cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board (http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/index.php)
-   Religion (http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Elder Nelson on the new Apostolic "candidate search" (http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11667)

Indy Coug 09-10-2007 04:31 PM
Elder Nelson on the new Apostolic "candidate search"
 
http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=2979366

RC Vikings 09-10-2007 04:50 PM
What does it intel to be a special witness of the name of Jesus Christ? Is their a very small pool of men that fit into this description or would you not become one until you are called to be an apostle?

MikeWaters 09-10-2007 04:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RC Vikings (Post 121772)
What does it intel to be a special witness of the name of Jesus Christ? Is their a very small pool of men that fit into this description or would you not become one until you are called to be an apostle?
I think they are synonomous. I know of no non-apostles that are known as special witnesses of Christ.

Tex 09-10-2007 05:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam (Post 121800)
I don't think GBH has ever claimed to be an actual witness. Anyone know?
I'm not aware of any modern apostle in the last decade making this claim, and I think appropriately so. Given how much the worldwide presence and reach of the church has grown these last many years, I think there's sage advice in Packer's counsel that such things "are not to be made currency of."

UtahDan 09-10-2007 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam (Post 121800)
The "requirement" to have a personal witness (i.e. actual personal visitation from the Lord himself) was clear in Joseph's day, but not a prereq. Men were called into the Apostleship without having being witnesses, but they were told that their ordination was not complete until they had actually had the visitation.

The Church stopped talking about this requirement during the lifetime of Heber J. Grant who felt insecure because he never had the visitation.

Today there is no requirement to be an actual witness, although I don't doubt some of them are actual witnesses. But all of them claim to be "special witnesses" because of their calling--it has nothing to do with what they have actually witnessed.

This is in contrast to the NT church who replaced Judas with someone who had to be an actual witness. Paul wouldn't have had much credibility without his vision of the Lord.

I don't think GBH has ever claimed to be an actual witness. Anyone know?
I think there have been a number of prophets/apostles in the last 50 years who have made statement which COULD be interpreted as meaning they had. Since the early leaders in this dispensation, as well as prophets in other eras, were very matter of fact about heavenly visitation I have a hard time with the most common explanation which is that "these things are too sacred to discuss." I'm not saying that can't be true, just that I don't know why it was not true previously.

I guess I don't know what a special witness is. I am a witness of Christ. My witness is a spiritual one. I have never seen Him or heard His voice, yet I believe that I have felt his love, comfort and influence. So what makes one a witness "special?" One could assume that it is a physical witness, in other words, one who has literally seen. But if that is true, then why not just come out and say so?

MikeWaters 09-10-2007 05:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by UtahDan (Post 121805)
I think there have been a number of prophets/apostles in the last 50 years who have made statement which COULD be interpreted as meaning they had. Since the early leaders in this dispensation, as well as prophets in other eras, were very matter of fact about heavenly visitation I have a hard time with the most common explanation which is that "these things are too sacred to discuss." I'm not saying that can't be true, just that I don't know why it was not true previously.

I guess I don't know what a special witness is. I am a witness of Christ. My witness is a spiritual one. I have never seen Him or heard His voice, yet I believe that I have felt his love, comfort and influence. So what makes one a witness "special?" One could assume that it is a physical witness, in other words, one who has literally seen. But if that is true, then why not just come out and say so?
So the non-witness apostles don't feel bad.

Wasn't it BKP that was so appalled when a member asked him if he had seen Christ?

I've heard GBH say that revelation comes to him through the Spirit. He said it was the same to him, basically as it was to any faithful member, as to process.

Indy Coug 09-10-2007 05:37 PM
At the bare minimum, they are special witnesses simply due to their calling and the priesthood keys they hold. That still holds regardless of whether or not they've seen Christ in the flesh.

Tex 09-10-2007 05:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by UtahDan (Post 121805)
I guess I don't know what a special witness is. I am a witness of Christ. My witness is a spiritual one. I have never seen Him or heard His voice, yet I believe that I have felt his love, comfort and influence. So what makes one a witness "special?" One could assume that it is a physical witness, in other words, one who has literally seen. But if that is true, then why not just come out and say so?
I'm not sure if a scriptural definition of the term has ever been offered, though I have always assumed it to mean as you said.

