How the Lord calls Prophets and Apostles today...

[Amonhi]

I was going to include this in the thread, How the Lord Leads His Church Today... but then this isn't how he leads the church, this is how he calls the highest leaders in the church.

As a child in primary, I was taught or thought I was taught that God calls prophets and that was part of what made them so special. They were hand picked by God from among the people. Now my little brain kind of figured that Jesus personally showed up in the flesh to a special meeting with the remaining 14 men, (12 apostles and 2 previous counselors in the First Presidency) and just told them flat out, the next Prophet will be Brother John Smitty who lives in Canada, in the Ontario East Stake, 2nd Ward, Here's his address and Phone number.

I somehow figured that was how it worked...

As I group up, somehow I learned that the prophet was always called from among the 12 apostles. That was kind of a spoiler to me, but I thought the Lord still appeared in a special meeting and told the group, "Ok, Elder Harold B. Lee will be our next Prophet and I will speak to the world through him."

And then somewhere growing up, I realized that there was no visit from Christ and no magical process by which the next prophet was called and it was predictable. Low and behold President Smith dies and the living Senior Apostle, Elder Spencer W. Kimball becomes the new Prophet. Nothing magical or mysterious about that. And then again following the same protocol, we know exactly how Benson was called and then Hunter, then Hinckley and finally President Monson. Any member fo the church who knows how it is done has as much revelation as the leaders do when the new prophet is called.

I remember when I realized that bit of information, I felt a little tricked. I really thought prophets were called by Revelation, and to see them being called by process was disappointing to me. I remember someone trying to console me or downplay the relevance of this realization by telling me that the Lord chooses the next prophet by killing off the other senior apostles until the one that he wants to be the new prophet is senior.

That never sat well with me. It doesn't make any sense from a truth/principle view point. Just as any righteous man can fill the role of the Bishop, any of the righteous Apostles could fill the role of President of the Church and do the Lord's will. But we see that different presidents of the church have different focuses or thrusts, so if the Lord is killing them off intentionally, then it is like saying the Lord didn't like the focus or thrust of one apostle and so kills them to get to one he likes? Yeah, I tried that idea for a while and maybe it got me through the disappointment of the moment, but ultimately I never got a ratifying witness on this one.

But I did fall back on the fact that any righteous Apostle could be the President of the Church, so to me, it didn't matter who became President of the Church. The fact that the Lord didn't pick them in the moment to be the new prophet was swallowed up in the acceptance that each Apostle was selected individually by the Lord through revelation to the President of the Church.

I really like the idea that the Lord is still involved in the process somewhere, ya know. It's his Church, led by him and not by men, (again, for a detailed discussion of How the Lord leads the church today, see the thread, How the Lord Leads His Church Today... which uses quotes from the Leaders of the church detailing how the Lord guides and directs the affairs of the church today). And of course I want his leaders to be called by revelation through a magic process and not by corporate process of filling a vacancy in the corporate leadership. Yes, I know that revelation in the church is 90% information and that the information is largely acquired by association, meaning relation... Like this funny quote indirectly points out...

In the preface to a compilation of Joseph Fielding Smith’s sermons and writings, his son-in-law Elder Bruce R. McConkie wrote: “Joseph Fielding Smith is the leading gospel scholar and the greatest doctrinal teacher of this generation. Few men in this dispensation have approached him in gospel knowledge or surpassed him in spiritual insight. His is the faith and the knowledge of his father, President Joseph F. Smith, and his grandfather, the Patriarch Hyrum Smith” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [1954–56], l:v).

So, yeah, I get the fact that people are often called by relation backed by confirming revelation and that no one has ever been called to the Apostleship who was not directly interacting with the majority of the 12 in some way.

So, I figured that "called by revelation" part of being a Prophet was happening when the person was called as an apostle or into the First Presidency as a counselor.

Yesterday, I read something that changed my understanding yet again...

To get the context, Apostle Elder Reed Smoot was elected to be a Senator for Utah. But Being an Apostle and a Senator didn't sit well with some because the government had strained relations with Mormonism. So, their were a series of congressional hearings to determine if Elder Smoot should be given a seat on the Senate. In those hearings, President of the Church, Joseph F. Smith as called in as a witness and spoke under oath by threat of perjury and answered various questions regarding the faith, his role as the prophet/president and other related matters.

He is what he says about how Apostles are called...

McComas: I should like to ask one question. You say that the councilors are appointed by the president of the church. How are the apostles selected?
Smith: In the first place they were chosen by revelation. The council of the apostles have had a voice ever since in the selection of their successors.
…
McComas: When vacancies occurred thereafter, by what body were the vacancies in the twelve apostles filled?
Smith: Perhaps I may say in this way: Chosen by the body, the twelve themselves, by and with the consent and approval of the first presidency.
Hoar: Was there a revelation in regard to each of them?
Smith: No, sir; not in regard to each of them. Do you mean in the beginning?
Hoar: I understand you to say that the original twelve apostles were selected by revelation?
Smith: Yes, sir.
Hoar: Through Joseph Smith?
Smith: Yes, sir; that is right.
Hoar: Is there any revelation in regard to the subsequent ones?
Smith: No, sir; it has been the choice of the body.
McComas: Then the apostles are perpetuated in succession by their own act and the approval of the first presidency?
Smith: That is right.

