Boyd K. Packer Second Comforter?

[David T]

President Packer was using words he has used in the past to cite others he believed had such sacred experiences. Check this talk from 1971:

 

I said there was a question that could not be taken lightly nor answered at all without the prompting of the Spirit. I have not asked that question of others, but I have heard them answer it—but not when they were asked. They have answered it under the prompting of the Spirit, on sacred occasions, when “the Spirit beareth record.” (D&C 1:39.)

 

I have heard one of my brethren declare: “I know from experiences, too sacred to relate, that Jesus is the Christ.”

 

I have heard another testify: “I know that God lives; I know that the Lord lives. And more than that, I know the Lord.”

 

It was not their words that held the meaning or the power. It was the Spirit. “… 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.” (2 Ne. 33:1.)

 

I speak upon this subject in humility, with the constant feeling that I am the least in every way of those who are called to this holy office.

 

I have come to know that the witness does not come by seeking after signs. It comes through fasting and prayer, through activity and testing and obedience. It comes through sustaining the servants of the Lord and following them.

 

Karl G. Maeser was taking a group of missionaries across the Alps. As they reached a summit, he stopped. Gesturing back down the trail to some poles set in the snow to mark the way across the glacier, he said, “Brethren, there stands the Priesthood. They are just common sticks like the rest of us … but the position they hold makes them what they are to us. If we step aside from the path they mark, we are lost.”1

 

The witness depends upon sustaining his servants as we have done here in sign and as we should do in action.

 

Now, I wonder with you why one such as I should be called to the holy apostleship. There are so many qualifications that I lack. There is so much in my effort to serve that is wanting. As I have pondered on it, I have come to only one single thing, one qualification in which there may be cause, and that is, I have that witness.

 

I declare to you that I know that Jesus is the Christ. I know that he lives. He was born in the meridian of time. He taught his gospel, was tried, was crucified. He rose on the third day. He was the first fruits of the resurrection. He has a body of flesh and bone. Of this I bear testimony. Of him I am a witness. In the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

 

 

Edited April 8, 2014 by David T

[Senator]

 

President Packer was using words he has used in the past to cite others he believed had such sacred experiences. Check this talk from 1971:

 

"I declare to you that I know that Jesus is the Christ. I know that he lives. He was born in the meridian of time. He taught his gospel, was tried, was crucified. He rose on the third day. He was the first fruits of the resurrection. He has a body of flesh and bone. Of this I bear testimony. Of him I am a witness. In the name of Jesus Christ. Amen."

 

 

And yet, I will admit that there is still this little question that lingers in the recesses of my mind that asks, "How do you know that Jesus is the Christ? How do you know that he lives? That he as a body of flesh and bones? in what way have you been a witness of him?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

This is one way to bear witness of Christ: cite a prior witness and then state that your witness is the same.

It is a very effective way to use this in a testimony while noting that you are not arrogant enough to think you can improve on it.

Elder McConkie did the same in many sermons, but most effectively in his final address in April 1985, remarks. I used his words at my mother's funeral last week. I would link the talk but I usually use my IPAD to post and find it difficult to link.

The address is entitled...

"The Purifying Power of Gethsemane".

It is even better to hear, rather than to read.

Although her funeral was in the Baptist Church, I grew up in and the one she attended...people kept coming up (we had dinner at the church) wanting to know the source I was quoting from.

[ERMD]

"The Purifying Power of Gethsemane"

 

One of my all-time favorites.

[Stargazer]

I got the sense that Bro. Packer may figure that he won't be around for many more Conferences, and thus wished to leave an indelible witness similar to what Bro. McKonkie did at his last Conference, though I hope he will be around for many more since I do highly respect him.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

That was the impression my wife and I received.

[theplains]

 

"And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!

For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father"

"Their words are my words"  -Boyd K. Packer

 

 

Why is his testimony that Christ lives last of all?  Personally, I have this testimony without

seeing or hearing Him.  And its not my last testimony.  It's my first.

 

Regards,

Jim

[Duncan]

Why is his testimony that Christ lives last of all?  Personally, I have this testimony without

seeing or hearing Him.  And its not my last testimony.  It's my first.

