The 15 PSRs -- where are they at and what drives them.

[EvanLM]

Perhaps some of the brethren have seen Christ and some haven't. Perhaps they all have, Perhaps none of them have. Does it really matter whether the brethren have seen Christ or not?

I don't know of any place in the scriptures or any statement by Joseph Smith that states that seeing Christ and declaring that one has seen him is a requirement for being a prophet or apostle?

This didn't appear to a requirement for the selection of the original Quorum of the 12 apostles on this dispensation. And Joseph Smith obviously didn't consider this to be necessary when he had the entire first presidency and Quorum of the Twelve sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators, as we have no record of most of these men unequivocally declaring that they had seen Christ face to face. For that matter, when did Joseph Smith unequivocally publicly declare that he had seen Christ face to face?

I don't think it's any of our business whether or not they have seen Christ. It is their calling to lead us and we have covenanted to sustain them and to refrain from speaking evil about them. They aren't infallible or perfect, but I believe that they are good men doing the best they can to magnify a very difficult calling. They deserve our support and prayers, not our derision.

I think it's clear that 99% of what they teach is good and if followed will lead one closer to Christ. Why not follow these teachings and put them to the test to see if they bring good fruits in your life, instead of scrutinizing every statement and action with a microscope in the hopes of finding as many faults as possible?

” Kirtland, Ohio 1833

Zebedee Coltrin, a member of the School of the Prophets records:

Zebedee Coltrin 1804-1877
Zebedee Coltrin 1804-1877
At one of these meetings after the organization of the school, (the school being organized on the 23rd of January, 1833) when we were all together, Joseph having given instructions, and while engaged in silent prayer, kneeling, with our hands uplifted each one praying in silence, no one whispered above his breath, a personage walked through the room from east to west, and Joseph asked if we saw him. I saw him and suppose the others did and Joseph answered “that is Jesus, the Son of God, our elder brother.” Afterward Joseph told us to resume our former position in prayer, which we did. Another person came through; he was surrounded as with a flame of fire. experienced a sensation that it might destroy the tabernacle as it was of consuming fire of great brightness. The Prophet Joseph said this was the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I saw Him.

The Newel K. Whitney store - Kirtland, Ohio
The Newel K. Whitney store – Kirtland, Ohio
[When asked about the kind of clothing the Father had on, Brother Coltrin said:] I did not discover his clothing for he was surrounded as with a flame of fire, which was so brilliant that I could not discover anything else but his person. I saw his hands, his legs, his feet, his eyes, nose, mouth, head and body in the shape and form of a perfect man. He sat in a chair as a man would sit in a chair, but this appearance was so grand and overwhelming that it seemed I should melt down in his presence, and the sensation was so powerful that it thrilled through my whole system and I felt it in the marrow of my bones. The Prophet Joseph said: “Brethren, now you are prepared to be the apostles of Jesus Christ, for you have seen both the Father and the Son and know that they exist and that they are two separate personages.”…

The school room was in the upper room of [Newel K.] Whitney’s store.

Notes

“Statement of Zebedee Coltrin,” Minutes, 3 October 1883, Salt Lake School of Prophets, LDS Church Archives, Salt Lake City, Utah, 56-58; see also Lyndon W. Cook, The Revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1981), 187-88.

I wasn't suggesting that there are no accounts of Joseph Smith or others having seen the Father and the Son in a vision.

My point is that Joseph Smith didn't go around saying "Look at me I spoke to God face to face, he called me to be his prophet when I spoke to him face to face, and I received the revelations I'm telling you are the word of God in a face to face meeting with God."

Yet this is the standard some people are trying to hold the brethren to. It's unreasonable. Even Joseph Smith fails miserablely if this is the standard of being a true prophet.

and there are plenty of those who call themselves . . . followers of Christ . . that have derided JS as well . . . .

I see a lot of the people on this forum as a sign of the times . .

.it isn't in the scriptures either . . to abandon the prophets that god has called and go out on your own. . .

Christ told his disciples(apostles) when asked . . . how should they respond to the pharisees . . . .

Christ told them to do what the pharisees say but . . don't do what they do . . . pretty clear how we are to respond . . .

