How is an apostle's witness different, special?

[_moinmoin]

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?

Personal belief and experience.

You make a good point about the gift of the Holy Ghost. Apostles' special witness does not (or should not) downplay the ability of the Holy Ghost to confirm truth to us as individuals and to testify to others of what we teach. It has to do a) with the priesthood keys that they hold (all priesthood keys, held in common as a quorum) and b) with their special calling presiding over the worldwide ministry.

While some may be (and are) unmoved by apostles' witness, others very much are. One of my converts in Germany was very moved by hearing Elder Oaks speak. Many other anecdotes could be cited, but ultimately (as with everything), it comes down to each individual's personal experience.

[_moinmoin]

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.

Have they been? Other than President Packer (which you refer to), how many of the Brethren have hinted at visitations without saying that. Honest question. How many examples can be given?

I don't buy the "too sacred' excuse . . . 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 he really did personally feel that his experience was too sacred to elaborate on, would that still be dishonest?

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.

I don't "know" that personal visitations for any of the apostles "is actually false." And you don't, either (proving a negative). If anything, the Brethren in recent times have been more reticent than in the past, but that is a far cry from denoting that visitations are "actually false."

I really would be interested in a compilation of "coy" statements where apostles appear to have hinted at a visitation without outright referring to one.

[_Themis]

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.

Have they been? Other than President Packer (which you refer to), how many of the Brethren have hinted at visitations without saying that. Honest question. How many examples can be given?

I think you know there are more examples. I don't see it happening as much today, but these leaders certainly helped to create the idea of Apostles special witness being about seeing Jesus in the flesh. The church has never tired to correct this idea and it has become a part of the culture.

[_Themis]

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).

For most it is the Book of Abraham, polygamy and the Book of Mormon, but a few may focus on things like this. It may not really be the main issue for this individual, but one they are currently focusing on. Sometimes when we are going over lots of evidence, it is one piece that all of a sudden makes us realize what we believed is incorrect.

[_Sethbag]

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.

Have they been? Other than President Packer (which you refer to), how many of the Brethren have hinted at visitations without saying that. Honest question. How many examples can be given?

I've heard it before from others. A five minute Google search came up with this example from the FAIR site:
Marion G. Romney likewise observed, “I don’t know just how to answer people when they ask the question, ‘Have you seen the Lord?’ I think that the witness that I have and the witness that each of us [apostles] has, and the details of how it came, are too sacred to tell. I have never told anybody some of the experiences I have had, not even my wife. I know that God lives. I not only know that he lives, but I know him.”

I don't buy the "too sacred' excuse . . . 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 he really did personally feel that his experience was too sacred to elaborate on, would that still be dishonest?

Yes. If the question is "have you seen the Lord?" the only truly honest answer is "yes" or "no." If he feels that the experience is too sacred to discuss further then something like "yes, but the experience is too sacred to discuss any further."

This sounds a little dogmatic, but I don't think it is. If it's too sacred to confirm with a simple "yes," then how is it not a violation of the sacredness for them to then beat around the bush while giving out a strong implication that they have?

"Have you seen Jesus face to face?"

"Some experiences are so sacred that we don't talk about them, but I can tell you that I not only know the Lord lives - I know the Lord."

Does this statement not imply that the person has seen the Lord? Sure, it can also be read in a way that implies familiarity with the Lord short of a personal visitation, but there are less ambiguous ways to say that. One could say "no, I haven't had a personal visitation from Jesus, but I've had experiences too personal and sacred to discuss that give me the sure knowledge that he lives."

The fact that they refuse to answer the question with an unequivocal confirmation or denial, yet imply strongly that they have had experiences that go well beyond what ordinary members have had, feeds the impression many if not most LDS have that the Q15 have actually seen Jesus. If this is not actually true, and I think there's no reason to believe they have actually seen Jesus, then it's dishonest for them to continue to let these beliefs flourish.

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.

I don't "know" that personal visitations for any of the apostles "is actually false." And you don't, either (proving a negative). If anything, the Brethren in recent times have been more reticent than in the past, but that is a far cry from denoting that visitations are "actually false."

I really would be interested in a compilation of "coy" statements where apostles appear to have hinted at a visitation without outright referring to one.

We have at least two such statements, from Romney and Packer. I'm not going to put in anymore time looking for other such published statements. The brethren must be asked this quite often, and if they ever answered with "yeah I've seen him" I'm sure we'd hear about it.

