Have They Seen Christ Face To Face

[stemelbow]

Does that matter?

Certainly not to you. But to me all it says is, kinda like HappyJack explains above, "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."

Personal encounters wouldn't seem to mean much in the sum of it. on the other hand, if they did have personal encounters and are to be witnesses of Him, it'd certainly mean something if they stood out there and unabashedly claimed to know of His existence because they've had personal encounters.

All I get from this, though, is they really didn't see Him. You have misinterpreted, as well-placed as your intents are.

[The Nehor]

All I get from this, though, is they really didn't see Him. You have misinterpreted, as well-placed as your intents are.

Nope, did not misinterpret.

[stemelbow]

Nope, did not misinterpret.

you must have, otherwise more than you would be able to testify that some apostles have told them that they have seen Christ. We've all been to meetings with apostles, well many of us have, even myself. Not in any of those many meetings did any of the apostles do more than vaguely allude to the idea that some might have seen Him but that these others might not be willing to share their testimony with others.

[The Nehor]

you must have, otherwise more than you would be able to testify that some apostles have told them that they have seen Christ. We've all been to meetings with apostles, well many of us have, even myself. Not in any of those many meetings did any of the apostles do more than vaguely allude to the idea that some might have seen Him but that these others might not be willing to share their testimony with others.

Either that or those who went to the same meetings as me are less discreet and have better things to do then post here.

[stemelbow]

Either that or those who went to the same meetings as me are less discreet and have better things to do then post here.

you have such gamesmanship. Two apostles reported in an exclusive meeting that they had actually seen Christ and you're the only one whose out there telling people that they claimed as much? that seems opposite of what my experience is. most members take the slightest, vaguest allusion to an apostle seeing Christ as a chance to talk about it in every possible scenario, boasting, as it were that he/she is one who was privileged to hear such from an apostle. I've been witness to the whole events.

[The Nehor]

you have such gamesmanship. Two apostles reported in an exclusive meeting that they had actually seen Christ and you're the only one whose out there telling people that they claimed as much? that seems opposite of what my experience is. most members take the slightest, vaguest allusion to an apostle seeing Christ as a chance to talk about it in every possible scenario, boasting, as it were that he/she is one who was privileged to hear such from an apostle. I've been witness to the whole events.

What can I say? I am more awesome then those other idiots?

[Gray]

Is it wrong that I think this is a silly issue? 

[Stargazer]

you must have, otherwise more than you would be able to testify that some apostles have told them that they have seen Christ. We've all been to meetings with apostles, well many of us have, even myself. Not in any of those many meetings did any of the apostles do more than vaguely allude to the idea that some might have seen Him but that these others might not be willing to share their testimony with others.

 

Would you please read my post above, where I link to Elder Packer's April 1971 conference talk?  Listen to the talk, and read randyj's post #67.

[Stargazer]

Is it wrong that I think this is a silly issue? 

 

Yes, and no.

 

Yes, silly that some people are arguing from apparent ignorance of the spirit and appear also to treasure that ignorance.

 

No, that it's important to realize that the Savior is a real being of power and love, who is our brother, and if we have the faith we cannot be withheld from beholding. 

[stemelbow]

Would you please read my post above, where I link to Elder Packer's April 1971 conference talk?  Listen to the talk, and read randyj's post #67.

I did. none suggest an apostle has seen Christ. you have to read that into it.

[stemelbow]

Is it wrong that I think this is a silly issue?

it probably is wrong because I tend to agree, even though I've been participating on the topic.

[HappyJackWagon]

Is it wrong that I think this is a silly issue? 

I think this issue is illustrative of a few general issues in the church.

 

1- We are asked to place absolute confidence, faith and obedience in prophets and apostles because they are special witnesses of Christ, yet they don't claim to have a witness different than our own, yet we assume they do so we can feel our faith is well placed.

 

2- These assumptions, along with other "faith promoting" stories can actually hurt a person's faith when it is realized not to be true. Then others ridicule and say, "the church never taught that" or "the brethren never claimed they talked with the savior face to face", thus blaming the individual who believed the "faith promoting rumor"

 

3- There's an assumption of worthiness and infallibility members make about GA's which places a pressure on the GA's to let people believe something that may not be true because they don't want to hurt faith by correcting "faith promoting stories".

 

4- Belief that the GA's sharing their "special witness" would be casting pearls before swine.

 

5- Then if some members don't believe the faith promoting rumors they are viewed as less faithful

 

 

Gray, I understand why you say it, but this is an illustration of lack of consistency of message and doctrine regarding HOW God leads this church.

Edited June 16, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[bluebell]

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.

 

Sorry it's taken me a while to respond.  I forgot that i had posted in this thread until i went back thru it.

 

What i meant is that, as you said, that verse is not completely clear on what it is saying.  One can argue either for a necessity of seeing Christ or not but not by using acts chapter 1.

[DBMormon]

Just about everything.

please elaborate?  as your so vague as to give no way to defend against invisible arrows

[Gray]

I think this issue is illustrative of a few general issues in the church.

 

1- We are asked to place absolute confidence, faith and obedience in prophets and apostles because they are special witnesses of Christ, yet they don't claim to have a witness different than our own, yet we assume they do so we can feel our faith is well placed.

