The Gifts of the Spirit Are Gone
Even a cursory reading of our early history yields the fantastic weaves of God’s power and lives of the saints. Speaking in tongues, Adamic and others. Prophecy. Miracles, real miracles – like raising the dead. Commensurate readings of contemporary Mormonism is a tapestry quotidian in comparison. There is a disparity and I submit that it is us who have fled, not the gifts of the spirit.
The early saints were restorationists. They recognized that the churches of the time did not reflect the Bible in operation and actively sought the signs of the primitive Church. Joseph was a literal prophet and the literal manifestations of the God’s power were integral in the true Church. One could not separate the Church from the Gifts.
Zina D. Huntington’s first husband wrote to her while away, reminiscing on how they would regularly kneel together in prayer at night and alternately speak in tongues. Both Zina and Elizabeth Whitney would regularly sing in tongues. It was Brigham Young who spoke in tongues and inspired Joseph’s endorsement of the practice. Their culture believed that the gifts of the spirit were real. They desired them and they had faith to receive them.
The early saints were diluted with new converts with diverse histories. Not all the new converts had the same expectations of God. Still, those who associated with the founders of our faith were converted beyond the truth of the restored gospel to the restorationism of Joseph.
Heber J. Grant, well into the 20th century, frequently testified (in general conference) how he was blessed by the glossolaliac and prophetic Eliza as a child and later received a prophetic blessing upon his head by his tongue speaking wife. But then this generation passed away, the church continued to grow and history became myth.
We no longer believe that the Gifts are required for the true Church. We don’t know anyone who experiences them and consequently believe that they are not for us or that they don’t even really exist. We contrive great explanations for their absence: Joseph Smith’s day was the Exodus to our Leviticus; there is no greater witness than that of the Spirit. To deny ourselves the same right to the power of God as the founding saints is to admit our own culpability. How could we have faith to do something we don’t even believe.
So what is your suggestion? Do we just need more faith, more conviction that such Gifts of the Spirit are real, and potentially available to us? Will we then have frequent experiences not unlike those of the early Saints?
Aaron B
Comment by Aaron Brown — June 16, 2005 @ 2:29 pm
Umm, yeah. I would tie the decline of the gifts of the Spirit in the church to the ascent of rationalism in the western world view. The early church assumed that this is what would come with a restored gospel. We assume that people who speak glossolalia are having some sort of odd experience. I kinda think that if we thought this stuff was important or natural, we’d have a lot more of it.
Comment by John C. — June 16, 2005 @ 2:35 pm
The Book of Mormon is clear on this point — if the gifts go away, it is from lack of faith. That makes me feel very, very bad.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 16, 2005 @ 2:43 pm
There are two things that I see as tragic losses. The first is that the Gifts of the spirit are democratic. Both women and men prophesied, blessed, spoke in tounges, healed and raised the dead. The power of God was an intimate part of these saints’ lives.
It is not just that we don’t speak in tongues anymore, it is that we don’t have tangible real manifestions of God our lives. I’m lucky if my nightly prayer with my wife is lucid, let alone the focused power of God.
So, yeah, I’m all for the prophetic democracy. I’m not really sure how to get it, though. Maybe if we all lived in a ward that focused on it. I don’t know.
Comment by J. Stapley — June 16, 2005 @ 2:46 pm
I think John’s right. In Moroni 7, Moroni asks if miracles and gifts of the Spirit have ceased because Christ has ascended to heaven. His answer is no - but they come through faith and sincere seeking. If we think that glossolalia is weird and don’t seek it, that gift will not be given. Chronologically, the decline of Mormon charismatic religious expression seems to parallel the fall of polygamy and the general “Americanization” of Utah. I would speculate that there was a connection; the Saints had begun caring about how the rest of the country saw them, and increasingly adopted a more mainstream view of themselves.
Comment by Matt Bowman — June 16, 2005 @ 2:47 pm
Steve and Jonathan are right too. They just hadn’t posted when I started writing.
Comment by Matt Bowman — June 16, 2005 @ 2:51 pm
If there is ever to be a resurgence of miracles and gifts of the Spirit in the Church, I probably won’t be leading that trend. I am much too much of a cynic to be a likely candidate. That said, I have no problem, in principle, with most of what you’re all saying.
But here is a problem I have. Consider John C.’s comment that “We assume that people who speak glossolalia are having some sort of odd experience.” The reason that “we,” including me, make these assumptions is that we’ve had experiences with the kinds of people who claim these experiences, and we’ve noticed that they tend to be the same types of folk that have a lot of other weird stuff going on. How come when I meet that rare brother or sister who has visions or miracles on a regular basis, he they also just happen to be the same folks who have hang-ups about Weird Mormon Doctrine X or Strange Mormon Teaching Y from the 19th Century? How come those who do have access to these experiences are the same folks who swear that if you measure the distance from Adam-Ondi-Ahman to the First Grove, and divide it by the square root of the distance between the Great Pyramid at Gisa and Hanger 18 at Roswell, you get a number that just happens to coincide with the number of “verily, verily, I say unto you”s in the Book of Mormon? In other words, if it’s wrong to assume that these experiences are odd, why is it that the people having them are always so odd?
I realize some may disagree with the correlation I’ve posited, based on their own, different experiences. But this has been my experience.
Aaron B
Comment by Aaron Brown — June 16, 2005 @ 3:29 pm
Additionally, do we wonder that if we start to speak in tongues people will assume that we are crazy? Is the lack of the gifts of the Spirit among the sane due to the “fear of Man”? Clearly, the insane don’t care what people think of them.
Comment by John C. — June 16, 2005 @ 3:48 pm
We no longer believe that the Gifts are required for the true Church. We don’t know anyone who experiences them and consequently believe that they are not for us or that they don’t even really exist.
This just isn’t true; it is patently untrue.
If you don’t know anyone who has experienced a gift of the Spirit, JS, then you are only speaking for yourself, and not for the entire Church. I have witnessed many “gifts of the Spirit,” though, I admit, not any babbling in tongues. I personally believe in a God of miracles, and it is my opinion that most of the Church members do as well. Ironically, it seems to me that I have read at least some threads throughout the Bloggernacle over the last year mocking people’s witness of miracles in various contexts. Some of these threads have debunked any and all of them as “Mormon uraban legends”; others have asserted affirmatively that some miracles believed in by many in the Church can’t really be miracles. For example, I have seen at least one thread mocking the idea that garments could ever offer literal, physical protection rather than mere symbolic metaphorical protection, basically claiming that such a belief in such a nonsensical gift or miracle must stem from simple ignorance. I have also seen threads that argue that understanding speaking in tongues as the assistance the Lord now gives to the missionaries in learning their languages or to Church leaders in communicating with different cultures cannot be the correct way to understand that gift. I have seen threads on any number of other aspects of Latter-day Saint belief in the gifts of the spirit that criticize and/or “debunk” such beliefs in the Bloggernacle.
What bothers me about your post, JS, is that it seems like you want to have it both ways. You want the Church to have the “gifts of the Spirit” and the God of Miracles but then you (meaning, perhaps, the Bloggernacle at large rather than you personally, JS) want to criticize and “debunk” the stories that circulate that express these very miracles and gifts. Should I tell a few stories right now about healings I have personally witnessed, gifts of the spirit that I have personally experienced? What would the point of that be? You seem to just want to hear stories about babbling in tongues.
Is it possible that certain gifts of the Spirit (like babbling in tongues in the way that you long for) aren’t relevant anymore for any number of reasons that are known to God. It is not rationalizing away the need for gifts of the Spirit to be realistic and say that even if you aren’t speaking in tongues with your wife every night after your evening prayers that gifts of the Spirit don’t abound anymore in the Church or that God is not performing daily miracles in the lives of the Latter-day Saints.
