A Question that Bothered Me

[ABCDario]

So I have a question that, while I feel I have already received an answer regarding it, I am curious about what other people think.  It's one that used to bother me for a long time and caused me a good bit of frustration despite the simplistic nature of the question.  It was only later on that I received inspiration regarding it and came to the conclusion that a concrete answer was probably not so important regarding it as was the fact that it did happen in some way.

The question I had regarded John the Beloved and his appearance during the ordination of Joseph Smith, Jr. and Oliver Cowdery to the Melchizedek priesthood, the higher priesthood authority of God.  I could never wrap my head around how John appeared with Peter and Jame, they being two resurrected beings, and he being instead a transfigured being, saying he never died and won't until the return of Christ.

For a good while this question bothered me, until as I said before I received an answer and realized, again, that how it happened wasn't as important as believing that it did happen.  I have ideas as to how this was carried about, but in the end the belief that this was able to happen despite having no specific answer as to how has remained with me.  

That said, I was wondering what other people might think about the topic, pertaining to this particular question I had or even extending it to other similar questions people have had.  

[wenglund]

What is there about a transfigured being that leads you to believe he couldn't appear with resurrected beings?  I ask because I don['t see a problem.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[zil]

Wait, I don't recall being taught that Peter and James have been resurrected.  Did I miss something?  Personally, I always figured John acted as a sort of bridge between the mortal Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery and spirit Peter and James.

(Either way, I also don't see the problem - not principle, spiritual, technical, logistical, or even physical.)

[Guest]

9 hours ago, ABCDario said:

So I have a question that, while I feel I have already received an answer regarding it, I am curious about what other people think.  It's one that used to bother me for a long time and caused me a good bit of frustration despite the simplistic nature of the question.  It was only later on that I received inspiration regarding it and came to the conclusion that a concrete answer was probably not so important regarding it as was the fact that it did happen in some way.

The question I had regarded John the Beloved and his appearance during the ordination of Joseph Smith, Jr. and Oliver Cowdery to the Melchizedek priesthood, the higher priesthood authority of God.  I could never wrap my head around how John appeared with Peter and Jame, they being two resurrected beings, and he being instead a transfigured being, saying he never died and won't until the return of Christ.

For a good while this question bothered me, until as I said before I received an answer and realized, again, that how it happened wasn't as important as believing that it did happen.  I have ideas as to how this was carried about, but in the end the belief that this was able to happen despite having no specific answer as to how has remained with me.  

That said, I was wondering what other people might think about the topic, pertaining to this particular question I had or even extending it to other similar questions people have had.  

I was wondering the same thing Wade was.  Where's the problem?

What you seem to be saying is that it is

1) ok for resurrected beings to minister to mortals.
2) ok for translated beings to minister to mortals.

BUT

3) Resurrected beings and translated beings are unable to show up at the same time to minister to mortals?

Where's that written?

Edited June 4, 2018 by Guest

[ABCDario]

7 hours ago, wenglund said:

What is there about a transfigured being that leads you to believe he couldn't appear with resurrected beings?  I ask because I don't see a problem.

I think part of my problem was based upon artwork which I was interpreting as standard when I shouldn’t have, kind of like how a lot of people interpret artwork of Joseph translating the stuff lates is canon when it’s only the artist’s interpretation of what happened.  Specifically there is a painting showing Peter, James, and John as angelic beings ordinating Joseph and Oliver that stood out in my mind, as well as statues at the temple in Salt Lake.  My problem for a long time was I couldn’t wrap my head around the idea of John, transfigured though he was, appearing as angelic being.  What I learned later through prayer though was that whether he appeared in the same way as Moroni did or even if he just walked into the woods that day, it didn’t matter.  What mattered was the fact that he was there and it didn’t matter how he got there.  That revelation really comforted me.  So while I still say I don’t know how he got there, I believe he was there.

16 minutes ago, zil said:

Wait, I don't recall being taught that Peter and James have been resurrected.  Did I miss something? 

