Appearance of the Savior to the wife

[Metis_LDS]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

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

Well for starters any New Testament scripture of the Saviors appearances after his death, same for Book of Mormon.  D&C Chapter 13 they must of both seen the "angel" for him to have his hands on them, same also for D&C 27:12.    I know what it says about visions in D&C 110 but it gets complicated, see D&C 110 verse 11,  in this world we transfer Priesthood keys by hands, so how could Moses give keys in a vision. IMO he was there in body in person.  I am okay if anyone does not agree and I do not want to debate it as I was not there.  I have added a Church link about Heavenly Messengers with scriptures.         https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/images/gospel-library/manual/32479/32479_000_001_03-handout.pdf

Edited November 26, 2019 by Metis_LDS
correction

[Meadowchik]

16 hours ago, Anijen said:

                       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.

The church uses one who bears testimony as the noun definition for witness, and it defines testimony as a spiritual witness. This is exactly consistent with Moroni's challenge and baptismal covenants.

 

 

[hoo rider]

16 hours ago, Anijen said:

                       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. 

 

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.

 

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

A quote from Elder Bednar that was given earlier in this thread gives a good explanation on what it means to witness of the name of Christ.  I think it is interesting that the scripture says the apostles are witnesses of the name of Christ, rather than witnesses of the name of Jesus Christ or witnesses of Jesus Christ.  In my opinion, this speaks more to Christ as a title than as the person (although He is the only one to hold that title).  It is my opinion that being a witness of the name of Christ means more of a focus on the divine role and plan as opposed to the person.

[hoo rider]

 This conversation has reminded me of a letter from Joseph Fielding Smith.  To put things into context, Joseph Fielding Smith was called as an apostle in 1910.  In 1948 he wrote the following in a letter to his sons:

“I sit and reflect at times, and in my reading of the scriptures, I think of the mission of our Lord, what he did for me, and when these feelings come upon me I say to myself, I cannot be untrue to him. He loved me with a perfect love, as he has done for all men, especially those who serve him, and I must love him with all the love I can, even if it is imperfect, which it should not be. It is wonderful. I did not live in the days of our Savior; he has not come to me in person. I have not beheld him. His Father and he have not felt it necessary to grant me such a great blessing as this. But it is not necessary. I have felt his presence. I know that the Holy Spirit has enlightened my mind and revealed him unto me, so that I do love my Redeemer, I hope, and feel it is true, better than everything else in this life. I would not have it otherwise. I want to be true to him. I know he died for me, for you and all mankind that we might live again through the resurrection. I know that he died that I might be forgiven my follies, my sins, and be cleansed from them. How wonderful is this love. How can I, knowing this, do anything else but love him, my Redeemer. I want my boys in the mission fields to feel this same way. I want my children and my grandchildren to feel that way, and never stray from the path of truth and righteousness.”

(emphasis mine).  Available in Chapter 2 of The Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Fielding Smith, also at https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-joseph-fielding-smith/chapter-2-our-savior-jesus-christ?lang=eng  

Edited November 26, 2019 by hoo rider

[alter idem]

20 hours 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.

And how would Elder Oaks know that, since the tradition has been for a long time that these very sacred experiences be kept to oneself?  If they keep them to themselves, who knows who has and hasn't had this experience?  I suspect that Elder Oaks did not make a blanket statement that no apostle has seen the Savior, cause I'm sure he knows that there are some who have.

[alter idem]

2 minutes ago, alter idem said:

And how would Elder Oaks know that, since the tradition has been for a long time that these very sacred experiences be kept to oneself?  If they keep them to themselves, who knows who has and hasn't had this experience?  I suspect that Elder Oaks did not make a blanket statement that no apostle has seen the Savior, cause I'm sure he knows that there are some who have.

Here is an article which discusses some of these accounts;

http://www.ldsliving.com/8-Divine-Accounts-of-Prophets-and-Apostles-Seeing-the-Savior/s/86605

[Anijen]

17 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

I realize this. I certainly hope my post did not come across as an assumption that husband and wife are in perfect harmony. I only pointed out that many times a General Authority and local leaders have often said they would not be where they are at without their wife. If anything, the wife leads in in the progression level (well true, it least, in my case).

