To Know Christ

[Drpepper]

Our Gospel Doctrine teacher on Sunday put forward the idea that unless you have a testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith you can't really have a testimony or relationship with Christ.

I didn't agree with this as i have many friends of many faiths some of which have very real and meaningful relationships with the Saviour.

So im not sure exactly where he was coming from, Im assuming not the manual.

Just wondering what other peoples thoughts were.

[Guest]

Bologna.

[TalkativeIntrovert]

Did they mix up the message? If we don't believe in Christ then we don't believe in Joseph Smith?

Otherwise, I suspect I agree with Eowyn (guessing what Bologna means :) )

[Drpepper]

Bologna.

Is that a town in Italy?

[Guest]

I think we can all say that we know Christians who live His teachings better than some LDS people do.

[pam]

Hogwash to the OP's comments. There are many many religions and religious people who dedicate their lives to Christ yet don't believe in Joseph Smith.

[LittleWyvern]

Our Gospel Doctrine teacher on Sunday put forward the idea that unless you have a testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith you can't really have a testimony or relationship with Christ.

[Dravin]

I wonder if he was headed down the 'real Jesus' argument that generally annoys LDS to no end.

[skalenfehl]

Our Gospel Doctrine teacher on Sunday put forward the idea that unless you have a testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith you can't really have a testimony or relationship with Christ.

I didn't agree with this as i have many friends of many faiths some of which have very real and meaningful relationships with the Saviour.

So im not sure exactly where he was coming from, Im assuming not the manual.

Just wondering what other peoples thoughts were.

So what was his reasoning/explanation?

[Drpepper]

So what was his reasoning/explanation?

I think his point was that Joseph smith brought forth extra light and knowledge about Christ so if a person doesn't except Joseph Smith they can't really get to know Christ.

I did laugh a little when one of the class members asked about all those people in the scriptures who lived before Joseph Smith. He looked a little stumped then.

[skalenfehl]

I'm sure he meant well. He didn't see his reasoning through to conclusion, though. But to have the ultimate relationship with our Savior is for Him to make His abode with us as He promised in the NT (John 14). This also means His Father making His abode with us. Receiving the Second Comforter and membership into the church of the Firstborn (D&C 76) is to be brought back into His presence. I believe Joseph Smith was the first in our dispensation to receive this gift, but as Joseph, himself said,

"God hath not revealed anything to Joseph, but what He will make known unto the Twelve, and even the least Saint may know all things as fast as he is able to bear them..." HC 3:380

[Anddenex]

Our Gospel Doctrine teacher on Sunday put forward the idea that unless you have a testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith you can't really have a testimony or relationship with Christ.

I didn't agree with this as i have many friends of many faiths some of which have very real and meaningful relationships with the Saviour.

So im not sure exactly where he was coming from, Im assuming not the manual.

Just wondering what other peoples thoughts were.

When we discuss what it means to accept, receive, and believe in Jesus Christ I would think it important to recognize examples we have in scripture which testify of a truth within your Gospel Doctrine teacher's words.

In the New Testament, we have the history of a people who worshipped Jehovah, yet when Jehovah stood before them they could not recognize him. One might say they had a testimony of the Jehovah they believed in but not a testimony of the Jehovah which was to save them - in other words, exalt them.

In the Doctrine and Covenants section 84 we are informed that in order to receive the Father, we must first receive the Son, and in order to receive the Son, we must first receive the Son's servants. Can we actually profess a belief, a testimony, in the reality of Jesus Christ if we are unable to accept his servants - his chosen servants - like Joseph Smith? We are also informed, that if a person begins to mock the prophets, the Lord's servants, that this is the first sign of apostasy. In other words, a loss of faith and testimony, even in Jesus Christ.

In the New Testament we are also informed how the devils knew our Savior, but did not accept him as the Savior.

How does one then have testimony of Jesus Christ is they fully reject his servants? I believe others have a testimony in the Christ they are familiar with, but if they do not accept the Lord's servants, like Joseph Smith, then they do not have a testimony in the fullness of who Christ is. Can we have a testimony of the Father without a testimony of the Son? I think not, for the son was sent by the Father and to reject one is to reject both.

The foundation of our testimony is a witness from the Holy Ghost. If we receive witness, a testimony of the Son, Jesus Christ, then we should be open to the same witness of the servants - like Joseph Smith. That is the foundation of a sure and true testimony. It is found in the acceptance of the servants, the Son, and the Father, without such the testimony is incomplete.