David also set an example . . . of following the leadership called of God . . .saul was called of God . .so david didn't kill him when he could have . . . David didn't overthrow Saul's kingdom . . . even when . . he had the support of sauls' children . . and . . he knew that he was the next king in line . . called of
god, mind you . . .

we can disagree with them but we need to be careful with condemnation . . .

[SonofKorah]

I think the last really inspired PSR was Joseph F Smith. Interestingly enough he died right around the time the New World order really started to get off the ground. this doesn’t mean I don’t like the rest of them, some of them I really do. I always wonder what the dynamics are among themselves? I even wonder If they are like I am a lot of the time. I feel like I get as much revelation is the next Saint, maybe more because I need it. That certainly doesn’t mean I want to hear it though. some of the best revelations I ever got were right between my eyes…

[Church_of_the_Lamb]

Perhaps some of the brethren have seen Christ and some haven't. Perhaps they all have, Perhaps none of them have. Does it really matter whether the brethren have seen Christ or not?

I don't know of any place in the scriptures or any statement by Joseph Smith that states that seeing Christ and declaring that one has seen him is a requirement for being a prophet or apostle?

This didn't appear to a requirement for the selection of the original Quorum of the 12 apostles on this dispensation. And Joseph Smith obviously didn't consider this to be necessary when he had the entire first presidency and Quorum of the Twelve sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators, as we have no record of most of these men unequivocally declaring that they had seen Christ face to face. For that matter, when did Joseph Smith unequivocally publicly declare that he had seen Christ face to face?

I don't think it's any of our business whether or not they have seen Christ. It is their calling to lead us and we have covenanted to sustain them and to refrain from speaking evil about them. They aren't infallible or perfect, but I believe that they are good men doing the best they can to magnify a very difficult calling. They deserve our support and prayers, not our derision.

I think it's clear that 99% of what they teach is good and if followed will lead one closer to Christ. Why not follow these teachings and put them to the test to see if they bring good fruits in your life, instead of scrutinizing every statement and action with a microscope in the hopes of finding as many faults as possible?

I don't know of any place in the scriptures or any statement by Joseph Smith that states that seeing Christ and declaring that one has seen him is a requirement for being a prophet or apostle?

There is a type given in 1 Nephi Chapter 11: 7 This is when Nephi is called

7 And behold this thing shall be given unto thee for a sign, that after thou hast beheld the tree which bore the fruit which thy father tasted, thou shalt also behold a man descending out of heaven, and him shall ye witness; and after ye have witnessed him ye shall bear record that it is the Son of God.

That scripture doesn't say that it's a requirement to have seen God face to face and to publicly declare this in order to be a prophet or apostle.

Say what you want, that is the pattern given and followed throughout scripture. It is the way its done.

[BeNotDeceived]

Lawyers probably more than anything, which I hate to say.

I dread having an uber-lawyer as the head of the corporation. It could be soon.

"uber lawyer"! Love it.

An uber-lawyer can lie, even when his lips aren’t moving.

Or just say we’re not hiding anything, such as RFM and Bill Reel have shown.

Or talk different lingo when conversing with real Egyptologists as BYP showed in his latest video.

[LDS Watchman]

Perhaps some of the brethren have seen Christ and some haven't. Perhaps they all have, Perhaps none of them have. Does it really matter whether the brethren have seen Christ or not?

I don't know of any place in the scriptures or any statement by Joseph Smith that states that seeing Christ and declaring that one has seen him is a requirement for being a prophet or apostle?

This didn't appear to a requirement for the selection of the original Quorum of the 12 apostles on this dispensation. And Joseph Smith obviously didn't consider this to be necessary when he had the entire first presidency and Quorum of the Twelve sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators, as we have no record of most of these men unequivocally declaring that they had seen Christ face to face. For that matter, when did Joseph Smith unequivocally publicly declare that he had seen Christ face to face?

I don't think it's any of our business whether or not they have seen Christ. It is their calling to lead us and we have covenanted to sustain them and to refrain from speaking evil about them. They aren't infallible or perfect, but I believe that they are good men doing the best they can to magnify a very difficult calling. They deserve our support and prayers, not our derision.

I think it's clear that 99% of what they teach is good and if followed will lead one closer to Christ. Why not follow these teachings and put them to the test to see if they bring good fruits in your life, instead of scrutinizing every statement and action with a microscope in the hopes of finding as many faults as possible?

