Cain story in Miracle of Forgiveness

[sageowl]

I think this story has much more the vibe of a ghost story or a schizophrenic episode than anything to be taken seriously. But Spencer Kimball took it seriously enough to include in his book Miracle of Forgiveness. (see below).

Informal survey: Mormons, do you think this story is:
1- True
2- The product of some delusional process
3- Something else

Thanks-

On the sad character Cain, an interesting story comes to us from Lycurgus A. Wilson's book on the life
of David W. Patten. From the book I quote an extract from a letter by Abraham O. Smoot giving his
recollection of David Patten's account of meeting "a very remarkable person who had represented
himself as being Cain.

"As I was riding along the road on my mule I suddenly noticed a very strange personage walking beside
me — . His head was about even with my shoulders as I sat in my saddle. He wore no clothing, but was
covered with hair. His skin was very dark. I asked him where he dwelt and he replied that he had no
home, that he was a wanderer in the earth and traveled to and fro. He said he was a very miserable
creature, that he had earnestly sought death during his sojourn upon the earth, but that he could not die,
and his mission was to destroy the souls of men. About the time he expressed himself thus, I rebuked
him in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by virtue of the Holy Priesthood, and commanded him to
go hence, and he immediately departed out of my sight."

Follow up question: if, as seems the most simplest explanation to me, this story is the product of some sort of psychosis in Apostle David Patten, (which is the diagnosis most of you would give me if I claimed this experience had occurred to me) what does it say about other visionary experiences reported by church leaders?

 

[Katzpur]

I think this story has much more the vibe of a ghost story or a schizophrenic episode than anything to be taken seriously. But Spencer Kimball took it seriously enough to include in his book Miracle of Forgiveness. (see below).

Informal survey: Mormons, do you think this story is:
1- True
2- The product of some delusional process
3- Something else

I'm a Mormon, and I tend to disbelieve this story. While it's supposedly taken from the writings (it appears to be a journal or something of the sort) of a member of the LDS Church (back in the 1800s), it bears no resemblance to Mormon doctrine.

Follow up question: if, as seems the most simplest explanation to me, this story is the product of some sort of psychosis in Apostle David Patten, (which is the diagnosis most of you would give me if I claimed this experience had occurred to me) what does it say about other visionary experiences reported by church leaders?

As far as I'm concerned, it says absolutely nothing about anybody else's visionary experiences.

 

[Clear]

Katzpur said : " As far as I'm concerned, it says absolutely nothing about anybody else's visionary experiences. "

Hi Katzpur,

Before seeing your response, I honestly could not generate the motivation to care to respond to such a nebulous question that, on the surface, had so little application to the normal context and reality of authentic revelation but instead, seems to be another simple and subtle attempt at dyscontexting revelation.

The OP asked us to discretely categorize an anecdotal quote on insufficient information. For example, the quote, which Kimball himself, simply classifies as merely “interesting”, comes from a completely anecdotal account, which comes from an old book, which is written by a person, who is referring to a separate letter, that describes an old recollection, of another persons account.

The vague and tenuous nature of the data doesn’t allow for discrete judgement, even if the description itself could be proven to be correct. This is true of much personal revelation given to individuals for personal insight.

For example, even If the experience happened and was an authentic revelation, the data is insufficient to tell much about it's nature and purpose. Was it an actual being appearing to a person or a metaphysical revelation that was meant to teach a specific principle to a specific person. If it was simply a vision, then for what purpose was it given and what was the specific lesson to be learned? Individuals who have not experienced authentic religion and the accompanying revelation / communication from God have little real personal experience that allows them to examine revelations accurately.

For example, when the apostle Peter is awake and has a vision of heaven opening and, as it were, a sheet let down “Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. " (Acts 10:11–13) Are we to conclude that actual animals and insects and other “beasts” were, in reality, let down and Peter was actually supposed to eat them or that the revelation was metaphysical, visionary, and symbolic and simply meant to teach a principle the Apostle did not, at that point fully understand? (a principle that had little to do with eating). Does one place Pratts experience in this category or no? The third-hand relating of this anecdote simply doesn’t give us enough information.

