Have They Seen Christ Face To Face

[Storm Rider]

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.

 

When do the Apostles not testify of Jesus Christ crucified and resurrected?  

[rameumptom]

I think this statement by Pres Boyd K. Packer in the April 1980 General Conference explains it best:

 

 

We lay no claim to being Apostles of the world—but of the Lord Jesus Christ. The test is not whether men will believe, but whether the Lord has called us—and of that there is no doubt!

We do not talk of those sacred interviews that qualify the servants of the Lord to bear a special witness of Him, for we have been commanded not to do so.

But we are free, indeed, we are obliged, to bear that special witness.

 

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1980/04/a-tribute-to-the-rank-and-file-of-the-church?lang=eng

[maxrep12]

I think this statement by Pres Boyd K. Packer in the April 1980 General Conference explains it best:

 

 

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1980/04/a-tribute-to-the-rank-and-file-of-the-church?lang=eng

I think the statement by HappyJackWagon explains it best;

 

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.

[Duncan]

I think the statement by HappyJackWagon explains it best;

 

In his 1970's autobiography Elder Nelson suggests he had the 2nd anointing

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I'm pretty confident that most of the Apostles throughout our history are only "witnesses" of the name of Christ. And y'know, in light of D&C 46 ("all have not every gift given unto them", and "to some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world. To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful") I don't think there's anything wrong with that. 

 

The real question is, given a Witness of Christ (or at least His Name) as a prerequisite for Apostolic Office, then what do we make of the fact that at a time when Jewish law did not accept women as legal witnesses, the first witnesses of Christ's resurrection were women? 

 

Emma Smith was a Priestess, and I think we should have female Priests like her and Deaconesses like Phebe (Romans 16) and Prophetesses like Miriam and Deborah and Huldah (and maybe even Noadiah and Jezebel, seeing as their offense wasn't Prophetess-ness per se, but rather false Prophetess-ness) and Isaiah's lady (Isaiah 8:3), and Anna and the four daughters of Philip the Evangelist (Acts 21:9). It's 2015, friends! Why not have female Apostles (like, potentially, Junia in Romans 16:7), along with Prophetesses and Priestesses in general as part of the Restoration? I can't see any legitimate argument against it except sheer cultural inertia inherited from patriarchal Post-Apostasy Christianity, and it'd even be downright Biblical, for Heaven's sake!  

 

/threadjack  

[The Nehor]

The real question is, given a Witness of Christ (or at least His Name) as a prerequisite for Apostolic Office, then what do we make of the fact that at a time when Jewish law did not accept women as legal witnesses, the first witnesses of Christ's resurrection were women? 

 

That not everyone who sees the resurrected Savior is supposed to witness to that fact? Supports my theory so I give this interpretation the Nehor Seal of Approval or NSA support as it is often called.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

But ... but your theory is so much less fun than mine. 

[maxrep12]

In his 1970's autobiography Elder Nelson suggests he had the 2nd anointing

Having the second anointing does not mean one has seen Jesus. I researched this topic long long ago. Calling and Election made sure, the more sure word of prophecy, the second anointing....and so on.

Edited June 16, 2015 by maxrep12

[Duncan]

Having the second anointing does not mean one has seen Jesus. I researched this topic long long ago. Calling and Election made sure, the more sure word of prophecy, the second anointing....and so on.

 

I know! and who knows but people who've seen Jesus may not have had the 2A

[maxrep12]

I know! and who knows but people who've seen Jesus may not have had the 2A

What other context did your response have than to allude to the idea that Nelson saw Jesus?

 

And "people who've seen Jesus" ....so because we are on this forum, we just all assume this is a reasonable possibility? Do you have conversations with your social, educational, and financial peers(outside the church) about people who have seen Jesus?

[Duncan]

What other context did your response have than to allude to the idea that Nelson saw Jesus?