ChinoCoug 09-10-2007 05:43 PM
When Elder Scott spoke to us in DC, he all but said it.

McConkie all but said it too.

I also don't know why they don't just go ahead and say it. I have complete confidence in the Brethren as honest people, so it would strengthen my testimony if it did.

MikeWaters 09-10-2007 05:44 PM
who was the last GA to say it?

UtahDan 09-10-2007 05:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeWaters (Post 121809)
So the non-witness apostles don't feel bad.

Wasn't it BKP that was so appalled when a member asked him if he had seen Christ?

I've heard GBH say that revelation comes to him through the Spirit. He said it was the same to him, basically as it was to any faithful member, as to process.
Was BKP really appalled by that or is that Mormon lore? I would be surprised if any apostle were really appalled by that question. When your title is special witness and you are sustained as a prophet, seer and revelator I think it is one of the most natural questions in the world.

Now, that said, I can see a kind and patient leader explaining why it is a question he declines to answer. I can't see why it would be one he would take offense at. I would be surprised if the story were true.

My understanding of what GBH has said is exactly what yours is.

UtahDan 09-10-2007 05:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indy Coug (Post 121812)
At the bare minimum, they are special witnesses simply due to their calling and the priesthood keys they hold. That still holds regardless of whether or not they've seen Christ in the flesh.
Why would baring the mantle and holding the keys make them a "special" witness. I give "special" its ordinary meaning, to-wit: unlike other witnesses.

Tex 09-10-2007 05:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by UtahDan (Post 121827)
Why would baring the mantle and holding the keys make them a "special" witness. I give "special" its ordinary meaning, to-wit: unlike other witnesses.
Does not holding keys no one else holds make them unlike other witnesses?

Indy Coug 09-10-2007 05:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by UtahDan (Post 121827)
Why would baring the mantle and holding the keys make them a "special" witness. I give "special" its ordinary meaning, to-wit: unlike other witnesses.
Personally, it's my belief that most, if not all, of the Apostles have seen Christ in the flesh.

Why they don't explicitly state that fact is a very good question.

Tex 09-10-2007 06:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indy Coug (Post 121837)
Personally, it's my belief that most, if not all, of the Apostles have seen Christ in the flesh.

Why they don't explicitly state that fact is a very good question.
I'm going to guess that it's based on the same principle as what's in D&C 10:37 and 11:22. To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven (thank you Ecclesiates and the Byrds) and now is not the time for our fifteen leaders to march throughout the earth claiming they have personally seen Jesus.

But someday, I expect that time will come.

UtahDan 09-10-2007 06:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex (Post 121835)
Does not holding keys no one else holds make them unlike other witnesses?
Sure, but they could all get matching tattoos and that would make them unlike other witnesses as well. I'm inferring that you think the answer to your question is yes. Why would holding keys, of itself, change the quality of witness they are? That was where I wasn't understanding you.

MikeWaters 09-10-2007 06:12 PM
I would love to do a film, starring Woody Allen, as newly called apostle, who frets mightily about whether he is adequate, and whether he has received or will receive a "special witness." It would be very funny.

UtahDan 09-10-2007 06:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indy Coug (Post 121837)
Personally, it's my belief that most, if not all, of the Apostles have seen Christ in the flesh.

Why they don't explicitly state that fact is a very good question.
I agree, it is an interesting question. I think that based upon what they themselves have said one could justifiably reach the conclusion that they all have or none of them have.

I don't honestly have enough information to form an opinion as to whether they all have or any of them have. I do believe that collectively they are guided by inspiration. I have no idea whether that takes the form of heavenly visitations. I think we are given to believe that they struggle to receive inspiration in much the same way most of us do. Maybe heavenly visitation is a reward and has nothing to do with revelation, which happens by a different process. I just don't know.

UtahDan 09-10-2007 06:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeWaters (Post 121847)
I would love to do a film, starring Woody Allen, as newly called apostle, who frets mightily about whether he is adequate, and whether he has received or will receive a "special witness." It would be very funny.
I'm sure it is a poor reflection on me, but I wouldn't want to see the Lord. I'm in the group that would rather have the mountain placed on top of me so I could hide. I just don't think I would be comfortable in His presence. Maybe I'm wrong.

