Sealed portion of the plates

[jwharton]

FFA, the interpretation of the Adam-God doctrine that you, and many others like you, conjure up is indeed false.

When you demonstrate you understand how I interpret it, then perhaps your opinion of my interpretation will matter to me.

[Rachael]

JS made the King Follett sermon in April 1844 and was killed in June 1844. Hmm. God allowed him to live long enough to deliver a message, or God removes a prophet from his place for spreading false doctrine

[jwharton]

JS made the King Follett sermon in April 1844 and was killed in June 1844. Hmm. God allowed him to live long enough to deliver a message, or God removes a prophet from his place for spreading false doctrine

Not a single false doctrine was presented in that sermon.
But, some false conclusions have resulted from people misunderstanding it.

[Rachael]

Too bad Isaiah wasn't around. That would have been a land mark debate.

[jwharton]

Too bad Isaiah wasn't around. That would have been a land mark debate.

It is too bad Isaiah wasn't around because this is all stuff he has already seen and he could set the unbelievers straight.

[freedomforall]

FFA, the interpretation of the Adam-God doctrine that you, and many others like you, conjure up is indeed false. Does this include church leaders with higher intellect than you? Oh, you didn't like the source materials I found to point out to you how false and vain it is to keep pursuing the coarse you're on, huh? You didn't like what other church authorities have said. And then you pin it on me as though I articulated their words. This says volumes as to how dedicated you are in deceiving people. Just what I could expect from you, that way you don't have to take responsibility for preaching unsound doctrine, right? Why don't you quit while you're behind?

When you demonstrate you understand how I interpret it, then perhaps your opinion of my interpretation will matter to me. As usual, I hear...I, I, I...my way of interpreting it, etc.

Don't hold your breath. That doctrine is so way out there that it amazes me that anyone would believe it. You always harp about clarity and understanding and two sides coming together for a mutual view being reached, yet you conveniently leave out the opposing side from current authority figures in order to push the A-G agenda from the past and cutting off orthodox Mormon doctrine in the process, an obvious ploy. Where is your authority and permission to teach this misleading rhetoric? Would you write a book replete with this doctrine and publish it against the counsel of church authorities to do so?
If you would see it my way, and our paradigms could mesh we'd get some place. But you must demonstrate willingness to learn correct doctrine. You're rebellion against orthodox Mormon teachings is catching up to you.
Adam is not the Father of Jesus Christ. The JOD is not scripture, either.

Here are some other confirmations of the falsehood of Adam-God:

In 1980, apostle Bruce R. McConkie (people like me, you say?) gave a speech elaborating upon the church's position towards the Adam–God theory:

There are those who believe or say they believe that Adam is our father and our god, that he is the father of our spirits and our bodies, and that he is the one we worship.

The devil keeps this heresy alive as a means of obtaining converts to cultism. It is contrary to the whole plan of salvation set forth in the scriptures, and anyone who has read the Book of Moses, and anyone who has received the temple endowment and who yet believes the Adam–God theory does not deserve to be saved.* Those who are so ensnared reject the living prophet and close their ears to the apostles of their day. "We will follow those who went before," they say. And having so determined, they soon are ready to enter polygamous relationships that destroy their souls.
We worship the Father, in the name of the Son, by the power of the Holy Ghost; and Adam is their foremost servant, by whom the peopling of our planet was commenced.[67]
Listen here from 26:48 minute mark: https://speeches.byu.edu/wp-content/upl ... _19802.mp3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Later the same year, apostle Mark E. Petersen (people like me, you say?) stated:

Adam was not our God, nor was he our Savior. But he was the humble servant of both in his status as an angel. ...

God had only one begotten son in the flesh. But Adam had many, including Cain and Abel and Seth. He lived nearly a thousand years. He could have had hundreds of children in that time.

Then how could it be said by anyone that he had "an only begotten" son? How could all of his other children be accounted for? Were they not all begotten in the flesh?

Were Cain and Abel and Seth and their brothers and sisters all orphans? Was any child ever begotten without a father? Adam was their father, and he had many sons. In no way whatever does he qualify as a father who had only one son in the flesh.

Yet God our Eternal Father had only one son in the flesh, who was Jesus Christ.

Then was Adam our God, or did God become Adam? Ridiculous!

Adam was neither God nor the Only Begotten Son of God. He was a child of God in the spirit as we all are (see Acts 17:29). Jesus was the firstborn in the spirit, and the only one born to God in the flesh. ...
If any of you have been confused by false teachers who come among us, if you have been assailed by advocates of erroneous doctrines, counsel with your priesthood leaders. They will not lead you astray, but will direct you into paths of truth and salvation.

Read here: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1980/11/adam ... g=eng&_r=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[jwharton]

FFA, the interpretation of the Adam-God doctrine that you, and many others like you, conjure up is indeed false.

Does this include church leaders with higher intellect than you? Oh, you didn't like the source materials I found to point out to you how false and vain it is to keep pursuing the coarse you're on, huh? You didn't like what other church authorities have said. And then you pin it on me as though I articulated their words. This says volumes as to how dedicated you are in deceiving people. Just what I could expect from you, that way you don't have to take responsibility for preaching unsound doctrine, right? Why don't you quit while you're behind?

This isn't a matter of intellect.
It is a matter of intelligence.

Intellect is what enables a person to just work themselves deeper into a pit of trouble, much like liberals do.
Intelligence is what enables a deeper level of inner knowing that sees things clearly even if everyone else is blind to it.

So far everyone's opinion I have investigated, including the leaders you revere, have approached the Adam-God doctrine strictly from the orthodox Christian paradigm. When doing this the actual true interpretation of the Adam-God doctrine is impossible to see. They do this because the basis of their intellect is constrained by the traditions of the fathers.

You can get intellect from others but you can only get intelligence from God.

Intellect is inferior to intelligence.

When you demonstrate you understand how I interpret it, then perhaps your opinion of my interpretation will matter to me.

As usual, I hear...I, I, I...my way of interpreting it, etc.

Don't hold your breath.

I'm not holding my breath. I'm sharing my beliefs freely.

Do you expect me to to doubt myself on the basis that you misunderstand me?
Just because you don't or won't or can't understand me doesn't mean I am wrong in what I understand.

So far your only position is to attempt to construe what I believe as a jumbled up mess.
This pre-supposes that you are representing it correctly, but you aren't.
To other people who don't know any better you may have some influence.
But, to me, who does see what I see, and who can see that you don't see it, your words are powerless.
The same goes for all of the general authorities who have attempted to bury this doctrine.

That doctrine is so way out there that it amazes me that anyone would believe it. You always harp about clarity and understanding and two sides coming together for a mutual view being reached, yet you conveniently leave out the opposing side from current authority figures in order to push the A-G agenda from the past and cutting off orthodox Mormon doctrine in the process, an obvious ploy.

I'm happy to include consideration of them in and I haven't shied away from them before.

Just know that if you are willing to throw Joseph Smith Jr. and Brigham Young under the bus, including the early endowment, which is the foundation of the restoration of the fullness, which weren't doctrines of men but which were revealed by God through His Anointed Prophets, you shouldn't be too distraught if I am willing to dismiss those who directly oppose what God directly established through them. This is especially so since the excerpt from the manifesto says if anyone, including the president of the church, goes contrary to the oracles of God or from their duty that they should be removed. So, the oracles come first. If you remove those then you are just removing your own firm foundation.

No matter how much others have mustered up enough courage and intellect to to attempt to bury our foundation, it will eventually be uncovered, cleaned up and the completion of Zion will be upon the rock solid basis of the fullness of the Father and the Celestial Order.

Where is your authority and permission to teach this misleading rhetoric?

I am simply sharing my personal beliefs that you are free to accept or reject.

Would you write a book replete with this doctrine and publish it against the counsel of church authorities to do so?

If I were to consider writing a book I was not aware of any policy of censorship being in effect.
So far as I am aware the church does not impose any requirement that books written must meet their approval prior to publishing.
Although I can see how this is a precept that Lucifer would be rather anxious to get in place if he could.

If you would see it my way, and our paradigms could mesh we'd get some place.

I am completely familiar with orthodox Mormon doctrine as well as orthodox Christian doctrine.
I know what someone would need to say in any given situation to avoid sounding any alarms.
Can someone be in that position and yet be ignorant of their doctrines?

But you must demonstrate willingness to learn correct doctrine.

I am always willing to hear you out if you think I haven't understood you correctly.
Have you ever attempted to clarify something and I have been unwilling to allow you to do so?

What I am unwilling to do is to believe something is correct just because you say so.

The difference between us in our exchanges is this:

I fully understand the orthodox paradigm as well as a new paradigm that unseals deeper meaning that reveals my Father and my God to me.
You fully understand the orthodox paradigm as well but you are prejudiced against exploring the new paradigm I am accustomed to.
Because of this prejudice you have not as of yet obtained an accurate understanding of it and basis to judge it from.
However, this doesn't stop you from mocking it and scoffing at me and tempting me to become ashamed of what I understand.
It doesn't matter how many times I try and point out how your criticisms of it are based on misrepresentations either.
You want to remain beholden to your misrepresentations because you feel the need to defend your prejudice and bias.
So, no matter how many times I try and clarify where you are misrepresenting it, you just keep the misrepresentations.

