Leaders no longer get a personal visit of Jesus?

[_zzyzx]

Joseph Smith taught those in authority should never stop trying for a personal visit/witness of Christ. Now it is discouraged among the leadership.

What has changed?

[_DarkHelmet]

I don't think it's ever changed. At the very least the Prophet has regular meetings with Jesus. I'm sure other apostles visit him now and then. Members are counseled not to seek a personal relationship with Christ, but the leaders visit with him face to face. Who else gives Monson his PPI? I heard somewhere that Hinckley said Jesus wears a suit and tie and has short hair now.

[_Morrissey]

I don't think it's ever changed. At the very least the Prophet has regular meetings with Jesus. I'm sure other apostles visit him now and then. Members are counseled not to seek a personal relationship with Christ, but the leaders visit with him face to face. Who else gives Monson his PPI? I heard somewhere that Hinckley said Jesus wears a suit and tie and has short hair now.

[_William Schryver]

Joseph Smith taught those in authority should never stop trying for a personal visit/witness of Christ. Now it is discouraged among the leadership.

What has changed?

Where has such a thing been "discouraged"?

Incidentally, it has always been my understanding that anyone can obtain this blessing for himself (or herself).

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

[_Some Schmo]

I don't think it's ever changed. At the very least the Prophet has regular meetings with Jesus. I'm sure other apostles visit him now and then. Members are counseled not to seek a personal relationship with Christ, but the leaders visit with him face to face. Who else gives Monson his PPI? I heard somewhere that Hinckley said Jesus wears a suit and tie and has short hair now.

I'm pretty sure DarkHelmet was speaking tongue-in-cheek here.

Hmmm... Jesus in a suit and tie... I wonder if he found a suit that matches his sandals.

[_karl61]

a white suit would go great with sandals. A white Brooks Brothers cotton shirt, rolled up at the sleeves, belt color and sandal color would be best matched, preferably light brown. A blue pocket square to match his eyes.

You could put him in a light brown pinstriped seersucker suit too. No need to change any other items.

[_Morrissey]

I don't think it's ever changed. At the very least the Prophet has regular meetings with Jesus. I'm sure other apostles visit him now and then. Members are counseled not to seek a personal relationship with Christ, but the leaders visit with him face to face. Who else gives Monson his PPI? I heard somewhere that Hinckley said Jesus wears a suit and tie and has short hair now.

I'm pretty sure DarkHelmet was speaking tongue-in-cheek here.

Hmmm... Jesus in a suit and tie... I wonder if he found a suit that matches his sandals.

For his sanity's sake, I certainly hope so.

I've heard many a Mormon say such things. Hell, I said them on my mission.

Probably the last sentence should have given it away.

[_Sethbag]

Well of course we just don't really know whether they see Jesus or not, do we? We don't, because now these personal visits from Jesus are so "sacred" that they just won't talk about it, and will be coy if asked directly. The whole thing seems calculated to let the membership think what they want, and many if not most of the membership seems to believe that they do see Jesus. The GAs seem to be just fine with that.

That's actually quite bothersome to me. If the GAs aren't really seeing Jesus or God, but the membership thinks they do, and they're coy about it but leave the impression/implication that they really do see them, then that's a little dishonest in my book.

And yes, saying "we don't talk about such things, they're too sacred" really only makes sense if they really are seeing Jesus and/or God. If they're not seeing them, then there's nothing there to be sacred. And what exactly is "too sacred" about Prophets, Seers, and Revelators who proclaim themselves to be Jesus's deputies on Earth, actually proclaiming their personal visitations? I would rather expect that of them, but hell, what do I know?

[_StructureCop]

That's actually quite bothersome to me. If the GAs aren't really seeing Jesus or God, but the membership thinks they do, and they're coy about it but leave the impression/implication that they really do see them, then that's a little dishonest in my book.

And yes, saying "we don't talk about such things, they're too sacred" really only makes sense if they really are seeing Jesus and/or God. If they're not seeing them, then there's nothing there to be sacred. And what exactly is "too sacred" about Prophets, Seers, and Revelators who proclaim themselves to be Jesus's deputies on Earth, actually proclaiming their personal visitations? I would rather expect that of them, but hell, what do I know?

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?

[_Morrissey]

Well of course we just don't really know whether they see Jesus or not, do we? We don't, because now these personal visits from Jesus are so "sacred" that they just won't talk about it, and will be coy if asked directly. The whole thing seems calculated to let the membership think what they want, and many if not most of the membership seems to believe that they do see Jesus. The GAs seem to be just fine with that.

That's actually quite bothersome to me. If the GAs aren't really seeing Jesus or God, but the membership thinks they do, and they're coy about it but leave the impression/implication that they really do see them, then that's a little dishonest in my book.

And yes, saying "we don't talk about such things, they're too sacred" really only makes sense if they really are seeing Jesus and/or God. If they're not seeing them, then there's nothing there to be sacred. And what exactly is "too sacred" about Prophets, Seers, and Revelators who proclaim themselves to be Jesus's deputies on Earth, actually proclaiming their personal visitations? I would rather expect that of them, but hell, what do I know?

Apparently, visions being too sacred to talk about is a 20th century development. The Old Testament and New Testament folks certainly did not find visions too sacred to talk about. Joseph Smith clearly did not. And so on up through Joseph F. Smith, at least.

Why have visions now become too sacred to discuss openly? Did God suddenly get camera shy?

The whole 'it's too sacred to discuss' is a transparent ploy to cover up the fact that there's nothing behind the curtain. LDS Inc. is too afraid to up and admit that Jesus does not have Temple Square on his speed dial, so to speak, so it now attempt to cloak this fact with vague-sounding teasers and claims that such things are too sacred to discuss.

Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket.