Appearance of the Savior to the wife

[Calm]

Quote

They were called because the Lord wanted them in this office as men who have a witness of his divinity, and whose voices have been and will be raised in testimony of his reality.

Each is a man of faith. After they are ordained to the holy apostleship and are set apart as members of the Council of the Twelve, they will be expected to devote themselves primarily to the work of the ministry. They will place first in their lives, above all other considerations, the responsibility to stand as special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world.

Some will ask, why has the Church taken such competent men out of public service in their professions when they are doing so much good where they now are? I do not know. The Church has not done it. Rather, the Lord has made clear that these are they who should serve as his witnesses. There are others, well trained and equally qualified, to carry on what they have been doing. These two have now received a peculiar and unique calling to which the Lord, in his better wisdom, has beckoned them.

As with all of us, they are men who are human. They have their strengths and their weaknesses. But henceforth, for the remainder of their lives, as long as they remain faithful, their one chief concern must be the advancement of the work of God in the earth. They must be concerned with the welfare of our Father’s children, both those within the Church and those out of the Church. They must do all that they can to give comfort to those who mourn, to give strength to those who are weak, to give encouragement to those who falter, to befriend the friendless, to nurture the destitute, to bless the sick, to bear witness, not out of belief but out of a certain knowledge of the Son of God, their Friend and Master, whose servants they are.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1984/04/special-witnesses-for-christ?lang=eng

This is typical, imo, of the teaching of what special witness means. 

Edited November 25, 2019 by Calm

[Anijen]

7 hours ago, hoo rider said:

Where are you getting the idea that our Prophets and Apostles are called as to be a Witness of Christ? 

                       Witness is defined as someone who has seen an event, seen a person, seen an action. In legal terms, a witness is someone with personal knowledge. You ask; where am I getting the idea from? I get that idea from past speakers in the church both at the general authority level, stake, and ward levels. I get that idea from how the word witness has always been defined. I get that idea from scripture and the apostles personal knowledge of the Savior. The church has not changed the definition of the word witness.

I believe they have seen the Lord and either were commanded not to in such plain language testify to the world in such a public setting or manner such a sacred event. 

 

Quote

You might want to read D&C 107:23 which says the twelve apostles are called to be special witnesses of the name of Christ (emphasis mine). 

Thank you for the advice. Just an FYI, I have read that verse many times, in fact, it, along with Sister Nelsons remarks they are what prompted the post. Adding the word special in front of the word witness, does not change the definition of the word witness, as your post seems to indicate, it does however, change the type of person who is the witness. 

Name of Christ, is interesting especially in these times when President Nelson has put such an emphasis on the name of the Church. I give you that the twelve are special witnesses of the name of Christ, but as your post also seems to indicate and emphasise is the word name... I argue that to be a special witness of the name of Christ is exactly what I posit and have posted and not as you appear to suggest to be a special witness of the actual name.

 

Quote

I don't think being a witness of Christ is the same as being a witness of the name of Christ.  

I gathered that. What are the differences you had in mine? I am curious thanks.

[Anijen]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I think that many mormons believe that Prophets and Apostles have seen Christ as it is insinuated that they have.  Some of those who have had the second annointing are still waiting...It is how they keep you in.'

I agreed with this up until; "... It is how they keep you in."

What joy do you get from the constant jabs? Why do you post here?

 

Quote

Edited to add:  That because it is so special and they have been asked not to tell you...in my view is because they haven't. 

That's fair and I know many who hold the same opinion.

 

Quote

Who wouldn't want the world to know?

Well I personally would like to know, but I understand why they wouldn't say.  For example, Christ told many times not to go and tell. Also after his resurrection the Savior was in Jerusalem for 40 days yet there is very little we can read about the doctrines he taught during this time. Not because they weren't written down, but because many times he commanded his disciples not to share. I can see the same reasons it happens today.

Besides, with the tendency in today's internet world nothing is kept sacred anymore.

[Anijen]

1 hour ago, alter idem said:

I don't believe being a special witness of Christ requires a visit in the flesh by the Savior.  I believe that it does happen to some people.  I believe that while a physical manifestation can be a part of having one's call and election made sure, it may not happen until we leave this life.  I don't know of any scriptures that say it is a requirement to see Christ to be able to bear testimony of him.  I believe Christ said that it was a greater faith to not see and to believe, which makes sense, since if you see Christ, as the Bro. of Jared did, you have knowledge, not faith. I know that some people insist that it is a requirement (Denver Snuffer is one of those) but I think this is wrong and as far as the Gospel of Jesus Christ is concerned, we're asked to live by faith, strive to have our calling and election made sure, but trust in God that he will grant us what he knows is right for us and our lives.  Some have lost perfectly good testimonies because they focused on this one thing, rather than humbly and patiently accepting God's will for them.

