Have They Seen Christ Face To Face

[The Nehor]

There are examples in scripture where prophets were required to hold things back from the masses. I don't see why that couldn't be going on today. 

 

I can't say that it is, but you can't say that it isn't. There is no more evidence to support one over the other.

It is not just prophets. Regular members do too.

[JAHS]

It's possible that a few of the current Apostles have been visited by Christ, but I am more inclined to assume that they haven't and if they did it would be an incredibly private spiritual experience that they are not likely to share, unless told to do so by Christ.  There are historical reports of President George Q. Cannon and Lorenzo Snow who said they had a visit from Jesus.

[sethpayne]

I don't see this as Oaks saying that none of them have seen Christ.  Only that one does not have to have seen Christ to be an apostle.

 

I've always read Acts 1 as meaning that to be an Apostle is be a "witness of the resurrection."

 

Do you read it differently?

[bluebell]

I've always read Acts 1 as meaning that to be an Apostle is be a "witness of the resurrection."

Do you read it differently?

I've never read verse 22 like that.

Or rather, I've never read it to mean that one must have seen the resurrected Lord to be ordained as an apostle.

[The Nehor]

I've always read Acts 1 as meaning that to be an Apostle is be a "witness of the resurrection."

 

Do you read it differently?

While I believe it is a physical witness I am not positive that the only way to get the witness is by sight and touch. I am 100% convinced of the reality of the resurrection and for over a decade have been able to testify of it with the spirit burning with certainty but I have not seen the savior unless you count dreams. That might be the equivalent.

Lest I be perceived as boasting of my righteousness for myself it just meant that instead of doubting God's existence I doubted if his motives and morals were compatible with mine for many years.

[ERayR]

 I have edited it to mean that as a rule of thumb they each have seen him.  I think most members would be surprised to know that they each don't see Christ as a requirement for the calling.

 

I don't think that is so.  What most members believe, per my experience, is that most believe they get revelation but not necessarily personal visitations.

 

 

That's the problem with crazy--often times when you go crazy you don't know you've gone that route.other than that, I don't know what you're talking about. Have any current apostles suggested they've seen Christ?

 

I have heard at least one.

Edited June 15, 2015 by ERayR

[Duncan]

Unless an Apostle says they haven't seen him then I think we are in limbo as to whether or not they have seen him, unless they say they have seen him of course

[HappyJackWagon]

It's possible that a few of the current Apostles have been visited by Christ, but I am more inclined to assume that they haven't and if they did it would be an incredibly private spiritual experience that they are not likely to share, unless told to do so by Christ.  There are historical reports of President George Q. Cannon and Lorenzo Snow who said they had a visit from Jesus.

I think you're right in your assessment but it makes no sense to me. Why would an apostle of Jesus Christ be forbidden to bear testimony of what they have seen regarding Christ and His resurrection, mission, atonement?

 

It seems to me like they want to play it both ways. They like having the assumption out there that they've had their calling and election made sure (not simply the 2A) and have seen Christ, yet don't want to outright claim it if it hasn't happened. How easy would it be for an apostle to say "I haven't personally seen the risen Christ  but I testify of his mission." What would be wrong with that? Why stoke the flames of faithful assumptions unless they think it benefits the church?

 

ETA: IN our HPG lesson yesterday one of the brothers stated that Christ directs the work personally and speaks face to face with the prophet. "How could it happen any other way?"

 

This was an intelligent, good man who is making assumptions and making claims the instructor and HPGL agreed. Sometimes people like to act like these assumptions don't really exist, or if they do it is only among the most naive and simple of the members. No one can convince me of that. It is a pervasive belief that is perpetuated by the silence of the brethren and faith promoting rumors continue to be spread.

Edited June 15, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[sethpayne]

I've never read verse 22 like that.

Or rather, I've never read it to mean that one must have seen the resurrected Lord to be ordained as an apostle.

 

But if being a "witness to the resurrection" doesn't mean that, then what is the functional difference between yours and my spiritual witness and that of the Twelve?  If based on the same spiritual witness available to all, there would seem to be absolutely no need for the Apostolic witness.  They aren't adding anything that a believer doesn't already know.

 

OTOH, if they are witnesses to the resurrection then when they say "I KNOW" they are absolutely in the position to KNOW.  