Thus, my answer, depending on the reasoning given by the Gospel Doctrine teacher I would agree.

Yet, I feel there are many who are sincere in their understanding of who Christ, our Savior, is, but do not necessarily have a true testimony of the true Christ (Edit: otherwise they would accept his servants).

Edited September 3, 2013 by Anddenex

[Drpepper]

When we discuss what it means to accept, receive, and believe in Jesus Christ I would think it important to recognize examples we have in scripture which testify of a truth within your Gospel Doctrine teacher's words.

In the New Testament, we have the history of a people who worshipped Jehovah, yet when Jehovah stood before them they could not recognize him. One might say they had a testimony of the Jehovah they believed in but not a testimony of the Jehovah which was to save them - in other words, exalt them.

In the Doctrine and Covenants section 84 we are informed that in order to receive the Father, we must first receive the Son, and in order to receive the Son, we must first receive the Son's servants. Can we actually profess a belief, a testimony, in the reality of Jesus Christ if we are unable to accept his servants - his chosen servants - like Joseph Smith? We are also informed, that if a person begins to mock the prophets, the Lord's servants, that this is the first sign of apostasy. In other words, a loss of faith and testimony, even in Jesus Christ.

In the New Testament we are also informed how the devils knew our Savior, but did not accept him as the Savior.

How does one then have testimony of Jesus Christ is they fully reject his servants? I believe others have a testimony in the Christ they are familiar with, but if they do not accept the Lord's servants, like Joseph Smith, then they do not have a testimony in the fullness of who Christ is. Can we have a testimony of the Father without a testimony of the Son? I think not, for the son was sent by the Father and to reject one is to reject both.

The foundation of our testimony is a witness from the Holy Ghost. If we receive witness, a testimony of the Son, Jesus Christ, then we should be open to the same witness of the servants - like Joseph Smith. That is the foundation of a sure and true testimony. It is found in the acceptance of the servants, the Son, and the Father, without such the testimony is incomplete.

Thus, my answer, depending on the reasoning given by the Gospel Doctrine teacher I would agree.

Yet, I feel there are many who are sincere in their understanding of who Christ, our Savior, is, but do not necessarily have a true testimony of the true Christ (Edit: otherwise they would accept his servants).

I see where your coming from, although the scriptures are full of examples of people who did believe in christ but had know idea about Joseph Smith.

I just can't bite into the argument that having a Testimony of Joseph Smith is a prerequisite for having a relationship with Christ.

Basically what he was saying is that everyone outside of the church has some kind of superficial relationship with christ if they believe in him..

[Anddenex]

I see where your coming from, although the scriptures are full of examples of people who did believe in christ but had know idea about Joseph Smith.

I just can't bite into the argument that having a Testimony of Joseph Smith is a prerequisite for having a relationship with Christ.

Basically what he was saying is that everyone outside of the church has some kind of superficial relationship with christ if they believe in him..

I would agree that there have been many people in scripture who had a testimony of Christ who did not know Joseph Smith.

I wonder however, if the question were stated differently, let's say - could the people of Nephi, while Nephi lived, have a sure and true relationship with Christ -- God -- if they did not accept Nephi as the prophet? I wonder if the question is more dispensational rather than encompassing all dispensations?

Example, could a person fully accept Christ without accepting his servant President Thomas S. Monson? When I think of a testimony, I think of truth, and in order for the testimony to be true it must be accurate.

Again, I think people are sincere in their belief in who they understand Christ to be. Yet, will we recognize him when we stand before him, or will we be similar to the Jews who had a testimony, faith in Jehovah, but could not recognize their God when he stood before them?

A testimony of Christ will lead any individual who has one, not just a vocal testimony but a living testimony, toward exaltation.

Edit: I also feel this highly depends on a person's knowledge, or what they have available. Example, if a person has never heard of Joseph Smith, or any of the Lord's prophets in these the latter-days, but has read the bible, believes in the Savior. I would say this person has a testimony in Christ, yet the testimony is still yet to be tried. When the individual hears and either accepts or rejects the servants of Christ, if rejects, then I would agree that the individual has shown to be lacking in their testimony of Christ. Otherwise they would accept those the Savior sent.

Similar to the thought, we cannot have a testimony of the Father without a testimony of the Son. By rejecting the Son, we also reject the Father, and by rejecting the Son's servants we ultimately reject the Son as well and the Father.

