How is an apostle's witness different, special?

[_RockSlider]

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.

fell over dead in a bathtub
https://www.LDS.org/general-conference/ ... e?lang=eng

[_Sethbag]

Ok, remembering that it might have been David B. Haight produced the winner.

Read this:

https://www.LDS.org/ensign/1989/11/the- ... g=eng&_r=1

How is it that his sickbed vision of what is implied to be God and Jesus any less sacred, and therefor subject to recounting in conference, than a non-sickbed personal visitation?

Is it that a sickbed vision can still be disputed as just a dream, and therefor not as iron-clad a claim as a personal visitation? Are we back to the whole plausible deniability thing?

[_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.

fell over dead in a bathtub
https://www.LDS.org/general-conference/ ... e?lang=eng

Ah yes, you found a different link to the same thing while I was posting mine. Thanks!

[_I have a question]

Well obviously the key to this is extreme suffering. You aren't going to get a special witness unless you are really suffering, because that's how the Holy Ghost rolls. feeling slightly down and in need of a lift? Sorry, uh uhh. You've got to be desperate.

Don't believe me?

So, now a question as I conclude: What if you learned that the Savior had already returned to this earth—that He, as part of His Second Coming, had already met with some of His true followers in several marvelous, large gatherings13—gatherings about which the world, including CNN and the blogosphere, knew nothing. If you found out that the Savior was already on the earth, what would you desperately want to do today, and what would you be willing and ready to do tomorrow?

I pray that this year you will have some moments of anguishing desperation that will propel you further along the path to becoming the man or woman you were born to be. Your true self is spectacular! Never settle for less. In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

https://www.LDS.org/broadcasts/article/ ... e?lang=eng

I'm really grateful that Sister Wendy is praying for me to experience anguishing desperation.

[_Themis]

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.

Many is relative but the point is made that they have been made and this is where member's get the idea. I doubt the leadership is so out of touch that they don't know this, yet they are fine with allowing it to survive.

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.

It's certainly an odd issue to get hung up on if one believes in Joseph and the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, etc. I have not really read the CES letter thoroughly, but what in it would challenge the idea that Apostles have not seen God other then the church is not true? I could see someone who is observant with the Apostles come to that idea that they have not seen Jesus.

[_cognitiveharmony]

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.

It's interesting how different individuals are and what they're deal breakers are. I wouldn't have batted an eye at this type of thing back when I still believed. The Book of Abraham on the other hand along with anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, Joseph's uncontrollable libido etc...... those were all deal breakers for me.

Were there any answers that you were able to provide regarding this man's issues that you'd be willing to put up on this board for scrutiny?

[_moinmoin]

Were there any answers that you were able to provide regarding this man's issues that you'd be willing to put up on this board for scrutiny?

Let's see . . . it was a 3+ hour meeting over a year ago, but I'll give you what I remember.

Regarding the Book of Abraham, much of it was similar to what I posted in this long thread:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=33215

I also used Jeff Bradshaw's FAIR conference presentation (Germany, 2009), which has pictures and images (no link; I have a .pdf).

For the Book of Mormon, we discussed several things using my stake/community fireside slides and handout, and I sent links to him so that he could read at leisure.

http://www.fillthenet.com/BoMFF.pdf

http://www.fillthenet.com/BoM_fireside_handout.pdf

Some issues we talked about at length were changes in the Book of Mormon, DNA criticisms, witnesses, translation process, etc.

Polygamy was wide-ranging, and we spent quite a bit of time on that. One thing I showed him to illustrate the importance of actual sources vs. critics' representation of sources was this quote from George D. Smith's "Nauvoo Polygamy:"

It was the summer of 1842 when thirty‐six‐year‐old Joseph Smith, hiding from the law down by the Mississippi River in Illinois, confessed: “My feelings are so strong for you . . .
come and see me in this my lonely retreat . . . now is the time to afford me succour . . . I have a room intirely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect saf[e]ty, I know it is the will of God that you should comfort me.” Three weeks earlier, seventeen‐year‐old Sarah Ann Whitney had secretly become the fourteenth plural wife of Joseph Smith, founder and leader of the millennialist Latter‐day Saints (LDS).

