Jesus appearance to Joseph Smith and Lorenzo Snow


Recommended Posts

I am wondering how to rationalize Jesus' appearance to Joseph Smith Jr. in the woods and Jesus appearance to Lorenzo Snow in the Temple due to the fact that Jesus warned against claims of private meetings in the wilderness/desert and visitations in private in secret chambers/inner rooms.  

Thanks,

Robert Rost

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Robert Rost said:

I am wondering how to rationalize Jesus' appearance to Joseph Smith Jr. in the woods and Jesus appearance to Lorenzo Snow in the Temple due to the fact that Jesus warned against claims of private meetings in the wilderness/desert and visitations in private in secret chambers/inner rooms.  

Thanks,

Robert Rost

Welcome!

You allude to Matthew 24. In that sermon Christ is talking specifically about His Second Coming; which happens after days of tribulation.  The point is “when I come again, everyone’s going to know it; you won’t need anyone to point it out for you”.  The point there is *not* that there will be no future prophets (indeed, in Matthew 7 Christ explicitly gives us a guide for discerning true prophets from false ones; and the book of Revelation speaks of at least two future prophets yet to be born).  Nor is it a claim that there can be no private manifestations of the risen Lord prior to the Second Coming (else Mary Magdalene, and various other scriptural apostles and witnesses—including John, whose book of Revelation is an account of a private manifestation of Jesus Christ to himself—would necessarily be liars).  

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Welcome!

You allude to Matthew 24. In that sermon Christ is talking specifically about His Second Coming; which happens after days of tribulation.  

Props to @Just_A_Guy! I had no idea where this alleged warning against meeting with Jesus in secret/private places was coming from. :dontknow: I see Jesus every day, in my prayer closet. :pray:

Edited by prisonchaplain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Robert Rost said:

I am wondering how to rationalize Jesus' appearance to Joseph Smith Jr. in the woods and Jesus appearance to Lorenzo Snow in the Temple due to the fact that Jesus warned against claims of private meetings in the wilderness/desert and visitations in private in secret chambers/inner rooms.  

Thanks,

Robert Rost

How would you then interpret Jehovah's private meetings with Moses? (these happened in the wilderness, potentially a desert also, and at the top of the mountain)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Props to @Just_A_Guy! I had no idea where this alleged warning against meeting with Jesus in secret/private places was coming from. :dontknow: I see Jesus every day, in my prayer closet. :pray:

I don’t have a lot of experience with Bible apps; but I imagine that even for someone who isn’t LDS, the LDS Gospel Library app might be worth installing just for its search capabilities. :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Great question Robert. Welcome to the boards! 

Thanks, it troubles that I don't really like what other churches are doing in condemning LDS doctrine.  Yet they don't have a problem with Jesus appearing to the Apostles after His resurrection, which also seems to conflict the warnings about private meetings.  I also would like to be able to approach LDS doctrine rationally without throwing logic out the window.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Welcome!

You allude to Matthew 24. In that sermon Christ is talking specifically about His Second Coming; which happens after days of tribulation.  The point is “when I come again, everyone’s going to know it; you won’t need anyone to point it out for you”.  The point there is *not* that there will be no future prophets (indeed, in Matthew 7 Christ explicitly gives us a guide for discerning true prophets from false ones; and the book of Revelation speaks of at least two future prophets yet to be born).  Nor is it a claim that there can be no private manifestations of the risen Lord prior to the Second Coming (else Mary Magdalene, and various other scriptural apostles and witnesses—including John, whose book of Revelation is an account of a private manifestation of Jesus Christ to himself—would necessarily be liars).  

Good point about Jesus appearing to the Apostles after His death and resurrection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

How would you then interpret Jehovah's private meetings with Moses? (these happened in the wilderness, potentially a desert also, and at the top of the mountain)

I would interpret it from the perspective that it came well before the Bible's indication that when Jesus returns in person that according to the Bible that "all eyes will see Him" and that when He returns He will appear as the sun rises in the east with glory as He decimates the forces of Armageddon and sets foot upon the mount of Olives and that the mount will cleave into a valley, which would appear to indicate that appearances outside of the Second Advent and the destruction of the forces of Armageddon are false, but then again Jesus did appear to the Apostles after His resurrection, so does God reserve the right to appear to people in private despite indications that everyone will see Him when He returns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Robert Rost said:

I would interpret it from the perspective that it came well before the Bible's indication that when Jesus returns in person that according to the Bible that "all eyes will see Him" and that when He returns He will appear as the sun rises in the east with glory as He decimates the forces of Armageddon and sets foot upon the mount of Olives and that the mount will cleave into a valley, which would appear to indicate that appearances outside of the Second Advent and the destruction of the forces of Armageddon are false, but then again Jesus did appear to the Apostles after His resurrection, so does God reserve the right to appear to people in private despite indications that everyone will see Him when He returns.