Comment by john fowles — June 16, 2005 @ 3:52 pm
Aaron B.:
You should know that there are no hangars at Roswell. You were probably intending to refer to Area 51.
Comment by Mark B. — June 16, 2005 @ 3:57 pm
John, how can you rudely accuse JS of wanting to “have it both ways,” while acknowledging that it is not he who wants it some other way, it is “the Bloggernacle at large.”
And why do you keep referring to it as “babbling” in tongues?
Comment by ed — June 16, 2005 @ 3:58 pm
I wonder how many experiences actually happen, maybe even so common place, that we don’t notice it. Or perhaps these gifts are evident in some peoples lifes and they don’t share their experiences. There is a big difference from the people of today and of the early church; In how they live, how they communicate, their understanding of the gospel. Most members in the early church didn’t grow up in the church and that may be a part of it the common place theory.
I can attest to the gift of tongues. My mom prophesied of me going on an asian mission - it came true (I am not sure if it was prophesy or that it would serve me right because I was a picky eater when I was younger).
I can’t count how many miracles I have seen through the blessing of the sick.
I have seen a father out late one night looking for his son, not having any idea where he is, yet, he feels directed and drives 10 miles to the exact location that his son is.
I hear of these things, but even I have wondered if the gifts are evident. But they are.
However, I believe that faith is the issue if we aren’t seeing them, and I believe there are many in the church that don’t. Granted, I haven’t seen or heard somebody speak in adamic language, but then, I wonder, why would someone? Perhaps its my faith, but I still believe that God works through logic. Why would someone talk in the adamic language? At the same time, I can’t answer why they would back in the day either. But unless we need a gift and seek for it, why would he give it to us? So yes, faith is an issue.
Comment by N Miller — June 16, 2005 @ 4:02 pm
You’re right, Mark. I couldn’t remember my UFO trivia off-hand. I’ll have to brush up on it sometime. In truth, I kept wanting to type “Area 54,” but I think I was confusing it with Studio 54, and let’s face it: Even the ward wack-jobs aren’t going to impute religious significance to a deviant, New York nightclub.
Aaron B
Comment by Aaron Brown — June 16, 2005 @ 4:03 pm
ed, the reason that I used the term “have it both ways” in this context was because, if I am not mistaken, one of the threads that I was referring to in which the idea that the gift of speaking in tongues could have relevance at this present time through the help the Lord gives the missionaries and Church leaders in preaching the Gospel to the nations of the earth was criticized was written by JS.
As for the term “babbling in tongues,” I use that terminology for situations in which no one is present to interpret the use of tongues. To be technical, the gift of speaking in tongues is not often warranted unless someone is also possessed of the gift of the interpretation of tongues in the same audience to provide the hearers with the meaning of what is otherwise “babbling.”
Comment by john fowles — June 16, 2005 @ 4:10 pm
Hugh Nibley said the gifts are not manifest because the people don’t seek them. We seek the gift of healing, and we receive it. Not so much the gift of tongues, knowledge, wisdom, prophecy, etc.
Comment by Eric S — June 16, 2005 @ 4:11 pm
“It is not just that we don’t speak in tongues anymore, it is that we don’t have tangible real manifestions of God our lives.
Um… Maybe you, and those who agree with you in this thread, don’t have tangible, real manifestations of God in your lives, but it seems a little ridiculous to take that to mean that no one else does.
While it is true that in the church we don’t have many public manifestations of the gifts of the spirit, that does not mean that they are not happening. I can assure you that the gifts of the spirit are active within the church, and they are quietly, privately manifest by both women and men as well as children.
During his earthly life, the Lord’s almost always told recipients of miracles to “tell no one”– a command that they repeatedly defied. Perhaps the lack of miracles you perceive simply means that the latter-day saints are more obedient in this regard than were the saints of old.
You also seem to put an inordinate emphasis on “impressive” gifts like xenoglossy and raising the dead while ignoring gifts such as teaching the words of knowledge and wisdom, the gift of great faith, of knowing diversities of operations and administration, discerning of spirits, of knowing that Jesus is the Son of God and Savior of the world, and the gift of believing the words of those who do have that gift, and the supreme gift: Charity.
There is a danger in pining after “impressive gifts” that seems a little like sign seeking.
You all remind me of the line at the beginning of “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”. Young Indie finds himself separated from the scout group and declares: “Everyone is lost except for me.”
If you have no “tangible, real” manifestations of God in your lives, then perhaps you should ask yourself if it might be you that lacks faith and not the general church membership. Or perhaps the Lord in his wisdom has not yet seen fit to provide you with tangible manifestations.
Rather than imply that the church has lost faith, why not ask the aplostle’s question: “Lord, is it I?”
Comment by J. Max Wilson — June 16, 2005 @ 4:18 pm
To me the crux of the argument is that the Church does not have the manifestations of the Spirit as seen especially during the Kirtlad period. I believe in a God of miracles and that miracles continue. However, there is a wide divide just in the examples the apostles give today of gifts of the spirit and miracles v. examples given in the Kirtland, Nauvoo, or even early Utah period.
For instance, I believe that the gift of tongues is manifest in missionaries learning languages but this is a very different meaning of the gift of tongues than that which JS and BY spoke about where they would speak in non-earthly languages and then have someone interpret.
I think the difference between then and now is an issue of faith and westernization (for example I witnessed a lot more of the early Church type miracles in less westernized areas of Barzil then I did anywhere else). But I don’t think it presumptuous to state that we don’t see the same type of miracles as in the early Church–perhaps it is presumptuous to say we don’t see the same caliber.
Comment by HL Rogers — June 16, 2005 @ 4:26 pm
“I don’t think it presumptuous to state that we don’t see the same type of miracles as in the early Church–perhaps it is presumptuous to say we don’t see the same caliber.”
Great explanation HL–and unlike my own, concise and diplomatic.
Comment by J. Max Wilson — June 16, 2005 @ 4:36 pm
I think the worst part of the decline of spiritual gifts is when we try to claim that modern watered down versions of the gifts are just as good. For example:
Learning a language fast
Healing fast
Guessing right sometimes
These are not what the scriputes were talking about. It’s talking about speaking unknown tongues, as well as interpreting them. (Why doesn’t anybody try to translate like JS anymore?) It’s talking about the sick rising immediately and the blind being healed very rapidly. It’s talking about prophets being willing to say “thus saith the Lord…”
These things aren’t happening anymore and we try to accpet the watered down versions as adequate substitutes, just like the catholics did/do.
Comment by Jeffrey Giliam — June 16, 2005 @ 4:38 pm
JG, your claims are as unsubstantiated as JS’s claim that “We no longer believe that the Gifts are required for the true Church. We don’t know anyone who experiences them and consequently believe that they are not for us or that they don’t even really exist.”
If you aren’t seeing what you believe to be “real” gifts of the Spirit, I fail to see how that can be imputed to a failure of the whole Church.
Comment by john fowles — June 16, 2005 @ 4:47 pm
Jeffrey,
Just because you have never seen the kind of miracles you describe does not mean that the rest of us haven’t. I can testify that the gifts of the spirit are active within the church, and that they are just as potent today as they ever were, even if they are not identical.
If you have not experienced them then you should be questioning whether it is your own faith that has been watered down, not the faith of the rest of us.
Comment by J. Max Wilson — June 16, 2005 @ 4:50 pm
Wow…ummmm…huh. I’ll be the first person to admit that I lack faith. Perhaps I do live an isolated existance, disparate from everyone else in the Church. Perhaps I just suck. No, I’m sure I do, but that doesn’t negate the disparity between the early chirch and the church today.
