Thoughts on the Pure Revelations Blog

[rewcox]

What I'm doing is called reasoning and I did answer your question. Why don't you respond to my well reasoned points and if you disagree, provide your well reasoned response as a counter argument? I'm a sheep. You can reason with me.

Answer: That would be any person who has a testimony of Jesus through the power of the Holy Ghost. That would be any one who is speaking by the power of the Holy Ghost and has the spirit of prophecy. Think of individuals who you know that have been speaking by the power of the Holy Ghost. That's your name for you. Also, don't think that you will only hear the Spirit speaking in your Mormon paradigm. God is greater than just the Mormon paradigm. His Spirit is speaking through many prophets and prophetesses the world over. We can hear it if we let go of our prejudices and biases.

I'll give you another specific name. Now, I'm going to make an assumption here so forgive me if I am in error. I'm guessing you haven't been ordained to the office of an Apostle by the leaders of the Church and have not been sustained as a prophet by the Church as a whole. I'm guessing that you have a testimony of Jesus through the Spirit. Any time you have spoken through the power of the Holy Ghost, you, rewcox, have been a prophet called and set apart outside of the apostle organization.

-Finrock

Now you have revisited the classical Amonhies failure with George.

Not for the Church Finrock, that is Thomas Monson, he has the keys.

You don't.

Actually, the failure was on the other end.

It's simply a scriptural fact that anyone who has the Spirit of Prophecy is a prophet. I've made my position abundantly clear. I clearly stated that I understand the common usage of the word prophet in Mormon parlance, but that this usage is not completely scripturally accurate. I've clearly stated that I am using the definitive meaning of the word prophet found in the Holy Scriptures and also as defined by Joseph Smith.

I'm going to help you to refute my argument. I'm going to show you how I've derived my conclusion. I'm going to show you my premises that support my conclusion. Then I will invite you to attack the living hell out of my premises, if you so wish, and demonstrate through your reasoning why my premises are wrong.

Premise 1: Scriptures say that a testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
Premise 2: Scriptures say that angels and prophets speak by the power of the Holy Ghost
Premise 3: Joseph Smith taught that anyone who has the spirit of prophecy is a prophet and that all should be prophets
Premise 4: Scriptures say that God will poor out His spirit upon ALL flesh and many will prophecy and see visions
Conclusion: You don't have to be the President of the Church and have delegated keys to run the Church in order to be a prophet and to prophecy. What qualifies one to be a prophet is having a testimony of Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Ghost and speaking through the power of the Holy Ghost.

-Finrock

It seems you have joined the Amonhies, and are using the Amonhi manual or PDF to promote your stuff, but then you end up in a bad spot. Just like Amonhies Mean sent George to the Telestial Kingdom because Jesus did not know George.

People receive inspiration (personal revelation) and can be guided by the Holy Ghost. Millions do this everyday. You want to call them prophets.

Denver Snuffer, Harmston, the Amonhies are false prophets although they claim to have testimonies of Christ.

[Finrock]

What I'm doing is called reasoning and I did answer your question. Why don't you respond to my well reasoned points and if you disagree, provide your well reasoned response as a counter argument? I'm a sheep. You can reason with me.

Answer: That would be any person who has a testimony of Jesus through the power of the Holy Ghost. That would be any one who is speaking by the power of the Holy Ghost and has the spirit of prophecy. Think of individuals who you know that have been speaking by the power of the Holy Ghost. That's your name for you. Also, don't think that you will only hear the Spirit speaking in your Mormon paradigm. God is greater than just the Mormon paradigm. His Spirit is speaking through many prophets and prophetesses the world over. We can hear it if we let go of our prejudices and biases.

I'll give you another specific name. Now, I'm going to make an assumption here so forgive me if I am in error. I'm guessing you haven't been ordained to the office of an Apostle by the leaders of the Church and have not been sustained as a prophet by the Church as a whole. I'm guessing that you have a testimony of Jesus through the Spirit. Any time you have spoken through the power of the Holy Ghost, you, rewcox, have been a prophet called and set apart outside of the apostle organization.

-Finrock

Now you have revisited the classical Amonhies failure with George.

Not for the Church Finrock, that is Thomas Monson, he has the keys.

You don't.

Actually, the failure was on the other end.

It's simply a scriptural fact that anyone who has the Spirit of Prophecy is a prophet. I've made my position abundantly clear. I clearly stated that I understand the common usage of the word prophet in Mormon parlance, but that this usage is not completely scripturally accurate. I've clearly stated that I am using the definitive meaning of the word prophet found in the Holy Scriptures and also as defined by Joseph Smith.

I'm going to help you to refute my argument. I'm going to show you how I've derived my conclusion. I'm going to show you my premises that support my conclusion. Then I will invite you to attack the living hell out of my premises, if you so wish, and demonstrate through your reasoning why my premises are wrong.

