Here is an article I lifted from Meridian magazine. Looking at the picture of Brother Ogden, all I can say is, "That'll do pig. That'll do!" What a striking resemblance......
Here is the author's bio: http://religion.byu.edu/kelly_ogden
Monday, January 20 2014
Comment on Article
Concerns about the book Visions of Glory
By D. Kelly OgdenComment on Article
Following are seven pointed instructions from those we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators:
1. Joseph Smith: “Let us be faithful and silent, brethren, and if God gives you a manifestation, keep it to yourselves” (History of the Church, 2:309).
2.
Brigham Young: “Should you receive a vision or revelation from the
Almighty, one that the Lord gave you concerning yourselves, or this
people, but which you are not to reveal on account of your not being the
proper person, or because it ought not to be known by the people at
present, you should shut it up and seal it . . . as secret as the grave.
The Lord has no confidence in those who reveal secrets, for he cannot
safely reveal himself to such persons” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, 43-44).
3.
John A. Widtsoe: “Divine manifestations for individual comfort may be
received by every worthy member of the Church. . . . Such manifestations
most commonly guide the recipients to the solution of personal
problems; though, frequently, they also open the mind to a clearer
comprehension of the Lord’s vast plan of salvation. They are cherished
possessions, and should be so valued by those who receive them. In their
very nature, they are sacred and should be so treated. If a person who
has received such a manifestation by dream, vision, or otherwise, feels
impressed to relate it beyond his immediate family circle, he should
present it to his bishop, but not beyond. The bishop, then, may decide
upon its further use, if any, or may submit it to those of higher
authority for action. The gift was a personal one, not for the Church as
a whole; and the recipient is under obligation, in harmony with the
established order, not to broadcast it over the Church” (Evidences and Reconciliations, 98-99).
4.
Joseph F. Smith: “Not even a revelation from God should be taught to
his people until it has first been approved by the presiding
authority—the one through whom the Lord makes known His will for the
guidance of the saints. . . .The spirit of revelation may rest upon any
one, and teach him or her many things for personal comfort and
instruction. But these are not doctrines of the Church, and, however
true, they must not be inculcated [i.e., taught and
distributed/published] until proper permission is given” (Joseph F.
Smith Correspondence, Personal Letterbooks, 93–94, Film Reel 9, Ms.
F271).
5.
Joseph Fielding Smith: “If a man comes among the Latter-day Saints,
professing to have received a vision or a revelation or a remarkable
dream, and the Lord has given him such, he should keep it to himself. . .
. the Lord will give his revelations in the proper way, to the one who
is appointed to receive and dispense the word of God to the members of
the Church” (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:288).
6.
Harold B. Lee: “Special manifestations should be kept sacred. Some
people have had unique testimonies. . . . Some have even published them
and had them broadcast throughout the Church. They tell of dreams and of
administrations when they have been healed. These are wonderful
blessings, but why do they think they have to publicize them all over
the Church?” (The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, 137).
7.
Boyd K. Packer: “I have learned that strong, impressive spiritual
experiences do not come to us very frequently. And when they do, they
are generally for our own edification, instruction, or correction. . . .
I have come to believe also that it is not wise to continually talk of
unusual spiritual experiences. . . . I heard President Marion G. Romney
once counsel mission presidents and their wives . . . ‘I do not tell all
I know; . . . for I found out that if I talked too lightly of sacred
things, thereafter the Lord would not trust me’” (Ensign, Jan. 1983, 53).
It
troubles me, then, with all the above teachings and cautions from our
leaders, that John Pontius would press Spencer to petition Heavenly
Father to allow him (Spencer) to divulge sacred, personal things that
are reported to have been made known to him over the decades. Brother
Pontius explained, “I was overcome with the potential tragedy of all
this knowledge being in one person’s head alone and then ultimately
lost” (xvi). Further, “they should be written down and not lost forever.
. . . I’m hoping Heavenly Father will eventually let us publish them
for the benefit of the whole world” (xvi). But was it the proper role of
Spencer and John Pontius to benefit the whole world with these visions
and their interpretations? I recall that a prophet of God whom we call
the brother of Jared saw, in detail, the events of the last days, wrote
it all down, sealed it up, and another prophet, Joseph Smith, was told
millennia later that it was to remain sealed and not be published to the
world, because the peoples of the world, and even the Saints of God,
were not yet prepared for those sacred views.