John Fowles, I’m sure you don’t really want to disparage the experiances of the early saints by labeling their faith with the perjorative, “babbling”. Rather offensive. And I am sure if you reread my post that mentioned foreign speaking missionaries, you would see that I testified to my own experiences with the spirit augmenting my french skills. It was the modern tendancy to disparage the early tongue-speaking as “babbling” that I denigrate. I reaaly don’t know that I have fought against modern narratives of miricles…have I? So no, I don’t want it both ways.
J. Max Wilson, I do admit that I lack the faith of our spiritual progenitors. I have witnessed many healings, I have witnessed prophecy and its fruitition. The first paragraph of the post delineates the comparisson of the modern church to the early church, and it is relative diminishment of the power in our lives as a people that I mean to illustrate, or as you prefer - my life. If you believe that there is no difference, that is fine; I simply submit that the history of our people is explicit to the contrary.
True I have focused on the “showy” gifts. Because they are easier to quantify. I don’t know that there is less “gift of wisdom” or “gift of knowledge”. I do think there is less “gift of great faith”, as you say, simply because if there were more great faith, I think we would see more extraordinary manifestions of it.
I also find your labeling of the early saints’ sharing of their experiances as contrary to the commandments of the Lord as profane.
HL Rogers, thanks for the insightful comment.
Comment by J. Stapley — June 16, 2005 @ 4:59 pm
Thats great, but this doesn’t change my main point. We do see people trying to make people believe that these watered down versions are just as good. The reason why they do this is obviously because they don’t see the real thing either. When was the last time we had a GA speak in tongues and have it be interpreted for everybody else (because it wasn’t their language either)? When was the last time somebody in authority said “thus saith the Lord…?” When was the last time somebody raised the dead with any kind of consistency which could not be written of by any unbiased person as coincidence? Why did Jonathan write this post? Things have changed. Since the church is so much bigger, we should be seeing more, not less, accounts of these things but we don’t by any reasonable standard. Of course there are exceptions to this, but there are exceptions to this in every church.
Comment by Jeffrey Giliam — June 16, 2005 @ 5:01 pm
JS, you write I have witnessed many healings, I have witnessed prophecy and its fruitition.
But your original post stated bluntly “We no longer believe that the Gifts are required for the true Church. We don’t know anyone who experiences them and consequently believe that they are not for us or that they don’t even really exist.” How do you reconcile those two statements? So you are just regretful that you haven’t witness the speaking of tongues in the way that you feel the early Church experienced it? Or raising the dead? Can that really be a basis to claim that the Church doesn’t believe in the gift of Spirit anymore?
As far as my use of the term “babbling,” I explained above that I was using that term for when discussion of speaking in tongues is not accompanied with the obligatory interpretation of tongues, because from what I understand, the Lord does not provide the former without also providing the latter. My use of it was not pejorative in the sense of mocking my ancestors and their privilege of experiencing the gift of speaking in diverse tongues and the interpretation thereof. It was only pejorative in the sense of pointing out the result when a discussion of the speaking of tongues does not include mention of the interpretation of tongues: speaking of tongues in such a case amounts to little more than babbling, and it is not the way the Lord works.
Comment by john fowles — June 16, 2005 @ 5:15 pm
That is, speaking in tongues, not speaking of tongues.
Comment by john fowles — June 16, 2005 @ 5:16 pm
I believe the gifts of the spirit are manifest today just as they were in the early days of the church.
We are looking back at journals and historical records of the early church to make our judgments, if we could open the personal journals of all the current church members we might be surprised at the personal and sacred manifestations of the Spirit that are occurring throughout the world.
I have been counseled, and have counseled others that some experiences should be kept close to the heart and guarded as sacred confirmations of a strong personal faith, not to be shared.
If you ever get the chance to sit in a small meeting with one of the 12 you might be surprised at what is said.
Comment by A Gant — June 16, 2005 @ 5:20 pm
I am regretful that I do not have the same level of faith and consequent intamacy with Divine power as the early saints, yes. My experiances don’t even compare in volume or magnitude with them. Yes, I believe they are real (even emperically), yet I obviously don’t believe or I would have experiences comparable to the founding saints. It is a dichotomy.
My blanket statements using the pronoun “we” are a reflection of empericism as well. I don’t see anyone who bucks the trend. I’ll even be willing to wager that the great JMW has not had the experiences of Heber C. Kimball, though I may be mistaken.
Comment by J. Stapley — June 16, 2005 @ 5:25 pm
Maybe the gifts of the spirit were withdrawn because Pres Grant imposed the WofW as a barrier to entry into the Kingdom and JC is angry about it.
Don’t you need tambourines to speak in tongues anyway. I don’t think the modern LDS church could handle that kind of individual radicalism.
Comment by Steve (FSF) — June 16, 2005 @ 5:33 pm
J. Stapley,
I do not think you suck at all.
You say “it is relative diminishment of the power in our lives as a people that I mean to illustrate, or as you prefer - my life. If you believe that there is no difference, that is fine; I simply submit that the history of our people is explicit to the contrary.”
You want to attribute the disparity to a lack of faith among LDS in general. Since you too have witnessed prophesy and its fulfillment, and healings, you cannot show any significant difference in the manifestation of the gifts of the spirit today compared to the early restoration, except perhaps in xenoglossy and the lack of public record.
Concerning xenoglossy, I will readily admit that I know no one who has spoken in an unknown language while another interprets. But my family and I have experienced the gift of tongues in ways manifestly more miraculous than merely learning a new language relatively fast.
It seems to me that the only significant disparity is in the public record of manifestations of the spirit. You speculate that the lack of modern record and discussion indicates that the gifts are no longer operating within the church and then conclude that, such being the case, perhaps we have lost faith, or “fled” as you put it.
I submit that it is just as plausible that the forces of increasing rationalism and westernization, cited earlier in the thread, have acted to discourage recording and discussing the miraculous manifestations of the Spirit that continue to be experienced by members of the church; that the members are significantly more reluctant to expose these sacred experiences to the ridicule of the faithless world, or even the faithless wolves within the church. Why should we discuss our sacred experiences with those who will tear them apart and call us fools.
I do not see anything “profane” with also implying that the saints of the early restoration may have been somewhat less careful than they should have been about exposing their sacred experiences to the mocking world.
You see a “diminishment of the power” in the church, and I can testify that no such diminishment has occurred.
Comment by J. Max Wilson — June 16, 2005 @ 5:36 pm
A. Grant:
A huge portion of the sources I have read of the early miracles are the first hand accounts as written in Church periodicals: Millenial Star, Contributer, The New Era, Woman’s Exponent, etc. and General Conference addresses. Journals are cool too, but much less well known.
Comment by J. Stapley — June 16, 2005 @ 5:40 pm
I have experienced many miracles since I converted to the Mormon faith, and most of the saints I associate with can say the same. We have learned to not share our most sacred experiences with unbelievers because that causes them to mock sacred things.
I once related a miracle on Mormon-L, an email discussion list primarily for Cultural Mormons who have lost their testimonies, and the thread ridiculing my experience went on for weeks.
I could be wrong, but I imagine the same thing would happen here. So I’ll just keep my mouth shut.
Comment by John W. Redelfs — June 16, 2005 @ 5:53 pm
John, you never know. We’re all believers here, but we’re also a cynical bunch. Don’t share something you’re not comfortable with — pearls before swine and all that.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 16, 2005 @ 6:00 pm
JMX, I have experianced those things, but they are not comparable to the early saints for sheer volume. It’s the difference between a handful of events in 30 years and daily, weekly, or even monthly manifestions.
The early saints were scornfully mocked for their claims. Non-members traveled to to Kirtland to witness the outlandish and fantastical testimony meetings. Several of these indaviduals came to mock only to be quickend by the spirit.
