What do you think of this miraculous experience?

[Vort]

During the final talk of the most recent General Conference, President Monson told the following story of a miraculous occurrence. Which of the poll choices best represents what you think of this story?

I am always humbled and grateful when my Heavenly Father communicates with me through His inspiration. I have learned to recognize it, to trust it, and to follow it. Time and time again I have been the recipient of such inspiration. One rather dramatic experience took place in August of 1987 during the dedication of the Frankfurt Germany Temple. President Ezra Taft Benson had been with us for the first day or two of the dedication but had returned home, and so it became my opportunity to conduct the remaining sessions.

On Saturday we had a session for our Dutch members who were in the Frankfurt Temple district. I was well acquainted with one of our outstanding leaders from the Netherlands, Brother Peter Mourik. Just prior to the session, I had the distinct impression that Brother Mourik should be called upon to speak to his fellow Dutch members during the session and that, in fact, he should be the first speaker. Not having seen him in the temple that morning, I passed a note to Elder Carlos E. Asay, our Area President, asking whether Peter Mourik was in attendance at the session. Just prior to standing up to begin the session, I received a note back from Elder Asay indicating that Brother Mourik was actually not in attendance, that he was involved elsewhere, and that he was planning to attend the dedicatory session in the temple the following day with the servicemen stakes.

As I stood at the pulpit to welcome the people and to outline the program, I received unmistakable inspiration once again that I was to announce Peter Mourik as the first speaker. This was counter to all my instincts, for I had just heard from Elder Asay that Brother Mourik was definitely not in the temple. Trusting in the inspiration, however, I announced the choir presentation and the prayer and then indicated that our first speaker would be Brother Peter Mourik.

As I returned to my seat, I glanced toward Elder Asay; I saw on his face a look of alarm. He later told me that when I had announced Brother Mourik as the first speaker, he couldn’t believe his ears. He said he knew that I had received his note and that I indeed had read it, and he couldn’t fathom why I would then announce Brother Mourik as a speaker, knowing he wasn’t anywhere in the temple.

During the time all of this was taking place, Peter Mourik was in a meeting at the area offices in Porthstrasse. As his meeting was going forward, he suddenly turned to Elder Thomas A. Hawkes Jr., who was then the regional representative, and asked, “How fast can you get me to the temple?”

Elder Hawkes, who was known to drive rather rapidly in his small sports car, answered, “I can have you there in 10 minutes! But why do you need to go to the temple?”

Brother Mourik admitted he did not know why he needed to go to the temple but that he knew he had to get there. The two of them set out for the temple immediately.

During the magnificent choir number, I glanced around, thinking that at any moment I would see Peter Mourik. I did not. Remarkably, however, I felt no alarm. I had a sweet, undeniable assurance that all would be well.

Brother Mourik entered the front door of the temple just as the opening prayer was concluding, still not knowing why he was there. As he hurried down the hall, he saw my image on the monitor and heard me announce, “We will now hear from Brother Peter Mourik.”

To the astonishment of Elder Asay, Peter Mourik immediately walked into the room and took his place at the podium.

Following the session, Brother Mourik and I discussed that which had taken place prior to his opportunity to speak. I have pondered the inspiration which came that day not only to me but also to Peter Mourik. That remarkable experience has provided an undeniable witness to me of the importance of being worthy to receive such inspiration and then trusting it—and following it—when it comes. I know without question that the Lord intended for those who were present at that session of the Frankfurt Temple dedication to hear the powerful, touching testimony of His servant Brother Peter Mourik.

[Vort]

The poll is anonymous, but I would be interested to hear comments from those LDS who pick something other than the first option (why do you consider yourself LDS while believing the president to be delusional and/or dishonest?) and those non-LDS who pick their first option (how can the leader of a denomination you believe to be false receive authentic inspiration of this sort?).

[annewandering]

Why is there no option of I believe the story completely. Not more or less. Just completely. That is my choice and I would be lying to say more or less.

[Guest]

My nephew cared for President Monson one night that he was in the hospital. If my testimony of a living prophet wasn't enough to make me believe what he says, my nephew's experiences with him, showing him to be a real guy who shoots from the hip would do it. He's sharp, he says what he means, and he's no liar.

Now, he told a story a year or so ago about a couple from Tahiti and their sacrifices to get to the Temple. That couple happens to be the grandparents of one of my closest friends, so via her I know he got some minor details wrong; but probably only because it was a second-hand story (friend's father knows Pres. Monson, as he was a general authority for a number of years). Those details don't change the story, just that the path there was a little altered, doubtless through no fault of his own.

[Guest mormonmusic]

I think the scripture in the D&C applies -- the one that says that the Lord isn't pleased when people choose not to acknowledge his hand in all things. So, if Thomas S. Monson believes this was the hand of God, that is good enough for me.

