Apostles

[CMZ]

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.

Thanks. And you can have a statement like that and somebody will still come along and say, "That's not good enough. I need MORE proof."

[CMZ]

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.

I have a number of thoughts on this but right now I will just ask: what if they did say just that? How would you know if they were telling the truth?

[Tarski]

I have a number of thoughts on this but right now I will just ask: what if they did say just that? How would you know if they were telling the truth?

I wouldn't know but I might be inclined to believe that something real happened to them under these conditions since I do not think they are abject liars.

Although, the fact that some of them let the members assume is a bit troubling.

We both know it won't happen so the point it moot.

I do not trust JS though. To many other troubling things surround him.

[CMZ]

Although, the fact that some of them let the members assume is a bit troubling.

We both know it won't happen so the point it moot.

Personally, I can't say that I know such a thing because my own personal experience is to the contrary.

[Moon Quaker]

....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.

Allow me to echo myself from an-almost-3-year-old thread regarding this very topic; specifically the "Those who know don't talk, and those who talk don't know" adage.

... If ... the apostles came out and said, "Behold, we have spoken with Jesus face to face," I wouldn't believe them any more than I believe anyone else who makes such a claim. BUT I would have more respect for them for actually taking a stand rather than piddle farting with the "It's too sacred" copout. If they are such special witnesses of Jesus, why do they provide such ambiguous answers. They should be standing on city walls making a declaration about their "special witness" much in the same manner that Biblical and BoM prophets testified.

In the Bible, we read that Moses spoke with the Lord face to face. Now imagine if it was written in the style of current Mormon apostles.

And the LORD was thought to have spoken with Moses face to face, but Moses felt that he should neither confirm nor deny the widely accepted rumor. But rather, he let the children of Israel interpret as they saw fit. Nevertheless, it must be assumed that Moses hath, indeed, spoken with the LORD; for in the distant future, a prophet of the LORD will say, those who know don't talk, and those who talk don't know. Therefore, through Moses' silence alone, the children of Israel were confident that the LORD spoke with Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend ...

Seems a bit ineffective, IMO. If all of the writings of the Biblical prophets were like that, the Judeo-Christian god would have died out long ago.

[Moon Quaker]

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.

I do NOT believe JS saw Jesus. But at least he acted the part of a special witness. So reiterating my post above, if it's assumed that modern-day church leaders claim to have actually seen Jesus and testified that they spoke with him face-to-face, would I believe them? Of course not! But I'd definitely give them props for actually playing the part of special witnesses.

[edited for clarity]

[randy]

I do NOT believe JS saw Jesus. But at least he acted the part of a special witness. So reiterating my post above, if it's assumed that modern-day church leaders claim to have actually seen Jesus and testified that they spoke with him face-to-face, would I believe them? Of course not! But I'd definitely give them props for actually playing the part of special witnesses.

[edited for clarity]

Moon Quaker,

Off topic...but do I remember correctly....did you serve a mission in the Indep. Mo. Mission?

What happened?

[CMZ]

I do NOT believe JS saw Jesus. But at least he acted the part of a special witness. So reiterating my post above, if it's assumed that modern-day church leaders claim to have actually seen Jesus and testified that they spoke with him face-to-face, would I believe them? Of course not! But I'd definitely give them props for actually playing the part of special witnesses.

So saying you have seen Jesus when you haven't has some special virtue to it? And if a current apostle says he knows Christ has been resurrected that's not good enough for you? But if they say they've seen Christ when perhaps maybe they haven't then they're at least "acting the part" of a special witness to your complete satisfaction?

[Moon Quaker]

So saying you have seen Jesus when you haven't has some special virtue to it? And if a current apostle says he knows Christ has been resurrected that's not good enough for you? But if they say they've seen Christ when perhaps maybe they haven't then they're at least "acting the part" of a special witness to your complete satisfaction?

I think you misread my point. My above post(s) are entirely dependent on whether church apostles actually possess the exact same, face-to-face knowledge about the Lord that Moses, JS, et al. [claim to] possess; such an experience is NOT "too sacred" IMO. Imagine if JS felt that his first vision was "too sacred" to share with anyone; we wouldn't even be having this discussion. So I'm not asking or expecting anyone to lie, I'm just asking them NOT to beat around the bush when addressing the topic.

With that said, if the brethren have a no more special witness than a "rank-and-file" church member, that's totally fine. By no means do they need to lie about it making up visionary tales. But the "Those who know don't talk, and those who talk don't know" quote (as attributed to Dallin Oaks) implies that the apostles have, indeed, experienced such a "special witness" but they chose to keep it on the down-low because it's "too sacred." Think how many church members assume that the apostles have, indeed, beheld Jesus with their physical eyes. Not because any of the apostles have actually said they have, but because none of the apostles go to any length to correct rampant ideas that they actually have (i.e., they neither confirm nor deny such stories [or at least I haven't heard them].)