Premise 1: Scriptures say that a testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
Premise 2: Scriptures say that angels and prophets speak by the power of the Holy Ghost
Premise 3: Joseph Smith taught that anyone who has the spirit of prophecy is a prophet and that all should be prophets
Premise 4: Scriptures say that God will poor out His spirit upon ALL flesh and many will prophecy and see visions
Conclusion: You don't have to be the President of the Church and have delegated keys to run the Church in order to be a prophet and to prophecy. What qualifies one to be a prophet is having a testimony of Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Ghost and speaking through the power of the Holy Ghost.

-Finrock

It seems you have joined the Amonhies, and are using the Amonhi manual or PDF to promote your stuff, but then you end up in a bad spot. Just like Amonhies Mean sent George to the Telestial Kingdom because Jesus did not know George.

People receive inspiration (personal revelation) and can be guided by the Holy Ghost. Millions do this everyday. You want to call them prophets.

Denver Snuffer, Harmston, the Amonhies are false prophets although they claim to have testimonies of Christ.

Very poor argument, rewcox. You used the following tactics to try to refute what I said:

1. Guilt by association - logically fallacious
2. Stereotyping - logically fallacious

rewcox, come now, let us reason together. Which of my premises do you disagree with? Or, can you demonstrate how my conclusion doesn't follow from my premises? I am sincere rewcox, now and always. If you believe I am in error, please show me through reason and persuasion where my error exist so that I might be guided to the correct path. Your logically fallacious responses are not persuasive and they are not helpful to me. You have not convinced me that I am in error. I believe my conclusion is strongly supported by the premises I've provided and I believe my premises are factually supported from scriptures and the words of the holy prophets.

-Finrock

[Finrock]

People receive inspiration (personal revelation) and can be guided by the Holy Ghost. Millions do this everyday. You want to call them prophets.

Let's focus on this tidbit for a bit.

Have you, or anyone, ever been listening to a person who is speaking and felt the promptings of the Holy Ghost? Or, have you heard someone speak to you, and something they said was confirmed to you through the power of the Holy Ghost?

For, instance, lets say you attend a fireside with a guest speaker who is not a member of your ward or even a member of your stake. While you are listening to this person, they describe to you a revelation or an experience that they had where God taught or showed them something. During the course of them describing their personal experience, you feel the Spirit testify powerfully to you that what they are saying is true. Are you going to reject that message because it was this person's "personal revelation"?

Is it not the Spirit's function to testify of truth? Was that person, at that moment, not acting as a prophet of God to you? If they were speaking by the power of the Holy Ghost and you hear and felt those words through the power of the Holy Ghost as they were delivered to you from that person, would that person at the point not be speaking for God, to you? I believe so. I'm certain of it. Wouldn't this be true even if that person was not a duly recognized leader or apostle of the Church who is sustained as a prophet? Of course. Why? Because it was the Holy Spirit speaking.

God uses messengers high and low to get His message out. It becomes binding upon us not by virtue of who is speaking, but by virtue of the fact that the Holy Ghost bore witness of those words to our Spirit. That is when it becomes binding. That is the true nature of revelation and how God speaks. His voice is Spirit and He speaks by the Spirit. Anyone who delivers His word by the Spirit is a prophet.

-Finrock

[rewcox]

People receive inspiration (personal revelation) and can be guided by the Holy Ghost. Millions do this everyday. You want to call them prophets.

Let's focus on this tidbit for a bit.

Have you, or anyone, ever been listening to a person who is speaking and felt the promptings of the Holy Ghost? Or, have you heard someone speak to you, and something they said was confirmed to you through the power of the Holy Ghost?

For, instance, lets say you attend a fireside with a guest speaker who is not a member of your ward or even a member of your stake. While you are listening to this person, they describe to you a revelation or an experience that they had where God taught or showed them something. During the course of them describing their personal experience, you feel the Spirit testify powerfully to you that what they are saying is true. Are you going to reject that message because it was this person's "personal revelation"?

Is it not the Spirit's function to testify of truth? Was that person, at that moment, not acting as a prophet of God to you? If they were speaking by the power of the Holy Ghost and you hear and felt those words through the power of the Holy Ghost as they were delivered to you from that person, would that person at the point not be speaking for God, to you? I believe so. I'm certain of it. Wouldn't this be true even if that person was not a duly recognized leader or apostle of the Church who is sustained as a prophet? Of course. Why? Because it was the Holy Spirit speaking.

God uses messengers high and low to get His message out. It becomes binding upon us not by virtue of who is speaking, but by virtue of the fact that the Holy Ghost bore witness of those words to our Spirit. That is when it becomes binding. That is the true nature of revelation and how God speaks. His voice is Spirit and He speaks by the Spirit. Anyone who delivers His word by the Spirit is a prophet.

