Apostles...witnesses of what exactly?

[_jon]

no contradiction...re-read OP, it clearly states always taught of JC "himself", which is different than being a witness of JC.
to which i still maintain "always taught"?

Do you believe that they've seen Christ and can witness on his behalf from a position of 'knowing'?
Because that is what I was taught.

sub, perhaps you wouldn't mind answering this before you ask any more questions of other people...

[_Nightlion]

it seems that many consider "witness" with regards to religion as synonymous with "eye-witness", rather than the more literal use of the word which is simply to "provide evidence for" or "to stand as proof of" or "give testimony of". I understand the notion of actual sight, but i have never been instructed that visual affirmation was necessary for an apostle. Has someone been instructed otherwise?

Let me try this once again. No LDS apostle 'knows' what an apostolic witness is because none of them have ever received one. For all the reasons I have listed in a previous post. And because of pride keeping them from it still. Now, as for what counts as an apostolic witness is cannot be the seeing and witnessing of the risen Lord only. I mean if you do see him and he shows you the marks of the nails and the wound in his side and tells you to be faithful and believing that of itself is NOT an apostolic witness. It is a great witness and one that carries some weight, but it is of itself not what makes a man accountable for the name of Jesus Christ unto all nations. Priesthood powers respond to the degree of responsibility one takes up. Like the prophets of the Book of Mormon who had great views of prophecy because of their great anxiety for the welfare of their people.

After a man has been made a partaker of the name of Jesus Christ in the true gospel covenant and has been sanctified by the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost he must magnify the name of Christ that is upon him and prove that he is fully willing to take the name of Christ in all situations and under all circumstances that he made be found in. What I mean is that he speaks of Christ and rejoices in Christ in all his words and acts and conversation and does not hide or pretend otherwise. Such CAN qualify to become true apostles. Either the Lord alone can choose them and send them forth if such are found to be without brethren, or IF and when a true quorum of apostles meet and determine whom the Lord has chosen. In either case once sent of God or called of men/and God presumably, it is incumbent upon that man to continue until such time as the Lord will provide the apostolic revelation by the power of the Holy Ghost.
This is more than a testimony, it is the right and responsibility to carry the name of Jesus Christ under all circumstances unto all people at all times. And see that the name of Jesus Christ is not trampled upon or taken in vain or misunderstood as per doctrine and promise and the means to come unto Christ acceptably and receive all that the gospel of Jesus Christ affords.

The seeing of Christ only does not convey this Special Witness status. It does not put responsibility upon a soul. Only the revelation by the power of the Holy Ghost that manifests the apostolic witness of Jesus Christ so that the man knows by the power of God what the truth is concerning Jesus of Nazareth is how a true apostle is made.

The LDS standard is obscure because all they can do is guess and hope whatever they are is what they need to be. O my gosh! That is why they mimic one another to a tee. Nothing authentic between the lot of them. It is too late to turn back now. They will continue as the are.

[_Nightlion]

Since no living LDS GA has qualified up to number six any callings received were presumptuously put upon them and will only bring greater condemnations.

Do you think Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon saw Jesus Christ? Maybe that's how the term started out, then at some point Jesus stopped appearing personally to those called as apostles.

Yes I believe the both did as recorded in the D&C. Interestingly, Sidney, having seen the Lord, never became a true apostle. In fact I would vouch for David Patten and Parley P. Pratt with some certainty. I mean they both could well have been. A man could serve in high office with only the gift of the Holy Ghost and never advance to apostleship even after being called. It all depends on the degree of earnest regard one has for the name of Jesus Christ.

As a personal example: Before I was Sent of God I was of a nature for nine years since being truly born of God, that I spoke of Christ and rejoiced in Christ and carried his name in all my thoughts. So when I happened to be going up to snow ski with a cousin, by the time we reached the resort he was so ashamed of me that he ditched me right then and there. I went skiing alone. He was a returned missionary who married a rich man's daughter and was set for life. I on the other hand was the kind of person who had magnified the name of Jesus Christ, who at some point became a true apostle. I am just standing up for what's real.

[_kairos]

So elder bednar have you had your special witness of Christ since becoming an apostle?

Well elder holland i am not sure- i was in the temple and saw a likeness of mother teresa on the veil sorta like the one i saw on the cinnabon at the pastry store-but surely it was not Jesus but the writing under the image of mother teresa said "just believe"

that has been my experience so far -what about you?

well i was reading the Book of Mormon after supper one night, the day after i became an apostle and there appeared to me an image of Joseph Smith on the inside front cover-under the image was a phrase "just believe"

that's it for me!


well i guess that confirms it- i wont tell if you don't tell the others- you know sacred and all that!!


by the way elder holland do we get yearly increases in our stipends as apostles?


only when you get a real witness of Christ not like the BS you just laid on me.

[_Nightlion]

....
9. Jesus died nearly 2000 years ago. The only way to see him is to go dig up the bones.

sez you, that is not the only way


Ta daa!

The Shroud of Torin is bogus. Nobody would lay Jesus to rest with his hands covering his stuff.
Think about it.

[_subgenius]

no contradiction...re-read OP, it clearly states always taught of JC "himself", which is different than being a witness of JC.
to which i still maintain "always taught"?

Do you believe that they've seen Christ and can witness on his behalf from a position of 'knowing'?
Because that is what I was taught.

sub, perhaps you wouldn't mind answering this before you ask any more questions of other people...

1. I do not believe that eyesight, 20/20 or otherwise, is necessary for one or another to be an Apostle.
2. "seen" Christ? please, clarify as to "what" you were taught.
3. I have no opinion as to whether any person has "seen" Christ until that person states that they have. Then my belief is founded upon the circumstances thereupon.
4. I do believe that "knowing", in any realm, does not require ocular confirmation.

[_jon]

Sub,

Let me try this a different way.

I was taught, specifically that Apostles and the FP have seen Christ with their own, physical eyes. That was why they are called witnesses of Christ.

My question - Do you believe that the FP and the Apostles (all or some or one or none) have physically seen Christ with their own eyes?

[_subgenius]

The Shroud of Torin is bogus. Nobody would lay Jesus to rest with his hands covering his stuff.
Think about it.

Think about it?
1. it was an attempt at humor....obviously unsuccessful.
2. The body posture matches that of skeletons at the first century Jewish community at Qumran, which is considered to affirm that it was indeed a Jewish burial, along with unwashed body, etc..

perhaps you should not only "think about it"...but, first, learn about it.
typical atheist speculation, founded more on the premise of "it figgers good in my head"

[_subgenius]

Sub,

Let me try this a different way.

I was taught, specifically that Apostles and the FP have seen Christ with their own, physical eyes. That was why they are called witnesses of Christ.

i have seen no official church teachings that speak to the necessity of "physical eyes". I am not denying your claim, just stating that i have seen no evidence confirming that you were "always taught" such specifics. Unless you propose that your word is evidence enough? ;)

My question - Do you believe that the FP and the Apostles (all or some or one or none) have physically seen Christ with their own eyes?

i have already answered this question....see above #3
reprinted here for your convenience:
"I have no opinion as to whether any person has "seen" Christ until that person states that they have. Then my belief is founded upon the circumstances thereupon."

[_jon]

i have already answered this question....see above #3
reprinted here for your convenience:
"I have no opinion as to whether any person has "seen" Christ until that person states that they have. Then my belief is founded upon the circumstances thereupon."

So what is your opinion on Joseph Smith who stated he saw not only Christ but God as well?

And if yes, do you believe subsequent Prophet's have an equal opportunity to see God in the same way?