Do modern apostles no longer get visits from The Savior?

[Tom]

Fun fact about malkie: during a Saturday morning breakfast meeting with a GA, I told him a joke about Scottish weather. The next day he misquoted me in his conference talk, totally mangling the joke

I’m stunned. Who was the general authority and did he credit you in a footnote in the version of the talk published in the Ensign?

[malkie]

Fun fact about malkie: during a Saturday morning breakfast meeting with a GA, I told him a joke about Scottish weather. The next day he misquoted me in his conference talk, totally mangling the joke

I’m stunned. Who was the general authority and did he credit you in a footnote in the version of the talk published in the Ensign?

I'll need to try to look it up, Tom - it was many years ago, in Scotland. I'm not sure if it's even available online at all.

ETA: apparently it was in June 1976 - one of a series of British Area General Conferences presided over by Pres Kimball. I'm still trying to find a record of the conference.

[Tom]

I’m stunned. Who was the general authority and did he credit you in a footnote in the version of the talk published in the Ensign?

I'll need to try to look it up, Tom - it was many years ago, in Scotland. I'm not sure if it's even available online at all.

ETA: apparently it was in June 1976 - one of a series of British Area General Conferences presided over by Pres Kimball. I'm still trying to find a record of the conference.

Thank you. I found a report on the area conferences in the August 1976 Ensign. The Church News of 26 June 1976 also had some coverage (although the joke wasn’t noted).

[MG 2.0]

So what if Bruce R. didn't give that talk that implied maybe he had seen Jesus? What would MG say then?

MG just works backwards from whatever he's got. If nobody claimed to see Jesus, they'd still be proof of Jesus. If one person claimed to see Jesus, we can assume the rest did also. If all of them claimed to see Jesus, that would prove that they did, but no more so than if none of them claimed it or only one did.

The problem is that throughout history and even in the modern era…and in fact during Joseph Smith’s growing up years and his prophetic years…people have made claims to seeing or experiencing Jesus Christ at a deeper level than the everyday Tom, Dick, or Harry. Maybe they did and maybe they didn’t. It does become somewhat confusing to determine if any one or none of them are sharing an objective truth, doesn’t it?

Sometimes we may even take the position that it’s all or nothing. Or nothing at all to begin with.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

So what if Bruce R. didn't give that talk that implied maybe he had seen Jesus? What would MG say then?

MG just works backwards from whatever he's got. If nobody claimed to see Jesus, they'd still be proof of Jesus. If one person claimed to see Jesus, we can assume the rest did also. If all of them claimed to see Jesus, that would prove that they did, but no more so than if none of them claimed it or only one did.

The problem is that throughout history and even in the modern era…and in fact during Joseph Smith’s growing up years and his prophetic years…people have made claims to seeing or experiencing Jesus Christ at a deeper level than the everyday Tom, Dick, or Harry. Maybe they did and maybe they didn’t. It does become somewhat confusing to determine if any one or none of them are sharing an objective truth, doesn’t it?

Sometimes we may even take the position that it’s all or nothing. Or nothing at all to begin with.

There have indeed been a lot of people who say they’ve seen Jesus. But MG, I think your quote function must have misfired, because it’s pretty obvious that saying a bunch of folks have claimed to see Jesus has nothing to do with Gadianton’s suggestion that you seem to be retrofitting your foregone conclusion to fit whatever facts are reported.

[MG 2.0]

So what if Bruce R. didn't give that talk that implied maybe he had seen Jesus? What would MG say then?

MG just works backwards from whatever he's got. If nobody claimed to see Jesus, they'd still be proof of Jesus. If one person claimed to see Jesus, we can assume the rest did also. If all of them claimed to see Jesus, that would prove that they did, but no more so than if none of them claimed it or only one did.

The problem is that throughout history and even in the modern era…and in fact during Joseph Smith’s growing up years and his prophetic years…people have made claims to seeing or experiencing Jesus Christ at a deeper level than the everyday Tom, Dick, or Harry. Maybe they did and maybe they didn’t. It does become somewhat confusing to determine if any one or none of them are sharing an objective truth, doesn’t it?

Sometimes we may even take the position that it’s all or nothing. Or nothing at all to begin with.

