stemelbow Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 I wasn't going to respond, but this was a mischaracterization of what I said. I said that people who accuse Elder Packer (and those like him) of being vague so some can think he has seen the Savior while still maintaining his deniability are basically accusing him of being deceitful and dishonest. Thus, they might as well stop skirting the issue, and just say they think he is a liar. There is little difference (frankly no difference) between being deceitful (trying to have it both ways) and lying. They are one and the same. Everyone lies about something, but not all are liars. So even if anyone thinks Elder Packer is being or has been deceitful it is not fair to conclude that anyone is calling him a liar. We could conclude 2 things in all of this: 1. He has seen the Christ and has promised to not tell anyone clearly that he has. Which is what many here are saying. 2. He hasn't seen Christ but was told by God to allow people to think it, even give hints that he might have, and never tell people he has not. Elder Packer was crystal clear in what he said. No ambiguity. No stutter. I remember when he said understanding instantly what he was communicating. I am not going to stand up and throw stones at them for not providing more details or any details at all. Yes, we have many accounts of Prophets who have done exactly that in the past. We also have detailed accounts of prophets who commanded not to share. I do not doubt that Joseph Smith held a lot back. He told Brigham Young as much. So please understand why I am so reluctant to get on board with folks who want to accuse Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ of purposely and carefully choosing their words so that some might think one thing, while still having deniability (ie, being deceitful, dishonest, or/and lying). I want no part of that. I have placed my lot with the Lord and those He has chosen today. I know they are not perfect. I know they have each made mistakes. Intentionally leading people into believing something that is not true to bolster their claim to a divine call is not one of them. Feel free to believe that if you so wish OR throw stones at them for not being more forthcoming when you do not know what they may have been commanded. It's clear to me. He did not explicitly say he has seen Christ. He left the possibility open, sure, he did not deny seeing Christ, sure. But he did not do the opposite either--telling people clearly he has not. He very well could have seen the Christ. I'm not closed to the possibility. He very well might not have seen Him. But seeing as their is no clear indication he has, I assume he has not. If he has not, then it seems he has left the possibility open for people to think he has. Why? I don't know.
Mystery Meat Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 Everyone lies about something, but not all are liars. So even if anyone thinks Elder Packer is being or has been deceitful it is not fair to conclude that anyone is calling him a liar. We could conclude 2 things in all of this:1. He has seen the Christ and has promised to not tell anyone clearly that he has. Which is what many here are saying.2. He hasn't seen Christ but was told by God to allow people to think it, even give hints that he might have, and never tell people he has not. It's clear to me. He did not explicitly say he has seen Christ. He left the possibility open, sure, he did not deny seeing Christ, sure. But he did not do the opposite either--telling people clearly he has not. He very well could have seen the Christ. I'm not closed to the possibility. He very well might not have seen Him. But seeing as their is no clear indication he has, I assume he has not. If he has not, then it seems he has left the possibility open for people to think he has. Why? I don't know. Ears to hear I guess. 2
Avatar4321 Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 See how much effort you have had to put in to make your point. All along, Elder Packer could have said "I have seen the risen Lord and testify that He lives!" Could have saved you a whole bunch of work. Not sure how He could have been clear about seeing the Lord.But I'm sure it's a mercy to you that you aren't convinced. If you were and ignored his witnesses you would be sinning against greater light if you disregarded it. 2
stemelbow Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 Its exactly what he is saying. Why else would he include the last line? Why not just stop before the "we have seen him"? It seems to me you actually believe he is being deceitful so he can have it both ways, as has been said in this thread. He's testifying of Christ living and explaining how anyone, any old Mormon can do the same. This is not an explicit claim of having seen Christ. I get you think so. I disagree. it does raise questions though. If he has seen Christ, then why leave it as some little reference? If he has seen Christ and was not supposed to tell anyone (as in was commanded not to), why did he tell people? If he was going to say he has seen Christ, why not shout it from the rooftops and repeat it? It seems like doing so would mean something to someone. But to quote a passage testifying of Christ in order to testify of Christ doesn't exactly make that clear. It promotes speculation, though.
