The Charge to the Twelve

[brlenox]

To tie the principles in my earlier posts back to the OP I'll start with this statement which was bolded:

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?

Note Orson's reference to their indebtedness to other men for the evidence upon which they have been depending - exactly according to the dispensational head principles. Once this testimony is received from an experience where they will behold the Face of God, then "when the proper time arrives" they will share that testimony to the rejection of some and the receipt of others.

It is important to note that they will know when that proper time is, it is not a willy nilly anytime it suits my fancy declaration but we can presume that for many it will be a trial of their faith situation where they will desire to have his testimony shared in a particular way at a particular time according to their particular expectations which may or may not be according to the "proper time" of the Lord..

[Thomas]

It is a good thing the prophets didn't need so much preamble to make a point. There would have been no converts as everyone would have long ago lost interest and went home.

Jesus on the mount: After 14 days of telling the gathered masses he was going to tell them something, he discovered, they all had left.

[Robert Sinclair]

Brian,
This is an excellent choice to post. I had missed this many years ago when I read through the many volumes of Church History many years ago. I love to hear the truth in plainness that a child may understand and Oliver clearly states that it is necessary that you receive a testimony from heaven for yourselves; so you can bear testimony to the truth of the Book of Mormon, and that you have seen the face of God.
This is very plain that even a child can understand. The truth.
Bless you for posting this.

[brlenox]

..While others will, within a dispensation, stand in the presence of God, they will never testify as a lone witness but will always link to the power of the dispensational head's testimony of knowledge to validate their second witness. If these brethren of the church did not understand this profound pattern it is easy enough to lead the children astray by simply claiming with words to have stood in his presence and I am convinced that were they dishonest men they would readily do so....

I felt this is where you were headed.. and this is where I completely disagree. What you said here also is contrary to the charge given to the Twelve... They were told to testify to the world that they had seen God (i.e. "I have seen God"), not to testify to the world that Joseph Smith had seen God (i.e. "He saw God and I am a special witness of that")... sorry I believe this is where your argument falls apart. But I do appreciate many of your other thoughts on this topic. It seems that you are simply making an excuse for the failings of so many men to live up to that charge. I wish it weren't so. To backup my claim here is another witness to that fact - I am simply stating what he has witnessed to me:

At what point in your life did this expectation become predominate in your beliefs?

[Robert Sinclair]

I believe Oliver Cowdery's words are worthy of taking a very close look at prayerfully.

[deep water]

When you come to understand the true and full gospel of Christ, it will open up and the sophistries of man will disappear. By their fruits yea shall know them, will become clear as glass. You will come to understand that if their is only lip service to fruits, there are NO fruits. You will see that if the person in question is not living the most humble of lives, by observation. That they have become the servant of all, relying upon their own labor for their support, or engaged in proclaiming the Gospel without purse or script. That they have the High Priesthood. Those who have the High Priesthood will leave a trail of exercised works, or Gifts (healings, raising the dead, throwing out devils, blessing the blind to see, the deft to hear, walking on water, turning water to wine, speaking in tongues, receiving prophecy and revelations, ect, ect) behind them everywhere they go. In short, if you see a person walking as Christ walked, doing the things Christ did, then you can be sure that they are of Christ. However if you see a person doing what the Bible teaches us that the High Priest did that ruled over the church in the times of Jesus Christ, you can be sure that they are cut from the same cloth as those who conspired to kill the christ.

[Robert Sinclair]

Be in pain if must needs be as a woman that travails to give birth, have grace and mercy to them who are blind at present.

Labor to remove all your sins that you may be able to help others remove theirs.

Use wisdom and understanding and especially mercy and grace at this time.

Remember the words of Jesus Christ do unto others as you would have done to you.

[Dannyk]

Thanks brlenox for taking the time to explain what you meant. I too had an idea and general understanding of what it is that you might be suggesting, but it has been helpful to see how you define the words and terms, and how you apply those definitions to your understanding of the Gospel.

I appreciate what great effort you have made to understand the dealings of God. I too try to undergo the same effort. Even if I don't agree if full (though I do agree with most of what you said), I always learn...and that in and of itself is important to me.

I for one am happy to accept that someone like Boyd K Packer has had an experience with Deity which has given him knowledge. This is not the only conference he has suggested such a thing. He did so in the last conference as well I believe (it was the one where he added on to a poem he had been augmenting every 10 years).