There have indeed been a lot of people who say they’ve seen Jesus. But MG, I think your quote function must have misfired, because it’s pretty obvious that saying a bunch of folks have claimed to see Jesus has nothing to do with Gadianton’s suggestion that you seem to be retrofitting your foregone conclusion to fit whatever facts are reported.

I was going off this comment Gadianton made:

If one person claimed to see Jesus, we can assume the rest did also. If all of them claimed to see Jesus, that would prove that they did, but no more so than if none of them claimed it or only one did.

To me, it seems as though there might be some folks that are on the “all or nothing” train. I’m looking to see if that is the train he is on.

You?

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

I'll need to try to look it up, Tom - it was many years ago, in Scotland. I'm not sure if it's even available online at all.

ETA: apparently it was in June 1976 - one of a series of British Area General Conferences presided over by Pres Kimball. I'm still trying to find a record of the conference.

Thank you. I found a report on the area conferences in the August 1976 Ensign. The Church News of 26 June 1976 also had some coverage (although the joke wasn’t noted).

Of course, none of the Scots there would have recognized what was said as a joke. The original is also pretty lame

From what I remember, almost 50 years later, I told Elder Whatsisname:

They say that the west of Scotland has the best climate in the world. It's just a pity that the weather is lousy all the time.

In conference, it came out something like:

A member of one of the district presidencies told me that the weather here is terrible in spite of the climate.

Anyway, my main claim to (Mormon) fame is having been misquoted in a general conference by a GA. Unfortunately it's not the kind of fame that you can take to the bank.

[MG 2.0]

Thank you. I found a report on the area conferences in the August 1976 Ensign. The Church News of 26 June 1976 also had some coverage (although the joke wasn’t noted).

Of course, none of the Scots there would have recognized what was said as a joke. The original is also pretty lame

From what I remember, almost 50 years later, I told Elder Whatsisname:

They say that the west of Scotland has the best climate in the world. It's just a pity that the weather is lousy all the time.

In conference, it came out something like:

A member of one of the district presidencies told me that the weather here is terrible in spite of the climate.

Anyway, my main claim to (Mormon) fame is having been misquoted in a general conference by a GA. Unfortunately it's not the kind of fame that you can take to the bank.

Good memory!

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

There have indeed been a lot of people who say they’ve seen Jesus. But MG, I think your quote function must have misfired, because it’s pretty obvious that saying a bunch of folks have claimed to see Jesus has nothing to do with Gadianton’s suggestion that you seem to be retrofitting your foregone conclusion to fit whatever facts are reported.

I was going off this comment Gadianton made:

If one person claimed to see Jesus, we can assume the rest did also. If all of them claimed to see Jesus, that would prove that they did, but no more so than if none of them claimed it or only one did.

To me, it seems as though there might be some folks that are on the “all or nothing” train. I’m looking to see if that is the train he is on.

Ah, I see. Maybe you should just ask him.

[Gadianton]

To me, it seems as though there might be some folks that are on the “all or nothing” train. I’m looking to see if that is the train he is on.

Not at all. I think Morley nailed it immediately on the first post.

Let's break down my statement.

If one person claimed to see Jesus, we can assume the rest did also.

^^^the position MG took in this thread.

If all of them claimed to see Jesus, that would prove that they did,

^^^IF MG is so impressed with Bruce R's borderline possible admission that he saw Jesus in the flesh, imagine if all of the apostle's testified with confidence that they saw the resurrected Christ? Yes, MG would be VERY impressed. He would not be saying that, "anyone can claim to see Jesus"; his way to escape the burden of the apostle's call, because he already has demonstrated how impressed he is with Bruce R's near admission. If you think anyone can make it up, why did you so enthusiastically recommend Bruce R's testimony?

but no more so than if none of them claimed it or

Given that the apostles haven't all testified to Christ in the flesh, MG finds its exactly just as good however things are now, with only one, Bruce R. confessing it. As he said, if Bruce R. did, we can reason all of them probably have.

But most importantly, what if Bruce R. didn't give that testimony? Well, that wouldn't be a problem at all for MG, he'd just go back to saying "anyone can can claim to have seen Jesus" and so it doesn't matter. We can still believe just as firmly that all of the apostles probably have.

Whatever the state of things as MG sees it right this second is the best possible state of the world for believing.

---" you seem to be retrofitting your foregone conclusion to fit whatever facts are reported." -- Morley