Elder Nelson on the new Apostolic "candidate search"

[MikeWaters]

Maybe it was Wallace. But I thought it was King.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

That hardly clarifies the issue at hand, IMO.

I agree...still looking. FWIW, I don't remember what others are referring to.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Adam

I don't buy it. I think as we have shifted from leaders to managers we have replaced visionary types with detail types. And they don't seek or need or desire visions or visitations and so they don't get them. In general anyway.

Yes, I know this is your pet theory, but I really don't think it drives very far.

More likely, in my opinion, is that the world has changed and the church has changed to adapt. One cannot ask these questions in a vacuum. Joseph Smith spoke openly of visions, but he also practiced polygamy, organized the United Order, and made dramatic revisions to the bible. My, how times have changed.

If it served the church (or more accurately, the Lord's design) to speak openly of visions and visitations, I think the leadership would do it. Instead, our approach has changed to best serve the needs of those we are trying to reach.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Adam

This is a very interesting position Tex. It was ok for prophets to share their prophetic experiences from the days of Adam to the days of Joseph F. Smith. Then with the advent of the telephone and radio, it was no longer ok.

Sharing witness of the risen Savior served a purpose throughout all ages, but now that the testimony might be transmitted broadly and recorded for future viewing, it has become innappropriate.

I don't think there's any need to be melodramatic. I don't think the apostles have ceased to share a witness of the risen Savior, they just do it in a different way. You whine about how outdated our missionary methods are, and yet you insist on constancy in this?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't think there's any need to be melodramatic. I don't think the apostles have ceased to share a witness of the risen Savior, they just do it in a different way. You whine about how outdated our missionary methods are, and yet you insist on constancy in this?

Whether your perspective or Adam's is correct, I am uncertain, However, it does seem odd that they no longer claim visions. It would be meaningful for me, as a member, if they did. Their testimonies today seem safe. They may be good detail men, managers of bureaucrats, but inspirations of faith, as opposed to the years of trials and tribulations, is not the first impression.

I see the Apostles as those cloaked with priesthood authority, administrators of regions and file leaders. They don't sound like Paul, Peter, Helaman or Nephi, who actually saw the premortal or risen God and gave a unique witness of His divinity. Perhaps after millenia, a new language of apostolic nature is required, I know not. The old language wasn't so bad.

[MikeWaters]

The skeptic would say that apostles in 2007 are more honest than Joseph F. Smith and earlier.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The skeptic would say that apostles in 2007 are more honest than Joseph F. Smith and earlier.

I hope the skeptic is not correct.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Whether your perspective or Adam's is correct, I am uncertain, However, it does seem odd that they no longer claim visions. It would be meaningful for me, as a member, if they did. Their testimonies today seem safe. They may be good detail men, managers of bureaucrats, but inspirations of faith, as opposed to the years of trials and tribulations, is not the first impression.

I see the Apostles as those cloaked with priesthood authority, administrators of regions and file leaders. They don't sound like Paul, Peter, Helaman or Nephi, who actually saw the premortal or risen God and gave a unique witness of His divinity. Perhaps after millenia, a new language of apostolic nature is required, I know not. The old language wasn't so bad.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems that the number of men who openly and often testify of a personal vision of the risen Christ is an extremely narrow group, even among prophets. All prophets testify of Christ, but what percentage of those we know of, ancient and modern, have publicly and frequently spoken of personal visitations? It would be an interesting study.

As to the current circumstance, here is my theory. As means of travel and communication have become more sophisticated, the world has become smaller and this is for us a two-edged sword. We can reach more people more easily and spread the word more rapidly, but so too can the adversary. I think he has done an excellent job of manufacturing ephiphanies in an effort to confuse the spiritually inexperienced. From Jim Jones to Jimmy Swaggart, Oral Roberts to Pat Robertson, we have a smorgasbord of spiritual manifestations that run the gamut.

It seems wisdom to me that the Lord distinguishes his church from the cacophony, rather than having Gordon try and shout one decibel louder, "No, I have seen the Lord!"

It is not unsual for the Lord to shift tactics in response to the adversary, and funny enough, he knows they are coming and plans for them. The lost 116 pages is the most stark example of this. The Manifesto might be considered another.

Too, it is not unusal to see evolution in prophetic methodology. Joseph at the beginning was heavily dependant on Urim and Thummim to receive revelation, and performed his duties of translation on physical plates. Just a few years later, he is correcting errors in the Bible sans physical helpers, and by the end of his life receiving revelation was as natural as breathing.

So, it doesn't bother me too much to not have many road-to-Damascus-style declarations of the living Christ. I have the reassurance that God still lives, still speaks to his prophet, and still guides his church.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Tex

Maybe it's just me, but it seems that the number of men who openly and often testify of a personal vision of the risen Christ is an extremely narrow group, even among prophets. All prophets testify of Christ, but what percentage of those we know of, ancient and modern, have publicly and frequently spoken of personal visitations? It would be an interesting study.

As to the current circumstance, here is my theory. As means of travel and communication have become more sophisticated, the world has become smaller and this is for us a two-edged sword. We can reach more people more easily and spread the word more rapidly, but so too can the adversary. I think he has done an excellent job of manufacturing ephiphanies in an effort to confuse the spiritually inexperienced. From Jim Jones to Jimmy Swaggart, Oral Roberts to Pat Robertson, we have a smorgasbord of spiritual manifestations that run the gamut.

It seems wisdom to me that the Lord distinguishes his church from the cacophony, rather than having Gordon try and shout one decibel louder, "No, I have seen the Lord!"

It is not unsual for the Lord to shift tactics in response to the adversary, and funny enough, he knows they are coming and plans for them. The lost 116 pages is the most stark example of this. The Manifesto might be considered another.

Too, it is not unusal to see evolution in prophetic methodology. Joseph at the beginning was heavily dependant on Urim and Thummim to receive revelation, and performed his duties of translation on physical plates. Just a few years later, he is correcting errors in the Bible sans physical helpers, and by the end of his life receiving revelation was as natural as breathing.

So, it doesn't bother me too much to not have many road-to-Damascus-style declarations of the living Christ. I have the reassurance that God still lives, still speaks to his prophet, and still guides his church.

I don't know about the lost 116 pages. I think if Randy Marsh's family hadn't hit that road block he and his family would have become mormons. Kartman then would have had a mormon and a Jew to ridicule.