George Albert Smith & Seeing Christ

[UtahDan]

In the further alternative you could stop being sensitive about comments not directed at you.

[Katy Lied]

Here is the full text of her complaint:

Let's retell this 1873 story in 2012 monetary terms:

Single mom with 2 young sons marries Brigham Young for 1 year. During this year he treats her with kindness and pays for her to support herself and her two sons. (Not clear if the marriage was consummated). After the period of a year, Brigham Young suddenly turns into a cruel and maniacal raving beast, leading her to sue for divorce and pursuing a settlement of $3.88 million, plus another $388,000 for her attorney. She bases this figure off not BY's personal earnings, but the earnings of the church, which he presides over.

Does anybody really think this divorce is about BY at all?

[Paperback Writer]

Re: the Little Tommy Monson stories. I'm overestimating their prevalence, I am sure, but it seems odd to me that he is the protagonist and often the hero in these moral tales.

Look at it this way. At least they are not missionary stories from the lips of Elder Monson. I only mention this because I found PHD stories inspiring as a youth.

[Katy Lied]

I've long been curious about this. Does anyone know why TSM didn't go on a mission? For some of the GAs about his age, they were drafted to Korea or Vietnam and unable to go. But I recall that TSM wasn't the right age to be drafted. I could be mistaken.

I know TSM was a bishop at a very tender age--probably around missionary age, I'm not suggesting he wasn't worthy.

[creekster]

Let's retell this 1873 story in 2012 monetary terms:

Single mom with 2 young sons marries Brigham Young for 1 year. During this year he treats her with kindness and pays for her to support herself and her two sons. (Not clear if the marriage was consummated). After the period of a year, Brigham Young suddenly turns into a cruel and maniacal raving beast, leading her to sue for divorce and pursuing a settlement of $3.88 million, plus another $388,000 for her attorney. She bases this figure off not BY's personal earnings, but the earnings of the church, which he presides over.

Does anybody really think this divorce is about BY at all?

The thing that offends me is the low percentage take by the attorney,.

[mtnbiker]

I've long been curious about this. Does anyone know why TSM didn't go on a mission? For some of the GAs about his age, they were drafted to Korea or Vietnam and unable to go. But I recall that TSM wasn't the right age to be drafted. I could be mistaken.

I know TSM was a bishop at a very tender age--probably around missionary age, I'm not suggesting he wasn't worthy.

You don't remember him talking about his time in the Navy? From lds.org:

Tom graduated from high school and enrolled at the University of Utah. As he approached his 18th birthday, it seemed certain he would be drafted into military service, so he chose to enlist in the United States Navy Reserve. Thus he was able to return home and resume his college career—and also resume his courtship of Frances Beverly Johnson. He had met her during his first year at the university.

Thomas Monson and Frances Johnson were married on October 7, 1948, in the Salt Lake Temple, a few months after he graduated from the University of Utah with a degree in business management.

Also, from priesthood session just last conference, he referenced Sunday services while in boot camp. I take it you didn't read the conference issue of the Ensign?

[Moliere]

I've long been curious about this. Does anyone know why TSM didn't go on a mission? For some of the GAs about his age, they were drafted to Korea or Vietnam and unable to go. But I recall that TSM wasn't the right age to be drafted. I could be mistaken.

I know TSM was a bishop at a very tender age--probably around missionary age, I'm not suggesting he wasn't worthy.

He got home from the Navy when he was 19 and hasnt given any reason for not serving. He obviously could have served but probably just chose not to.

[mtnbiker]

He got home from the Navy when he was 19 and hasnt given any reason for not serving. He obviously could have served but probably just chose not to.

Only 19 when he got out? Wow. I guess he paid the price for not going on a mission, then, getting made bishop of 80 widows at 22.

[Uncle Ted]

He got home from the Navy when he was 19 and hasnt given any reason for not serving. He obviously could have served but probably just chose not to.

Usually when you enlist there is a minimum commitment of something like 5-8 years for active duty or the reserves. So I am guessing that once he got home from active duty he was in the reserves for the remainder of his commitment which would make it impossible to serve a mission.

[creekster]

In the further alternative you could stop being sensitive about comments not directed at you.

Then be more precise. Regardless of the intended (but unspecified) target, the fact is it is patronizing to begin your comment that way among a group such as this, a group with which you are familiar. And what makes you think I am being sensitive? You seem to be confusing sensitivity with a normative conclusion. I thought it was patronizing, and I still do. I wasn't then and am not now offended.

[creekster]

I personally don't believe in either of these methods of revelation, but I believe that - at an institutional level - the LDS tend to favor both models I laid out depending on convenience.

Good points. The problem is that this dichotomy asks a static question when it is a dynamic issue. The thread generally (apart from a few tangents and subsets) asks what is a prophet, seer and revelator and asks whether we have seen the sort of product one would expect from a PS&R now.

One approach is to ask whether TSM produces product like JS. But this is a straw man. There have been only a couple of prophets who have been asked to shoulder the load that JS was asked to carry. Moses, as was mentioned before, is an example. So JS has the role of PS&R and he performs it. But nothing about his role mandates that successors produce in the same way or in the same amount or even at all. Why cant God go into maintenance mode?

Moreover, your comments also seem to assume that revelation happens in one way for all prophets. In fact, IMO, it likely happens differently for many. I think we like to imagine that God puts specific words and phrases in their minds, that He directs their pens to write specific sentences. Sometimes this might happen, but more often I think He requires all of us, including prophets, to struggle with the thoughts and feelings and inspirations we receive and to use our best efforts to form these into words and policies and actions. It is not always pretty and it is rarely if ever linear. So to describe the dichotomy you mention is to oversimplify a complex process, IMO. To look at prophets now and ask where are the scriptures, or where are the revelations imposes a time line and set of criteria on God where no such limits or criteria exist, except in our limited minds.

