How is an apostle's witness different, special?

[_moinmoin]

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?

I didn't flee anything. After 17 pages, the thread had run its course (as all threads do). The tone of this board was a bit different then --- there was a lot of wistfulness about the lack of faithful LDS here, but at the same time, a complete lack of respect and decorum when any happened to venture here. It's changed for the better over the last couple of years in this regard, in my view, and I'm not sure exactly why.

I feel that many of my points were pooh-poohed in a very cursory manner. For example, the Ali Radwan dissertation I cited was immediately met by scorn by people who had no intention of actually reading it. Granted, it is in German, but the manner in which it and other things were immediately dismissed out of hand led me to just let it go after the "bumps" became more and more frequent. Especially when there didn't appear to be any real intent to engage in good faith.

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.

That's not harsh at all. That's how it goes. Your mileage may vary. Void where prohibited. Not available in all states.

Others, including others with questions and people who also are thinkers, see it differently, and it works for some while not working for others.

I can't help but notice how you described this, though. You "glanced through these" and "found nothing more than the standard vague apologetic mumbo jumbo attempting to assert itself as evidence but never directly engaging valid criticism." Not only is that also how "the other side" often feels about evidence that you and others think is self-evident, but it also lets you feel a little of what I did during that long Book of Abraham thread. If many others were trying to "hold your feet to the fire" and kept "bumping for comment" and ridiculing perceived response times, would you personally consider yourself to be "fleeing" the thread, if, after 17 pages, you let it go? Of course you wouldn't.

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.

As the letter makes clear, he is talking in the letter about sealing the Whitneys to Joseph Smith (the "whole matter" referred to followed his sealing to Sarah Ann three weeks prior). Smith uses it to make it appear to be a clandestine sexual tryst, and that is patently obvious by comparing his ellipsed quote with the full letter. This made quite an impression on him, and caused him to approach critics' use of sources more skeptically.

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

Yes. Interestingly, as I said, his real sticking point ended up being the issue of personal visitations and apostles. His other doubts and concerns from Runnels were greatly improved, it seemed to me. I know that he was actively serving and attending later in the year, and he is able to talk about issues with his wife, which helps.

[_I have a question]

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?

I didn't flee anything.

Yep, you did.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=33215&p=959987#p959987

[_Themis]

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?

I didn't flee anything. After 17 pages, the thread had run its course (as all threads do). The tone of this board was a bit different then --- there was a lot of wistfulness about the lack of faithful LDS here, but at the same time, a complete lack of respect and decorum when any happened to venture here. It's changed for the better over the last couple of years in this regard, in my view, and I'm not sure exactly why.

My experience is that believers have been treated well by most here, but there are always a few characters who don't on a site that allows free speech. It creates an equal footing that favors the better arguments. Those who argue the facts usually have the most fun and stick around. I know DCP back in the day loved to go to some Christian sites just because he enjoyed a site with poor thinking and arguments. Easy to get the upper hand. This is why most apologists will not get involved with Book of Abraham topics on a site like this. The few who do always have to run away. It really is the smoking gun for those who take the time to understand the whole issue.

You brought up DNA and the Book of Mormon. It represents huge pieces of evidence against the Book of Mormon, but very few have taken the time to understand why. It sounds like this individual has not taken the time to understand the main issues such that he is easily influenced by some of the poor or dishonest information that you will see from critics and apologists. Most may read some critic or apologetic material and think the information is all accurate.

[_moinmoin]

My experience is that believers have been treated well by most here, but there are always a few characters who don't on a site that allows free speech.

I can't complain about my treatment here. Would you agree, though, that the overall tone and "behavior" of this board is better now than it was a couple of years ago (or earlier)? That's my impression, but this may be just a Meinungsache.

You brought up DNA and the Book of Mormon. It represents huge pieces of evidence against the Book of Mormon, but very few have taken the time to understand why. It sounds like this individual has not taken the time to understand the main issues such that he is easily influenced by some of the poor or dishonest information that you will see from critics and apologists. Most may read some critic or apologetic material and think the information is all accurate.

I would agree with that assessment about that individual.

[_moinmoin]

I didn't flee anything.

Yep, you did.

Classy, as always.

Why did you change your name to I have a question?

