cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board - Elder Nelson on the new Apostolic "candidate search"

- 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)

Elder Nelson on the new Apostolic "candidate search"

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RC Vikings (Post 121772)

I think they are synonomous. I know of no non-apostles that are known as special witnesses of Christ.

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."

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by UtahDan (Post 121805)

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.

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.

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.

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.