I'm also a bit surprised you even asked this question, but hestitate to make a judgment on this until I understand your motives for asking the question in the first place. It seems mighty risky to start a discussion about whether the current prophet is lying, even for people who like philosophical questions for their own sake.

Edited December 21, 2011 by mormonmusic

[Vort]

Why is there no option of I believe the story completely. Not more or less. Just completely. That is my choice and I would be lying to say more or less.

"More or less" means, "I believe the story exactly as told" OR "I believe the story pretty much as told, but concede that unimportant details might have been accidentally changed."

I was seeking to avoid someone saying, "Well, I believe the story, but he might have gotten some details wrong! Where's the choice of 'I believe the story except possibly unimportant details?'" Looks like I can't win for losing.

[Guest]

Sorry to screw it up, Vort.

[Dravin]

"More or less" means, "I believe the story exactly as told" OR "I believe the story pretty much as told, but concede that unimportant details might have been accidentally changed."

I was seeking to avoid someone saying, "Well, I believe the story, but he might have gotten some details wrong! Where's the choice of 'I believe the story except possibly unimportant details?'" Looks like I can't win for losing.

I picked that for I believe it but realize, on top of unintentional changes due to possibly fallible memory, President Monson is a story teller and so may have told events in a certain way to help purpose, impact and flow, but not such that he's guilty of lying or misdirection. For instance , "I can get you there in 10 minutes." may very well be a paraphrase not a direct quote.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Dravin

[NeuroTypical]

I've had a similar (but much less dramatic) experience, being prompted to go do something that made absolutely no sense to me, where a bad and embarassing outcome was the most likely, and things ended up being ok.

I am by nature a huge skeptic, and devoted follower of occam's razor. When hearing a faith-promoting story like this, by instinct, I automatically look for alternate explanations. And I usually find them. But in this case, I have to look pretty dang hard, to the point that occam's razor gets involved. It seems to me that the simplest, least complicated explanation in this case, is that God exists, the church is true, and divine inspiration exists for the betterment of man and the forwarding of the Kingdom of God.

[annewandering]

Sorry to be nitpicking but I can not mark more or less.

You do have an interesting question: How does an LDS person explain to himself how he can believe in the prophet and think he is delusional. I, too, would like to hear a response on that question.

[Guest mormonmusic]

Sorry to be nitpicking but I can not mark more or less.

You do have an interesting question: How does an LDS person explain to himself how he can believe in the prophet and think he is delusional...

...or consciously leads the membership astray with a story that is not true...

[ZionsRodeVos]

I guess I'm nit picky too. I chose the option for something else because I believe the story more than the more or less option would seem to me to indicate.

Of course it is possible for faulty memory or something else to influence any detail of the story but too me there is no reason for me to not take the story as completely true as told by the Prophet. I'm not going to worry if minor details of the story were wrong for whatever reason and if I ever learn that he did get some of the story wrong I'll just count it as him being human and that it was not intentional.

[pam]

Honestly I don't understand the problem with Vort's explanation of "more or less." I think he explained his reason for wording it that way quite well.

All he's saying is "I can believe the story but I can't believe the driver was driving a sports car and could make it there in 10 minutes." Just an example of a small detail that might not be 100% accurate.

Really all he's asking is..Do you believe something like this could happen?

[Guest mormonmusic]

I think the idea that we have a prophet who colors the the truth is what the option implies. We have the example of Paul H. Dunn who colored the truth in his books...and everyone knows how THAT ended (he was subject to some kind of Church discipline, I understand). So, to then open this kind of discussion about whether the Prophet is lowing

[Guest mormonmusic]

Honestly I don't understand the problem with Vort's explanation of "more or less." I think he explained his reason for wording it that way quite well.

All he's saying is "I can believe the story but I can't believe the driver was driving a sports car and could make it there in 10 minutes." Just an example of a small detail that might not be 100% accurate.

Really all he's asking is..Do you believe something like this could happen?

He's actually asking a lot more than that throughout the entire range of questions....

I think the idea that we have a prophet who colors the the truth is what the option implies, whether intended or not, is what the range of questions implies. We have the example of Paul H. Dunn who colored the truth in his books...and everyone knows how THAT ended (he was subject to some kind of Church discipline, I understand). So, to then open this kind of discussion about whether the Prophet can be trusted to tell the truth may well jar some people.

[annewandering]

He's actually asking a lot more than that throughout the entire range of questions....