 

I do think the verse isn't completely clear on its meaning but given the rest of Acts and the context of the NT -- it seems that this actual witness of the resurrected Lord was pretty central to the calling.

[sethpayne]

While I believe it is a physical witness I am not positive that the only way to get the witness is by sight and touch. I am 100% convinced of the reality of the resurrection and for over a decade have been able to testify of it with the spirit burning with certainty but I have not seen the savior unless you count dreams. That might be the equivalent.

Lest I be perceived as boasting of my righteousness for myself it just meant that instead of doubting God's existence I doubted if his motives and morals were compatible with mine for many years.

 

Ok.  I can see this.  I don't really see any need to differentiate between a "spiritual manifestation" and a "physical manifestation."  

 

But in the end you would say that the Twelve have had *some* experience -- unavailable to regular members (except perhaps those with the 2nd anointing)  -- which puts them in a position to testify from an absolute position of knowledge.

[The Nehor]

I think you're right in your assessment but it makes no sense to me. Why would an apostle of Jesus Christ be forbidden to bear testimony of what they have seen regarding Christ and His resurrection, mission, atonement?

Because it would attract the wrong kinds of attention, questions, and/or ridicule. Many things in our faith are sacred and are not for general consumption because it would be bad for the hearer.

It seems to me like they want to play it both ways. They like having the assumption out there that they've had their calling and election made sure (not simply the 2A) and have seen Christ, yet don't want to outright claim it if it hasn't happened. How easy would it be for an apostle to say "I haven't personally seen the risen Christ  but I testify of his mission." What would be wrong with that? Why stoke the flames of faithful assumptions unless they think it benefits the church?

First off a visitation from the Savior does not mean one's calling and election is made sure. Was Saul/Paul visited for that reason? Every one of the Nephites at Bountiful?

Perhaps they keep the ambiguity because they are commanded not to speak of it and denying it would be a lie?

[The Nehor]

Ok.  I can see this.  I don't really see any need to differentiate between a "spiritual manifestation" and a "physical manifestation."  

 

But in the end you would say that the Twelve have had *some* experience -- unavailable to regular members (except perhaps those with the 2nd anointing)  -- which puts them in a position to testify from an absolute position of knowledge.

I am not even sure if it is unavailable to regular members. Could be like the gift of discernment that God gives to whoever he wishes but Bishops get it by right because of the office assigned to them and they exercise it more fully due to their office.

[Duncan]

I am not even sure if it is unavailable to regular members. Could be like the gift of discernment that God gives to whoever he wishes but Bishops get it by right because of the office assigned to them and they exercise it more fully due to their office.

 

it isn't unavailable to members! I am sure that non apostles members have seen Christ but don't throw their pearls before swine

[Mystery Meat]

it isn't unavailable to members! I am sure that non apostles members have seen Christ but don't throw their pearls before swine

 

I think the membership, by and large, has proven time and time again, that it is equally unworthy to be trusted with such sacred experiences from the Apostles as well.

Edited June 15, 2015 by Mystery Meat

[Dgal]

I used to believe that they have. I don't anymore. The original 12 used to proclaim that they had witnessed the resurrection and I got to the point that I figured today's 12 would do that same. Since they don't, I figure that they have not seen him. They just witness to the name of Jesus Christ.

[Dgal]

I think the membership, by and large, has proven time and time again, that it is equally unworthy to be trusted with such sacred experiences from the Apostles as well.

 

I don't buy this line of thinking simply because "such sacred experiences" never stopped the original 12 from sharing. Infact, they were sent to testify to that they had.

[The Nehor]

I think the membership, by and large, has proven time and time again, that it is equally unworthy to be trusted with such sacred experiences from the Apostles as well.

No, it is just that those who receive them are trusted. I know of one meeting where an apostle announced to a group of church educators that there was something they should know. He then walked down the chairs and looked at each participant before proceeding and then told them something that was to come. I was told this by someone in this meeting. And no, he would not tell me what it actually was.

[Duncan]

I used to believe that they have. I don't anymore. The original 12 used to proclaim that they had witnessed the resurrection and I got to the point that I figured today's 12 would do that same. Since they don't, I figure that they have not seen him. They just witness to the name of Jesus Christ.

 

when you say today's 12 do you mean since 1830 or the current 12 Apostles?

[ERayR]

I don't buy this line of thinking simply because "such sacred experiences" never stopped the original 12 from sharing. Infact, they were sent to testify to that they had.

