DiscussMormonism.com

I get that the 15 apostles populate exclusively the upper two chambers of the LDS hierarchy. I get that each is in line to take the mantle of "the prophet" should he outlive those of the other 14 that have been apostles longer than he has. But what of this word, "apostle", is supposed to be so awe inspiring among the LDS? Since they do not bear witness of having seen the resurrected Jesus in the flesh, the term 'apostle' is merely rendered to be a title. Consider Rasband, one of the three new 'apostles'. Before, he was in the 70. He was a GA. If he came to your stake conference, that was pretty cool for you if you are a TBM, but now if he were to come, he would be treated as if royalty.

Just because he got in the queue so that it is known specifically which handful of other men he has to outlive to become "the prophet"--who himself does not testify of having seen the resurrected Jesus in the flesh?

They're high ranking bureaucrats. If one plays his cards right, gets into the queue while yet young enough, he'll pay his dues and get to be the old geezer in chief.

Unless there's some 'double secret' meaning associated with the term 'apostle', I just don't get it. How the LDS are awestruck by these 15 eludes me.

I don't really understand it either, Sock. In the Catholic Church, Cardinals would be considered the equivalent to the Quorum of the 12. But I don't believe that the cardinals in the Catholic Church are as revered as the Quorum is. I can tell you that as someone being related to a member of the Quorum, Richard G. Scott was simply "Uncle Richard" to us.

They like to imply that they have some higher testimony that supposedly is too sacred to share with the masses. This surely adds to their mystique and helps to create the leadership worship cult that seems to underlie Mormonism. This super secret testimony however is clearly b.s.

To me, growing up in SLC, they always seemed like ordinary businessmen, nothing special. There were some I liked and some not so much.

The Apostle Witnesses would have greater earthly authority than the Jehovah Witnesses. Even the Church Lady would acknowledge that.

Only the truly righteous and faithful members of the LDS church can recognize the sacred apostolic mantles of the Lord's greatest living servants. Would suck to be the one guy in church who couldn't...

It should be obvious to anyone looking at it objectively that the big 15 are simply the upper management of the LDS church. You get that position much the same way you would in a large corporation, by working your way up the ladder and trying to do things to get noticed, so that your name will be the one called when a position opens up. Their job is to manage a large business venture, bringing in billions of dollars, with vast real estate holdings, and keep the money flowing by providing value to their paying members in the form of warm fuzzy feelings during general conference and making them believe that the Big 15 have a direct pipeline to the big guy upstairs.

I was asked to meet with a man in our stake, with his bishop, to discuss in detail his concerns (which turned out to be based primarily on the CES letter. He was surprised at first when I correctly anticipated most of his concerns, and asked him if he had gotten them from it). I told his bishop to allow as much time as needed, even if this meant more than one meeting. The meeting went well (ca. three hours), and he was pleased that I knew the background and issues for all of his concerns (the usual: all aspects of polygamy, Book of Abraham, Kinderhook plates, all aspects of Book of Mormon, etc.).

It turns out that his main concern, after going through all of the other things, was his doubt that the apostles have actually seen the Savior. He came back to that three or four times throughout the night, and it emerged as his primary concern (among all of the other things). I shared with him some quotes from apostles who said that they had not seen the Lord (e.g., Heber C. Kimball, Orson Pratt, etc.), and told him my belief is that some have and others have not. To him, that is an absolute requirement that is a deal-breaker. We talked about where this assumption/expectation comes from, and whether it is valid. In his view, even if it isn't a valid assumption, it ought to be. I explained that I don't think a personal visitation is required for one to be a special witness, and we discussed the fact that Jesus has appeared to people who weren't apostles. In my view, the special witness is a special endowment of the Spirit associated with the priesthood keys of the calling of apostle, not a reference to a personal visitation. And, scriptures and experience teach us that the witness of the Holy Ghost is more powerful than personal visitations.

Where this assumption/expectation originated is an interesting question. There isn't much in the way of documentation that supports it (i.e., statements from the Brethren --- and in fact, there are some that point-blank say that they haven't had a personal visitation). The best one I am aware of is Oliver Cowdery's charge (in ordaining the first apostles) that it is the duty of the apostles to seek and obtain a personal visitation (from Parley P. Pratt's autobiography). But, even this makes it quite obvious that it wasn't a prerequisite for ordination, since the charge was given at the ordination.

moinmoin wrote:It turns out that his main concern, after going through all of the other things, was his doubt that the apostles have actually seen the Savior. * * * I explained that I don't think a personal visitation is required for one to be a special witness, ... . In my view, the special witness is a special endowment of the Spirit associated with the priesthood keys of the calling of apostle, not a reference to a personal visitation. And, scriptures and experience teach us that the witness of the Holy Ghost is more powerful than personal visitations.

A special endowment of the Spirit? beyond the gift of the Holy Ghost confirmed upon me following my baptism? On what do you base this view?

Because the Apostle says it's different, special.

I very much dislike it when the brethren are coy about the visitation issue. It looks remarkably as if they'd like to let members keep thinking that the Q15 have actually seen Jesus face to face even they haven't.

I don't buy the "too sacred' excuse - it wasn't too sacred for all the guys in the scriptures who claimed to see Jesus, so what's changed? If it wasn't too sacred for Paul the apostle or Nephi or hell, Joseph Smith to talk about their visitations, then why is it too sacred for Boyd K. Packer? Boyd just wanted to let the members keep thinking that he'd experienced something that he hadn't. That's dishonesty in my opinion.

If a lie is any communication made with the intent to deceive, then this counts. Knowingly communicating in a way that lets members keep believing something that one knows is actually false is the same thing - it's deception.