mfbukowski Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 Yep. If you are a witness of the resurrection, then say so. If not, then say so. It's a little nuts to let the membership guess about something so important. Can one be a "witness of the resurrection" without alleging a personal vision of a personage of Christ? Is a "testimony" good enough? How does one know if a "vision" is "real" or even a testimony for that matter? Why should we believe that anyone who alleges they have seen the resurrected Christ actually HAS seen the resurrected tangible body of Jesus of Nazareth? I guess my point is that if you can say you have a testimony of the resurrection that is "as good as" ANYONE telling anyone else they have seen Christ. For the individual of course the difference in the level of certainty must be astronomical, as if such a thing can be measured. But the issue is, for me, the pragmatic value of someone alleging that they have seen Christ. It doesn't really matter what people SAY unless you have a disposition to believe them. And yes, I have such a disposition in regard to these apostolic testimonies. But honestly in the final analysis, I think one must be totally skeptical in all these matters and must develop one's own testimony of all the principles of the gospel To me, without that kind of testimony one is just accepting stories without any reasoning about the sources of their beliefs. My personal prejudice is that that is not a good thing. 1
stemelbow Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 Ears to hear I guess. or it could be you want it so bad you are attributing it to you having ears to hear when compared to others.
Mystery Meat Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 or it could be you want it so bad you are attributing it to you having ears to hear when compared to others. I don't have an opinion one way or the other. My testimony is independent of someone else's having or having not seen the risen Lord. It neither strengthens my own, or weakens it. IOW, I don't need it.
mfbukowski Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 I think this would have been a much more clear and Joseph-esque statement: "Just like the Prophet Joseph and Sidney Rigdon -- who saw the risen Lord and testified that He lives -- I too have seen the risen Lord and testify that he lives." No ambiguity. No plausible deniability. A clear statement. Just like we got from Joseph.OK, I can see your point. I think that style of communication is now considered "too sacred" to mention so people hint around. But you are right, namby pamby politically correct statements seldom accomplish anything of value
mfbukowski Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 I think his statement speaks for itself.Obviously it doesn't or we would not be discussing it 1
Senator Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 OK, I can see your point. I think that style of communication is now considered "too sacred" to mention so people hint around. Why? What has changed?
stemelbow Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) Why? What has changed? COuld it possibly be that they haven't had visits from the Savior? maybe some of them have, like MM says about Elder Packer, and others have not, like say Pres Eyring, or something. So they decided not to share because some would feel bad for not being able to say they have seen the Savior. Edited June 17, 2015 by stemelbow
bluebell Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 COuld it possibly be that they haven't had visits from the Savior? maybe some of them have, like MM says about Elder Packer, and others have not, like say Pres Eyring, or something. So they decided not to share because some would feel bad for not being able to say they have seen the Savior.And maybe more than feeling bad. Maybe they are concerned that we would treat apostles differently based on who had seen Jesus and who hadn't. I can easily see that happening and see some people deciding that the "had seen Him" group had more authority than the "had not" group. 3
Calm Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) There is also the tendency of some members to treat Apostles as infallible, which can lead to relying on them for spiritual confirmation instead of building one's own testimony and connection with God. Can you imagine how much more likely this would occur if they talked about how they had seen Christ? In the past, I believe there was a greater comfort with having visions and thus there would have been less glorifying of the person telling others of their experiences. Given the high number of converts in the Church, I don't think we could have maintained that type of culture once the outside of the Church culture changed in the US and other places where this has occurred even with frequent references to personal visions by members as well as GAs (assuming of course they occur, etc etc). Edited June 17, 2015 by calmoriah
Duncan Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 There is also the tendency of some members to treat Apostles as infallible, which can lead to relying on them for spiritual confirmation instead of building one's own testimony and connection with God. Can you imagine how much more likely this would occur if they talked about how they had seen Christ? and spiritual burnout, even among the Twelve or Seventy. 1
stemelbow Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 I'm just amazed at the reasoning we tend to offer on this. If someone has seen Christ in our day, it would be nothing but great for others to hear about it. It would say to you and me, people can see Christ, even today. But if they see Christ, are calling themselves special witnesses of Christ, and are not telling people that they have seen Him, then it's just really discouraging. 1
Calm Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 it would be nothing but great for others to hear about it. Why would sharing one's personal experience with Christ in a vision be received any differently than sharing one's personal experience with Christ through other forms of revelation? My reasoning is based on what I've seen actually happen. I think we can reasonably expect the same range of reactions to sharing visions of Christ as other revelations. Is there some reason you think this type of witness would tend to result in anomalous reactions, all on a positive side? Whether or not the negative side of the range of reactions is sufficient to refrain from sharing intimate details in very public ways so that all can know that an apostle has specficially testified that he has seen Christ, I don't know. This may or may not be the reasons that it is not happening today. 1
Duncan Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 I'm just amazed at the reasoning we tend to offer on this. If someone has seen Christ in our day, it would be nothing but great for others to hear about it. It would say to you and me, people can see Christ, even today.But if they see Christ, are calling themselves special witnesses of Christ, and are not telling people that they have seen Him, then it's just really discouraging. I gotta go here in a tic but it isn't like some sideshow, "Come see the amazing man who has seen Jesus!!!! parking out back by the trash bins"!!! Maybe the Apostles have told audiences and people didn't write it down or did and it hasn't circulated or people don't care, look what happened to him when he was here on Earth!
