Sunday, 22 October 2006
Was Elder McConkie visited by the Savior?
by Christian Y. Cardall
In one of his responses to my previous post, Jared* is probably not alone in thinking that Elder Bruce R. McConkie’s final conference address and his discussion of seeing God in the last two chapters of his book The Promised Messiah suggest that he himself had been visited in person by the resurrected Jesus Christ. Elder McConkie clearly believed in the potential reality of that blessing, and the importance of seeking after it with all one’s heart; but he makes his case based on scriptures and teachings of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, and does not recount any such experiences of his own or anyone else of our generation. In fact, a careful reading of these sources may suggest that while he lived hoping to receive this blessing in mortality, he died without having attained it.
In The Promised Messiah—published about seven years before his death—Elder McConkie lays out his views on seeing the Lord, as the following excerpts illustrate. His allusion to the brother of Jared’s experience shows that he believed similar personal encounters with Jesus are possible in our day:
If and when we obtain the spiritual stature of this man Moriancumer, then we shall see what he saw and know what he knew (p. 581-582).
Note the use of the inclusive “we”; perhaps an acknowledgement that he himself had a ways to go?
There are, of course, those whose callings and election have been made sure who have never exercised the faith nor exhibited the righteousness which would enable them to commune with the Lord on the promised basis. There are even those [whose election is sure?] who neither believe nor know that it is possible to see the Lord in this day, and they therefore are without the personal incentive that would urge them onward in the pursuit of this consummation so devoutly desired by those with spiritual insight (p. 586).
The first sentence is an explicit acknowledgement that having one’s ‘calling and election made sure’ does not imply a face-to-face experience with the Savior, so care must be taken in what we infer from sources that use this phrase. More interestingly, the placement of the second sentence here—immediately after reference to those whose election is sure—suggests, as I hinted with my bracketed comment, that he is not merely making a general observation about unbelief in the Church or the world at large: he may even be making an argument to his brethren of the First Presidency and the Twelve.
How much spiritual progress we have made in the Church…may be measured in terms of the number of the elders of Israel for whom the veil has been rent and who have seen the face of Him whose we are (p. 592)
Breathtaking; admiration for the boldness of this remark cannot be restrained. Would that this measure of progress were discussed in the opening `state of the Church’ message in Conference, and tabulated along with other statistics in the Annual Report!
It is true that the witness of the Holy Ghost is sure and absolute and that a man can know with a perfect knowledge, by the power of the Holy Ghost, that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God who was crucified for the sins of the world. This unshakeable certainty can rest in his soul even though he has not seen the face of his Lord. But it is also true that those who have this witness of the Spirit are expected, like their counterparts of old, to see and hear and touch and converse with the Heavenly Person, as did those of old (p. 592)
As will be discussed below, this will be important to the interpretation of his final testimony. Note that the Holy Ghost is sufficient for certainty; and while seeking the Lord’s face is to be earnestly sought, it doesn’t add to one’s previously-obtained certainty.
In the general charge to all of the Twelve, Elder Cowdery said: “It is necessary that you receive a testimony from heaven to yourselves; so that you can bear testimony to the truth of the Book of Mormon, and that you have seen the face of God. That is more than the testimony of an angel. When the proper time arrives, you shall be able to bear this testimony to the world. When you bear testimony that you have seen God, this testimony God will never suffer to fall, but will bear you out; although many will not give heed, yet others will. You will therefore see the necessity of getting this testimony from heaven…” (p. 593).
Note that the charge is not only to seek the Lord’s face, but to testify of seeing God. Elder McConkie would not have quoted this unless he endorsed it; and taking it seriously, it seems likely that he would have testified of seeing God if he had had the experience.
Every elder is entitled and expected to seek and obtain all the spiritual blessings of the gospel, including the crowning blessing of seeing the Lord face to face (p. 595)
Without question he would not condemn any rank-and-file elder for not achieving this in mortality. Similarly, he would not condemn his Brethren (including himself) who had not so obtained by the time the Lord takes them; it would be enough that they were earnestly striving.