 

And the current twelve testify of his resurrection.

[The Nehor]

I don't buy this line of thinking simply because "such sacred experiences" never stopped the original 12 from sharing. Infact, they were sent to testify to that they had.

They were told to testify of some things and not of others. Same as today.

You show people that the Savior told people not to talk about something or to not talk about something until much later. Then they demand to know something Peter was taught and never shared as if it would have become canon. People are silly.

[JAHS]

I think you're right in your assessment but it makes no sense to me. Why would an apostle of Jesus Christ be forbidden to bear testimony of what they have seen regarding Christ and His resurrection, mission, atonement?

 

It seems to me like they want to play it both ways. They like having the assumption out there that they've had their calling and election made sure (not simply the 2A) and have seen Christ, yet don't want to outright claim it if it hasn't happened. How easy would it be for an apostle to say "I haven't personally seen the risen Christ  but I testify of his mission." What would be wrong with that? Why stoke the flames of faithful assumptions unless they think it benefits the church?

 

ETA: IN our HPG lesson yesterday one of the brothers stated that Christ directs the work personally and speaks face to face with the prophet. "How could it happen any other way?"

 

This was an intelligent, good man who is making assumptions and making claims the instructor and HPGL agreed. Sometimes people like to act like these assumptions don't really exist, or if they do it is only among the most naive and simple of the members. No one can convince me of that. It is a pervasive belief that is perpetuated by the silence of the brethren and faith promoting rumors continue to be spread.

Yes he was making assumptions and I remember growing up in the church hearing others making such assumptions, and thinking well maybe they're right or maybe they're wrong. But, in my opinion we are all required to live this life by faith that Christ lives without needing to see him, including the Apostles. Im sure there have been a few who have received the second comforter (visitation from Christ), knowing that their calling and election is sure, but for most of us, including the Apostles, we are required to accept things on faith and comfirmation from the Holy Ghost. 

What if some Apostles have seen him and some haven't? If we were told of it, what would the members think of the ones who haven't seen him?

[Duncan]

One thing too is the role of a witness. They witness to us so we can get our own witness via the Holy Ghost

[Calm]

If it hasn't been noted yet, I think it needs to be posted that this recording was done in violation of church policy by a self-identified exmormon, just in case it makes any difference to anyone in discussing it and passing on the quoted material:

 

 

 

Recording Talks or Addresses of General Authorities and Area Seventies

Church members should not record the talks or addresses that General Authorities and Area Seventies give at stake conferences, missionary meetings, or other meetings. However, members may record broadcasts of general conference on home equipment for personal, noncommercial use

https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies?lang=eng#21.1.33

[Mystery Meat]

If it hasn't been noted yet, I think it needs to be posted that this recording was done in violation of church policy by a self-identified exmormon, just in case it makes any difference to anyone in discussing it and passing on the quoted material:

 

 

 

https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies?lang=eng#21.1.33

 

Ha! I was not aware of that. I googled it and found where it was posted. One of the posters on the thread said that he knew he would be furious after he listened to it, but still intended to listen regardless. Some of these people just enjoy finding something to be mad about. When they get mad, they have no one but themselves to blame.

[Bobbieaware]

Seems like they want to keep it open that they haven't as a group or as individuals across the board.

Elder Oaks in the Boise Rescue audio said the following

He quotes D&C 107:23 - "The twelve traveling councilors are called to be the Twelve Apostles, or special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world" and then says

In consideration of the well-known LDS doctrine that when the Holy Ghost bears witness to a man that Jesus is the Christ that such a witness is far greater, more impactful and more morally binding upon that man than if he had seen Christ face to face, why be concerned whether or not the presiding apostles have seen the Lord with their eyes? During his earthly ministry, thousands saw the Lord face to face and they would swear up and down he was just a demon possessed drunk and impostor. Laban and Lemuel saw an angel face to face and they "blew it off" as if the heavenly visitor was just an ordinary Joe Blow from down the street.

"The Spirit of God speaking to the spirit of man has power to impart truth with greater effect and understanding than the truth can be imparted by personal contact even with heavenly beings. Through the Holy Ghost the truth is woven into the very fibre and sinews of the body so that it cannot be forgotten." (Joseph Fielding Smith)

Edited June 15, 2015 by Bobbieaware