Matt. 16:15-17

[inquiringmind]

Did Peter see or hear Heavenly Father before he received the keys of the kingdom?

He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. (Matt. 16:15-17.)

What did Jesus mean when He said "flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven"?

Does this mean that God The Father spoke directly to Peter before they came to the coasts of Caesarea Philippi?

Did Joseph ever comment on what Jesus said here, or explain what He meant?

[canard78]

I would say Heavenly Father has spoken to me.

I would say he used the Holy Ghost as his spokesman to do it.

I imagine Peter had a similar experience.

I'm not aware of JS commenting on this verse.

[inquiringmind]

I would say Heavenly Father has spoken to me.

I would say he used the Holy Ghost as his spokesman to do it.

I imagine Peter had a similar experience.

I'm not aware of JS commenting on this verse.

Thank you.

But wouldn't that mean that Peter had a testimony of The Holy Ghost (as to who Jesus was) when he denied knowing Him on the night of His arrest?

Couldn't Jesus have been saying that The Father (Himself) spoke to Peter and told him who he was?

[rongo]

Divine investiture of authority. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are One ----- so, a witness from the Holy Ghost constitutes a witness from the Father (or the Son).

[inquiringmind]

Divine investiture of authority. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are One ----- so, a witness from the Holy Ghost constitutes a witness from the Father (or the Son).

So we don't know whether it was The Father, The Son, or The Holy Ghost Who spoke to Peter?

[cdowis]

Does the gates of heaven swing or slide open.

[canard78]

Does the gates of heaven swing or slide open.

Isn't it more of a portcullis

[canard78]

Thank you.

But wouldn't that mean that Peter had a testimony of The Holy Ghost (as to who Jesus was) when he denied knowing Him on the night of His arrest?

Yes, but I don't think that's a qualifier for the unpardonable sin, if that's what you're asking.

Couldn't Jesus have been saying that The Father (Himself) spoke to Peter and told him who he was?

He could, but I don't think so. The father's actual vocal chords have been rarely used. But it's possible.

I don't mind either way.

[inquiringmind]

Does the gates of heaven swing or slide open.

I don't know, but Jesus seemed to say that there was a difference between sin against Him, sin against His Father, and sin against The Holy Ghost.

I'd like to know Who it was Who told Peter who Jesus was in Matt. 16, before he denied Jesus on the night He was arrested.

It might help to explain a lot of passages I've tried to understand.

One I was just reading this morning is 2 Nephi 33:1-2.

And now I, Nephi, cannot write all the things which were taught among my people; neither am I mighty in writing, like unto speaking; for when a man speaketh by the power of the Holy Ghost the power of the Holy Ghost carrieth it unto the hearts of the children of men. But behold, there are many that harden their hearts against the Holy Spirit, that it hath no place in them; wherefore, they cast many things away which are written and esteem them as things of naught.

Was Jacob (son of Lehi, brother of Nephi) saying that there were many sons of perdition in his day?

If The Holy Ghost revealed that Jesus was The Son of The Living God to Peter way back at the beginning of Christ's earthly ministry, and he could repent of having denied Him on the night of His arrest (after having seen Him walk on water, heal the sick, and raise the dead), probably not.

But I still don't understand what's meant by "when it once has had place in you" in Alma 39:6.

[inquiringmind]

He could, but I don't think so. The father's actual vocal chords have been rarely used. But it's possible.

I don't mind either way.

I think Joseph said that no man could see The Father without being prepared by The Holy Ghost, or without having the priesthood (and I've learned he said that the priesthood was given to Peter and James and John by the Savior and Moses and Elias on the mount of transfiguration), but did he ever say anything about having to be prepared by The Holy Spirit (or having to have the priesthood) to hear the Father's voice?

[CV75]

but did he ever say anything about having to be prepared by The Holy Spirit (or having to have the priesthood) to hear the Father's voice?

The scriptures indicate a few instances where the priesthood was not evidently necessary for the Father's voice to be heard:

1. 
   Matt. 17: 5
   5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright ^acloud overshadowed them: and behold a ^bvoice out of the cloud, which said, This is my ^cbeloved ^dSon, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.
   
2. 
   Mark 9: 7
   7 And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a ^avoice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my ^bbeloved Son: hear him.
   
3. 
   Luke 9: 35
   35 And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my ^abeloved Son: hear him.
   
4. 
   3 Ne. 11: 7
   7 Behold my ^aBeloved Son, ^bin whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my name—hear ye him.
   
