Transcendent Visions

[Commons] [School] [Garden] [Kitchen] [Meditorium] [Library]
contrib/swick/transcendent-visions.html

"Joe Steve Swick III" jswick@cris.com

___ Gaia Said ___
Interesting, isn't it, how the moment of "enlightenment" about the church comes as a series of relatively minor events that stack up almost without you realizing it until one day, you ask yourself, "What if the prophet is just a human being, as flawed as the rest of us, and what if this 'follow the prophet' stuff is just a way of ensuring unquestioning obedience rather than the Lord's will?

___ Joe Responds ___
As I mentioned, in my own case, the issue is not the humanity of the Prophet...I am perfectly happy to admit his humanity. Rather, there is the issue of the nature of the prophetic gift, and the *responsibility* of those anointed and appointed to seek and find a certain kind of revelation. In fact, in my own opinion, the Church needs to seek out those who DEMONSTRATE such gifts, rather than those who can run a bank or manage a business unit. Certainly there are such individuals yet in the Church -- I am personally acquainted with those who demonstrate such gifts, and were they called into positions of responsibility, I would be glad to heed their counsel on spiritual matters. But today, the qualifications for office in the Church seem very different than this...the issue is one of corporate culture vs. the Kingdom of God.

I also think that the July Sunstone article (actually a Letter to the Editor by Janice Allred) struck the proper note on the issue you raise of following the living prophet. That revelation is immanent rather than transcendent is important in context of truth claims. For, if the revelations of the leaders today are "immanent," they are not at all different from the "immanent" revelations received by the majority of Latter-day Saints, who RIGHTLY expect that a man who holds the fulness of the priesthood will actually (at least occasionally!) pierce the veil, and walk and talk with God.

You see, this is the reason these keys were given to the Church in the first place... not as a means of perpetuating a "theocracy" in the classic and negative sense of the word. Yet how can one rely upon a Church leader to provide keys of knowledge when they themselves do not receive what the Priesthood holds out to faithful and searching members...the mysteries of godliness? How can I expect that one who has not himself pierced the veil...and who believes it is not his right to do so...will ever help me in a thousand years?

Allred accurately notes that it is a big game of finger-pointing (buck passing?). When it comes to transcendence, everyone shuts up about their own experience, and points to the Prophet as the individual solely responsible for such transcendent revelation. Aside from my general belief that this itself is mistaken, I wish to underscore Janice Allred's astute observation that while "the buck stops" at the President's desk, he is the first to say that that his own revelations are immanent in nature. I remember my great disappointment when first reading his admission that he has never had a personal visitation from the Savior . . . when "visio Dei" is an essential component of what Mormonism holds out to the faithful. Traditionally, the promise vouchsafed in the story of Brother of Jared in the Mount is held forth as a reward for the faithful -- that is, personal knowledge of God through individual transcendent experience, apart from any other person.

While I applaud the honesty of a President of the Church for admitting his own limitations, it is nevertheless troubling to some extent that such an individual stands before a conference of the Church to be sustained as a "prophet, seer, and revelator." In light of his own admissions, what do these titles mean? Apart from experience with Deity, they can mean very little. And it is embarrassing in the extreme that his comments have been printed hither and yon among the Gentiles, who are quietly laughing up their shirt-sleeves at Mormon gullibility. The Tanners of course absolutely ate this stuff up in their November edition of the Salt Lake City Messenger (along with his several statements that "he wouldn't say" that we teach that God was once a man ["I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it"], in spite of the fact that this was a cornerstone of the Prophet Joseph's Nauvoo doctrine).

As I mentioned in my previous posting, spiritual gifts are not corporate perks, and "prophet" is more than an office in the Church. Consequently, we fool and cheat ourselves when we rely on others to receive revelation for us, when it is our privilege to receive it for ourselves, that we may wisely weigh spiritual matters that concern our own homes.

I am perfectly happy that the Prophet is the only one authorized to receive revelations for the Church as a body -- and that the majority of revelations are of the "immanent" variety is also not troubling -- I assume that the same is true for those who have actually received transcendent experiences.

I am NOT happy that he has said publicly that "revelation no longer comes by vision, but in the still small voice." Aside from being untrue, the statement will do nothing but distance those who actually have transcendent experiences from the Church -- and will lead the average member (already suspicious of anything that smacks of "current" and "otherworldly") to doubt the faith of those who may be stupid enough to publicly admit to having such experiences.

The cry "revelation no longer comes by vision" was used against Joseph Smith at the opening of this dispensation. If I am not mistaken, it was the fundamental reason for the Restoration. To hear these same words from the mouth of one who is the successor of Joseph Smith man should give us all reason to pause and reflect on the meaning of that Restoration, and where it is headed in the decades to come.

Warmest Regards,
Joe Steve Swick III

P.S. Just a thought: this is why it is so important that TRUTH not be separated from AUTHORITY. It is not enough to claim to "sit in Joseph's seat," (Matt. 23:2-3; see also vs. 4-39) if you do not teach what Joseph taught.

Originally posted to: Mahonri-l Doctrinal Discussion List
Visit our web site at http://www.troubador.com/~mahonri
From: "Joe Steve Swick III" <jswick@cris.com>

>I sure loved what you wrote! Would you mind if I included it on my web site at:
>The Absalom Collection ?

I don't know that my Bishop would be thrilled, Joseph! (^_^)
But I am flattered.
JSW

[Commons] [School] [Garden] [Kitchen] [Meditorium] [Library]
contrib/swick/transcendent-visions.html

Archive/Mirror Of: The Absalom Collection