[Anijen]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

The church uses one who bears testimony as the noun definition for witness, and it defines testimony as a spiritual witness. This is exactly consistent with Moroni's challenge and baptismal covenants.

I agree. I understand the Church uses the term for witness and how when we bear our testimonies we are bearing a spiritual witness. I am familiar with this and this is the way I have had my own testimony validated and grown. Having said that, I started this post to discuss actual appearances of the Savior, particularly, if the Savior appears to an apostle, prophet would he also appear to the wife? Thanks.

[Anijen]

4 hours ago, hoo rider said:

A quote from Elder Bednar that was given earlier in this thread gives a good explanation on what it means to witness of the name of Christ.  I think it is interesting that the scripture says the apostles are witnesses of the name of Christ, rather than witnesses of the name of Jesus Christ or witnesses of Jesus Christ.  In my opinion, this speaks more to Christ as a title than as the person (although He is the only one to hold that title).  It is my opinion that being a witness of the name of Christ means more of a focus on the divine role and plan as opposed to the person.

I agree with this, and Elder Bednar's quote is an excellent one. I am getting alot of posts of people trying to teach me what the word witness means or what in the name of Jesus means. I fully understand this perspective, I do not argue against it. However, I am not talking about that and am trying to steer the conversation to the subject of actual appearances of the Savior. 

As a reminder to everyone participating in this thread, I am very well aware and educated in the spiritual witness, or the; a special witness of the name of Christ etc. I am aware and familiar with the concept of spiritual promptings, validations, dreams, etc., I would like to guide us back to the original post of actual appearances made by the Savior, specifically to the wives of General Authorities and other righteous men who have seen the Savior.

Thank you all for your participation and I welcome all your ideas and thoughts on the matter.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, alter idem said:

Here is an article which discusses some of these accounts;

http://www.ldsliving.com/8-Divine-Accounts-of-Prophets-and-Apostles-Seeing-the-Savior/s/86605

I am not really doubtful that some may have seen him, I don't see why not.  If he could visit ancient apostles in resurrected form, why not modern ones?  But these accounts are mostly "dreams", and 1 "voice".  Only 2 out of the 8 accounts seem to speak of a seeing him with their eyes while awake, but those are second hand accounts.  If the traditions you mention are correct, then we wouldn't have second hand accounts, or first hand accounts for that matter. 

The only one that seems somewhat plausible to me is the D&C 110 account, but that one is also described as a "vision".  It seems evident to me that the first "vision" was a vision/dream while Joseph was unconscious on the ground. 

 

[mnn727]

On 11/23/2019 at 7:55 PM, Anijen said:

 I believe that all of the Prophets  and Apostles, past and present have seen the Savior.  I personally believe this to be a requirement to be called as Witness of Christ. 

Some people believe that even though there is really no basis for it. No Prophet or Apostle has stated that they have seen the Lord since Lorenzo Snow in the Salt Lake Temple and before that Joseph Smith.

[Meadowchik]

49 minutes ago, Anijen said:

I agree. I understand the Church uses the term for witness and how when we bear our testimonies we are bearing a spiritual witness. I am familiar with this and this is the way I have had my own testimony validated and grown. Having said that, I started this post to discuss actual appearances of the Savior, particularly, if the Savior appears to an apostle, prophet would he also appear to the wife? Thanks.

Yes, I know, and my point is that the meaning of the term "witness" in the LDS context is not exclusively legalistic. The religious meaning is a reasonable assumption when hearing leaders use the term.

As far as I know, the only canonised experience close to a visitation would be the First Vision. It would be presumptuous to assume any visitations or appearances of similar import have happened since. And I would say that if God condescended in this way for the benefit of the church, wanting us to believe such an event happened, God would instruct those visited to explicitly witness of it.

Otherwise, whether or not God does visit the Brethren and/or their wives is not imo meant to be our concern. 