I think that reverence for the sacred, fear, and shame all contribute to the decline of witnesses.
Comment by J. Stapley — June 16, 2005 @ 6:12 pm
The dearth of signs you speak of is caused by the apostasy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, according to Jim Harmston, the president of The True and Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Last Days (”TLC”).
Indeed,
Source: TLC Official Website.
Along with the loss of the doctrine of polygamy, this “zion” group in Manti cites the loss of the True Order of Prayer outside of temples, changes in the endowment ceremony, as well as the dearth of spiritual signs lamented by J. Stapley above as signals that the LDS church is in a state of apostasy.
According to Harmston, the active keys of the kingdom were restored after he and his wife built an altar out of their piano bench, donned their temple robes, and engaged themselves in the true order of prayer to receive further light and knowledge from the Lord. Here is Harmston’s account of what happened:
Source: Testimony of James Harmston.
At any rate- there is your explanation, JS. The Church is in a state of apostasy. I hear TLC is accepting members though.
(Note that I am saying this in a tongue-in-cheek way. I am not sure why there are not as many ueber-spiritual instances recorded these days. Maybe it does have something to do with lack of faith, but maybe it also has to do with need, that is, the Lord hasn’t needed to prove himself in this way lately… Or maybe the church has apostacized…)
Comment by Jordan — June 16, 2005 @ 6:19 pm
“I think that reverence for the sacred, fear, and shame all contribute to the decline of witnesses.”
Do you agree, however, that a decline in public declarations and discussions does not necessarily equate to a decline in number or potency of manifestations or represent a “diminishment of power” in the church?
Comment by J. Max Wilson — June 16, 2005 @ 6:20 pm
For nearly two years, our Branch President worked with my wife to resolve some problems that had arisen because of the actions of an unrighteous bishop as she was growing up. There were many times where she and he were blessed with an incredible outpouring of the Spirit. Some of those experiences were of the type that you normally only read about in the New Testament, or the records of the early Restored Church. The kind Christ describes as the signs that would follow those who believe.
In one of the first meetings I had with the man who succeeded him as branch president, he mocked and ridiculed those sacred experiences. Is it any wonder he was unable to provide any meaningful spiritual counsel or comfort to my wife?
Comment by alamojag — June 16, 2005 @ 6:27 pm
Never, in the entire year of my participation in the bloggernacle have I felt a need to defend my fidelity:
I believe that the fullness of the priesthood, as revealed to Joseph, exists in the current leadership of the Church. I have a temple recomend and am currently serving as Elder’s quorum president. I have personally witnessed miracles that I believe are too sacred for me to share.
I know your comment was tongue-in-cheek, Jordan, but I can’t help but feel the entire comment (only a small portion of which was cogent to the discussion at hand) associates my post with appostasy.
My beliefs and experiences don’t change my comparitive observations. The diminishment of witnesses may be a function of diminished communicaiton not diminished power. However, my empericism suggests otherwise. And I have not heard anyone claim that the measure (both in volume and magnitude) of spiritual manifestations is comparable today as it was in the early church. Is anyone truely making that claim? and on what basis?
Comment by J. Stapley — June 16, 2005 @ 6:35 pm
I agree with Aaron. Gifts of the spirit stories have the same status in our culture as UFO abduction stories, and I’ve seen in my experience that they deserve to.
Comment by Miranda PJ — June 16, 2005 @ 6:36 pm
MPJ: Gifts of the spirit stories have the same status in our culture as UFO abduction stories, and I’ve seen in my experience that they deserve to.
Are you saying that they deserve to because they don’t really happen and the person relating the story is lying or mistaken? And JS wonders why people who have had manifestations of the gifts of the Spirit aren’t sharing them like they used to in the early days of the Church?
Comment by john fowles — June 16, 2005 @ 6:40 pm
JS,
I had no idea my silly post would be taken to associate you with apostasy and I am terribly sorry that it came across that way. I just happened to be reading about the Harmston group today because of the coverage in all the media outlets based on the Strong girl coming forward, and found it interesting that they also were concerned at the dearth of signs (but carried it way further than you in a way that is not even comparable). Since I thought it was interesting, I thought others would also find it interesting.
Feel free to delete it, I certainly don’t want to cause any hard feelings or associate you somehow with apostates.
Truly sorry.
I do agree with your comparative observations- that matches my experience too!
And what if TLC is right- that the dearth of such spiritual signs in the Church is caused by apostasy of the general Church body? I personally don’t subscribe to this theory, and I’m sure you don’t either, but it is completely on point to posit that as a possible answer to your theory that “it is us who have fled, not the gifts of the Spirit…”
Anyway, sorry again to have seemingly associated you with apostates. You must believe that this was never my intention.
Comment by Jordan — June 16, 2005 @ 6:43 pm
Yes, John. The people who relate the stories are either lying or mistaken. Where are the normal people who experience spiritual gifts?
Comment by Miranda PJ — June 16, 2005 @ 6:44 pm
Sometimes I wonder how we would all react to Joseph Smith if he had his vision in these days and we lived within his circle of influence. I have to admit, hesitantly, that it is possible that I might react to his claims the same way Miranda would. Scary thought.
Comment by Jordan — June 16, 2005 @ 6:49 pm
This may be my first bloggernacle over-reaction. I feel sheepish…Ba. Sorry for that Jordan. Appologies all around. Your clarification is appreciated, Thanks. Continue on.
Comment by J. Stapley — June 16, 2005 @ 6:51 pm
I should clarify my own position here. I am open to the possibility that an individual’s experiences with the “gifts of the Spirit” are real (i.e., I have no ideological committment to the un-reality of miraculous events — putting aside discussions of what “miracle” might mean in LDS theology). I am open to the possibility that my own lack of such experiences is, in part, a product of my own overblown cynicism or lack of faith.
I do think, however, that a certain skepticism is perfectly warranted in discussions of miraculous stories and episodes, given the problematic nature of some of the accounts I’ve heard. Memory is fallible, often in a way that serves our theolgical commitments. Some members seem intent on turning mundane happenings and coincidences into bolts of divine lightning at the drop of a hat. Other happenings seem un-credible, simply because those recounting the events are clearly missing a few marbles in other areas. I don’t think it’s fair to treat skepticism on these issues as prima facie evidence of a general “lack of faith” or an uncritical acceptance of some modern, secularized ideology that precludes the possibility of miracles (even if it is easy to describe it this way, and even though it might be an accurate description in some cases).
Aaron B
Comment by Aaron Brown — June 16, 2005 @ 6:51 pm
“And I have not heard anyone claim that the measure (both in volume and magnitude) of spiritual manifestations is comparable today as it was in the early church. Is anyone truly making that claim? and on what basis?
I am claiming something like that. If you are talking absolute volume and magnitude, I think that the huge difference in church membership almost guarantees that the absolute volume of spiritual manifestations in the church is not only comparable, but significantly more now than it was in the early restored church, and probably as great in magnitude.
Volume and magnitudeper capita on the other hand is as nearly impossible to measure as are the less “showy” gifts of the spirit I mentioned above. I suspect that if we could measure these less “showy” gifts, we would find that they are much more abundant and as potent as they ever were in the early restored church.
If we were to focus purely on xenoglossy and raising the dead, you could probably make a solid case that per capita has significantly diminished…but that seems extremely myopic considering the numerous other gifts and miracles.
The frequent manifestation of the gifts of the spirit in our modern day is based upon my own empiricism.
Comment by J. Max Wilson — June 16, 2005 @ 6:53 pm
Aaron (and to some extent Miranda) bring up some good points as to why I find it difficult to have faith in extraordinary spiritual experiences. If we didn’t have a healthy dose of skepticism,then we would believe it when James Harmston claims that he was visited by Noah, Abraham, Enoch and Moses.
