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...
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????????
It is still done "of Christ" in the videos: http://www.lds.org/study/prophets-speak-today/what-are-prophets-testimonies?lang=eng
When you climb up a ladder, you...begin at the bottom...ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top...so it is with the principles of the Gospel--you must begin with the first...go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world. Joseph Smith
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.)
When you climb up a ladder, you...begin at the bottom...ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top...so it is with the principles of the Gospel--you must begin with the first...go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world. Joseph Smith
Unless these Apostles have actually seen Christ in person, they are not "witnesses" of the physical person of the man Jesus. Makes sense to me that they're witnesses of His Name and Gospel.
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
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
In spite of the world's arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God's prophets.
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.
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:
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.
In spite of the world's arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God's prophets.
Yes, that is a pertinent quote which is why I posted in post 5 of this thread.
When you climb up a ladder, you...begin at the bottom...ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top...so it is with the principles of the Gospel--you must begin with the first...go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world. Joseph Smith
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.
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.
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.
Twisting God's work into my own hellish, slithering, mutatious...thing.
I support NCMO.
We enter this world naked, screaming, and covered in blood...the fun doesn't have to end there...
0