Thank you very much for this. This I agree with wholeheartedly.

[2BizE]

I disagree. I don’t think any of them have seen the savior.  Seems like Elder Oaks mentioned this at one point in the past.

[2BizE]

7 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Thank you very much for this. This I agree with wholeheartedly.

A few years ago, Elder Oaks stated that the apostles were not Special Witnesses of Christ, but are Special Witnesses of the Name of Christ.  He said there is a distinction between the two.

[Anijen]

2 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

I disagree. I don’t think any of them have seen the savior.  Seems like Elder Oaks mentioned this at one point in the past.

Not to be contrary, some have admitted to seeing the Savior, (albeit in private settings). Elder Bruce R. McConkie in his last conference talk all but admitted it and in private he has said; "how do I know? Because I have seen him."

[Anijen]

1 minute ago, 2BizE said:

A few years ago, Elder Oaks stated that the apostles were not Special Witnesses of Christ, but are Special Witnesses of the Name of Christ.  He said there is a distinction between the two.

Ok, you and another are emphasising the name. Can you tell me just what the difference is? and how do you define the word witness?

[pogi]

10 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Well I personally would like to know, but I understand why they wouldn't say.  For example, Christ told many times not to go and tell. Also after his resurrection the Savior was in Jerusalem for 40 days yet there is very little we can read about the doctrines he taught during this time. Not because they weren't written down, but because many times he commanded his disciples not to share. I can see the same reasons it happens today.

Besides, with the tendency in today's internet world nothing is kept sacred anymore.

If this is true, then their title of "special witness" can't be an indicator that they have seen Christ, because that is supposed to be private/sacred.      If, however, the title does indeed have that meaning but we simply can't know it, then it is a paradoxical title because one can't be a special witness of "to all the world" if they are prohibited from witnessing of him. 

[Anijen]

I have taken covenants to take upon the name of Christ. This does not make me a witness. I have taken on the covenants to be a witness of Christ in all places. This entails to live my life for when I am looked upon I will be seen as He is (see Moroni 7:48). This too, does not make me a witness or the person who observes me (witnessessing me) qualified or entitled to an appearance from the Savior. I understand those who try to emphasise wording of the name of Christ. I understand what it means, I understand the analogy and metaphors, I understand what it is to be and I try to be every second of my life. I do not want a discussion on the semantics of the in the name of Christ.

I want to know if you feel the Twelve Apostles and the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have seen the Savior or will see the Savior before they die? 

[pogi]

11 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Not to be contrary, some have admitted to seeing the Savior, (albeit in private settings). Elder Bruce R. McConkie in his last conference talk all but admitted it and in private he has said; "how do I know? Because I have seen him."

Maybe some have, like Joseph Smith, but I don't think it is correct to assume that all have. 

There is this too:

Quote

 

In our day the Lord has again called Apostles. These Apostles have been ordained as special witnesses of Christ in all the world. They know of the reality of Christ and his redemption with a certainty born of the Spirit.

It is by the power of the Holy Ghost that I bear my witness. I know of Christ’s reality as if I had seen with my eyes and heard with my ears. I know also that the Holy Spirit will confirm the truthfulness of my witness in the hearts of all those who listen with an ear of faith.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1984/01/an-apostles-witness-of-christ?lang=eng

 

 

 

 

[Anijen]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

If this is true, then their title of "special witness" can't be an indicator that they have seen Christ, because that is supposed to be private/sacred.      If, however, the title does indeed have that meaning but we simply can't know it, then it is a paradoxical title because one can't be a special witness of "to all the world" if they are prohibited from witnessing of him. 

Ooh, this is good. I have always enjoyed your posting. I think witnessing can have multiple meanings especially how it is used in the context of these posts. But, like I said, I am more interested in physical, personal appearances and not semantics.

Yes, we should stand as witnesses in all places. Yes, we have taken upon ourselves the name of Christ. I am interested in the term Witness of Christ as defined as seen or in the legal definition having personal knowledge of. I know when I became a Priest, I have the opportunity to the administration of angels, not people (yes, they can be angels) but divine administration by an angel. I am looking at the physical actual knowledge and not the esoteric, mysterious, etc. 