So we are in agreement then that what you are speaking of refers to his second coming? Not personal visits like he did with Mary (in private, at a garden, who then told the apostles and prophets).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Robert Rost said:

Thanks, it troubles that I don't really like what other churches are doing in condemning LDS doctrine.  Yet they don't have a problem with Jesus appearing to the Apostles after His resurrection, which also seems to conflict the warnings about private meetings.  I also would like to be able to approach LDS doctrine rationally without throwing logic out the window.

But if it ever does come to the cruch, then i think logic should go out the window well before faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Robert Rost said:

so does God reserve the right to appear to people in private despite indications that everyone will see Him when He returns.

Most of God and Christ's appearances to people, both before and after His time on Earth are very private occasions involving no more than one or two people at a time. His activities in Jerusalem and on the American continent appear to be exceptions to Their normal practices

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
 
 
 
3 hours ago, Robert Rost said:

I would interpret it from the perspective that it came well before the Bible's indication that when Jesus returns in person ...

Please clarify.  Are you talking about Matt 24 as JAG supposed?  I didn't really hear a confirmation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/14/2019 at 5:41 PM, askandanswer said:

Most of God and Christ's appearances to people, both before and after His time on Earth are very private occasions involving no more than one or two people at a time. His activities in Jerusalem and on the American continent appear to be exceptions to Their normal practices

Could that be why Abu Bakr Al-Bagdadi is still alive after killing so many people.  He claims that the Bible is false, and only the first five books of the Bible are true in addition to the Kuran.  It seems to me if God needed Bagdadi dead for killing to support false doctrine, which he has done from a Christian perspective that holds only the Bible to be true, that the man would already be dead, since God said that He will fight our battles for us.  God could inspire the US to his location which has not been done which seems to validate Bagdadi's theology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matthew 24 says ""Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come."  The word day is used in singular form, so do we assume that Jesus meant to say "days" plural.  If he appeared to Joseph Smith, Prophet Snow, and also to the Jehovah's Witnesses, that the use of the plural "days" that the Lord will come would be more accurate."

Edited by Robert Rost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/14/2019 at 5:41 PM, askandanswer said:

Most of God and Christ's appearances to people, both before and after His time on Earth are very private occasions involving no more than one or two people at a time. His activities in Jerusalem and on the American continent appear to be exceptions to Their normal practices

Well if Jesus can appear in private to one person, then why send the missionaries out in groups of two in order to affirm doctrine which teaches that the Lord's doctrine is establish by a witness of at least two people.  Seems to me if any one person can claim to have seen Jesus there is no need to send people out in groups of two, if only one person is needed to claim to have seen Jesus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/14/2019 at 5:34 PM, askandanswer said:

But if it ever does come to the cruch, then i think logic should go out the window well before faith.

That's why I was thinking as well, I like the whole Jim Jones, David Koresh approach to faith.  Throw logic and caution completely out the window.  Because obviously Koresh and Jones have brought many people to Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/20/2019 at 11:47 PM, Robert Rost said:

That's why I was thinking as well, I like the whole Jim Jones, David Koresh approach to faith.  Throw logic and caution completely out the window.  Because obviously Koresh and Jones have brought many people to Christ.

To be honest, I don't believe they brought people to Christ.  I think they brought people to the gospel of Jones and Koresh.  Both were sick evil men who loved to control others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
9 hours ago, Robert Rost said:

Well if Jesus can appear in private to one person, then why send the missionaries out in groups of two in order to affirm doctrine which teaches that the Lord's doctrine is establish by a witness of at least two people.  Seems to me if any one person can claim to have seen Jesus there is no need to send people out in groups of two, if only one person is needed to claim to have seen Jesus.

Joseph did indeed see the Father and the Son in the grove.  Yet he himself cited

Quote

...In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

 -- 2 Cor 13:1

As time went on and more revelation was offered to mankind, other witnesses did follow and confirm the claims Joseph made. 

Three witnesses saw the golden plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated, and the angel who held them, testifying that they were the word of God.
Other witnesses also saw Jesus Christ (and/or other heavenly beings) with Joseph and provided additional witness. 
Many more instances that would take up a lot of time to itemize.

How has God dealt with prophets of old?  He always spoke with them individually at first.  And He provided additional witnesses as time went on.

God only spoke with Noah about the ark.  No one else.
God came to Amos while he was gardening alone.
God came to Samuel as a child while Eli was asleep.
God spoke to Joseph (of Egypt) about Pharaoh's dream.
God spoke to Elijah alone throughout the drought.

I can go on.  The point is that while the basic statement you make is true, you seem to be straining at the gnat and swallowing the camel.  There is nothing wrong with Joseph claiming to have seen God alone.  But at some point, additional witnesses will be provided.  If no witnesses show up, then you're right in making the claim that this could be false.  But in the beginning, a single witness is very common.