This is why I appear unwilling to believe you and your assertion that you represent correct doctrine.
In order for your criticisms to be effective with me they actually have to hit something I am holding.

You're rebellion against orthodox Mormon teachings is catching up to you.

I wouldn't call my posture being one of rebellion.
There is an incredible amount of truth and light in both Mormon and Christian orthodoxy.
It's not so much that I am saying they are wrong as much as I am saying...
Hey everybody, have a look at this... there is so much more available to consider... etc.

Adam is not the Father of Jesus Christ.

Here we go again....
How many times will I have to repeat myself?
I have already said those who believe this is what the Adam-God doctrine implies are interpreting it incorrectly.
There are many false interpretations about the Adam-God doctrine that I too am happy to reject and this is one of them.
I also believe many of our more recent church leaders are correct to point out how people are reaching false conclusions.

What none of them have done is actually come forward with corrective clarification to bring it all into a clear focus.
Rather, they have just decided to take the position that this doctrine is more trouble than it is worth and are burying it.

The JOD is not scripture, either.

It is just as worthy of our attention as anything else beside scripture.

Here are some other confirmations of the falsehood of Adam-God:

In 1980, apostle Bruce R. McConkie (people like me, you say?) gave a speech elaborating upon the church's position towards the Adam–God theory:

There are those who believe or say they believe that Adam is our father and our god, that he is the father of our spirits and our bodies, and that he is the one we worship.

The devil keeps this heresy alive as a means of obtaining converts to cultism. It is contrary to the whole plan of salvation set forth in the scriptures, and anyone who has read the Book of Moses, and anyone who has received the temple endowment and who yet believes the Adam–God theory does not deserve to be saved.* Those who are so ensnared reject the living prophet and close their ears to the apostles of their day. "We will follow those who went before," they say. And having so determined, they soon are ready to enter polygamous relationships that destroy their souls.
We worship the Father, in the name of the Son, by the power of the Holy Ghost; and Adam is their foremost servant, by whom the peopling of our planet was commenced.[67]
Listen here from 26:48 minute mark: https://speeches.byu.edu/wp-content/upl ... _19802.mp3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Later the same year, apostle Mark E. Petersen (people like me, you say?) stated:

Adam was not our God, nor was he our Savior. But he was the humble servant of both in his status as an angel. ...

God had only one begotten son in the flesh. But Adam had many, including Cain and Abel and Seth. He lived nearly a thousand years. He could have had hundreds of children in that time.

Then how could it be said by anyone that he had "an only begotten" son? How could all of his other children be accounted for? Were they not all begotten in the flesh?

Were Cain and Abel and Seth and their brothers and sisters all orphans? Was any child ever begotten without a father? Adam was their father, and he had many sons. In no way whatever does he qualify as a father who had only one son in the flesh.

Yet God our Eternal Father had only one son in the flesh, who was Jesus Christ.

Then was Adam our God, or did God become Adam? Ridiculous!

Adam was neither God nor the Only Begotten Son of God. He was a child of God in the spirit as we all are (see Acts 17:29). Jesus was the firstborn in the spirit, and the only one born to God in the flesh. ...
If any of you have been confused by false teachers who come among us, if you have been assailed by advocates of erroneous doctrines, counsel with your priesthood leaders. They will not lead you astray, but will direct you into paths of truth and salvation.

Read here: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1980/11/adam ... g=eng&_r=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am aware of these materials and all of them are pertaining exclusively to the Adam of 6,000 years ago.
Not a single modern day leader has explicitly addressed Adam as a "now present" being of flesh and bone.
It is my sincere belief that the purpose of the "sealed portion" is to reveal the Father and the Son here and now in the flesh.

[freedomforall]

It is just as worthy of our attention as anything else beside scripture. Only if it corroborates scripture.

Here are some other confirmations of the falsehood of Adam-God:

In 1980, apostle Bruce R. McConkie (people like me, you say?) gave a speech elaborating upon the church's position towards the Adam–God theory:

There are those who believe or say they believe that Adam is our father and our god, that he is the father of our spirits and our bodies, and that he is the one we worship.

The devil keeps this heresy alive as a means of obtaining converts to cultism. It is contrary to the whole plan of salvation set forth in the scriptures, and anyone who has read the Book of Moses, and anyone who has received the temple endowment and who yet believes the Adam–God theory does not deserve to be saved.* Those who are so ensnared reject the living prophet and close their ears to the apostles of their day. "We will follow those who went before," they say. And having so determined, they soon are ready to enter polygamous relationships that destroy their souls.
We worship the Father, in the name of the Son, by the power of the Holy Ghost; and Adam is their foremost servant, by whom the peopling of our planet was commenced.[67]
Listen here from 26:48 minute mark: https://speeches.byu.edu/wp-content/upl ... _19802.mp3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Later the same year, apostle Mark E. Petersen (people like me, you say?) stated:

Adam was not our God, nor was he our Savior. But he was the humble servant of both in his status as an angel. ...

God had only one begotten son in the flesh. But Adam had many, including Cain and Abel and Seth. He lived nearly a thousand years. He could have had hundreds of children in that time.

Then how could it be said by anyone that he had "an only begotten" son? How could all of his other children be accounted for? Were they not all begotten in the flesh?

Were Cain and Abel and Seth and their brothers and sisters all orphans? Was any child ever begotten without a father? Adam was their father, and he had many sons. In no way whatever does he qualify as a father who had only one son in the flesh.

Yet God our Eternal Father had only one son in the flesh, who was Jesus Christ.

Then was Adam our God, or did God become Adam? Ridiculous!

Adam was neither God nor the Only Begotten Son of God. He was a child of God in the spirit as we all are (see Acts 17:29). Jesus was the firstborn in the spirit, and the only one born to God in the flesh. ...
If any of you have been confused by false teachers who come among us, if you have been assailed by advocates of erroneous doctrines, counsel with your priesthood leaders. They will not lead you astray, but will direct you into paths of truth and salvation.

Read here: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1980/11/adam ... g=eng&_r=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am aware of these materials and all of them are pertaining exclusively to the Adam of 6,000 years ago.
Not a single modern day leader has explicitly addressed Adam as a "now present" being of flesh and bone.
It is my sincere belief that the purpose of the "sealed portion" is to reveal the Father and the Son here and now in the flesh.

It's not about you, Jwharton. It is the false doctrine being promoted on this forum...a forum BrianM claims to be pro-lds. Pro-LDS means that one believes the orthodox teachings of the church and then posts those teachings as a courtesy to the forum purpose and intent, and to its owner, which, btw, is the one that set the parameters for this forum. You see, you admit that there are portions of the Adam-God theory/doctrine that even you do not accept ie Michael being the Father of Christ, which would actually make Michael the Father of Jehovah. And we know that Jesus stated this:

John 14:9
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

So which Father is Jesus referring to, Michael or Jehovah? If it were Michael, this would make Michael the Spirit dwelling in Christ in the flesh as he sojourned on earth and Jehovah would be nowhere to be found. It would also mean that Michael, who was Adam in the flesh...having come down and possessed two different bodies in two different eras, which would in turn make all scriptures false. For the God of the Old Testament is non other than:

Exodus 6:3
3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them.

Now read: Mosiah 15:1-5 One has to ask..."God, Himself will come down" is "who?"

There are portions of orthodox Mormon teachings you do not accept, either. So it all boils down to being the doctrine of Jwharton, not that any of us with any intelligence, intellect and scriptural feasting did not see from the start. And it appears you are in that group that Elder McConkie referred to, you know, the "We will follow those who went before," crowd? I suppose it all rests on who one follows, non scriptural garble or scriptural truth from God through his servants. None of that stuff you bring out from the JOD you claim to be true was ever, ever set before the church council for approval as official church doctrine. This ought to tell you something.
You wanted points brought out on both sides of an issue that could be discussed and brought together in a meaningful manner in order to have clarity and mutual understanding, right? But when those points are brought forth to your view, thy get dismissed as dross. However, the scriptural and prophetic pieces of information must be brought out so people other than you and I, can weigh them out and decide for themselves if they want to internalize Adam-God concepts and go down the proverbial primrose path to cultism, or to keep the four standard works revealing to them the true plan of salvation and those of whom created or conceived the plan.

By The Way, do you know that Jesus Christ is the Eternal Father?

Alma 11:38,39
38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?
39 And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;

Mosiah 16:15
15 Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father. Amen.

Isa. 9:6
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Moro. 7:22
22 For behold, God knowing all things, being from everlasting to everlasting, behold, he sent angels to minister unto the children of men, to make manifest concerning the coming of Christ; and in Christ there should come every good thing.

Mosiah 3:8
8 And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary.

Do you want people to throw their Book of Mormon away? You see, the Book of Mormon contains all the precious and plain parts taken out of the bible so we don't get confused by the arm of flesh. After all, the church, the Lord Jesus Christ's church is based on the Book of Mormon, the same Book of Mormon Joseph Smith died for in getting it out there for us to read and study. This is the orthodox teachings taught and internalized by faithful members. Church members haven't been internalizing the content of the Book of Mormon and living it properly. This is why the church has been under condemnation collectively, not individually.

[jwharton]

It's not about you, Jwharton.

It is about me and it is also about you and everyone else here.
I tend to talk about my beliefs because that is what I am an authority on.
And, they are just my beliefs so you can consider them or just ignore them.