When in 2 Kings, the prophet Elisha prays and his servant then sees horses and chariots of fire about them, are we supposing these are real and tangible but invisible horses and chariots standing by in case they are needed? Or are they metaphysical and symbolic of the power and help that is available to Elisha, should it be the Lords will to provide? Such traditions and anecdotes can be taken to have meaning on multiple levels. How does one who has not had authentic revelation which is always associated with authentic Judeo-Christian religion become capable of considering such things without having had insight, or context, or even personal experience with revelation?

When, in Daniel 5:5, “In the same hour came forth fingers of a man’s hand” are seen by the king, do we have to assume these are actually physical fingers formed to communicate, or are they a metaphysical vision, given the king. When the fingers “wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace: and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote." (Daniel 5:5), the same considerations arise.

In numbers 22:28, does the prophet Balaam actually have a conversation with an animal? “And the Lord opened the mouth of the ***, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times? And Balaam said unto the ***, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee… (and the conversation goes on from here). What does this mean? Was an actual *** speaking or was the angel a ventriloquist, or was Balaam having an interactive revelation like Peter or, presumably, like Pratt? I don’t think that from this distance, such questions can be answered so easily.

The one thing that I think all such authentic traditions, true anecdotes and authentic reports have in common is that there is a principle which God was trying to teach the person and we can allow that communication and revelation from God can happen in multiple fashions that will make sense to the person who received them and for whom such communication is meant. In this case, both the full report, it’s meaning, and the important context is missing. Like Kimball said, the anecdote is "interesting" but nothing more.


Clear
פֻדר

 

[sageowl]

Clear, Katz,

Thanks for the responses.

While I agree w you Clear, that there isn't enough data to scientifically pin down what category this story falls into, I'm just asking for a ... you know, gut feel. what do you think?

Given the distinctly 'vague and tenuous' chain of data, I would normally be right with you in saying that its pretty much not even worth evaluating, except for the fact that President Kimball included it in his Very Gravely Serious Indeed (Seriously, can you think of a more serious book that MoF?) book. (have you read it btw?)

 

[Clear]

Clear said : " The OP asked us to discretely categorize an anecdotal quote on insufficient information. For example, the quote, which Kimball himself, simply classifies as merely “interesting”, comes from a completely anecdotal account, which comes from an old book, which is written by a person, who is referring to a separate letter, that describes an old recollection, of another persons account.

The vague and tenuous nature of the data doesn’t allow for discrete judgement, even if the description itself could be proven to be correct. This is true of much personal revelation given to individuals for personal insight. "

Sageowl responded : “While I agree w you Clear, that there isn't enough data to scientifically pin down what category this story falls into, I'm just asking for a ... you know, gut feel. what do you think? “

Hi Sageowl,

While I think I am able to speculate as well as most other people, the problem is with your data. For example, you want an opinion, but you can’t even tell us if the event even happened, and if it did, you can’t tell anyone whether the story is correct or if it is in error. If it is in error, you cannot tell us what the errors are. If some form of the event happened, You can’t tell us if it was an actual event, or a dream; a waking vision; or some other metaphysical event. You can’t tell us the interpretation of the person about who the story is told. Did Pratt say it was a dream, or a waking vision? What did he say it was supposed to mean?

If you really want my “gut feeling” it is that you are trying to negatively characterize an unconfirmed, third hand anecdote you know very little about and then connect that negative connotation and it’s characterization to authentic Judeo-Christian revelation. That is what my gut tells me. However, I have been guilty of doing this same thing to the LDS and am not condemning you for doing the exact same thing I have also done in the past, but rather simply observing what I think is happening in the O.P.

I have read this book and do NOT think it is a "Very Gravely Serious" book as you call it and can think of many others that are, in my mind and as applying to my historical interests, better books.

The uncontexted snippett you provide comes from a larger body of data and a larger context than you provided. The context of the quote you offered us is in a chapter on "murderers" and, “sons of perdition”. The underlying Mormon theological context is that the specific nature of the final punishment and the place where the worst of such individuals are sent in the final judgment, is unknown to us. (c.f. D&C 76:45).

Thus, Kimball himself, (before offering the quote on cain), remarks, that “Speculation as to individual sons of perdition is at best unprofitable.”