So, seems simple enough. Joseph Smith called the original 12 via revelation and they have called their own successors ever since. This changes my understanding of how prophets and apostles are called, once again. Straight from the mouth of the President/Prophet of the church, under oath.

It is clear that I have been holding on to the fantasy of my primary days and that I need to adjust my view and accept that there is more process involved than revelation. But I want to still hold to the unfounded belief that they at least get a confirmation by the spirit regarding their decision when calling a new apostle.

And yet, even when writing that last sentence, I am reminded of the two apostles who committed adultery and wee excommunicated as apostles. One of which, if I remember correctly was having illicit sexual affairs before, during and after being called and for 8 years after before being discovered and excommunicated.



I think it will take a little time for me to figure out how this impacts my views, but I am grateful that it has no bearing on my testimony and relationship with Christ or my own personal progression.

Peace,
Amonhi

[Zathura]

You'll have to wait until Mark, Franco, Rewcox,Kenny, Emmalee and others and explain to you that President Smith didn't actually mean what he said, and that he was being sly and witty with his words.

They explain it much more smoothly than I, perhaps they can come here and tell you how you are misinterpreting and twisting what President Smith said throughout the Reed Smoot case.

[Sarah]

I think the brethren have testified countless times that the process of choosing new apostles and the President of the Church is done through revelation. Yes there is a process, and obeying that process entitles them to receive revelation.

Here's one testimony of Elder Haight -

"The calling of Ezra Taft Benson as the thirteenth President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will long be remembered, particularly by the seven newest members of the Quorum of the Twelve, who experienced for the first time the holy direction we received in the calling of a President of the Church. After much fasting and prayer, and the seeking of personal revelation to know the mind and will of God, it was confirmed to our souls who should be called—even Ezra Taft Benson. This I know! With that heavenly confirmation to each of those present, Ezra Taft Benson was ordained and set apart on Sunday, November 10, 1985, as prophet, seer, and revelator, and President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

[Amonhi]

I think the brethren have testified countless times that the process of choosing new apostles and the President of the Church is done through revelation. Yes there is a process, and obeying that process entitles them to receive revelation.

I might be able to still disregard President Joseph F. Smith sworn testimony and pretend that he lied to congress under oath, like you are insinuating by your contradicting him. But, not for President of the church. There is no revelation there. The least of the Saints who have absolutely no connection to heaven can tell you who the new President of the church will be. Goodness, even a non-member, non-christian, Satanist can prophecy who the next President will be with 100% accuracy because it is a policy. From Brigham Young till today, every President of the that I know of has been the Senior Apostle. There is no revelation there. You might be able to say "confirmation" and get away with it. But revelation requires an aspect of unknown to be made known.

Regarding the apostles, I might could buy it as there are candidates that are considered, like selecting a Bishop or a Stake President. You interview a few people and look for the confirmation by the spirit. But the time of Christ calling his prophets and Apostles directly is over. It is inspiration by the spirit given the information you already have available, the same as all other callings.

Here's one testimony of Elder Haight -

"The calling of Ezra Taft Benson as the thirteenth President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will long be remembered, particularly by the seven newest members of the Quorum of the Twelve, who experienced for the first time the holy direction we received in the calling of a President of the Church. After much fasting and prayer, and the seeking of personal revelation to know the mind and will of God, it was confirmed to our souls who should be called—even Ezra Taft Benson. This I know! With that heavenly confirmation to each of those present, Ezra Taft Benson was ordained and set apart on Sunday, November 10, 1985, as prophet, seer, and revelator, and President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

I feel a little cynical because it is quotes like this that created in my mind an illusion of the process by which Apostles and Prophets are called. It really sounds like all of the 12 Apostles had no process to follow and no idea who would be called to be the new prophet and it could have been any of the 14 who already qualified and they each prayed about it and received a revelation independent of each other and independent of any process and low and behold they each received the same name by revelation and it was therefore a confirmation of their ability to receive revelation and that they are receiving from the same spiritual source. BUT, that isn't how it works. If one of the Apostles receives confirmation that it shouldn't be the Senior Apostle, then there is a problem with that Apostle because he is breaking protocol.

It's like getting excited about a revelation that the sun is going to come up tomorrow as planned and expected. Good job. What a wonderful experience that was. It takes a lot of fasting and prayer and personal revelation to come to the conclusion that, yes in deed, God wants the sun to come up tomorrow. How much revelation, fasting and prayer does one need to experience to follow a protocol/process that hasn't changed ever.

But Elder Haight, (And I really liked Elder Haight, no slight against him), doesn't talk about the protocol/process part, and so members like me who want to believe it is more than what it is get all excited inside and feel like God did somethings special and there was a supernatural miracle involved, so we buy into the illusion/lie that something is happening that isn't. Then, when I learn about the process/protocol or come across quotes by President Joseph F. Smith like the ones in the OP, I feel like I just learned that Santa Claus isn't real and my whole life I bought into a lie/deception.

The deception happens when he says that they physically and spiritually worked hard to "receive personal revelation to know the mind and will of God". The process/protocol of calling a prophet is established and has been in place from Brigham Young on. It is a mathematical equation that looks like this:
If Years as Apostle > other apostles years then = You are Senior Apostle and next in line to be prophet.