5. 
   JS-H 1: 17
   17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself ^adelivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I ^bsaw two ^cPersonages, whose brightness and ^dglory defy all description, ^estanding above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My ^fBeloved ^gSon. Hear Him!
   

It is reasonable to conclude that some preparation can be provided by the Holy Spirit or by the Lifght of Christ to "hear is voice" (which is a figurative way of saying "receive revelation"), or that His voice (in the form of revelation) is heard by these means or in these formats.

[canard78]

I think Joseph said that no man could see The Father without being prepared by The Holy Ghost, or without having the priesthood (and I've learned he said that the priesthood was given to Peter and James and John by the Savior and Moses and Elias on the mount of transfiguration), but did he ever say anything about having to be prepared by The Holy Spirit (or having to have the priesthood) to hear the Father's voice?

Do you mean this:

D&C 84:

21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;

22 For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live.

Given Joseph did not have the priesthood at the first vision one would presume 'this' in v.22 means the power of godliness, not the priesthood (which came 9 years later).

I think the power if Godliness is manifested in a wide variety of ways.

Edited January 2, 2013 by canard78

[CV75]

I think the power if Godliness is manifested in a wide variety of ways.

Yes--there is a difference bewteen the power of the Holy Ghost and the Gift of the Holy Ghost. People can receive a testimony from the Holy Ghost before receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

There is a difference between having the priesthood and enjoying either the power of the Holy Ghost or the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

[DBMormon]

Thank you.

But wouldn't that mean that Peter had a testimony of The Holy Ghost (as to who Jesus was) when he denied knowing Him on the night of His arrest?

Couldn't Jesus have been saying that The Father (Himself) spoke to Peter and told him who he was?

There is a big difference between having communicated with the Holy Ghost and having your testimony sure and denying the Holy Ghost. For one to deny the HG, one must essentially know beyond a doubt Jesus is the Christ and still choose to deny it and be one of Satan's minions

[inquiringmind]

Given Joseph did not have the priesthood at the first vision one would presume 'this' in v.22 means the power of godliness, not the priesthood (which came 9 years later)

I've heard that passage explained differently.

The Lord made it a requirement, at the time he gave this revelation, that a man must hold the priesthood and have received its ordinances in order to see God. The Lord said: "this revelation...is in force from this very hour upon all the world..."³ This would mean that prior to this revelation, neither the priesthood nor its ordinances were necessary for a man to see the face of God and live. When Joseph Smith went into the grove to pray, he had not been ordained to the priesthood by someone on the earth, neither had he received any of the ordinances. When the two personages appeared they forgave him of his sins, making it possible for Joseph to see the face of God and live

http://shields-resea...ions/ques17.htm

If that's the proper explanation, and priesthood authority was on earth in the days of Peter, James, and John (but not in the days of Joseph), I'm not sure Peter could have seen the Father without having it.

It is reasonable to conclude that some preparation can be provided by the Holy Spirit or by the Lifght of Christ to "hear His voice" (which is a figurative way of saying "receive revelation")

Joseph said he saw The Father and The Son (in addition to hearing The Father's voice), so it would seem he would have had to have been quickened by The Holy Ghost.

For no man has seen God at any time, in the flesh, except quickened by the Spirit of God; 'Neither can any natural man abide in the presence of God; neither after the carnal mind. (Doc. and Cov. 67:11, 12.)

But what I'm interested in is whether Peter could have heard His voice without being quickened by The Holy Ghost?

Edited January 2, 2013 by inquiringmind

[CV75]

But what I'm interested in is whether Peter could have heard His voice without being quickened by The Holy Ghost?

He could have. He could have also been quickened by the Light of Christ. The same is true for any of the witnesses in the several scripture verses I provided above. Any reception of any stimuli at all (and whether spiritual or physical) requires some kind of quickening by either:

1. 
   D&C 88: 11
   11 And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your ^aunderstandings;
   
2. 
   D&C 33: 16
   16 And the Book of Mormon and the holy scriptures are given of me for your ^ainstruction; and the power of my ^bSpirit ^cquickeneth all things.
   
3. 
   Moses 6: 61
   61 Therefore it is given to abide in you; the ^arecord of heaven; the ^bComforter; the ^cpeaceable things of immortal glory; the truth of all things; that which quickeneth all things, which maketh alive all things; that which knoweth all things, and hath all ^dpower according to wisdom, mercy, truth, justice, and judgment.
   