In addition to being willing to accept a witness like his and others who have followed a dispensation head, even if it isn't extremely clearly worded (though to me he seemed fairly clear), I also know that having something that confirms the reality of Deity and confers knowledge, doesn't mean the knowledge has assumed a fulness yet.

It seems that though many over the years have had visions and experiences that have confirmed to them the reality of God, and allowed them to give witness, I know of very few if any who seem to have experienced the Fulness that Orson Pratt was lamenting we generally ignore. He had visions, revelations, and knowledge, but knew that he still lived below the privilege of an open vision of the heavens, of things from the beginning to the end, and of a full conveyance of God's blessings and presence. It may be that few or even many have received perfect knowledge "in that thing"...that thing could be any number of things - that the book of mormon is true, that Joseph was a prophet, that Jesus Christ lives because they've seen Him, that the Father lives. And though there faith might be "dormant in that thing", their knowledge is not yet perfect. They have not yet continued the climb up the latter as John, Moses, Enoch, Joseph, Isaiah, Nephi, Bro of Jared, etc. have done, and had all things revealed to them that God is willing to reveal to man and allow them to remain in the flesh.

I hope I never become slothful in seeking those things for myself. I hope I never judge harshly another because I perceive they have not yet had those things. I hope any and all of us commit to at least walking the path that leads to such a fulness, a perfect knowledge, and a tree of everlasting life.

Thanks again for all you added. Again, I learned much and benefitted from your study and knowledge.

[brlenox]

In addition to being willing to accept a witness like his and others who have followed a dispensation head, even if it isn't extremely clearly worded (though to me he seemed fairly clear), I also know that having something that confirms the reality of Deity and confers knowledge, doesn't mean the knowledge has assumed a fulness yet.

Thank you...

Your final statement in the paragraph above is brilliantly accurate.

[brlenox]

they had to initiate their faith based on another's testimony of knowledge and then establish a testimony of faith or belief which is developed bit by bit until they also had the same experience as the one who had the theophany, or appearance of deity unto them giving them a testimony of knowledge

brlenox, good points on testimony of faith vs a testimony of knowledge. This is one reason I find it unfortunate that there aren't more people who have actually seen Christ and can testify to the world that they have seen Him. There seem to be very few. Not even the modern Apostles are bearing this testimony that the original charge to the Twelve suggests they should be seeking and sharing. Such a testimony of knowledge is important in order for even more people to gain a testimony of faith or belief. I've actually been pondering this for myself a lot lately (in regards to what I can personally testify of and whether it is a testimony of knowledge, faith or belief). I think too often people get up and bear testimony that "I know..." when in fact they only have a hope, belief or faith in such things, not knowledge.

Also, one other question...is there any record where Orson Pratt declares his eyewitness of having been received into the Saviors presence that would confirm why you receive his testimony here as if he had?

[brlenox]

Are any of you aware of published accounts of any of the twelve having seen God face to face?

I also wonder if individuals have thoroughly thought through the only clear rehearsal of someone standing in the presence of Christ in this dispensation other than what is recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants in the case of Lorenzo Snow. We only have that story because in private he told it to his granddaughter. He never made a public announcement, he never discussed it in conference he never ever made any outright declaration ever to my knowledge. Yet I am betting that if I search it out ( and you know I will) I can find occasions where he followed the patterns of the reference to the testimony of the dispensational head as we have been discussing.

What are your thoughts on this particular situation?

[Robert Sinclair]

Lorenzo Snow did tell his grand daughter that he had seen Jesus Christ as many on this forum have also testified.

As Oliver Cowdrey and Jeremiah have testified as two witnesses that one must needs seek to meet with God in person that you may testify that you have met with God and this is what he has said..........

Herein lies the paradox or brain teaser.

How does one call the people to repentance without finding fault as Jesus said not to do.

By meeting with Jesus Christ himself face to face and having him tell you to so do, you can say Jesus Christ whom I have met with personally has said unto me to say unto you repent and I of myself have not asked this but Jesus Christ whom with I have met face to face has told me to tell you this. Therein you will have obeyed the commandment to not find fault you were just repeating what you yourself were told in person by Jesus Christ to tell everyone. And you will have this proof or testimony that you have seen him in person face to face as Enoch and Moses and Joseph Smith.

This way instead of saying I believe that you should repent because I believe in Jesus Christ;

You can say I know you should repent because I know Jesus Christ as I have met with him face to face as one man speaks with another.