It is the false doctrine being promoted on this forum...a forum BrianM claims to be pro-lds.

If I thought my beliefs were false or even harmful to the restoration, I would repent of them.
So far you have not demonstrated how any of what I believe is actually false.
You have mocked it and scoffed at it an misrepresented it and butchered it but you haven't actually disproved any of it.
You just keep making your assertions over and over and over that it is false.
But, you refuse to actually ever engage in meaningful back and fourth discussion.

Pro-LDS means that one believes the orthodox teachings of the church and then posts those teachings as a courtesy to the forum purpose and intent, and to its owner, which, btw, is the one that set the parameters for this forum.

I am as pro-LDS as it gets.

You see, you admit that there are portions of the Adam-God theory/doctrine that even you do not accept ie Michael being the Father of Christ, which would actually make Michael the Father of Jehovah.

I have said this over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again that there are many INTERPRETATIONS of the Adam-God teachings that are false and I join in with you to expose such falsehoods for what they are.

I am saying that there is a true interpretation of the Adam-God teachings that does make perfect sense and that is not in any way in conflict with the scriptures. But, you are in a mindset to deliberately filter this out.

Just because many people have false interpretations of Joseph and Brigham's Adam-God teachings does not mean that they didn't actually know what they were talking about when they taught what they did.

The manner in which I understand the Adam-God teachings does not bear any conflict with any of those scriptures you quoted. So, I highly recommend that people keep their Book of Mormon and their Bible and all of the standard works.

The Book of Mormon speaks of the works of the Father in the last days and I testify that indeed the Father is here now in the flesh performing his marvelous work and a wonder and in due time he will set his hand the second time to recover his people.

[freedomforall]

And just how is the church under condemnation? https://www.lds.org/ensign/1994/03/anot ... t?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

D&C 84
43 And I now give unto you a commandment to beware concerning yourselves, to give diligent heed to the words of eternal life.
44 For you shall live by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God.
45 For the word of the Lord is truth, and whatsoever is truth is light, and whatsoever is light is Spirit, even the Spirit of Jesus Christ.
46 And the Spirit giveth light to every man that cometh into the world; and the Spirit enlighteneth every man through the world, that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit.
47 And every one that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit cometh unto God, even the Father.
48 And the Father teacheth him of the covenant which he has renewed and confirmed upon you, which is confirmed upon you for your sakes, and not for your sakes only, but for the sake of the whole world.
49 And the whole world lieth in sin, and groaneth under darkness and under the bondage of sin.
50 And by this you may know they are under the bondage of sin, because they come not unto me.
51 For whoso cometh not unto me is under the bondage of sin.
52 And whoso receiveth not my voice is not acquainted with my voice, and is not of me.
53 And by this you may know the righteous from the wicked, and that the whole world groaneth under sin and darkness even now.
54 And your minds in times past have been darkened because of unbelief, and because you have treated lightly the things you have received—
55 Which vanity and unbelief have brought the whole church under condemnation.
56 And this condemnation resteth upon the children of Zion, even all.
57 And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written—
58 That they may bring forth fruit meet for their Father’s kingdom; otherwise there remaineth a scourge and judgment to be poured out upon the children of Zion.
59 For shall the children of the kingdom pollute my holy land? Verily, I say unto you, Nay.
60 Verily, verily, I say unto you who now hear my words, which are my voice, blessed are ye inasmuch as you receive these things;

[freedomforall]

It's not about you, Jwharton.

It is about me and it is also about you and everyone else here.
I tend to talk about my beliefs because that is what I am an authority on.
And, they are just my beliefs so you can consider them or just ignore them.

It is the false doctrine being promoted on this forum...a forum BrianM claims to be pro-lds.

If I thought my beliefs were false or even harmful to the restoration, I would repent of them.
So far you have not demonstrated how any of what I believe is actually false. Only in your mind!
You have mocked it and scoffed at it an misrepresented it and butchered it but you haven't actually disproved any of it. Only in you mind!
You just keep making your assertions over and over and over that it is false. Because in my heart and soul, by the Holy Ghost, I know it to be false. That's what makes the difference between your doctrine and the doctrine of Jesus Christ written in scripture. There is one or a few believing your way as opposed to many, many people believing my way...so you're outnumbered by many millions...millions you claim to be believing the wrong way. That's real high and mighty of you. And as I have said over and over, believe what you want, just let others believe what they want and then wait till we all go before the great Bar of Jehovah and all his Holy Prophets and then we'll see who was teaching false doctrine. Those with ears to hear and eyes to see, sort of things, right?
But, you refuse to actually ever engage in meaningful back and fourth discussion. I have done enough research to know it isn't worth my time to discuss it. I know the truth and the truth is, that that doctrine doesn't hold water in the least. I also know that I'm not purposely going against my own knowledge in order to adopt that which will send me off into never-never land. My testimony was hard earned, and I'm going to keep it so as to not offend my Savior, thank you very much.

Pro-LDS means that one believes the orthodox teachings of the church and then posts those teachings as a courtesy to the forum purpose and intent, and to its owner, which, btw, is the one that set the parameters for this forum.

I am as pro-LDS as it gets. Try telling this to President Monson, or your Stake Prez, or your bishop, huh? Please, don't hold back now. We're all waiting to see how LDS you are. :-w :-w :-w :-w :-w

You see, you admit that there are portions of the Adam-God theory/doctrine that even you do not accept ie Michael being the Father of Christ, which would actually make Michael the Father of Jehovah.

I have said this over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again that there are many INTERPRETATIONS of the Adam-God teachings that are false and I join in with you to expose such falsehoods for what they are. Which came first, the chicken or a chicken egg?

I am saying that there is a true interpretation of the Adam-God teachings that does make perfect sense and that is not in any way in conflict with the scriptures. You sure haven't proved anything. You say they do but what are the exact verbatim sources so others can decipher them for themselves? But, you are in a mindset to deliberately filter this out. And for a good reason, too.

Just because many people have false interpretations of Joseph and Brigham's Adam-God teachings does not mean that they didn't actually know what they were talking about when they taught what they did. But where is their irrefutable proof, in the JOD? It certainly didn't come from any scripture I've ever read. So what are their irrefutable scriptural sources? Do you notice a dichotomy developing here? Hearsay as opposed to scriptural fact?

The manner in which I understand the Adam-God teachings does not bear any conflict with any of those scriptures you quoted. So now you believe Jehovah is God and Michael is an Archangel as stated in scripture? So, I highly recommend that people keep their Book of Mormon and their Bible and all of the standard works.

The Book of Mormon speaks of the works of the Father in the last days and I testify that indeed the Father is here now in the flesh performing his marvelous work and a wonder and in due time he will set his hand the second time to recover his people.

As I have stated, your doctrine is the doctrine of Jwarton, because he doesn't agree with some precepts of either platform presented. This is what makes the difference.

[jwharton]

It's not about you, Jwharton.

It is about me and it is also about you and everyone else here.
I tend to talk about my beliefs because that is what I am an authority on.
And, they are just my beliefs so you can consider them or just ignore them.

It is the false doctrine being promoted on this forum...a forum BrianM claims to be pro-lds.

If I thought my beliefs were false or even harmful to the restoration, I would repent of them.
So far you have not demonstrated how any of what I believe is actually false. Only in your mind!
You have mocked it and scoffed at it an misrepresented it and butchered it but you haven't actually disproved any of it. Only in you mind!
You just keep making your assertions over and over and over that it is false. Because in my heart and soul, by the Holy Ghost, I know it to be false. That's what makes the difference between your doctrine and the doctrine of Jesus Christ written in scripture. There is one or a few believing your way as opposed to many, many people believing my way...so you're outnumbered by many millions...millions you claim to be believing the wrong way. That's real high and mighty of you. And as I have said over and over, believe what you want, just let others believe what they want and then wait till we all go before the great Bar of Jehovah and all his Holy Prophets and then we'll see who was teaching false doctrine. Those with ears to hear and eyes to see, sort of things, right?
But, you refuse to actually ever engage in meaningful back and fourth discussion. I have done enough research to know it isn't worth my time to discuss it. I know the truth and the truth is, that that doctrine doesn't hold water in the least. I also know that I'm not purposely going against my own knowledge in order to adopt that which will send me off into never-never land. My testimony was hard earned, and I'm going to keep it so as to not offend my Savior, thank you very much.

Pro-LDS means that one believes the orthodox teachings of the church and then posts those teachings as a courtesy to the forum purpose and intent, and to its owner, which, btw, is the one that set the parameters for this forum.

I am as pro-LDS as it gets. Try telling this to President Monson, or your Stake Prez, or your bishop, huh? Please, don't hold back now. We're all waiting to see how LDS you are. :-w :-w :-w :-w :-w

You see, you admit that there are portions of the Adam-God theory/doctrine that even you do not accept ie Michael being the Father of Christ, which would actually make Michael the Father of Jehovah.

I have said this over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again that there are many INTERPRETATIONS of the Adam-God teachings that are false and I join in with you to expose such falsehoods for what they are. Which came first, the chicken or a chicken egg?

I am saying that there is a true interpretation of the Adam-God teachings that does make perfect sense and that is not in any way in conflict with the scriptures. You sure haven't proved anything. You say they do but what are the exact verbatim sources so others can decipher them for themselves? But, you are in a mindset to deliberately filter this out. And for a good reason, too.