[CV75]

You are at this moment quickened, or made to live and progress by some form of God's power:

1. 
   Mosiah 2: 21
   21 I say unto you that if ye should ^aserve him who has created you from the beginning, and is ^bpreserving you from day to day, by lending you ^cbreath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own ^dwill, and even supporting you from one moment to another—I say, if ye should serve him with all your ^ewhole souls yet ye would be ^funprofitable servants.
   

[canard78]

I've heard that passage explained differently.

http://shields-resea...ions/ques17.htm

If that's the proper explanation, and priesthood authority was on earth in the days of Peter, James, and John (but not in the days of Joseph), I'm not sure Peter could have seen the Father without having it.

Thanks for sharing that. I hadn't considered D&C 84:75 in light of the whole section.

It says: "75 And this revelation unto you, and commandment, is in force from this very hour upon all the aworld, and the gospel is unto all who have not received it." Assuming this applies to the whole section (and I'm happy to) it still doesn't have to apply to Peter. The revelation was given in 1832. So applies from that hour onward. Jesus' conversation with Peter happened a good 1800 years earlier. The qualifier in D&C did not apply (just like the Word of wisdom a few sections later did not apply.

Joseph said he saw The Father and The Son (in addition to hearing The Father's voice), so it would seem he would have had to have been quickened by The Holy Ghost.

For no man has seen God at any time, in the flesh, except quickened by the Spirit of God; 'Neither can any natural man abide in the presence of God; neither after the carnal mind. (Doc. and Cov. 67:11, 12.)

But what I'm interested in is whether Peter could have heard His voice without being quickened by The Holy Ghost?

We don't even know whether he heard His voice, so not really something we can answer.

1. We don't know whether he heard His voice

2. We don't know whether hearing the Father's voice qualifies for the level of knowledge required to then be ABLE to deny the Holy Ghost

3. We don't know whether denying he knew Jesus socially would qualify as denying the Holy Ghost.

In short, we simply don't have enough information to answer your question. We can't even approach it hypothetically. If we don't know whether 3 would happen IF 2 had hypothetically happened.

We do however know that after his denial, Peter went on to be a church leader, receive the gift of the Holy Ghost and receive visions and revelations relating to sending the gospel to the Gentiles. That's unlikely to happen to a son of perdition!

Therefore, he was not a SoP, so he could not have denied the Holy Ghost (given it is unpardonable).

What this leaves unanswered is how one DOES deny the Holy Ghost and become a SoP.

This last part frankly bothers me. It still seems odd that the most grevious of all sins has the most vague definition of all sins I'm aware of.

[CV75]

We do however know that after his denial, Peter went on to be a church leader, receive the gift of the Holy Ghost and receive visions and revelations relating to sending the gospel to the Gentiles. That's unlikely to happen to a son of perdition!

Even if he never preached, Peter only denied knowing Jesus as an associate. He did not deny that He was the Son of God, he did not retract his testimony, nor turn against and fight against Him or His followers, and he did not try to dismantle the Church. So he wasn't even an apostate.

[canard78]

Even if he never preached, Peter only denied knowing Jesus as an associate. He did not deny that He was the Son of God, he did not retract his testimony, nor turn against and fight against Him or His followers, and he did not try to dismantle the Church. So he wasn't even an apostate.

I agree, I was trying to make a similar point but you did more eloquently

[theplains]

Peter only denied knowing Jesus as an associate. He did not deny that He was the Son of God,

Since Peter and the disciples did not initially believe in Christ's resurrection, could this also be viewed

as an initial denial in Jesus as the Son of God?

Thanks,

Jim

[canard78]

Since Peter and the disciples did not initially believe in Christ's resurrection, could this also be viewed

as an initial denial in Jesus as the Son of God?

Thanks,

Jim

Why? How? He denied a social awareness of the person Jesus of Nazereth. He did not say "I don't believe Jesus is the son of God." He never denied the knowledge that Jesus said he had in Matt 16:15-17

[rodheadlee]

Since Peter and the disciples did not initially believe in Christ's resurrection, could this also be viewed

as an initial denial in Jesus as the Son of God?

Thanks,

Jim

i think it would be viewed as a lack of understanding.

[Storm Rider]

So we don't know whether it was The Father, The Son, or The Holy Ghost Who spoke to Peter?

What is the difference quantitatively?

[canard78]

What is the difference quantitatively?

One might imagine that with greater knowledge comes greater responsibility. A prompting from the spirit retains plausible deniability. A vision of the Father or the Son would deliver a greater light and therefore, potentially, a greater condemnation.

'Quantitatively'... more 'light.'