Apostles

[JLFuller]

So I was asked an interesting question. Do the modern apostles physically handle the Savior, or do they see Him in vision? Anyone know?

I believe it was George Q Cannon who describes his encounter with the Savior. Was it in a vision? I don't recall. There accounts of face-to-face encounters from the past but the saying goes "those that know don't tell and those that tell don't know". Anyway, what difference would it make if it was face-to-face or in vision? They all say they know for a certainty that Christ lives and that this is His restored Gospel.

[Tarski]

....but the saying goes "those that know don't tell and those that tell don't know".

Riight, because that's what a witness is; a person that does not tell what they saw.

[kamenraider]

No one can truly say he knows God until he has handled something, and this can only be in the Holiest of Holies.

--Joseph Smith, 1 May 1842, The Words of Joseph Smith, pg. 120.

[ttribe]

I'd prefer, "Thus saith the Lord....."

Well, perhaps you and Dr. Tarski should write in to SLC with your advice since you both, obviously, know better than they do how to do their jobs.

[Tarski]

Well, perhaps you and Dr. Tarski should write in to SLC with your advice since you both, obviously, know better than they do how to do their jobs.

I won't do it because I am sure the real reason they don't make a proclaimation like the one I suggested is because nothing about it would be true.

They do not say they have seen him in the flesh with their own eyes and I think we may assume that is because they haven't. A good witness witnesses to what they saw, nothing more and nothing less.

[Black Moclips]

This topic always gets me thinking "What if the original apostles acted they way the current ones do?" Would Christianity have spread? The original apostles couldn't shut up about seeing the risen lord, and proclaimed it long and loud, and it took them to their deaths. Today, its all sacred and secret, and too pearly to share. It sure would be refreshing to hear. But I'm just a sign seeker, what do I know.

[ttribe]

I won't do it because I am sure the real reason they don't make a proclaimation like the one I suggested is because nothing about it would be true.

They do not say they have seen him in the flesh with their own eyes and I think we may assume that is because they haven't. A good witness witnesses to what they saw, nothing more and nothing less.

So, are you suggesting that the brethren know the whole thing's a fraud and are silent because of that knowledge?

[Tarski]

So, are you suggesting that the brethren know the whole thing's a fraud and are silent because of that knowledge?

I am suggesting that they know they have not seen Jesus Christ in the flesh although some may have seen him a dream or in the "mind's eye" while feeling what they have come to know as the spirit.

They know that they have not seen him in the way that they see each other (that is, frankly, as one man sees and converse with another and breathes the same air and stands on the same floor)

I suspect most would not even think they have seen him in a vision. They don't say it because it isn't true.

Do they think it is fraud? No. They just think that they have the same kind of "still small voice" contact with God that a sunday school teacher or Bishop has and they have come to think this is the way it is supposed to work. As for why they let members assume they have seen, I can only guess.

Look at this tid bit from an interview before congress with Prophet Joseph F. Smith (Reed Smooth hearings). I think he was being honest. (As far as I am aware this is not a fabrication of anti-Mormons. You can correct me.)

"Senator Dubois: 'Have your received any revelations from God, which has been submitted by you and the apostles to the body of the church in their semi-annual conference, which revelation has been sustained by that conference, through the upholding of their hands?'

"Mr. Smith: 'No, sir; none whatsoever.'

"Senator Dubois: 'Have you received individual revelations yourself, since you became President of the church under your own definition, even, of a revelation?'

"Mr. Smith: 'I cannot say that I have.'

"Senator Dubois: 'Can you say that you have not?'

"Mr. Smith: 'No; I cannot say that I have not.'

"Senator Dubois: 'Then you do not know whether you have received any such revelation as you have described or whether you have not?'

"Mr. Smith: 'Well, I can say this: That if I live as I should in the line of my duties, I am susceptible, I think, of the impressions of the Spirit of the Lord upon my mind at any time. Just as any good Methodist or any other good church member might be. And so far as that is concerned, I say yes, I have had impressions of the Spirit upon my mind very frequently, but they are not in the sense of revelations.' ("Reed Smoot Case," Vol. 1, pp. 483-84)

During the same hearings, Mormon Church president Joseph F. Smith further admitted:

"I have never pretended to nor do I profess to have received revelations." (p. 99)

[ttribe]

Look at this tid bit from an interview before congress with Prophet Joseph F. Smith (Reed Smooth hearings). I think he was being honest. (As far as I am aware this is not a fabrication of anti-Mormons. You can correct me.)