Just because many people have false interpretations of Joseph and Brigham's Adam-God teachings does not mean that they didn't actually know what they were talking about when they taught what they did. But where is their irrefutable proof, in the JOD? It certainly didn't come from any scripture I've ever read. So what are their irrefutable scriptural sources? Do you notice a dichotomy developing here? Hearsay as opposed to scriptural fact?

The manner in which I understand the Adam-God teachings does not bear any conflict with any of those scriptures you quoted. So now you believe Jehovah is God and Michael is an Archangel as stated in scripture? So, I highly recommend that people keep their Book of Mormon and their Bible and all of the standard works.

The Book of Mormon speaks of the works of the Father in the last days and I testify that indeed the Father is here now in the flesh performing his marvelous work and a wonder and in due time he will set his hand the second time to recover his people.

As I have stated, your doctrine is the doctrine of Jwarton, because he doesn't agree with some precepts of either platform presented. This is what makes the difference.

It is true I have acquired beliefs that are singularly unique in our current setting.
If you have written them off then how about you just ignore them from now on?

If you insist upon badgering me over and over then you owe it to actually put some effort into understanding them.

[freedomforall]

It's not about you, Jwharton.

It is about me and it is also about you and everyone else here.
I tend to talk about my beliefs because that is what I am an authority on.
And, they are just my beliefs so you can consider them or just ignore them.

It is the false doctrine being promoted on this forum...a forum BrianM claims to be pro-lds.

If I thought my beliefs were false or even harmful to the restoration, I would repent of them.
So far you have not demonstrated how any of what I believe is actually false. Only in your mind!
You have mocked it and scoffed at it an misrepresented it and butchered it but you haven't actually disproved any of it. Only in you mind!
You just keep making your assertions over and over and over that it is false. Because in my heart and soul, by the Holy Ghost, I know it to be false. That's what makes the difference between your doctrine and the doctrine of Jesus Christ written in scripture. There is one or a few believing your way as opposed to many, many people believing my way...so you're outnumbered by many millions...millions you claim to be believing the wrong way. That's real high and mighty of you. And as I have said over and over, believe what you want, just let others believe what they want and then wait till we all go before the great Bar of Jehovah and all his Holy Prophets and then we'll see who was teaching false doctrine. Those with ears to hear and eyes to see, sort of things, right?
But, you refuse to actually ever engage in meaningful back and fourth discussion. I have done enough research to know it isn't worth my time to discuss it. I know the truth and the truth is, that that doctrine doesn't hold water in the least. I also know that I'm not purposely going against my own knowledge in order to adopt that which will send me off into never-never land. My testimony was hard earned, and I'm going to keep it so as to not offend my Savior, thank you very much.

Pro-LDS means that one believes the orthodox teachings of the church and then posts those teachings as a courtesy to the forum purpose and intent, and to its owner, which, btw, is the one that set the parameters for this forum.

I am as pro-LDS as it gets. Try telling this to President Monson, or your Stake Prez, or your bishop, huh? Please, don't hold back now. We're all waiting to see how LDS you are. :-w :-w :-w :-w :-w

You see, you admit that there are portions of the Adam-God theory/doctrine that even you do not accept ie Michael being the Father of Christ, which would actually make Michael the Father of Jehovah.

I have said this over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again that there are many INTERPRETATIONS of the Adam-God teachings that are false and I join in with you to expose such falsehoods for what they are. Which came first, the chicken or a chicken egg?

I am saying that there is a true interpretation of the Adam-God teachings that does make perfect sense and that is not in any way in conflict with the scriptures. You sure haven't proved anything. You say they do but what are the exact verbatim sources so others can decipher them for themselves? But, you are in a mindset to deliberately filter this out. And for a good reason, too.

Just because many people have false interpretations of Joseph and Brigham's Adam-God teachings does not mean that they didn't actually know what they were talking about when they taught what they did. But where is their irrefutable proof, in the JOD? It certainly didn't come from any scripture I've ever read. So what are their irrefutable scriptural sources? Do you notice a dichotomy developing here? Hearsay as opposed to scriptural fact?

The manner in which I understand the Adam-God teachings does not bear any conflict with any of those scriptures you quoted. So now you believe Jehovah is God and Michael is an Archangel as stated in scripture? So, I highly recommend that people keep their Book of Mormon and their Bible and all of the standard works.

The Book of Mormon speaks of the works of the Father in the last days and I testify that indeed the Father is here now in the flesh performing his marvelous work and a wonder and in due time he will set his hand the second time to recover his people.

As I have stated, your doctrine is the doctrine of Jwarton, because he doesn't agree with some precepts of either platform presented. This is what makes the difference.

It is true I have acquired beliefs that are singularly unique in our current setting.
If you have written them off then how about you just ignore them from now on? Oh, really? You want me to ignore the counsel from the Book of Mormon and a covenant?, which is:

Mosiah 18:9
9 Yea, and are willing to mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death, that ye may be redeemed of God, and be numbered with those of the first resurrection, that ye may have eternal life—


If you insist upon badgering me over and over then you owe it to actually put some effort into understanding them.

Provide just one viable reason why I should understand your doctrine. Remember, however, understanding is not equal to accepting. Why oh why is it so important that I understand this outlandish doctrine? Just what do you get out of it if I were to change my paradigm, my testimony, my known truth and diminish my self respect? You can't accept or respect that if I were to adopt such doctrine, why I would be denying the very truths I know and believe with my whole soul? This would please you, Jwharton? Is that the LDS way of doing things? You have the audacity to cause people to go after your doctrine like a rat to cheese. And don't tell me you're only on the forum to simply articulate your own private beliefs because your posts do not corroborate that statement. Case in point:

"This is why getting out of the orthodox Christian paradigm is so crucial"

among other hints and statements that articulate way more than simply hearing about your views and you stating that they are only your opinions. The quotation above is not an opinion, it is a blatant call for a paradigm change, no matter how you slice it. Did I mention that you are going against the parameters that Brian set for the forum? Your quotation is proof that you cannot retract or say you didn't mean it by the way it is written. In essence you are saying "It is crucial that everyone get out and away from common and known LDS orthodox beliefs. And what about those scriptural sources I asked for from those church leaders of old in order to corroborate your claims? What do you take us for, anyway?

From: viewtopic.php?f=40&t=19619" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Forum members are free to discuss whatever they want in accordance with the site rules/standard.http:

From: viewtopic.php?f=40&t=1800" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

promoting ideas and doctrine that are apostate and contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ will not be allowed.

I would think this includes promoting Adam-God uncanonized doctrine, right?

[jwharton]

Provide just one viable reason why I should understand your doctrine.

Because you have taken it upon yourself to publicly condemn it as false doctrine.
According to Jesus, it is a good idea to understand something before you judge it.
He taught a sermon about how to perform righteous judgment and seeing clearly was an essential ingredient.

Remember, however, understanding is not equal to accepting.

Yes, of course. I definitely draw that distinction.
That's why I feel it is entirely reasonable to ask that you reach a point where I can sense that you do actually understand me.
If you ever do get to that point, then whatever criticisms you made would actually have some relevance to me.
Listening to you criticize something I don't even believe, yet that you insist I believe, is rather annoying.

Why oh why is it so important that I understand this outlandish doctrine?

The only reason I see for you is because you seem adamant to publicly condemn it.
So, for you, the answer to that question is to ask why you feel such a need to condemn it.

For me, it was something I needed during a challenging time where my faith was being tested.
It answered serious questions I had and gave me convincing reasons to keep my faith in the restoration.
I knew deep down in my soul that all was far from well in Zion and I wanted to come clean of any of its pollution.
I also sincerely desired to come to understand the deeper mysteries of Joseph and Brigham.
I couldn't in good conscience just throw them and the early endowment under the bus.
To me this was like stripping out the whole foundation and I just couldn't do that.
If the foundation of Mormonism isn't true then for me I saw no integrity in the rest of it.

Just what do you get out of it if I were to change my paradigm, my testimony, my known truth and diminish my self respect? You can't accept or respect that if I were to adopt such doctrine, why I would be denying the very truths I know and believe with my whole soul? This would please you, Jwharton? Is that the LDS way of doing things? You have the audacity to cause people to go after your doctrine like a rat to cheese. And don't tell me you're only on the forum to simply articulate your own private beliefs because your posts do not corroborate that statement.

Is it the LDS way to trifle with someone's deeply held beliefs that are sacred to them and judge them before you even understand them?
Is it the LDS way to hold prejudice over someone's head and to constantly malign their words in order to keep them in your prejudiced box?
None of us should be in this for our own personal glory or to try and garner the respect of men.
My whole desire is to understand the Father's Celestial Order and how Zion shall be redeemed.

Case in point:

"This is why getting out of the orthodox Christian paradigm is so crucial"

among other hints and statements that articulate way more than simply hearing about your views and you stating that they are only your opinions. The quotation above is not an opinion, it is a blatant call for a paradigm change, no matter how you slice it. Did I mention that you are going against the parameters that Brian set for the forum? Your quotation is proof that you cannot retract or say you didn't mean it by the way it is written. In essence you are saying "It is crucial that everyone get out and away from common and known LDS orthodox beliefs. And what about those scriptural sources I asked for from those church leaders of old in order to corroborate your claims? What do you take us for, anyway?