He was quite blown away to see how Smith had manipulated a source to say something quite different from what he had represented. Smith's text above is in red below:

Dear, and Beloved, Brother and Sister, Whitney, and &c.‐‐

I take this oppertunity to communi[c]ate, some of my feelings, privetely at this time, which I want you three Eternaly to keep in your own bosams; for my feelings are so strong for you since what has pased lately between us, that the time of my abscence from you seems so long, and dreary, that it seems, as if I could not live long in this way: and if you three would come and see me in this my lonely retreat, it would afford me great relief, of mind, if those with whom I am alied, do love me, now is the time to afford me succour, in the days of exile, for you know I foretold you of these things. I am now at Carlos Graingers, Just back of Brother Hyrams farm, it is only one mile from town, the nights are very pleasant indeed, all three of you can come and See me in the fore part of the night, let Brother Whitney come a little a head, and nock at the south East corner of the house at the window; it is next to the cornfield, I have a room intirely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect safty, I know it is the will of God that you should comfort me now in this time of afiliction, or not at [al]l[] now is the time or never, but I hav[e] no kneed of saying any such thing, to you, for I know the goodness of your hearts, and that you will do the will of the Lord, when it is made known to you; the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma [Smith] comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty: only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible, I know it is a heroick undertakeing; but so much the greater frendship, and the more Joy, when I see you I will tell you all my plans, I cannot write them on paper, burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it. one thing I want to see you for it is to git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads, &c. you will pardon me for my earnestness on this subject when you consider how lonesome I must be, your good feelings know how to make every allowance for me, I close my letter, I think Emma [Smith, his first wife] wont come tonight[,] if she don't fail to come to night. I subscribe myself your most obedient, and affectionate, companion, and friend.

We talked about average ages of marriage and age differences between grooms and brides during the early Church period, famous and respected historical figures who married teenage wives who were much younger than they were, Richard Bushman's treatment of polyandry, etc.

[_Chap]

the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma [Smith] comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty: only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible, ... I think Emma [Smith, his first wife] wont come tonight[,]

Even unmodified, this part of the text does not, shall we say, show Joseph Smith's character as a husband to its best advantage, does it?

[_cognitiveharmony]

Let's see . . . it was a 3+ hour meeting over a year ago, but I'll give you what I remember.

Regarding the Book of Abraham, much of it was similar to what I posted in this long thread:

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... =1&t=33215

It appears that you fled this thread when asked to provide specifics and answer questions regarding your theories on the Book of Abraham. Any chance you might go back and attempt to justify your theories in this thread?

For the Book of Mormon, we discussed several things using my stake/community fireside slides and handout, and I sent links to him so that he could read at leisure.

http://www.fillthenet.com/BoMFF.pdf

http://www.fillthenet.com/BoM_fireside_handout.pdf

I glanced through these and must say that I found nothing more than the standard vague apologetic mumbo jumbo attempting to assert itself as evidence but never directly engaging valid criticism. I apologize if that sounds harsh but it's precisely how I view these types of apologetics.

Some issues we talked about at length were changes in the Book of Mormon, DNA criticisms, witnesses, translation process, etc.

Polygamy was wide-ranging, and we spent quite a bit of time on that. One thing I showed him to illustrate the importance of actual sources vs. critics' representation of sources was this quote from George D. Smith's "Nauvoo Polygamy:"

It was the summer of 1842 when thirty‐six‐year‐old Joseph Smith, hiding from the law down by the Mississippi River in Illinois, confessed: “My feelings are so strong for you . . .
come and see me in this my lonely retreat . . . now is the time to afford me succour . . . I have a room intirely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect saf[e]ty, I know it is the will of God that you should comfort me.” Three weeks earlier, seventeen‐year‐old Sarah Ann Whitney had secretly become the fourteenth plural wife of Joseph Smith, founder and leader of the millennialist Latter‐day Saints (LDS).