[Anijen]

1 hour ago, mnn727 said:

Some people believe that even though there is really no basis for it. No Prophet or Apostle has stated that they have seen the Lord since Lorenzo Snow in the Salt Lake Temple and before that Joseph Smith.

Publicly they haven't. However, I have been in privet settings where they have,

Having said that, do you feel that sometimes the wording and careful phrasing could be interpreted as a physical appearance rather than a spiritual one?

[Anijen]

In evangelical circles from almost all my studies one of the the modern day qualification is seeing the Lord.  (See below from this source),

emphasis mine.

 

Quote

 

THE QUALIFICATIONS OF AN APOSTLE

When one assembles all the relevant New Testament data, at least three qualifications emerge as prerequisite to one becoming an apostle in the official sense (Hayden, 1894, p. 33, expands these credentials to seven in number). First, an apostle had to have seen the Lord and been an eyewitness of Christ’s resurrection (Acts 1:22; 22:14; 1 Corinthians 9:1). Second, an apostle had to be specifically selected by the Lord or the Holy Spirit (Matthew 10:5; Mark 3:13-14; Luke 6:13; Acts 1:26; 9:15; 22:14-15,21; 26:16). Third, an apostle was invested with miraculous power to the extent that he could perform miracles. The power to perform miracles included the capability to confer the ability to work miracles to other individuals through the laying on of his hands (Mark 3:15; 16:17-20; Luke 9:1-2; John 14:12,26; 15:24-27; 16:13; Acts 2:43; 4:29-31,33; 5:12,15-16; 6:6; 8:14-18; 19:6; 2 Timothy 1:6; Romans 1:11; Hebrews 2:3-4). Jesus referred to His bestowal of miraculous capability upon the apostles when He promised they would be “endued with power from on high” (Luke 24:49).

 

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 hours ago, Metis_LDS said:

I know what it says about visions in D&C 110 but it gets complicated, see D&C 110 verse 11,  in this world we transfer Priesthood keys by hands, so how could Moses give keys in a vision. IMO he was there in body in person.

It's not my intention to debate either. And I absolutely believe in physical contact with heavenly visitors. I'm just not certain what that means. Visions and visitations all feel very 'visionary'. Remember that Joseph's and Oliver's experiences as recorded in D&C 110 occurred during a Sunday church service. The veil had been lowered, but the rest of the congregation was still present on the other side. To my knowledge, we have not a single account of anyone who claims to have overheard the conversations that were going on only a few metres from where they were seated. Does someone who appears 'in body in person' not make any sound when he speaks, even when his voice is as the sound of the rushing of great waters?

[Meadowchik]

11 minutes ago, Anijen said:

In evangelical circles from almost all my studies one of the the modern day qualification is seeing the Lord.  (See below from this source),

emphasis mine.

 

 

And so the definitions of an apostle in modern times must necessarily be different. None of them were alive at the time of the Resurrection.

[Anijen]

I am paraphrasing this; when you hear an apostle say;

" I share with you testimony as a  Special Witness of the Lord Jesus Christ. I testify that He has been resurrected and that He lives and I am a witness of this and testify to you of the sacredness of this knowledge has come to me in ways I will not detail other than the fact He lives."

(He goes on to bless us and grant those blessings to us in the Lord's name)

Are we to never take those words literally? Are we looking beyond the mark if we do, or are we having ears that hear, eyes that see? I believe an Apostle of the Lord would not purposely lead anyone astray and I know and believe most have never seen the Lord, yet if at all, but I do believe there are some who have. I do believe there are some who have and are not a general authority. I myself have had a very spiritual witness of the Savior while on my mission (just short of an appearance). I recognize the sacredness of the event and why apostles and prophets use that type of language, because I would not go into much detail either. If it can happen to a 21 year old missionary, I believe it can happen in even greater magnitude to one of our church leaders and his wife of her husband.

[Anijen]

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

And so the definitions of an apostle in modern times must necessarily be different. None of them were alive at the time of the Resurrection.

Exactly the point, the only way they could meet this requirement, is to have the Savior appear to them. In that way they could be a witness of his resurrection. 

I am not saying I follow the evangelical requirements over what the Church has said.