Calling for a paradigm change simply means you look at everything in a new light.
It doesn't mean you throw away information, but that you see into it at a deeper level.
By doing so it becomes possible to recognize how many significant things are happening now that people aren't recognizing.

From: viewtopic.php?f=40&t=19619" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Forum members are free to discuss whatever they want in accordance with the site rules/standard.http:

From: viewtopic.php?f=40&t=1800" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

promoting ideas and doctrine that are apostate and contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ will not be allowed.

I would think this includes promoting Adam-God uncanonized doctrine, right?

I am offering people a fresh new look that isn't the aberrant interpretation that was condemned.
I am sincerely sharing beliefs that I see great value in for all LDS people.
If BrianM wishes to condemn what I am sharing as you do, I will respectfully withdraw from these forums.

[freedomforall]

Provide just one viable reason why I should understand your doctrine.

Because you have taken it upon yourself to publicly condemn it as false doctrine. I and church leaders a many of whom you reject as telling the truth...which leaves us at an impasse as I have already stated and proven in so many ways. And if you say I haven't proven it, just ask all the people on this forum that agree with me if they agree with you in stating I haven't.
According to Jesus, it is a good idea to understand something before you judge it. Jesus understood whore houses...but that doesn't mean He had to go in one. That goes for me too. Wisdom goes a long way, I say.
He taught a sermon about how to perform righteous judgment and seeing clearly was an essential ingredient. How true. I see clearly that that doctrine is not for me, as I have already declared and proven. I also see clearly that if others get sucked into this doctrine, they will stop seeing clearly. It is your admission that you do not agree with orthodox LDS teachings that got us where we are today. I have proven this as well. But, like me, they can choose what they want. I simply think it only fair that there are pros and cons to this doctrine that they must take into consideration before jumping ship, and they need both sides of it to enable them to make a clear and educated decision, don't you?

Remember, however, understanding is not equal to accepting.

Yes, of course. I definitely draw that distinction.
That's why I feel it is entirely reasonable to ask that you reach a point where I can sense that you do actually understand me. Ditto!
If you ever do get to that point, then whatever criticisms you made would actually have some relevance to me. Relevance to you? On this forum are many people that are relevant, are you in more need of relevance than they? It isn't you personally that bothers me It is that doctrine you cling to. These relevant people are only getting your view from you, and a declaration that you do not agree with orthodox LDS teachings concerning the Godhead and who knows what else. Did you ever consider that we need some relevancy too by giving us relief from thinking we do not have a brain..a brain that provides a way to see clear and ears to hear sound doctrine with?
Listening to you criticize something I don't even believe, yet that you insist I believe, is rather annoying. Look, I'm not concerned with what you do not teach. Your posts are very revealing of your beliefs as anyone here could testify. The content of the posts where you divulge your beliefs that go against church doctrine and beliefs...is the problem. Did you not declare "...getting out of the orthodox Christian paradigm is so crucial?" This is not an opinion by any stretch of the imagination. This is a blatant attack on the LDS beliefs, and you claim to be LDS...a dichotomy if I ever saw one.

Why oh why is it so important that I understand this outlandish doctrine?

The only reason I see for you is because you seem adamant to publicly condemn it. Don't you publicly condone and remain emotionally or intellectually attached to it?
So, for you, the answer to that question is to ask why you feel such a need to condemn it. To stand as witness of Christ in all things, at all times and in all places. I suppose this means this forum as well. And I suppose the correct names for the Godhead falls in there some place. Look, I have pondered, prayed and studied this topic for years and years. Do you assume I am the new kid on the block merely throwing a tantrum? This stuff is an insult to people's intelligence, to those who have a testimony of God's plan of salvation and whose behind it. And...if I ever come to find out I have misunderstood...I will publicly apologize as well.

For me, it was something I needed during a challenging time where my faith was being tested.
It answered serious questions I had and gave me convincing reasons to keep my faith in the restoration.
I knew deep down in my soul that all was far from well in Zion and I wanted to come clean of any of its pollution.
I also sincerely desired to come to understand the deeper mysteries of Joseph and Brigham.
I couldn't in good conscience just throw them and the early endowment under the bus.
To me this was like stripping out the whole foundation and I just couldn't do that.
If the foundation of Mormonism isn't true then for me I saw no integrity in the rest of it. Can't argue that. But remember, it is the Book of Mormon that is the foundation, it is the word of God and it tells us God, Himself, shall come down and redeem His people. Christ as Jehovah is the one that created the heaven and the earth and all that is in it...All this by His own mouth did we hear it. It is Jehovah as Jesus Christ that comes back dressed in red apparel. It is Michael that comes back and gathers his armies and goes up against Satan and his armies prior to the earth ending and then becoms a new earth, a Celestial realm.

Just what do you get out of it if I were to change my paradigm, my testimony, my known truth and diminish my self respect? You can't accept or respect that if I were to adopt such doctrine, why I would be denying the very truths I know and believe with my whole soul? This would please you, Jwharton? Is that the LDS way of doing things? You have the audacity to cause people to go after your doctrine like a rat to cheese. And don't tell me you're only on the forum to simply articulate your own private beliefs because your posts do not corroborate that statement.

Is it the LDS way to trifle with someone's deeply held beliefs that are sacred to them and judge them before you even understand them?
Is it the LDS way to hold prejudice over someone's head and to constantly malign their words in order to keep them in your prejudiced box?
None of us should be in this for our own personal glory or to try and garner the respect of men.
My whole desire is to understand the Father's Celestial Order and how Zion shall be redeemed.

Case in point:

"This is why getting out of the orthodox Christian paradigm is so crucial"

among other hints and statements that articulate way more than simply hearing about your views and you stating that they are only your opinions. The quotation above is not an opinion, it is a blatant call for a paradigm change, no matter how you slice it. Did I mention that you are going against the parameters that Brian set for the forum? Your quotation is proof that you cannot retract or say you didn't mean it by the way it is written. In essence you are saying "It is crucial that everyone get out and away from common and known LDS orthodox beliefs. And what about those scriptural sources I asked for from those church leaders of old in order to corroborate your claims? What do you take us for, anyway?

Calling for a paradigm change simply means you look at everything in a new light.
It doesn't mean you throw away information, but that you see into it at a deeper level.
By doing so it becomes possible to recognize how many significant things are happening now that people aren't recognizing.

From: viewtopic.php?f=40&t=19619" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Forum members are free to discuss whatever they want in accordance with the site rules/standard.http:

From: viewtopic.php?f=40&t=1800" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

promoting ideas and doctrine that are apostate and contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ will not be allowed.

I would think this includes promoting Adam-God uncanonized doctrine, right?

I am offering people a fresh new look that isn't the aberrant interpretation that was condemned.
I am sincerely sharing beliefs that I see great value in for all LDS people.
If BrianM wishes to condemn what I am sharing as you do, I will respectfully withdraw from these forums.

Got to go, can't finish here now. Perhaps later. I think I've said enough for now.

[jwharton]

FFA, this is the bottom line with you.
You are prejudiced against me with the assumption that your interpretation of things is all that there is.
Perhaps a message from the Book of Mormon will be a good reminder for you to chill out your "I know better than you" complex.

Jacob 4
8 Behold, great and marvelous are the works of the Lord. How unsearchable are the depths of the mysteries of him; and it is impossible that man should find out all his ways. And no man knoweth of his ways save it be revealed unto him; wherefore, brethren, despise not the revelations of God.

In short, you condemn that which you don't understand based on the assumption that there are no additional depths available to go.

[freedomforall]

FFA, this is the bottom line with you. In your mind, remember? Let's keep the facts straight, shall we?
You are prejudiced against me with the assumption that your interpretation of things is all that there is. WRONG! It is because of a special promise given me in my PB. I told you this already, but I guess you skipped over that.
Perhaps a message from the Book of Mormon will be a good reminder for you to chill out your "I know better than you" complex. Have you read your own posts lately?

Jacob 4
8 Behold, great and marvelous are the works of the Lord. How unsearchable are the depths of the mysteries of him; and it is impossible that man should find out all his ways. And no man knoweth of his ways save it be revealed unto him; wherefore, brethren, despise not the revelations of God.

I can't argue that point.
In short, you condemn that which you don't understand based on the assumption that there are no additional depths available to go. Wrong, again. I simply make sure which path is the right one before making the leap. The path I'm on suits me fine, and I have in fact learned some mysteries I don't care to share. I've seen miracles that are sacred to me. I have personally experienced the cleansing power of the Atonement. I have felt the arms of the Lord's love and the power of the Holy Ghost many times in my life. I have also experienced the horrific buffetings of Satan, so do not pretend to know me or what I think or believe, you may remember this in the future before making rash statements.