 

Regards,

Jim

 

 

because others had born witness of Christ as well and Joseph was the last among those people

[theplains]

because others had born witness of Christ as well and Joseph was the last among those people

 

By bearing witness of Christ, do you mean seeing Christ and then giving a testimony

that he lives?  If yes, would this mean that Joseph Smith was the last to have seen

Christ? If no, then what does your statement mean?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[Mystery Meat]

By bearing witness of Christ, do you mean seeing Christ and then giving a testimony

that he lives?  If yes, would this mean that Joseph Smith was the last to have seen

Christ? If no, then what does your statement mean?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

It is a reference to last as of the time he bore that testimony.

[SamIam]

So, why hint at it?  Why not just come out and say it clearly and directly, as Joseph Smith did in the quote given?  Like I said, most of the greatest Catholic Saints have seen and talked with Jesus, so it's not like one would be claiming something that is utterly unheard of in Christianity (I must say honestly, though, that I do not know how protestants react to such things).

 

I have heard people say that such experiences are too sacred to discuss, but if that is the case then why hint at all?

 

ETA:  hmmm, my tone here might be a bit confrontational.  I don't mean it like that, so please read what I say with a questioning tone, not an aggressive one

 

Your question is good and the answer is not generally understood.  We have a text called Lectures on Faith from the early church in which fundamental standards of how God has established the processes by which men are to acquire the faith necessary, ultimately, to once again enter into the presence of God. Because the principle you are asking about is woven throughout multiple chapters and mixed with much interspersed material it can be missed but the essence of it is advanced in the second lecture.  

 

Basically that in the beginning Adam had a knowledge of God by having stood in his presence.  His was not a testimony of faith but one of knowledge.  Thereafter the text list the line of the prophets through the Old Testament, Seth,, Enos, Cainen, Mahalaleel, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, to Noah etc. and clearly makes the point that these believed because they first accepted Adam's testimony of knowledge. Several of these also had experiences with being in the presence of God, however, they had to get there by first having faith on the testimony of Adam who witnessed and knew that there was a God and he had seen him.

 

This is the key point they had to initiate their faith based on another's testimony of knowledge and then develop their faith of belief bit by bit until they also had the same experience as the one who had the theophany and theirs becomes a testimony of knoweldge.   

 

Now this then becomes the pattern as each new dispensation is rolled out.  We believe there are 7 primary dispensations and each dispensation is opened in the same pattern.  Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith are the dispensational heads and each believes on the testimony of Adam (well we may should cut Christ a bit of slack here, I'm not positive how much he knew in his youth but I believe his education to have been unique)  and then receives the confirmation of that testimony and they then act as second witnesses that bears not a testimony of faith but instead a testimony of knowledge.  Thus each dispensational head becomes a witness of knowledge as the opening standard of each dispensation. 

 

Thereafter they are given to their dispensation as actual witnesses with knowledge (thus fulfilling the law of witnesses outlined in the Old Testament of being able to testify of that which they have clearly seen) According to the law of witnesses no one is obligated to accept the testimony of one witness. Thus this pattern is perfectly consistent as a means of opening a dispensation with witnesses to establish the principle upon which God claims he will always establish his truths...ie in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall my word be established.

 

Thereafter once the dispensational head is in place, every person who comes unto Christ in that dispensation and achieves the fullness of developed faith and enters into the presence of God will do so by developing their faith in Christ on the testimony of the witness of Knowledge - the dispensational head.  However, when this occurs if they are guided to testify to it they will do so by alluding to their witness and legitimize it by linking it to the most important testimony of the dispensation - the witness of knowledge, the dispensational head. 

 

One other point that should be woven throughout my thoughts above is that the Holy Ghost initially has a role to confirm truth concerning the Father and the Son.  After one is convinced then the role of the Holy Ghost can expand into revealing but first it can only confirm.  However,  and if we think about it this will make sense, the Holy Ghost can only confirm something that you have heard about that links to a witness of knowledge. Maybe a teacher taught you the Gospel message and the words of the witnesses of the earlier dispensations, or you read the scriptures yourself and believed in the words of the witnesses, or some other way (the faith cometh by hearing concept in the New Testament) but once you demonstrate that you are willing to believe in the claims of the witnesses which ultimately is that they have seen God and testify of him, then you can ask God and be strengthened to know with a greater sense of sureness that they are true witnesses and can be followed to guide you back into the presence of God.  Of course this is not cognizantly recognized as what is occurring in our lives as we come unto Christ but is it not what is actually occurring? Thus the Holy Ghost becomes one of the required witnesses to each individual. Now each individual enters in the same gate of believing on the dispensational head and their witness and can if they choose continue to learn from scripture, and the spirit and teachers etc until they reach the ultimate objective of being able to return to the presence of God from which we have been separated.  