 

2- These assumptions, along with other "faith promoting" stories can actually hurt a person's faith when it is realized not to be true. Then others ridicule and say, "the church never taught that" or "the brethren never claimed they talked with the savior face to face", thus blaming the individual who believed the "faith promoting rumor"

 

3- There's an assumption of worthiness and infallibility members make about GA's which places a pressure on the GA's to let people believe something that may not be true because they don't want to hurt faith by correcting "faith promoting stories".

 

4- Belief that the GA's sharing their "special witness" would be casting pearls before swine.

 

5- Then if some members don't believe the faith promoting rumors they are viewed as less faithful

 

 

Gray, I understand why you say it, but this is an illustration of lack of consistency of message and doctrine regarding HOW God leads this church.

 

Maybe I think it's a silly argument because I find the idea that God literally leads churches to be a silly notion too. Maybe I have lost perspective on what it's like to be a literalist. A personal failing on my part. 

[Calm]

Either that or those who went to the same meetings as me are less discreet and have better things to do then post here.

I think you mean more discreet.

[Teancum]

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.

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?

 

 

Ancient prophets and apostles were generally not worried about ridicule when declaring their visions and witness.

 

Joseph Smith and others in the early LDS Church history were not worried about ridicule, attention and questions.

 

When did it suddenly become a problem to declare that a special witness has had a vision of Christ?  When did it become to sacred to tell it?  When did the concern over  attention, questions, and/or ridicule become the predominate issue when it came to proclaiming such things?

[The Nehor]

Ancient prophets and apostles were generally not worried about ridicule when declaring their visions and witness.

 

Joseph Smith and others in the early LDS Church history were not worried about ridicule, attention and questions.

 

When did it suddenly become a problem to declare that a special witness has had a vision of Christ?  When did it become to sacred to tell it?  When did the concern over  attention, questions, and/or ridicule become the predominate issue when it came to proclaiming such things?

It becomes a problem when you are told not to share them. The idea that Old and New Testament prophets were blabbermouths who shared everything is a silly conceit. They shared what they were told to share. As for Joseph Smith he did not talk much publicly about the First Vision until enough confusing stories got out that he needed to set the record straight.

Prophets do worry about ridicule, attention, and questions. Enoch and Moses were both terrified of ridicule. Jeremiah tried to throw in the towel. They boldly declare what they are told to declare. Nephi was told not to share the rest of his vision, Mormon was told not to share the rest of what the Savior taught the Nephites, the Book of Moses was originally given only to the saints and not to the world, etc.

[The Nehor]

please elaborate?  as your so vague as to give no way to defend against invisible arrows

They are imaginary and not just invisible.

[DJBrown]

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

 

I believe many of the current apostles have seen Christ in person.  Among them, I believe President Monson, President Eyring, President Packer, and Elder Hales have seen Him.  This is from comments they have made over the years.

 

Here is one from President Packer from April 2014 conference:

 

"After all the years that I have lived and taught and served, after the millions of miles I have traveled around the world, with all that I have experienced, there is one great truth that I would share. That is my witness of the Savior Jesus Christ.

Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon recorded the following after a sacred experience:

“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” (D&C 76:22–23).

Their words are my words.

I believe and I am sure that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that He lives."

[Mystery Meat]

I believe many of the current apostles have seen Christ in person.  Among them, I believe President Monson, President Eyring, President Packer, and Elder Hales have seen Him.  This is from comments they have made over the years.

 

Here is one from President Packer from April 2014 conference:

 

"After all the years that I have lived and taught and served, after the millions of miles I have traveled around the world, with all that I have experienced, there is one great truth that I would share. That is my witness of the Savior Jesus Christ.

Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon recorded the following after a sacred experience:

“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” (D&C 76:22–23).

Their words are my words.

I believe and I am sure that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that He lives."

 

It's hard to get any more clear than that.

 

Edit: I am sure there are some who would rather believe (or perhaps find it easier to believe, especially considering his status as the most recognizable villain in the Q 12 with some) that he is purposely being vague or deceitful. I am not one of those people.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Mystery Meat

[Damien the Leper]

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.

Would the original 12 agree? If not, then there is an issue.

[The Nehor]

Would the original 12 agree? If not, then there is an issue.

Well Iscariot never saw the resurrected Jesus yet he was an apostle.

[Teancum]

It becomes a problem when you are told not to share them. The idea that Old and New Testament prophets were blabbermouths who shared everything is a silly conceit. They shared what they were told to share. As for Joseph Smith he did not talk much publicly about the First Vision until enough confusing stories got out that he needed to set the record straight.

Prophets do worry about ridicule, attention, and questions. Enoch and Moses were both terrified of ridicule. Jeremiah tried to throw in the towel. They boldly declare what they are told to declare. Nephi was told not to share the rest of his vision, Mormon was told not to share the rest of what the Savior taught the Nephites, the Book of Moses was originally given only to the saints and not to the world, etc.

soemthing to back your claims above would be nice. I am familiar with the two Book of Mormon references but not the rest.

[sethpayne]

It's hard to get any more clear than that.

 

Edit: I am sure there are some who would rather believe (or perhaps find it easier to believe, especially considering his status as the most recognizable villain in the Q 12 with some) that he is purposely being vague or deceitful. I am not one of those people.

 

I agree that it's pretty clear.  So the question is, why be purposely vague instead of just saying what Joseph and Rigdon did?  The problem with the way Elder Packer phrased this that it allows for "plausible deniability" for those arguing that the he has not seen Jesus.  In other words, he's making obscure what could be very clear.  Seems incredibly counterproductive.

Edited June 17, 2015 by sethpayne