Now you're reaching. I have explained my position and purpose several times, so keep coming up with your own viewpoints and accusations while I come up with facts and scriptural proof. I do not have to justify myself for teaching correct doctrine, yet you do because everyone isn't accepting your doctrine and you desire them to understand in order for them to jump ship and get into a canoe. You want them to, but they are not. A few perhaps, but in every crowd there are some that go one way and others going a different way. Lehi and Nephi describe this very thing from their dreams and visions concerning this very matter. I'll give you one bit of understanding I think you'll agree with, okay? You stay on the path you're on, and I'll stay on the path I'm on and we'll both be happy. I took issue with you telling people to run from LDS teachings so adamantly along with bits and pieces of your doctrine infiltrated into other peoples threads.
I know in my heart I can go to God in prayer and ask him to consecrate my performance unto me for my good and the welfare of my soul with no shame, no doubt, and having full confidence that He will because everything I teach comes directly out of scripture. And believe me, you re not the only one that either skips over my posts or ignores the message. That's no skin off my bones because I still presented the word of God. If they don't listen to that, they must not be reading scripture or they don't believe what is written. The scriptures cover this problem as well but that's for another thread.

Are you confident in doing this as stated? I do.

2 Nephi 32:9
9 But behold, I say unto you that ye must pray always, and not faint; that ye must not perform any thing unto the Lord save in the first place ye shall pray unto the Father in the name of Christ, that he will consecrate thy performance unto thee, that thy performance may be for the welfare of thy soul.

Another aspect of our religion to go forward with faith and hope. Faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true. It is also the moving cause in all action.

Heb. 11:1
1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence (proof) of things not seen.

Moroni 7:42
42 Wherefore, if a man have faith he must needs have hope; for without faith there cannot be any hope.

Then we must have a deep rooted hope that becomes an anchor to our souls, leading us to all good and a place with God in His Kingdom.

Ether 12:4
4 Wherefore, whoso believeth in God might with surety hope for a better world, yea, even a place at the right hand of God, which hope cometh of faith, maketh an anchor to the souls of men, which would make them sure and steadfast, always abounding in good works, being led to glorify God.

Without faith and hope we cannot be saved.

2 Nephi 9:23
23 And he commandeth all men that they must repent, and be baptized in his name, having perfect faith in the Holy One of Israel, or they cannot be saved in the kingdom of God.

D&C 33:12
12 Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, this is my gospel; and remember that they shall have faith in me or they can in nowise be saved;

Without faith there cannot be any hope. Moroni 7:42

[freedomforall]

Tell you what, if Neanderthals from centuries ago believed that the earth sucks, and this is debatable, and many, many years later someone announced that the earth does not suck, that it is, in fact, proven to be gravity...which source would you believe? Now some people may think the earth merely sucks, but there are also many people that believe the earth has gravity. So now the proof has been revealed, so people can quit believing the earth sucks, right? There may be a few souls that will cling to the notion the earth sucks because they read someplace that the Neanderthals believed the earth sucks, so it must still suck. They may even go around and raise a fuss over the issue, but they'll still remain in error. Do you see the problem? Does the earth have gravity or does it suck?

[jwharton]

FFA, this is the bottom line with you.

In your mind, remember? Let's keep the facts straight, shall we?

Clarification: This is the bottom line I see in my dealings with you here on LDSFF.

You are prejudiced against me with the assumption that your interpretation of things is all that there is.

WRONG! It is because of a special promise given me in my PB. I told you this already, but I guess you skipped over that.

I do recall you saying what you did about your patriarchal blessing, but I don't ascribe any authority to you on that basis.
If you exhibit a tendency to be prejudiced then I am most definitely going to hold your discernment in question.

Perhaps a message from the Book of Mormon will be a good reminder for you to chill out your "I know better than you" complex.

Have you read your own posts lately?

I have no qualms with you boldly sharing your beliefs and I have no qualms with you laying down criticisms of my beliefs.
This isn't what I am addressing when I mention your "I know better than you" complex. There's more to it than just that.

The difference here is you consistently behave as if you know my own beliefs better than I know my own beliefs.
I try to tell you over and over how you misrepresent what I actually believe yet you just keep right on going.
Not once do I recall you ever acknowledging my attempts to correct or clarify how you misrepresent my actual beliefs.
You just keep right on going completely oblivious to the fact that what you are criticizing isn't even what I actually believe.
Yet, somehow, you think I'm being stubborn and unwilling to accept truth when it is you who fails to respectfully communicate.

Jacob 4
8 Behold, great and marvelous are the works of the Lord. How unsearchable are the depths of the mysteries of him; and it is impossible that man should find out all his ways. And no man knoweth of his ways save it be revealed unto him; wherefore, brethren, despise not the revelations of God.

I can't argue that point.

There is always a new level of depth available to us.
I believe I have been given such and I am simply sharing it.
You act as if such a thing is not possible and operate from that context.
This is why I perceive you as being prejudiced and presumptuous.

In short, you condemn that which you don't understand based on the assumption that there are no additional depths available to go.

Wrong, again. I simply make sure which path is the right one before making the leap.

Actually, if you sincerely take some time and consider what I have said here carefully, you will see I have described your manner.
If you were really making sure then you would be far more conscientious to reserve judgment until you actually understood me.
You do not do this and therefore it is a very simple matter to know that your manner of judging is nothing more than pre-judging.
You want to just throw me in with the same stereotypes you are already familiar with assuming that's where I exclusively belong.

The path I'm on suits me fine, and I have in fact learned some mysteries I don't care to share.

That is fine and it certainly is within your prerogative to share or not share whatever you please.
However, you also seem to fancy yourself as some kind of authority on what I should be fine with and what I should and shouldn't share.
I welcome you sharing your concerns with me but I don't welcome baseless slur and accusation you do not follow through with evidence for.
So, there's a line you cross that you really should pay much closer attention to.

I've seen miracles that are sacred to me. I have personally experienced the cleansing power of the Atonement. I have felt the arms of the Lord's love and the power of the Holy Ghost many times in my life. I have also experienced the horrific buffetings of Satan, so do not pretend to know me or what I think or believe, you may remember this in the future before making rash statements.

I have made no assessments about you beyond my direct first-hand experience with you here in these forums.
I simply take your words here at face value and I refrain from making any assumptions about you personally.
You perpetually misrepresent what I actually believe and condemn my beliefs based upon those false representations.
I have been willing to patiently bear with you and to try to clarify to you what my beliefs actually are but you are immovable.
So, we are now in a place where you rigidly keep me in the stereotype you want to keep me in.
These are indeed accusations of you on my part and I am prepared to back them up with evidence.

What I would most prefer is if you just actually had a real dialog where there is some basic communication integrity.
Then, when you do make criticisms, they will actually be relevant to what I believe instead of some stereotype straw-man argument.

Now you're reaching. I have explained my position and purpose several times, so keep coming up with your own viewpoints and accusations while I come up with facts and scriptural proof. I do not have to justify myself for teaching correct doctrine, yet you do because everyone isn't accepting your doctrine and you desire them to understand in order for them to jump ship and get into a canoe. You want them to, but they are not. A few perhaps, but in every crowd there are some that go one way and others going a different way.

Look at all of the personal accusations you are making of me here.
I am simply sharing my personal beliefs and you are doing everything in your power to personally smear me.
My doctrine is very simple.
It is to have eyes wide open to the degree to which things are polluted and out of order.
But, in spite of this, it is crucially important that we remain loyal to the Priesthood oath and covenants and our covenants as members of the Church.
I have no aspirations whatever for anyone to treat their memberships in these bodies carelessly or trivially.
I always advocate giving our officers the due respect that they deserve in their capacities.
But, I also clearly state that it is the office that is more important than the person in the office.
I advocate learning and understanding the Father's Celestial Order and to ultimately be satisfied with nothing less.
Although, in the meantime, while we are still under condemnation and under Telestial Law to patiently bear with it.
I do not promote for anyone to do anything else other than continue to be a faithful, forgiving and patient Saint.
I am someone who bears witness that a major house cleaning is coming so that we can indeed be redeemed and exalted.
I want us to be ready for when the Father comes in glory and dwells among us in the flesh.
In short, my doctrine testifies of Christ and of being faithful to our covenants with Him.
I challenge you to find anything I've said that goes contrary to what I assert here.

Lehi and Nephi describe this very thing from their dreams and visions concerning this very matter. I'll give you one bit of understanding I think you'll agree with, okay? You stay on the path you're on, and I'll stay on the path I'm on and we'll both be happy. I took issue with you telling people to run from LDS teachings so adamantly along with bits and pieces of your doctrine infiltrated into other peoples threads.
I know in my heart I can go to God in prayer and ask him to consecrate my performance unto me for my good and the welfare of my soul with no shame, no doubt, and having full confidence that He will because everything I teach comes directly out of scripture. And believe me, you re not the only one that either skips over my posts or ignores the message. That's no skin off my bones because I still presented the word of God. If they don't listen to that, they must not be reading scripture or they don't believe what is written. The scriptures cover this problem as well but that's for another thread.

Are you confident in doing this as stated? I do.

2 Nephi 32:9
9 But behold, I say unto you that ye must pray always, and not faint; that ye must not perform any thing unto the Lord save in the first place ye shall pray unto the Father in the name of Christ, that he will consecrate thy performance unto thee, that thy performance may be for the welfare of thy soul.

Another aspect of our religion to go forward with faith and hope. Faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true. It is also the moving cause in all action.

Heb. 11:1
1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence (proof) of things not seen.

Moroni 7:42
42 Wherefore, if a man have faith he must needs have hope; for without faith there cannot be any hope.