Edited November 26, 2019 by Anijen

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 minutes ago, Anijen said:

If it can happen to a 21 year old missionary, I believe it can happen in even greater magnitude to one of our church leaders and his wife of her husband.

I have repeatedly stated on this forum that I refuse to believe that the authorised prophets of God are in receipt of any less revelation than I am.

[Anijen]

4 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I have repeatedly stated on this forum that I refuse to believe that the authorised prophets of God are in receipt of any less revelation than I am.

I love this! Thank you for sharing, and I believe that too.

[Metis_LDS]

36 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

It's not my intention to debate either. And I absolutely believe in physical contact with heavenly visitors. I'm just not certain what that means. Visions and visitations all feel very 'visionary'. Remember that Joseph's and Oliver's experiences as recorded in D&C 110 occurred during a Sunday church service. The veil had been lowered, but the rest of the congregation was still present on the other side. To my knowledge, we have not a single account of anyone who claims to have overheard the conversations that were going on only a few metres from where they were seated. Does someone who appears 'in body in person' not make any sound when he speaks, even when his voice is as the sound of the rushing of great waters?

Here is an account: Brother George A. Smith arose and began to prophesy, when a noise was heard like the sound of a rushing mighty wind, which filled the Temple, and all the congregation simultaneously arose, being moved upon by an invisible power; many began to speak in tongues and prophesy; others saw glorious visions; and I beheld the Temple was filled with angels, which fact I declared to the congregation. The people of the neighborhood came running together (hearing an unusual sound within, and seeing a bright light like a pillar of fire resting upon the Temple), and were astonished at what was taking place. This continued until the meeting closed at eleven p. m.                                       This is from http://scottwoodward.org/churchhistory_kirtlandtemple_accounts_firstdedicatoryservice.html                                                                                                                               So this seems to have been the dedication, but what if it occurred again on that Sunday after the veils were dropped? Do we know what the people were doing who were not on the same side as Joseph?

Edited November 26, 2019 by Metis_LDS
correction and addition

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

So it went on until 11 at night plenty of time and distraction for Joseph & Oliver behind the curtain.

Check your dates. This was at the dedication. The vision at the pulpits was the following Sunday during a regular church service.

[Metis_LDS]

5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Check your dates. This was at the dedication. The vision at the pulpits was the following Sunday during a regular church service.

Yes I was correcting it as you were quoting me Sorry!

[Ahab]

20 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Exactly the point, the only way they could meet this requirement, is to have the Savior appear to them. In that way they could be a witness of his resurrection. 

I am not saying I follow the evangelical requirements over what the Church has said.

Not to detract from your point, but we can know the truth of something through the power of the Holy Ghost without having a vision or seeing an event or a fact in person.  The power of the Holy Spirit can be so strong that there is no doubt even about things we haven't seen, yet.

For example, I know beyond any doubt that our Savior lives, that he died but was later resurrected, and is now directly involved in bringing to pass our immortality and eternal lives, the work our Father has said is also his work.  And yet I haven't seen our Savior in person since I was born on this planet.  So it doesn't take a vision or a visitation from our Father or our Savior to know that these things are true.  We can know the truth of all things through the power of the Holy Ghost. 

[Anijen]

Just now, Ahab said:

Not to detract from your point, but we can know the truth of something through the power of the Holy Ghost without having a vision or seeing an event or a fact in person.  The power of the Holy Spirit can be so strong that there is no doubt even about things we haven't seen, yet.

For example, I know beyond any doubt that our Savior lives, that he died but was later resurrected, and is now directly involved in bringing to pass our immortality and eternal lives, the work our Father has said is also his work.  And yet I haven't seen our Savior in person since I was born on this planet.  So it doesn't take a vision or a visitation from our Father or our Savior to know that these things are true.  We can know the truth of all things through the power of the Holy Ghost. 

I have recieved my own testimony the very way you describe. Thanks for sharing.

I full realize and accept that we may know the truth of all things through the power of the Holy Ghost. Furthermore, I believe that a physical appearance though would be miraculous, I can receive the same amount of knowledge without the appearance.