 

And "people who've seen Jesus" ....so because we are on this forum, we just all assume this is a reasonable possibility? Do you have conversations with your social, educational, and financial peers(outside the church) about people who have seen Jesus?

 

i've never claimed Elder Nelson saw or claimed to see Jesus, just that his autobiography suggests he had the 2A. Maybe he has or hasn't. I can't say that I have ever talked to anyone outside the church about who has seen Christ

[Stargazer]

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.

 

I think you have shortchanged yourself.  I have come to the opposite conclusion, and I have come to it because of the way that the members of the Quorum of the Twelve express themselves when it comes to this question.  They do not often get specific.  If ever.  But, to quote Elder Packer, the Spirit beareth record. 

 

I highly suggest you listen to Elder Packer's General Conference talk in April 1971.  Here's the link.  Listen to it, don't just read it.

 

I invite everyone on this thread to listen to it.  Elder Packer is very clear, while not getting down to details.

 

The Spirit Beareth Record by Elder Boyd K. Packer, GC April 1971

 

 

 

To one who is honestly seeking, the testimony borne in these simple phrases is enough, for it is the spirit that beareth record, not the words.

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.”

Edited June 16, 2015 by Stargazer

[Tacenda]

But ... but your theory is so much less fun than mine.

Your theory, hands down! Edited June 16, 2015 by Tacenda

[Avatar4321]

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 am a witness of the resurrection. I've never seen the risen Lord myself but the Spirit manifested itself so powerfully that I am a witness to it.

We should all be seeking to prepare ourselves to see the risen Lord.

[Avatar4321]

Maybe we shouldbe more concerned about what we have witnessed than what others have. We should be seeking to be witnesses of Christ ourselves

[Storm Rider]

I'm pretty confident that most of the Apostles throughout our history are only "witnesses" of the name of Christ. And y'know, in light of D&C 46 ("all have not every gift given unto them", and "to some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world. To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful") I don't think there's anything wrong with that. 

 

The real question is, given a Witness of Christ (or at least His Name) as a prerequisite for Apostolic Office, then what do we make of the fact that at a time when Jewish law did not accept women as legal witnesses, the first witnesses of Christ's resurrection were women? 

 

Emma Smith was a Priestess, and I think we should have female Priests like her and Deaconesses like Phebe (Romans 16) and Prophetesses like Miriam and Deborah and Huldah (and maybe even Noadiah and Jezebel, seeing as their offense wasn't Prophetess-ness per se, but rather false Prophetess-ness) and Isaiah's lady (Isaiah 8:3), and Anna and the four daughters of Philip the Evangelist (Acts 21:9). It's 2015, friends! Why not have female Apostles (like, potentially, Junia in Romans 16:7), along with Prophetesses and Priestesses in general as part of the Restoration? I can't see any legitimate argument against it except sheer cultural inertia inherited from patriarchal Post-Apostasy Christianity, and it'd even be downright Biblical, for Heaven's sake!  

 

/threadjack  

 

Would you mind defining the definitions of those words?  Do you think they are identical to every other use of the same term?  Just curious.

[randyj]

My feeling is that each of the Apostles have had that personal visitation upon their ordination. This belief comes from Apostle David B. Haight....who after just two months after his call to the Q12 visited our Ward along with Paul H. Dunn and nine other Mission Presidents.  Their visit to our Ward in Independence was quite the surprise!  Needless to say...it was a sacrament mtg unlike any other!!

 

So...Elder Haight as he was beginning to close his talk described the scene in the Temple that day when he was set apart by Pres. Kimball.  He said.."after the beautiful and inspired blessing prounounced upon me by Pres. Kimball....I stood as all the other members of the Quorum took their turn to shake my hand and  to welcome me into the Quorum.  As the brethren were slowly making their way out to go about their various duties...I myself began to head toward the door to leave.  Pres. Kimball  motioned to me to come over to him, which I did.  He asked me if I could stay for an hour or so there in the Temple to ponder over his blessing and my calling as an Apostle.  I told the President that I would love to do that but my family was waiting for me....and had some special activities planned that morning. Then, President Kimball came close to me, cupped my face in his hands...kissed me on the cheek and whispered softly ....David...you need to stay here.  There was different sound to his voice, not one of urgency....but one of excited expectation on  my behalf, as if he knew something special, something sacred was going to happen.  I stayed!"

