore, lift up your heads and rejoice.
6 Let the hearts of your brethren rejoice, and let the hearts of all my people rejoice, who have, with their might, built this house to my name.
7 For behold, I have accepted this house, and my name shall be here; and I will manifest myself to my people in mercy in this house.
8 Yea, I will appear unto my servants, and speak unto them with mine own voice, if my people will keep my commandments, and do not pollute this holy house.
9 Yea the hearts of thousands and tens of thousands shall greatly rejoice in consequence of the blessings which shall be poured out, and the endowment with which my servants have been endowed in this house.
10 And the fame of this house shall spread to foreign lands; and this is the beginning of the blessing which shall be poured out upon the heads of my people. Even so. Amen.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 110:1 - 10)


How could this account be any less sacred than one from any other self proclaimed prophet?

If the concept is so sacred, why does it yet remain in the D&C, eh?

On a side note, what was Jebus compensating for by showing up with more bling than Mr. T?

And how did Smith know it was pure gold? Did he bite it or break a peice off? Did Jebus say, "hey, this isn't the cheap crap. No plating here, man"

In the immortal words of Shania Twain, "..that don' impress me much".
_RockSlider
_Emeritus
Posts: 6752
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:02 am

Re: Leaders no longer get a personal visit of Jesus?

Post by _RockSlider »

John Waite wrote:Really? When was this? I’m sure I haven’t read the reports of every general conference ever held, but I find it hard to believe that this topic was ever very commonly referenced in that setting.

Well it’s been years, I’m sure if I dug in I could find many, but here are two that come to mind … once again it’s been years so this is an approximation:

1. I believe Bruce R’s last conference talk dealt with the concept of one personally being in their own “garden of gethsemane”.
2. David B. Hait did a talk that spoke of a “panoramic vision” in his near death experience.

In my day, it might have been unspoken, but it was surely known (expected) by all members that all Apostles had been administered to personally by Jesus.

I’m not sure what you mean by “in my day.” But I am unfamiliar with anything that would suggest that an apostle must be “administered to personally by Jesus.” What leads you to believe that? And what do you mean to imply with the term “administered to personally”? What does that really mean? I have been “administered to personally” by Jesus, but I’m not an apostle. So I’m struggling to understand what you’re talking about.


My day = 1980 – 2002

Was it not this thread I paraphrased Joseph Smith quoted in the Kirtland temple saying that he had ordained the 12 to apostles but their ordination was not complete until Jesus had placed his hands on their heads and ordained them “like in days of old”. See history of the church … I’ll find the exact location if you would like.

Also I was taught about any persons calling and election sure … that it was Christ’s physically washing your feet that constituted the foundation of the 2nd anointing. So what I mean by “administered” is the literal laying of on hands of Jesus to the recipient.

What’s your take? Do you expect that all 15 of the top have seen Christ?

First of all, I don’t think a First Vision kind of visitation is necessary for a man to say he has received a “sure knowledge” of the reality and resurrection of Christ. But I’m also doubtful, based on the way you have phrased things in this thread, that you and I would define “seeing Christ” in the same fashion.


Have you ever read any of the experiences of those in the School of the Prophets? Now granted wording similar to “Rather it was a vision or in real life, I could not tell” (Hait might have used similar wording about his panoramic vision). Non the less, Christ appeared to them (School of the prophets, as a group). There are many/many examples that visions and personal “administrations” were common in the early church.
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Leaders no longer get a personal visit of Jesus?

Post by _harmony »

RockSlider wrote:There are many/many examples that visions and personal “administrations” were common in the early church.


Well, heck, Rock. They were young, impressionable, passionate, ardent men in a time where visions and visitations weren't ridiculed or worse, targetted for commitment to a mental health facility.

Things are different now.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_RockSlider
_Emeritus
Posts: 6752
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:02 am

Re: Leaders no longer get a personal visit of Jesus?

Post by _RockSlider »

harmony wrote:Well, heck, Rock. They were young, impressionable, passionate, ardent men in a time where visions and visitations weren't ridiculed or worse, targetted for commitment to a mental health facility.
Things are different now.


Well, I know you're goofing, but in all seriousness, a good read of the History of the Church will show these people scarified all to not deign these types of experiences and the expectation of them. They were bold and had big balls! (Sorry), I admire them for this. Modern day Mormons who might write this off and belittle or lessen it do them (nor themselves) no honor.
_John Waite
_Emeritus
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:45 pm

Re: Leaders no longer get a personal visit of Jesus?

Post by _John Waite »

Thama-
Your candidness just made you easily my favorite apologist.

If this is the same “StructureCop” I have seen over the years on the FAIR/MAD board, he is anything but an apologist. Are you just being sarcastic?

harmony-
Obviously you've never frequented RfM or probably even the Foyer.

Yes, I have. They’re not adversarial at all. They don’t permit any contrary voices.

We strive for worthwhile discussion.

I’m sure that’s how you see it. But remember, I have followed this board on occasion. I think I know what goes on here. It’s more or less like the Foyer with the exception that the owners permit faithful LDS to defend themselves and the church. Still, I would bet that the ratio of believer to unbeliever is probably around 10 to 1.

there's those of us who are active TR holding, calling holding, tithing paying members who stubbornly refuse to walk in lockstep with the rest of the church.

I think I have a pretty good idea of what kind of a Mormon you are.

Rockslider-
1. I believe Bruce R’s last conference talk dealt with the concept of one personally being in their own “garden of gethsemane”.
2. David B. Hait did a talk that spoke of a “panoramic vision” in his near death experience.

I think you’re confused about the meaning of calling and election made sure. I don’t think there are many people who would have considered the experiences described by Elders McConkie and Haight as accounts of their calling and election being made sure. I know I didn’t. I regarded it as nothing more than them having related a powerful revelatory experience that strengthened their testimony about the divinity of Christ.

Also I was taught about any persons calling and election sure … that it was Christ’s physically washing your feet that constituted the foundation of the 2nd anointing.

I have never been taught such a thing. Who taught this to you? And on what authority?

There are many/many examples that visions and personal “administrations” were common in the early church.

I think they are still as common as they were then, if not more so. I suppose it’s possible that people were more inclined to talk publicly about these sacred experiences in the early days of the church. More likely, people don’t talk about such things while they’re living, but write things down in their journals. Then, after they die, their posterity reads and reports on these things. So it gives the impression that nothing’s going on nowadays, but it used to. I don’t believe that is true.
_RockSlider
_Emeritus
Posts: 6752
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:02 am

Re: Leaders no longer get a personal visit of Jesus?

Post by _RockSlider »

John,

Your original statement, which I was trying to address … dealt with if the church encourages/discourages one seeking a personal relationship with Christ.
I believe my statements covered this. I named two General conference talks where very personal revelation was shared with the whole, which I assume implied that individual members might seek/expect the same.

I’d now challenge you to show me a general conference talk after 2002 that would be similar to the two I quoted. This would discount my suggestion that it has been dummied down (if the GA’s are not experiencing this, I sure should not expect it personally was the point).
Heck for all I know, these talks exist, I have not followed it since 2002 … I truly hope I’m wrong about this point.
Post Reply