I’ve always been taught that Peter and James were redirected beings, same as I was taught John the Baptist was when he appeared to restore the Aaronic priesthood.  As to why that had to be resurrected, I’m not sure if I remember any doctrine specifically stating that they had to be in order for the ordinations to happen.  My assumption was they needed bodies in order to properly do so, but I can recall instances in the scriptures where that wasn’t always the case, or at least I think I can.  I could be wrong there, it’s been a while.  But yeah, I was always taught they were resurrected beings.  Funnily a lot of people would lump John in with them just for ease of teaching purposes, but I knew better when it came to John.

Edited June 4, 2018 by ABCDario

[ABCDario]

7 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I was wondering the same thing Wade was.  Where's the problem?

What you seem to be saying is that it is

1) ok for resurrected beings to minister to mortals.
2) ok for translated beings to minister to mortals.

BUT

3) Resurrected beings and translated beings are unable to show up at the same time to minister to mortals?

Not exactly what I meant.  I always just wondered how he could appear together with them, as in whether he appeared as of out of heaven.  For me, I always thought he appeared as if out of heaven because that’s the way I always read that part of the account.  Whether that’s actually the case or not though I later discovered didn’t matter.  What mattered was that he was there, and that I do believe in.

i know this is kind of a silly question to have been bothered by, and as I said I felt like I already got the answer I needed a long time ago.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, ABCDario said:

Not exactly what I meant.  I always just wondered how he could appear together with them, as in whether he appeared as of out of heaven.  For me, I always thought he appeared as if out of heaven because that’s the way I always read that part of the account.  Whether that’s actually the case or not though I later discovered didn’t matter.  What mattered was that he was there, and that I do believe in.

i know this is kind of a silly question to have been bothered by, and as I said I felt like I already got the answer I needed a long time ago.

Ok.  Could you rephrase the question?  I'm still not getting what the problem is.

Do you believe that translated beings cannot appear out of heaven?

[zil]

13 minutes ago, ABCDario said:

Specifically there is a painting showing Peter, James, and John as angelic beings ordinating Joseph and Oliver that stood out in my mind, as well as statues at the temple in Salt Lake.  My problem for a long time was I couldn’t wrap my head around the idea of John, transfigured though he was, appearing as angelic being.  What I learned later through prayer though was that whether he appeared in the same way as Moroni did or even if he just walked into the woods that day, it didn’t matter.

Consider scriptural accounts where someone was taken out from among people by miraculous means - Jesus (at least once during his mortality), OT prophets (at least Elijah), the Three Nephites - or at least miraculously freed from various prisons, pits, and the like.  Daniel, et al, and lions' dens and furnaces.  Clearly the Lord has command of the elements and the power operate outside the limits we mortals understand.

Thus, I cannot see why Peter and James cannot appear from the spirit world in their glory, nor do I see any reason why John cannot be carried by the Spirit to wherever John is needed.

As for the artwork - well, it's just artwork.  Whether John has glory which can (when he chooses) be made visible, or whether he just looked like a mortal man doesn't seem terribly important to me.   (My understanding, could be wrong, is that spirits cannot suppress their glory - that appears to require a body - but I forget where I read that, so don't take it as truth.)

13 minutes ago, ABCDario said:

I’ve always been taught that Peter and James were redirected beings, same as I was taught John the Baptist was when he appeared to restore the Aaronic priesthood.  As to why that had to be resurrected, I’m not sure if I remember any doctrine specifically stating that they had to be in order for the ordinations to happen.  My assumption was they needed bodies in order to properly do so, but I can recall instances in the scriptures where that wasn’t always the case, or at least I think I can.  I could be wrong there, it’s been a while.  But yeah, I was always taught they were resurrected beings.  Funnily a lot of people would lump John in with them just for ease of teaching purposes, but I knew better when it came to John.

So now I'm going to call on some people who know more than I do to see what they were taught: @Vort, @Carborendum, @Just_A_Guy, @mordorbund - to your knowledge, were Peter and James resurrected?  Is this taught somewhere?  The Bible Dictionary talks about John being translated, but I see no mention of Peter or James being resurrected.  While I have no problem with the idea, I'm not aware of scripture / GC talk / manuals which teach this.