Whether I can prove that they haven't seen Jesus or not is not really important to me. I can't prove that you haven't seen the invisible pink unicorn, either. Or maybe you've seen Russell's teapot with your own two eyes, and are just keeping that profound experience to yourself. I don't really care. What I do care about is that the scriptures give plentiful examples of Jesus' followers claiming to have seen him. This sets a certain expectation, including, I believe, feeding into the common Mormon belief that the modern Apostles have probably seen him too. I don't buy in to the "too special" excuse. If the modern apostles are content to imply that they've seen him, then it's obviously not something that is so special and sacred that it shouldn't be shared.

Imagine a missionary being asked if he'd slept with another member's wife.
Missionary: "Some experiences are too special to discuss, but I can tell you that I know that sleeping with that woman is a heavenly experience."
MP: "So that's a yes?"
Missionary: "I can't discuss in detail my experiences, but I know without a shadow of a doubt that sleeping with her is an exquisitely heavenly experience."
MP: "Ok, but did you actually do it?"
Missionary: "I can truly testify that sex with that woman is an amazing experience."
MP: "Elder, I just need to know, yes or no, did you have sex with that woman, Sister so-and-so."
Missionary: "I bear my witness that she truly is an amazingly sexual woman..."

For all we know the missionary only knows all of this because someone else told him. Or he just intuits it by looking at sister so-and-so and filling in the details with his overactive imagination. He both tries to imply firsthand knowledge, but also maintain his plausible deniability.

Not a perfect analogy by any means, of course.

If the apostles are forbidden from telling the world that they've seen Jesus, then that should cover implying it too. There's no such thing as plausible deniability before God.

[_moinmoin]

I think you know there are more examples. I don't see it happening as much today, but these leaders certainly helped to create the idea of Apostles special witness being about seeing Jesus in the flesh. The church has never tired to correct this idea and it has become a part of the culture.

Well, Sethbag provided a second good example. I actually don't think that there are very many others.

For most it is the Book of Abraham, polygamy and the Book of Mormon, but a few may focus on things like this. It may not really be the main issue for this individual, but one they are currently focusing on. Sometimes when we are going over lots of evidence, it is one piece that all of a sudden makes us realize what we believed is incorrect.

For many who are in faith crisis, I think that it is more of a "shelf" issue (sum of the whole, not any individual parts), as you say. In this case, he said as much that it was really this issue and this alone that he just couldn't get past. The other Runnels issues bothered him, but discussing them in-depth helped him a lot. In his case, it wasn't even the question of coyness or deceit, it was the possibility that at least some apostles haven't had a personal visitation. That, for him, is a deal-breaker. He still actively attends (ward clerk, in fact) and has an active, believing wife who's aware of his issues, but this is an issue that makes his heart sick.

That was a new one for me, too. Among all of the "usual suspects," that's the first time that this has been the front burner issue.

[_moinmoin]

[quote="Sethbag"]We have at least two such statements, from Romney and Packer. I'm not going to put in anymore time looking for other such published statements. The brethren must be asked this quite often, and if they ever answered with "yeah I've seen him" I'm sure we'd hear about it.[quote]

Thanks for the Romney cite. I think that asking things like this in Q&A has been discouraged enough to where they haven't been asked this for some time now.

Sidenote: the best GA I've had in Q&A was Bishop Burton. I really liked being able to ask anything without worrying about being chastised about asking inappropriate questions, and he gave some really good and helpful answers.

I would love for the issue of personal visitations to be directly addressed in a conference talk, but I think that the Brethren are very cautious, PR-wise, currently.

[_Sethbag]

If I were confident that the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham really were authentic ancient texts, that God exists, that spiritual confirmation via the Holy Ghost was in fact a real and reliable thing, that Joseph Smith wasn't in fact a serial adulterer and was in fact visited by God, and all the other stuff, then yeah, I probably wouldn't be held up by the possibility that at least some of the apostles hadn't seen God.

To me, the likelihood that they haven't really seen God or Jesus doesn't really prove anything by itself - it's just further evidence that the whole edifice of Mormonism is manmade in the same way that every other religion out there is manmade.

[_RockSlider]

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.

Sorry: "Your ordination is not full and complete till God has laid His hand upon you."

http://scottwoodward.org/apostleship_ch ... welve.html

If they have not seen God, they are not special, their ordination is not complete.

[_Sethbag]

This is going back like 15 or 20 years now, so I don't recall the specifics anymore and a 30-second google search didn't help, but didn't an apostle testify in conference of a vision he had while he was gravely ill? If my memory isn't tricking me, I recall he testified of seeing a vision of Jesus' crucifixion or something like that.

I'm curious why of a vision of Christ, as if it were more than just a dream, is any less sacred than testifying that Jesus stood before a man in the holy of holies.

Do you remember this? It's been so long now I'm not sure who it was, but maybe David B. Haight.