[The Lord] is in our midst from time to time, and we as a people do not see him nearly as often as we should. We are not speaking of him being in our midst in the spiritual sense that he is here by the power of his Spirit. We are speaking of his personal literal presence…In this connection let us note one of the visions shown forth to the Prophet Joseph Smith during that Pentecostal period which preceded and attended the dedication of the Kirtland Temple. “I saw the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb, who are now upon the earth,” he said, “who hold the keys of this last ministry, in foreign lands, standing together in a circle, much fatigued, with their clothes tattered and feet swollen, with their eyes downward, and Jesus standing in their midst, and they did not behold him. The Savior looked upon them and wept” (p. 611).
Note the admonishment of “we as a people” for not seeing him, and the invocation of Joseph’s vision of the Twelve unable to see the Savior. Again, might this be an indication that even his brethren of the First Presidency and the Twelve (himself not excepted) were among his intended audience?
Turning to Elder McConkie’s final conference address, perhaps its most celebrated moment is his declaration that
I am one of his witnesses, and in a coming day I shall feel the nail marks in his hands and in his feet and shall wet his feet with my tears.
But I shall not know any better then than I know now that he is God’s Almighty Son, that he is our Savior and Redeemer, and that salvation comes in and through his atoning blood and in no other way.
Note the use of the future tense, the reference to “a coming day” in which he would handle the Savior. Does his subsequent statement that this would not increase his certainty imply that he had already had such an experience? It might to some—specifically, those who would regard such a witness as superior, as a matter of evidence, to the witness of the Holy Ghost. As noted above, however, this is not Elder McConkie’s position. Instead, his statements are adequately explained by supposing that “[he] shall not know any better then than [he] know[s] now” because he already had that “unshakeable certainty [that] can rest in his soul even though he has not seen the face of his Lord.” In the hierarchy of possible kinds of evidence, his confidence in the relative reliability of the Holy Ghost is reiterated near the beginning of this final conference address, when he paraphrases D&C 18:34-36 in asserting that experiencing the words of the scriptures with the power of the Spirit is equivalent to actually hearing the Lord’s (presumably audible) voice. Indeed, he probably agreed with his father-in-law Joseph Fielding Smith that the witness of the Holy Ghost is even superior to sensory experience.
Taken as a whole, I read all this as Elder McConkie believing in and striving for the blessing of seeing the Lord face to face, but not having received it yet. How might he have felt about this? I can only imagine he would have been patient with what he would have perceived to have been the Lord’s will—even if the continuing absence of promised blessings puzzled him—and humbly content with the “perfect knowledge, by the power of the Holy Ghost” that he judged himself to have been given. Perhaps he would have been grateful to have been blessed with what he may have perceived as alternative and compensatory spiritual gifts: his unusual self-description as having been “born with a testimony,” never having to face the sort of doubt that afflicts so many others; and his notable ability to comprehensively know and (to his way of thinking) understand the scriptures. In any case, the particular sources under consideration here do not seem to warrant a conclusion that Elder McConkie was visited by the Savior in mortality. Any such inference must come from hopeful speculation, or evidence to which I am not privy.
(9 votes, average: 4 out of 5)
Loading ...
Exploratory deployment of two Mormon imperatives—“prove all things; hold fast that which is good,” and “awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words”—from perspectives unfamiliar: secular, scientific, humanistic, and cultural (high and low).
I had considered posting on this same thing so I’ll be interested to see what people have to say. My brother an I have a disagreement about what people take this passage to mean. My impression is that a majority take this to be a euphemistic way of saying he saw the Savior. However, I tend to agree with you that the “but I shall not know any better then than I know now” seems to go along with his belief that a witness of the Holy Ghost was enough that even sight would not make him more sure than he already was.
