New Testament apostles DID need to have seen the risen Christ

[Bernard Gui]

This statement from the OP gives me some heartburn:

To this we are witnesses

[zerinus]

USU78,

Your religion officially denies that I am validly baptized, denies that I have the gift of the Holy Ghost, denies that I am authorized to preach the gospel, and denies that I am part of the church of Jesus Christ -- all simply on the grounds that I am not a Mormon. Your revered founder labeled my beliefs abominations, my view of God a monster, and on and on. Taking offense at my use of the term "bogus" to describe LDS revelations, given that context, comes off as whining.

You know how it is don't you. The religion you believe in is an apostate, dead religion. As a (self appointed) representative of such a false religion you are acting true to character by attacking and maligning God's true Restored religion. That has been the established pattern throughout history. Today it is no different.

[LeSellers]

Your revered founder labeled ... my view of God a monster, and on and on.

False. Mistaken. Deceived. Not monstrous. Nobody ever says anything remotely like that . . . at least on this side of the aisle. Indeed, we don't even say that about Mohamed, which apparently bugs RB.

Joseph did call the trinity "a monster", sorta.

Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God! I say that is a strange God anyhow-three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. "Father, I pray not for the world, but I pray for them which thou hast given me." "Holy Father, keep through Thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are." All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God-he would be a giant or a monster. I want to read the text to you myself-"I am agreed with the Father and the Father is agreed with me, and we are agreed as one."

HC 6:476

Notice that Joseph is stating a conditional: If God were as he described Him, then He would be a monster, according to a misunderstanding of the Bible (and, let us not forget, a common, quasi-universal, misunderstanding of the trinity

[LeSellers]

Rob, did you ever respond to my answer to your question here?

You asked, and I troubled to respond. It seems reasonable for you to acknowledge the effort.

Lehi

[David T]

You know how it is don't you. The religion you believe in is an apostate, dead religion. As a (self appointed) representative of such a false religion you are acting true to character by attacking and maligning God's true Restored religion. That has been the established pattern throughout history. Today it is no different.

I'd like to go on record stating that I believe that Rob is a good man, dedicated to serving the Lord in the way he truly believes the Lord would want him to, and sincerely trying to help others. That his religion has done much good in his life and in the life of others, and that he would be devastated if he were to be found to have been "attacking and maligning God's true religion".

I do not believe that Rob has been dishonest in any of his posting here, and has shown tremendous patience in the face of many who would rather mock him and insult him than patiently and kindly discuss differences in understanding with him. He has behaved much better here than most of those who have been corresponding with him.

While I disagree with many (if not most) of Rob's fundamental beliefs and arguments as presented here (and especially as presented on his papers and videos to be found on other websites), I believe he has been far more respectful (and respectable) here on this board than many of those whose essential beliefs I share.

[Palerider]

I'd like to go on record stating that I believe that Rob is a good man, dedicated to serving the Lord in the way he truly believes the Lord would want him to, and sincerely trying to help others. That his religion has done much good in his life and in the life of others, and that he would be devastated if he were to be found to have been "attacking and maligning God's true religion".

I do not believe that Rob has been dishonest in any of his posting here, and has shown tremendous patience in the face of many who would rather mock him and insult him than patiently and kindly discuss differences in understanding with him. He has behaved much better here than most of those who have been corresponding with him.

While I disagree with many (if not most) of Rob's fundamental beliefs and arguments as presented here (and especially as presented on his papers and videos to be found on other websites), I believe he has been far more respectful (and respectable) here on this board than many of those whose essential beliefs I share.

Spoken as a man of Honor. My compliments and if you were present I would shake your hand and give you my pledge.

[zerinus]

I'd like to go on record stating that I believe that Rob is a good man, dedicated to serving the Lord in the way he truly believes the Lord would want him to, and sincerely trying to help others. That his religion has done much good in his life and in the life of others, and that he would be devastated if he were to be found to have been "attacking and maligning God's true religion".