Then again, if I wouldn’t believe James Harmston (and I don’t), then how could I believe someone who actually DID see/hear/experience what he/she claims to have seen/heard/experienced?
Comment by Jordan — June 16, 2005 @ 6:55 pm
MPJ wrote The people who relate the stories are either lying or mistaken. Where are the normal people who experience spiritual gifts?
This is a very judgmental statement. You have just pronounced judgment on an unknown number of sincere and faithful Latter-day Saints who share their experiences with gifts of the spirit.
You ask where the normal people are who have experienced gifts of the spirit. Well, once they come forward and share their experience, does that turn them into the freaks that you are positing? Or does one have to be a freak to want to share the experience in the first place. Either way, a normal person will never share an experience with a gift of the spirit, I take it.
I am interested to hear JS’s response to your claim that stories of gifts of the spirit belong in the same category as UFO stories. In theory, he should be against that observation, since it sounds like he wishes there were more such stories being told at Fast and Testimony meeting.
Comment by john fowles — June 16, 2005 @ 6:55 pm
There is also the possibility that we don’t recognize the gifts of the Spirit as gifts of the Spirit, but are like the Lamanites described in the Book of Mormon who, although being baptized with fire, did not that marvelous happening at the time.
For example, my brother John is exceptionally gifted with languages and can pick up pretty much any language to some decent extent with only a few months of study. I have always chalked that ability up to his exceptional intelligence and drive. I have completely ignored the fact that it might be a real spiritual gift, and one which is manifested quite often.
Comment by Jordan — June 16, 2005 @ 6:57 pm
but are like the Lamanites described in the Book of Mormon who, although being baptized with fire, did not that marvelous happening at the time.
SHOULD READ
but are like the Lamanites described in the Book of Mormon who, although being baptized with fire, did not RECOGNIZE that marvelous happening at the time.
Comment by Jordan — June 16, 2005 @ 6:59 pm
I think that as long as the church is here on earth composed on fallible men it is always in a state of apostasy to one extent or another. Like B.R. McConkie said, “I don’t fully know the purposes of the Lord, but I do know that He allows false doctrine to be taught in His church.” Sometimes the church doesn’t have much apostasy at all, like with Enoch and his people. Other times there is a lot of apostasy, just look around at the other churches to see how bad some of them can get.
For I while I was quite taken in by the Fundamentalist claims that the church had fallen into apostasy. They certainly can back up thier attacks of the church very well. But when it comes to discussing their claims to authority suddenly they aren’t so loud our convincing. The claims of our church to the authority of JS is very convincing however. If the priesthood possessed by JS is any where on the earth it is in this church.
Nevertheless, our lack of revelation, miracles and gifts does make one think that we have a little more apostasy in our midst than the church of the 19th century did. Maybe not to such an accute degree, but probably to a more wide spread extent.
Comment by Jeffrey Giliam — June 16, 2005 @ 7:00 pm
But John F., what then to make of the James Harmstons of the world? Unless we are skeptical of everyone as Miranda suggests (though perhaps not quite to the extent she suggests), how do we sort out the real experiences from the fabricated ones (or the delusional ones for that matter)?
What criteria do you propose for sorting out the crazy from the real?
Comment by Jordan — June 16, 2005 @ 7:01 pm
Jeffrey,
Note that Harmston does not want to be classed with “fundamentalists”, since they are all in a state of apostasy as well…
Comment by Jordan — June 16, 2005 @ 7:04 pm
MPJ is making my point as is JF. Gifts like these are the sorts of things that we associate with the insane, so they aren’t sought as often. When they are experienced, they are generally kept between us and the Lord, unless we are prompted otherwise. When we are prompted otherwise, we are still hesitant to discuss it for fear that we will be labelled insane.
I often hear of stories like this originating in the third-world. This may be because the third world is less western in orientation and such stories are granted more believability there or it could be because the west considers the third world superstitious so it is easier to consider these events there.
I really do believe it is our demand for rationality (as much as anything) that is destroying the frequency with which gifts of the spirit (and miracles in general) are sought or discussed in the west.
Comment by John C. — June 16, 2005 @ 7:06 pm
JF = John Fowles or Jordan Fowles?
Comment by Jordan — June 16, 2005 @ 7:09 pm
Jordan, I think that sticking close to the mainstream of the Church and living up to covenants is the best way to avoid a false prophet like JH. Also, relying on the Holy Ghost to bear witness of the truth of all things.
I categorically reject MPJ’s striking declaration that all stories of manifestations of gifts of the spirit are akin to stories of UFO sightings and deserve to be regarded as such.
Comment by john fowles — June 16, 2005 @ 7:09 pm
John Fowles. I admit to being ambivalent, sadly. Rationally, the whole idea of extraordinary spiritual manifestations wierd me out. However, when I read the accounts of the early saints, I feel moved by the Spirit. So too have I been moved in certain duscussions that have related extraordinary events. So, yes I think that we should foster environments where we can edify each other through the spirit.
Comment by J. Stapley — June 16, 2005 @ 7:13 pm
John,
What if you get a Bishop like alamojag’s who openly scoffs at the suggestion of previous spiritual experiences? Should we side with the Bishop who claims the experiences did not happen (Bishop being symbolic of the mainstream of the Church) or should we believe alamojag?
Comment by Jordan — June 16, 2005 @ 7:14 pm
John C., I concur.
Comment by J. Stapley — June 16, 2005 @ 7:15 pm
I’m not sure exactly what alamojag’s problem is. If alamojag knows that his wife had those spiritual experiences while counseling with her branch president about the unrighteous dominion of an earlier bishop, then it doesn’t matter what MPJ, I mean the new branch president, says about it after the fact. It might be wise for alamojag’s wife to keep the sacred between herself, her alamojag, and her old branch president. But then J. Stapley would never hear stories of manifestations of gifts of the spirit and would state that “We no longer believe that the Gifts are required for the true Church. We don’t know anyone who experiences them and consequently believe that they are not for us or that they don’t even really exist.“
Comment by john fowles — June 16, 2005 @ 7:19 pm
John Fowles - Dude, can’t you see that I want to see the power of God more. That quote you keep thowing around was intended as a sad commentary, not as a proclaimation. What gives?
Comment by J. Stapley — June 16, 2005 @ 7:40 pm
Relax, JS.
I think John is on your side. He is frustrated that we have a seeming dearth of these activities just like you are.
Comment by Jordan — June 16, 2005 @ 7:57 pm
Fowles,
Cease your foul fouling up of JStapley’s meaning, you fowl, or I’ll cry foul!
Comment by Big Bird — June 16, 2005 @ 7:58 pm
As I read through the comments I found myself agreeing most with Aaron Brown. My encounters with the spiritually gifted resemble his.
The most normal person I know (the most like me and the one I would most trust to perceive the Spirit as I would) who has shared a special spiritual experience with me was one of my young men leaders. His wife was pregnant and the spirit of his new son came to him in a vision and told him that he was to be called Joshua. Several months later his wife gave birth to a healthy baby girl.
Of course this made me skeptical of my leader’s spiritual vision. (The alternative was to think his baby girl was actually a boy and should be named Joshua.) I never heard my leader bring up the vision again and I never mentioned it.
But what I find most interesting was that he had a 50-50 chance of “being right” — even though he was apparently wrong — all along. Had the baby in fact been a boy, he (and I?) would have assumed that his vision was actually from God, and that his name really was supposed to be Joshua. He would have written the experience in his journal, and told it to his children and grandchildren and treasured the special vision forever.
But because Joshua was a girl, and the vision false, I suspect the special vision is never shared, even though nothing about the vision itself has changed.