As an excellent example, I recall visiting my mission a few months after I returned home (with the fam, seeing all the church historic sites) and in the ward my family attended one of the Sundays, one of the speakers (who is known in the ward for his great understanding of church doctrine) was talking about the current church leaders. Being the gospel scholar that this man was, people don't take his words lightly ("he knows what he's talking about"--or that's the train of thought regarding this particular ward member.) Anyway, his concluding words in his talk that Sunday afternoon [paraphrased], "The current prophets and apostles have seen and spoken with the Lord in the very same manner as Moses when he spoke with God face-to-face." Then, seriously, he paused for at least ten second (I guess he really wanted it to sink in.) After the pause, he sternly said, "Let me repeat that: [brief pause] The current prophets and apostles have seen and spoken with the Lord in the very same manner as Moses when he spoke with God face-to-face." Another ten-second pause and then he concluded his talk.

[As a TBM] I know I thought his words were very profound (and I'm sure that I wasn't alone in those thoughts.) But here he is, allowed to say such a thing in the first place. No on in the bishopric clarified or corrected his words (they [the bishopric] have no way to know if the idea is true. Besides, if they were to say, "Perhaps that's not entirely true," they might be viewed as "border-line apostate;" who knows. So like the apostles, they keep their mouths shut as well.)

The brethren like to keep FPRs from spreading when it comes to other topics (e.g., personal notes taken at meetings should be kept personal.) But you never hear them "correcting" stories about their [apparent] physical witness of Jesus (granted, they'll never confirm such a story either.) But as such, [many] members infer that they [the apostles] have physically witnessed Jesus. Said members take the apostles' lack of confirmation/denial as them merely invoking the "too sacred doctrine." If you have NOT physically handled/seen Jesus, say so (which I acknowledge, GBH (et al.) more or less, has done when he admitted that things come to him as "impressions" and nothing grand.) But if you have NOT physically handled/seen Jesus but you use the "too sacred" copout, you're only perpetuating the idea that you actually have, while leaving the whole thing ambiguous by avoiding it.

Anyway, after listening to the talk in sacrament meeting, I (or anyone) should have been able to call one of the apostles in SLC (and assuming I could actually get through to one of the them) relaying what was spoken in sacrament meeting and ask, "Yes or no? Is what that speaker said true?" It's a pretty straightforward question and deserves a simple "yes" or "no" answer. So in bringing it back to the intended point of my other post(s), if this hypothetical apostle were to give me a "yes" answer to the question, would I believe him? No. But I'd have more respect for him that he's not piddle farting around claiming that it's "too sacred to share." And if he were to give me a "no" answer, that's fine, he's being straightforward without copping out with ambiguous silence.

[CMZ]

I think you misread my point. My above post(s) are entirely dependent on whether church apostles actually possess the exact same, face-to-face knowledge about the Lord that Moses, JS, et al. [claim to] possess; such an experience is NOT "too sacred" IMO. Imagine if JS felt that his first vision was "too sacred" to share with anyone; we wouldn't even be having this discussion. So I'm not asking or expecting anyone to lie, I'm just asking them NOT to beat around the bush when addressing the topic.

With that said, if the brethren have a no more special witness than a "rank-and-file" church member, that's totally fine. By no means do they need to lie about it making up visionary tales. But the "Those who know don't talk, and those who talk don't know" quote (as attributed to Dallin Oaks) implies that the apostles have, indeed, experienced such a "special witness" but they chose to keep it on the down-low because it's "too sacred." Think how many church members assume that the apostles have, indeed, beheld Jesus with their physical eyes. Not because any of the apostles have actually said they have, but because none of the apostles go to any length to correct rampant ideas that they actually have (i.e., they neither confirm nor deny such stories [or at least I haven't heard them].)

As an excellent example, I recall visiting my mission a few months after I returned home (with the fam, seeing all the church historic sites) and in the ward my family attended one of the Sundays, one of the speakers (who is known in the ward for his great understanding of church doctrine) was talking about the current church leaders. Being the gospel scholar that this man was, people don't take his words lightly ("he knows what he's talking about"--or that's the train of thought regarding this particular ward member.) Anyway, his concluding words in his talk that Sunday afternoon [paraphrased], "The current prophets and apostles have seen and spoken with the Lord in the very same manner as Moses when he spoke with God face-to-face." Then, seriously, he paused for at least ten second (I guess he really wanted it to sink in.) After the pause, he sternly said, "Let me repeat that: [brief pause] The current prophets and apostles have seen and spoken with the Lord in the very same manner as Moses when he spoke with God face-to-face." Another ten-second pause and then he concluded his talk.

[As a TBM] I know I thought his words were very profound (and I'm sure that I wasn't alone in those thoughts.) But here he is, allowed to say such a thing in the first place. No one in the bishopric clarified or corrected his words (they [the bishopric] have no way to know if the idea is true. Besides, if they were to say, "Perhaps that's not entirely true," they might be viewed as "border-line apostate;" who knows. So like the apostles, they keep their mouths shut as well.)