I don't know of any place in the scriptures or any statement by Joseph Smith that states that seeing Christ and declaring that one has seen him is a requirement for being a prophet or apostle?

There is a type given in 1 Nephi Chapter 11: 7 This is when Nephi is called

7 And behold this thing shall be given unto thee for a sign, that after thou hast beheld the tree which bore the fruit which thy father tasted, thou shalt also behold a man descending out of heaven, and him shall ye witness; and after ye have witnessed him ye shall bear record that it is the Son of God.

That scripture doesn't say that it's a requirement to have seen God face to face and to publicly declare this in order to be a prophet or apostle.

Say what you want, that is the pattern given and followed throughout scripture. It is the way its done.

No, this pattern is not established in the scriptures as a requirement. You can believe that it's a requirement, but the scriptures do not say that it is.

[Serragon]

Perhaps some of the brethren have seen Christ and some haven't. Perhaps they all have, Perhaps none of them have. Does it really matter whether the brethren have seen Christ or not?

I don't know of any place in the scriptures or any statement by Joseph Smith that states that seeing Christ and declaring that one has seen him is a requirement for being a prophet or apostle?

This didn't appear to a requirement for the selection of the original Quorum of the 12 apostles on this dispensation. And Joseph Smith obviously didn't consider this to be necessary when he had the entire first presidency and Quorum of the Twelve sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators, as we have no record of most of these men unequivocally declaring that they had seen Christ face to face. For that matter, when did Joseph Smith unequivocally publicly declare that he had seen Christ face to face?

I don't think it's any of our business whether or not they have seen Christ. It is their calling to lead us and we have covenanted to sustain them and to refrain from speaking evil about them. They aren't infallible or perfect, but I believe that they are good men doing the best they can to magnify a very difficult calling. They deserve our support and prayers, not our derision.

I think it's clear that 99% of what they teach is good and if followed will lead one closer to Christ. Why not follow these teachings and put them to the test to see if they bring good fruits in your life, instead of scrutinizing every statement and action with a microscope in the hopes of finding as many faults as possible?

I don't know of any place in the scriptures or any statement by Joseph Smith that states that seeing Christ and declaring that one has seen him is a requirement for being a prophet or apostle?

There is a type given in 1 Nephi Chapter 11: 7 This is when Nephi is called

7 And behold this thing shall be given unto thee for a sign, that after thou hast beheld the tree which bore the fruit which thy father tasted, thou shalt also behold a man descending out of heaven, and him shall ye witness; and after ye have witnessed him ye shall bear record that it is the Son of God.

That scripture doesn't say that it's a requirement to have seen God face to face and to publicly declare this in order to be a prophet or apostle.

In order to be a witness to something, you have to have actually experienced that thing. You must have seen it or heard it. Many of us testify of Christ, but we do so as a witness of the Holy Ghost, not Christ Himself. It is an indirect witness.

The apostles are to be "special" witnesses of Christ. If a normal witness of Christ is actually an indirect witness of Him through the Holy Ghost, then what would constitute a "special" witness? Seems to me that it would have to be experiencing Christ directly.

[logonbump]

Lawyers probably more than anything, which I hate to say.

I dread having an uber-lawyer as the head of the corporation. It could be soon.

It seems Isaiah even names that lawyer, when referencing trees as people:
Isaiah 2
12Jehovah of Hosts has a day in store for all the proud and arrogant and for all who are exalted,
that they may be brought low.
13 It shall come against all the lofty
cedars of Lebanon that lift themselves up high,
and against all the oaks of Bashan,
14 against all high mountains and elevated hills,
15 against every tall tower and reinforced wall,
16 against all vessels at sea, both merchant ships and pleasure craft.
17 The haughtiness of men shall be abased,
and man’s pride brought low; Jehovah alone shall be exalted in that day.

Isaiah 1
29 And youb will be ashamed of the oaks you cherished
and blush for the parks you were fond of;
30 you shall become like an oak whose leaves wither,
and as a garden that has no water.

Isaiah 57
4... Surely you are born of sin, a spurious brood,
5 who burn with lust among the oaks, under every burgeoning tree, slayers of children in the gullies
under the crags of rocks.

