Beware of false prophets

In General Conference last Sunday, Elder D. Todd Christofferson, of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said: “Even so today, some believe in the literal Resurrection of Christ, and many doubt or disbelieve. But some know." (Italics mine.)

He said this looking into the camera. The obvious implication to anyone watching, of course, and knowing who the speaker is is that he knows, even as the apostles of old. “Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.” (Acts 1:21-22.) 

If Elder Christofferson were not such a witness, to stand before the people of this Church and say “But some know”, as he did, would not only be contemptibly disingenuous and deceitful, it would be almost blasphemous. For he closed his remarks by stating that he “believe[s]” the many testimonies given by others of Christ’s resurrection and “[u]nder the glance of His all-seeing eye, I stand myself as a witness that Jesus of Nazareth is the resurrected Redeemer, and I testify of all that follows from the fact of His Resurrection.”

What did he actually say here? That he is a witness like unto Peter and Paul, Mormon, Mahonri and Moroni? Or that he is just like any other member of the Church who “knows” by the power of the Spirit that Jesus is the Christ, that He is real, and that the scriptures must be true regarding His resurrection – just as I know China must be real (because of so many evidences given), even though I have never been to China.

Is Elder Christofferson a true apostle? Or a pretender?

I would give him the benefit of the doubt – and even impute to him all the same conviction I have for the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, etc. – for surely Elder Christofferson would not lie. But I have seen too many “apostles” in our day offer a similar testimony, only later to confess that they have not actually entered into Christ’s presence, nor have they seen Him, nor felt Him in this life. That, in fact, they are not “witnesses” in the literal sense, as one who physically has been there or who knows for a certainty, by experience (as a witness to a murder, for example, must be).

We don’t convict people of murder on the “testimony” of mere belief! We require certain knowledge. First-hand knowledge. A witness. (Or knowledge of circumstantial evidence that overcomes all reasonable doubt.) I do not doubt nor deny that all of the apostles living today have sufficient “circumstantial evidence” to convince them of the reality of Jesus Christ, His atonement and resurrection. They can and do “know” Jesus lives…just as I know, or any of us can know…even without seeing Him.

But wouldn’t it be great to have a true apostle? One who could erase all doubt and give hope and inspire faith with these words: “I have seen Him. He has ministered to me. He is real. He is the true and living Christ, the resurrected Lord of heaven and earth. I know He lives. For I have met Him and He has spoken to me, face to face.” That, in essence, is the testimony – the true testimony – of virtually every prophet who wrote in the Book of Mormon. (How He ministered unto each of them is not fully explained or revealed, but many testified of an actual, personal visit and encounter.) This public reassurance (for some reason) is lacking among our current quorum of twelve apostles.

Consequently I trust Daymon Smith and Denver Snuffer, who outline the historical reality – confirming what I have heard several modern apostles admit – that they are called to be (and instructed to testify that they are) “special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world” (see Doctrine and Covenants 107:23) -- unlike “standing ministers” (or quorums of elders, priests, teachers and deacons) who do not travel to bear witness of Christ to all the world -- although some, called “Seventy”, may also be called to travel and preach the gospel and to assist the Twelve in their duties as “especial witnesses” (see Doctrine and Covenants 107:25). The use of the term “special” ought not to be inferred to be an adjective indicating that their “witness” is “special”, “different” or in any way more physical or “sure” than the witness of anyone who “knows” by the power of the Spirit that Jesus is the Christ, but ought to be recognized, at the very least, as part of a compound noun, such as “Secretary General” or “Department Head”. These modern apostles have been “clothed” in the woolly language of “special witness” -- with all the vital knowledge and experience that that title implies -- to perform the actual duties of a “traveling minister”, given in modern scripture: to proclaim the name of Jesus Christ and preach His gospel throughout the world, having authority to administer in the general affairs of the Church (see Doctrine and Covenants 20:38-44; 107:33-38). 