-Finrock

Now let's apply that to a real example, the OP:

However there are some definite red flags. He doesn't outright fault the Church, but does have a few insinuations that they aren't completely on the right track. He also claims in his book that the Lord told him to pay his Tithing a different way. (Directly to revealed needy families rather than to the Bishop.) This caused him to lose his temple recommend. He seems to indicate that this was almost an Abrahamic test of sorts that led to him receiving the Second Comforter. I think I would be fine with this because Abrahamic tests starting with Abraham have always seemed pretty contradictory (I mean God literally told Abraham to sacrifice his son, not exactly orthodox or easy). For his part, he says he still attends Church and admits that it is mostly true. He's definitely one of the remnant folks.

This blog is false, although the person provided scriptures mixed with their own philosophy.

[Finrock]

People receive inspiration (personal revelation) and can be guided by the Holy Ghost. Millions do this everyday. You want to call them prophets.

Let's focus on this tidbit for a bit.

Have you, or anyone, ever been listening to a person who is speaking and felt the promptings of the Holy Ghost? Or, have you heard someone speak to you, and something they said was confirmed to you through the power of the Holy Ghost?

For, instance, lets say you attend a fireside with a guest speaker who is not a member of your ward or even a member of your stake. While you are listening to this person, they describe to you a revelation or an experience that they had where God taught or showed them something. During the course of them describing their personal experience, you feel the Spirit testify powerfully to you that what they are saying is true. Are you going to reject that message because it was this person's "personal revelation"?

Is it not the Spirit's function to testify of truth? Was that person, at that moment, not acting as a prophet of God to you? If they were speaking by the power of the Holy Ghost and you hear and felt those words through the power of the Holy Ghost as they were delivered to you from that person, would that person at the point not be speaking for God, to you? I believe so. I'm certain of it. Wouldn't this be true even if that person was not a duly recognized leader or apostle of the Church who is sustained as a prophet? Of course. Why? Because it was the Holy Spirit speaking.

God uses messengers high and low to get His message out. It becomes binding upon us not by virtue of who is speaking, but by virtue of the fact that the Holy Ghost bore witness of those words to our Spirit. That is when it becomes binding. That is the true nature of revelation and how God speaks. His voice is Spirit and He speaks by the Spirit. Anyone who delivers His word by the Spirit is a prophet.

-Finrock

Now let's apply that to a real example, the OP:

So, did you agree/disagree with my post? Does your silence mean that you concur with my observations and conclusions?

-Finrock

[Finrock]

People receive inspiration (personal revelation) and can be guided by the Holy Ghost. Millions do this everyday. You want to call them prophets.

Let's focus on this tidbit for a bit.

Have you, or anyone, ever been listening to a person who is speaking and felt the promptings of the Holy Ghost? Or, have you heard someone speak to you, and something they said was confirmed to you through the power of the Holy Ghost?

For, instance, lets say you attend a fireside with a guest speaker who is not a member of your ward or even a member of your stake. While you are listening to this person, they describe to you a revelation or an experience that they had where God taught or showed them something. During the course of them describing their personal experience, you feel the Spirit testify powerfully to you that what they are saying is true. Are you going to reject that message because it was this person's "personal revelation"?

Is it not the Spirit's function to testify of truth? Was that person, at that moment, not acting as a prophet of God to you? If they were speaking by the power of the Holy Ghost and you hear and felt those words through the power of the Holy Ghost as they were delivered to you from that person, would that person at the point not be speaking for God, to you? I believe so. I'm certain of it. Wouldn't this be true even if that person was not a duly recognized leader or apostle of the Church who is sustained as a prophet? Of course. Why? Because it was the Holy Spirit speaking.

God uses messengers high and low to get His message out. It becomes binding upon us not by virtue of who is speaking, but by virtue of the fact that the Holy Ghost bore witness of those words to our Spirit. That is when it becomes binding. That is the true nature of revelation and how God speaks. His voice is Spirit and He speaks by the Spirit. Anyone who delivers His word by the Spirit is a prophet.

-Finrock

Now let's apply that to a real example, the OP:

However there are some definite red flags. He doesn't outright fault the Church, but does have a few insinuations that they aren't completely on the right track. He also claims in his book that the Lord told him to pay his Tithing a different way. (Directly to revealed needy families rather than to the Bishop.) This caused him to lose his temple recommend. He seems to indicate that this was almost an Abrahamic test of sorts that led to him receiving the Second Comforter. I think I would be fine with this because Abrahamic tests starting with Abraham have always seemed pretty contradictory (I mean God literally told Abraham to sacrifice his son, not exactly orthodox or easy). For his part, he says he still attends Church and admits that it is mostly true. He's definitely one of the remnant folks.

This blog is false, although the person provided scriptures mixed with their own philosophy.

I haven't read the blog, so I'm not speaking about its truth value, but you do recognize that just because you assert that something is false does not make it so? Right?

-Finrock

[rewcox]

I haven't read the blog, so I'm not speaking about its truth value, but you do recognize that just because you assert that something is false does not make it so? Right?

-Finrock

And just because you assert something, does not make it right or truth.

For example, the Amonhies asserted that all who have the testimony of Christ are prophets, and other scriptures to back it up. Because George did not agree, they concluded Jesus would not know George, and that George would go to the Telestial Kingdom.