He was quite blown away to see how Smith had manipulated a source to say something quite different from what he had represented. Smith's text above is in red below:

Dear, and Beloved, Brother and Sister, Whitney, and &c.‐‐

I take this oppertunity to communi[c]ate, some of my feelings, privetely at this time, which I want you three Eternaly to keep in your own bosams; for my feelings are so strong for you since what has pased lately between us, that the time of my abscence from you seems so long, and dreary, that it seems, as if I could not live long in this way: and if you three would come and see me in this my lonely retreat, it would afford me great relief, of mind, if those with whom I am alied, do love me, now is the time to afford me succour, in the days of exile, for you know I foretold you of these things. I am now at Carlos Graingers, Just back of Brother Hyrams farm, it is only one mile from town, the nights are very pleasant indeed, all three of you can come and See me in the fore part of the night, let Brother Whitney come a little a head, and nock at the south East corner of the house at the window; it is next to the cornfield, I have a room intirely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect safty, I know it is the will of God that you should comfort me now in this time of afiliction, or not at [al]l[] now is the time or never, but I hav[e] no kneed of saying any such thing, to you, for I know the goodness of your hearts, and that you will do the will of the Lord, when it is made known to you; the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma [Smith] comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty: only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible, I know it is a heroick undertakeing; but so much the greater frendship, and the more Joy, when I see you I will tell you all my plans, I cannot write them on paper, burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it. one thing I want to see you for it is to git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads, &c. you will pardon me for my earnestness on this subject when you consider how lonesome I must be, your good feelings know how to make every allowance for me, I close my letter, I think Emma [Smith, his first wife] wont come tonight[,] if she don't fail to come to night. I subscribe myself your most obedient, and affectionate, companion, and friend.

So after reading the full quote did he still have a problem with this letter and what Joseph was proposing behind Emma's back? I certainly do. This is a very strange letter on it's face. If this is an innocent meeting, why is he hiding it from Emma? Why must the letter be burned? If I myself was planning a rendezvous with a young girl and her parents of which I had convinced to a allow me to marry their daughter.....and hiding it from my wife, I think an appropriate description of me would be POS.

We talked about average ages of marriage and age differences between grooms and brides during the early Church period, famous and respected historical figures who married teenage wives who were much younger than they were, Richard Bushman's treatment of polyandry, etc.

This apologetic has been thrown down repeatedly by critics, did he buy it?

[_SuperDell]

�Twelve Apostles, who are special witnesses of "the name of Jesus Christ," teach the gospel and regulate the affairs of the Church in all parts of the world��

Personally, I am very happy that they can clear this up. Think of all the hours lost to this great debate.

I can not wait for conference. Who will be the first of the 15 to testify that Jesus Christ is really the savior�s name? Once they have said it, then they can get back to their real job �regulate the affairs of the church.�

So I get it, they do not get to see JC anymore, but who told them his real name? I guess they got tired of people asking them if they have seen JC. Now they can simply say �No, I have not seen JC, but I testify to you that his true name is Jesus Christ, in the true name of Jesus Christ, Amen.�

Really? Jesus Christ? Thanks for clearing that up.

I think TSCC [this so called church] needs more of these witnesses, like special witnesses of the name of John the Baptist, and Peter, James, and John special name witnesses. Now everyone can have a calling.

http://www.mrm.org/gospel-principles
Chapter 17-The Church of Jesus Christ Today

----------------------------------------

Joseph Smith did not say he saw Jesus and The Lord, did he? Maybe not till a decade or more after the first vision. It is 'assumed' he did so.

I think I'll be a witness to the name of Eve - because I like the babes.

Be sure to Vote for Governor in Utah this coming election - Owl kickers make good Governors!