Isaiah 6
13 And while yet a tenth of the people remain in it, or return, they shall be burned.
But like the terebinth or the oak when it is felled, whose stump remains alive, so shall the holy offspring be what is left standing

Gileadi (analytical commentary)
"Because the word “oaks” (’elim) is a metaphor for elite persons in society, moreover (Isaiah 61:3), additional meanings of these terms suggest that those whom Jehovah’s people fancy include persons of wealth, power, or position who are popular with the masses, persons whom they idolize as “gods” (’elim) or toward whom they “express fawning adulation” (hamadtem)."

[BeNotDeceived]

Lawyers probably more than anything, which I hate to say.

I dread having an uber-lawyer as the head of the corporation. It could be soon.

It seems Isaiah even names that lawyer, when referencing trees as people:
Isaiah 2
12Jehovah of Hosts has a day in store for all the proud and arrogant and for all who are exalted,
that they may be brought low.
13 It shall come against all the lofty
cedars of Lebanon that lift themselves up high,
and against all the oaks of Bashan,
14 against all high mountains and elevated hills,
15 against every tall tower and reinforced wall,
16 against all vessels at sea, both merchant ships and pleasure craft.
17 The haughtiness of men shall be abased,
and man’s pride brought low; Jehovah alone shall be exalted in that day.

Isaiah 1
29 And youb will be ashamed of the oaks you cherished
and blush for the parks you were fond of;
30 you shall become like an oak whose leaves wither,
and as a garden that has no water.

Isaiah 57
4... Surely you are born of sin, a spurious brood,
5 who burn with lust among the oaks, under every burgeoning tree, slayers of children in the gullies
under the crags of rocks.

Isaiah 6
13 And while yet a tenth of the people remain in it, or return, they shall be burned.
But like the terebinth or the oak when it is felled, whose stump remains alive, so shall the holy offspring be what is left standing

Gileadi (analytical commentary)
"Because the word “oaks” (’elim) is a metaphor for elite persons in society, moreover (Isaiah 61:3), additional meanings of these terms suggest that those whom Jehovah’s people fancy include persons of wealth, power, or position who are popular with the masses, persons whom they idolize as “gods” (’elim) or toward whom they “express fawning adulation” (hamadtem)."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGxnZx-e49Y is about a tree where the ATI at march8miracle.org was captured. search.php?keywords=e49y 4more.

[Niemand]

This is exactly true in my experience with "some of them". One even said Benson was talking about Soviet Communism, but a close reading of Benson's Fall '88 Conference "I Testify" talk, indicates nothing of the sort. And if it did, he could be regarded as a 'false prophet', in such a statement, because, instead of "increasing its evil influence and control over America and the entire world", the USSR was 'falling apart', which was 'completed' in 1991-92.

Short term, the Soviet influence over the USA did diminish through the eighties and nineties. I can see that. Old school Communism suffered a severe blow in that period. But the Soviet form of Communism was not the only one around.

Long term, we see the "Long March through the Institutions", which occurred partly without the Soviet Union's help. This is called Fabianism, which the USSR didn't really like, but which caused them less trouble than open conflict. Communists don't actually get on with each other very well, and are always forming splinters and purges. Homegrown Western European varieties, took hold in the USA, and mutated there. Most forms of Post-Modernism (but not all) derive from this. So called Critical Theory is an outgrowth from Antonio Gramsci via France, Germany and the American universities.

A lot of it would have Karl Marx himself turning in his grave, let alone Lenin. (Marx was actually pretty racist, as can be seen in his own correspondence.) It still lifts a lot from him, like Hegelian style historical dialectics, group struggle, and an unwillingness to see people as individuals.

McCarthy's mistake, in my view, was in not focussing on education enough.

McCarthy got sandbagged by Roy Cohn, a CIA plant to disrupt & derail McCarthy via Cohn’s known homo tendencies…….and isn’t it a coinky dink, that Cohn would go on to become Trump’s lawyer & in Trump’s own word, “mentor”………

I'd have to see more detail to entirely believe this. My sense is that McCarthy was sandbagged by a massive leftist-driven campaign to vilify him. They were able to turn 'McCarthyism' into an ultimate epithet of disdain. Cohn was an influential dude back when. I personally doubt Trump was very much in his thrall. Could he have acted as a 'mentor' to Trump in certain real estate ploys? Probably. But not much more than that.

And yes, I'm aware of a long article that makes these assertions. But if you are a Trump hater, you can make any associations he ever had look bad.