Then we must have a deep rooted hope that becomes an anchor to our souls, leading us to all good and a place with God in His Kingdom.

Ether 12:4
4 Wherefore, whoso believeth in God might with surety hope for a better world, yea, even a place at the right hand of God, which hope cometh of faith, maketh an anchor to the souls of men, which would make them sure and steadfast, always abounding in good works, being led to glorify God.

Without faith and hope we cannot be saved.

2 Nephi 9:23
23 And he commandeth all men that they must repent, and be baptized in his name, having perfect faith in the Holy One of Israel, or they cannot be saved in the kingdom of God.

D&C 33:12
12 Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, this is my gospel; and remember that they shall have faith in me or they can in nowise be saved;

Without faith there cannot be any hope. Moroni 7:42

What would actually be refreshing for a change is if you accepted the possibility that there are levels of depth you may not as of yet be aware of.
There very well could be people out there who have things of value that you might want to give some humble and sincere consideration to.
And, if you don't feel up to doing so, then you probably should also refrain from trying to be a guard dog and chew their leg off.

I'm fine if you want to be a guard dog, but if that's what you feel you must do, please do it in a respectful manner that demonstrates that you employ all of the basic skills and tools of judging righteous judgment.

Rule number 1 is to obtain understanding before you render final judgment.

And, when things are more delicate in nature, you may want to ask questions with the intent to clarify rather than to condemn.

[jwharton]

Tell you what, if Neanderthals from centuries ago believed that the earth sucks, and this is debatable, and many, many years later someone announced that the earth does not suck, that it is, in fact, proven to be gravity...which source would you believe? Now some people may think the earth merely sucks, but there are also many people that believe the earth has gravity. So now the proof has been revealed, so people can quit believing the earth sucks, right? There may be a few souls that will cling to the notion the earth sucks because they read someplace that the Neanderthals believed the earth sucks, so it must still suck. They may even go around and raise a fuss over the issue, but they'll still remain in error. Do you see the problem? Does the earth have gravity or does it suck?

That's a cute little analogy, but do you realize who you are aligning with the Neanderthals?

In your little analogy, you are taking, for example, the early endowment as the Neanderthal position.
You are calling the doctrines of Joseph Smith Jr. and Brigham Young as being Neanderthals compared to our new doctrines of today.

The problem with your analogy is this.

Joseph Smith Jr. and Brigham Young were doing everything in their power, at great sacrifice, to live the "former commandments" that the rest of the saints were having so much trouble with and which brought the church under condemnation for failing to do so. Joseph and Brigham weren't personally under this condemnation, but the church as a whole was. But, because of their diligence to keep the commandments of the Father that pertain to His Celestial Order, they continued to receive oracles that touched on the Father's Celestial Plan. They were living the higher laws and they were receiving the highest level of ministration directly from the Lord. And, there is so much more they wished they could have taught the Saints but the Saint's minds were darkened because of unbelief and they would fly to pieces when they would try and share the deeper doctrines of the Father.

Now, the people in general have not remedied the very things that had them put under condemnation. We have continued under condemnation for over 150 years since this time and we no longer qualify for the Celestial Level ministrations but are now only the recipients of Telestial ministration via the Holy Ghost. This is why we no longer receive "thus saith the Lord" oracles that address things that pertain to the Celestial Order. Now we have little footnotes that explain how matters of Celestial Law have been purged from our lesson materials. We don't talk about the provisions of plural marriage and the United Order and the political Kingdom and so many other things that are part of the Celestial Patriarchal Order of the Father's Plan. All of this is being replaced with more modern progressive substitutes.

I'm willing to accept that the world had us over a barrel and that they indeed could have destroyed us if we didn't capitulate to the world's demands. This wasn't a step in progress. This was our prolonged condemnation and refusal to repent catching up to us. Now, somehow, the many things the world has demanded of us to capitulate on have become the definition of what is pleasing to God. Now, people who look at these higher laws and ordinances with dignity and longing to get back to the "former commandments" in order to get out from under condemnation are looked at with contempt. It has gotten so bad that it is actually now an insult to call someone a "fundamentalist". It's true those who are the FLDS are like a dead and decomposing body, but this is because they were spiritually murdered for being adamant to hold true to the Father's Plan.

What you liken to the Neanderthal I liken to the Father's Plan.
What you liken to modern enlightened thought I liken to Lucifer's counterfeit.

The Sealed Portion will eventually come fourth to expose Lucifer's usurpation and when it does it will be "bad news" for all who are out of order. The mainstream "tares" will feel judged by it and so they will resist it. The "FLDS" will not want to come back into a cleansed and redeemed church and so they will likely fight it. They don't see themselves as a dead body that refuses burial. Those who have followed after the likes of Denver Snuffer won't want to admit they shouldn't have ever left the church or become indifferent to its organization. They will reject it as well.

Only the penitent and the pure in heart will perceive the goodness of its message and be accepting of its implied chastisements.
The Sealed Portion will only be received well by those who know all is far from well and who are humbly and sincerely looking for the further light and knowledge that the Father has promised to send. They will be those who are sincerely longing for Zion's redemption and to flee from Babylon. There are only very few Saints I have met who seem to be seeking this with purity of heart.

[freedomforall]

Tell you what, if Neanderthals from centuries ago believed that the earth sucks, and this is debatable, and many, many years later someone announced that the earth does not suck, that it is, in fact, proven to be gravity...which source would you believe? Now some people may think the earth merely sucks, but there are also many people that believe the earth has gravity. So now the proof has been revealed, so people can quit believing the earth sucks, right? There may be a few souls that will cling to the notion the earth sucks because they read someplace that the Neanderthals believed the earth sucks, so it must still suck. They may even go around and raise a fuss over the issue, but they'll still remain in error. Do you see the problem? Does the earth have gravity or does it suck?

That's a cute little analogy, but do you realize who you are aligning with the Neanderthals?

In your little analogy, you are taking, for example, the early endowment as the Neanderthal position.
You are calling the doctrines of Joseph Smith Jr. and Brigham Young as being Neanderthals compared to our new doctrines of today.

The problem with your analogy is this.

Joseph Smith Jr. and Brigham Young were doing everything in their power, at great sacrifice, to live the "former commandments" that the rest of the saints were having so much trouble with and which brought the church under condemnation for failing to do so. Joseph and Brigham weren't personally under this condemnation, but the church as a whole was. But, because of their diligence to keep the commandments of the Father that pertain to His Celestial Order, they continued to receive oracles that touched on the Father's Celestial Plan. They were living the higher laws and they were receiving the highest level of ministration directly from the Lord. And, there is so much more they wished they could have taught the Saints but the Saint's minds were darkened because of unbelief and they would fly to pieces when they would try and share the deeper doctrines of the Father.

Now, the people in general have not remedied the very things that had them put under condemnation. We have continued under condemnation for over 150 years since this time and we no longer qualify for the Celestial Level ministrations but are now only the recipients of Telestial ministration via the Holy Ghost. This is why we no longer receive "thus saith the Lord" oracles that address things that pertain to the Celestial Order. Now we have little footnotes that explain how matters of Celestial Law have been purged from our lesson materials. We don't talk about the provisions of plural marriage and the United Order and the political Kingdom and so many other things that are part of the Celestial Patriarchal Order of the Father's Plan. All of this is being replaced with more modern progressive substitutes.

I'm willing to accept that the world had us over a barrel and that they indeed could have destroyed us if we didn't capitulate to the world's demands. This wasn't a step in progress. This was our prolonged condemnation and refusal to repent catching up to us. Now, somehow, the many things the world has demanded of us to capitulate on have become the definition of what is pleasing to God. Now, people who look at these higher laws and ordinances with dignity and longing to get back to the "former commandments" in order to get out from under condemnation are looked at with contempt. It has gotten so bad that it is actually now an insult to call someone a "fundamentalist". It's true those who are the FLDS are like a dead and decomposing body, but this is because they were spiritually murdered for being adamant to hold true to the Father's Plan.

What you liken to the Neanderthal I liken to the Father's Plan.
What you liken to modern enlightened thought I liken to Lucifer's counterfeit.

The Sealed Portion will eventually come fourth to expose Lucifer's usurpation and when it does it will be "bad news" for all who are out of order. The mainstream "tares" will feel judged by it and so they will resist it. The "FLDS" will not want to come back into a cleansed and redeemed church and so they will likely fight it. They don't see themselves as a dead body that refuses burial. Those who have followed after the likes of Denver Snuffer won't want to admit they shouldn't have ever left the church or become indifferent to its organization. They will reject it as well.

Only the penitent and the pure in heart will perceive the goodness of its message and be accepting of its implied chastisements.
The Sealed Portion will only be received well by those who know all is far from well and who are humbly and sincerely looking for the further light and knowledge that the Father has promised to send. They will be those who are sincerely longing for Zion's redemption and to flee from Babylon. There are only very few Saints I have met who seem to be seeking this with purity of heart.

=)) =)) =)) =)) I believe that my analogy of and statements about the way you act are well grounded. You nearly wrote a book trying to vilify my findings and observations and to justify your beliefs. I applaud you for trying so hard. :ymapplause:

[jwharton]

I believe that my analogy of and statements about the way you act are well grounded.

How is it well grounded to call your own foundation Neanderthal?

