The Charge to the Twelve

[Lance]

-

[Robert Sinclair]

As it is written in the book of Ether, Moroni who is writing this for us to see from the 24 plates which he writes from, that Jesus showed himself to the brother of Jared in the spirit as he was not of the flesh yet. But now that he had had a body did he show himself unto Faust in the spirit also?
And why did Jesus say to him that never before have I shown myself unto man whom I have created? Since it it written that Noah walked and talked with God and also Enoch? And also that God talked with Adam and Eve and told them not to partake of the tree in the midst of the Garden? Was this God the father and the Son written in Ether 3:14 possibly changed into 2 that met with Joseph Smith? Interesting. Much to ponder upon.

[Robert Sinclair]

After pondering upon this I wondered why some of his diciples did not recognize him after he was resurrected at first, did he get resurrected into a different body and personage unlike what he had been in the flesh and so the different personage that Jesus was while in the flesh as Jesus of Nazareth looked entirely different when resurrected. And showing the brother of Jared this that he would look like in the flesh while as Jesus of Nazareth was something he had not shown to Adam and Enoch and Noah. Much to ponder upon to figure out how truth comes to be.

[Robert Sinclair]

Was thinking that possibly Jesus and Michael (Adam) showed themselves to Joseph Smith saying this is the father and the son with Adam being the father of all the earth. This would make sense to me.

[brlenox]

BrLenox,

You preach the philosophies of men. In 1993, I was present when Elder Faust stated that he had come to know the Savior in the same manner as the Brother of Jared. He did not try to link his testimony to that of the dispensational head in sharing that testimony. His testimony was independent of Joseph Smith's. Maybe you would discard his testimony because he failed to follow your rule of linking his testimony to that of the dispensational head.

Before one can critique a doctrine I suspect one must first understand it. Perhaps some details of the circumstances of this experience with Elder Faust would be helpful. No one is stating this is a 100% process and I assure you there are circumstances where the pattern is not followed. However, as I mentioned, that I don't teach a doctrine unless I have the legitimate witnesses to sustain the things I have been taught. Thus I would recommend you to the sources of the quotes I utilized in my earlier comments. I would much rather be in the company of Elder McConkie who teaches the same things such as this in two different sources than those of incorrect understanding such as others who disagree with him. You might want to look up the sources (I've cited them in the quotes):

You start out with the Lord Jesus, and then you have Adam and Noah. Thereafter come the dispensation heads. Then you come to the prophets, to apostles, to the elders of Israel, and to wise and good and sagacious men who have the spirit of light and understanding. Every dispensation head is a revealer of Christ for his day; every prophet is a witness of Christ; and every other prophet or apostle who comes is a reflection and an echo and an exponent of the dispensation head. All such come to echo to the world and to expound and unfold what God has revealed through the man who was appointed to give his eternal word to the world for that era. Such is the dispensation concept. (McConkie, Bruce R. This Generation Shall Have My Word through You.)

That is how we rank and place the prophet Joseph Smith: he is one of the great dispensation heads, and a dispensation head is a revealer for his age and his period of the knowledge of Christ and of salvation. Thus, the other prophets of the dispensation who are associated with him and who come after him, who sustain his work and bear record of him, become witnesses that he—the chief prophet of their age—revealed the Lord Jesus and hence made salvation available. (McConkie, Bruce R., Joseph Smith: A Revealer of Christ, September 03, 1978, retrieved from http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=609" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

Perhaps you might want to look these two talks up and actually consider the material again as your misunderstanding of it places you not in opposition against me but in opposition against apostles of this dispensation.

However I must give you kudos for revealing a bit of inconsistency in Thomas's theories. I note that he liked your comment enough to thumbs it up, thus indicating that he is willing to acknowledge that Elder Faust has seen Christ and thus qualifies as an apostolic witness whose testimony he is willing to accept...Because surely no one is petty enough to like a comment simply because it slams a particular person independent of the contents of the comment. Some would consider that awfully small minded - don't you think? Well done then for converting another to the truth of a modern apostolic witness of Jesus Christ. Well done.