I think the idea that we have a prophet who colors the the truth is what the option implies, whether intended or not, is what the range of questions implies. We have the example of Paul H. Dunn who colored the truth in his books...and everyone knows how THAT ended (he was subject to some kind of Church discipline, I understand). So, to then open this kind of discussion about whether the Prophet can be trusted to tell the truth may well jar some people.

This is the very situation I was thinking of, MormonMusic. For me I would rather just say yes I believe President Monson. I admit that if he told me the sky was purple I would not even look out the window and yes I know we are supposed to make up our own minds. :) I did. I believe him.

[Traveler]

As an engineer and scientist I like to think I am logical and have the ability to think through things and react. I know this sounds very corny but on several occasions (similar to Obone Conobie - pardon spelling - speaking to Luke saying “Trust the force” or “Let the force guide you”) I have been “inspired” to not trust my logic but to rely on spiritual whisperings.

At this point I will to add something to the conversation. There is a difference to me between “Having a feeling” a “spiritual whisperings” and perhaps this needs more discussion but that aside. In all cases following the “spiritual whisperings” has been beneficial and not following has not been beneficial. At the same time my following feelings has usually not turned out well - especially if it is related to finance or sports.

In essence “having a feeling” is kind of like => Hmmmmmm this is interesting and hopeful. Whereas “spiritual whisperings” is more of a => Tada! And hang on and buckle up - this will be an exciting and fun experience.

The Traveler

[Jezebel2011]

It was watching the General Conference when Pres. Monson spoke that made the decision for me to be baptised into the LDS Church in the first place.

I have had many experiences of 'intervention' if you want to call it that and I have heard of other stories where inspiration has played a part.

I would totally expect that this would happen to Pres. Monson himself, and many many others too.

I too wish there had been an option of believing the whole story completely.

[applepansy]

Honestly I don't understand the problem with Vort's explanation of "more or less." I think he explained his reason for wording it that way quite well.

All he's saying is "I can believe the story but I can't believe the driver was driving a sports car and could make it there in 10 minutes." Just an example of a small detail that might not be 100% accurate.

Really all he's asking is..Do you believe something like this could happen?

When there is an option of "I believe the prophet" I'll click on it.

[beefche]

Coloring the truth?

You mean you have never gotten the minor details of a story wrong? Especially after many years of the actual incident?

And what do you mean by "...or consciously leads the membership astray with a story that is not true... " in reference to our prophet?

[Guest mormonmusic]

Coloring the truth?

You mean you have never gotten the minor details of a story wrong? Especially after many years of the actual incident?

And what do you mean by "...or consciously leads the membership astray with a story that is not true... " in reference to our prophet?

Sounds like you didn't read my comment above closely enough. As well as my opening statement which said that if Thomas Monson feels those were miraculous events, that was good enough for me.

The options in the poll present people with the option to choose that the whole thing was made up. I wasn't accusing the prophet of this -- read it carefully -- the poll is giving people the OPTION of doing so. I was questioning whether it's even a productive conversation to ask everyone to tell the prophet whether what he said was true or not. I said it might jar some people to even be considering it.

Given the sanctity of the prophet, and of established ways of doing things that is oft repeated on this discussion forum, it strikes me as odd that we would have a poll that asks us to judge a Living Prophet as either a truth-teller, a liar, or something in between.

Edited December 21, 2011 by mormonmusic

[Vort]

He's actually asking a lot more than that throughout the entire range of questions....

I think the idea that we have a prophet who colors the the truth is what the option implies, whether intended or not, is what the range of questions implies. We have the example of Paul H. Dunn who colored the truth in his books...and everyone knows how THAT ended (he was subject to some kind of Church discipline, I understand). So, to then open this kind of discussion about whether the Prophet can be trusted to tell the truth may well jar some people.

For the record, and as I have already tried to clarify, the first option was intended for all those who accept the prophet's words at face value. I was trying to include those who accept what the prophet said verbatim ("more") as well as those who accept what he said but think there may have been minor details that were perhaps gotten wrong in the telling, without affecting the substantive truth of the overall story ("less").

It appears that you cannot please everyone. Or at least, I cannot please everyone.

[Vort]

Given the sanctity of the prophet, and of established ways of doing things that is oft repeated on this discussion forum, it strikes me as odd that we would have a poll that asks us to judge a Living Prophet as either a truth-teller, a liar, or something in between.

Perhaps you're right, and the poll was unwise. I thought it would give people an opportunity to express an opinion incognito that they wouldn't wish to express openly, and the rest of us a chance to see how others perceive a story that we believe to be an example of true divine revelation.

[annewandering]

I, personally, dont see a problem with the polls purpose. Its an interesting subject.

[Vort]

Actually, I think it was the final talk of the Sunday morning session, not the final talk of General Conference. Oops. Mistake on my part. (Does that make my whole poll untrue?)