MikeWaters 09-10-2007 06:14 PM
haven't there been many cases in the scriptures in which people received heavenly visitation and were instructed to tell no one?

MikeWaters 09-10-2007 06:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by UtahDan (Post 121850)
I'm sure it is a poor reflection on me, but I wouldn't want to see the Lord. I'm in the group that would rather have the mountain placed on top of me so I could hide. I just don't think I would be comfortable in His presence. Maybe I'm wrong.
I might be with you. But I have to say, if I were suddenly called to be an apostle, I might feel a little better about it, if I had a pretty definitive testimony-strengthening event.

ChinoCoug 09-10-2007 06:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by UtahDan (Post 121849)
I agree, it is an interesting question. I think that based upon what they themselves have said one could justifiably reach the conclusion that they all have or none of them have.
From listening to them, it appears that individual ones have, but they don't know whether the other ones have or not. E. Scott said something to the extent of "I can't speak for the others."

Tex 09-10-2007 06:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by UtahDan (Post 121844)
Sure, but they could all get matching tattoos and that would make them unlike other witnesses as well. I'm inferring that you think the answer to your question is yes. Why would holding keys, of itself, change the quality of witness they are? That was where I wasn't understanding you.
I'm just stabbing in the dark here, but here's my thoughts on the concept.

"Witness" isn't just a noun, it's also a verb. We've heard the talks before indicating the Greek meaning of term apostle is "one who is sent forth." Thus, the calling of an apostle is to go forth in the name of Jesus and "witness," or testify of his doctrine. The priesthood keys which he holds are emblematic of that "special" commission ... an assignment which no one else can claim or fill. Every member a missionary yes, but an apostle is laid with a particular charge and a responsibility that exceeds a "normal" witness.

That said, I re-emphasize that I have always accepted the meaning of "special witness" to mean a supernatural visitation.

Indy Coug 09-10-2007 06:23 PM
Well, if they haven't even shared this with one another, that probably explains why most of us have no clue about it either.

Jeff Lebowski 09-10-2007 06:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex (Post 121863)
That said, I re-emphasize that I have always accepted the meaning of "special witness" to mean a supernatural visitation.
I don't understand this line of thought. The term "special" could mean a lot of different things here. Sounds like unfounded speculation.

UtahDan 09-10-2007 06:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex (Post 121863)
I'm just stabbing in the dark here, but here's my thoughts on the concept.

"Witness" isn't just a noun, it's also a verb. We've heard the talks before indicating the Greek meaning of term apostle is "one who is sent forth." Thus, the calling of an apostle is to go forth in the name of Jesus and "witness," or testify of his doctrine. The priesthood keys which he holds are emblematic of that "special" commission ... an assignment which no one else can claim or fill. Every member a missionary yes, but an apostle is laid with a particular charge and a responsibility that exceeds a "normal" witness.

That said, I re-emphasize that I have always accepted the meaning of "special witness" to mean a supernatural visitation.
I see. You mean in the sense that one has a special obligation to be a witness. I can get on board with that. Still, as you say, I think the most obvious meaning (and really a condition precedent to the obligation we are talking about more than likely) is a heavenly visitation. This highlights the irony of being hush hush about it.

Its like me asking you what Indianapolis is like, and you declining to admit you have ever been.

Maybe it is what is being suggested in the thread. Some have, some haven't.

jay santos 09-10-2007 06:33 PM
I was rebuked in a priesthood leadership training session for questioning someone who asserted that special witness = seeing Christ and that all the apostles had seen Christ. I wasn't being a jerk about it and they weren't really a jerk about it either, just made me out to look a little faithless in front of others. I felt vindicated when Pres. Hinckley basically said point blank he had never seen Jesus.

Indy Coug 09-10-2007 06:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay santos (Post 121880)
I felt vindicated when Pres. Hinckley basically said point blank he had never seen Jesus.

Link?

Tex 09-10-2007 06:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski (Post 121872)
I don't understand this line of thought. The term "special" could mean a lot of different things here. Sounds like unfounded speculation.
I don't know about "unfounded," but it is certainly speculation. Which is why I said this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex (Post 121863)
I'm just stabbing in the dark here ...

jay santos 09-10-2007 06:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indy Coug (Post 121882)
Link?
The same reference others in this thread are making to GBH. It was recently. Possibly last conference?