If your not familiar with this process, here are the Apostles in order of seniority and the order by which they will become the new prophet in the event that they are still alive when everyone else above them in the list is dead:

Thomas S Monson
Russell M. Nelson
Dallin H. Oaks
M. Russel Ballard
Robert D. Hales
Jeffery R. Holland
Henry B. Eyring
Dieter F. Uchtdorf
David A. Bednar
Quentin L. Cook
D. Todd Christofferson
Neil L. Anderson
Ronald A. Rasband
Gary E. Stevenson
Dale G. Renlund

That is the order that the order of the next president of the church for the next ?? years. Whomever is at the top of that list and is still alive will be the next prophet of the church. I could plug it into a computer and have calculated with 100% accuracy every president of the church after Brigham Young on.

Does an accountant have to fast and pray and seek personal revelation to know whether 2+2=4?
You see, Elder Haight didn't really lie in this quote. But he painted a "Faith promoting" picture that supports a reality that there is not process/protocol or calculation. I wanted to believe in that reality so bad because it promoted a faith that matched the ancient scriptures, but which was false. When my faith was shown to be wrong or false... the church leaders and nice little quotes like the one provided didn't just lose credibility on that topic, but it opened the door for realizing that the church is NOT run the way I thought it was based on quotes like this.

That is why I started the "How the Lord leads the Church today" Thread. That was another instance in which nice little faith promoting quotes created an illusion in my mind of how the Lord leads the Church. But when put to the test, or looking at the facts, we realize that most of the 15 men that lead the church have never even had a vision let alone seen Christ in a vision. And if they haven't seen Christ, then the Church is not led by Christ the way we want or used to think.

While such "Faith Promoting" speech produces faith in the short run, it plants the seed for the destruction of faith in the long run. And there are not a few who have left the church angry and upset because they feel lied to, deceived and misguided by the institution who seemed to "say things without saying them".

The fact is that if they didn't say it, but they sounded like they said it. You can't assume that they were being coy. They are most likely trying to protect the faith of others who would lose faith if they found out the truth. If they are asked if they have seen Christ and they say, "some things are too personal to discuss." Then they didn't say they saw Christ and they didn't say that they haven't. They avoided. You weren't asking them to give details. You were asking them a yes and no question.

I have seen Christ. I have seen Christ on more than one occasion. I can tell you that without discussing the personal details of my experiences. I do not in any way feel to avoid the issue. Why they do is their affair. But if they didn't say it, then they didn't say it.

But, if they did say it, then they are either lying or they are speaking the truth. Was President Joseph F. Smith lying under oath to the congressional hearings o was he telling the truth? If he was lying, then on what moral principle is he justified in lying? And in the same breath, tell me on what moral principle am I justified in lying?

If he was telling the truth, then why can't we accept it? What primary fantasy are we holding on that prevents us from accepting his words? What do we want to believe that conflicts with what he flat out said?

I have detailed my fantasy and I am willing to let it go to believe that the Prophet and President of the Church is not a liar. I am willing to accept that he was telling the truth, just like President Hinckely did in all those interviews. I didn't like what he said, but I don't count him as a liar. It hurts and it is sad to not believe in Santa Claus anymore, but I am after truth. I don't want to live in the fantasy. I want to be free and it is the truth, not the fantasy, that sets us free.

Peace,
Amonhi

[Separatist]

Is there scriptural precedence of people knowing the names of future prophets? Let alone THE prophet?

[zionminded]

The president of the church is chosen based on seniority. It's a simple as that. I think the Lord is okay with whatever method these men choose, it is much less about the man and more about the position. He can work with anybody. These are all leaders of the church, not the leader of your salvation.

[Sarah]

The president of the church is chosen based on seniority. It's a simple as that. I think the Lord is okay with whatever method these men choose, it is much less about the man and more about the position. He can work with anybody. These are all leaders of the church, not the leader of your salvation.

I agree with this. Even though there is a process, how do we know that the Lord isn't there confirming the prophet himself. We are not there, so we don't have the privilege of knowing.

We have processes and policies in the Church, big and small. And the longer the Church has been around, the greater the need there is to have "policy." Ask any idealistic pastor who has started his own church, wanting it to stay pure and run strictly by the spirit, if he has run into instances where there was a need to have policies in place. There is. You could say the ordinances themselves are policies, but the Spirit is there to confirm what goes on.

[Sarah]

I think the brethren have testified countless times that the process of choosing new apostles and the President of the Church is done through revelation. Yes there is a process, and obeying that process entitles them to receive revelation.

I might be able to still disregard President Joseph F. Smith sworn testimony and pretend that he lied to congress under oath, like you are insinuating by your contradicting him. But, not for President of the church. There is no revelation there. The least of the Saints who have absolutely no connection to heaven can tell you who the new President of the church will be. Goodness, even a non-member, non-christian, Satanist can prophecy who the next President will be with 100% accuracy because it is a policy. From Brigham Young till today, every President of the that I know of has been the Senior Apostle. There is no revelation there. You might be able to say "confirmation" and get away with it. But revelation requires an aspect of unknown to be made known.

Regarding the apostles, I might could buy it as there are candidates that are considered, like selecting a Bishop or a Stake President. You interview a few people and look for the confirmation by the spirit. But the time of Christ calling his prophets and Apostles directly is over. It is inspiration by the spirit given the information you already have available, the same as all other callings.