It seems you're very willing to make excuses for prophets in the Bible.  But you seem bent on creating artificial barriers for Joseph Smith's credibility.  Double standard.  Why is that?

Edited by Mores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Robert Rost said:

Could that be why Abu Bakr Al-Bagdadi is still alive after killing so many people.  He claims that the Bible is false, and only the first five books of the Bible are true in addition to the Kuran.  It seems to me if God needed Bagdadi dead for killing to support false doctrine, which he has done from a Christian perspective that holds only the Bible to be true, that the man would already be dead, since God said that He will fight our battles for us.  God could inspire the US to his location which has not been done which seems to validate Bagdadi's theology.

Well, that escalated quickly . . . :D 

7 hours ago, Robert Rost said:

Well if Jesus can appear in private to one person, then why send the missionaries out in groups of two in order to affirm doctrine which teaches that the Lord's doctrine is establish by a witness of at least two people.  Seems to me if any one person can claim to have seen Jesus there is no need to send people out in groups of two, if only one person is needed to claim to have seen Jesus.

Can we agree that Jesus *did* appear privately to Paul and to John the Revelator after His ascension to Heaven, in such a way as not to constitute His Second Coming? 

If we do agree on that, then why did John bother to write his experience down; and why did Paul bother to tell others what he had seen?  Why not just tell Jesus “hey, if you want everyone to know what You told me—do it Yourself”?

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I am seeing a continuing trend in "gospel" discussions.  Throughout history mankind has usually discussed gospel topics mainly through expressing doctrine.  But I have pondered a lot lately on why the word or term "Doctrine" is seldom used in scripture.  Rather we see terms like "The Word" or "The Gospel".  More recently Joseph Smith used the term "Principles".  During the "Dark Ages" traditional Christians were very focused on doctrine.  It is almost like doctrine or the idea of doctrine was the most sacred aspect of worship.  Perhaps even a "thing" of worship.  It seems that believing correct doctrine was the most important part of religion.  More important even than ordinances, law and covenants - or even divine authority. 

From time to time in doctrine discussion I hear the thought (doctrine) expressed that only doctrine pertinent to one's salvation is necessary or important.  Often I have felt that such an argument is used when something appears to be true or accurate but the person responding is on the defensive and has no idea how to respond truthfully without jeopardizing a believe they do not want to examine in any detail.  In addition I have often been amazed what a person will say or not say because of obvious conflicts in doctrine.

One thing for sure - some doctrine is a lot more important that other doctrine.  I have discovered that asking questions about obvious conflicts or why a particular doctrine is interpreted a certain way - often causes contention because the one asked is offended to explain their position.   May I give an example?  If there is a discussion about a doctrine - very often someone will quote scripture or a current prophet.  If they are then asked, "Why do you believe that scripture or that prophet?"  They will become offended and upset that such a question should be asked.  But they may say that G-d revealed or told them - but if they are asked how they were told or how they know it was G-d and not someone else (like Satan).  They become the more offended.

Obviously there is a problem when two people seem to think they have divine answers and the answers differ significantly.  I am very concerned when someone claims to have received truth from G-d that is substantially different than my understanding of the same thing.  I would say that 95% of the time - if I make any effort to examine possible reasons for differences - that asking the other person for validation will cause more conflict than bring any resolution of differences.

As I read scripture and by my own experience - divine understanding seems to be quite vague and seldom specific.  Yet others seem to argue that for them such things are only specific.  As I consider the words, teachings and parables of Jesus - such things are quite vague.  So I wonder - why do so many others see such vagueness as specific hard core dogma and doctrine?  Whoops - did I just tick someone off with my question?  If so care to tell me why?

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
28 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I think I am seeing a continuing trend in "gospel" discussions.  Throughout history mankind has usually discussed gospel topics mainly through expressing doctrine.  But I have pondered a lot lately on why the word or term "Doctrine" is seldom used in scripture. 

Well, it is basically half the name of one of the standard works.  And it shows up 112 times in scriptural text.  Then you also need to include synonyms for the sake of translated works.

Teach/teaching: Over 400.

Belief: 15

Hmmm.  only 15. That is a lot less than doctrine.  I guess we ought to stop believing anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Mores said:

Well, it is basically half the name of one of the standard works.  And it shows up 112 times in scriptural text.  Then you also need to include synonyms for the sake of translated works.

Teach/teaching: Over 400.

Belief: 15

Hmmm.  only 15. That is a lot less than doctrine.  I guess we ought to stop believing anything.

Can you tell me of a war that was not fought over doctrine?  Did you know that the "Third Reich" was the attempt to build up an empire to G-d?

I wonder how often covenant, law and ordinance (or specific ordinance like sacrifice) is used?

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
Just now, Traveler said:

Can you tell me of a war that was not fought over doctrine? 

Ah, so the Nephites should never have defended themselves because they wanted to believe as they wished.  Got it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share