You didn't think that's what he was saying? Or you don't remember the talk?

Indy Coug 09-10-2007 06:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay santos (Post 121886)
The same reference others in this thread are making to GBH. It was recently. Possibly last conference?

You didn't think that's what he was saying? Or you don't remember the talk?
I have no clue what you're referring to, so I was curious to read his comments.

SteelBlue 09-10-2007 07:14 PM
Special, to me, does not require an actual visitation. It could simply mean that with the mantle of the apostolic calling comes a stronger witness. It could simply mean that it is the actual calling that makes them a special witness. I'm with Santos, I cringe a bit when people state as a matter of fact that an apostle has seen Christ. Until one of them tells me that, I won't be assuming that special=visitation.

jay santos 09-10-2007 07:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay santos (Post 121880)
I was rebuked in a priesthood leadership training session for questioning someone who asserted that special witness = seeing Christ and that all the apostles had seen Christ. I wasn't being a jerk about it and they weren't really a jerk about it either, just made me out to look a little faithless in front of others. I felt vindicated when Pres. Hinckley basically said point blank he had never seen Jesus.
Can someone help me out with the reference I'm thinking? It's the same one Waters and others have mentioned in this thread. I'd like to reread the talk, but now I can't find it looking through conference editions at lds.org. I thought it was real recent.

MikeWaters 09-10-2007 07:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay santos (Post 121917)
Can someone help me out with the reference I'm thinking? It's the same one Waters and others have mentioned in this thread. I'd like to reread the talk, but now I can't find it looking through conference editions at lds.org. I thought it was real recent.
What I am remembering is that Larry King asked GBH if he had seen Jesus, and GBH made a reply that he received inspiration through the Holy Ghost, and by implication (I think) not by direct revelation man to man (God to man in person).

I can't remember if he outright refuted it or just refuted it in an implied way.

Indy Coug 09-10-2007 07:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeWaters (Post 121920)
What I am remembering is that Larry King asked GBH if he had seen Jesus, and GBH made a reply that he received inspiration through the Holy Ghost, and by implication (I think) not by direct revelation man to man (God to man in person).

I can't remember if he outright refuted it or just refuted it in an implied way.
Based on that description, it sounds like a complete non-answer.

UtahDan 09-10-2007 07:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indy Coug (Post 121921)
Based on that description, it sounds like a complete non-answer.
This might be it:

KING: When you pray, what is that? What's occurring? Are you talking to God? You're a prophet, so God talks to you.

HINCKLEY: I'm talking to God, yes. I do pray. Of course I do.

KING: What do you do when they're not answered?

HINCKLEY: Well, they are answered, but not always just the way you'd want them.

KING: Sometimes it's no.

HINCKLEY: Sometimes it's no.

MikeWaters 09-10-2007 07:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indy Coug (Post 121921)
Based on that description, it sounds like a complete non-answer.
I did a very quick google search, but couldn't come up with it. I'm sure the transcript is on the web somewhere.

MikeWaters 09-10-2007 07:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by UtahDan (Post 121926)
This might be it:

KING: When you pray, what is that? What's occurring? Are you talking to God? You're a prophet, so God talks to you.

HINCKLEY: I'm talking to God, yes. I do pray. Of course I do.

KING: What do you do when they're not answered?

HINCKLEY: Well, they are answered, but not always just the way you'd want them.

KING: Sometimes it's no.

HINCKLEY: Sometimes it's no.
that's not it. King asked something equivalent to "have you seen Jesus or God"

Indy Coug 09-10-2007 07:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by UtahDan (Post 121926)
This might be it:

KING: When you pray, what is that? What's occurring? Are you talking to God? You're a prophet, so God talks to you.

HINCKLEY: I'm talking to God, yes. I do pray. Of course I do.

KING: What do you do when they're not answered?

HINCKLEY: Well, they are answered, but not always just the way you'd want them.

KING: Sometimes it's no.

HINCKLEY: Sometimes it's no.

That hardly clarifies the issue at hand, IMO.


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:23 PM.
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.