Visions and Visitations

Bruce R. McConkie taught this:

“Through supernatural means, by the power of the Holy Ghost, devout persons are permitted to have visions and to see within the veil. They are enabled to see spiritual personages and to view scenes hidden from ordinary sight. These visions are gifts of the Spirit. (Seventh Article of Faith.) They come by faith and vanish away when faith dies out. (1 Sam. 3:1; Isa. 29:9-14.) Thus they stand as an evidence of the divinity of the Lord’s work in any age. If the Lord is giving visions and revelation to a people, such group constitutes the people of God. If visions and revelations are not being received by any church or people, then that group is not the Lord’s people. By this test the identity of the true Church is known. (Moro. 7:30-38.) … Visions serve the Lord’s purposes in preparing men for salvation. By them knowledge is revealed (2 Ne. 4:23), conversions are made (Alma 19: 16), the gospel message is spread abroad, the church organization is perfected (D. & C. 107:93), and righteousness is increased in the hearts of men. And visions are to increase and abound in the last days, for the Lord has promised to pour out his ‘spirit upon all flesh,’ so that ‘old men shall dream dreams,’ and ‘young men shall see visions.’ (Joel 2:28-32.)”
 (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 745, 747).

Question About Blacks And Priesthood

I have been asked what my point was in my last post.  

I didn't make a point.  I only intended to provide the interview for you to decide if there was anything of value in it for you.  I didn't intend to spend more time on it, really.  I found the interview valuable, but it is only one man's public accounting of what took place.  Without looking at other testimonies it is impossible to come close to an accurate picture of what happened.  

It is difficult to find accounts detailing the experiences of each of the brethren who were involved in the June 1st meeting in which the decision was made.  Perhaps Elder McConkie's remarks and feelings have been most often quoted, and are most widely known.  His are also the most spectacular.  He and LeGrand Richards seem to me to have had different experiences.  David B. Haight said all were overcome with emotion when the decision was made, and recalled that he heard Spencer W. Kimball and Ezra Taft Benson say they had never "experienced anything of such spiritual magnitude and power."

There is no written revelation that was produced that day.  There were no visits, visions, voices, etc., and hence nothing to write down and publish.   However, more than not say they felt the Spirit witness to them in a powerful way that they should proceed in their desires, and that the change was pleasing to God.  All of the brethren who have described their experience tell of the feelings that came to them.

The most explicit explanation came from Elder McConkie.  When compared with what others said, it appears to be overstated:

"The Spirit of the Lord rested mightily upon us all; we felt something akin to what happened on the day of Pentecost and at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple.  From the midst of eternity, the voice of God, conveyed by the power of the Spirit, spoke to his prophet… And we all heard the same voice, received the same message, and became personal witnesses that the word received was the mind and will and voice of the Lord."

Also,   

"[T]he Lord in his providences poured out the Holy Ghost upon the First Presidency and the Twelve in a miraculous and marvelous manner, beyond anything that any then present had ever experienced." 

Elder McConkie also explained why he believed some members of the Church were disappointed with President Kimball's revelation (or presumed lack of one):

“Many of them [Latter-day Saints] desire to magnify and build upon what has occurred, and they delight to think of miraculous things.  And maybe some of them would like to believe that the Lord himself was there, or that the Prophet Joseph Smith came to deliver the revelation … Well, these things did not happen." 

Gordon B. Hinckley explained:

"No voice audible to our physical ears was heard. But the voice of the Spirit whispered with a certainty into our minds and our very souls."  

I intentionally withheld my views about the history of the entire matter.  There are articles and books written about the topic, all expressing various viewpoints.  

The Danger of Infallibility, Part 3

“How, it may be asked, was this known to be a bad angel?  By His contradicting a former revelation.”  -Joseph Smith (TPJS, p. 214).

It is important to examine the time period after President Woodruff’s death. His statement that the President would never lead the saints astray becomes problematic to any serious student of Church history.  It is problematic retrospectively, as we have discussed, but also prospectively.  It later becomes problematic, for instance, when President Heber J. Grant changes the way the priesthood is given to the men in the Church.  That change remained in place for over two decades until a future president of the Church changed it back. 

Woodruff’s statement is also troubling when considering the changes that are subsequently made to the temple ordinances; not additions to, or clarifications only, but the removal of certain of the higher ordinances, and alterations to portions that we are taught are most sacred.

 

The Church leadership later returned to the original way in which priesthood was conferred, fearing the procedure had been changed in error.  It also once again began administering the higher ordinances of the temple after much concern among some of the apostles and a temple president.  Their concerns were a matter of continued discussion in meetings of the twelve.

I’ve wondered what President Woodruff would say about President Kimball’s statement regarding Brigham Young’s Adam-God teachings.

“We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some General Authorities of past generations, such, for instance is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine" (President Spencer W. Kimball during Priesthood session of general conference, Church News, 9 Oct 1976).

I’d be particularly interested to hear how President Woodruff would respond (I have a good idea how Brigham Young might respond) to this statement from Bruce R. McConkie:

“Brigham Young erred in some of his statements on the nature and kind of being that God is and as to the position of Adam in the plan of salvation…If we choose to believe and teach the false portions of his doctrines we are making an election that will damn us" (From a letter to Eugene England dated 19 Feb 1981, p. 6).

