Yes.

By coincidence, I just finished watching The DiVinci Code, which depends entirely on the existence of an historical Jesus, and his wife, who was pregnant at the time of the Crucifixion... (Atheist want to spell that Crucifiction...)

Which gives away my answer. There's more proof of the existence of John Henry, the Steel Driving Man, than there is of Jesus of Nazareth, only the story of Jesus gets more play, and earns more money. There are vested interests...

I don't debate the matter; it's not an issue that allows one to place a box on a table and announce to the world, "All the proof you need is in that box!!" and then walk away, as the closing credits role. It's all about faith and interpretations and analysis for lore. To each his own, when it comes to Santa Claus and the like.

I also hold dear, but realize they are subject to attack, my views on True Love.

ETA: Oops! Sorry... It's likely that my faith in Santa Claus and my concern that Jesus floated about the St. George temple probably evaporated around the same time. But yeah, there were a few years when I thought it possible that Jesus and the Apostles hung out together.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/27/2016 11:07PM by elderolddog.

I thought it was part of their job description.

Until the gospel failed to manifest any divine power at all for me, and spun my head dizzy with so many contradictions too, I finally allowed myself the freedom to question whether the Brethren even saw God, and I quickly noticed they didn't even have the cahones to say so in plain language.

Yes, and I was always disgusted when GBH would wimp out and not publicly admit it. Turns out he dropped lots of hints that he didn't really drink the Koolaid.

Same

As a missionary I probably taught around 200 times that GBH was the one person on Earth that JC talked to.

And then I came home and watched his interview and was so confused - here was the mouthpiece of the Lord with a captive audience of non-Mormons and when asked about being a prophet and receiving revelation instead of using plain language like I had he was talking about the wind... and there not being much of a need for that stuff anymore

That was a major shelf item for me

Especially when you remembered that you had to keep preaching if you had as many as two people listening to you on the streetcorner. That was considered an audience worthy of your time.

And here's the prophet of God who has before him MILLIONS of potential converts. Just imagine if you had answered questions like he did.

Clearly, he at least had enough conscience to squirm and weasel out of a direct lie. I have to give him that.


Kathleen

anagrammy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Clearly, he at least had enough conscience to
> squirm and weasel out of a direct lie. I have to
> give him that.
>
>
> Kathleen


Conscience?
I didn't know that type of manipulative pathological lying could be classified as having a conscience.

con·science

noun
an inner feeling or voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior.
"he had a guilty conscience about his desires"



If he had a conscience wouldn't he have told the truth?

Does intellectual manipulation and half-lying constitute a definition of conscience? Or an attempt at a conscience?

Am I missing something here?

He didn't directly come out and say, Yes I see Jesus, but he didn't directly come out and say, No I don't.

Does fence-sitting wishy-washy constitute as a conscience?
Not by original mormon doctrine standards it doesn't.
We all know what happens to fence sitters.

:/

No, I never really did.
That was one of the claims that, as soon as I was old enough to understand what they were claiming, I was dubious about.

Yes. At the height of my TBM'ness most definitely. I know people who still believe to this day that TSM has a weekly PPI with Jesus in the Holy of Holies.

I'd also like to point out that "The Brethern" help perpetuate this belief among the members. They soberly proclaim that they have had significant spiritual experiences that can't be shared and if someone gets close enough to ask them if they've actually seen Christ they won't actually say yes or not but give some weaselly answer that can be interpreted either way.

I did not believe it at first but I decided to give them the benefit of the doubt. I planted the seed, as in Alma. Say goodbye to one seed.

Same with the temple; I didn't *a priori* agree that the temple innards comprised a divine space--I waited to make my judgment until I'd gone. Well, I went--didn't turn up any divinity therein. Granted, I didn't get around to looking under all the pillows in the Celestial Room, but from what I gathered it was just a building with a hot tub in the bottom, a cafeteria down the hall, a locker room, some offices, and a movie theater with a curtain with some holes in it.