This is my biggest problem with supernatural stories — we share the successes, bury the misses, and don’t keep score. That’s the tactic of astrology, and I don’t like it.
Comment by Matt Evans — June 16, 2005 @ 7:59 pm
Which foul fowl fowles fouling do you mean?
Comment by Jordan — June 16, 2005 @ 7:59 pm
What gives is that I dispute the validity of that quote. I agree with JMW that the gifts of the spirit continue to abound in the Restored Church. Like him, I have not witnessed the gift of spontaneously speaking in an unknown tongue accompanied by its interpretation. But based on my own empirical observations, the Latter-day Saints continue to enjoy the blessings of gifts of the spirit.
As a side note, I personally have not been accusing you of a lack of faith or anything of the sort. Rather, I have been saying that if you don’t know people who have experienced gifts of the spirit, that doesn’t mean that the Church no longer believes in it or that such people don’t exist.
I guess what gives is that I found the post to be unduly critical of the Church and that it has implications that perhaps you didn’t mean but which are undoubtably there. My personal belief is that the mainstream of the Church is not in apostasy, which would be the case if gifts of the spirit have ceased among us. See, e.g., Mormon 9:20 (”And the reason why he ceaseth to do miracles among the children of men is because that they dwindle in unbelief, and depart from the right way, and know not the God in whom they should trust.”).
Comment by john fowles — June 16, 2005 @ 8:04 pm
I’m not ready to equate lack of belief or faith in miracles and extraordinary gifts to apostasy.
Comment by J. Stapley — June 16, 2005 @ 8:28 pm
People who have spiritual experiences don’t hide them because they’re ashamed. People are always talking about legends of the type that Matt describes, and they either happened to a friend of a friend of a friend or they were mistaken. There is no secret Mormon underground cherishing spiritual gifts that the rest of us are too faithless or blind to recognize.
Comment by Miranda PJ — June 16, 2005 @ 9:02 pm
Matt, you’re omitting the best part of that story, which is how a girl ended up with the name Joshua.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 16, 2005 @ 9:10 pm
There is no secret Mormon underground cherishing spiritual gifts that the rest of us are too faithless or blind to recognize.
That is not the argument. The argument is that the Church is still abundant with gifts of the spirit that its members experience every day. Some of them are so sacred that they are not shared. Others are shared or obvious. Everyone that has experienced a gift of the spirit is not akin to someone relating UFO sightings.
Comment by john fowles — June 16, 2005 @ 9:11 pm
“I’m not ready to equate lack of belief or faith in miracles and extraordinary gifts to apostasy.”
RIGHT ON! Do you think Jesus was accusing the apostles of apostasy when he chided them for not being able to cast out a devil? We are spiritually weak, but not necessarily on the wrong path.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 16, 2005 @ 9:21 pm
Good call, Steve! And JS!
I’m glad you’re not willing to do this, because that is the path that was taken by TLC.
Comment by Jordan — June 16, 2005 @ 9:22 pm
John, I’ve never understood the “so sacred that they are not shared” line of reasoning. What is it about the revelations of the early saints, or the miracles of Matthew Cowley, that made them less sacred so that they could be widely shared?
Comment by Matt Evans — June 16, 2005 @ 9:22 pm
Ok, fine, you all are right. There’s no more gifts of the spirit in the Church anymore, except the healings and other manifestations that I personally have seen. But I am sure I fall into MPJ’s UFO category.
Comment by john fowles — June 16, 2005 @ 9:38 pm
John, I didn’t mean to provoke you and am sorry if I did.
Comment by Matt Evans — June 16, 2005 @ 9:43 pm
Thanks Matt. No provocation, just my lingering incredulity at this thread.
Comment by john fowles — June 16, 2005 @ 9:48 pm
I was referring to John Fowles with my JF, not Jordan
Comment by John C. — June 16, 2005 @ 10:11 pm
I don’t remember how old I was at the time, but reading this thread reminded me of a fast and testimony meeting in my home ward back when I was probably in my early teens, or maybe a little younger.
Anyway, there was a “salt of the earth” older couple in our ward, probably in their 50s or 60s at the time (this would have been around 1965 or 1968, I think; the husband was probably one of the wards “ward clerks” at the time) whose name I do not remember at this point, and the custom in our ward at that point was for those who wished to bear their testimonies simply to stand up, and a deacon or teacher entrusted with the responsibility of holding the microphone which was plugged into the sound system by means of a long cord would see to it that the microphone got passed to them.
This brother stood up (maybe about halfway through the meeting; it was apparent he had been thinking about whether or not he wanted to share with us what he was about to say), waited for the microphone to be passed to him, and then related an experience that happened to him and his wife in the Oakland temple at some point during the previous month.
It seems that earlier in their lives they had lost one of their children (maybe their only son, I don’t remember the particulars) in a war. Given their age, and the date, I assume their son was lost during World War II.
To make a long story short, this good brother proceeded to recount the story of how he and his wife met their deceased son in the Oakland Temple, recognized him, and had a brief conversation with him during which they asked him how he was doing, and he said he was doing very well.
His wife also bore testimony this day that this had happened to them, and it was their feeling that the Lord had decided to bless them with this opportunity because of all of the years of worry they had had about losing their son.
I wish my memory of this were clearer, but the general gist of it has been laid out here to the best of my memory.
So, at least things like this were still occurring to faithful members of the Church 35 to 40 years ago or so.
Comment by Mark N. — June 17, 2005 @ 1:48 am
I wonder if the apparent lack of frequency of xenoglossy (and other gifts that may seem strange or inappropriate to some nowadays) is simply a function of the Lord manifesting himself to us in ways we can understand.
Whether it’s a cultural shift toward rationality in the modern West or some other factor, perhaps the Lord recognizes that xenoglossy in, say, a suburban Salt Lake ward would make more people uncomfortable than it would build testimony. That is, it would create more stumbling blocks to faith than it would remove.
The infrequency of this gift could be interpreted as a lack of faith in such a ward. It could also, however, just as easily be interpreted as evidence that the Lord knows us, loves us, and manifests his gifts to us in ways that will not freak us the heck out.
Perhaps there is nothing inherently divine in the act of xenoglossy (man, I love using that word!). That God chose to endow the practice with his power in certain times and not in others may simply be a function of diff’rent strokes.
Comment by Justin H — June 17, 2005 @ 2:26 am
I subscribe to the theory that we are living in a Leviticus period after Joseph Smith’s Exodus period. We have less flashy prophets with names like Spencer, Gordon, and Howard. But they are still prophets and gifts of the spirit still exist. Stake patriarchs are one of the more institutionalized forms of that. Gifts of healing and prophecy are common now but because they are sacred, most people who experience them have the good sense to keep them private. The early restoration was a less mature time, and that was okay — then. Childlike faith leads to bigger miracles and better stories, and the early members created a tradition of testimony that many subsequent generations can rely on as a source of identity and inspiration. It’s a little disappointing to realize that we live in one of the more mundane, follower generations in religious history, but remember the Beatitudes:
1. … blessed are ye if ye shall believe in me and be baptized, after that ye have seen me and know that I am.
2 And again, more blessed are they who shall believe in your words because that ye shall testify that ye have seen me, and that ye know that I am. Yea, blessed are they who shall believe in your words, and come down into the depths of humility and be baptized, for they shall be visited with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and shall receive a remission of their sins.
Comment by Tom Manney — June 17, 2005 @ 6:45 am
#63- Perhaps in Matt’s story, the kid has Gonadal dysgenisis- a 46 XY female- looks like a girl, but she’s a man, baby!
Of course, its more likely that his conclusion is appropriate.
Comment by Scott — June 17, 2005 @ 9:10 am
Well, the idea of a couple kneeling and speaking in tongues to each sounds far fetched and dysfunctional to me. I don’t think I buy that. I sure don’t think that’s a reflection of a spiritual gift. Although I read that they were wonderful people.