[_grindael]

The so called Apostolic Witness was to actually SEE GOD and TESTIFY that they had and their calling was not complete until they had done so. Now, Mormon authorities do not want to be caught in lies, so they just avoid the question or word their answers ambiguously, or just claim that it is "too sacred".

[_grindael]

Or they will claim that a "spiritual witness" like having FEELINGS, is GREATER than a vision of seeing God.

[_deacon blues]

The word 'apostle' derives from a Greek word meaning 'one sent forth' or 'messenger'. Just my two bits worth.

[_Nightlion]

All the Jews who believed after the Lord was resurrected and was seen of them for forty days did NOT become legal apostles by that experience. By legal or authentic I mean having received the testimony of Jesus given to you on the apostolic level that holds you accountable before God and accountable to all the world to bear witness of the truth. That is a pure revelation by the power of the Holy Ghost that seals this witness and obligation upon those whom the Lord has SENT.

That is what apostle means. To be sent. And that by the commandment of God. You might get called and confirmed a member of the quorum of the twelve. But you need at least two things. One is to hear the commandment of God that sends you out into the world. And the other is after you obey and go out and do what ever it was the Lord put upon you, after that the power of the Holy Ghost will come to you and put upon you the burden of an actual apostleship. You are now responsible to bear witness unto all the world in all places and at all times of the Name of Jesus Christ. And that means you must preach his gospel correctly, having done so correctly yourself, and that before you were sent in the first place.

Actually seeing Jesus or having his hand put upon you does not enhance the virtue of having been sent by the commandment of God and then receiving the witness of Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Ghost making you an apostle, which comes after you have already proven your determination to serve him at all hazards.

Problems for the LDS Church and its apostles:

The gospel is not taught sufficiently to lead anyone to actually accomplish it. There is no competent, been there, done that, exegesis showing exactly what is and what is NOT receiving the gospel. Lacking such would prove none of them understands the scriptures in the least and certainly not by actual experience. And such is the reason for dead silence about the actual baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost. So how do you even begin to find a candidate whom God might SEND? Rather the LDS call men unwashed and confer upon them the apostleship. Thus making for heady high-mindedness that never will be meek and contrite sufficient to come unto Christ with full purpose of heart that the Father might put the name of Christ upon them in the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost.*

This is why you have not one true apostle among them. All they can do is build up their church and deny the Lord and his gospel in favor of their own works. And therefore let them have all the awe of what they have made. Whoopie!

*I am harping almost exclusively now upon the fact that without the gift and power of the Holy Ghost, although the priesthood can be conferred upon you, if you never did qualify with obtaining the gift and power of the Holy Ghost having received the promise of the Father in the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost, then all priesthood is without efficacy virtue or force. Unless or until you do repent of the pride of the world and receive the name of Christ put upon you. So just like you lose your priesthood when the Spirit is grieved and withdraws, so too your priesthood is of no use if and when you never got the power of the Spirit to begin with.

The only proof needed that this seriously is the case would be the fact that the gospel is not taught such that following LDS leadership in this regard people are being truly visited of the Father's promise in the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost. Find the text and manual and lesson material anywhere since the LDS Church was organized that competently, aside from scripture rightly understood, that proves gospel competence. A catch 22. A stunning indictment. What's been going on. Obviously men have been about their own thing.

Now, ask yourself why it is that I always harp on the same thing............the only thing that matters?

[_Themis]

My experience is that believers have been treated well by most here, but there are always a few characters who don't on a site that allows free speech.

I can't complain about my treatment here. Would you agree, though, that the overall tone and "behavior" of this board is better now than it was a couple of years ago (or earlier)? That's my impression, but this may be just a Meinungsache.

Not really. Most of the tone has been the same now and then. It may be a few characters who come and go who give an incorrect impression of the whole.

I would agree with that assessment about that individual.

It's somewhat common, and I suffer from it as well. I brought up DNA because it is one even most critics don't really know how devastating it is to the Book of Mormon being about a real people. Most of them may not even understand it is the biggest piece of evidence against ancient Israelite's. Apologia glosses over the issue focusing on trying to create doubt in the science. It's understandable because it is the most complicated of all the sciences in regards to LDS truth claims, so most will not take the time to understand it.