[dewajack]

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord: It shall come to pass that every soul who forsaketh his sins and cometh unto me, and calleth on my name, and obeyeth my voice, and keepeth my commandments, shall see my face and know that I am;

We want it put simply, that's it, that's all. It really is this simple for He has said so. Let's not make it harder than the way He has given us.

After pondering upon this I wondered why some of his diciples did not recognize him after he was resurrected at first, did he get resurrected into a different body and personage unlike what he had been in the flesh and so the different personage that Jesus was while in the flesh as Jesus of Nazareth looked entirely different when resurrected. And showing the brother of Jared this that he would look like in the flesh while as Jesus of Nazareth was something he had not shown to Adam and Enoch and Noah. Much to ponder upon to figure out how truth comes to be.

Christ has the ability to look as He desires and withhold His glory, which is what He did on the road to Emmaus and why the disciples He walked with didn't recognize Him. Angels will do the same in an effort to test us at times. It wouldn't hurt to ask if you've entertained Angels previously or even the Lord Himself. It might surprise you what's revealed.

[Robert Sinclair]

I was just curious as to how it was that he had told the brother of Jared never before had he shown himself to man at that time.

[brlenox]

I was just curious as to how it was that he had told the brother of Jared never before had he shown himself to man at that time.

There are multiple talks that go into these exact words by general authorities. Typically they expand on the "so great faith" part of the verses. For myself I have not studied that aspect of that section of Ether 3 with your question in mind, thus it remains a doctrine of belief to me as opposed to a point of knowledge as is the concept of the dispensational head.

[Dannyk]

I was just curious as to how it was that he had told the brother of Jared never before had he shown himself to man at that time.

It could also be that you're emphasizing the wrong portion of the words. Perhaps he was referring not to the idea that no one had ever seen him before, but that no one had managed to part the veil in that manner before. Perhaps God was just doing his normal thing by blessing something he asked for by touching it with his finger, and perhaps it wasn't designed to be a revelatory moment for the Brother of Jared....but because of his faith, he could not be withheld from seeing.

Jesus's response to him seems to indicate that he was surprised he saw his finger...as no man had yet come to him with so much faith as to actually see the things he was doing. He then asked if he wanted to see more.

By reading scripture, we understand that many before Jared had seen the Lord, and talked with him and walked with him. This may have just been the first time it happened in that manner.

Just some thoughts, could be wrong

[Robert Sinclair]

Well then as a point of knowledge can you consider that which he said to the brother of Jared to be absolute truth that he was the father and the son and had not shown himself to any man yet many had testified that they had seen God face to face and that Joseph Smith has testified that he had seen 2 personages both the father and the son. In truth?

[Thomas]

Brlenox wrote: However I must give you kudos for revealing a bit of inconsistency in Thomas's theories. I note that he liked your comment enough to thumbs it up, thus indicating that he is willing to acknowledge that Elder Faust has seen Christ and thus qualifies as an apostolic witness whose testimony he is willing to accept...Because surely no one is petty enough to like a comment simply because it slams a particular person independent of the contents of the comment. Some would consider that awfully small minded - don't you think? Well done then for converting another to the truth of a modern apostolic witness of Jesus Christ. Well done.

If Faust saw Christ, I rejoice in it! I would rejoice if we all saw Christ.

I have no theories. I was only commenting that your theory is not compatible with the charge given by Cowdery. I do however, believe a dispensation head is a greater prophet than those who follow. I don't believe that those who follow have the right to change what the dispensation head revealed.

I have no personal axe to grind.

[ajax]

As well, as I mentioned, that I don't teach a doctrine unless I have the legitimate witnesses to sustain the things I have been taught.

I have multiple witnesses that say beer is good, the first witness being Sec 89, the 2nd being Joseph, and on and on.

Thus I would recommend you to the sources of the quotes I utilized in my earlier comments. I would much rather be in the company of Elder McConkie who teaches the same things such as this in two different sources than those of incorrect understanding such as others who disagree with him.

Perhaps you might want to look these two talks up and actually consider the material again as your misunderstanding of it places you not in opposition against me but in opposition against apostles of this dispensation.

The simplicity of Cowdery's statement is clear vs. the Bruce theory that he seems to use to justify language used by modern day "witnesses" who have no witness.