I’m with John Fowles, I experience small miracles all the time and I know a lot of people who do as well. God is at work in our lives.
If my husband and I were kneeling in prayer (which we don’t do nearly as often as we should) and he started…okay, I won’t say babble, but it would feel like babble…talking in another language, I would probably slap him really hard and call 911.
Although I know a lady personally, this is a true story. Her husband was a mission president in the Philippinnes (I have no clue how to spell it) and she gave a talk once and afterward a friend said to her, “I didn’t know you spoke Togalog.” She said, “I don’t speak Togalog.” Her friend looked at her intently, and said quietly, “Jackie, you were speaking Togalog.” True story.
Just because we are dancing in the aisles and experiencing rapturous stuff doesn’t mean we aren’t having spiritual gifts. Although I would like to move Kaimi’s Enrique into our ward. How unboring would that be??
Comment by annegb — June 17, 2005 @ 9:50 am
Matt Evans,
I’ve had experiences that are too sacred to share with you. Sorry. I would guess that while the apostles have a personal witness of the resurrected Saviour, they aren’t going to tell you the details of it.
What is the benefit of sharing them with the public? My experiences have been shared with family members and put in journals, but I don’t see the need to publish them to the world in that they don’t concern the world.
Comment by a random John — June 17, 2005 @ 10:10 am
I agree with all those who say that gifts and miracles continue. My point is that there is a lot more pressure to keep quiet about it nowadays and that we have different expectations regarding how a miracle or gift will manifest itself. Which is to say that I don’t think we (the Church, that is) are in apostacy. But I do think that a lot of the pressure to keep quiet about things is necessitated not by the will of God, but by the mortal conditions we currently find ourselves in. We pre-condition how God can talk to us or express Himself in us by only considering certain expressions viable. I am not saying that this necessarily is a bad thing, but it does lead to the decline in obvious manifestations of spiritual gifts that J alluded to at the beginning of this thread.
Comment by John C. — June 17, 2005 @ 10:48 am
Weird, but I agree with J. Max. From the original post: “We no longer believe that the Gifts are required for the true Church. We don’t know anyone who experiences them…” Like J. Fowles said: No.
Not only does the church believe in them, but I’ve either experienced or observed from close proximity nearly all the gifts of the Spirit. The wackos among us have their whacked-out stories, but so do those whose credentials as perfectly normal people are (otherwise?) impeccable.
Comment by Jonathan Green — June 17, 2005 @ 2:55 pm
I don’t know, JG. What qualifies a person as “normal” anyway?
Comment by Jordan — June 17, 2005 @ 3:13 pm
I generally respond to this problem by arguing that the cultural topography of public and private realms has migrated and hardened dramatically in modernity, and that this explains why dramatic spiritual experiences are no longer visible and circulated.
But I also can’t help wondering–and I can’t imagine that others haven’t wondered this too, though it hasn’t been suggested here–whether the early saints were just mistaken, and whether what they took for dramatic spiritual manifestations were merely a psychosocial phenomenon, like the “repressed memories” and “multiple personality” phenomena in the 1990s. If it was, they wouldn’t be the first converts who found the truth by unreliable means.
Comment by Rosalynde — June 17, 2005 @ 3:44 pm
“I generally respond to this problem by arguing that the cultural topography of public and private realms has migrated and hardened dramatically in modernity…”
WTH does this mean? How does topography migrate? I know these words are all in English, and I know the definition of each individually, but I can’t discern the meaning of the words as collected in this sentence. Perhaps I need the gift of interpretation of tongues for Rosalynde’s posts, eh?
Comment by Eric S — June 17, 2005 @ 4:25 pm
Er, what used to be spoken about publically has now been relegated to only private conversations. The topography is a metaphor (a slightly overused one) comparing the physical and social domains in which one can discuss certain subjects. So you know.
Comment by John C. — June 17, 2005 @ 4:29 pm
Hmmmm…
“I am particularly careful to avoid jargon, and to write simply and clearly. For certain types of writing a high level of technicality is unavoidable; but in general it is the second-rate intellect that cultivates a pretentious vocabulary and a solemn and portentous style.”
–Richard A. Posner
Not aimed at anyone in particular; just some advice from a great legal mind and fine writer.
Comment by Eric S — June 17, 2005 @ 4:37 pm
So, I’m Jim Harmston and Rosalynde is Fawn Brodie.
I think that there has been a topographical shift, as you say, which absolutely changes behavior. I stand by my analysis however. I have intamately associated with some pretty spiritual folks, but never have I met anyone who had the regular manifestations that the early Saints did. I could just be in the wrong circles however.
Comment by J. Stapley — June 17, 2005 @ 4:44 pm
LOL, Eric, criticism taken, at least in this case! I composed my comment in about four seconds flat, with a kid or two playing loudly at my feet. It doesn’t make much sense for a “topography” to migrate, does it; it would have been better to say that the “boundaries” of public and private realms have migrated and hardened, thus changing the cultural topography of public and private.
On the larger issue of jargon, and with all due respect to the eminent Mr. Posner, well, I have yet to hear a compelling argument against it made by anybody who has demonstrated that he or she can actually use it fluently. In the proper context, a technical lexis and complex syntax are a perfectly respectable–even stirringly beautiful, at times–way to use language, and I judge this to be a proper context.
That said, you probably aren’t missing much if you skip my comments.
Comment by Rosalynde — June 17, 2005 @ 5:44 pm
I love your comments, Rosalynde, here and around the Bloggernacle. I am just often flummoxed by your syntax, that’s all. I realized after I hit “post” that my comment probably comes across as one that would only be posted by a complete “mentula caput.” Sorry for that.
Comment by Eric S — June 17, 2005 @ 6:07 pm
Ros: “I have yet to hear a compelling argument against it made by anybody who has demonstrated that he or she can actually use it fluently.”
Now, now — is that really true? I mean, we’ve discussed this, Rosalynde….
Comment by Steve Evans — June 17, 2005 @ 6:19 pm
On Julie’s recommendation I have been reading the biography of David O. McKay lately. It details a story from DOM’s mission in which the Spirit was amazingly strong at a meeting and the mission president declared that the guardian angels of several of the missionaries were present in that room. Now there is something you just don’t experience in the modern church. It doesn’t seem anyone even speaks of angels much anymore. I remember reading an account of the dedication of the Kirtland (or was it perhaps Nauvoo)temple, in which many witnessed angels flying about. When is the last time someone reported that happening at a dedication?
I do think the lack of such spiritual manifestations is due to a decreased of faith but I also agree with others who have argued that the rise of rationalism has something to do with it. Such miracles can only happen to the uncynical. I think what has happened in the church has a parallel in what happens in our indvidual lives. Many of my most spiritual experiences happened when I was a teenager. These happenings diminished over time, as I grew more cyncial, EFY music became too cheesy, church history became ever so nuanced and the people at church became increasingly cloying.
I am not sure if Steve was kidding about the tambourine but I think he was one to something. The early church practiced more of the charismatic behavior we now disdain in other churches. But maybe if we were dancing, shouting, and singing more we would see more spiritual gifts at work in our lives.
Comment by Katie — June 17, 2005 @ 7:02 pm
Is it possible that the rise in rationalism and even cynicism which are blamed for an apparent reduction in gifts of the spirit can be attributed to the fact that manifestations of the spirit have in fact diminished? Is the rise in cynicism a cause, or a result, of fewer spiritual manifestations? I once believed much more fervently than I do now in such things as the gift of healing, the gift of tongues and the gift of prophecy. But my diminished faith is the result of never experiencing those things.
