- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
SilentDawning wrote:
Someone said that our time is one of the grandest in human history and that people will “bow at our feet when they find out we lived in the time of Gordon B. Hinckley” or something like that.
I believe that “the brethren” have also been trying to quietly downplay the idea of degrees of worthiness among the spirit children of our Heavenly Father. This has been used to explain why some persons are born into such difficult situations while others are born into such privilege (both materially and access to the gospel). Even now the idea that black persons were less valiant in the pre-mortal life remains a stubborn part of our collective church culture. This idea is offensive to many and some have been working towards getting an official repudiation of the idea from church HQ (even though they now have a second opportunity/estate in which improve their eternal situation). Elder Oaks interview on the Priesthood Ban is a great example of the damage control on this issue.Elder Oaks wrote:If you read the scriptures with this question in mind, “Why did the Lord Command this or why did the Lord command that?” you find that in less than one in a hundred commands was any reason given. It’s not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We can put reason to revelation. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do we are on our own. Some people put reasons to the one we’re talking about here, and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that. The lesson I’ve drawn is that I decided a long time ago that I had faith in the command and I had no faith in the reasons that had been suggested for it.
When asked if the reasons he was talking about include reasons given by GA’s, Elder Oaks responded in part, “The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent.”The story you are referring to takes the same concept, just from the other angle. Instead of some being “less valiant,” we must have been super valiant. Instead of some periods of time being depositories for persons of limited potential, we are so great that we live in the dispensation of the fullness of times. We are apparently so awesome that Nephi and Abraham will “bow at our feet.” I think the repudiation of varying degrees of worthiness among the pre-mortal host of heaven is difficult (there are scripture references that can be used to buttress this idea), but this “faith promoting rumor” took it to a level that was scary.
SilentDawning wrote:I’m curious what you think about this one. There is this underlying or implied belief that the Apostles have all seen Christ. They are called “Special Witnesses”. Based on your own experiences in the Church,
do you believe this is true?And is it a necessary condition of being an Apostlethat you actually see Christ as some point? Or is the Special Witness concept simply open to parsingor interpreted as having symbolic meaning? No, Yes, No. I wouldn’t expect them to stop calling themselves apostles after they’ve already been doing it for so long but they definitely look very different from the way apostles are described in the New Testament. The traditionally accepted apostles were supposed to be witnesses of Christ (Acts 1:21-26). Paul was literally saying that he saw Jesus after he had died (1 Corinthians 15:3-10). Skeptics can speculate that maybe Paul didn’t really say that or that he was wrong for whatever reason but all the existing evidence I see suggests that he really believed this even if it was just a vision where he didn’t really physically see Jesus but honestly thought he did.
That’s why I don’t know what to think when I hear Church leaders say things like, “I bear my apostolic witness” because it sounds somewhat pompous and misleading. It’s almost like they want to have it both ways and let members believe that they are talking to Jesus face-to-face in the upper rooms of the temple or at least that they are receiving special revelations and inspiration that no one else can but then if they are proven wrong they can always fall back on the excuse that it was just an opinion, policy, etc. rather than a revelation. Personally, I don’t think it’s really the best idea to act like there is automatically something magical about all these titles like apostle, prophet, seer, and revelator given their overall track record throughout the Church’s history.
An apostolic witness is a witness from an apostle – and, in our day, an apostle is a lead disciple. I don’t read into it anything other than that – and I’m pretty confident that the vast majority of members don’t hear that phrase as a statement that the person using it has seen and talked personally with Christ. I think they hear it, in practical terms, as:
Quote:I’m an apostle, and this is my testimony.
Frankly, I don’t think the vast majority of members think about it enough to come to any other conclusion – and I really don’t mean that as an insult in any way.
Old-Timer wrote:in our day, an apostle is a lead disciple.
I don’t think the vast majority of members think about it enough to come to any other conclusion. My perception is that in this case you are a little off. I’d first suggest that in our “church”, an apostle is a lead disciple. But he’s also a
special witnessof Jesus Christ. I think that most members receive “my apostolic witness” to mean that “I assure you he’s real, for I have seen him, though you may not have seen him yourself.” Currently, it sounds pretentious. Maybe more of us should adopt the practice of bearing “apostolic witness”. :think: How about an implied corporate (collective) apostolic witness? But first it would be nice to get a collective testimony of Peace and Simplicity.DevilsAdvocate wrote:I wouldn’t expect them to stop calling themselves apostles after they’ve already been doing it for so long but they definitely look very different from the way apostles are described in the New Testament. The traditionally accepted apostles were supposed to be witnesses of Christ (Acts 1:21-26).
I understand your interpretation, but I think it is important to note that this is not the “traditionally accepted” Mormon view of these things. We generally believe that the office of Apostle was to continue indefinitely or “until the unity of the faith.” We generally believe that the quorum was to perpetuate itself and was prevented from doing so by the harshness of persecution, a command of God to allow the priesthood keys to be taken from the earth, or both.
Although some detractors argue that our Apostles can’t be real because they are not “eye witnesses,” I have never heard our apologists claim that our Apostles have all received theophanies that qualify them for office.
Even when I was influenced by circumstantial evidence and hearsay to believe that some of the Apostles had seen Jesus, I never thought that all of them had, nor that it was necessary for them to function as such.
Tom Haws wrote:Old-Timer wrote:in our day, an apostle is a lead disciple.