My impression of McCarhy is that he was he was a bit of an Irish bruiser type. That's what might have been needed, but I can't help think that his campaign pulled in a lot of people who genuinely weren't Communist (but left leaning) and let some people off the hook who were. It mirrors Stalin's purges in an ironic sense.

Like I say, education should have been a major focus, especially the universities and teacher training colleges. This seems to have been the main area of growth, as if you get one teacher/lecturer/tutor who can teach a hundred students, and indoctrinate twenty or thirty of them, then that cycle will repeat as those students go and become teachers and academics themselves. The media has been important, but it hasn't been cost effective to infiltrate Hollywood until recently, because some AgitProp is so obvious it drives away audiences. (Which we see happening to this day - although what's in Disney and Marvel today isn't classical Marxism of course, but an offshoot. Many of the actors and writers aren't even aware of the connection.)

The KGB (and its predecessors) were very clever when it came to infiltration. They realised early on that it was not sensible to use overt Communists and leftists at all... it made more sense for the KGB to use people who appeared to be on the right, or even in business, supposedly the polar opposite of Communism. (Armand Hammer is an obvious example of the latter, but like I say, obvious. Some others wouldn't be.) When the Communists used trade unions, that would be obvious, but when they used the bosses themselves, it would be a lot less traceable.

What we have seen in the last thirty years in the PRC is a merger of some of the ugliest aspects of both international Communism and transnational capitalism. The dictatorship and censorship of one, along with the greed and cynicism of the latter, and the materialism of both. This is essentially what we see being spread around the world just now. It's odd for me to mention Chomsky after all this, given his background, but he rightly points out that many countries now operate on the principle that a lot of debt is nationalised whereas profit is privatised. You can see that with the bank bailouts some years ago, the cost of mass "vaccination" campaigns, and with projects like Elon Musk's SpaceX and Tesla, which are subsidised and helped by the US tax payer, while the profits line Musk's pockets.

In fact, those who see Elon Musk as the Saviour of Twitter, should remember a lot of that money has come from the public in the first place. Like many of these people, he is not what he first appears.

[MikeMaillet]

I don't understand why so many people cling to the 15 PSRs and still consider their words. The evidence of a full-blown apostasy is overwhelming when one looks at the mall, the fine sanctuaries, the stocks, iFIT Apostle, the Godsend, graven images etc. You can waste your time trying to defend them and you can waste your time trying to find fault with them but I think it would be better if we just ignored them. It's vital to recognize that the reason for all of this is us. We, as a people, are not living according to the covenant that is beautifully laid out in the Book of Mormon. We are infatuated with our schooling with its three degrees of Babylonian knowledge and we are obsessed with the world of manufacturing, things our fingers have made. The promised land is arguing over abortion "rights" and the open promotion of homosexuality is rampant. Our secular leaders are made up of sexual deviants and pedophiles who answer to the Gadiantons via the WEF, central banks...

I have found much comfort in studying Isaiah (as commanded by our God) even though he paints a rather grim picture of what is in store for us. I've also found much comfort studying other scriptural texts such as the Book of Enoch and The Ascension of Isaiah. When I read the talks of most modern PSRs I'm left feeling angry at the namby-pamby messages that are delivered. I'm tired of being angry and I'm making a serious effort to remain positive and objective in the world that I see falling apart around me.

Only Christ can save us. It's time to let go of the corrupted, wanna-be, pseudo-PSRs.

Mike Maillet
Ingleside, Ontario

[Niemand]

I don't understand why so many people cling to the 15 PSRs and still consider their words. The evidence of a full-blown apostasy is overwhelming when one looks at the mall, the fine sanctuaries, the stocks, iFIT Apostle, the Godsend, graven images etc.

I agree with this. It's at surface level, although if you want to dig there's plenty more.

They have become obsessed with that statue, haven't they? I've nothing against it in moderation, but that Christus turns up everywhere now. And it's not even ours, it's usually a copy of a copy we see. It's Lutheran.

[MikeMaillet]

I don't understand why so many people cling to the 15 PSRs and still consider their words. The evidence of a full-blown apostasy is overwhelming when one looks at the mall, the fine sanctuaries, the stocks, iFIT Apostle, the Godsend, graven images etc.

I agree with this. It's at surface level, although if you want to dig there's plenty more.