Denver Snuffer gave 10 talks over a year, complete with explanations on scriptures, yet at each talk he always said something negative about the church and leaders. At the 10th talk, the wheels came off his bus and went bizarrow.

The Adversary also uses the spirit. Whispers in the ears, etc. Jesus knows this, so he said you would know false prophets by their fruit.

Whenever the fruit appears, you can tell if it has been consistent with the communication of the Spirit.

[Finrock]

I haven't read the blog, so I'm not speaking about its truth value, but you do recognize that just because you assert that something is false does not make it so? Right?

-Finrock

And just because you assert something, does not make it right or truth.

For example, the Amonhies asserted that all who have the testimony of Christ are prophets, and other scriptures to back it up. Because George did not agree, they concluded Jesus would not know George, and that George would go to the Telestial Kingdom.

Denver Snuffer gave 10 talks over a year, complete with explanations on scriptures, yet at each talk he always said something negative about the church and leaders. At the 10th talk, the wheels came off his bus and went bizarrow.

The Adversary also uses the spirit. Whispers in the ears, etc. Jesus knows this, so he said you would know false prophets by their fruit.

Whenever the fruit appears, you can tell if it has been consistent with the communication of the Spirit.

Oh, I know that. That is why I don't just assert things. That is why you've seen me make several reasoned posts supporting my assertions. I just wanted to be sure that you weren't delusional thinking that your proclamations are the measure of what is truth and error.

You've made a false statement which I can demonstrate factually because we have the record available. It is false that Amonhi concluded that Jesus would not know George because George did not agree with Amonhi. You can disagree without mischaracterizing what others have said.

This is irrelevant to the point at hand, but you are obsessed with Denver Snuffer and the guilt by association fallacy. I'm guessing that you have been hurt by this man. I'm sorry for your pain and suffering in regards to him, because you project a lot. There truly are false prophets. But, because a false prophet did something or said something is not a good reason to discount what others are saying.

Also, your claim that the adversary also uses "the" spirit makes absolute no sense to me. It seems that you are claiming that we can't rely on the Holy Ghost, but then you come back later and state that we can measure if the fruit is consistent with the communication of the Spirit. What are you saying here? What does that mean to you?

-Finrock

[investigator]

Does a name establish anything?

A name establishes a person not hiding behind anonymity.

The OP makes some good points to be concerned about. It is not LDS doctrine that you need to pay tithing directly to poor people. This is a concept from Denver Snuffer and Remnant types.

It is not LDS doctrine that you have to do some sort of special sacrifice for Christ to accept you. Christ asks for a broken heart and a contrite spirit.

Some have said that their sacrifice was to resign from the Church. More bad doctrine from Snuffer and the Remnants.

Elder Ballard has spoken more than once not to leave the church. That is LDS doctrine. The blogger has shut himself out of the temple, which impedes helping ancestors. LDS doctrine is to have a current temple recommend so you can help your family and your ancestors.

Run from that blog site.

Perhaps it would more correct to say that a sacrifice is a not a very well known LDS doctrine. I would invite you to study the law of sacrifice as taught in the Lectures on Faith.

7 Let us here observe, that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things, never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation; for from the first existence of man, the faith necessary unto the enjoyment of life and salvation never could be obtained without the sacrifice of all earthly things: it was through this sacrifice, and this only, that God has ordained that men should enjoy eternal life; and it is through the medium of the sacrifice of all earthly things, that men do actually know that they are doing the things that are well pleasing in the sight of God. When a man has offered in sacrifice all that he has, for the truth's sake, not even withholding his life, and believing before God that he has been called to make this sacrifice, because he seeks to do his will, he does know most assuredly, that God does and will accept his sacrifice and offering, and that he has not nor will not seek his face in vain. Under these circumstances, then, he can obtain the faith necessary for him to lay hold on eternal life.

I think there will be a lot of disappointed LDS on judgment day when they find their expectations to be in vain.

8 It is in vain for persons to fancy to themselves that they are heirs with those, or can be heirs with them, who have offered their all in sacrifice, and by this means obtained faith in God and favor with him so as to obtain eternal life, unless they in like manner offer unto him the same sacrifice, and through that offering obtain the knowledge that they are accepted of him.

Too bad they are not taught of these things in church. Joseph Smith sacrificed his life to bring us the word of the Lord and has been treated as so much trash. Much easier to sell a church that teaches that you can have it all here and now and have all in the after life as well. Gospel lite.

Standard Remnant/Denver doctrine. No we don't believe that.

Doctrine and Covenants 59:8
8 Thou shalt offer a sacrifice unto the Lord thy God in righteousness, even that of a broken heart and a contrite spirit.

This is from Christ. He doesn't say you have to do something strange.

If you reject the Lectures on Faith do you not reject THE PROPHET of this dispensation ?

[rewcox]

A name establishes a person not hiding behind anonymity.

The OP makes some good points to be concerned about. It is not LDS doctrine that you need to pay tithing directly to poor people. This is a concept from Denver Snuffer and Remnant types.