And so with the Honchos talking with Jesus. I didn't hear a lot from them besides hearsay, and hearsay won't get you much, IMO. Take all the hearsay in all the history of all the world, add a couple dollars, and you can walk away with a plate of nachos and a Big Gulp from 7 Eleven, not much more.

And don't forget the cash registers in the temple - that was my first big clue that something just wasn't quite right there. But still, I believed. I honestly believed that the prophet spoke regularly with Jesus and that he probably also made appearances when the twelve were all together. Not sure when I started thinking maybe they really DIDN'T see Jesus on a regular basis but I do know it took me a whole lot longer than it should have!

This was a change awhile back. I have no clue what it means to be a witness to a name. It is just another game by the brethren to back away from previous doctrines and beliefs.

As I've pointed out on this site multiple times in the past, there was no change--the Church still trumpets its apostles as "witnesses of Christ".

https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/what-are-prophets-testimonies?lang=eng

It's easy to make the mistake of giving them too much credit, but in the end they aren't that wily.

OK. I stand corrected... sipping coffee in eureka.

I stand corrected too...I thought the same thing. I have heard recent stories where they get unhinged if you ask them about see Christ.

Anziano Young Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As I've pointed out on this site multiple times in
> the past, there was no change--the Church still
> trumpets its apostles as "witnesses of Christ".
>
> https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/what-are
> -prophets-testimonies?lang=eng
>
> It's easy to make the mistake of giving them too
> much credit, but in the end they aren't that wily.

"witnesses of Christ," and "witnesses of the Name of Jesus," "testimony of Christ," etc. Oftentime religions obfuscate changes by redefining words, or using an alternate definition. Consider "witness:"

1) A "witness" can be somebody who visually saw--with his very eyes--something.
1-A) Then again, perhaps he witnesses it "spiritually." Now we get into what "spiritual" and "spirituality" are. Often, a cultist is using a word one way, knowing full well that the non-cult listener or reader will understand it differently.
2) A "witness" may be somebody who simply has information. In court, an "expert witness" has knowledge about something (e.g. forensics), but did not "witness/SEE" the event himself.
3) A "witness" can be somebody who was present at an event--but not necessarily one who saw it, participated, or has knowledge. "I witnessed the wedding, but I was in the back of the church and didn't hear or see them exchange vows."

So they can comfortably call themselves "witnesses," without going up into the Celestial Room for a face-to-face chat with the Lord.

Not really...never did put much stake in anything that was preached.

RB

Absolutely, because that was the established pattern by scripture: Moses called by a burning bush, Joshua visited by a heavenly general, Abraham, Issac, Jacob all had visions repeatedly, Isaiah's swallowed book (mirrored by Lehi), Daniel and his dreams, Paul by the road. Then Lehi, Nephi, Jacob, who saw the Lord in his youth, Alma and his son, Mosiah and his angel, Ether, Maher-shalal-hash-baz, Mormon, Moroni, all called with a vision, made to stand before Fire, or Deity itself. Warned of war, plots, calamity and pleading to great effect, with recorded answers. That is what a prophet *IS*.

ALL of us that went on missions were given the same shtick to push: "if there were a prophet like Moses on the earth today, what would you ask him?" "A prophet speaks to God on our behalf, and gives us messages from the Lord for our time"

AND THEN:"God hath shown nothing to Joseph but that he will show to the weakest of saints" "your old men shall see visions, and your young men shall dream dreams." "Which holds the keys to the ministry of angels..." NOT ONLY PROPHETS, BUT EVERYONE SHOULD BE ABLE TO CALL ON THEOPHANY AS A FORM OF LEARNING. Given freely, and not upbraided for. Sought and found. It is EXPLICIT AND IRRETRACTABLE that they REGULARLY speak to God " face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend" or they are literally NOT prophets. Not the way they taught us to for swear ourselves they were.