Bruce R. McConkie was ordained an apostle on October 12, 1972. Six months later, in General Conference, he said:
(”Upon Judea’s Plains,” Ensign, July 1973, pp. 27-30. It is even more pointed if you read the entire talk.)
The scripture says:
That implies that there may be more ways than one for this knowledge to be manifest. A traditional face to face vision may not be the only way - in fact it may not even be the best way. As Isaiah said: “Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?”
Of course I don’t know what Elder McConkie experienced, and I can see his exhortation both ways (although Gary’s comment is additionally suggestive). I would just note that there is at least one intermediate experience possible between a witness of the Holy Ghost and physical touching, and that is a vision.
What is that ratings thing you guys are doing?
I suppose if I, who am supremely imperfect, have felt the undeniable love and presence of God, those apostles who serve Him surely have had more undeniable experiences. He lives, we know that. It goes to reason.
I still think I’ll probably be fairly shocked when He does return, though. “It was true! I’ll be damned!”
I tend to agree with your analysis Christian. That said, discussions on this topic are a bit distorted because of common mondern parlance. The term “calling and election made sure,” is difficult because no one really knows what it means. I prefer “the fullness of the priesthood” or “second anointing” and for a witness of Christ, perhaps, “the second comforter,” though the latter isn’t as really as important. I’m glad that McConkie sepperated the two things and the historical record is rather strait forward on the issue.
It is interesting that one need not have the fullness of the priesthood to recieve a surety of your calling and election, but you need it for exaltation. That is an interesting spin. Just as Joseph saught to bestow upon indaviduals the powers of Enoch (the moving of mountains, power against armies, etc.) through the temple he saught to make accessible the manifestation of Christ. Now, historically, there are a lot of folks who recieved the temple ordinances that never recieved Enoch’s charisma. So to have there been few who have witnessed the risen Lord.
If he saw the Savior, why not just say he saw the Savior? And if it happened in 1972, why not repeat the story over and over again? Such “plainness” of speaking was good enough for Joseph Smith and Nephi, why not BRM or anyone else? Why do we modern-day Mormons scrutinize here and read-between-the-lines there of modern day prophets and apostles for evidence that more is happening than meets the eye? We sometimes seem to treat their conference talks like Christ’s parables or Isaiah’s scriptures — if we just study them enough, they will reveal hidden facts, like “Easter Eggs” on a DVD.
Great analysis, Christian. BRM was a fascinating individual.
Thaks Christian.
You never cease to amaze me. It somehow comforts me to think that some of you guys read McConkie once in a while.
Excellent Post.
It is interesting that hymn #21, the last verse was writtne by BRM, where he spoke of receiving the more sure word of prophecy or having one’s calling and election made sure.
4. Then heed the words of truth and light
That flow from fountains pure.
Yea, keep His law with all thy might
Till thine election’s sure,
Till thou shalt hear the holy voice
Assure eternal reign,
While joy and cheer attend thy choice,
As one who shall obtain.
He also wrote hymn #134 where he says:
4. I believe in Christ; he stands supreme!
From him I’ll gain my fondest dream;
And while I strive through grief and pain,
His voice is heard: “Ye shall obtain.”
I believe in Christ; so come what may,
With him I’ll stand in that great day
When on this earth he comes again
To rule among the sons of men.
This sounds he is writing from personal experience. Of course each apostle holds the keys of the kingdom in that they have received their second annointing that J. Stapely refers to above, which would entail a promise of Eternal Life anyway.
Just as one can be filled with the power of the Holy Ghost prior to the formal ordinance [1], and the remission of sins prior to baptism [2], so also can one know his calling an election is made sure, by the spirit of prophecy and revelation, prior to any formalities. The definition in D&C 131:5 is explicit - the more sure word of prophecy is a matter of knowledge, manifest by the spirit of prophecy and revelation, through the power of the Holy Priesthood, [which is the power through which God does all things].