It is not LDS doctrine that you have to do some sort of special sacrifice for Christ to accept you. Christ asks for a broken heart and a contrite spirit.

Some have said that their sacrifice was to resign from the Church. More bad doctrine from Snuffer and the Remnants.

Elder Ballard has spoken more than once not to leave the church. That is LDS doctrine. The blogger has shut himself out of the temple, which impedes helping ancestors. LDS doctrine is to have a current temple recommend so you can help your family and your ancestors.

Run from that blog site.

Perhaps it would more correct to say that a sacrifice is a not a very well known LDS doctrine. I would invite you to study the law of sacrifice as taught in the Lectures on Faith.

7 Let us here observe, that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things, never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation; for from the first existence of man, the faith necessary unto the enjoyment of life and salvation never could be obtained without the sacrifice of all earthly things: it was through this sacrifice, and this only, that God has ordained that men should enjoy eternal life; and it is through the medium of the sacrifice of all earthly things, that men do actually know that they are doing the things that are well pleasing in the sight of God. When a man has offered in sacrifice all that he has, for the truth's sake, not even withholding his life, and believing before God that he has been called to make this sacrifice, because he seeks to do his will, he does know most assuredly, that God does and will accept his sacrifice and offering, and that he has not nor will not seek his face in vain. Under these circumstances, then, he can obtain the faith necessary for him to lay hold on eternal life.

I think there will be a lot of disappointed LDS on judgment day when they find their expectations to be in vain.

8 It is in vain for persons to fancy to themselves that they are heirs with those, or can be heirs with them, who have offered their all in sacrifice, and by this means obtained faith in God and favor with him so as to obtain eternal life, unless they in like manner offer unto him the same sacrifice, and through that offering obtain the knowledge that they are accepted of him.

Too bad they are not taught of these things in church. Joseph Smith sacrificed his life to bring us the word of the Lord and has been treated as so much trash. Much easier to sell a church that teaches that you can have it all here and now and have all in the after life as well. Gospel lite.

Standard Remnant/Denver doctrine. No we don't believe that.

Doctrine and Covenants 59:8
8 Thou shalt offer a sacrifice unto the Lord thy God in righteousness, even that of a broken heart and a contrite spirit.

This is from Christ. He doesn't say you have to do something strange.

If you reject the Lectures on Faith do you not reject THE PROPHET of this dispensation ?

I've read the lectures of faith. You should try it.

Some of you can't get past JS. Thomas Monson is the prophet today.

[rewcox]

I haven't read the blog, so I'm not speaking about its truth value, but you do recognize that just because you assert that something is false does not make it so? Right?

-Finrock

And just because you assert something, does not make it right or truth.

For example, the Amonhies asserted that all who have the testimony of Christ are prophets, and other scriptures to back it up. Because George did not agree, they concluded Jesus would not know George, and that George would go to the Telestial Kingdom.

Denver Snuffer gave 10 talks over a year, complete with explanations on scriptures, yet at each talk he always said something negative about the church and leaders. At the 10th talk, the wheels came off his bus and went bizarrow.

The Adversary also uses the spirit. Whispers in the ears, etc. Jesus knows this, so he said you would know false prophets by their fruit.

Whenever the fruit appears, you can tell if it has been consistent with the communication of the Spirit.

Oh, I know that. That is why I don't just assert things. That is why you've seen me make several reasoned posts supporting my assertions. I just wanted to be sure that you weren't delusional thinking that your proclamations are the measure of what is truth and error.

You've made a false statement which I can demonstrate factually because we have the record available. It is false that Amonhi concluded that Jesus would not know George because George did not agree with Amonhi. You can disagree without mischaracterizing what others have said.

This is irrelevant to the point at hand, but you are obsessed with Denver Snuffer and the guilt by association fallacy. I'm guessing that you have been hurt by this man. I'm sorry for your pain and suffering in regards to him, because you project a lot. There truly are false prophets. But, because a false prophet did something or said something is not a good reason to discount what others are saying.

Also, your claim that the adversary also uses "the" spirit makes absolute no sense to me. It seems that you are claiming that we can't rely on the Holy Ghost, but then you come back later and state that we can measure if the fruit is consistent with the communication of the Spirit. What are you saying here? What does that mean to you?

-Finrock

Show us what that Mean Amonhies said.

I only discount false ones, there are a bunch running round here.

Here is a good one for you. Oh How Great the Plan of Our God

[Thomas]

Monson can only derive his authority from the foundation of Joseph Smith. If you want to say, Joseph Smith was a false prophet, than the church is false as well. That would make Monson a false prophet.

You cannot discard Joseph Smith without discarding the whole church. Joseph Smith must retain the preeminent spot or you have nothing but falsehoods. No man can build on his own foundation.

Throw out the Lectures on Faith, might as well throw out the whole church.

[rewcox]

Monson can only derive his authority from the foundation of Joseph Smith. If you want to say, Joseph Smith was a false prophet, than the church is false as well. That would make Monson a false prophet.