 

The point being that before truth can be confirmed it has to be truth that is established or linked to a testimony of knowledge and not only a testimony of belief. Again we may not realize this as we are being moved upon by the spirit of another's testimony but ultimately theirs is linked to a testimony of knowledge. This principle is well established in the Old Testament concerning the role of witnesses and what defines who can be an acceptable witness and upon what conditions.  It is also the process that saves those who believe but it can condemn those who choose to turn away from the witnesses. Thereafter as we progress we all will fall in various levels or degrees of testimony of belief until we possess a testimony of knowledge in this life or the next and then if it should be appropriate we must link our experience with usually less emphasis, to the testimony of the dispensational head with greater emphasis to reinforce the beginning of the process of the development of faith in the words of the witness of knowledge which is the path that all must follow to again enter into the presence of the Lord.  This process is what you are seeing that you perceive as a "hinting" mechanism. really it is simply a manner of legitimizing the testimonies and connecting them appropriately.  Your observations on the sacredness of the experience being a cause for careful exposure is also an excellent point and is surely the predominate state for most. Where apostles are witnesses they can be more generally expressive but are still careful to reinforce the process in appropriate fashion as discussed.

 

I've tried to place this in as generic terms as possible but as it is a deep question concerning LDS theology it is difficult to not use some of our Jargon which may be foreign to many.  I hope this makes sense, as you do have association with our jargon from your long time on this forum and perhaps other sources as well.  

Edited April 11, 2014 by SamIam

[omni]

I have heard a number of people make statements such as, "I know Christ lives as sure as I know I am standing here", or "I know the church is true through experiences to sacred to share". Should I interpret this to mean that they too have seen Christ?

[Duncan]

I have heard a number of people make statements such as, "I know Christ lives as sure as I know I am standing here", or "I know the church is true through experiences to sacred to share". Should I interpret this to mean that they too have seen Christ?

 

I guess it depends, if an Apostle says it or a another general authority or general auxillary presidency member, maybe. But if someone says it with a tone of "We have Abraham to be our father" then maybe not! actually maybe Christ appeared and told them you're an idiot and no one likes you. I think too sharing witnesses to something is useful to help others gain their own witness. Just as a witness in a trial is sharing their witness and the lawyers are trying to convince a jury to come to some kind of conclusion-"based on all the testimony and evidence presented, what do you think? too legit to acquit?! or?! 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I guess I am late to this conversation, but from context it is clear that Elder Packer is not claiming the second comforter. After Elder Packer states "Thier words are my words" he goes on to say specifically what he was talking about:

I believe and I am sure that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that He lives. He is the Only Begotten of the Father, and “by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God” (D&C 76:24).

I bear my witness that the Savior lives. I know the Lord. I am His witness. I know of His great sacrifice and eternal love for all of Heavenly Father’s children. I bear my special witness in all humility but with absolute certainty, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Edited April 11, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[MiserereNobis]

Thanks, Samlam, for taking the time to give a detailed response.  I appreciate it.  You listed Jesus Christ as one of the dispensational heads.  That seems a little out of place for me, since Jesus Christ is more than the others listed -- he's not a prophet, but the Son of God.  Could John the Baptist fit better there, since he literally saw and then bore witness of Jesus Christ being the Son of God at Christ's baptism?

 

Again, thanks.  It's always nice to get a thorough response on a discussion board

 

edit: grammar

Edited April 11, 2014 by MiserereNobis

[Coreyb]

Thanks, Samlam, for taking the time to give a detailed response.  I appreciate it.  You listed Jesus Christ as one the dispensational heads.  That seems a little out of place for me, since Jesus Christ is more than the others listed -- he's not a prophet, but the Son of God.  Could John the Baptist fit better there, see he literally saw and then bore witness of Jesus Christ being the Son of God at Christ's baptism?