Thank you for the great post.

[Anijen]

I have heard from critics of the Church that to be an Apostle of Christ is to be a witness of him meaning seeing him in the flesh. These were good evangelical members and ministers, thus, I take it from their view is that a witness is someone who has seen the Christ. Although these evangelical missionaries failed to convert me, I think they had a good argument.

[Anijen]

Furthermore, it is also my opinion that the wife has a great deal of spirituality. This is true in my own life and with many couples I have seen. This has also been validated by the many Apostles, Prophets, General Authorities who have publicly mentioned they would not be where they are today without for their wifes. Just suppose (for a second) that being a Special Witness of the Name of Christ means also to have a physical appearance by him.  Would not the wife (the other half of becoming one), be part of that? I never considered this until I heard Sister Nelson speak. Thanks.

[mrmarklin]

In 1969, then Apostle Hinckley stated  in a missionary conference, where I was present, in Cochabamba Bolivia, that he had never seen a vision and never heard a voice.  Yet he gave us is testimony that Christ lived.  It was impressed upon him by the power of the Holy Ghost. 

That was long before he was prophet of the Church.  Whether he had subsequent manifestations, I don't know.

I certainly don't believe all or even most of the Apostles of the Church have seen the Christ in person.  Nevertheless, the Holy Ghost has confirmed to them that He lives, and leads the Church.

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, Anijen said:

Furthermore, it is also my opinion that the wife has a great deal of spirituality. This is true in my own life and with many couples I have seen. This has also been validated by the many Apostles, Prophets, General Authorities who have publicly mentioned they would not be where they are today without for their wifes. Just suppose (for a second) that being a Special Witness of the Name of Christ means also to have a physical appearance by him.  Would not the wife (the other half of becoming one), be part of that? I never considered this until I heard Sister Nelson speak. Thanks.

Husbands and wives aren't always in perfect harmony.  Nor are they at the same level of progression.  To assume such seems naive.

Joseph and Emma for instance.

Edited November 26, 2019 by JLHPROF

[pogi]

6 hours ago, Anijen said:

Ooh, this is good. I have always enjoyed your posting. I think witnessing can have multiple meanings especially how it is used in the context of these posts. But, like I said, I am more interested in physical, personal appearances and not semantics.

Yes, we should stand as witnesses in all places. Yes, we have taken upon ourselves the name of Christ. I am interested in the term Witness of Christ as defined as seen or in the legal definition having personal knowledge of. I know when I became a Priest, I have the opportunity to the administration of angels, not people (yes, they can be angels) but divine administration by an angel. I am looking at the physical actual knowledge and not the esoteric, mysterious, etc. 

Thank you for the great post.

Thanks, I enjoy your posts too.

I know you are not interested in semantics, but that’s really what this boils down to.  Your understanding of the word “witness” hinges on semantics.  To you, it means “seeing” through physical “appearance”.  But witnessing really just means to sense or experience something in some way.  It doesn’t have to be visual.  Blind people can be witnesses too, so can deaf and blind people.  Spiritual senses/experience are just as real as physical senses/experiences.  One can be a special witness of Christ spiritually.  Is there any passage of scripture or doctrine that suggests that “special witness” means a physical manifestation in the semantical way you are interpreting it?

If the spirit is matter, is that not a physical manifestation that is just as real as anything else material?  

Some have taught that the spirit is a better witness than the eyes.  I think the baptism of fire makes one a special witness.

Edited November 26, 2019 by pogi

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 hours ago, Anijen said:

But, like I said, I am more interested in physical, personal appearances and not semantics.

I'm a personal witness of the reality of visions. How would I know if a vision were 'physical' or not? What does that even mean?

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm a personal witness of the reality of visions. How would I know if a vision were 'physical' or not? What does that even mean?

Well there's D&C 129 and:

"No one can truly say he knows God until he has handled something. & these this can only be in the holiest of Holies." Joseph Smith 

And Genesis 32:24-30 and 3 Nephi 11:14.