I do not believe that Rob has been dishonest in any of his posting here, and has shown tremendous patience in the face of many who would rather mock him and insult him than patiently and kindly discuss differences in understanding with him. He has behaved much better here than most of those who have been corresponding with him.

While I disagree with many (if not most) of Rob's fundamental beliefs and arguments as presented here (and especially as presented on his papers and videos to be found on other websites), I believe he has been far more respectful (and respectable) here on this board than many of those whose essential beliefs I share.

You are entitled to your opinions of course, and so am I to mine. I see him as a latter-day false prophet, like Hananiah mentioned in the book of Jeremiah.

[cdowis]

The religion you believe in is an apostate, dead religion.

OK, so we have a "bogus prophet" on one side, and "an apostate religion" on the other.

So what is new here? Any fresh insight into the discussion or just name calling.

[Rob Bowman]

Bernard,

My claim is not that LDS apostles' testimonies to Christ are "bogus" because they are based only on a "strong feeling in their hearts." You are connecting several different things I've said in a way that doesn't accurately express my view. Please let me try to explain.

1. I accept the sincerity of contemporary LDS apostles when they say that they know and testify that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead and is the divine Savior. I am not questioning their sincerity at all. Of course, I also agree that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead and is the divine Savior, though we have different theological understandings of what his role as divine Savior means.

2. As best I can determine from what LDS apostles of the past century or so actually say, their special testimony to the resurrection of Christ is based on their inner feeling that it is true. They don't usually say much about the details, but that seems to be the gist of it.

3. While I don't denigrate a person's inner feeling that the resurrection of Jesus is true, I do deny that this is what the NT writers mean when they speak of the apostles as giving testimony or witness to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. They meant that the apostles actually saw and heard Jesus Christ; they had personal, direct encounters with the risen Christ.

4. I used the term "bogus" in the context of responding to a statement by another Mormon here. He was arguing in effect that we need modern revelations, that the LDS Church was the only place to find them, and that evangelicals don't even claim to have them. My response was to make a general statement of principle: "All the revelation in the world is of no value if it's bogus." My point was simply that what we need is not to accept whatever revelation claims are being made, but to assess or test them to see if they are genuine or bogus. There should be nothing offensive in that observation. As Mormons, you will naturally reject the modern revelations of Ellen G. White, the Baha'is, William Branham, Kenneth Copeland, David Koresh, Nakayama Miki, et. al.

[USU78]

My point was simply that what we need is not to accept whatever revelation claims are being made, but to assess or test them to see if they are genuine or bogus. There should be nothing offensive in that observation. As Mormons, you will naturally reject the modern revelations of Ellen G. White, the Baha'is, William Branham, Kenneth Copeland, David Koresh, Nakayama Miki, et. al.

Fair enough, RB. But you misunderstand us yet: we don't "naturally" reject anything. I quite like a fair bit of what White brings the world, for example, and we don't ask anybody to reject TRVTH, wherever it comes from. You, no doubt, have read the statements of JSJr and BY on the subject, and they get quoted every couple of years in General Conferences. Bring whatever you have of TRVTH and add it to ours, since G-d is the author of all TRVTH.

I've known some really fine Baha'i folks as well. What I don't hear from them, or from the Adventists, is the obnoxiousness we get on a daily basis from the self-proclaimed, "solely" Christian, exclusionary evangelical types.

[Palerider]

Fair enough, RB. But you misunderstand us yet: we don't "naturally" reject anything. I quite like a fair bit of what White brings the world, for example, and we don't ask anybody to reject TRVTH, wherever it comes from. You, no doubt, have read the statements of JSJr and BY on the subject, and they get quoted every couple of years in General Conferences. Bring whatever you have of TRVTH and add it to ours, since G-d is the author of all TRVTH.