 

Again, thanks.  It's always nice to get a thorough response on a discussion board

yes, or Peter perhaps

[MiserereNobis]

yes, or Peter perhaps

 

Absolutely.  Well, now I feel like a bad Catholic since Peter didn't occur to me right away.  Sheesh, the first Pope and all

[Coreyb]

Not every dispensation is the same. I would think the dispensation that Christ lived in would have been extra special, since the testimony to be borne was not just of God's reality, but of His incarnation. Peter James and John were witnesses not only to His mortal life, but also of His divinity, both before and after His resurrection. 

[JLHPROF]

Thanks, Samlam, for taking the time to give a detailed response.  I appreciate it.  You listed Jesus Christ as one of the dispensational heads.  That seems a little out of place for me, since Jesus Christ is more than the others listed -- he's not a prophet, but the Son of God.  Could John the Baptist fit better there, since he literally saw and then bore witness of Jesus Christ being the Son of God at Christ's baptism?

 

Again, thanks.  It's always nice to get a thorough response on a discussion board

 

edit: grammar

 

yes, or Peter perhaps

 

As far as I understand it o be the head of a dispensation someone needs:

1. To be the authoritative head, holding the highest priesthood/authority on the earth.

2. To be the recognized receiver/dispenser of God's will (ie revelation) to the earth.

3. To be the establisher of the line of authority which was missing when it is restored to earth from heaven.

 

That is why Christ is the head of his dispensation, not John the Baptist (who only held Aaronic priesthood) or Peter (who was ordained by Christ to whom priesthood was restored).  John didn't have the authority level and Peter would be more akin to Brigham Young - the successor.

[Avatar4321]

As far as I understand it o be the head of a dispensation someone needs:

1. To be the authoritative head, holding the highest priesthood/authority on the earth.

2. To be the recognized receiver/dispenser of God's will (ie revelation) to the earth.

3. To be the establisher of the line of authority which was missing when it is restored to earth from heaven.

 

That is why Christ is the head of his dispensation, not John the Baptist (who only held Aaronic priesthood) or Peter (who was ordained by Christ to whom priesthood was restored).  John didn't have the authority level and Peter would be more akin to Brigham Young - the successor.

 

Then why was Abel the head of the First dispensation instead of Adam?

 

And is Christ the head of His dispensation? Did the dispensation of grace start when Christ's ministry began or after the Resurrection of the dead?

[JLHPROF]

Then why was Abel the head of the First dispensation instead of Adam?

 

He wasn't.  Adam was.  Abel was "head of dispensation" in the same way Brigham was head of ours - he succeeded the restorer.

 

Adam. Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Christ, Joseph Smith.

 

And is Christ the head of His dispensation? Did the dispensation of grace start when Christ's ministry began or after the Resurrection of the dead?

 

Your question answers itself - "Is Christ the head of His dispensation".  Christ restored all the keys and ordinances to the earth.  And while He was on the earth He presided.  It's His dispensation.

Peter succeeded Christ but restored nothing.

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/dispensation?lang=eng&letter=d

http://www.mormonwiki.com/Dispensation

Edited April 11, 2014 by JLHPROF

[SamIam]

Thanks, Samlam, for taking the time to give a detailed response.  I appreciate it.  You listed Jesus Christ as one of the dispensational heads.  That seems a little out of place for me, since Jesus Christ is more than the others listed -- he's not a prophet, but the Son of God.  Could John the Baptist fit better there, since he literally saw and then bore witness of Jesus Christ being the Son of God at Christ's baptism?

 

Again, thanks.  It's always nice to get a thorough response on a discussion board

 

edit: grammar

 

Your observation is spot on concerning Christ.  You may be aware of chiasmas and the principles surrounding it.  Well often we simply see it as a literary style and that's that.  However, chiasmas is simply a pattern that manifest's itself frequently in the things of God.  One principle of Chiasmas is that the most important point is made at the central juncture of the sections of scripture to which one is applying the chiasmatic structure.  Thus the most important or focal point is always found in the center and lesser things emanate out from there.  With men we typically like superlative comparisons of first, top, highest.  However, God defines the superlative position as the center of all things and that defines his supreme state.

 

Thus in the case of Christ his dispensation is referred to as the dispensation of the meridian of time and is defined as "the middle or high point of that portion of eternity which is considered to be mortal time"(BRM)

 

Thus, as your instincts have cautioned, you are expecting to see some status accorded Christ for his superlative status as the supreme creator and you are right to seek such.  As his position is in the center of time every other dispensation extends outward from the center, pointing to, emphasizing, sustaining and recognizing the dispensation of Christ as the most significant dispensation around which all others revolve and thus making them subject to Him as the central figure.