So it has been written to so do and so it should be done seek the face of Jesus Christ that we may testify that we have seen him and know him and this is what he has said "Repent all ye and sanctify and purify your hearts and come unto me and be baptized with water and with fire from on high at my marriage supper that I have invited you to. Yea come all ye and work the works of righteousness and justice and be equal in your temporal things and bring my bride out of the closet, yes even my church clothed in this justice and equity and righteousness and I will meet with you and work with you as I have promised." or to quote something like unto that.

That was for example only as I have not yet talked with him in the flesh but I myself have seen him in the spirit and heard his voice saying;

"If he does the things I say, I will come and speak to him"

I believe that which I heard and saw was unto us all as has been written obey his voice and come unto him, yea seek his face.

I myself am in need of mighty prayer and fasting for I have read all his words given unto all and see what is required of those born into the house of Ephraim which I have been born into to abide by our calling and election to bring the people to Christ as Melchizedek and Enoch did.

Hope this helps a little.

[Thomas]

Are any of you aware of published accounts of any of the twelve having seen God face to face?

I also wonder if individuals have thoroughly thought through the only clear rehearsal of someone standing in the presence of Christ in this dispensation other than what is recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants in the case of Lorenzo Snow. We only have that story because in private he told it to his granddaughter. He never made a public announcement, he never discussed it in conference he never ever made any outright declaration ever to my knowledge. Yet I am betting that if I search it out ( and you know I will) I can find occasions where he followed the patterns of the reference to the testimony of the dispensational head as we have been discussing.

What are your thoughts on this particular situation?

Here is the problem with the Lorenzo Snow account:

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.

It doesn't say, once you have seen the face of God, tell no one but your granddaughter and make sure she keeps it secret for forty years after your death.

We seem to accept these kind of stories on face value, when they are quite suspect.

[shadow]

Boyd K. Packers testimony is simply one example of literally hundreds that one can find but the pattern is exceptionally consistent after the manner of this discussion. Note how President Packer provides a very subtle reference to Joseph Smith’s and Sidney’s experience and claims that their words are his words. “Their words end with the clear statement that they “saw him.” Elder Packer is for all intent and purposes claiming those words as his for the fact he feels they apply to his experience. However, He pins his experience surely to the testimony of the dispensational head and lets the standard of that witness surpass his own. As Elder McConkie might say’ “Such is the dispensation concept.”

Elder Christofferson's conference talk was similar too-

"And I believe the testimony of Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon who, after many other testimonies, proclaimed the great witness of this last dispensation “that he lives! For we saw him.” Under the glance of His all-seeing eye, I stand myself as a witness that Jesus of Nazareth is the resurrected Redeemer, and I testify of all that follows from the fact of His Resurrection. May you receive the conviction and comfort of that same witness, I pray in the name of Jesus Christ, amen."

[brlenox]

Are any of you aware of published accounts of any of the twelve having seen God face to face?

I also wonder if individuals have thoroughly thought through the only clear rehearsal of someone standing in the presence of Christ in this dispensation other than what is recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants in the case of Lorenzo Snow. We only have that story because in private he told it to his granddaughter. He never made a public announcement, he never discussed it in conference he never ever made any outright declaration ever to my knowledge. Yet I am betting that if I search it out ( and you know I will) I can find occasions where he followed the patterns of the reference to the testimony of the dispensational head as we have been discussing.

What are your thoughts on this particular situation?

Here is the problem with the Lorenzo Snow account:

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.

It doesn't say, once you have seen the face of God, tell no one but your granddaughter and make sure she keeps it secret for forty years after your death.

We seem to accept these kind of stories on face value, when they are quite suspect.

Perhaps, but do you wonder if Ella Jensen would have found it suspect?

[Thomas]

Brlenox wrote: Perhaps, but do you wonder if Ella Jensen would have found it suspect?

It really doesn't matter. It doesn't fit in with what Oliver Cowdery charged the twelve to do. Nor does your dispensation head explanation fit either. It quite plainly charges them to see God and testify, to the world, that they saw him.

You go to great lengths to explain away the obvious discrepancy. It is plain to see your mind is closed to any possibility other than the brethren are perfect. You ignore plain evidence to the contrary.

Mormonism was supposed to about truth. Now it seems it is about maintaining deception. Going to great lengths to avoid truth.