Unfortunately, this “set up” has the potential to deceive. A “bait and switch”, if you will.

Surely there could be one or more among the Twelve today who, indeed, knows as would any true apostle. But certainly not all. For many (even Presidents and “Prophets” of the LDS Church!) have admitted that they have not seen, heard or felt the resurrected Lord. 

We are warned of the possibility of false apostles and false prophets. (See 2 Cor. 11:13 and Doctrine and Covenants 64:39.) Rather than impute dishonesty to any of the Twelve, however, I believe the best course is to take them at their literal word and not read into anything they say more or less than what is said. Unless they say “An angel told me yesterday…” or “The Lord appeared to me and said…” such and such, one ought not assume that what they say has any more validity or authority than any counsel or direction delivered by any mere mortal authorized to speak and act on behalf of the Church, hopefully inspired by the Holy Ghost.

We must not mistake the messenger of Christ for the message of Christ or for Christ Himself.

We tend to “fall” for “I know (such and such) is a true prophet of God” and “I know this Church is true” because we do “know” Jesus is real, the Book of Mormon is true, Joseph was inspired, etc. etc. It therefore all has to be true, doesn’t it?

Well, not necessarily.

Sometimes you can pull off a broken muffler or a dirty air filter and the engine still runs. Some things are “appendages” to what is essential. The Book of Mormon is the keystone to our religion. (Remove it and “Mormonism” falls into ruins.) Joseph was an inspired translator of that ancient document. (He may be more than an inspired translator, but he is certainly nothing less…or the Book of Mormon isn’t true.) Christ is the foundation of our faith. (Without Him, Christianity itself is undone.) These are “essential”. The President of the Church as a “prophet, seer and revelator”? Not so much. The gospel and kingdom of God can survive – and will survive – without The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and all the officers, offices and appurtenances thereof…just as Christianity today survives without the Mosaic law, the rites and rituals of the ancient levitical order, or even the primitive Christian Church of Paul's day.

The “symbology” of coming unto Christ, delivered by His Church today, is independent of and different from actually coming unto Christ, which one must do individually and not collectively. The Church – and all that pertains thereto – points the way to Christ. It does not actually bring one to Christ. Conferring the priesthood upon a man, for example, by the laying on of hands does not actually give one the power of God -- though, in our modern practice, it does confer the potential to exercise Church authority, as one must “hold the priesthood” in order to officiate in the ordinances and offices of the Church, by convention. But, even then, one must be “called and set apart” to exercise Church authority, even if one does “hold the priesthood”. They are not the same.

In the same way, one may be baptized by immersion, but this does not immerse one in the Holy Ghost, or cleanse one of his sins. Only God can do that. Our baptism on earth is demonstrative of what happens in heaven – or in the heavenly, spiritual realm – as flesh and blood are “bathed” in the Divine Presence of the Holy Spirit and sins are actually remitted and spirits are actually purified and cleansed of all desire and inclination to do wrong. One is what we do, by Church authority. The other is what God does, by His authority (what we call “priesthood”). And, sometimes, by His own voice, this authority, this priesthood -- this power of God and the manifestation of godliness to do all of the works of righteousness, including (if need be) the power to move mountains and raise the dead -- is given unto man. But until that happens...until God speaks and man hears and obeys -- no man possesses the actual authority or power of God...except as we have in our church, where men (and even women!) administer (mostly) outward ordinances, a form of godliness (or Levitical priesthood), while denying the power thereof…except when, on occasion, some humble follower of Christ actually exercises sufficient faith in Him to work miracles, receive inspiration, etc. Then, and only then, does the work of God move forward.

It appears to me there are but few in the Church today who actually exercise such faith in Christ. (See Moroni 7:47.)

But how many of those have progressed all the way to being saved? How many have literally and fully come back, all the way, into Christ’s presence and have heard Him say “Thou art my son. This day have I begotten thee”? How many have received the Second Comforter and have made their calling and election sure?

Not many.