Either way, thanks for the discussin DrP.

Edited September 3, 2013 by Anddenex

[martybess]

We need temples and the endowment to know Christ (we are taught that there), thus I see where he was coming from.

[skalenfehl]

We need temples and the endowment to know Christ (we are taught that there), thus I see where he was coming from.

Yes and no. In the temple, we are only anointed for such, but it is Christ, Himself, who seals up to eternal life, as He did the Brother of Jared, Nephi, and many others throughout Biblical history, who had received no temple endowment, which is only a symbolic, "preparatory" ritual.

[Guest]

temple endowment, which is only a symbolic, "preparatory" ritual

I don't consider my covenants "practice" or "pretend". Or am I misunderstanding?

[Traveler]

Our Gospel Doctrine teacher on Sunday put forward the idea that unless you have a testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith you can't really have a testimony or relationship with Christ.

I didn't agree with this as i have many friends of many faiths some of which have very real and meaningful relationships with the Saviour.

So im not sure exactly where he was coming from, Im assuming not the manual.

Just wondering what other peoples thoughts were.

I believe your Gospel Doctrine teacher is spot on. In essence Jesus had this very same argument with the Scribes and Pharisees that thought they could believe in G-d (have a testimony of G-d) and not believe in Jesus (have a testimony of the teachings and example of Jesus). Jesus said very clearly, and this is important, that if they believed in G-d they would believe in him (him being Jesus Christ) and that he was sent by G-d. This doctrine was taught over and over again in parables that rejecting G-d's servants is a rejection of G-d. We are also told this in D&C 84.

But there is a caveat. It is possible that some has not understood either the mission of Jesus or they have not understood the mission of Joseph Smith or they have not understood either. This is the essence of vicarious work for the dead. I would submit that their are many endowed LDS that are lacking in testimony of Jesus and Joseph and that many non-LDS could have better understanding of Jesus. But that is not the point. The point is that the spirit that manifests to mankind that Jesus Christ is the Son of G-d is also the spirit that manifests that Joseph Smith saw the Father and the Son and restored the knowledge (testimony) of the Father and the Son. Thus to have a testimony of Jesus unto salvation cannot, in our day, exclude a testimony of Joseph Smith.

The Traveler

[Magen_Avot]

Interesting.

What does it mean to say:

I believe in Joseph Smith, as opposed to...

I believe Joseph Smith.

10 minutes ago I wouldn't have even blinked at this. Some people will say I believe in ufo's, or other things. But now I'm wondering about what I or anyone else means when using "I believe in..."

Edited September 12, 2013 by Magen_Avot

[skalenfehl]

I don't consider my covenants "practice" or "pretend". Or am I misunderstanding?

This isn't practice or pretend. I honor and uphold my covenants. But again, do you know what the very first lines spoken in the endowment session are? Consider, for example that when you are sick and/or afflicted, you ask for a priesthood blessing. There are two steps involved. First you are anointed. Thereafter, a sealing takes place. Are both essential? What would happen if you were anointed only? Why must you be anointed if the power is in the sealing words? Is the anointing merely symbolic? Of what? Is faith required? In whom? Why?

The following may not make sense if you don't remember, but I will highlight and emphasize it. Then when you go to the temple again, you can hear what I mean. Regarding those who have inherited the celestial kingdom from D&C 76:

50 And again we bear record—for we saw and heard, and this is the testimony of the gospel of Christ concerning them who shall come forth in the resurrection of the just—

51 They are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized after the manner of his burial, being buried in the water in his name, and this according to the commandment which he has given—

52 That by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power;

53 And who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true.

54 They are they who are the church of the Firstborn.

55 They are they into whose hands the Father has given all things—

56 They are they who are priests and kings, who have received of his fulness, and of his glory;

57 And are priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of the Only Begotten Son.

58 Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God

This ties in to what Nephi tried teaching in 2 Nephi 32. In Lehi's vision of the tree of life, people fell to their knees at the tree of life after pressing forward along the iron rod. The symbolism is important. Why did they fall to their knees? What did they behold, what does the fruit represent? What is most desirable? Nephi, who received the Second Comforter, gives us hints:

2 Nephi 1:15

15 But behold, the Lord hath redeemed my soul from hell; I have beheld his glory, and I am encircled about eternally in the arms of his love.