I can understand speculation - how could they "lay their hands" on mortals while they are spirits - though more accurately, the mortal would not feel it, but that doesn't mean they couldn't do it.  Nor do I see a need for the mortal to feel it.  As mentioned above, I always figured John acted as a sort of "bridge" in that process.

Anywho, I await further understanding - sources would be nice, if you know of any.

Edited June 4, 2018 by zil

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, zil said:

...to your knowledge, were Peter and James resurrected?  Is this taught somewhere?  The Bible Dictionary talks about John being translated, but I see no mention of Peter or James being resurrected. 

I've always thought they were.  But come to think of it, I've never seen that written anywhere.  EOM says they were at that time.  But it gives no references.  So...???

[zil]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

EOM says they were at that time.

What is "EOM"?

[Guest]

Just now, zil said:

What is "EOM"?

Encyclopedia of Mormonism.

[SpiritDragon]

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Resurrection

Same story. This article asserts they were resurrected, but only Moroni is given a reference in the list given in the third paragraph.

[ABCDario]

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/04/the-things-of-which-i-know?lang=eng

i found a talk from the April 2007 conference where President Hinkley says that John the Baptist was resurrected, but he doesn’t specifically say the same for Peter and James.  I would assume the situation for them was similar, but as he doesn’t specifically say it you could make an argument against it.  He did say John the Baptist was though.

[Guest]

Just now, ABCDario said:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/04/the-things-of-which-i-know?lang=eng

i found a talk from the April 2007 conference where President Hinkley says that John the Baptist was resurrected, but he doesn’t specifically say the same for Peter and James.  I would assume the situation for them was similar, but as he doesn’t specifically say it you could make an argument against it.  He did say John the Baptist was though.

Could you clarify the original question?  I'm still not getting what doesn't seem to make sense to you.

[ABCDario]

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/04/the-temple-the-priesthood?lang=eng

Here’s one where Boyd K. Packer says thy were all resurrected beings, although he does generalize this to John the Beloved as well, something I think I said before that I’ve noticed instructors do.

[ABCDario]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Could you clarify the original question?  I'm still not getting what doesn't seem to make sense to you.

What didn’t make sense to me was John appearing with Peter and James during the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood as I could wrap my head around how that happened.  As stated before as well, this is no longer an issue for me.  I was just curious what other people thought of that instance.

Although I think the topic has since moved to whether Peter and James are resurrected beings or not, though that’s not really a question I had before.

[Guest]

Just now, ABCDario said:

What didn’t make sense to me was John appearing with Peter and James during the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood as I could wrap my head around how that happened.  As stated before as well, this is no longer an issue for me.  I was just curious what other people thought of that instance.

Although I think the topic has since moved to whether Peter and James are resurrected beings or not, though that’s not really a question I had before.

If your only question was "did anyone else have difficulty seeing how that happened?"  Then the answer appears to be "no" -- No one had any difficulty with it.

Resurrected beings can both appear from heaven.  Uembodied angels can appear from heaven.  A translated being can appear out of heaven.  So, they all appeared out of heaven.  I never really had a problem with that.  I have no idea why that would be a problem.  So, I was asking (purely out of curiosity) for clarification on why that was (past tense) a problem for you. But if you don't want to share, then I guess you don't want to share.

[ABCDario]

17 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

So, I was asking (purely out of curiosity) for clarification on why that was (past tense) a problem for you. But if you don't want to share, then I guess you don't want to share.

Oh, sorry about that then.  I was misreading what you were asking. 