I've known some really fine Baha'i folks as well. What I don't hear from them, or from the Adventists, is the obnoxiousness we get on a daily basis from the self-proclaimed, "solely" Christian, exclusionary evangelical types.

I agree in part with your assessment here but I think your personal approach to truth is in reality a small representation of the majority of LDS who might give lip service to seeking truth from all sources but in practise see LDS leadership as the ultimate source of truth and the arbiters of salvation here on earth. A position of mediators between man and Christ and God.

You're kind of special you know...

[Vance]

A position of mediators between man the Church and Christ and God.

There, fixed it for you.

[USU78]

I agree in part with your assessment here but I think your personal approach to truth is in reality a small representation of the majority of LDS who might give lip service to seeking truth from all sources but in practise see LDS leadership as the ultimate source of truth and the arbiters of salvation here on earth. A position of mediators between man and Christ and God.

I don't know how you can say that, PR. "Lip service" is not what I see at all. Perhaps you could expand on this?

And as to "LDS leadership as the ultimate source of truth and the arbiters of salvation," I know some of these guys personally. They would never usurp such a position for themselves, since there's only one ultimate source and one arbiter. Maybe you haven't penetrated sufficiently.

[mrmendoza]

I agree in part with your assessment here but I think your personal approach to truth is in reality a small representation of the majority of LDS who might give lip service to seeking truth from all sources but in practise see LDS leadership as the ultimate source of truth and the arbiters of salvation here on earth. A position of mediators between man and Christ and God.

You're kind of special you know...

While we do look to our leaders as a prime source for truth, and inspiration, about how we should live our lives, we also take all we can find from whatever other sources are out there. Our leaders are our teachers to teach us what we need to do to be more Christ-like. But what's more important is the "keys" they hold, that whatsoever they bind on earth will be bound in heaven! That by using these keys in the spreading of the gospel they promote the sanctity of the family, sealing families together forever, and redeeming the dead. The Priesthood keys, and all the powers that rest in them are given specificaly to these men! Without these keys, (Or authority) and the moderen revelations that comes with them, we would be no different from any other church, seeking to do what we can with what we got!

The BOM, D&C, & PoGP allow us to better understand the Bible in a more authoritive way, without all of the Midrash that we see on this board so much! The modern apostles and prophets are there to guide us "untll we all come to a unity of the faith"! We still have them because even within the LDS we have not all reached that unity!

Mike

[Palerider]

I don't know how you can say that, PR. "Lip service" is not what I see at all. Perhaps you could expand on this?

And as to "LDS leadership as the ultimate source of truth and the arbiters of salvation," I know some of these guys personally. They would never usurp such a position for themselves, since there's only one ultimate source and one arbiter. Maybe you haven't penetrated sufficiently.

[David T]

"When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan--it is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God."

(Improvement Era, June 1945)

Psst...

Response from President George Albert Smith regarding the statement

When the ward teaching message was published, concerns were raised regarding how this statement would be interpreted. President George Albert Smith responded to a concern expressed by Dr. Raymond A. Cope of the First Unitarian Society:

The leaflet to which you refer, and from which you quote in your letter, was not "prepared" by "one of our leaders." However, one or more of them inadvertently permitted the paragraph to pass uncensored. By their so doing, not a few members of the Church have been upset in their feelings, and General Authorities have been embarrassed.

I am pleased to assure you that you are right in your attitude that the passage quoted does not express the true position of the Church. Even to imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church, which is that every individual must obtain for himself a testimony of the truth of the Gospel, must, through the redemption of Jesus Christ, work out his own salvation, and is personally responsible to His Maker for his individual acts. The Lord Himself does not attempt coercion in His desire and effort to give peace and salvation to His children. He gives the principles of life and true progress, but leaves every person free to choose or to reject His teachings. This plan the Authorities of the Church try to follow.

And for what the Church is currently teaching on this subject, please see Elder Oaks' most recent Conference Address, Two Lines of Communication.