They have become obsessed with that statue, haven't they? I've nothing against it in moderation, but that Christus turns up everywhere now. And it's not even ours, it's usually a copy of a copy we see. It's Lutheran.

You are absolutely correct.

Mike

annual-christus-sale-landing-942x303-v2.jpg (116.28 KiB) Viewed 554 times

[ransomme]

I think they are a product of what the church has slowly morphed into over at least the last 100 years. They probably don't feel the need or expect to see Christ because that is what they've been taught their whole lives coming up through the leadership ranks of the church. When was the last time that a church apostle or general authority ever claimed a direct manifestation from the Lord or His angels? They are following how they were taught the church operates and the pride of being PSRs that can't possibly lead the church astray has been instilled in them just as with most of the church membership. Same thing as with what happened in ancient Israel- while there were some pivotal doctrinal changes now and again, most of it happened slowly over time and tradition took over. There wasn't one moment in time when the Pharisees suddenly became the Pharisees that would end up Crucifying the Messiah. It happened gradually over generations and I'm sure many of the Pharisees were absolutely sure they were right. I think the main changes that have happened with the 15 over the generations are: 1. They started trusting in the arm of flesh (namely themselves, which lead to "follow the brethren" doctrine) and then 2. That trust/pride is leading them to embrace the doctrines of the world in an effort to more easily "hasten the work" and spread it throughout the world with the least amount of opposition from the world. And in their minds they think they are right.

"So we see that they could not enter in [to His rest] because of unbelief."

"For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?"

"...if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again."

[Say what?]

There has been strong indication that Christ was present at the Palmyra Temple dedication.

[Niemand]

There has been strong indication that Christ was present at the Palmyra Temple dedication.

By who?

[LDS Watchman]

Perhaps some of the brethren have seen Christ and some haven't. Perhaps they all have, Perhaps none of them have. Does it really matter whether the brethren have seen Christ or not?

To a certain degree it actually does. An Apostle had to be a witness of His Resurrection, that is, to see Him after His resurrection.

I don't know of any place in the scriptures or any statement by Joseph Smith that states that seeing Christ and declaring that one has seen him is a requirement for being a prophet or apostle?

You won't find it from Joseph Smith, but you will find it in the New Testament of the Bible. First chapter of Acts.

Here is what it says in Acts 1:

21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

You'll notice that it doesn't say that in order to be an apostle one must have seen him after his resurrection. I says that they are ordained to be a witness of his resurrection. In other words to testify that he was resurrected and that he lives. The twelve apostles today constantly witness that he lives and was resurrected. Nowhere does it say that this witness cannot be received by the Holy Ghost and has to be a via a face to face encounter with the risen Lord.

This didn't appear to a requirement for the selection of the original Quorum of the 12 apostles on this dispensation. And Joseph Smith obviously didn't consider this to be necessary when he had the entire first presidency and Quorum of the Twelve sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators, as we have no record of most of these men unequivocally declaring that they had seen Christ face to face. For that matter, when did Joseph Smith unequivocally publicly declare that he had seen Christ face to face?

This is quite a reach for you to ask that question. The missionaries literally recite Joseph Smith's words to every prospective investigator on their first lesson. We don't have absolutely unequivocal statements from every single Apostle that they have directly seen Christ. Many, including a few of the current ones, have implied it.

Joseph Smith didn't go around unequivocally declaring that he had seen the risen Lord face to face. The first vision account was not originally used to support his claim of being a prophet. I don't know of a single instance were he publicly declared that he had seen Jesus face to face and felt the nail prints in his hands and feet. Maybe he did have this experience and maybe he didn't. Same goes for the current apostles. For those apostles who have implied that they have seen him, does this mean in a vision or an actual face to face meeting? We don't know. It doesn't matter. They have received the sure witness that Christ lives and have been called to declare this message. How they received this witness is none of our business.

I don't think it's any of our business whether or not they have seen Christ. It is their calling to lead us and we have covenanted to sustain them and to refrain from speaking evil about them. They aren't infallible or perfect, but I believe that they are good men doing the best they can to magnify a very difficult calling. They deserve our support and prayers, not our derision.

That we can agree on, they need our support and prayers. But, if you feel like the Apostles are doing things that are wrong or incorrect, do you feel like it is correct to just let them be, or do you think it is better to warn of the dangers up ahead? I think if I were to truly sustain them, I would need to send them the warnings. We have Paul rebuke Peter directly in the Scriptures. Many of the earlier Apostles likely took good lickings from other members.