Then imputing this McConkie doctrine into the LoF is even more of a stretch. I just don't see it.

[Thomas]

55 Let us here observe, that after any portion of the human family are made acquainted with the important fact that there is a God who has created and does uphold all things, the extent of their knowledge, respecting his character and glory, will depend upon their diligence and faithfulness in seeking after him, until like Enoch the brother of Jared, and Moses, they shall obtain faith in God, and power with him to. behold him face to face.

56 We have now clearly set forth how it is, and how it was, that God became an object of faith for rational beings; and also, upon what foundation the testimony was based, which excited the enquiry and diligent search of the ancient saints, to seek after and obtain a knowledge of the glory of God: and we have seen that it was human testimony, and human testimony only, that excited this enquiry, in the first instance in their minds--it was the credence they gave to the testimony of their fathers--this testimony having aroused their minds to enquire after the knowledge of God, the enquiry frequently terminated, indeed, always terminated, when rightly persued, in the most glorious discoveries, and eternal certainty.

http://www.mormonbeliefs.com/lectures_on_faith.htm

Enoch was not a dispensation head. His knowledge of God was passed down from Adam, yet we have his testimony of seeing God.

[ajax]

Lecture 3:

23 But it is also necessary that men should have an idea that he is no respecter of persons; for with the idea of all the other excellencies in his character, and this one wanting, men could not exercise faith in him, because if he were a respecter of persons, they could not tell what their privileges were, nor how far they were authorized to exercise faith in him, or whether they were authorized to do it at all, but all must be confusion; but no sooner are the minds of men made acquainted with the truth on this point, that he is no respector of persons, than they see that they have authority by faith to lay hold on eternal life the richest boon of heaven, because God is no respecter of persons, and that every man in every nation has an equal privilege.

[Dannyk]

Lecture 3:

23 But it is also necessary that men should have an idea that he is no respecter of persons; for with the idea of all the other excellencies in his character, and this one wanting, men could not exercise faith in him, because if he were a respecter of persons, they could not tell what their privileges were, nor how far they were authorized to exercise faith in him, or whether they were authorized to do it at all, but all must be confusion; but no sooner are the minds of men made acquainted with the truth on this point, that he is no respector of persons, than they see that they have authority by faith to lay hold on eternal life the richest boon of heaven, because God is no respecter of persons, and that every man in every nation has an equal privilege.

^^^^^^^^
THIS!!!!!

The moment we believe that it is different for some than it is for others, that he'll teach one person something because of their calling, but another person cannot learn it because they have not that calling....well then we begin to cease our progression. Because we no longer have faith that he can and will reveal all things.

This concept is the one that I've tried diligently to get into my brain. It is the concept that I think the church unintentionally teaches against (and sometimes very intentionally teaches against it, setting up hedges and saying it is only appropriate to go so far and no further, it's not your calling or right to know this or that). It is this, and the idolatry that stems from ignoring the principle, that I am trying to purge myself of most.

It is the opposite of this (the idea that God is no respecter of persons) that is most often used by people who think I am taking things too far in believing I should search deeply and understand the mysteries.

[Thomas]

brlenox wrote:
Thus I would recommend you to the sources of the quotes I utilized in my earlier comments. I would much rather be in the company of Elder McConkie who teaches the same things such as this in two different sources than those of incorrect understanding such as others who disagree with him.

Perhaps you might want to look these two talks up and actually consider the material again as your misunderstanding of it places you not in opposition against me but in opposition against apostles of this dispensation.

How do we know which of McConkie's teachings to believe and which we should disregard?

[Robert Sinclair]

I think it is wonderful that truth is being pursued on this forum that minds might be enlightened and eyes of any of us that are yet unable to see all things might precept upon precept have our eyes opened more and more and get understanding. I hope goodwill and grace will be with all of our comments as we pursue the knowledge of God♡

[brlenox]

Well then as a point of knowledge can you consider that which he said to the brother of Jared to be absolute truth that he was the father and the son and had not shown himself to any man yet many had testified that they had seen God face to face and that Joseph Smith has testified that he had seen 2 personages both the father and the son. In truth?