Interestingly, it in inside that context of admitted absence of data, he quotes speculations others have made regarding Judas, cain, david, etc. He speaks of “the Herods and the Eichmanns and the Heydrichs”. That is, he's speaking of the “hitlers” of the world as a “type” of individual. We see such speculations in the forums occassionally: Can Hitler be saved? Is Judas in hell? etc, etc.

Why Kimball offers any speculations, after telling us speculations are unprofitable, I cannot say. Perhaps he wanted to give examples of speculations to demonstrate that they are “interesting” but do not provide doctrine. Perhaps he didn't want to have a chapter that simply said "we don't know much about this. The end" and was trying to provide some "filler material" to make the chapter longer or more interesting. I simply don’t know, but I think Kimball was correct that such speculations can be "interesting", maybe even entertaining, but are, in the end, unprofitable. (at least until we have more and better data...)

I do not think they tell us anything specific about authentic revelations given to any other person.

In any case, I hope your spiritual journey is good Sageowl.

See you

Clear
ακακω

 

[sageowl]

Hey clear, thanks again for your second response.
I think you are prolly taking me waaay too seriously btw... I'm definitely not looking for a verbal fight with you or anybody. I dont like fighting. I like chewing over things mentally, and I like collaborating with other minds to get other perspectives and insight. No trolling agenda here. Cross my heart hope to die. Seriously. Not out to get you.

Katz, if you dont mind, I'd like to ask you a follow up question. Do you think your take on this story (that it sounds like probably not true) would be a common or uncommon response in your LDS community?

 

[Clear]

Sageowl :

No problem Sage, I would not be offended either way. I'm a convert to LDS restorational theology and started from another theology. Because of this background, I can still remember my own initial responses to restorational theology which was affected by my own prior traditions. However, you asked for my "gut feel", so I responded honestly. I apologize if I am wrong about the flavor of the opening post. In any case, I hope the principles I mentioned, give you more to "chew on".

Good luck

Clear

 

[Katzpur]

Katz, if you dont mind, I'd like to ask you a follow up question. Do you think your take on this story (that it sounds like probably not true) would be a common or uncommon response in your LDS community?

Man, that is a hard question! I honestly think opinions would be divided. Some people do seem to hang on every word that ever comes out of an apostle's mouth, no matter what the circumstances. I just don't, particularly when the statement, as Clear pointed out, "comes from a completely anecdotal account, which comes from an old book, which is written by a person, who is referring to a separate letter, that describes an old recollection, of another person's account." Now if I had known David Patten personally and if he had personally related this experience to me, I might feel differently.

 

[Clear]

Sageowl :

Not only do I agree with Katzpur, but I think that most individuals come to "refine" their beliefs and their approach to theology as they mature and gain more data over our life-time. For example, upon discovering a restoration of early christian principles in a modern christian movement, I was probably not as able to discriminate what was official doctrine from unofficial opinions. In this early and relatively naive state, If I read it in a church book or a church leader said it (even a local leader), I was probably too quick to take it up as "probably doctrinal" just as I knew Chevrolet pickups were better than Fords because my best friend in high school said so.

However, over time I became more able to see the difference between the many speculations we all make, or opinions we all offer, (even leaders' opinions) and the very few things that are actually "gospel" or "doctinal" and what are simply "urban legends". As I pointed out to another person that the book "Mormon Doctrine" is NOT really mormon doctrine (although when I first joined the church I did not make such fine distinctions). I think this sort of principle is at work in all religion and is simply part of personality and maturation, rather than a characteristic of religion itself.

This is another reason that I think it is both difficult and excusable for other individuals to mis-context many, many things they hear about the LDS. (I grew up thinking that the Book of Mormon was Brigham Youngs diary, as the mormons traveled out west...).

In any case, good luck in your spiritual Journey Sageowl.

Clear
ειτζφυω

 

[sageowl]

Thanks guys! And Katz, that kipling quote at the bottom of your signature... excellent.

 

[Katzpur]

Thanks guys! And Katz, that kipling quote at the bottom of your signature... excellent.

Thanks! You're actually the only person who has ever mentioned it, so I was glad to hear that somebody besides me likes it!