Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Gospel Principle Manual Revisions

DBMormon

By DBMormon
in General Discussions

Recommended Posts

DBMormon Grand Master

DBMormon

Posted
Posted (edited)

Study the Gospel Principles manual and was reading under chapter 14

http://www.lds.org/m...zation?lang=eng

saw where when talking about apostles, it says "special witnesses of the name of Jesus Christ". That sounded kinda odd and funny and I didn't remember that from when I joined and read this book inside and out so I consulted my older version and saw original book wording left out "name of"

That seems odd......... for the sale of conversation, why do you think this change. I can't figure out how that is a better way to phrase it...

Your thoughts

Edited by reelmormon
DBMormon Grand Master

DBMormon

Posted
  • Author
Posted

read the D&C reference as well. Was this section of the D&C always worded this way and what is the difference between a special witness of Jesus Christ and a special witness of the name of Jesus Christ????????

Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
Posted
Consistent with these references, many scriptures that refer to “the name of Jesus Christ” are obviously references to the authority of the Savior. This was surely the meaning conveyed when the seventy reported to Jesus that “even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.” (Luke 10:17.) The Doctrine and Covenants employs this same meaning when it describes the Twelve Apostles of this dispensation as “they who shall desire to take upon them my name with full purpose of heart.” (D&C 18:27.) The Twelve are later designated as “special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world,” and as those who “officiate in the name of the Lord, under the direction of the Presidency of the Church.” (D&C 107:23, 33.)

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/05/taking-upon-us-the-name-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng

DBMormon Grand Master

DBMormon

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
Seems not only strange but incorrect.

I disagree with that, while strange in sound.... Christ name is the only name under heaven whereby a man can be saved. I agree with Calmoriah's quote though the change came after a lot of years of it being the other way.... and it does sound awkward

Edited by reelmormon
rameumptom Mentor

rameumptom

Posted
Posted

Anciently, the NAME was a special characteristic of God. The NAME endowed a person with power and authority of God. You'll note, for example, when Jacob wrestled the angel/Lord and asked to know his name, the angel refused, but gave Jacob a new name instead. With this new name, Jacob/Israel could enter into the Promised Land with a new covenant and with new power. He was no longer the "Supplanter" which "Jacob" means, but the name "Israel" means "God Contended". In this context, Israel is one who contended with God and won the blessing.

So, when we say apostles are special witnesses of the name of Jesus Christ, it is a way to note that in Jesus' name is great power and salvation. Of course, many of the apostles are also special witnesses of Jesus Christ himself.

David T Veteran

David T

Posted
Posted

Study the Gospel Principles manual and was reading under chapter 14

http://www.lds.org/m...zation?lang=eng

saw where when talking about apostles, it says "special witnesses of the name of Jesus Christ". That sounded kinda odd and funny and I didn't remember that from when I joined and read this book inside and out so I consulted my older version and saw original book wording left out "name of"

That seems odd......... for the sale of conversation, why do you think this change. I can't figure out how that is a better way to phrase it...

The change was done like all the other changes in the new edition - to make the text more scripturally accurate, and to try to remove less-accurate (or sustainable) paraphrases of the scriptures in favor of the actual scriptural text.

phaedrus ut Experienced

phaedrus ut

Posted
Posted

So they're now "special witnesses of" not of the historical person but of his currently incorrectly transliterated name and title?

I must be spending way too much time reading historical Jesus scholarship because to me this seems like taking a vague statement to something contradictory.

Phaedrus

zerinus Grand Master

zerinus

Posted
Posted (edited)

This idea of the Twelve Apostles being special witnesses of the name of Jesus Christ was considered so important that Elder Oaks decided to write a whole book about it, which you can see here:

http://search.barnes...e/9781606410578

It is a good book. I recommend it.

Edited by zerinus
cinepro Grand Master

cinepro

Posted
Posted

I suspect there are (many?) LDS who firmly believe that all the Apostles have actually seen the Savior, because they couldn't actually be "witnesses" of him if they hadn't. I don't know how common the idea is, but I know I've heard it more than once.

If the Apostles have encountered this idea, and they haven't actually seen the Savior, they may have considered the change to be an appropriate step towards tempering people's expectations.

zerinus Grand Master

zerinus

Posted
Posted

I suspect there are (many?) LDS who firmly believe that all the Apostles have actually seen the Savior, because they couldn't actually be "witnesses" of him if they hadn't. I don't know how common the idea is, but I know I've heard it more than once.

If the Apostles have encountered this idea, and they haven't actually seen the Savior, they may have considered the change to be an appropriate step towards tempering people's expectations.

See my previous post. Being special witnesses of the name of Christ has greater significance than you realise.

cinepro Grand Master

cinepro

Posted
Posted

This idea of the Twelve Apostles being special witnesses of the name of Jesus Christ was considered so important that Elder Oaks decided to write a whole book about it, which see here:

http://search.barnes...e/9781606410578

It is a good book. I recommend it.