We have no record of any apostles taking a good licking from lay members. I think if you have a concern about something an apostle has said or done, then you should write them a letter or go talk to your Bishop about it. Perhaps discuss it privately with your spouse. But you should not publicly speak evil of them because you disagree with them on a point of doctrine or something they said or did.

I think it's clear that 99% of what they teach is good and if followed will lead one closer to Christ. Why not follow these teachings and put them to the test to see if they bring good fruits in your life, instead of scrutinizing every statement and action with a microscope in the hopes of finding as many faults as possible?

I agree with this too, Atticus. But what happens with the 1 percent? Would this go under "the prophet is only the prophet when he is speaking as such?" With any prophetic teaching, you have to put it to the test. A divine test. As in, praying to God to understand the truth (see Book of Mormon, Moroni 10). And trust that the Holy Spirit will be able to reveal the truth of all things to you.

I agree, lets put their teachings to the test. Lets have faith in Christ, repent, love and serve others, be chaste, be honest, pay a full tithe, keep the word of wisdom, attend the temple and our church meetings, share the gospel with others, teach our children the simple truths of the gospel, earnestly pray and study our scriptures each day, and faithfully magnify our callings. Let's do these things and put their teachings to the test.

And if there's a thing here or there that we don't agree with, then we should assume good intentions while seeking the will of the Lord.

[LDS Watchman]

In order to be a witness to something, you have to have actually experienced that thing. You must have seen it or heard it. Many of us testify of Christ, but we do so as a witness of the Holy Ghost, not Christ Himself. It is an indirect witness.

The apostles are to be "special" witnesses of Christ. If a normal witness of Christ is actually an indirect witness of Him through the Holy Ghost, then what would constitute a "special" witness? Seems to me that it would have to be experiencing Christ directly.

Knowing that Jesus is the Christ is one of the gift of the spirit, that is not given to all members. Most of us who say we know that Jesus lives, do not actually know it. We have faith in it.

I don't think that a sure witness of the Holy Ghost is an "indirect witness."

I think the brethren have likely had experiences in addition to the witness of the Holy Ghost, but it's really none of our business whether that was a face to face meeting with Christ, a vision, a dream, or something else.

[madvin]

Ezra Taft Benson gave ample fervent testimony AGAINST the Gads....from the pulpit and in books.

Current Q15 is very much aware of what he said and wrote...they have CHOSEN to dismiss it.

I personally know many that have written detailed letters to Q15 WARNING them of the dangers of the deadly-jab...they have all been ignored.

Do you see a pattern here?????

'Scuse the Devil's advocate here, but they may just think, "Benson was a John Bircher and we can't listen to extremists."

Also once you've invested in something, folk tend to try and justify it.

President Benson certainly made it seem like he was a Bircher, but in fact was not.

[Church_of_the_Lamb]

In order to be a witness to something, you have to have actually experienced that thing. You must have seen it or heard it. Many of us testify of Christ, but we do so as a witness of the Holy Ghost, not Christ Himself. It is an indirect witness.

The apostles are to be "special" witnesses of Christ. If a normal witness of Christ is actually an indirect witness of Him through the Holy Ghost, then what would constitute a "special" witness? Seems to me that it would have to be experiencing Christ directly.

Knowing that Jesus is the Christ is one of the gift of the spirit, that is not given to all members. Most of us who say we know that Jesus lives, do not actually know it. We have faith in it.

I don't think that a sure witness of the Holy Ghost is an "indirect witness."

I think the brethren have likely had experiences in addition to the witness of the Holy Ghost, but it's really none of our business whether that was a face to face meeting with Christ, a vision, a dream, or something else.

Let's Go back to 1 Nephi Chapter 11: 7, Once again this is the type/example given in scripture

7 And behold this thing shall be given unto thee for a sign, that after thou hast beheld the tree which bore the fruit which thy father tasted, thou shalt also behold a man descending out of heaven, and him shall ye witness; and after ye have witnessed him ye shall bear record that it is the Son of God.

after ye have witnessed him ye shall bear record that it is the Son of God.

If they are special witnesses of Christ then they should tell us how they are. If they are going to claim that they are special witnesses then it absolutely is our business

[HereWeGo]

There has been strong indication that Christ was present at the Palmyra Temple dedication.