Joseph Smith taught that a man knows his calling and election is made sure when he receives the second comforter, which is “no more nor less than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself” - that when he obtains this last comforter he will have “the personage of Jesus Christ to attend him, or appear unto him from time to time, and even He will manifest the Father unto him, and they will take up their abode with him, and the visions of the heavens will be opened unto him, and the Lord will teach him face to face, and he may have a perfect knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of God, ” etc [3].
Now Joseph Smith does not say that all these things will be manifest to all concerned, rather he implies that any one of these on a continuing basis is evidence of reception of the second comforter.
But before a man receives the second comforter, first is his calling and election is made sure. As the Prophet said:
Now that seems about as good a description as one can get. Neither he nor Peter mentioned [5] anything about a requirement to obtain this blessing in the Temple, quite the contrary. In fact there are several examples of men receiving this exact revelation without any formal ordinance in the scriptures. Alma [6] and Joseph Smith [7] come to mind.
As the Prophet said:
“1st key: Knowledge is the power of salvation. 2nd key: Make your calling and election sure. 3rd key: It is one thing to be on the mount and hear the excellent voice, etc., and another to hear the voice declare unto you, You have a part and lot in that kingdom.” [8]
—
[1] Acts 10:44-47
[2] D&C 20:37
[3] Joseph Smith, June 27, 1839, DHC 3:379-81, TPJS p. 150.
[4] ibid.
[5] 2 Pet 1:2-10, 19.
[6] Mosiah 26:20
[7] D&C 132:49-50
[8] Joseph Smith, May 21, 1843, DHC 5:401-3, TPJS p. 306.
Mark, you don’t need to receive a temple ordinance to have your C&E made sure, this is true. However, there is a temple ordinance necessary to be annointed a king and a priest in the kingdom of God. This ordinance will eventually be necessary, (if only as a formality for those who have already received their C&E made sure by the more sure word of prophecy) for all people being exalted, just as the other temple and saving ordinances are necessary.
It is important to separate the C&E made sure part from the second comforter receipt as well. One must be received before the other, but, it is thru revelation that you can know that your calling and election is made sure, even without ever receiving the second comforter.
Curtis, I agree on each point, although I find it unlikely that one would go very long knowing his calling and election is made sure without receiving the Second Comforter by some means or another. It doesn’t have to be the classical visit or vision - the continual presence and ministry of the Second Comforter is much more significant, as it is with the first.
Thanks everyone for your comments, all of which I have read with interest. I will not be able to respond to them all but will try to respond further to the discussion later this evening.
Gary, thanks for the link to another talk of Elder McConkie’s, which is indeed worth reading. Because his two poems there are about scenes from the New Testament, I still tend to think that rather than denoting a personal visit, his injection of the first person reflects this idea of the confirmation of the Holy Ghost making the scriptural witness “one’s own,” as if one had undergone the original experience oneself. Again, he explicitly articulated his philosophy regarding this perceived mode of witness (apparently based on the D&C passage I cited in the post) near the beginning of his final conference address.
Christian, I suspect my view of his April 1972 conference talk has something to do with the fact that I was present in the Tabernacle. I heard and felt it. I believe merely reading his words does not convey the full meaning, “for when a man speaketh by the power of the Holy Ghost the power of the Holy Ghost carrieth it unto the hearts of the children of men.” (2 Ne. 33:1.) I felt the power of his several examples of apostolic experience. And when he then concluded saying “with full knowledge of what I speak,” I knew what he was sharing by the power of the Holy Ghost. But now, thirty four years later, it’s just my personal testimony. There is no proof.
Oops. It was April 1973 and only 33 years ago (getting old is no fun).
J. Stapley, yes indeed, the ’second anointing’ is an ordinance (my wife has a copy of a certificate one of her ancestors received), while the ’second comforter’ is personal visitation by the Savior and even the Father. And I also agree that the number of people who have received the great patriarchal powers over nature and the second comforter following the endowment and the second anointing respectively is evidently very small.