Edited April 11, 2014 by SamIam

[SamIam]

Thanks, Samlam, for taking the time to give a detailed response.  I appreciate it.  You listed Jesus Christ as one of the dispensational heads.  That seems a little out of place for me, since Jesus Christ is more than the others listed -- he's not a prophet, but the Son of God.  Could John the Baptist fit better there, since he literally saw and then bore witness of Jesus Christ being the Son of God at Christ's baptism?

 

Again, thanks.  It's always nice to get a thorough response on a discussion board

 

edit: grammar

 

You make another point that is again very insightful but I will have to come back to it a bit later to develop.  It is concerning John the Baptist.  While in our theology we cannot accord him the state of a dispensational head, the position he holds in his capacity as the forerunner of Christ is powerful when understood from the perspective of the Jewish people based on who John the Baptist was in his position as the final High Priest of the Levitical priesthood before the Law of Moses is fulfilled in Jesus Christ.  Contemplating John has opened great clarity in understanding how his witness of Jesus Christ to the Jews and their rejection of his witness was one of the most condemning elements from which they could not evade based on Jewish understandings.  I'll come back hopefully in a few hours and perhaps we can explore that as well.

[wtrdog]

I've got a relative who is a pathological liar.  He won't outright lie about anything, but he exaggerates everything.  He gives incomplete information that leads to inflated conclusions.  He intentionally lets people think grand things that just aren't true.  This is about his career and such.  This sort of car-salesman-like indirect way of saying things drives me crazy.  Packer is famous for this.  He has been called out countless times for inferring that he's seen Christ.  And every time he's called out (like by a missionary at a conference), he flat out won't answer the question with a yes or no, and then usually chastises whoever asks, deflects with third person talk about sacred experiences, give a speech about how apostles don't need to see christ and that the witness they receive is even better, etc.  I basically roll my eyes whenever I hear Packer.  I just can't take him seriously.  Most of the apostles are perfectly straight forward and say No, they haven't seen Christ.  So why does Packer have to dramatize the whole thing?  Imagine if Joseph Smith had refused to give a straight answer because "it was just too sacred".  I call bullhonkey., he hasn't seen Christ, and the language he uses borders on dishonesty in my opinion.

[Duncan]

I've got a relative who is a pathological liar.  He won't outright lie about anything, but he exaggerates everything.  He gives incomplete information that leads to inflated conclusions.  He intentionally lets people think grand things that just aren't true.  This is about his career and such.  This sort of car-salesman-like indirect way of saying things drives me crazy.  Packer is famous for this.  He has been called out countless times for inferring that he's seen Christ.  And every time he's called out (like by a missionary at a conference), he flat out won't answer the question with a yes or no, and then usually chastises whoever asks, deflects with third person talk about sacred experiences, give a speech about how apostles don't need to see christ and that the witness they receive is even better, etc.  I basically roll my eyes whenever I hear Packer.  I just can't take him seriously.  Most of the apostles are perfectly straight forward and say No, they haven't seen Christ.  So why does Packer have to dramatize the whole thing?  Imagine if Joseph Smith had refused to give a straight answer because "it was just too sacred".  I call bullhonkey., he hasn't seen Christ, and the language he uses borders on dishonesty in my opinion.

 

 

I know a member of the Church like that as well. You can't trust what they say

[SamIam]

You make another point that is again very insightful but I will have to come back to it a bit later to develop.  It is concerning John the Baptist.  While in our theology we cannot accord him the state of a dispensational head, the position he holds in his capacity as the forerunner of Christ is powerful when understood from the perspective of the Jewish people based on who John the Baptist was in his position as the final High Priest of the Levitical priesthood before the Law of Moses is fulfilled in Jesus Christ.  Contemplating John has opened great clarity in understanding how his witness of Jesus Christ to the Jews and their rejection of his witness was one of the most condemning elements from which they could not evade based on Jewish understandings.  I'll come back hopefully in a few hours and perhaps we can explore that as well.

 

I've reconsidered on the John the Baptist discussion only because it is not really in line with the OP and I don't want to distract from the effort and derail the thread. I don't post much anymore but perhaps a thread will come up that I will see in which that is a reasonable contribution.