Visions may not be physical but visitation is, in fact that's the whole point and goal -

 

"Now, what is this other Comforter?It is no more or less than the LORD JESUS CHRIST himself; and this is the sum and substance of the whole matter; that when any man obtains this last Comforter, he will have the personage of Jesus Christ to attend him, or appear unto him from time to time, and even he will manifest the Father unto him, and they will take up their abode with him, and the visions of the heavens will be opened unto him, and the Lord will teach him face to face, and he may have a perfect knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of God. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.150-1)"

[Hamba Tuhan]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Visions may not be physical but visitation is, in fact that's the whole point and goal -

"Now, what is this other Comforter?It is no more or less than the LORD JESUS CHRIST himself; and this is the sum and substance of the whole matter; that when any man obtains this last Comforter, he will have the personage of Jesus Christ to attend him, or appear unto him from time to time, and even he will manifest the Father unto him, and they will take up their abode with him, and the visions of the heavens will be opened unto him, and the Lord will teach him face to face, and he may have a perfect knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of God. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.150-1)"

Again, speaking on a practical level, what does it mean for the Lord to be physically present? And what, for that matter, does it mean for the other person to be physically present. If I am caught up to a high mountain, am I there physically or some other way? And how would I know?

I included your quote because I see absolutely nothing in there about a 'physical' element.

[JLHPROF]

20 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Again, speaking on a practical level, what does it mean for the Lord to be physically present? And what, for that matter, does it mean for the other person to be physically present. If I am caught up to a high mountain, am I there physically or some other way? And how would I know?

I included your quote because I see absolutely nothing in there about a 'physical' element.

Let me help you then:

Now, what is this other Comforter?It is no more or less than the LORD JESUS CHRIST himself; and this is the sum and substance of the whole matter; that when any man obtains this last Comforter, he will have the personage of Jesus Christ to attend him, or appear unto him from time to time, and even he will manifest the Father unto him, and they will take up their abode with him, and the visions of the heavens will be opened unto him, and the Lord will teach him face to face, and he may have a perfect knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of God. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.150-1)"

Attend or appear, two possibilities one of which is physical presence, the other merely vision.

Abiding with someone also indicates physical presence.

Face to face, maybe physical, maybe the spiritual version of skype.  Who knows?

And don't forget Joseph also said to truly know God requires handling something.  A physical act.

[Metis_LDS]

7 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm a personal witness of the reality of visions. How would I know if a vision were 'physical' or not? What does that even mean?

I know this person (not me) who had a vision while others around at the time saw nothing. This was in the Temple. Your words triggered an idea.  In the D&C where the Lord appears in person or others in person (restoring things)  everyone present sees them.  I am not saying that the Lord cannot hide his physical self from others but in the scriptures it sure seems that he does not do this.  If he is there everyone can see him.  Another idea you gave me was when the Lord appeared to the apostles in person clarityafter he was risen.  Appearances in the body by the Lord right now are exactly the same and done by the same power as in the New Testament or the Book of Mormon.  I have a dual nature about seeing the Lord in person. Part of me yearns for it. The other part says well Oliver Cowdery witnessed the appearance of Jesus Christ and angelic ministers in the  Kirtland Temple a week after the dedication,  yet he still fell away for a season.

 

Edited November 26, 2019 by Metis_LDS
clarity

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Let me help you then:

Not sure that was any help. I have no trouble reading the words you've now provided twice. I do have trouble getting what you seem to want those words to mean to speak in any meaningful way to my lived experience.

Quote

And don't forget Joseph also said to truly know God requires handling something.  A physical act.

OK. So in a vision one night, I handle something. Is that something 'physically' present in my room with me? Am I instead 'physically' present where the something resides? Is something else altogether happening? And how would I know?

And if the Apostle Paul didn't know the answers to these questions -- 'whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth' -- why should I trust that you do?

50 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

In the D&C where the Lord appears or others (restoring things)  everyone present sees them. 

The vision recorded in D&C 76 was received in a room full of men. Two of them saw it and discussed it with each other. 

Edited November 26, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[Metis_LDS]

52 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

The vision recorded in D&C 76 was received in a room full of men. Two of them saw it and discussed it with each other. 

Yes of course you are correct and I agree.  My post was about when Lord or others are there in person, then IMO it seems that all present can see who ever has appeared. I have edited my original post so that this point is clearer.  Sorry that my tortured writing can be confusing.  It is that same way when I speak in person.  Perhaps this is something to keep me more humble.

Edited November 26, 2019 by Metis_LDS
addition

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Metis_LDS said:

My post was about when Lord or others are there in person, then IMO it seems that all present can see who ever has appeared.

Can you please provide some of the passages you're referring to?