Comment by gary — June 17, 2005 @ 7:20 pm
Re: #91. What good is fluency without lucidity? I have never heard anyone argue compellingly for jargon that can use it with sufficient enough clarity to avoid alienating part of the audience. In fact, the issue only comes up when someone fails at communicating clearly, fluent use of jargon or not.
Comment by Brian G — June 17, 2005 @ 7:46 pm
I just want to say Miranda PJ’s earlier comment on this thread equating stories about Gifts of the Spirit to UFO stories doesn’t represent the attitude of her co-bloggers at Banner of Heaven.
I found it insulting, not only to faithful members of the Church, but to UFO believers, who aren’t always as abnormal as you might think and who have a basis for their beliefs as substantial and difficult to refute as testimony.
Comment by SeptimusH — June 18, 2005 @ 1:59 am
I’d also like to add that if there’s one thing I believe in it’s Gifts of the Spirit.
There was one time in my life that I lived in rural Alabama for about seven months. Out of curiosity I attended a tiny church called The Church of Christ with Signs in Holiness. Let’s just say the services were lively and it happened to be a lot closer than the LDS chapel (the congregants were a lot warmer too by the way).
Brother Glenn and Brother Dennis ran the services with a lot of vigor, great music, of course, and a lot of testifying. It was very foreign to me at first, almost to the point of being scary. I’d heard people talk in tongues walking by Evangelical churches on my mission and it freaked me out, but this time I felt pretty comfortable after the first month.
Brother Dennis kept telling me that the Spirit was going to lift me up and eventually it did. I compare it to that compulsion you sometimes feel to stand up and bare your testimony. It wasn’t very long and I wasn’t aware of what I was saying–I guess in that way it was a bit like giving a blessing can be. Brother Glenn’s wife interpreted what I said, but I can’t remember what she said it was. Women had a big role in the services, I remember that.
Anyhow, afterwards I felt pretty embarrassed. They thought it was great, but I didn’t feel edified, I felt like I’d lost control.
I stopped going, but before I left I mentioned the experience to a local and he asked me if they ever brought out the snakes. I guess I missed out on the best part.
The reason I’m telling this story, I guess, other than that it’s a little different is to say I agree with J. Max Wilson’s earlier point that no one paid much heed to. The Gifts of the Spirit which this thread has largely ignored, to know Christ is the Son of God, to believe on the words of others, to know differences of administration and diversities of operations, and so on, all these gifts are equally important and in my experience more edifying.
D&C 46:11 says “For all have not every gift given unto them.” I can see that as meaning not all people in every period of Church history get the same gifts, because He who gives out the gifts probably knows what they need most.
Comment by SeptimusH — June 18, 2005 @ 3:07 am
Nice effort, Brian, but “sufficient enough” is redundant. Jargon will continue to befoul my utterance.
Comment by Rosalynde — June 18, 2005 @ 9:21 am
I saw a UFO once.
Rosalynde, I always read and appreciate your comments, although I don’t understand a lot of them. Sometimes I even look up the words and I still don’t understand.
Comment by annegb — June 18, 2005 @ 9:53 am
J. Stapley asks here: “I have not heard anyone claim that the measure (both in volume and magnitude) of spiritual manifestations is comparable today as it was in the early church. Is anyone truely making that claim? and on what basis?”
Here’s an example of someone “truely making that claim.” Bruce C. Hafen’s article will surprise you. It’s almost as if he wrote it as a comment for this post.
Comment by Gary — June 18, 2005 @ 10:47 am
Gary, that is a wonderful talk and stirring. I can definately relate to it. However, I fail to see how it applies to the original post. The early saints had regular manifestions up until their deaths - well into the Utah period, as well as their children.
Comment by J. Stapley — June 18, 2005 @ 11:09 am
Somehow, Rosalynde, I knew I wouldn’t be up to the task, but I actually understood your comment this time, so you’re improving. “Befoul my utterance,” however, makes me think of a fat cow wearing a tiara rolling around in mud. Is that what you intended?
Comment by Brian G — June 18, 2005 @ 1:12 pm
I have to concur with John C. and the others that pin the blame on our loss of these major outward manifestations on our integration with modern Western culture. One of the first posts I read by J. Stapely over at Splendid Sun said essentially the same thing. (I guess just posting at BCC makes people question your testimony or something J…) A very interesting observation was made early in this thread by Matt Bowman (#5) where he said:
Chronologically, the decline of Mormon charismatic religious expression seems to parallel the fall of polygamy and the general “Americanization” of Utah. I would speculate that there was a connection; the Saints had begun caring about how the rest of the country saw them, and increasingly adopted a more mainstream view of themselves.
No one picked this up but I think it is very important. While the Mormons were isolated they were able to generate the type (not quantity, mind you) of faith that resulted in outward spiritual manifestations. After integrating with the US, Mormon culture changed in a way that did not leave nearly as much room for such.
Comment by Geoff J — June 18, 2005 @ 5:34 pm
“I guess just posting at BCC makes people question your testimony or something”
Heck, just reading BCC does that!
Comment by Steve Evans — June 18, 2005 @ 5:59 pm
Geoff - I still do believe that; however, I’m not sure that it matters all that much what the cause is, if the result is the same.
Comment by J. Stapley — June 18, 2005 @ 8:31 pm
J,
It matters because if we correctly identify the cause of the problem (assuming it really is a problem which I am not yet completely convinced of) we might be able to take steps to rectify it.
Comment by Geoff J — June 19, 2005 @ 2:01 am
Rosalynde’s post (#86) is something I hadn’t considered before but I’m willing to consider it in a limited sense. Perhaps some of the manifestations weren’t really from God. We know that happened at other times in the earliest parts of church history.
Gary (#101) beat me to the punch in citing the Hafen article. I highly recommend it.
The cause of the decline of “showy” giftly manifestations is probably two-fold. First, we have less childlike faith than did our forebears. Second, different gifts are needed today. God doesn’t need to bless a prophet with the gift to translate the scriptures because there are now other means by which this can be accomplished. I believe God wants us to make efforts where we can. (I don’t know how that squares with the statement from Brigham Young that we shouldn’t be so eager to call the doctors.)
Comment by Bradley Ross — June 20, 2005 @ 1:08 am
From Sheri Dew’s biography of President Hinckley (p. 251):
Comment by Bradley Ross — June 20, 2005 @ 1:23 am
I’m coming a little late to this thread, but I wanted to relate a personal experience with the gift of tongues I had as a deacon. One Christmas, we were commissioned to take fruit baskets to the elderly and needy in the ward. The route to which I was assigned took me to a poor area with less actives we had little knowledge of. One house on our route had not been visited by members of the church for some time, and our leaders were not certain whether the name on our ward list was accurate as to the resident of the house. Nonetheless, two of us were sent forth from the warm confines of the leader’s van on our errand of yuletide cheer. We were met by an elderly Mexican brother, who introduced himself as both a recent convert, and a recent immigrant. In the short time he had been in the states, he had not yet found the church, and was consequently not attending. I told him about the Spanish branch in our stake, the time they met, etc. He wrote down his contact information and asked us to forward it to the Spanish branch. He thanked us for the fruit basket, and we left.
“I didn’t know you spoke Spanish,” stated the other deacon as we walked back to the van.
“I don’t” was my reply.
“But you just carried on a conversation with that guy!” He was right. I had. To this day it is the only Spanish conversation I have ever had. We told our leaders what had happened, passed on the contact information for our new Hermano, and continued on our Christmas errand.
Comment by MDS — June 20, 2005 @ 7:00 pm
Q: What is the purpose of speaking in the Adamic language?
A: 2 Nephi 31:13. Shouting praises to the most high; worship.
Comment by Anon — December 15, 2005 @ 5:34 pm