I’m not really sure how it became a problem.  I mentioned before the paintings of the church and depictions of the event conflicting with my own perception of what could have happened.  If I look specifically about why it was hard for me to imagine a transfigured being coming out of heaven, I don’t really have a specific answer.  I just couldn’t seem to get my head around the idea that John could come out of heaven when my mind was set in believing that he had never gone there.  I was taught that John had walked the earth since the time he was given that calling by the Lord.  Imagining him being taken from the earth for any reason was hard for me, as I took the teaching that he would walk the earth until the Savior returned as a very literal statement.  The thought then that he could appear as out of heaven when I believed he hadn’t been there himself, and by there and heaven I mean wherever translated dwell, clashed with the underlying belief that he hadn’t gone there.

My answer came later in prayer when I was asking about it that it didn’t matter whether he was in that place or upon the earth at the time he was called to restore the priesthood.  What mattered was that God was capable of bringing him where he was needed when he was needed there.  I was reassured that he was there and that the priesthood was restored on the earth, and that was all I needed to concern myself with regarding the matter.  It was a very comforting feeling and I found that clash of ideas no longer held much sway in my mind.

I know that to many it seems a silly thing to have doubted, but we all have different doubts about various topics and it’s surprising how even the smallest thing can cause a lot of mental and spiritual frustration for a person.  That was one of a few things I learned from the experience.

(Edited for typos)

Edited June 4, 2018 by ABCDario

[Vort]

1 hour ago, zil said:

So now I'm going to call on some people who know more than I do to see what they were taught: @Vort, @Carborendum, @Just_A_Guy, @mordorbund - to your knowledge, were Peter and James resurrected?  Is this taught somewhere?

Peter and James were martyred. This is a traditional belief, but is sustained by the Lord's words to Peter and by our own LDS doctrine that says the apostasy occurred by the loss of Priesthood keys at the death of the apostles (save John). Given that fact, Peter and James would have to have been resurrected in order to lay hands on Joseph and Oliver.

EDIT: On a less hasty rereading, I see you already brought up the laying-on-of-hands argument. I would add only that one of the purposes of physical translation (e.g. Moses) appears to have been to keep someone in the flesh so that he could transmit Priesthood keys. Our Priesthood authority, especially with regard to keys, appears to operate through channels requiring flesh in addition to spirit. Consider also Joseph Smith's teachings in D&C 129:8, which say:

Quote

If it be the devil as an angel of light, when you ask him to shake hands he will offer you his hand, and you will not feel anything; you may therefore detect him.

This strongly suggests that spirits and beings of flesh do not interact in normal ways, and strengthens the idea that the "laying on of hands" requires a physical body.

Edited June 4, 2018 by Vort

[ABCDario]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

I would add only that one of the purposes of physical translation (e.g. Moses) appears to have been to keep someone in the flesh so that he could transmit Priesthood keys.

I had actually forgotten that Moses and Elijah were both translated.  That might have actually been something I could have looked to when I was getting worried about John.  

[zil]

Please note that it is impossible to search LDS.org for whether Peter was resurrected because the minute you include any form of resurrect, all the responses are about Christ's resurrection.  Sigh.

26 minutes ago, ABCDario said:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/04/the-things-of-which-i-know?lang=eng

i found a talk from the April 2007 conference where President Hinkley says that John the Baptist was resurrected, but he doesn’t specifically say the same for Peter and James.  I would assume the situation for them was similar, but as he doesn’t specifically say it you could make an argument against it.  He did say John the Baptist was though.

John the Baptist died before Christ.  I have always understood the general "rules" to be that "those who died before Christ, who are worthy of celestial glory, were resurrected at/just after Christ's resurrection; those who died after Christ will have to wait for their resurrection".  While I've also heard it taught that the second part of this is not a hard rule (that there are exceptions), I don't recall anything about Peter and James being resurrected.

25 minutes ago, ABCDario said:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/04/the-temple-the-priesthood?lang=eng

Here’s one where Boyd K. Packer says thy were all resurrected beings, although he does generalize this to John the Beloved as well, something I think I said before that I’ve noticed instructors do. 

Well, that's pretty authoritative.