[Vance]

<SNIP>

So, from what (very reliable ) anti-Mormon source did you pull that from?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So, from what (very reliable ) anti-Mormon source did you pull that from?

The usual stuff. I wish there was some acutal turth to the stuff these guys keep claiming.

I wonder if PR has an issue with the 12 apostles being judges over Isreal?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Psst...

And for what the Church is currently teaching on this subject, please see Elder Oaks' most recent Conference Address, Two Lines of Communication.

Well there goes that one.

[Palerider]

Psst...

And for what the Church is currently teaching on this subject, please see Elder Oaks' most recent Conference Address, Two Lines of Communication.

Hey Nack,

I think you may have missed my original point. I gave the references as a sample of the "culture" that already existed within the church. I'm not saying that that's what the leadership was teaching, but somebody somewhere in the church had to think up (because that's what they actually believed) that statement and write it as policy and that person or persons were quite close to the leadership or they wouldn't have been writing the manual. The fact that the statement was vetted probably by numerous proofreaders and general authorities (if I understand the process correctly) and raised no eyebrows, indicates that more than one person in the church is thinking this way.

It is that culture which I suggest prevails to this day in the LDS Faith.

That's why I in my post to USU78 I referred to the "majority of LDS" as seeing their leadership this way.

It's a great place to be (mentally) at first glance, because you don't have to concern yourself with figuring out what's wrong or right or what's correct or incorrect doctrine, etc. Someone else has figured that all out for you and you can relax and follow along concentrating on doing your duty and raising your family, etc. It is the mentality that made Mountain Meadows possible.

I was and am fully aware of Geo. A. Smith's reply to Dr. Cope and wish you had included some of the rest of his text because in a way it is a little revealing.

"The Prophet Joseph Smith once said: "I want liberty of thinking and believing as I please." This liberty he and his successors in the leadership of the Church have granted to every other member thereof.

I cite these few quotations, from many that might be given, merely to confirm your good and true opinion that the Church gives to every man his free agency, and admonishes him always to use the reason and good judgment with which God has blessed him."

Perhaps a better approach for Pres. Smith would have been to say:

"....This liberty God has granted to every member of the church. I site these few quotations, from many that might be given, merely to confirm your good and true opinion that God gives to every man his free agency and the church admonishes him always to use his good judgement and reason with which he has been blessed.

I know that some will see this as blasphemous that I would even think to put words in a leader's mouth but,...... there you have it.

[Vance]

I think you may have missed my original point. I gave the references as a sample of the "culture" that already existed within the church. I'm not saying that that's what the leadership was teaching, but somebody somewhere in the church had to think up (because that's what they actually believed) that statement and write it as policy and that person or persons were quite close to the leadership or they wouldn't have been writing the manual.

Sorry, but one person, a culture does not make.

It is that culture which I suggest prevails to this day in the LDS Faith.

Suggest away. But that doesn't change the facts of the matter.

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

I think many times the culture on our end has been to obey the prophets and apostles while neglecting the personal line of communication as described in Elder Oaks's talk.

Conversely, on the other side of the ladder, one uses the personal line without using the priesthood line.

Twas a good reminder by Elder Oaks.

[Bernard Gui]

1. I accept the sincerity of contemporary LDS apostles when they say that they know and testify that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead and is the divine Savior. I am not questioning their sincerity at all. Of course, I also agree that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead and is the divine Savior, though we have different theological understandings of what his role as divine Savior means.

Could you please point me to a recent statement by a group of Christian church leaders that compares with this:

As we commemorate the birth of Jesus Christ two millennia ago, we offer our testimony of the reality of His matchless life and the infinite virtue of His great atoning sacrifice. None other has had so profound an influence upon all who have lived and will yet live upon the earth.

He was the Great Jehovah of the Old Testament, the Messiah of the New. Under the direction of His Father, He was the creator of the earth.