I cannot presume to speak for him, but I cannot believe that President Woodruff would have agreed with these statements.  He had actually taken part in disciplinary councils considering the excommunication of Elder Orson Pratt for teaching the very same things that President Kimball and Elder McConkie taught (These trials and controversies cover an extended time frame and are well documented in Bergera’s Conflict in the Quorum).  

If, therefore, what President Woodruff intended to convey by saying that the Church President would never lead the saints astray was that no Church President would ever teach false doctrine, then he himself (and you and me) would have to conclude that he was wrong.  For, regardless of who was right or wrong, two Presidents taught two completely opposing ideas, and declared authoritatively what they were teaching to be the truth.  They cannot both be correct.  There are many other examples that could have been chosen.     

It’s also interesting to note that Bruce R. McConkie very apparently did not believe that the Church President was necessarily always going to be doctrinally accurate.  He believed and taught that Brigham Young was in error (noted above).  He also said that if we "choose to believe and teach the false portions of [Brigham Young's] doctrines we are making an election that will damn us."  Eliza R. Snow, Heber C. Kimball, and Brigham Young are among the group who are, therefore, damned.  Yet, surprisingly, Elder McConkie didn’t teach that Brigham Young had led the Church astray by teaching false doctrine.  How is it that the Church President can teach a thing which, if believed, will damn a man, and not be leading the Church astray?  How far then would one have to go to lead the Church astray?  Who is the judge of this?  Can we really believe in this idea?


In using these examples from our history, I am not siding with one leader over another, or faulting one or the other, but illustrating contradictions.  The contradictions were real - they happened - are well-documented, and can teach you a whole lot about your religion.  They are the ones who were critical of and faulted one another's teachings.  


It may be difficult to some reading this to consider this discussion.  The reason that it is difficult is because we are confronted by the truth about these things, and the truth is not consistent with our expectations.  Our expectation is that we're led by men who will never lead us astray.  We should reconsider this belief.  It has no potential of bearing good fruit.  Christ has never advocated it.  It is called "trusting in the arm of flesh" in the scriptures.  Joseph Smith taught that when men advocate such "extreme notions" it is usually because they have it in their heart to do wrong themselves (Millennial Star, Volume 14, No. 38, Pages 593-595).

The Salt of the Earth

Nephi sets the stage for us early on in his writing (1 Ne. 10:11-14; and 13:3, 4, 10, 12-17, 19, 23, 25-26, 29-35, 38-40, 42).  He makes it clear who the Gentiles are.  We're then able to follow the prophecies about that people from that point on.  

When I read the biography of Bruce McConkie by his son Joseph a few years back, I noticed that the book began by introducing Elder McConkie's roots.  The author gives us details about Elder McConkie's parents, and his parents' parents.  It's nice to know a little more about the main character of the book by tracing the line a bit.  This is typical of most biographies that have been written about leaders of the Church.  You're always going to get a little background about the family.  

Nephi gives us the brief, but very clear genealogical background required for us to understand the identity and primary role of those who are called "Gentiles" throughout the entire book.  The verses mentioned above are the beginning pieces of the picture.  It is a picture that is developed fully only when considering the entirety of the Book of Mormon text.  

Whether or not we can now accept that the Book of Mormon is a prophecy about and warning to us, we can begin by considering the resurrected Lord's teachings to Lehi's descendants who were spared destruction at the time of Christ's death.  You can read the entire chapter for the context, but consider these words:

"But if the Gentiles will repent and return unto me, saith the Father, behold they shall be numbered among my people, O house of Israel.

"And I will not suffer my people, who are of the house of Israel, to go through among them, and tread them down, saith the Father.

"But if they will not turn unto me, and hearken unto my voice, I will suffer them, yea, I will suffer my people, O house of Israel, that they shall go through among them, and shall tread them down, and they shall be as salt that hath lost its savor, which is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of my people, O house of Israel" (3 Ne. 16:13-15).

Skimming over these verses makes it easy to maintain a belief that the term Gentiles isn't talking about us.  It is too easy for us to assume that when those heathen Gentiles repent they will then be numbered among the Church.  That's not what this is talking about, however.

When in modern revelation the Lord repeats phrases he has previously used we should listen up.  In our day the Lord has given us further light to understand the records we possess.  On 16 December 1833 he revealed to the Prophet:

"When men are called unto mine everlasting gospel, and covenant with an everlasting covenant, they are accounted as the salt of the earth and the savor of men;

"They are called to be the savor of men; therefore, if that salt of the earth lose its savor, behold, it is thenceforth good for nothing only to be cast out and trodden under the feet of men" (D&C 101:39-40).

How can the Gentiles about whom Christ is prophesying in 3 Nephi "be as salt that hath lost its savor," if those Gentiles have not been "called" and have not made "covenants" by the proper authority?  Those Gentiles who have never been "called," have thus never been "accounted" as the "salt of the earth and the savor of men."  If the Gentiles about whom Christ is prophesying are indeed those who have been "called unto mine everlasting gospel," and who "covenant with an everlasting covenant" to obey it, how is it that they will, according to the words of Christ given unto Him by the Father, need to "repent and return unto me?"  

When you consider the Book of Mormon in truth and with honesty, you begin to realize that you have many more questions than you thought you had answers.  You need these questions.  They lead you to Christ. 

I've focused almost wholly on us, and the role we have to play, and our identity, and how the Book of Mormon is a warning to us.  We should remember the book's preeminent purpose.  It will show the remnant "what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever" (Title Page).  It was also given that the Gentiles might be convinced that "Jesus is the Christ" (ibid.).  We can only fulfill our role when we properly understand it.