OTOH, your argument that prophets historically were forward looking and outsiders is more interesting. But, assuming you believe in God and in the role of JS as a prophet, then why wouldn't God change his approach? In fact, aren't we told that this dispensation is different? That it is the last one before Christ's return and, thus, God's authority would never be taken again from his church. If you believe this is true, then there could never be another prophet who was an outsider, even though in the past prophets have usually or almost always been outsiders. It also means that the authority to be the PS&R will always be given to one man, regardless of how often God reveals anything to him, or how often he may be called upon to translate ancient texts.

The biggest issue, of course, is whether you believe that God spoke through Joseph Smith at all. The end of this discussion always breaks down along those lines.

Sometimes it's convenient to believe that the restoration is still a work-in-progress, and that some of the distasteful or controversial practices from the past were just part of the learning process. This gives credence to modern authorities as being prophets on par with Joseph Smith et al. As ET Benson said (before he became prophet), "Beware of those who would pit the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence".

Other times, it's convenient to believe that everything important has already been revealed (for now) and that's why we don't add to the canon of scripture, and why GA talks often draw heavily from talks of earlier LDS prophets (and why Sacrament Meeting talks are often supposed to be talks about talks). There's safety in retrenchment and repetition.

Why cant both of these be true? They are not mutually exclusive. The important work has largely been done in terms of restoring the saving ordinances of the gospel, but that neither precludes nor requires mistakes or corrections. Nor does it demand any particular frequency or quality of on going revelations.

Clearly, since you seem to be trying to set me up with the "do you think these are the ONLY two options" line, I would agree that there could be other options. I would be interested in learning about these possibilities.

The problem I see with the ideas you laid out in a historical sense is the role of a prophet. I don't believe a biblical prophet has the same claims to authority that today's LDS prophets make. Very rarely in (Bible) scripture is the prophet the leader of established religion. Instead, the prophets are outsiders who are trying to counteract institutional apostasy. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Elijah were all on the outs with the authorities at some time or another. Even Moses was an outsider of sorts, having grown up in Pharaoh's court. The best example is Jesus - who in a sense overthrew the established order.

One of my favorite examples - Amos - is often held up as the ultimate justification for modern-day prophets (3.7). The only problem with this is that Amos denounced the institutional authorities as corrupt apostates (see esp. Amos 5.21-22 and 7.10-15). This is, I believe, hardly the model I think today's LDS prophets want to emulate, since LDS teach that prophets can only come from within the church's framework - and, even then, only at the very highest levels of authority.

In this sense I don't think it's accurate to compare modern-day prophets to Biblical ones. Bible prophets are most commonly present in times of apostasy. Today's church - by self-proclaimed fiat - is incapable of apostasy.

I discussed this above.

[The Rambam]

The point is that current church administrators demand to be sustained by the honorifics "Prophet, Seer, and Revelator". All commenting on this thread seem in agreement that the title does not mean they are engaged in the same activities as Prophets Seers and Revelator's in times past--the reasons for the cessation of former roles is not as clear.

To the point of the original thread comment, part of that cessation is the end of the sharing of a story of personally seeing God or Jesus. Some believe this is because they no longer see God of Jesus.

There are differing opinions as to the significance of this cessation; some believe it denotes an apostasy, some believe it represents a harmless dormancy in prophetic cycles, some believe no need for revelation exists and if the need arises the revelation will flow.

All of us in the Church raise our hand to the square and don't ask Church leaders about the actual situation behind closed doors.

[creekster]

The point is that current church administrators demand to be sustained by the honorifics "Prophet, Seer, and Revelator". All commenting on this thread seem in agreement that the title does not mean they are engaged in the same activities as Prophets Seers and Revelator's in times past--the reasons for the cessation of former roles is not as clear.

To the point of the original thread comment, part of that cessation is the end of the sharing of a story of personally seeing God or Jesus. Some believe this is because they no longer see God of Jesus.

There are differing opinions as to the significance of this cessation; some believe it denotes an apostasy, some believe it represents a harmless dormancy in prophetic cycles, some believe no need for revelation exists and if the need arises the revelation will flow.

All of us in the Church raise our hand to the square and don't ask Church leaders about the actual situation behind closed doors.

While I very much appreciate the non-hyperbolic presentation, I dont agree with it completely. This might be a quibble, but I dont think the role has ceased. I think the authority is held by those that we sustain in those roles and they are doing what God requires them to do. They are filling the role fully, but the acts required now are different than those required of JS, for example. Nothing ceased, so to speak, it is just a different need in a different time and place.

Whether there are on-going personal and physical manifestions of the divine we dont know, as you say, but I am not sure it is essential for me to ever find that out. But that is just MO. Whether we are entitled to know more about closed door happenings is a different topic altogether, I think.

[Sleeping in EQ]

The membership don't revere them because the think they are the equivalent of the steward of Gondor.

Tolkien loved archetypes, and this one is spot on.

[Uncle Ted]

It is true that some have actually seen the Savior, but when one consults the dictionary, he learns that there are many other meanings of the word see, such as coming to know Him, discerning Him, recognizing Him and His work, perceiving His importance, or coming to understand Him.

Such heavenly enlightenment and blessing are available to each of us.

David B. Haight, The Ensign/November 1990, pp. 61.