Robert, I concur that the scriptures are excellent sources of absolute truth when the spirit properly conveys to our hearts and minds the meaning of those scriptures. I also concur that Ether 3 is a wonderful, brilliant cache of remarkable truth.
What I cannot attest to is that you and I understand it the same way and I am concerned that you are trying to isolate a source of material to the detriment of all other scriptural and prophetic sources that speak to the subject and add degrees of understanding to the principles discussed.

We know of a certainty that others before the Brother of Jared stood in the presence of Christ. What is not obvious is why the Savior defined the experience He has with the Brother of Jared as distinctly unique is aspects of their interaction from others that have been.


We also have other scriptural sources that speak to how Christ is both the Father and the Son. I cannot know therefore if you are taking those into consideration or if you are pushing for a Nicene Creed Trinitarian concept or perhaps you are pulling for a Adam / God which I am comfortable with. However, based on your other posts I don't get that feel from your intent.

People often fail to understand that truth is not a point of understanding but covers an entire spectrum or range of principles. As an example one can never grasp opposites on a spectrum such as “thou shalt not kill” with “Nephi kill Laban” unless one explores the doctrine of opposition within a principal or both sides and all that is between and applies it to the fullness of understanding.

When one understands the spectrum of principles around a concept, one has a better chance of being right in understanding. Thus there are times when it is equally wrong to not kill as it is in another circumstance to kill. Thus what I am saying is, at this point, I am feeling that perhaps you have not explored the entire spectrum that applies to the comments of Christ and the Brother of Jared but are favoring a point of understanding and perhaps emphasizing it to the detriment of truthful understanding.

[brlenox]

BrLenox,

You preach the philosophies of men. In 1993, I was present when Elder Faust stated that he had come to know the Savior in the same manner as the Brother of Jared. He did not try to link his testimony to that of the dispensational head in sharing that testimony. His testimony was independent of Joseph Smith's. Maybe you would discard his testimony because he failed to follow your rule of linking his testimony to that of the dispensational head.

Lance for your benefit here are a few witness testimonies Elder Faust has publicly shared.

I am a witness of the Resurrection of the Lord as surely as if I had been there in the evening with the two disciples in the house on Emmaus road. I know that He lives as surely as did Joseph Smith when he saw the Father and the Son in the light of a brilliant morning in a grove of trees in Palmyra. …“… I so testify as a witness of the risen Savior and our Redeemer.”
President Henry B. Eyring, First Counselor in the First Presidency, “Come unto Me,” Ensign, May 2013,

The most precious gift I have to give is my witness of the Savior. I testify that He was born of Mary as the Son of God. He lived a perfect life. Through the Prophet Joseph Smith, He restored His gospel to the earth and the keys of His priesthood to those who have passed them on to this blessed day. I know by the Spirit that Thomas S. Monson holds and exercises those keys in our time.

I leave you my love and my blessing. I am grateful for your inspiring examples of love, faith, and service, which bring joy to my life. In the sacred name of Jesus Christ, amen. The Gift of a Savior Henry B. Eyring
"The Gift of a Savior," 2010 First Presidency Christmas Devotional, (December 5, 2010)

I am grateful that I know as surely as did the Apostles Peter, James, and John that Jesus is the Christ, our risen Lord, and that he is our advocate with the Father. I know that the Father bore direct witness of His Beloved Son by introducing the resurrected Lord to the boy Joseph Smith in the Sacred Grove. I know that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, translated by the Prophet Joseph through the power of God. I know that the keys of the Melchizedek Priesthood were restored by those who received them from the Savior and that President Gordon B. Hinckley is now the only person on earth authorized to direct the use of all those keys. I bear solemn testimony that this is the true Church of Jesus Christ, in which the ordinances and the covenants are offered, which if accepted and honored produce peace in this life and assure us eternal life in the world to come. In the name of Jesus Christ, amen. (Witnesses for God Henry B. Eyring)

Lance think about these post and refrain from relying on your own understanding and perhaps you can see why witnesses such as Bruce R. McConkie define the material as they do and as I have presented. It is hard to deny the witnesses, if you sustain them as such.

[brlenox]

As well, as I mentioned, that I don't teach a doctrine unless I have the legitimate witnesses to sustain the things I have been taught.