It looks like that book is based on a talk he gave in conference in 1985, and this quote would be pertinent:

Consistent with these references, many scriptures that refer to “the name of Jesus Christ” are obviously references to the authority of the Savior. This was surely the meaning conveyed when the seventy reported to Jesus that “even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.” (Luke 10:17.) The Doctrine and Covenants employs this same meaning when it describes the Twelve Apostles of this dispensation as “they who shall desire to take upon them my name with full purpose of heart.” (D&C 18:27.) The Twelve are later designated as “special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world,” and as those who “officiate in the name of the Lord, under the direction of the Presidency of the Church.” (D&C 107:23, 33.)

By way of further illustration, the Old Testament contains scores of references to the name of the Lord in a context where it clearly means the authority of the Lord. Most of these references have to do with the temple.

Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
Posted

Yes, that is a pertinent quote which is why I posted in post 5 of this thread.

zerinus Grand Master

zerinus

Posted
Posted

It looks like that book is based on a talk he gave in conference in 1985, and this quote would be pertinent:

Yes, but that does not provide a full picture. In the book he discusses the subject in more depth, and examines several other aspects of it as well, including what it means to be special witnesses of the name of Christ.

theplains Grand Master

theplains

Posted
Posted

Study the Gospel Principles manual and was reading under chapter 14

http://www.lds.org/m...zation?lang=eng

saw where when talking about apostles, it says "special witnesses of the name of Jesus Christ". That sounded kinda odd and funny and I didn't remember that from when I joined and read this book inside and out so I consulted my older version and saw original book wording left out "name of"

There is a more notable change made in chapter 14. I'm wondering if you saw it.

The old version, on page 87, states:

Those holding the Melchizedek Priesthood have the power and authority to lead the Church and direct the preaching of

the gospel in all parts of the world. They are in charge of all the spiritual work of the Church (see D&C 84:19–22. They

direct the work done in the temples; they preside over wards, branches, stakes, and missions; they heal the sick, bless

babies, and give special blessings to Church members. The Lord’s chosen prophet, the President of the Church, is the

presiding high priest over the Melchizedek Priesthood (see D&C 107:65–67).

The new version, on page 74, states:

Those holding the Melchizedek Priesthood have the power and authority to lead the Church and direct the preaching of

the gospel in all parts of the world. They administer all the spiritual work of the Church (see D&C 84:19–22; 107) They

direct the work done in the temples; they preside over wards, branches, stakes, and missions. The Lord’s chosen prophet,

the President of the Church, is the presiding high priest over the Melchizedek Priesthood (see D&C 107:65–67).

I found "healing the sick" on page 129:

The Gift of Healing (D&C 46:19–20)

Some have the faith to heal, and others have the faith to be healed. We can all exercise the faith to be healed when we

are ill (see D&C 42:48). Many who hold the priesthood have the gift of healing the sick. Others may be given a

knowledge of how to cure illness.

What is unclear is whether women, who do not have the priesthood, also have the gift of healing.

Regards,

Jim

The Nehor Grand Master

The Nehor

Posted
Posted

If the Apostles have encountered this idea, and they haven't actually seen the Savior, they may have considered the change to be an appropriate step towards tempering people's expectations.

This would make sense except that I am convinced that the preconditions for your thought are not met.

Cobalt-70 Grand Master

Cobalt-70

Posted
Posted (edited)

I suspect there are (many?) LDS who firmly believe that all the Apostles have actually seen the Savior, because they couldn't actually be "witnesses" of him if they hadn't. I don't know how common the idea is, but I know I've heard it more than once.

If the Apostles have encountered this idea, and they haven't actually seen the Savior, they may have considered the change to be an appropriate step towards tempering people's expectations.

I agree. It's a very common Mormon misconception that before you can be an Apostle, you first have to actually see Jesus. Well, not many of them ever actually see Jesus in a vision, and when that occurs, it is usually after years of being an apostle, and it's almost always in the form of a dream.

In the 19th century, new apostles used to be given the charge, when they were first ordained, that they should try to get a vision of Jesus. But since the beginning of the 20th century, that charge is no longer given. Heber J. Grant expressed guilt because he never had such a vision. (See his journal, dated 4 Oct. 1942) Grant also said that he didn't think Jesus had appeared to anybody since Joseph Smith. (This is from a letter in church archives from Grant to Mrs. Claud Peery, 13 Apr. 1926). Some apostles have claimed to have dreams or visions involving Jesus, either in dreams, or (in the case of David B. Haight) as visions that came while unconscious with a physical disability. Only one 20th century apostle, Hugh B. Brown, ever claimed to have a waking appearance of Jesus.

Until now none of the apostles have been too anxious to correct the common misconception that they have all seen Jesus. I think this change in Gospel Principles is a subtle admission, geared toward correcting that misconception.

Edited by Cobalt-70
1
Senator Grand Master

Senator

Posted
Posted

This would make sense except that I am convinced that the preconditions for your thought are not met.

What convinces you of that precondition?

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...