2 Nephi 4:33

33 O Lord, wilt thou encircle me around in the robe of thy righteousness! O Lord, wilt thou make a way for mine escape before mine enemies! Wilt thou make my path straight before me! Wilt thou not place a stumbling block in my way—but that thou wouldst clear my way before me, and hedge not up my way, but the ways of mine enemy.

This is to know Christ. But it doesn't happen until-

6 Behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and there will be no more doctrine given until after he shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh. And when he shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh, the things which he shall say unto you shall ye observe to do.

And our Savior taught us the same, which same steps Nephi took:

D&C 93:1 Verily, thus saith the Lord: It shall come to pass that every soul who forsaketh his sins and cometh unto me, and calleth on my name, and obeyeth my voice, and keepeth my commandments, shall see my face and know that I am;

1. forsake all sins

2. come unto me

3. call my name

4. obey my voice

5. keep my commandments

6. See my face

Do we have to wait until some future day after we die? Prophets tell us otherwise, whether by example or by declaration:

Moroni 7:3 Wherefore, I would speak unto you that are of the church, that are the peaceable followers of Christ, and that have obtained a sufficient hope by which ye can enter into the rest of the Lord, from this time henceforth until ye shall rest with him in heaven.

What does it mean to enter into His rest? What does he mean from "this time henceforth?" The Lord anxiously wants to give us SO much more than we realize we can have in this mortal life. Ask and ye shall receive, seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened. Sound familiar? This is a very specific admonition.

With love.

[Traveler]

Interesting.

What does it mean to say:

I believe in Joseph Smith, as opposed to...

I believe Joseph Smith.

10 minutes ago I wouldn't have even blinked at this. Some people will say I believe in ufo's, or other things. But now I'm wondering about what I or anyone else means when using "I believe in..."

I believe you make a good point . There is a saying, "What you do thunders so loudly in my ears that I cannot hear a word you are saying.

What does it mean when someone says that they believe in Jesus Christ and in the loving kindness and compassion of G-d that is willing to forgive them of all their sins - then in the next breath condemn a woman taken in adultery (or someone else in some other sinful thing). This causes me to wonder - Do they not know that Jesus did not condemn the woman taken in adultery? Somewhere there is a disconnect.

The scriptures caution (actually command) that we not bear false witness or take the L-rd's name in vain. When we say that we believe in or on Jesus Christ and fudge a little on his commandments with our daily habits - is that not both a false witness and taking his name in vain?

The scriptures also tell us that our words can condemn us - Perhaps when we say we believe in Christ and then refuse to keep his commandments that it would be better for us to have kept our mouths shut and not to have said anything - if our actions contradict our words. Not so much that we can judge others in this manner but that we may better understand ourselves and what it is that we actually believe.

The Traveler

[martybess]

Yes and no. In the temple, we are only anointed for such, but it is Christ, Himself, who seals up to eternal life, as He did the Brother of Jared, Nephi, and many others throughout Biblical history, who had received no temple endowment, which is only a symbolic, "preparatory" ritual.

Do you not believe there are ppl walking the earth that haven't had their second anointing? I bare witness that there are those who have already had this anointing and are sealed unto Christ and everlasting life, though it is rare.

[martybess]

The scriptures also tell us that our words can condemn us - Perhaps when we say we believe in Christ and then refuse to keep his commandments that it would be better for us to have kept our mouths shut and not to have said anything - if our actions contradict our words. Not so much that we can judge others in this manner but that we may better understand ourselves and what it is that we actually believe.

The Traveler

Do you not think that this might only apply in a curtain way like I'm trying to cover my sins as a hypocrite? If we are truly trying and testify but say I'm a sinner our words may stand to help us. If I stand in testimony meeting and testify but in fact I'm covering a gregarious thing like an addiction to pornography then I condemn myself if I have not confessed to my Bishop.

[skalenfehl]

Do you not believe there are ppl walking the earth that haven't had their second anointing? I bare witness that there are those who have already had this anointing and are sealed unto Christ and everlasting life, though it is rare.

On the contrary, I personally do believe that there are people alive today who have received their "second anointing." This isn't part of what I explained above. What I explained stops just short of it.

[martybess]

1. forsake all sins

2. come unto me

3. call my name

4. obey my voice

5. keep my commandments

6. See my face

Do you think we can see Christ's face in this life without the temple? Not arguing or disagreeing, just asking? At this point I'm still thinking to know Christ we need the temples which are brought fourth by Prophets, thus I see the teaching point of view that without prophets we can't know Christ.