Here's one testimony of Elder Haight -

"The calling of Ezra Taft Benson as the thirteenth President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will long be remembered, particularly by the seven newest members of the Quorum of the Twelve, who experienced for the first time the holy direction we received in the calling of a President of the Church. After much fasting and prayer, and the seeking of personal revelation to know the mind and will of God, it was confirmed to our souls who should be called—even Ezra Taft Benson. This I know! With that heavenly confirmation to each of those present, Ezra Taft Benson was ordained and set apart on Sunday, November 10, 1985, as prophet, seer, and revelator, and President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

I feel a little cynical because it is quotes like this that created in my mind an illusion of the process by which Apostles and Prophets are called. It really sounds like all of the 12 Apostles had no process to follow and no idea who would be called to be the new prophet and it could have been any of the 14 who already qualified and they each prayed about it and received a revelation independent of each other and independent of any process and low and behold they each received the same name by revelation and it was therefore a confirmation of their ability to receive revelation and that they are receiving from the same spiritual source. BUT, that isn't how it works. If one of the Apostles receives confirmation that it shouldn't be the Senior Apostle, then there is a problem with that Apostle because he is breaking protocol.

It's like getting excited about a revelation that the sun is going to come up tomorrow as planned and expected. Good job. What a wonderful experience that was. It takes a lot of fasting and prayer and personal revelation to come to the conclusion that, yes in deed, God wants the sun to come up tomorrow. How much revelation, fasting and prayer does one need to experience to follow a protocol/process that hasn't changed ever.

But Elder Haight, (And I really liked Elder Haight, no slight against him), doesn't talk about the protocol/process part, and so members like me who want to believe it is more than what it is get all excited inside and feel like God did somethings special and there was a supernatural miracle involved, so we buy into the illusion/lie that something is happening that isn't. Then, when I learn about the process/protocol or come across quotes by President Joseph F. Smith like the ones in the OP, I feel like I just learned that Santa Claus isn't real and my whole life I bought into a lie/deception.

The deception happens when he says that they physically and spiritually worked hard to "receive personal revelation to know the mind and will of God". The process/protocol of calling a prophet is established and has been in place from Brigham Young on. It is a mathematical equation that looks like this:
If Years as Apostle > other apostles years then = You are Senior Apostle and next in line to be prophet.

If your not familiar with this process, here are the Apostles in order of seniority and the order by which they will become the new prophet in the event that they are still alive when everyone else above them in the list is dead:

Thomas S Monson
Russell M. Nelson
Dallin H. Oaks
M. Russel Ballard
Robert D. Hales
Jeffery R. Holland
Henry B. Eyring
Dieter F. Uchtdorf
David A. Bednar
Quentin L. Cook
D. Todd Christofferson
Neil L. Anderson
Ronald A. Rasband
Gary E. Stevenson
Dale G. Renlund

That is the order that the order of the next president of the church for the next ?? years. Whomever is at the top of that list and is still alive will be the next prophet of the church. I could plug it into a computer and have calculated with 100% accuracy every president of the church after Brigham Young on.

Does an accountant have to fast and pray and seek personal revelation to know whether 2+2=4?
You see, Elder Haight didn't really lie in this quote. But he painted a "Faith promoting" picture that supports a reality that there is not process/protocol or calculation. I wanted to believe in that reality so bad because it promoted a faith that matched the ancient scriptures, but which was false. When my faith was shown to be wrong or false... the church leaders and nice little quotes like the one provided didn't just lose credibility on that topic, but it opened the door for realizing that the church is NOT run the way I thought it was based on quotes like this.

That is why I started the "How the Lord leads the Church today" Thread. That was another instance in which nice little faith promoting quotes created an illusion in my mind of how the Lord leads the Church. But when put to the test, or looking at the facts, we realize that most of the 15 men that lead the church have never even had a vision let alone seen Christ in a vision. And if they haven't seen Christ, then the Church is not led by Christ the way we want or used to think.

While such "Faith Promoting" speech produces faith in the short run, it plants the seed for the destruction of faith in the long run. And there are not a few who have left the church angry and upset because they feel lied to, deceived and misguided by the institution who seemed to "say things without saying them".

The fact is that if they didn't say it, but they sounded like they said it. You can't assume that they were being coy. They are most likely trying to protect the faith of others who would lose faith if they found out the truth. If they are asked if they have seen Christ and they say, "some things are too personal to discuss." Then they didn't say they saw Christ and they didn't say that they haven't. They avoided. You weren't asking them to give details. You were asking them a yes and no question.

I have seen Christ. I have seen Christ on more than one occasion. I can tell you that without discussing the personal details of my experiences. I do not in any way feel to avoid the issue. Why they do is their affair. But if they didn't say it, then they didn't say it.

But, if they did say it, then they are either lying or they are speaking the truth. Was President Joseph F. Smith lying under oath to the congressional hearings o was he telling the truth? If he was lying, then on what moral principle is he justified in lying? And in the same breath, tell me on what moral principle am I justified in lying?

If he was telling the truth, then why can't we accept it? What primary fantasy are we holding on that prevents us from accepting his words? What do we want to believe that conflicts with what he flat out said?

I have detailed my fantasy and I am willing to let it go to believe that the Prophet and President of the Church is not a liar. I am willing to accept that he was telling the truth, just like President Hinckely did in all those interviews. I didn't like what he said, but I don't count him as a liar. It hurts and it is sad to not believe in Santa Claus anymore, but I am after truth. I don't want to live in the fantasy. I want to be free and it is the truth, not the fantasy, that sets us free.