stemelbow Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 Why would sharing one's personal experience with Christ in a vision be received any differently than sharing one's personal experience with Christ through other forms of revelation? My reasoning is based on what I've seen actually happen. Beats me, i'm not talking about a vision necessarily. It does bring into question though many things. For instance, Joseph claimed visionary experience with the Father and Son. Skeptical people easily pass that off as visionary, since that is what he claims, and thus very subjective or a dream. If people claim to see Christ in a vision--what does that mean exactly? I think we can reasonably expect the same range of reactions to sharing visions of Christ as other revelations. Is there some reason you think this type of witness would tend to result in anomalous reactions, all on a positive side? Yes. We promote Joseph's vision of the Father and Son, do we not. Would it mean the same if there was no such visitation? What if Joseph's first vision never happened, but the message of it came to him in another fashion, would it change what we are? And this brings into question the notion of if having been visited by Christ would special witnesses of Christ not tell us, if in so doing it would not change the reactions? Why appeal to the pearls before swine stuff that people have done here? Whether or not the negative side of the range of reactions is sufficient to refrain from sharing intimate details in very public ways so that all can know that an apostle has specficially testified that he has seen Christ, I don't know. This may or may not be the reasons that it is not happening today. I guess.
Calm Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 Would it mean the same if there was no such visitation? What if Joseph's first vision never happened, but the message of it came to him in another fashion, would it change what we I don't know. It was the existence of the Book of Mormon that was most important to the early LDS to demonstrate that Joseph was a prophet and was restoring the Gospel. 1
mfbukowski Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) Why? What has changed?fear of ridicule in a skeptical age? "Those Mormons actually believe they have a prophet who sees and talks to God!! Total wackos!" In the past people could say that emphatically and people would actually believe them. Now only the VERY faithful would believe them, or question how they "knew" that it was not a hallucination. The conclusion would be that they were either psychotic or on drugs, seeing things that were not there. Edited June 17, 2015 by mfbukowski
The Nehor Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 I'm just amazed at the reasoning we tend to offer on this. If someone has seen Christ in our day, it would be nothing but great for others to hear about it. It would say to you and me, people can see Christ, even today.I do not agree with your premises here.
omni Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 The modern apostles and prophets are purposefully cagy about whether or not they've see Christ because they're trying to appeal to everyone.They want to appeal to the member who believe they must have seen Christ, so even if they haven't, they insinuate that maybe they have but they couldn't possibly speak of it. Thus those who want to believe can.They also want to appeal to those who are less likely to believe they've physically seen Christ so they speak with vague language that can easily be explained away. Thus those who don't believe they've seen Christ are not turned off to the church.They want it both ways. This seems pretty clear to me.+1Unfortunately, over the years the brethren have become quite adept at this style of communication. One need look no further than many of the essays, particularly the one concerning blacks and the priesthood. It appears as if the public affairs department and Kirton McConkie have more influence on policy and doctrine than do the brethren themselves. Makes one pine for the early days of the church when leaders routinely and boldly declared doctrine.
sethpayne Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 Not sure how He could have been clear about seeing the Lord.But I'm sure it's a mercy to you that you aren't convinced. If you were and ignored his witnesses you would be sinning against greater light if you disregarded it. I've said nothing about accepting/rejecting anything. I'm having a conversation about the use of language to convey meaning.
sethpayne Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 OK, I can see your point. I think that style of communication is now considered "too sacred" to mention so people hint around. But you are right, namby pamby politically correct statements seldom accomplish anything of value Thanks, mfbukowsi. That is my point. My *only* point (I'm looking at you Mr. Avatar!). Also, I understand how the use of language needs to change to meet the times. But as this thread illustrates, there are disparate views on this question and if we still publish the words of Joseph and JSF, I'm sure we can find an appropriate place to make things more clear. We Mormons are weird. Let's own it!!
Calm Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 Are you talking about publishing it or just talking about it?
Recommended Posts