Something must have changed by 1918; read the header to Section 138 of the Doctrine and Covenants (Link)

[CMZ]

I'm just guessing here but I think that if the testimonies that have been borne by the apostles were believed more then we might get more information. This applies to the Church as a group and to outsiders as a group and also to individuals. Each group/individual has different information presented to them. If they reject the little that is given to them then they are unlikely to get more. We know that Joseph Smith saw Jesus Christ; his witness is supposed to be the preeminent one in this dispensation. If we don't believe his testimony then we are unlikely to believe a current apostle's testimony. But if we do believe Joseph Smith's testimony then we know that Christ does have the ability to visit people. A current apostle coming right out and saying, "I have seen Christ," does not grant you the motivating power to live the gospel if you have already rejected Joseph Smith's testimony of the same.BTW, it was an apostle who died almost two years ago who said he had an experience similar to the brother of Jared's.

I am suggesting that they know they have not seen Jesus Christ in the flesh although some may have seen him a dream or in the "mind's eye" while feeling what they have come to know as the spirit. They know that they have not seen him in the way that they see each other (that is, frankly, as one man sees and converse with another and breathes the same air and stands on the same floor)

Don't be so certain.

[dblagent007]

Look at this tid bit from an interview before congress with Prophet Joseph F. Smith (Reed Smooth hearings). I think he was being honest. (As far as I am aware this is not a fabrication of anti-Mormons. You can correct me.)

President Smith said a number of things that were not true in his testimony before Congress. I'm not sure that we can believe anything he said in that forum.

[Tarski]

Something must have changed by 1918; read the header to Section 138 of the Doctrine and Covenants (Link)

Well, now we seem to have learned what a divine communication is--an idea, feeling or "still small voice". Is there and indication of something more dramatic that I missed?

Does he say he has seen the physically present Christ with his own eyes in the frank manner that I have questioned?

It sounds like a person who thinks their own thoughts dreams and feeling are from God whenever it seems like they are. Many of us have had that feeling (and some later doubted it).

I submit that nothing is happening to the GA's in Salt Lake that is any more definite than, qualitatively different from what might happen to you or to a Bishop or Sunday school teacher (or to me for that matter).

By the way, I attended the conference where David B. Haight had just become an apostle and he said in his speech " I have not seen, but I know".

It struck me at the time and surprised my then young mind.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne..._&hideNav=1

[CMZ]

By the way, I attended the conference where David B. Haight had just become an apostle and he said in his speech " I have not seen, but I know".

It struck me at the time and surprised my then young mind.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne..._&hideNav=1

So you know Elder Haight knows Jesus lives but you don't believe him.

BTW, I think the date of his talk is important.

[ttribe]

Well, now we seem to have learned what a divine communication is--an idea, feeling or "still small voice". Is there and indication of something more dramatic that I missed?

Ummm....have you read Section 138? It's much more dramatic than a "feeling"; it's an open vision.

Does he say he has seen the physically present Christ with his own eyes in the frank manner that I have questioned?

Not in this, no. However, it was definitely more dramatic than a "feeling".

It sounds like a person who thinks their own thoughts dreams and feeling are from God whenever it seems like they are. Many of us have had that feeling (and some later doubted it).

I submit that nothing is happening to the GA's in Salt Lake that is any more definite than, qualitatively different from what might happen to you or to a Bishop or Sunday school teacher (or to me for that matter).

And I submit that you are wrong...but then, neither of our positions can be "proven" empirically, so it's a bit of an academic exercise...but, you're used to those.

By the way, I attended the conference where David B. Haight had just become an apostle and he said in his speech " I have not seen, but I know".

It struck me at the time and surprised my then young mind.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne..._&hideNav=1

Nifty.

[Tarski]

Ummm....have you read Section 138? It's much more dramatic than a "feeling"; it's an open vision.Not in this, no. However, it was definitely more dramatic than a "feeling".And I submit that you are wrong...but then, neither of our positions can be "proven" empirically, so it's a bit of an academic exercise...but, you're used to those.Nifty.

As far as I know, the don't say they have seen in the normal sense so where does the idea that they have even come from?

BTW, I think the date of his talk is important.

In what way?

[CMZ]

As far as I know, the don't say they have seen in the normal sense so where does the idea that they have even come from?

Joseph Smith is one such person who claims to have seen Christ. As I stated earlier he is the preeminent one. Do you believe Joseph Smith saw Christ? This is the starting point. If we can't get past this point then it's hard to go any further and talk about anyone else. In fact there would be no reason to bring up anyone else.