In fact, it is possible that this number—that is, the number of people who have actually experienced these dramatically powerful but completely physical sequelae following receipt of the emblematic ritual—might even be zero. In this respect, Joseph may have been sort of like Moses in leading his people towards but never himself entering into the ‘promised land,’ with the difference being that in Joseph’s case his people never ‘entered in’ after his departure either. That is to say, as I have said previously, “There may be hints that Joseph expected the completed temple and the fullness of its ordinances to lead to mortal glories he did not live to see, such as regular and tangible earthly association with heavenly beings and the restoration of the powers over mortality and nature held by the superannuated ancient patriarchs”—yet these blessings apparently did not follow upon completion of the temple as may have been expected (nobody lived to the age of Methuselah, for instance).
Key questions, then, are: To what extent have these literal, tangible ancient glories promised and expected by Joseph been present or absent, and what does this say or not say about whether he (and his successors) actually had (and have) any divine power?
Gary, I can imagine that being present in the tabernacle on that occasion was an electrifying experience. Was there also quasi-verbal information content conveyed to you with a specificity beyond Elder McConkie’s words, along the lines of “Elder McConkie has seen and handled the Savior”? Or could the intensity of feeling have represented instead a confirmation of the Savior’s resurrection and Elder McConkie’s testimony thereof, without specifically indicating the precise nature of Elder McConkie’s personal experiences?
Christian, Yes, there was non-verbal information conveyed to me. It was that Elder McConkie meant exactly what he said and that what he said was literally true. Of course, my feelings about this are mine alone and your interpretation may be different.
One point worth considering is that the ancients generally rose to their station after much longer lives than we now experience. Enoch was a young upstart of sixty five or so when he received his calling. He said he was ‘but a lad’, slow of speech and that everyone hated him.
And how old was Abraham when he received the covenant blessings? They seem to have come after a lifetime of diligent service. The fact that Joseph Smith received the blessings he did at such a relatively tender age was probably an astonishment to those who served for centuries before receiving the same.
Nonetheless, I suggest that the glory that Joseph Smith expected is on the horizon, and will be manifest among the Latter-day Saints as much as among the city of Enoch, in the due time of the Lord. Blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles comes in (Rom 11:25-26). There are many prophecies about these things.
I can’t say what BRM may or may not have experienced, but my first MP told us on more than one occasion that many, many people have seen Christ. Even people we knew, and who lived in our wards. He spoke as if from personal experience. I can think of a handful of people in my ward who would not surprise me one bit if they told me they had been visited by the Savior.
There’s a high priest in our stake who spoke at a Singles fireside about temple attendance, having one’s calling and election made sure, and receiving the 2nd comforter. When he spoke on the latter two, his skin started to glow, as if it were starting to become translucent. The literal meaning of his words did not indicate he had received such experiences, but the feeling and authority with which he spoke was that he was speaking from personal experience. Therefore I understand what Gary was talking about when he said that hearing/seeing BRM in person conveyed more than just the written words alone.
Capt, many mission presidents are former stake presidents and counselors in stake presidencies. When stake presidents and their counselors conduct temple recommend interviews, such are the times when someone might report a visitation by the Savior. It would also not surprise me if 1) the Lord revealed (via the Spirit) to the stake pres during an interview, if the interviewee has had their calling and election made sure, and 2) if the Lord has visited them. It would also not surprise me if the Lord directed someone he has visited to report the visit to the stake pres at their next temple recommend interview.
A former counselor in our stake presidency has not named names, but has testified that people in our stake have received such visits.
Bookslinger,
Why would the Stake Pres. need to know by revelation that a person has been visited by Christ?
Capt. Obsidian and Bookslinger…
Your comments puzzle me… Where are all of these people who have seen Christ? You both suggest they are out there — everywhere — and yet when I re-read your comments, your sources are all second or third or fourth hand, and/or it is all based on feeling and conjecture. Like the BRM example at hand, you (or someone else) seems to be imputing facts into what is at best, ambiguous heresay.