I was told by a couple of magical people that the prophet could talk with Jesus anytime he wanted to in the temple. Yes, I believed that the prophet, a person with no more authority than the guy who just rung me up at walmart, could talk with a fictitious guy named Jesus.
God, how could I ever been so effing stupid?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/2016 01:23PM by aquarius123.

That's what I was taught. That's what I tried to believe.

The last time I thought maybe they could, I was probably 3 years old, going to weekday Primary, & block schedule didn't exist.

It never really occurred to me to think about it.

They always left it vague enough that I always wondered about it while doubting it was true. Then, while I was on my mission, we were visited by a 70 (a bigger deal at the time as there were far fewer of them) who was also the translator into Korean (where I was serving my mission) so he was kind of considered to be a big deal.

He specifically stated that because they were "Special witnesses" that it meant that they had all actually seen and spoken with Christ. (He said a lot of other things that I've posted about as well). So, there it was, a high up official of the church speaking very plainly that the First Presidency and the 12 had all seen at least Christ in person, otherwise they couldn't have the title "Special Witness".

I still questioned it later as it didn't quite ring as "official" to me as the actual Apostles remained enigmatic on the topic. I'm sure now they'd say he was speaking as a man, but he sure didn't sound like it at the time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/2016 03:25PM by Finally Free!.

I never did as they never admitted it.

However, I was convinced it never occurred when a real 'nut case' on the stake high counsel (only job they trusted him in) gave a special priesthood lesson.

He said there is a special room in the SLC temple where 'new apostles' go and do not come out until they become a 'personal witness of JC'.

I have heard this guy on too many subjects be so totally off I just wondered why the stake pres. was so crazy and would let him put out such ridiculous 'rumors'.

As a leader, I can recall on a number of occasions where he ( the high counselor) would 'counsel' us and telling him straight out that would be the very last action I would ever take and if the stake had a problem with that they can do it themselves. He normally backed down with only a wimper ---- I never heard anything negative back from the stake.

You just put a finger of so much of what grinds my gears: that, the culture and lore that is alive and well at the local level, especially in the Mormon corridor.

I have to imagine that the Brethren, many of them with degrees in law, very carefully choose their words at all times, in all things, and in all places where there may be recording equipment present. They lawyer their words to confirm whatever impression their underlings are under with the illusion of specificity but, as they said in their own f'ing essays, they are also in he business of crafting "carefully worded denials" that "implicitly leave open the possibilities..."

It's so disheartening and disillusioning when you run into your first Mormon-lawyer-ism, that something that you thought was so clear and precise in the doctrine or in the Book of Mormon actually means something else because a later revelation or sentiment only commonly known among those in the ward that consider themselves the elite, I mean "the elect," of the church, the pool of RMs and true believers that they always fish for their priesthood and church leadership positions, the "church-broke" as Grant Palmer put it, superceded it later.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/29/2016 09:59AM by Cold-Dodger.

My wife does. Even before I did my research into mormon claims, I thought, "To actually commune with Christ and to have his guidance would be yuuuge! Why aren't they shouting it from the rooftops and on every TV channel? If they're the real deal they should be able to pony up with absolutely no fear of being declared, let alone proven, to be frauds."

For decades I waited and carefully listened, wondering when the prophet himself would make his claim to a personal real life one on one relationship with God.

I heard a lot of SS teachers, bishops, sp's etc. make the claim. I never heard it from the Prophet himself. Every year that went by put a huge weight on the shelf. They seemed more calloused, and less Prophet like as the years rolled on. They seemed to refuse to take a stand on their so called calling.

Then I started doing research. Google has a better relationship with God than the so called mormon prophets. Their greed and arrogance have outed them. It seems that they don't have the courage to stand up and make their claim anymore. They leave it up to the people they've lied to. The lawyers and business men are too busy to bother with the low life called members. The mormon church is a disgusting mess that should embarrass every member.

It's a pyramid investment scheme masquerading as a religion.

It was fake from the beginning,
It's not true and never shall be,
Fraud without end,
Amen, Amen.