The brethren like to keep FPRs from spreading when it comes to other topics (e.g., personal notes taken at meetings should be kept personal.) But you never hear them "correcting" stories about their [apparent] physical witness of Jesus (granted, they'll never confirm such a story either.) But as such, [many] members infer that they [the apostles] have physically witnessed Jesus. Said members take the apostles' lack of confirmation/denial as them merely invoking the "too sacred doctrine." If you have NOT physically handled/seen Jesus, say so (which I acknowledge, GBH (et al.) more or less, has done when he admitted that things come to him as "impressions" and nothing grand.) But if you have NOT physically handled/seen Jesus but you use the "too sacred" copout, you're only perpetuating the idea that you actually have, while leaving the whole thing ambiguous by avoiding it.

Anyway, after listening to the talk in sacrament meeting, I (or anyone) should have been able to call one of the apostles in SLC (and assuming I could actually get through to one of the them) relaying what was spoken in sacrament meeting and ask, "Yes or no? Is what that speaker said true?" It's a pretty straightforward question and deserves a simple "yes" or "no" answer. So in bringing it back to the intended point of my other post(s), if this hypothetical apostle were to give me a "yes" answer to the question, would I believe him? No. But I'd have more respect for him that he's not piddle farting around claiming that it's "too sacred to share." And if he were to give me a "no" answer, that's fine, he's being straightforward without copping out with ambiguous silence.

The thing is, different people who have seen the Savior may have been directed to handle their testimony in different ways. This would not be all that unusual because Jesus did this during his mortality when he would perform a miracle and sometimes tell those who witnessed it, "Let people know I did this," but other times he charged them to tell no man that he was the Savior. If the Savior appears to a modern apostle and says, "But this experience is too sacred to share," is it your place to say the apostle is copping out?

It still seems like you think outright lying is better than telling a truth vaguely. "Sure Joseph Smith lied about the First Vision but I admire that he was so grandiose about it. Why can't current GA's bear false witness in a more grandiose manner?" And if you DO believe they have seen the Savior but wish they were more open about it then you at least still believe they saw the Savior so I'm not sure what the controversy is here.

[Moon Quaker]

It still seems like you think outright lying is better than telling a truth vaguely.

emphasis mine

Excellent job at NOT even reading what I wrote:

... I'm not asking or expecting anyone to lie ...

... By no means do they need to lie about it making up visionary tales. ...

...

...

...

... So in bringing it back to the intended point of my other post(s), if this hypothetical apostle were to give me a "yes" answer to the question, would I believe him? No. But I'd have more respect for him that he's not piddle farting around claiming that it's "too sacred to share." And if he were to give me a "no" answer, that's fine, he's being straightforward without copping out with ambiguous silence.

No where in my post did I say "outright lying is better than telling a truth vaguely." My scenarios ONLY involve an apostle telling the truth; i.e., as far as he believes that he is telling the truth in giving his "yes" or "no" answer. If such an apostle genuinely feels he is being honest and upfront when answering "yes," I'm acknowledging that as "an honest answer." Whether or not I believe him is entirely irrelevant to my argument; as far as I'm concerned, he just delusional, but honest, nonetheless. However, you seem to think that my disbelief of a "yes" answer is indicative that such an apostle is actually [willfully and openly] lying about it. It's almost as if you're casting more doubt on the honesty of this hypothetical apostle than I am.

[CMZ]

emphasis mine

Excellent job at NOT even reading what I wrote:

No where in my post did I say "outright lying is better than telling a truth vaguely." My scenarios ONLY involve an apostle telling the truth; i.e., as far as he believes that he is telling the truth in giving his "yes" or "no" answer. If such an apostle genuinely feels he is being honest and upfront when answering "yes," I'm acknowledging that as "an honest answer." Whether or not I believe him is entirely irrelevant to my argument; as far as I'm concerned, he just delusional, but honest, nonetheless. However, you seem to think that my disbelief of a "yes" answer is indicative that such an apostle is actually [willfully and openly] lying about it. It's almost as if you're casting more doubt on the honesty of this hypothetical apostle than I am.

I read what you wrote. I am just trying to figure out what you are getting at. Now it sounds like you are saying, "Nobody could see Christ so anybody who claims to have must be lying. But if you're not willfully and openly lying about it when you claim to have then, hey, I'm alright with that."

If earnest, non-malicious, innocent but misguided dishonesty is some sort of supreme virtue to you then so be it.

[Moon Quaker]

I read what you wrote. I am just trying to figure out what you are getting at. Now it sounds like you are saying, "Nobody could see Christ so anybody who claims to have must be lying. But if you're not willfully and openly lying about it when you claim to have then, hey, I'm alright with that."

[edited to add] YES, IF SOMEONE IS GENUINELY HONEST ABOUT IT, I AM FINE WITH IT (it's better than the "it's too sacred" BS.) But like I said before, my opinion is irrelevant to the argument at hand; whether I think such a hypothetical apostle is delusion doesn't matter; e.g., I'll entertain the idea that I am wrong; suppose Supernatural Jesus really did appear to an apostle, and the apostle said, "Yes, I have seen Jesus with my physical eyes." Of course I'll still think he's just being delusional. But my opinion doesn't change anything. But as far as you're concerned, I guess said apostle is still being "earnest[ly], non-malicious[ly], innocent[ly] but misguided[ly] dishonest" because my opinion [apparently] trumps any and all facts for such a situation.

I'm done wasting my time in this thread.