You cannot discard Joseph Smith without discarding the whole church. Joseph Smith must retain the preeminent spot or you have nothing but falsehoods. No man can build on his own foundation.

Throw out the Lectures on Faith, might as well throw out the whole church.

You guys are so messed up.

Joseph Smith was/is a great prophet. He finished his mission, Brigham Young was next. BY made it possible for you to be here.

Thomas Monson is the current prophet today.

You guys decided to stop at Joseph Smith, that's your problem.

[investigator]

Monson can only derive his authority from the foundation of Joseph Smith. If you want to say, Joseph Smith was a false prophet, than the church is false as well. That would make Monson a false prophet.

You cannot discard Joseph Smith without discarding the whole church. Joseph Smith must retain the preeminent spot or you have nothing but falsehoods. No man can build on his own foundation.

Throw out the Lectures on Faith, might as well throw out the whole church.

You guys are so messed up.

Joseph Smith was/is a great prophet. He finished his mission, Brigham Young was next. BY made it possible for you to be here.

Thomas Monson is the current prophet today.

You guys decided to stop at Joseph Smith, that's your problem.

Or is it you rewcox, who has the problem of rejecting the words of the Lord who has commanded you to receive and heed the teachings of Joseph Smith? Please show me the revelations where the Lord endorses and commands us to heed the words of any other person in the same manner that He has Joseph Smith.

"I the Lord, knowing the calamity which should come upon the inhabitants of the earth, called upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and spake unto him from heaven, and gave him commandments." (D&C 1:17)

"Behold, there shall be a record kept among you; and in it thou shalt be called a seer, a translator, a prophet, an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the church through the will of God the Father, and the grace of your Lord Jesus Christ." (D&C 21:1)

"Thou wast called and chosen to write the Book of Mormon, and to my ministry...And thou shalt continue in calling upon God in my name, and writing the things which shall be given thee by the Comforter, and expounding all scriptures unto the church." (D&C 24:1,5)

"No one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., for he receiveth them even as Moses." (D&C 28:2)

"Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me; For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth..." (D&C 21:4&5)

[rewcox]

Monson can only derive his authority from the foundation of Joseph Smith. If you want to say, Joseph Smith was a false prophet, than the church is false as well. That would make Monson a false prophet.

You cannot discard Joseph Smith without discarding the whole church. Joseph Smith must retain the preeminent spot or you have nothing but falsehoods. No man can build on his own foundation.

Throw out the Lectures on Faith, might as well throw out the whole church.

You guys are so messed up.

Joseph Smith was/is a great prophet. He finished his mission, Brigham Young was next. BY made it possible for you to be here.

Thomas Monson is the current prophet today.

You guys decided to stop at Joseph Smith, that's your problem.

Or is it you rewcox, who has the problem of rejecting the words of the Lord who has commanded you to receive and heed the teachings of Joseph Smith? Please show me the revelations where the Lord endorses and commands us to heed the words of any other person in the same manner that He has Joseph Smith.

"I the Lord, knowing the calamity which should come upon the inhabitants of the earth, called upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and spake unto him from heaven, and gave him commandments." (D&C 1:17)

"Behold, there shall be a record kept among you; and in it thou shalt be called a seer, a translator, a prophet, an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the church through the will of God the Father, and the grace of your Lord Jesus Christ." (D&C 21:1)

"Thou wast called and chosen to write the Book of Mormon, and to my ministry...And thou shalt continue in calling upon God in my name, and writing the things which shall be given thee by the Comforter, and expounding all scriptures unto the church." (D&C 24:1,5)

"No one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., for he receiveth them even as Moses." (D&C 28:2)

"Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me; For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth..." (D&C 21:4&5)

You will be happy to know that in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Sunday School study this year is the Doctrine and Covenants.

Also, Nephi gave us a clue on understanding scriptures: liken them to ourselves.

So: Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me; For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth..." (D&C 21:4&5)

Today, this means give heed to Thomas Monson.

[Finrock]

Monson can only derive his authority from the foundation of Joseph Smith. If you want to say, Joseph Smith was a false prophet, than the church is false as well. That would make Monson a false prophet.

You cannot discard Joseph Smith without discarding the whole church. Joseph Smith must retain the preeminent spot or you have nothing but falsehoods. No man can build on his own foundation.

Throw out the Lectures on Faith, might as well throw out the whole church.

You guys are so messed up.

Joseph Smith was/is a great prophet. He finished his mission, Brigham Young was next. BY made it possible for you to be here.

Thomas Monson is the current prophet today.

You guys decided to stop at Joseph Smith, that's your problem.

Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.

Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.

Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?

Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh (James 3:9–12).

The Lord’s people must be distinguished among other nations not only by their calling and behavior, but also by the purity of their language. In Deuteronomy we read: “For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth” (Deut. 7:6).

We can't claim to be sheep and say that we love and praise God but then turn around and curse our brothers and sisters. How you communicate matters, rewcox. How you treat your fellow man, matters. A good fountain does not bring forth bitter water.