Peace,
Amonhi

Anonhi, since you seem to think that the Apostles should be declaring their experiences seeing the Savior, do you also feel that they should go into detail about what they saw and how it happened so it would be convincing to us? Do you like to do this yourself? I think if it was standard for them to all say they had seen the Savior, you'd have people asking, "Well, how did you see him" "Did you just see a vision, have a dream, touch his hands and feet?" The reality is that you would never satisfy the swine and dogs, who cannot appreciate sacred things, and have no faith. I have had some special experiences myself, and each time there was an outpouring of revelation, it has always been followed with a chastisement letting me know what I need to repent of. In the two latest instances the things I was guilty of were irreverence and light-mindedness. When you have sacred experiences, and receive chastisement from the Lord, you realize you don't want to do anything to make light of what you've received, and to disrespect the gifts he has given to you. Throwing pearls before swine is something I know I've done in the past, and I fear the Lord enough to want to be really really careful that I do not offend him in this thing. I have to imagine our leaders have had the same thoughts. They love and respect the Lord so much, and fear for their own standing with him, that to share things he has not commanded them to share would be putting their standing before the Lord at stake.

[Amonhi]

I have seen Christ. I have seen Christ on more than one occasion. I can tell you that without discussing the personal details of my experiences. I do not in any way feel to avoid the issue. Why they do is their affair. But if they didn't say it, then they didn't say it.

Peace,
Amonhi

Anonhi, since you seem to think that the Apostles should be declaring their experiences seeing the Savior, do you also feel that they should go into detail about what they saw and how it happened so it would be convincing to us? Do you like to do this yourself? I think if it was standard for them to all say they had seen the Savior, you'd have people asking, "Well, how did you see him" "Did you just see a vision, have a dream, touch his hands and feet?"

I have been telling people for over over 15 years that I have seen Christ, and I do not experience the issues people worry about like the ones you describe here. I have told complete strangers on buses, planes, and other public places as moved on by the spirit. In a few instances, I have even discussed details of my experiences and in many instances, I just say "Yes, I have seen Christ on multiple occasions, but I am not comfortable answering those questions at this time." You can read multiple stories of people receiving special blessings like C&E or even details about visions in which they met Christ on the following links:

Elliaison.org - How You Received Your Calling and Election Made Sure
Elliaison.org - Firsthand Witnesses of Christ
LDSFF - I have Seen Christ? - Couldn't find this one. Somewhere on this forum there was a topic in which lots of people shared that they had a vision or other experience with Jesus Christ. Does anyone know where that topic went?

Somehow, I have figured out ways to deal with any issues that might arise. I think they could too.

The reality is that you would never satisfy the swine and dogs, who cannot appreciate sacred things, and have no faith.

The problem is that the majority of the people who are asking are not swine or dogs. They are faithful LDS who want a powerful firsthand witness to add to their own faith. They deny the righteous along with the wicked. The swine and dogs treat sacred things like dirt. that doesn't detract from the sacred things and make they not sacred. It only means they are swine becuase they don't know how to handle sacred pearls. But a pearl thrown through the mud by a pig, is still a pearl.

I have had some special experiences myself, and each time there was an outpouring of revelation, it has always been followed with a chastisement letting me know what I need to repent of. In the two latest instances the things I was guilty of were irreverence and light-mindedness. When you have sacred experiences, and receive chastisement from the Lord, you realize you don't want to do anything to make light of what you've received, and to disrespect the gifts he has given to you. Throwing pearls before swine is something I know I've done in the past, and I fear the Lord enough to want to be really really careful that I do not offend him in this thing. I have to imagine our leaders have had the same thoughts.

Perhaps. I and others have specifically been told to share our witnesses. So, maybe the lord doesn't want the prophets and apostles to be witnesses of Jesus Christ anymore. Joseph Smith told the whole world. Brigham Young never saw Christ. Multiple other prophets afterwards also admitted to never having seen Christ. It seems looking back in history, you have those who say they did, those who say they didn't and those who use words to hide whether they have or not.

They love and respect the Lord so much, and fear for their own standing with him, that to share things he has not commanded them to share would be putting their standing before the Lord at stake.

Perhaps...

From "the charge given to the Twelve by Oliver Cowdery"

You have been indebted to other men, in the first instance, for evidence; on that you have acted; but it is necessary that you receive a testimony from heaven for yourselves; so that you can bear testimony to the truth of the Book of Mormon, and that you have seen the face of God. That is more than the testimony of an angel. When the proper time arrives, you shall be able to bear this testimony to the world. When you bear testimony that you have seen God, this testimony God will never suffer to fall, but will bear you out; although many will not give heed, yet others will. You will therefore see the necessity of getting this testimony from heaven.

Never cease striving until you have seen God face to face. Strengthen your faith; cast off you doubts, your sins, and all your unbelief; and nothing can prevent you from coming to God. Your ordination is not full and complete till God has laid His hand upon you. We require as much to qualify us as did those who have gone before us; God is the same. If the Savior in former days laid His hands upon His disciples, why not in latter days?
...
We appeal to your intelligence, we appeal to your understanding, that we have so far discharged our duty to you. We consider it one of the greatest condescensions of our heavenly Father, in pointing you out to us; you will be stewards over this ministry; you have a work to do that no other men can do; you must proclaim the Gospel in its simplicity and purity; and we commend you to God and the word of His grace. You have our best wishes, you have our most fervent prayers, that you may be able to bear this testimony, that you have seen the face of God. Therefore call upon Him in faith in mighty prayer till you prevail, for it is your duty and your privilege to bear such testimony for yourselves. We now exhort you to be faithful to fulfill your calling; there must be no lack here; you must fulfill in all things; and permit us to repeat, all nations have a claim on you; you are bound together as the Three Witnesses were; notwithstanding you can part and meet, and meet and part again, till your heads are silvered over with age.