Christian’s post makes a pretty strong case that BRM (and Oliver Cowdery) thought it our duty to not only seek the face of God, but to testify of it as well. Certainly our scripture is replete with examples of people doing just that. If Christ, as you suggest, is showing himself to several people in every ward, why the deafening silence?
Second, I puzzled because as a lifelong Mormon, your experiences do not register with my experiences with fellow faithful Mormons, many in high places. I’ve heard them testify many times of sprititual experiences, but nothing of the quality you describe. Your experiences remind me more of the fanciful stories I eagerly swapped with my fellow missionaries at the MTC and in the mission field, but such stories of Christ visitations were told in conjunction with Three Nephite stories, Cain/Bigfoot stories, and Stripling Warrior stories.
Please take my above comments as sincere. I’m also curious if you have an opinion about what I perceive to be a “deafening silence?” Thanks.
I know the post speculates on whether BRM received a personal visitation from the Saviour…however, it seems to be expanding to visitations to the membership in general, so here is my $0.02 worth…
I recall a GC address by Elder Ballard (May ‘92) where he shared the testimony of his grandfather who was also an apostle. Upon his ordination to the 12, his grandfather shared his testimony with the first presidency. The testimony he bore to the FP was that of a personal visitation by the Saviour. It’s pretty moving and worth a read.
Speaking to Gary’s commment on knowing what a speaker is conveying by the Spirit, a few years back Pres. Faust presided over our stake conference. It’s an extremely rare event in my parts to have an apostle as the visiting GA at Stake Conference.
As per usual for a presiding authority, he bore his testimony at the end of the Priesthood session. During the testimony he stated that in the past he knew that the Saviour lived, but now “knew” that He lived. He pretty much said it word for word that way. The Spirit was powerful when he bore this testimony and I believe Elder Faust was communicating that he had received a visitation and that his knowledge as to the existence of the Saviour was perfect. It was a powerful moment.
Re: deafening silence, “There are some things just too sacred to discuss.” (Boyd K. Packer, Ensign, June 1971, p. 87.) “We do not talk of those sacred interviews that qualify the servants of the Lord to bear a special witness of Him, for we have been commanded not to do so.” (Boyd K. Packer, Ensign, May 1980, p. 65.)
Re: he knew but now he knew, “There are those who … question, ‘ Why cannot it be said in plainer words? Why aren’t they more explicit and more descriptive? Cannot the apostles say more? ’ How like the sacred experience in the temple becomes our personal testimony. It is sacred, and when we are wont to put it into words, we say it in the same way—all using the same words. The apostles declare it in the same phrases with the little Primary or Sunday School youngster. ’ I know that God lives and I know that Jesus is the Christ.’ ” (Boyd K. Packer, Ensign, June 1971, p. 87.)
Occasionally however, in the proper setting, they have been more explicit. For example, President Marion G. Romney once said, “I do not know as a member of the First Presidency of the Church any more surely that God lives than I knew as a missionary boy those many years ago in Australia. But there is this one difference: Now I know the Lord.” (As quoted by Boyd K. Packer in Ensign, July 1988, p. 78.)
Other examples include: “I have heard one of my brethren declare: ’ I know from experiences, too sacred to relate, that Jesus is the Christ.’ I have heard another testify: ’ I know that God lives; I know that the Lord lives. And more than that, I know the Lord.’ It was not their words that held the meaning or the power. It was the Spirit.” (Boyd K. Packer, Ensign, June 1971, p. 88.)
I’d like to echo #7.
While I definitely believe it’s possible to have communion with Christ — whether physically or in vision or however you want to define that encounter — I’m not convinced that these esoteric words really tell us anything about it or even how to get it. At what point does AB or C spiritual experience count as the one, and who decides? And why the multiplicity of terms and what are those supposed to rank exactly? Spiritual prestige? The spirit blows where it will , no?…despite our grasping hands.