Words are a form of personal expression. They differentiate us as well as fingerprints do. They reflect what kind of person we are, and tell of our background, and depict our way of life. They describe our thinking as well as our inner feelings.

-Finrock

Source: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... g?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[rewcox]

We can't claim to be sheep and say that we love and praise God but then turn around and curse our brothers and sisters. How you communicate matters, rewcox. How you treat your fellow man, matters. A good fountain does not bring forth bitter water.

-Finrock

So you consider a good fountain is the Amonhies telling George that Christ will say He does not know George, and that George is going to the Telestial Kingdom?

Or that 7 women will conclude a man can have the priesthood?

You don't answer these questions do you?

[Finrock]

We can't claim to be sheep and say that we love and praise God but then turn around and curse our brothers and sisters. How you communicate matters, rewcox. How you treat your fellow man, matters. A good fountain does not bring forth bitter water.

-Finrock

So you consider a good fountain is the Amonhies telling George that Christ will say He does not know George, and that George is going to the Telestial Kingdom?

Or that 7 women will conclude a man can have the priesthood?

You don't answer these questions do you?

You can't be a disciple of Christ and treat other unfairly. If you are a good fountain, then you should bring forth sweet water. Those questions are irrelevant to you and to my posts to you. I'm speaking about your communication and the words that come out of your mouth.

How you communicate matters. What words you use matters. What words we use and how we communicate with others reveals who we are as people. Over and over again you use unethical tactics in your communication. You ignore valid and reasonable posts. You accuse and judge. You minimize and belittle. You mock. These words that you present on this forum, are your words. They are coming from your heart and your mind. You say something about another person or you belittle them or their remarks, thinking that you are speaking about them or revealing them. But, instead, you are speaking about yourself and revealing what is truly on the inside.

George was doing the same thing. It was unethical and wrong. The issue here is that you perceive others as an enemy and because you have that perception, you actually think that it makes it okay to not consider their words or to reasonably discuss and give an ear. You are mistaken in this, however. It is pointless to discuss with you because you don't discuss. You don't reason. This is just what happens. It isn't me making things up. Its what has actually taken place, and we can see it time and again in your posts and how you treat and talk and communicate with others. You do all of these things because you have judged others, myself included, to be apostate or evil or enemies. Essentially you are trying to prevent others from expressing their ideas and thoughts because you disagree with it and you are willing to do it with bitterness. I know how to judge between what is good and what is evil. Goodness doesn't treat others with disrespect. Goodness is willing to reason and to discuss. Goodness doesn't attack others or call them names, etc.

Goodness listens to others. Goodness considers others words. This doesn't mean that you have to accept everything someone says, but Goodness certainly does not troll others or attempt to filibuster and discourage honest and sincere dialogue. There is a right way and a wrong way to talk about things and to disagree. The principles I keep pointing out such as intellectual courage, empathy, and honesty, are actually good and they form the basis and the foundation for civilized discourse and discussion.

If you were at peace with yourself, you would have not need to spend so much time trying to tell others that they are going to hell, or that they are apostate, or that they are messed up, or that they are anything but honest and sincere individuals who happen to have a different perspective than you and have had different experiences in life that have taught them different ideas. I have extensively invited you to disagree with me but do so ethically and reasonably. I have invited you to show me how my ideas are wrong by demonstrating why my premises are incorrect or why my conclusion doesn't follow from my premises. Every time I have backed up my words and provided reasons for why I believe something, you essentially ignore the posts and the word and fall back to calling me names or trying to belittle me or what I have said. That behavior that you are displaying towards me is not good. You can't make any excuse that will make it good and it seems that you are trying to make it okay by judging me and accusing me of being an enemy to your beliefs and/or to your religion. I invite you and I plead with you that if you disagree with what I am saying, please extend to me the respect of first making sure you understand what it is that I am saying and then once you know exactly what I mean and you still disagree, demonstrate through reason and through ethical discourse why and how you disagree. I promise you, just as I have promised before, that I will always consider and take in to account any well reasoned response that has meat to it. It is what I'm here for. If I am in error or if I am truly the evil monster apostate that you claim that I am, then this will be exposed by your reasonable refutations to my arguments. My arguments will fall apart if you can demonstrate who my logic and/or reason doesn't follow. And, if I am not an ethical person and I refuse to accept something that is clearly correct because reason and logic would dictate it, then you will know who I am. Also, I invite you to speak by the power of the Holy Ghost so that we can both be edified and be uplifted. If I am in actuality in error, I in actuality want to be made aware of this error. If the Spirit witnesses something to me because you are speaking by the power of the Holy Ghost, that will be the most convincing manner of persuading me to change my views. Further, as you engage with me and others in this manner, you will prove and demonstrate your faith and religion and you will be more successful and convincing others that Denver Snuffer or some other person who might be a false prophet is a false prophet.

