- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Great summary Nibbler. You put what I was thinking into words. Holy Cow wrote:Wow! This whole conversation has been an interesting one to me. I’ve been a member my whole life, and I’ve never heard anybody say that the apostles have seen Jesus. Do they really claim to have seen Christ, or is this one of those cultural legend things that people just perpetuate?
Yes to both questions. First, I read about a church leader asking people to not ask where Jesus has been seen in the SLC temple because “he walks these very halls” etc. I agree that we do not want to build mini-shrines in certain temple locations where JC has been reported to have been seen (“I saw Him in stall C of the locker room!”)- so the church leader deflected that by implying that Jesus hangs out in the temple all the time and it is no big deal. Second, Brad Wilcox is a church motivational speaker in the same vein as John Bytheway. In one of His talks he says that we can believe in Jesus even though we have not seen Him because we know 15 men who have seen Him. 3rd, I have an insert in my scriptures that references church leaders claims of having seen JC. It is not entirely clear if these were visions or visitations. The last name on the list is Elder David B. Haight. 4th, In EC our president relayed a story about low HT numbers. He said that President Hinckley was in a meeting and responded to the low national figures and said, “How can I go to the Lord with numbers such as that?”. Our president interpreted this as an acknowledgement of weekly visits. So yes, there is mostly a lot of hearsay evidence that the Q15 have not actively repudiated.
Also the job of Apostle is to function as a witness of the life and ministry of JC. The original apostles had all been with JC in life. Even when it came time to replace Judas they did so from among the followers of JC. Paul describes himself as an Apostle “born out of season” because he did not see JC in life but did see him in vision.
(As an aside I am glad that Elder Oaks clarified that modern apostles are called to testify or witness to the mission or plan of JC and not necessarily to personal visitations. IMO This is a step in the right direction of not putting our leadership on such an infallible pedestal.)
JS didn’t do us any favors in this regard either because he taught that the Second Comforter and more sure word of prophecy/ calling and election made sure was to have a visitation of JC. Rough Stone Rolling makes the case that JS seemed to be trying to prepare the saints to enter the literal presence of the lord with a repeat of the day of pentacost and “endowment of power.” Over time these sayings were repurposed to apply towards the temple but it was not always the case. Brother Adrian Larsen (the brother that was recently excommunicated in the Boise area) says that the temple ceremonies are just dress rehersals or practice for the real deal. He is inviting people to “come unto Christ” and have such experiences right now. He seems to view the church not so much in apostasy but instead as limiting. Just as the law of Moses was the schoolmaster to point to JC, so too the LDS church. But (from what I can gather from his blog) there is a time to outgrow the training wheels and move on to a direct relationship with JC.
Bro. Larsen has a pretty decent scriptural argument (with certain scriptures being emphasized and taken very very literally).
It’s hard in internet times. They were addressing potential break-offs, but the rest of us are listening. To my mind, they didn’t address the “key questions” in their set-up at abut the seven or eight-minute mark: (this is my transcribing, so may not be perfect)
Quote:
In determining who’s on the Lord’s side in these latter-days there are two major questions.For most non-Mormons and for some Mormons, the key question is how they feel about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.
For most Mormons, the key question of who’s on the Lord’s side is how they feel about the church’s current prophetic leadership.
If those feelings are sufficiently negative they take members into apostacy.”
Isn’t the key question in determining who’s on the Lord’s side in these latter-days how you feel about the Lord? One could say it is a given, a formality that would just have taken time, but I would strongly disagree. It needs to be in the forefront.
Neither speaker really addressed those “sufficiently negative” feelings.
Sufficientlynegative. I was excited at the beginning because I thought he was going to talk turkey about prophets past, and in so doing, provide a path forward. Instead he talked about the occasional fruit fly on the good fruits of the gospel. It’s probably not appropriate for regular Sunday meetings, but in a meeting like this, we need talk about the gospel fruitbowl. Along with all the eternally-fresh, gorgeous stuff, there’s some rotten fruit in there! That’s whythe fruit flies are there. Let’s talk about how the process of investigating and determining what it is, how it’s complicated and shouldn’t be done with roughness or haste, maybe. Let’s talk about the symbiotic relationship between a patient, faithful membership and our leaders. How can the gospel as presented in our church be sufficientlypositive and fresh? Instead the whole thing seemed adversarial, us vs. them, in-group vs. outgroup, a throw back. I like what Richard Bushman said in “On the Road with Joseph Smith,” his book about writing Rough Stone Rolling:
Quote:I am coming to envision a new persona for the Church as humble followers of Jesus Christ…. Joseph and his early followers came forth with lots of triumphalist rhetoric, but I think we need a new voice, one of humility, friendship and service. We should teach people to believe in God because it will soften their hearts and make them more willing to serve.
From KUTV in Salt Lake City Utah – Quote:After the audio of this meeting was posted online, it sparked a lot of discussion on blogs and other sites. Many speculated Snuffer and others like him were the reason for this meeting. Snuffer told 2News traffic to his website has spiked since the Boise gathering.