I
have been taught by inspired, authorized leaders that it is not the
role of Church members to interpret the most sacred things of God—for
example, temple teachings, covenants, and ordinances—for others. Elder John A. Widtsoe said,
“No man can reveal to another the sublime, deep inner meaning of those
symbols presented in the House of the Lord, for it is an individual
matter, and every man must seek and obtain it for himself, and that alone, with God’s help only” (“Power from on High,” Salt Lake City: Genealogical Society, 1937, 48-49, as cited in Richard O. Cowan, Temples to Dot the Earth, 226).
Elder
H. Burke Peterson expressed similar feelings when, after serving for a
year as President of the Jordan River Temple, he said, “It is my
impression that man does not have the capacity to explain the endowment
to another man. I think that is good. I don’t think he is supposed to. I
think there are many who try, and I believe that is unfortunate because
I think we must be careful in trying to explain some elements of the
endowment that have not been explained. . . . I don’t believe that man
can explain the endowment adequately” (cited in Elder Royden G. Derrick,
Temples in the Last Days, 75).
But
Brother Pontius says he explained, at least in part, the meaning of
Spencer’s visions. “My understanding and his visions fit hand-in-glove,
giving both of us a far broader understanding. . . . I felt prompted to
bring this book for you [he said to Spencer, referring to the Pontius
book called The Triumph of Zion]. It may be that you will find
some of your answers in here” (xv). And he admitted in the Author’s Note
that “I have interpreted much of his [Spencer’s] narrative to make it
clear, sequential, and understandable” (xxi). It is critical to
emphasize Brother Pontius’s stated motive and purpose in wanting to
write and publish Spencer’s visions: for him, John Pontius, to put in
proper sequence, and clarify and make more understandable Spencer’s
personal glimpses into the future.
I,
Brother Ogden, find that objective particularly interesting because I
have spent the past forty years studying and teaching the words of the
prophets, and my conclusion is that not even the prophets—not even all
of them harmonized together—have made their narratives about the last
days “clear, sequential, and understandable”!
Here is John Pontius' widow's rebuttal:
My name is Terri Pontius, and I am the wife of the late John Pontius. I was present during the many interviews with “Spencer” and I watched as my husband wrote this book, which is a faithful account of several near-death experiences. Knowing he only had months to live, my husband John felt that the Lord wanted him to add the testimony inherent in this book, to the volumes of near-death experiences which have been written in and out of the Church. This is all this book purports to be. It was not written to be sensational, to guide, scare, or mislead anyone. My husband would never do such a thing, and anyone who has read his previous writings can easily discern that. Besides being an accurate account of “Spencer’s experiences as told to John, this book is largely metaphorical. It is up to each person to determine through the Spirit, any relevance that Spencer’s experiences (real or metaphorical) may or may not have with his or her own life. As John says very clearly on page xix: “It is not scripture and should not be considered such. It is not prophetic for anyone but Spencer himself. It is simply an account of how the Lord has prepared one humble man, my friend, Spencer, for his latter-day mission.” Hence the subtitle, “One man’s astonishing account of the last days.” As with all near-death experiences one may pick up, we need to discern through the Spirit that which may be relevant to us. I want to clearly state to Brother Ogden, and to anyone reading this, that if you find this or any other NDE book objectionable, just simply walk away and leave it alone. No one is trying to start a new religion here or make money with a “sensational” book. John passed away just a few weeks after this book was published, and I am deeply sorry that he is not here to defend himself against the unfair attacks on his character, his motivation and purpose for this book. I urge all readers to either find spiritual edification in this book, or simply leave it alone as you would any other book that does not speak truth to your soul. This book has much good fruit on its tree, and many people have felt closer to the Spirit as they have read of this man’s experience. As the scripture says, “But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, everything which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God.” --Terri Pontius
This is the commenter I agreed with:
Brother Ogden's article was a thoughtful meditation on a marvelous and thought-provoking book. Many of the negative comments from Meridian readers, however, could have been written by the Pharisees, who ridiculed the Savior's "heretical" teachings. or by the Prophet Joseph Smith's detractors, who accused him of many of the same things of which "Spencer" stands accused, ranging from "priestcraft" to "hallucinations" to "fabrications to sell books." And why? Because he wanted to share his beautiful visions with a Church and world starving for new light. "Scriptures, scriptures, we already have scriptures, why would we want to have the visions promised in the last days?" Do you detractors not believe the scriptures when they say that "children and old men" will receive visions in the latter days? I know Brother "Spencer," and he is one of the most humble and devoted followers of the Savior on the planet, completely without guile. He is incapable of the unChristian-like things you have dredged up from the deep reservoirs of fear and hatred in your closed hearts and minds. The last thing Spencer is trying to do is start his own movement or call into question the prophetic wisdom of modern-day prophets. If you don't like the book, don't read it; you don't have to stone him.
69 Comments