 

Then Elder Haight bore a very, very powerful testimony of the Savior's resurrection. He bore witness of his divinity. THAT HE LIVES!  I was 20 yrs old at the time...I will never forget it.  I know what he was telling me, without any doubt or ambiguity.

 

That's my story....and I'm sticking to it!

Edited June 16, 2015 by randyj

[HappyJackWagon]

 

HappyJackWagon, on 15 Jun 2015 - 4:14 PM, said:

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?

The Nehor: 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.

 

HappyJackWagon, on 15 Jun 2015 - 4:14 PM, said:

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?

The Nehor: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?

 

I understand those answers as they are the typical responses, but they are very unsatisfying.

 

The idea that apostles don't preach of their special knowledge (if they have it) of the Savior because they're afraid of ridicule does not inspire confidence. I do not understand how someone with bonifide credentials to testify of Christ would hide those credentials when bearing testimony. They would want people to believe them without supplying any reason why anyone should. It sounds a lot like hiding the light under a bushel.

 

Perhaps they were asked not to speak of it but we don't really know. We just assume they've seen Christ but can't say anything because that makes us feel better in sustaining them and living a modern day myth. I don't see how placing faith in something that even the main characters don't claim happened would be helpful. If we are supposed to believe it we should be taught instead of leaving it up to our imaginations and assumptions.

[stemelbow]

If this is madness then sign me up for the straight jacket.

I have heard two apostles suggest it in my lifetime. Both times were in smaller meetings. I get the impression that they are forbidden to outright say it for some reason.

let me guess these two suggested they are witnesses of Christ and in some way have had an unspeakable experience that gave them confidence they were special witnesses and you have interpreted that, or something similar, to mean they are outright claiming they personally had physical contact with Jesus?

Edited June 16, 2015 by stemelbow

[stemelbow]

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.

How has this been proven? What experiences are you thinking about?

[The Nehor]

let me guess these two suggested they are witnesses of Christ and in some way have had an unspeakable experience that gave them confidence they were special witnesses and you have interpreted that, or something similar, to mean they are outright claiming they personally had physical contact with Jesus?

Nope.

[stemelbow]

I understand those answers as they are the typical responses, but they are very unsatisfying.

 

The idea that apostles don't preach of their special knowledge (if they have it) of the Savior because they're afraid of ridicule does not inspire confidence. I do not understand how someone with bonifide credentials to testify of Christ would hide those credentials when bearing testimony. They would want people to believe them without supplying any reason why anyone should. It sounds a lot like hiding the light under a bushel.

 

Perhaps they were asked not to speak of it but we don't really know. We just assume they've seen Christ but can't say anything because that makes us feel better in sustaining them and living a modern day myth. I don't see how placing faith in something that even the main characters don't claim happened would be helpful. If we are supposed to believe it we should be taught instead of leaving it up to our imaginations and assumptions.

It seems much more reasonable to assume none have seen Christ unless they confirm it to more than just a select few, like the Nehor of all people.

[The Nehor]

It seems much more reasonable to assume none have seen Christ unless they confirm it to more than just a select few, like the Nehor of all people.

As tempting as it is to post the exact quotes I wrote down I guess I should not.

[stemelbow]

As tempting as it is to post the exact quotes I wrote down I guess I should not.

Then it's only meant for you. but that doesn't help me. Seems like none have seen Christ to me.

[The Nehor]

Then it's only meant for you. but that doesn't help me. Seems like none have seen Christ to me.

Does that matter?