I don’t think the vast majority of members think about it enough to come to any other conclusion. My perception is that in this case you are a little off. I’d first suggest that in our “church”, an apostle is a lead disciple. But he’s also a
special witnessof Jesus Christ. I think that most members receive “my apostolic witness” to mean that “I assure you he’s real, for I have seen him, though you may not have seen him yourself.” Currently, it sounds pretentious. Maybe more of us should adopt the practice of bearing “apostolic witness”. :think: How about an implied corporate (collective) apostolic witness? But first it would be nice to get a collective testimony of Peace and Simplicity.Well, in theory anyone with a testimony of Jesus Christ should be able to bear a “prophetic witness”. (Revelations 19:10)
I agree with you, though, that many members presume an apostolic witness means one has seen the Savior face to face.
An apostle by definition is “one who is sent”. They’re to witness to the reality of Jesus and the resurrection but as a requirement of having seen him personally, I think that only applied to the choice of a replacement for Judas Iscariot. I think the first time I ever read of anyone making a point of that was Steve Benson and he was just looking for an argument. What was S.Benson’s argument about apostles seeing or not seeing Christ? I remember his arguments when his father was prophet and incapacitated, but I don’t around apostles. Please, share. I’ve read possibly apocryphal stories of members getting a chance to meet one or another Apostle in a private circumstance and asking them if they had actually “seen the Lord,” and getting various ambiguous answers or lots of hemming and hawing. Again, possibly Mormon urban legends or apocryphal stories. Heber13 wrote:What was S.Benson’s argument about apostles seeing or not seeing Christ? I remember his arguments when his father was prophet and incapacitated, but I don’t around apostles. Please, share.
Just nit picking. Setting up a straw man he could knock down, i.e., apostles are supposed to have seen Jesus, you haven’t seen Jesus so therefore you’re not an apostle. By then he’d decided none of it was true so he was just looking for all the reasons he could find to back it up. As I recall it came out of his visit with his wife to Elders Oakes and Maxwell.
Old-Timer wrote:An apostolic witness is a witness from an apostle – and, in our day, an apostle is a lead disciple.I don’t read into it anything other than that – and I’m pretty confident that the vast majority of members don’t hear that phrase as a statement that the person using it has seen and talked personally with Christ. I think they hear it, in practical terms, as:
Quote:I’m an apostle, and this is my testimony. Frankly, I don’t think the vast majority of members think about it enough to come to any other conclusion – and I really don’t mean that as an insult in any way.
Even if most members aren’t really paying that much attention to what they say, what have these apostles really “witnessed” other than warm fuzzy feelings no better than most rank-and-file members? That’s why I think it’s misleading for them to make a big deal out of the idea that they are apostles. Some apologists will argue that their spiritual experiences are too special to share publicly and they don’t want to “cast pearls before swine” but I don’t think so. My guess is that most of these prophets and apostles don’t really know what all this means any more than the average member but that won’t stop them from acting like they know all these answers.
Quote:That’s why I think it’s misleading for them to act like they are really something special because they’re apostles and we’re not.
DA, as bluntly as I can say this, I think that is a VERY unfair and inaccurate statement. It implies that they are arrogant, condescending, egomaniacs who look down on us poor, ignorant fools – or, at least, that they are being “misleading” or “deceptive” in some way. That simply isn’t my experience, at all.
No matter what anyone else thinks, I really do believe they believe in their apostolic callings -but I don’t think they translate that into, “I’m better than you are because I’m an apostle and you’re not.” Each of them is an intelligent, successful person in his own right – but, with the exception of some over the years, I believe each of them also is a humble person doing the best he can to fulfill what he sees as an overwhelming responsibility.
I have a bit more insight into this sort of thing than most, simply because my mother used to be one of Pres. McKay’s secretaries, but I really do think your description of them is unfair and inaccurate.
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:That’s why I think it’s misleading for them to act like they are really something special because they’re apostles and we’re not.
DA, as bluntly as I can say this, I think
that is a VERY unfair and inaccurate statement. It implies that they are arrogant, condescending, egomaniacs who look down on us poor, ignorant fools – or, at least, that they are being “misleading” or “deceptive” in some way.That simply isn’t my experience, at all. No matter what anyone else thinks, I really do believe they believe in their apostolic callings -but I don’t think they translate that into, “I’m better than you are because I’m an apostle and you’re not.” Each of them is an intelligent, successful person in his own right – but, with the exception of some over the years, I believe
each of them also is a humble person doing the best he can to fulfill what he sees as an overwhelming responsibility.
Sorry Ray, I wasn’t trying to say they are particularly arrogant or intentionally malicious; I don’t really believe that and I respect that most of them are probably just trying to fulfill their callings as well as they can. My point was simply that I think statements like “I bear my apostolic witness” sound misleading even if that wasn’t their intent because it gives the impression that they have some special knowledge no one else does by virtue of being apostles while everything I have read about them so far makes them sound just like any other men without any special insight, understanding, or mystical abilities.
I did see something very positive related to an Apostle’s visit to our stake a while ago. Prior to is visit, high councilors and Bishoprics announced throughout the stake that when the apostle entered the Stake meeting, everyone in attendance should rise. However, right before the meeting, a High Councilor stood up and told everyone they should NOT rise. Apparently, the Apostle heard about it and said he didn’t want that. So, I don’t think they seem themselves as better than others. I do question the propriety of leading others to believe they have actually seen Christ when they know they haven’t, however. They have been willing to correct lore in the past; likewise, I would see it as a positive step to correct such lore regarding personal, tangible visits from Christ.
Of course, the active assumption here is that they haven’t in any way that is unique and/or special. Whether they have or haven’t, that assumption is instructive and worth considering. I don’t think they have, collectively, certainly not as a standard part of their calling – but I’m not willing to bet anything on it. I don’t know, but I am open to the possibility.
I’m also aware that the ones I automatically picture when I think of those whom I consider to be good candidates for such a vision or visitation are the ones to whom I feel the closest connection of some sort, including theological. (Pres. Uchtdorf, Elder Wirthlin, Elder Maxwell, etc.) That also is instructive, imo.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.