Maybe this isn't true anymore...

Peace,
Amonhi

[Contemplator]

Amonhi,

I have a question. I have read the Senate testimony of Joseph F. Smith, and other church leaders, who testified in the Reed Smoot hearings. Let's grant that they gave true testimony. And, let's say that the implied gap between what they said and today's practice in the church exists. If all you say is true, then what?

You say that you have seen Christ. I accept that. What I am curious about is this. How do your observations in this thread, and several related threads, help me come closer to Christ? Are you implying that we should all leave the LDS church? You have quoted the Reed Smoot Hearing testimony in several threads in order to question the handbook of instructions, the selection of apostles and the church president, the sustaining of prophets, etc. What is the positive implication? Leave the church? If so, where do you suggest that people go? How should people come to know Christ? Are you inviting everyone to have the experiences that you are having? If so, how is that done?

Edited for typos

[Zathura]

Amonhi,

I have a question. I have read the Senate testimony of Joseph F. Smith, and other church leaders, who testified in the Reed Smoot hearings. Let's grant that they gave true testimony. And, let's say that the implied gap between what they said and today's practice in the church exists. If all you say is true, then what?

You say that you have seen Christ. I accept that. What I am curious about is this. How do your observations in this thread, and several related threads, help me come closer to Christ? Are you implying that we should all leave the LDS church? You have quoted the Reed Smith Hearing testimony in several threads in order to question the handbook of instructions, the selection of apostles and the church president, the sustaining of prophets, etc. What is the positive implication? Leave the church? If so, where do you suggest that people go? How should people come to know Christ? Are you inviting everyone to have the experiences that you are having? If so, how is that done?

it's not necessary to leave the church

Everything that shows that Church Leaders aren't as godlike and infallible as they are made out to be serve ONE Purpose.

That purpose is to depend less on the Church Leader than we do right now, and depend more on Christ than we do right now.
It's very clear that Church Leaders still do receive revelation by the power of the Holy Ghost from time to time(just not as often as members make it seem like),but that still suffices. When they speak by the power of the Holy Ghost, we listen.

Other than that, just follow Jesus Christ, seek to obtain a greater portion of the Spirit, put of the natural man, and everything else you are taught in church.

[Contemplator]

Stahura,

I appreciate your comments and I understand the view you are suggesting. I am curious about Amonhi's views. His posts clearly point to a gap between statements of earlier church leaders and current practice. I am just asking him about the implications of what he has posted. Is he merely accusing the brethren, or is he inviting us to a better way to approach Christ. Your views are quite welcome, but I am curious about Amonhi's goals with this recent flurry of posts.

Thanks

[Sarah]

I have seen Christ. I have seen Christ on more than one occasion. I can tell you that without discussing the personal details of my experiences. I do not in any way feel to avoid the issue. Why they do is their affair. But if they didn't say it, then they didn't say it.

Peace,
Amonhi

Anonhi, since you seem to think that the Apostles should be declaring their experiences seeing the Savior, do you also feel that they should go into detail about what they saw and how it happened so it would be convincing to us? Do you like to do this yourself? I think if it was standard for them to all say they had seen the Savior, you'd have people asking, "Well, how did you see him" "Did you just see a vision, have a dream, touch his hands and feet?"

I have been telling people for over over 15 years that I have seen Christ, and I do not experience the issues people worry about like the ones you describe here. I have told complete strangers on buses, planes, and other public places as moved on by the spirit. In a few instances, I have even discussed details of my experiences and in many instances, I just say "Yes, I have seen Christ on multiple occasions, but I am not comfortable answering those questions at this time." You can read multiple stories of people receiving special blessings like C&E or even details about visions in which they met Christ on the following links:

Elliaison.org - How You Received Your Calling and Election Made Sure
Elliaison.org - Firsthand Witnesses of Christ
LDSFF - I have Seen Christ? - Couldn't find this one. Somewhere on this forum there was a topic in which lots of people shared that they had a vision or other experience with Jesus Christ. Does anyone know where that topic went?

Somehow, I have figured out ways to deal with any issues that might arise. I think they could too.

The reality is that you would never satisfy the swine and dogs, who cannot appreciate sacred things, and have no faith.

The problem is that the majority of the people who are asking are not swine or dogs. They are faithful LDS who want a powerful firsthand witness to add to their own faith. They deny the righteous along with the wicked. The swine and dogs treat sacred things like dirt. that doesn't detract from the sacred things and make they not sacred. It only means they are swine becuase they don't know how to handle sacred pearls. But a pearl thrown through the mud by a pig, is still a pearl.