But the church insists that’s not the case, and that Oaks simply saw the opportunity to visit Boise to teach important doctrines of the church.
http://kutv.com/news/local/lds-church-holds-special-meeting-to-denounce-false-prophet ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://kutv.com/news/local/lds-church-holds-special-meeting-to-denounce-false-prophet Ann – I like that Bushman quote! Ugh. Why does it feel like Public Relations is running this? If there were problems in Boise, just freaking say that there were problems in Boise. NonTraditionalMom wrote:Ugh. Why does it feel like Public Relations is running this? If there were problems in Boise, just freaking say that there were problems in Boise.
Quote:But the church denies last weekend’s meeting came in response to any of that. Eric Hawkins, church spokesman, told 2News in a statement, “Elder Oaks was not scheduled for an assignment that weekend so decided to use his free time to visit an area with a concentration of members, knowing that some members have questions from time to time that trouble them.”
That sounds crazy! That Elder Oaks would go to Boise and have this unusual meeting, dragging a church historian with him, independant of any authorization or assignment from the rest of the Q15 – because he was bored?!?!? Is Elder Oaks some kind of maverick that does this sort of thing on a personal whim? Make sure to never leave him with a free weekend…
On the other hand, what I think is really happening is that the church is trying to deny whatever “Snuffer Movement” there may be the legitimacy of having received a major response from an apostle and the general church leadership.
Roy wrote, Quote:That Elder Oaks would go to Boise and have this unusual meeting, dragging a church historian with him,
Roy really? – I totally see Dallin just getting a hair brained idea, hopping on the elevator, dropping in to Turley’s office and saying “Road trip?”
Turley says, “Well I was going to mow the lawn on Saturday, but hey why not, where should we go – Phoenix or Boise?”
Oaks – “Boise, I love Boise – and Meridian and Eagle. You know, I know your a historian and you probably know this, but Brigham Young wanted Deseret to include Boise.”
Turley, “No way. Oh we should run up there, pop in, make some general remarks about lovin’ those Idahoans, and scoot before FHE on Monday?”
Oaks – “Great, I’ll call Kristine, get her to make us some sandwiches, you grab the Prius, the keys are on the garage hook and let’s do it.”
I think that is really how it went. I mean those guys have nothing to all day, why not. Next week Minot, North Dakota. Turley’s wife is making the sandwiches.
😆 :clap: 😆 :clap: 
DA, as bluntly as I can say this, you can have your suppositions; I will keep my lengthy research. Our activity rates are higher now, as an aggregate percentage, then they were in the past, generally speaking. I truly believe this was about addressing two things:
1) People like Denver Snuffer, about whom I will not give my full opinion here. I just will say there aren’t many members I distrust more or whose ideas I dislike more, for more than one reason.
2) The unrealistic expectations of SO many members who have built a cult of worship around the top leadership, aided and abetted by some of the former top leadership. I think it is a completely unrealistic expectation to believe a real prophet and/or apostle has to have been visited (physically) by Jesus, when we simply don’t have that recorded anywhere in our scriptural canon about prophets throughout history. It also is incredibly damaging, imo, to claim that anyone who has enough faith can be visited by Jesus – which is one of Snuffer’s core teachings. He is preying on the most unrealistically devout, imo, and the top leadership knows his stance is unrealistic.
I am glad that last point is being addressed, even if not directly in General Conference yet. It is damaging in a very real way, and it has hurt a few people deeply whom I know and love.
It is interesting for me to hear about this Denver Snuffer situation go down from the outside. I don’t know much about him—the only information I have about this I get from the cyberworld, and even then, it’s limited. It is intriguing how he can have such an impact on the lives of some and then have no influence at all in other circles. In my world, and in the world of other Mormons I interact with, he’s non-existent. I don’t want to hijack the thread and we can move on, but is he claiming he had a visitation from Jesus? Sounds like it’s a splinter group in the making.
I don’t understand what I guess this forum calls the “conservative” wing of church rebellion. It is quite peculiar to me. From my perspective, it feels like the ‘”conservative” wing applies rigorous scrutiny to current leadership, but if the same level of scrutiny was applied to the early leaders of the Church, and even the Book of Mormon itself, the foundation of church origins wouldn’t stand up to it, either.
But I guess that’s how we all are. We sort what we analyze and critique based off our paradigms and convictions.
Quote:The Streisand effect is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet.
Old-Timer wrote:It also is incredibly damaging, imo, to claim that anyone who has enough faith can be visited by Jesus -.
Brother of Jared?
Holy Cow wrote:Where do you guys hear about all this stuff?
Reddit.
Yes, the brother of Jared story is used by some to say it can be that way for everyone. I think that is nonsense. I believe it is just as bad an over-application as saying everyone can get an answer to prayer through a burning in the bosom because that’s how Oliver got his. Old-Timer wrote:The unrealistic expectations of SO many members who have built a cult of worship around the top leadership, aided and abetted by some of the former top leadership. I think it is a completely unrealistic expectation to believe a real prophet and/or apostle has to have been visited (physically) by Jesus, when we simply don’t have that recorded anywhere in our scriptural canon about prophets throughout history.
I think the aiding and abetting still goes on to an unhealthy degree. There is much more that could be done to dismantle the unrealistic expectations.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.