You nearly wrote a book trying to vilify my findings and observations and to justify your beliefs. I applaud you for trying so hard. :ymapplause:

I write what I do so that my meaning is as explicitly clear as possible.
Unless you actually counter my points, they all remain standing.

I'm beginning to doubt that you actually read what I write.
Did you read it all or did you skim it and ignore most of it?

[freedomforall]

I believe that my analogy of and statements about the way you act are well grounded.

How is it well grounded to call your own foundation Neanderthal? If you read it again, slowly this time, you will see I added the word "IF" in the very first part of the very first sentence, which allowed the reader to know it was only a hypothetical scenario...except you. You took it and ran with it like a little puppy after a toy bone, and chewed it until it was no longer detectable as to what it used to be. Without seeing the word "IF" which proves it was not a true historical event, you thought you had me. Wrong! This says a lot about some people's comprehension skills, doesn't it?

You nearly wrote a book trying to vilify my findings and observations and to justify your beliefs. I applaud you for trying so hard. :ymapplause:

I write what I do so that my meaning is as explicitly clear as possible. Hasn't worked thus far. Oh, well, I guess it's back to the drawing board for you.
Unless you actually counter my points, they all remain standing. What points exactly have you made? I didn't realize you made any points whatsoever except that you keep JS, BY and others words as a backup with no real substance like the scriptures used by these men to make that doctrine more appealing. So far it is based on the arm of flesh, so you have failed miserably in creating a clear foundation. It all rests on what you have come to believe due to their words, having no scriptural proof. Anyone can figure this out. I use scriptures, and I'd like to have enough courtesy shown in order for you to reciprocate in kind. We get lots of talk but no scriptural backup. Sorry, this doctrine you want others to understand just has too many holes in it.

I'm beginning to doubt that you actually read what I write.
Did you read it all or did you skim it and ignore most of it? "IF"

Tell me, how does this scripture fit into your doctrine?

1 Nephi 13:40
40 And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records, which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first, which are of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them; and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world; and that all men must come unto him, or they cannot be saved.

Now tell me how this fits in. Who is the Father by name in this declaration?:

Mosiah 15:1-5
1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.
2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—
3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—
4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.
5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people. Who or what is the power of God, v3?

Now, who is the Very Eternal Father?

Alma 11:38,39
38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?
39 And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;

Son...of God = Christ in the flesh as stated by Abinidi
Who is the Spirit that dwells in Christ's body?

Why does Christ tell Philip that all he has to do to see the Father is to look at Him (Christ )?

John 14:9,10
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

So who is the Spirit inside Christ of whom calls himself The Father?

Now were right back to Mosiah 15:1-5

Now what does this verse mean?

1Nephi 1:14
14 Behold, I come unto my own, to fulfil all things which I have made known unto the children of men from the foundation of the world, and to do the will, both of the Father and of the Son—of the Father because of me, and of the Son because of my flesh. And behold, the time is at hand, and this night shall the sign be given.

Now we have this one:

D&C 93:4 (4, 14)
4 The Father because he gave me of his fulness, and the Son because I was in the world and made flesh my tabernacle, and dwelt among the sons of men.
14 And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first.

Now explain these:

3 Nephi 11:27
27 And after this manner shall ye baptize in my name; for behold, verily I say unto you, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one.

14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.

[freedomforall]

What does all this mean?: Who created/made the world and all things in it?

JST John 1:1–34 (Appendix)

1 In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made which was made.
4 In him was the gospel, and the gospel was the life, and the life was the light of men;
5 And the light shineth in the world, and the world perceiveth it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came into the world for a witness, to bear witness of the light, to bear record of the gospel through the Son, unto all, that through him men might believe.
8 He was not that light, but came to bear witness of that light,
9 Which was the true light, which lighteth every man who cometh into the world;
10 Even the Son of God. He who was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God; only to them who believe on his name.
13 He was born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the same word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
15 John bear witness of him, and cried, saying, This is he of whom I spake; He who cometh after me, is preferred before me; for he was before me.
16 For in the beginning was the Word, even the Son, who is made flesh, and sent unto us by the will of the Father. And as many as believe on his name shall receive of his fullness. And of his fullness have all we received, even immortality and eternal life, through his grace.
17 For the law was given through Moses, but life and truth came through Jesus Christ.
18 For the law was after a carnal commandment, to the administration of death; but the gospel was after the power of an endless life, through Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father.
19 And no man hath seen God at any time, except he hath borne record of the Son; for except it is through him no man can be saved.
20 And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem, to ask him; Who art thou?
21 And he confessed, and denied not that he was Elias; but confessed, saying; I am not the Christ.
22 And they asked him, saying; How then art thou Elias? And he said, I am not that Elias who was to restore all things. And they asked him, saying, Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
23 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?
24 He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as saith the prophet Esaias.
25 And they who were sent were of the Pharisees.
26 And they asked him, and said unto him; Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not the Christ, nor Elias who was to restore all things, neither that prophet?
27 John answered them, saying; I baptize with water, but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
28 He it is of whom I bear record. He is that prophet, even Elias, who, coming after me, is preferred before me, whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose, or whose place I am not able to fill; for he shall baptize, not only with water, but with fire, and with the Holy Ghost.
29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and said; Behold the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world!
30 And John bare record of him unto the people, saying, This is he of whom I said; After me cometh a man who is preferred before me; for he was before me, and I knew him, and that he should be made manifest to Israel; therefore am I come baptizing with water.
31 And John bare record, saying; When he was baptized of me, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
32 And I knew him; for he who sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me; Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he who baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
33 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
34 These things were done in Bethabara, beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.

[freedomforall]

Who is the Son of Man?

Jesus Christ, Son of Man

one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven: Dan. 7:13 . ( Rev. 1:13 ; Rev. 14:14 . )

Son of man hath power on earth: Matt. 9:6 . ( Mark 2:10 ; Luke 5:24 . )
shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come: Matt. 10:23 . ( Matt. 25:13 ; Luke 18:8 ; D&C 58:65 . )
Son of man came eating and drinking: Matt. 11:19 . ( Luke 7:34 . )
Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath: Matt. 12:8 . ( Mark 2:28 ; Luke 6:5 . )
whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: Matt. 12:32 . ( Luke 12:10 . )
shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in … the earth: Matt. 12:40 .
He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man: Matt. 13:37 .
Son of man shall send forth his angels: Matt. 13:41 .
Whom do men say that I the Son of man am: Matt. 16:13 .
Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father: Matt. 16:27 .
not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming: Matt. 16:28 . ( Matt. 24:27, 37, 39 ; Mark 13:26 ; D&C 45:39 ; D&C 61:38 ; D&C 63:53 ; D&C 64:23 ; D&C 68:11 ; D&C 130:14, 17 . )
Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen: Matt. 17:9 . ( Mark 9:9 . )
Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them: Matt. 17:12 . ( Mark 8:31 ; Luke 9:22 . )
Son of man shall be betrayed: Matt. 17:22 . ( Matt. 20:18 ; Matt. 26:2, 24, 45 ; Mark 14:21, 41 ; Luke 22:22, 48 . )
Son of man is come to save that which was lost: Matt. 18:11 . ( Luke 19:10 . )
when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory: Matt. 19:28 .
as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto: Matt. 20:28 . ( Mark 10:45 . )
appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: Matt. 24:30 .
see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven: Matt. 24:30 . ( Mark 13:26 ; Luke 21:27 . )
see the Son of man sitting on the right hand: Matt. 26:64 . ( Mark 14:62 ; Luke 22:69 . )
of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed: Mark 8:38 . ( Luke 9:26 . )
written of the Son of man, that he must suffer: Mark 9:12 .
Son of man is delivered into the hands of men: Mark 9:31 . ( Mark 10:33 ; Luke 9:44 ; Luke 24:7 . )
cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man’s sake: Luke 6:22 .
Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives: Luke 9:56 .
Son of man hath not where to lay his head: Luke 9:58 .
as Jonas was a sign … so shall also the Son of man be: Luke 11:30 .
him shall the Son of man also confess: Luke 12:8 .
Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not: Luke 12:40 .
ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man: Luke 17:22 .
lightning … so shall also the Son of man be: Luke 17:24 .
days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man: Luke 17:26 .
thus shall it be … when the Son of man is revealed: Luke 17:30 .
all things … concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished: Luke 18:31 .
accounted worthy … to stand before the Son of man: Luke 21:36 .
no man hath ascended up to heaven, but … the Son of man: John 3:13 . ( John 8:28 ; John 12:34 . )
as Moses lifted … so must the Son of man be lifted up: John 3:14 .
execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man: John 5:27 .
everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give: John 6:27 .
Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man: John 6:53 .
if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up: John 6:62 .
hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified: John 12:23 . ( John 13:31 . )
What is … the son of man, that thou visitest him: Heb. 2:6 .
in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man: Rev. 1:13 .

done unto the Son of Man even as they listed: D&C 49:6 .
Son of Man cometh not in the form of a woman: D&C 49:22 .
Son of Man shall come down in heaven, clothed in the brightness of his glory: D&C 65:5 .
those who shall hear the voice of the Son of Man: D&C 76:16 .
build a house … that the Son of Man might have a place to manifest himself: D&C 109:5 .
Son of Man hath descended below them all: D&C 122:8 .
if thou livest … thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man: D&C 130:15