I have had some special experiences myself, and each time there was an outpouring of revelation, it has always been followed with a chastisement letting me know what I need to repent of. In the two latest instances the things I was guilty of were irreverence and light-mindedness. When you have sacred experiences, and receive chastisement from the Lord, you realize you don't want to do anything to make light of what you've received, and to disrespect the gifts he has given to you. Throwing pearls before swine is something I know I've done in the past, and I fear the Lord enough to want to be really really careful that I do not offend him in this thing. I have to imagine our leaders have had the same thoughts.

Perhaps. I and others have specifically been told to share our witnesses. So, maybe the lord doesn't want the prophets and apostles to be witnesses of Jesus Christ anymore. Joseph Smith told the whole world. Brigham Young never saw Christ. Multiple other prophets afterwards also admitted to never having seen Christ. It seems looking back in history, you have those who say they did, those who say they didn't and those who use words to hide whether they have or not.

They love and respect the Lord so much, and fear for their own standing with him, that to share things he has not commanded them to share would be putting their standing before the Lord at stake.

Perhaps...

From "the charge given to the Twelve by Oliver Cowdery"

You have been indebted to other men, in the first instance, for evidence; on that you have acted; but it is necessary that you receive a testimony from heaven for yourselves; so that you can bear testimony to the truth of the Book of Mormon, and that you have seen the face of God. That is more than the testimony of an angel. When the proper time arrives, you shall be able to bear this testimony to the world. When you bear testimony that you have seen God, this testimony God will never suffer to fall, but will bear you out; although many will not give heed, yet others will. You will therefore see the necessity of getting this testimony from heaven.

Never cease striving until you have seen God face to face. Strengthen your faith; cast off you doubts, your sins, and all your unbelief; and nothing can prevent you from coming to God. Your ordination is not full and complete till God has laid His hand upon you. We require as much to qualify us as did those who have gone before us; God is the same. If the Savior in former days laid His hands upon His disciples, why not in latter days?
...
We appeal to your intelligence, we appeal to your understanding, that we have so far discharged our duty to you. We consider it one of the greatest condescensions of our heavenly Father, in pointing you out to us; you will be stewards over this ministry; you have a work to do that no other men can do; you must proclaim the Gospel in its simplicity and purity; and we commend you to God and the word of His grace. You have our best wishes, you have our most fervent prayers, that you may be able to bear this testimony, that you have seen the face of God. Therefore call upon Him in faith in mighty prayer till you prevail, for it is your duty and your privilege to bear such testimony for yourselves. We now exhort you to be faithful to fulfill your calling; there must be no lack here; you must fulfill in all things; and permit us to repeat, all nations have a claim on you; you are bound together as the Three Witnesses were; notwithstanding you can part and meet, and meet and part again, till your heads are silvered over with age.

Maybe this isn't true anymore...

Peace,
Amonhi

Whether or not it bothers YOU isn't the Lord's concern. He has an opinion on it. Keeping them safe is the commandment the Lord has given:

¶Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

It may be true that most people in the Church are just curious, and are not posed to mock and treat as dirt sacred things, but we learn in D&C what really makes a "dog" - him who is not worthy.

D&C 41:5,6
5 He that receiveth my law and doeth it, the same is my disciple; and he that saith he receiveth it and doeth it not, the same is not my disciple, and shall be cast out from among you;

6 For it is not meet that the things which belong to the children of the kingdom should be given to them that are not worthy, or to dogs, or the pearls to be cast before swine.

I'd say that we still have many "dogs" in the Church, who are not obeying all of the Laws of the Lord, and we have many non-members hanging on every word the prophets speak to try to catch them - also not living the Lord's laws. Good reason keep pearls safe from being trampled on as the Lord commands.

[EmmaLee]

You'll have to wait until Mark, Franco, Rewcox,Kenny, Emmalee and others and explain to you that President Smith didn't actually mean what he said, and that he was being sly and witty with his words.

They explain it much more smoothly than I, perhaps they can come here and tell you how you are misinterpreting and twisting what President Smith said throughout the Reed Smoot case.

You've attacked my name in several posts lately - in threads I haven't even commented on (totally unprovoked) - accusing me of doing or saying this or that. Why are you bearing false witness against me, Stahura?

[Zathura]

You'll have to wait until Mark, Franco, Rewcox,Kenny, Emmalee and others and explain to you that President Smith didn't actually mean what he said, and that he was being sly and witty with his words.

They explain it much more smoothly than I, perhaps they can come here and tell you how you are misinterpreting and twisting what President Smith said throughout the Reed Smoot case.

You've attacked my name in several posts lately - in threads I haven't even commented on (totally unprovoked) - accusing me of doing or saying this or that. Why are you bearing false witness against me, Stahura?

Seeing as you like to gang up on me on other threads with the likes of Mark, Kenny, and everyone else who says identical things, and you consistently "like" their posts in which they are sayings the things I've stated where they are attacking me or others, no, it is not false witness.

You're the one that agreed with their posts by "liking" them, not me.

Guilty by association? Isn't that what it's called? You don't have to be guilty of the act you're accused of, you need only be "in on it" or an accomplice

Sorry Emma :ymhug:

[Zathura]

You've attacked my name in several posts lately

Oh and, PS I didn't "attack" you.

If you consider the post you quoted an "attack" then you must either be really sensitive, or the definition of "attack" changed and I just don't know it.

:ymhug:

[EmmaLee]

You'll have to wait until Mark, Franco, Rewcox,Kenny, Emmalee and others and explain to you that President Smith didn't actually mean what he said, and that he was being sly and witty with his words.