[brlenox]

they had to initiate their faith based on another's testimony of knowledge and then establish a testimony of faith or belief which is developed bit by bit until they also had the same experience as the one who had the theophany, or appearance of deity unto them giving them a testimony of knowledge

I've actually been pondering this for myself a lot lately (in regards to what I can personally testify of and whether it is a testimony of knowledge, faith or belief). I think too often people get up and bear testimony that "I know..." when in fact they only have a hope, belief or faith in such things, not knowledge.

Is it possible that we can have degrees of know? For instance Alma 32 as it discusses the process of faith converted to knowledge takes several points of faith and they become points of knowledge. Then one takes those points of knowledge and continues to build upon them to garner greater degrees of faith which proceeds to a higher point of knowledge. Finally it completes in what appears a final point of knowledge of partaking of the fruit of the tree of life. All along the way points of knowledge which are yet to become a fullness of knowledge but they are characterized as such in Alma's discourse?

[brlenox]

Brlenox wrote: Perhaps, but do you wonder if Ella Jensen would have found it suspect?

It really doesn't matter. It doesn't fit in with what Oliver Cowdery charged the twelve to do. Nor does your dispensation head explanation fit either. It quite plainly charges them to see God and testify, to the world, that they saw him.

You go to great lengths to explain away the obvious discrepancy. It is plain to see your mind is closed to any other possibility other than the brethren are perfect. You ignore plain evidence to the contrary.

Mormonism was supposed to about truth. Now it seems it is about maintaining deception. Going to great lengths to avoid truth.

I think you are being perhaps a bit to quick to disregard Ella Jensen. In times past you have played the "we don't got no miracles card" as evidence of the churches loss of authority. I suspect that many would consider it suspect that some would so easily cast off, perhaps the most miraculous of events, that of calling one back from the dead with authority. Perhaps some might consider that evidence of being closed minded and failing to recognize the obvious that no man who could do such a thing could lie of such an event as standing in the presence of Christ. There is some plain evidence here. One wonders why it is not seen.

As well the dispensational concepts...that was pure revelation. I had never considered the concepts prior to my efforts to memorize the Lectures on Faith. Thereafter, I searched out the witnesses of Bruce R. McConkie and Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, President Packer, and Shadow reminds us of Elder Christofferson's same effort and there are literally hundreds of other who follow this same pattern through the years. Isn't it at least somewhat suspect in your mind that this pattern shows up over and over and over. Why would that be unless those who have had the experience understand what they are doing.

Now absolutely I would discourage anyone from simply taking my word on anything, however, when the true messengers of God speak to identical perspectives, I think it a bit unwise to disregard them.

[samizdat]

Boyd K. Packers testimony is simply one example of literally hundreds that one can find but the pattern is exceptionally consistent after the manner of this discussion. Note how President Packer provides a very subtle reference to Joseph Smith’s and Sidney’s experience and claims that their words are his words. “Their words end with the clear statement that they “saw him.” Elder Packer is for all intent and purposes claiming those words as his for the fact he feels they apply to his experience. However, He pins his experience surely to the testimony of the dispensational head and lets the standard of that witness surpass his own. As Elder McConkie might say’ “Such is the dispensation concept.”

Elder Christofferson's conference talk was similar too-

"And I believe the testimony of Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon who, after many other testimonies, proclaimed the great witness of this last dispensation “that he lives! For we saw him.” Under the glance of His all-seeing eye, I stand myself as a witness that Jesus of Nazareth is the resurrected Redeemer, and I testify of all that follows from the fact of His Resurrection. May you receive the conviction and comfort of that same witness, I pray in the name of Jesus Christ, amen."

Not as potent a witness as Elder Packer's but a witness nonetheless. An Apostle must be a special witness of His Resurrection.

[Robert Sinclair]

What is the difference between-
The eyes of our understanding were opened and we saw and testify that we saw him.

We know what we saw in our minds.

I have seen him in a vison.

I have dreamed a dream.

I have met him face to face and have spoken with him as one man speaketh to another.

Jeremiah testified that there was in chapter 23.

That in the latter days you would consider this perfectly.

But even if what is happening is true that has been discussed here should not mercy and grace and loving kindness be used to bring about an acknowledgement from the leaders of the house of Ephraim that the words of Micah and Hosea and Joel and Isaiah all are saying much the same thing? He will not meet with them face to face until such time as they return and keep the celestial law given? Are these things true or not?

[Lance]

-

[Robert Sinclair]

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

[Robert Sinclair]

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

[Robert Sinclair]

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

[brlenox]

BrLenox,

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

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

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

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

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

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