When you say "indication" that sounds like he was not prominent and no one saw him. It would seem odd that Christ would attend a major event and stay hidden.

[InfoWarrior82]

If they are special witnesses of Christ then they should tell us how they are. If they are going to claim that they are special witnesses then it absolutely is our business

Amen.

[Christianlee]

My quick opinion. They just don't want the boat to sink on their watch.

[Reluctant Watchman]

My quick opinion. They just don't want the boat to sink on their watch.

Joseph actually had some fascinating dreams about boats coating fire and sinking. He knew what was coming.

https://www.reluctantwatchman.com/josephs-last-dreams

[LDS Watchman]

In order to be a witness to something, you have to have actually experienced that thing. You must have seen it or heard it. Many of us testify of Christ, but we do so as a witness of the Holy Ghost, not Christ Himself. It is an indirect witness.

The apostles are to be "special" witnesses of Christ. If a normal witness of Christ is actually an indirect witness of Him through the Holy Ghost, then what would constitute a "special" witness? Seems to me that it would have to be experiencing Christ directly.

Knowing that Jesus is the Christ is one of the gift of the spirit, that is not given to all members. Most of us who say we know that Jesus lives, do not actually know it. We have faith in it.

I don't think that a sure witness of the Holy Ghost is an "indirect witness."

I think the brethren have likely had experiences in addition to the witness of the Holy Ghost, but it's really none of our business whether that was a face to face meeting with Christ, a vision, a dream, or something else.

Let's Go back to 1 Nephi Chapter 11: 7, Once again this is the type/example given in scripture

7 And behold this thing shall be given unto thee for a sign, that after thou hast beheld the tree which bore the fruit which thy father tasted, thou shalt also behold a man descending out of heaven, and him shall ye witness; and after ye have witnessed him ye shall bear record that it is the Son of God.

after ye have witnessed him ye shall bear record that it is the Son of God.

If they are special witnesses of Christ then they should tell us how they are. If they are going to claim that they are special witnesses then it absolutely is our business

Again, it doesn't say anywhere that only those who had a vision of the life and death of Jesus Christ, like Nephi did, can be special witnesses of his name.

You can believe that this is required, but God never said that it is.

Did Joseph Smith ever tell the 12 apostles in the 1830s that they had to first see Christ face to face and then tell everyone that they did, before they were special witnesses? If he did, there's no record of it.

[Church_of_the_Lamb]

In order to be a witness to something, you have to have actually experienced that thing. You must have seen it or heard it. Many of us testify of Christ, but we do so as a witness of the Holy Ghost, not Christ Himself. It is an indirect witness.

The apostles are to be "special" witnesses of Christ. If a normal witness of Christ is actually an indirect witness of Him through the Holy Ghost, then what would constitute a "special" witness? Seems to me that it would have to be experiencing Christ directly.

Knowing that Jesus is the Christ is one of the gift of the spirit, that is not given to all members. Most of us who say we know that Jesus lives, do not actually know it. We have faith in it.

I don't think that a sure witness of the Holy Ghost is an "indirect witness."

I think the brethren have likely had experiences in addition to the witness of the Holy Ghost, but it's really none of our business whether that was a face to face meeting with Christ, a vision, a dream, or something else.

Let's Go back to 1 Nephi Chapter 11: 7, Once again this is the type/example given in scripture

7 And behold this thing shall be given unto thee for a sign, that after thou hast beheld the tree which bore the fruit which thy father tasted, thou shalt also behold a man descending out of heaven, and him shall ye witness; and after ye have witnessed him ye shall bear record that it is the Son of God.

after ye have witnessed him ye shall bear record that it is the Son of God.

If they are special witnesses of Christ then they should tell us how they are. If they are going to claim that they are special witnesses then it absolutely is our business

Again, it doesn't say anywhere that only those who had a vision of the life and death of Jesus Christ, like Nephi did, can be special witnesses of his name.

You can believe that this is required, but God never said that it is.

Did Joseph Smith ever tell the 12 apostles in the 1830s that they had to first see Christ face to face and then tell everyone that they did, before they were special witnesses? If he did, there's no record of it.

You don't speak for God. Every time you exert that you do you offend. God did give us a type and example in The Book of Mormon.