They explain it much more smoothly than I, perhaps they can come here and tell you how you are misinterpreting and twisting what President Smith said throughout the Reed Smoot case.

You've attacked my name in several posts lately - in threads I haven't even commented on (totally unprovoked) - accusing me of doing or saying this or that. Why are you bearing false witness against me, Stahura?

Seeing as you like to gang up on me on other threads with the likes of Mark, Kenny, and everyone else who says identical things, and you consistently "like" their posts in which they are sayings the things I've stated where they are attacking me or others, no, it is not false witness.

You're the one that agreed with their posts by "liking" them, not me.

Sorry Emma :ymhug:

I thank all kinds of people for various posts. I like a lot of what Mark and Kenny have said on many topics - I've even thanked you for some of your posts. Sometimes I agree with most of what a person says - sometimes it's just one thing they said. If you have felt "ganged up on", you now know what it's like for those people here who are actually pro-LDS Church, and what it's been like for them for well over 5 years now on this decidedly anti-LDS Church forum (despite it's strange and misleading name). They are "ganged up on" on a daily, sometimes hourly, basis by very loud, bitter, mocking voices. You have yet to give me any specific reason(s) why you should feel it necessary to accuse and categorize me - so yes, it is bearing false witness. Sorry, Stahura. :ymhug:

[EmmaLee]

You've attacked my name in several posts lately

Oh and, PS I didn't "attack" you.

If you consider the post you quoted an "attack" then you must either be really sensitive, or the definition of "attack" changed and I just don't know it.

:ymhug:

Ooops, there ya go being all chauvinistic again. #-o

Perhaps attack wasn't the best word. It was most definitely meant as a slap, a cut, a spit at. So, call it what you want.

[Zathura]

I thank all kinds of people for various posts. I like a lot of what Mark and Kenny have said on many topics - I've even thanked you for some of your posts. Sometimes I agree with most of what a person says - sometimes it's just one thing they said. If you have felt "ganged up on", you now know what it's like for those people here who are actually pro-LDS Church, and what it's been like for them for well over 5 years now on this decidedly anti-LDS Church forum (despite it's strange and misleading name). They are "ganged up on" on a daily, sometimes hourly, basis by very loud, bitter, mocking voices. You have yet to give me any specific reason(s) why you should feel it necessary to accuse and categorize me - so yes, it is bearing false witness. Sorry, Stahura. :ymhug:

Okay bud

[Zathura]

Stahura,

I appreciate your comments and I understand the view you are suggesting. I am curious about Amonhi's views. His posts clearly point to a gap between statements of earlier church leaders and current practice. I am just asking him about the implications of what he has posted. Is he merely accusing the brethren, or is he inviting us to a better way to approach Christ. Your views are quite welcome, but I am curious about Amonhi's goals with this recent flurry of posts.

Thanks

I'm sure he'll eventually respond, it just may take forever.

You could piece together his purpose and the answer he would give you if you look at his other posts though. People have asked this type of question in the past and he answered.

[EmmaLee]

Guilty by association? Isn't that what it's called? You don't have to be guilty of the act you're accused of, you need only be "in on it" or an accomplice

So every time you agree with someone who is saying something blatantly against the rules of the forum, or who say vicious, hateful things to actual believing members of the LDS Church - accusing them of being "blind" and ignorant and asleep, etc. etc. etc. - you are guilty by association, as well - and people would be wise to consider you in the same light. Okay, sounds good!

[Separatist]

you now know what it's like for those people here who are actually pro-LDS Church, and what it's been like for them for well over 5 years now on this decidedly anti-LDS Church forum (despite it's strange and misleading name).

Discussion of various viewpoints is healthy. I would argue that this was and should be the default LDS stance (both now and historically).

Perhaps attack wasn't the best word. It was most definitely meant as a slap, a cut, a spit at. So, call it what you want.

Only if we take this too seriously and don't have a sense of humor. But I know you have one EmmaLee.

[Zathura]

.

[EmmaLee]

you now know what it's like for those people here who are actually pro-LDS Church, and what it's been like for them for well over 5 years now on this decidedly anti-LDS Church forum (despite it's strange and misleading name).

Discussion of various viewpoints is healthy. I would argue that this was and should be the default LDS stance (both now and historically).

I agree discussion is healthy - real discussion is not what I'm referring to here. I appreciate, and have learned much from, real discussions. Turns out though, there are precious few of those on LDSFF.

Perhaps attack wasn't the best word. It was most definitely meant as a slap, a cut, a spit at. So, call it what you want.

Only if we take this too seriously and don't have a sense of humor. But I know you have one EmmaLee.

You are right, I do have a very healthy one. It gets submerged here though, not sure why. Double-standards really piss me off, so I probably shouldn't hang around places that owe their very existence to them. You have inspired me to do something I should have done ages ago. Thanks, Ajax; next time I'm in Texas, I'm buying you a beer.

[EmmaLee]

LOL, Stahura - you couldn't have written a better post, bro. (and by "better", I mean perfectly illustrating the irony, hypocrisy, fictitious nature of the self-described "loving and charitable" among us, pot/kettle, mote/beam, really, really needing a mirror...)

Ajax, I may in fact join you in having a beer, because if this is the type of person the LDS Church produces, it's definitely not Christ's church (which means Obrien is right - which means I have to go lay down on the interstate now).