Elder Nelson on the new Apostolic "candidate search" - Page 3 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

MikeWaters · 09-10-2007, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I'm sure it is a poor reflection on me, but I wouldn't want to see the Lord. I'm in the group that would rather have the mountain placed on top of me so I could hide. I just don't think I would be comfortable in His presence. Maybe I'm wrong.

I might be with you. But I have to say, if I were suddenly called to be an apostle, I might feel a little better about it, if I had a pretty definitive testimony-strengthening event.

ChinoCoug · 09-10-2007, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I agree, it is an interesting question. I think that based upon what they themselves have said one could justifiably reach the conclusion that they all have or none of them have.

From listening to them, it appears that individual ones have, but they don't know whether the other ones have or not. E. Scott said something to the extent of "I can't speak for the others."

Tex · 09-10-2007, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Sure, but they could all get matching tattoos and that would make them unlike other witnesses as well. I'm inferring that you think the answer to your question is yes. Why would holding keys, of itself, change the quality of witness they are? That was where I wasn't understanding you.

I'm just stabbing in the dark here, but here's my thoughts on the concept.

"Witness" isn't just a noun, it's also a verb. We've heard the talks before indicating the Greek meaning of term apostle is "one who is sent forth." Thus, the calling of an apostle is to go forth in the name of Jesus and "witness," or testify of his doctrine. The priesthood keys which he holds are emblematic of that "special" commission ... an assignment which no one else can claim or fill. Every member a missionary yes, but an apostle is laid with a particular charge and a responsibility that exceeds a "normal" witness.

That said, I re-emphasize that I have always accepted the meaning of "special witness" to mean a supernatural visitation.

Indy Coug · 09-10-2007, 06:23 PM

Well, if they haven't even shared this with one another, that probably explains why most of us have no clue about it either.

Jeff Lebowski · 09-10-2007, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

That said, I re-emphasize that I have always accepted the meaning of "special witness" to mean a supernatural visitation.

I don't understand this line of thought. The term "special" could mean a lot of different things here. Sounds like unfounded speculation.

UtahDan · 09-10-2007, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm just stabbing in the dark here, but here's my thoughts on the concept.

"Witness" isn't just a noun, it's also a verb. We've heard the talks before indicating the Greek meaning of term apostle is "one who is sent forth." Thus, the calling of an apostle is to go forth in the name of Jesus and "witness," or testify of his doctrine. The priesthood keys which he holds are emblematic of that "special" commission ... an assignment which no one else can claim or fill. Every member a missionary yes, but an apostle is laid with a particular charge and a responsibility that exceeds a "normal" witness.

That said, I re-emphasize that I have always accepted the meaning of "special witness" to mean a supernatural visitation.

I see. You mean in the sense that one has a special obligation to be a witness. I can get on board with that. Still, as you say, I think the most obvious meaning (and really a condition precedent to the obligation we are talking about more than likely) is a heavenly visitation. This highlights the irony of being hush hush about it.

Its like me asking you what Indianapolis is like, and you declining to admit you have ever been.

Maybe it is what is being suggested in the thread. Some have, some haven't.

jay santos · 09-10-2007, 06:33 PM

I was rebuked in a priesthood leadership training session for questioning someone who asserted that special witness = seeing Christ and that all the apostles had seen Christ. I wasn't being a jerk about it and they weren't really a jerk about it either, just made me out to look a little faithless in front of others. I felt vindicated when Pres. Hinckley basically said point blank he had never seen Jesus.

Indy Coug · 09-10-2007, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jay santos

I felt vindicated when Pres. Hinckley basically said point blank he had never seen Jesus.

Link?

Tex · 09-10-2007, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I don't understand this line of thought. The term "special" could mean a lot of different things here. Sounds like unfounded speculation.

I don't know about "unfounded," but it is certainly speculation. Which is why I said this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm just stabbing in the dark here ...

jay santos · 09-10-2007, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Link?

The same reference others in this thread are making to GBH. It was recently. Possibly last conference?

You didn't think that's what he was saying? Or you don't remember the talk?

09-10-2007, 06:23 PM	#24
Indy Coug Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Between Iraq and a hard place Posts: 7,569	Well, if they haven't even shared this with one another, that probably explains why most of us have no clue about it either.

09-10-2007, 06:33 PM	#27
jay santos Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,177	I was rebuked in a priesthood leadership training session for questioning someone who asserted that special witness = seeing Christ and that all the apostles had seen Christ. I wasn't being a jerk about it and they weren't really a jerk about it either, just made me out to look a little faithless in front of others. I felt vindicated when Pres. Hinckley basically said point blank he had never seen Jesus.