[zil]

6 minutes ago, Vort said:

EDIT: On a less hasty rereading, I see you already brought up the laying-on-of-hands argument. I would add only that one of the purposes of physical translation (e.g. Moses) appears to have been to keep someone in the flesh so that he could transmit Priesthood keys. Our Priesthood authority, especially with regard to keys, appears to operate through channels requiring flesh in addition to spirit. These are just words, of course, and not proof of anything. But it's how I understand things, and how I understand the prophets to understand things. 

I also had the same thought about how "flesh" is required - which is why I just assumed John acted as a sort of bridge, and that was how Peter and James could act without having physical bodies (if they didn't).  But Elder Packer's word is good enough for me - if he says they were resurrected, it seems like a good idea to believe him.

[Vort]

@zil: I re-edited my edit to provide some scriptural insight that, while it doesn't prove that physicality is required for transmitting Priesthood keys, offers enough evidence that I think the resurrection of Peter and James becomes the default assumption rather than mere speculation.

[mordorbund]

50 minutes ago, zil said:

Consider scriptural accounts where someone was taken out from among people by miraculous means - Jesus (at least once during his mortality), OT prophets (at least Elijah), the Three Nephites - or at least miraculously freed from various prisons, pits, and the like.  Daniel, et al, and lions' dens and furnaces.  Clearly the Lord has command of the elements and the power operate outside the limits we mortals understand.

Thus, I cannot see why Peter and James cannot appear from the spirit world in their glory, nor do I see any reason why John cannot be carried by the Spirit to wherever John is needed.

As for the artwork - well, it's just artwork.  Whether John has glory which can (when he chooses) be made visible, or whether he just looked like a mortal man doesn't seem terribly important to me.   (My understanding, could be wrong, is that spirits cannot suppress their glory - that appears to require a body - but I forget where I read that, so don't take it as truth.)

So now I'm going to call on some people who know more than I do to see what they were taught: @Vort, @Carborendum, @Just_A_Guy, @mordorbund - to your knowledge, were Peter and James resurrected?  Is this taught somewhere?  The Bible Dictionary talks about John being translated, but I see no mention of Peter or James being resurrected.  While I have no problem with the idea, I'm not aware of scripture / GC talk / manuals which teach this.

I can understand speculation - how could they "lay their hands" on mortals while they are spirits - though more accurately, the mortal would not feel it, but that doesn't mean they couldn't do it.  Nor do I see a need for the mortal to feel it.  As mentioned above, I always figured John acted as a sort of "bridge" in that process.

Anywho, I await further understanding - sources would be nice, if you know of any.

The argument for resurrected restorers comes from the necessity of the "laying on of hands" when performing certain ordinances. I took a look through the Doctrine and Covenants and was surprised to see that this practice is repeatedly emphasized when bestowing the Gift of the Holy Ghost (and I seem to recall a quote in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that insists on the practice), but not for priesthood ordination! This makes me wonder if there was a generally accepted non-ritual way of receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost outside the Church in Joseph's day. Much later, Joseph does overtly state that it is only by "the laying on of hands by those who are in authority" that a person can "administer in the ordinances" (Article of Faith 5). This conforms with what is taught in the Book of Mormon about ordaining teachers and priests.

With the necessity of the laying on of hands, we then have the ministering spirits bound under an obligation to not practice any deception with regards to their physicality (this is also where you got the idea that spirits can't hide their glory). So if they're laying on hands, then they have physical hands, which means they are either resurrected or translated.

[zil]

10 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

ministering spirits bound under an obligation to not practice any deception with regards to their physicality

Thank you for emphasizing this wording.  Yes, this seems very consistent and in accordance with how God operates.  I never had a problem with the idea that they were resurrected, just can't recall hearing it taught (quite probably this is at least in part due to being a female who hasn't lived full time in a house with a Melchizedek Priesthood holder since I was 18 - I suspect you guys get more lessons directly on this topic than the women do, and have the greater / stronger context in which to place and retain what you hear).

Verse 8 makes me wonder whether devils haven't learned this trick, or simply are bound in some way, or not allowed to know it...   I prefer not to find out in person, frankly.