I have multiple witnesses that say beer is good, the first witness being Sec 89, the 2nd being Joseph, and on and on.

Thus I would recommend you to the sources of the quotes I utilized in my earlier comments. I would much rather be in the company of Elder McConkie who teaches the same things such as this in two different sources than those of incorrect understanding such as others who disagree with him.

Perhaps you might want to look these two talks up and actually consider the material again as your misunderstanding of it places you not in opposition against me but in opposition against apostles of this dispensation.

The simplicity of Cowdery's statement is clear vs. the Bruce theory that he seems to use to justify language used by modern day "witnesses" who have no witness.

Then imputing this McConkie doctrine into the LoF is even more of a stretch. I just don't see it.

Ajax by way of a simple analogy for your preferences I am going to couch this in terms that may make sense.

While I was growing up and before we joined the church, I often observed my parents adding a touch of milk to their coffee. It softened the harshness and made it more easily consumed. Your preference for the simplicity of Oliver Cowdery and deriding Elder McConkies material seems you might prefer milk in your beer as well. I guess I do understand since D & C 89 only promises meat if you are obedient to the spirit of the law, not so much the letter.

While the two authors are both eloquent in their material Oliver is not referencing precisely dispensational themes, thus it is not a perfectly adequate point of comparison. Nonetheless nothing he states is beyond the bounds of Bruce R. McConkies material and does not negate the few comparisons that can be made. We need an apples to apples comparison and at the moment I'm not aware of one...

Here's hoping you can at least work up to a strawberry milkshake.

[Robert Sinclair]

Brlenox
thank you for your good hearted searching for the truth.


I too do not know all things as yet nor have been visited by Jesus Christ face to face in the flesh. But I have been carried away in a daydream once where I watched a prayer I had just prayed to be an instrument in his hands to help redeem Zion, being taken up by whom took down my prayer to a group over them and next to a group over them again and again till it reached a host of those standing around the throne of him who sits on high. I heard him say "What is this I hear?"

Then I saw him who looked like spinning particles of light and energy turn and look at me. It was as if electric reins from his eyes pierced throuh mine to the center of my heart and I heard him say "He is not yet right, but if he does the things I say I will come and speak with him" all the hosts around the trone turned to me and started speaking all of the commandments of Jesus Christ all at once and it sounded like rushing water then the daydream or thoughts ended abruptly and I was left wondering why my heart felt like it had been tugged upon and judged in an instant and could still feel it.

This was well over 20 years ago after which in somewhat fear that he might come and talk to me I did run and ripvanwinkleize myself into a drunken slumber that he not come and speak with me. I desparately wanted to hear from the leaders of the church first that they had met with him face to face first then I would stop drinking and come back to church.

I had previously made lots of money helping put together large housing developments in Southern California and had given it all away including the house I had in Valencia California and thought I was ready but realized I was in no way pure in heart yet after reading many of the scriptures of the world as well as the "One Stick" and the book of Enoch.

In 2012 on the day of atonement having missionaries keep asking me to please come back I decided to covenant with God that I would cease from drinking and ripvanwinkleizeing my life away waiting for this testimony from the prophet of the church. I would no longer worry if members would rise up in anger and raise their hand to cast Satan out of me as their children kicked me in the shins and threw dirt on me for the things I would say as they had done.

I am still not ready to go to church full time and am laboring to know when not to open my mouth and try to give meat to the tender that can barely take milk.

But I can tell you I know the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the house of Ephraim that has been invited at present so where else can I go to since the Lord has placed me in this house? Run to the house of Judah and say let us keep the feast of tabernacles? Or run to the house of Ismael and say let us all keep the Bible along with the Koran and keep the laws written therein as the Koran says to do? No I had better stick with the house the Lord has placed me in and now labor dilligently to help my family the best that I can. This I felt was to be as Joel has testified awake ye drunkards and weep and howl and sound the alarm as best you can. And labor with your all to santify and purify your own heart Robert so that you can help others. This is what in my imperfect state I am laboring to do. To help the house of Ephraim and not to harm it.


Does this help you understand about where I am coming from just a little and see how long and far the journey before me still lies?