[Darth_Bill]

I have a second hand reference that an experience similar to the writing on the stone (Daniel?) was his witness. This 70 proposed that not only is a manifestation necessary, but it also needs other witnesses to the event. In order to witness, you do need to witness. The fact that they don't go into specifics is probably more cultural. I have a witness of a few things, and I certainly don't publish it. It was a deeply personal experience.

[Mormon Questioner]

The original poster asked if the Apostles have seen or handled the Savior. I think it is clear from the this thread that there is no evidence they have, but there is evidence that they haven't (see Pres Hinckley's statement in his interview, and the Smoot hearings quotes)

Pretty straightforward. These guys are not lying. They truly believe what they are saying. Their testimony is built on the same experiences and still small voices and impressions as everyone else's. The process of revelation was clearly laid out by Pres Hinckley, and it is the same process that Elder's Quorum Presidents use, and Deacons use, and Bishops use.

When you have lived your entire life believing that those experiences are directly from God, and He has used those same kind of feelings to confirm that the Savior is real and exists, well then I have no doubt that they are being truly honest when they say they Know the Savior exists and leads the church. But that evidence is from still small voices and impressions, not grand visits from the Savior.

[CMZ]

But that evidence is from still small voices and impressions, not grand visits from the Savior.

Despite the fact that some have testified to having been visited by the Savior.

[Mormon Questioner]

Despite the fact that some have testified to having been visited by the Savior.

LOL, that is exactly the point. When have they done so? The whole point of the thread was discussing why they haven't testified to exactly this. Did you read it?

At most they will intimate that they can't tell you what they have seen because it is too sacred. I would love to see some modern apostle or prophets statement that they specifically and physically were visited by the Savior.

When prophets HAVE been asked about this, in both the smoot hearings and Pres Hinckley, they have instead said that nothing that majestic happens, just impressions and still small voices. Where are you getting those testimonies of being visited by the Savior?

[CMZ]

LOL, that is exactly the point. When have they done so? The whole point of the thread was discussing why they haven't testified to exactly this. Did you read it?

At most they will intimate that they can't tell you what they have seen because it is too sacred. I would love to see some modern apostle or prophets statement that they specifically and physically were visited by the Savior.

When prophets HAVE been asked about this, in both the smoot hearings and Pres Hinckley, they have instead said that nothing that majestic happens, just impressions and still small voices. Where are you getting those testimonies of being visited by the Savior?

I will give the same response I gave Tarski:

Joseph Smith is one such person who claims to have seen Christ. As I stated earlier he is the preeminent one. Do you believe Joseph Smith saw Christ? This is the starting point. If we can't get past this point then it's hard to go any further and talk about anyone else. In fact there would be no reason to bring up anyone else.

[Tarski]

I will give the same response I gave Tarski:

Joseph Smith is one such person who claims to have seen Christ. As I stated earlier he is the preeminent one. Do you believe Joseph Smith saw Christ?

No but if he did it does not follow that others have and it doesn't answer the question about apostles being witnesses. A long time has passed from that day in the grove (alleged events).

Even if JS saw Christ, it is of considerable interest to know if the current "witnesses" have seen. The Brighamites are not the only game in town and a falling away still remains a possibility despite claims it couldn't happen again.

[CMZ]

No but if he did it does not follow that others have and it doesn't answer the question about apostles being witnesses. A long time has passed from that day in the grove (alleged events).

Even if JS saw Christ, it is of considerable interest to know if the current "witnesses" have seen. The Brighamites are not the only game in town and a falling away still remains a possibility despite claims it couldn't happen again.

So you don't believe JS saw Christ but you believe somebody now living could? Okay.

If a current member of the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve said they saw Christ then you would believe them?

[kryoung1983]

Tarski,

Maybe that is a role of a witness. They give their witness and then we hear it and ask is that true, what really happened, how can I know? And you get your own witness if it is or not.

My mission president was a deeply spiritual man, who use to be a seventy, was the co producer for the Joseph Smith movie, and reported directly to the first presidency of the church in regards to his role as a mission president. He told me that in the right circumstances, when the time is right every single one of the twelve have said that they have physically seen the savior.

You may not believe him, but that was what he told me.

[Tarski]

If a current member of the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve said they saw Christ then you would believe them?

I might if they said they saw him together as one and said it was not by a dream, dream-like vision, or spiritual eyes etc.

It would help if they confirmed that they had not been fasting to the point of starvation or undergoing any repetitive or unusual process that could have undermined the integrity of their faculties.