I’d be interested to know why BRM’s particular road mapping of our spiritual experience is compelling for these posters? I frankly find that there is nothing since his passing to suggest that his idiosyncratic doctrinal ediface will survive. It continues to lose whatever currency it had among the saints (except in some parts of the Wasatch Front) and seems largely irrelevant to the real issues that confront the contemporary church. That’s not to deny the good work he did but there is little indication that it will amount to anything more than what other comparable church authorities with lesser name recognition accomplished.
Stargazer,
What do you mean by BRM’s “idiosyncratic doctrinal edifice?”
Matt,
My MP’s point in telling us that many people have seen the Savior was to impress upon us that such an experience can be attained by “average members” and not just by a few selected prophets. He said that a visitation from the Savior is something that should be strived for by every member of the church, and is promised in D&C 93:1
“Verily, thus saith the Lord: It shall come to pass that every soul who forsaketh his sins and cometh unto me, and calleth on my name, and obeyeth my voice, and keepeth my commandments, shall see my face and know that I am;”
As Gary mentioned earlier, some experiences are too sacred to discuss.
Curtis,
There is not always a “need” to revelation. Perhaps you meant the “Lord’s purpose” instead the “stake president’s need”. The Lord reveals things for our own edification, information, and enlightenment; and sometimes for the benefit of the object of the revelation.
Whether or not the SP “needs” to know if the person he is interviewing has seen the Savior, has nothing to do with whether or not the Lord will reveal that fact.
However, just positing a guess, there is something to keeping one’s ecclesiastical leaders informed of one’s spiritual status. In a sense, as the presiding high priest in the stake, the SP has a right to know of any supernal goings on in the stake, even more so than the bishop has a “right to know” of such things in the ward. That’s mainly because Melchizedek priesthood holders are accountable more to the Stake President, than to the Bishop in terms of priesthood.
And again, it’s merely my speculation that the Lord might reveal such a thing to the SP. Many times in my life, the Spirit has revealed things to me about others for which I had no absolute “need” to know, but the purpose was either for my edification, or to equip me in serving that person.
Matt,
In these days of mass communication, I think that the command to testify of seeing the Savior has changed. Nowadays, it would likely be seen as bragging. And if rank-and-file members were to so testify, then some others with lesser faith may get jealous or petulant or feel inferior.
No one in authority over me has said anything, but one former bishop has implied that I should not mention spiritual promptings in my blog because not everyone receives them. There is enough trouble in the church when people don’t receive the confirmation of Moroni’s promise. Is it because they haven’t met all the stated requirements, or is it just not the Lord’s will that they receive a testimony of the Book of Mormon?
There is more than one way for the Lord to unveil his face. D&C 88:68 again.
McConkie was really the last general authority to publicly teach that the various promises in the D&C regarding visitation by deity were literal. Now, they are generally taught as being figurative, or as referring to “feeling the spirit.” The membership has essentially lost faith that these things happen to ordinary persons. Meanwhile, certain of the general authorities speak in well-crafted lawyer-ese, while simultaneously saying that such experiences are “too sacred to discuss.” The truth is they want members of the church to INFER that the general authorities are having these sort of experiences all the time. It aids them in their efforts to control the poor “ordinary” members, who are constantly encouraged to practice near-idolatry toward high officers.
The esoteric must become ever more esoteric in order to safely navigate this age of information. Unless, of course, we’re in a big hurry to see the abomination of desolation–which is a result of blowing the doors off of sacred space.
You’re crazy
I think it is interesting how LDS people worship Bruce R. Mcconkie. I personally think he was too outspoken and extreme on some occations. Trying to lead people to think he knew more than he really did. Mormon Doctrine is not Scripture and he never was a prophet. Mormon extremist love him because he was like them. He bent the truth more than once to impress people, this is just one such a time. In regards to organic evolution he left out Heber J. Grant and David O. Mckay statements purposely just to justify his own opionions (more recent and athoritative than his beloved relative Joseph F. Smith). So I can only imagine what else he has distorted to prove his point.