I am thankful for this forum where I can be enlightened myself along with others who seek the truth and I hope someday along with you and not in front of you see the face of Jesus Christ as he has promised all who keep his commandments.


And just so we can continue on in discussions I think that it is quite possible that Jesus Christ showed the brother of Jared as he would look as he would look while on the earth in Jerusalem which he may not have yet shown anyone else and that would have been the absolute truth if so. Just more food for thought and possible enlightenment.

I truly am glad for this site as I had no where else I could go and not have possibly someone rise in anger and hurt me for the things I have said. I know I must be willing to suffer these things and am preparing for it but I need much prayer and fasting to pull it off successfully as yet.

I had typed with my right thumb on my phone the condensed posts.

[Robert Sinclair]

I had forgotten to mention if Adam and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith this would also then have been the absolute truth inasmuch as Adam truly was the father of us all at the beginning of our fleshly state and Jesus Christ is separate from him. And Jesus Christ is both a son of Mary and of God and the father or creator of the flesh of Adam. So in truth both are fathers and sons and Gods as it is written ye are Gods and children of the most high of us all. Eye to eye we shall see when the Lord does bring again Zion. And at the time Jesus prayed on the earth in the flesh Adam was in heaven so he may have watched over him while Jesus Christ was on the earth in the flesh. That way it makes sense of the two of them meeting with Joseph Smith. I do not have this on any authority other than as a brother seeking for the truth♡

[brlenox]

55 Let us here observe, that after any portion of the human family are made acquainted with the important fact that there is a God who has created and does uphold all things, the extent of their knowledge, respecting his character and glory, will depend upon their diligence and faithfulness in seeking after him, until like Enoch the brother of Jared, and Moses, they shall obtain faith in God, and power with him to. behold him face to face.

56 We have now clearly set forth how it is, and how it was, that God became an object of faith for rational beings; and also, upon what foundation the testimony was based, which excited the enquiry and diligent search of the ancient saints, to seek after and obtain a knowledge of the glory of God: and we have seen that it was human testimony, and human testimony only, that excited this enquiry, in the first instance in their minds--it was the credence they gave to the testimony of their fathers--this testimony having aroused their minds to enquire after the knowledge of God, the enquiry frequently terminated, indeed, always terminated, when rightly persued, in the most glorious discoveries, and eternal certainty.

http://www.mormonbeliefs.com/lectures_on_faith.htm

Enoch was not a dispensation head. His knowledge of God was passed down from Adam, yet we have his testimony of seeing God.

How do you know Thomas? Did you lean only on your own understanding? Maybe you took the time to research it out and ponder it in your mind. If not, you probably should research this out a bit better. Beyond a multitude of obvious statements, if you had the spirit of understanding and grasped the doctrine, you would be able to extrapolate out why he is a dispensational head.

[brlenox]

brlenox wrote:
Thus I would recommend you to the sources of the quotes I utilized in my earlier comments. I would much rather be in the company of Elder McConkie who teaches the same things such as this in two different sources than those of incorrect understanding such as others who disagree with him.

Perhaps you might want to look these two talks up and actually consider the material again as your misunderstanding of it places you not in opposition against me but in opposition against apostles of this dispensation.

How do we know which of McConkie's teachings to believe and which we should disregard?

I think that you must first understand what is constituted in recognizing the servants of God, then ask in the spirit and it shall be manifest what you should do. If that not doable for you then I would go with believe everything and follow it all closely and you will be off far less often than has been the norm.

[brlenox]

Lecture 3:

23 But it is also necessary that men should have an idea that he is no respecter of persons; for with the idea of all the other excellencies in his character, and this one wanting, men could not exercise faith in him, because if he were a respecter of persons, they could not tell what their privileges were, nor how far they were authorized to exercise faith in him, or whether they were authorized to do it at all, but all must be confusion; but no sooner are the minds of men made acquainted with the truth on this point, that he is no respector of persons, than they see that they have authority by faith to lay hold on eternal life the richest boon of heaven, because God is no respecter of persons, and that every man in every nation has an equal privilege.

Ajax, I'm not sure what your point is with this observation. I made the same point in my earlier presentation. Is there something I am missing?