At the same token, have intellectual humility, and be prepared to admit when you are wrong because reason and logic dictate that you do. When I present a point that you agree with, let me know. Let others know that you agree with them. If you can't refute what I'm saying through reasonable and ethical means, then accept it. You might be in error and you might learn something from me and from others.

The Apostles of the Church, those that I sustain, teach these very principles that I am talking about right now. They too have invited us to engage with others in a respectful and in a reasonable way. In particular, the Apostles have invited us to not be contentious online, to show respect, and to let all of our communications come from a place of love and mutual respect for others. You're going to have to surrender the judging and the accusing. You're just going to have to give that up if you actually want to be on the side of good.

-Finrock

[rewcox]

George was doing the same thing. It was unethical and wrong.

The Apostles of the Church, those that I sustain, teach these very principles that I am talking about right now.

-Finrock

You are welcome to present your beliefs however you like. If you present things against the Church and leaders, you will receive feedback.

George wasn't unethical or wrong. The Amonhies were. Remember the Amonhies claim C&E, multiple visits with Christ, Celestial Kingdom.

This is a Pro-LDS forum, correct?

Do you sustain all or just some of the Apostles?

[Finrock]

George was doing the same thing. It was unethical and wrong.

The Apostles of the Church, those that I sustain, teach these very principles that I am talking about right now.

-Finrock

You are welcome to present your beliefs however you like. If you present things against the Church and leaders, you will receive feedback.

George wasn't unethical or wrong. The Amonhies were. Remember the Amonhies claim C&E, multiple visits with Christ, Celestial Kingdom.

This is a Pro-LDS forum, correct?

Do you sustain all or just some of the Apostles?

There was more to my posts than those two sentences. George was using the same tactics that you are using. If you are not discussing with others using the principles of intellectual honesty, courage, and empathy, then what you are doing is unethical and wrong. This applies to any person at any time. Accusing, judging, name calling, ignoring the content, belittling, are all unethical and wrong. If any person is using those things while interacting with others, it is unethical and wrong. It doesn't matter who's side they are on or what faith they believe in or who they sustain.

The excuse that you are a defending faith or that you are a soldier for the Church, doesn't justify treating others disrespectfully. You have no excuse to NOT engage in reasonable and ethical discourse. You can defend the Church and the leaders by listening to others, making sure you understand them, and responding to them through reason and logic using the principles of intellectual courage, honesty, and empathy.

A true believing Mormon is dedicated to the good. It seems the term TBM has been hijacked by people who think that it's okay to abandon reason and the moral high ground when they perceive their faith is being attacked. I'm a TBM, because a true believing Mormon believes in the principles of intellectual courage, honesty, and empathy.

Your questions, again, are irrelevant. If you will only treat me respectfully if I am on your side, that is unethical. If you will only consider and try to understand me because I agree with your religious beliefs, that is unethical.

Receiving feedback is not the issue. It is how we communicate and discuss with others. Attacking a person, accusing them, and judging them is wrong. You can't justify it by saying this is a pro-LDS site.

You trying to test my loyalty is unethical because it is irrelevant to what I have said. What I have said is either true or it is false but it is not because I sustain the Apostles or because I believe the Church is true. I predict that no matter what declaration I make, because I've made the same declarations before, you will judge and accuse me as you see fit because you don't like something that I say. That is the crux of your unethical behavior. You are using these irrelevant tests to measure the truth of a person's words, rather than dealing with the content. Anyone, be that you or George, or anyone, who does that is unethical and wrong.

You have no excuse. I'm a supporter of the Church. I'm a TBM. I sustain all of our leaders all of the time. Take this sentence and write it down somewhere: Finrock is a TBM who sustains all of his leaders in the Church all of the time.

Now, how about you deal with the rest of the content of my post? How do you feel about us engaging with others with intellectual courage, empathy, and honesty? Do you agree or disagree that we should always respect others and consider their words sincerely and honestly? Do you believe that it is ethical and right for us to use reason and logic in our discourse? Do you believe that as TBMs we are held to a higher standard in how we communicate and treat others and the words that we use?

-Finrock

[rewcox]

George was doing the same thing. It was unethical and wrong.

The Apostles of the Church, those that I sustain, teach these very principles that I am talking about right now.

-Finrock

You are welcome to present your beliefs however you like. If you present things against the Church and leaders, you will receive feedback.

George wasn't unethical or wrong. The Amonhies were. Remember the Amonhies claim C&E, multiple visits with Christ, Celestial Kingdom.

This is a Pro-LDS forum, correct?

Do you sustain all or just some of the Apostles?

There was more to my posts than those two sentences. George was using the same tactics that you are using. If you are not discussing with others using the principles of intellectual honesty, courage, and empathy, then what you are doing is unethical and wrong. This applies to any person at any time. Accusing, judging, name calling, ignoring the content, belittling, are all unethical and wrong. If any person is using those things while interacting with others, it is unethical and wrong. It doesn't matter who's side they are on or what faith they believe in or who they sustain.

The excuse that you are a defending faith or that you are a soldier for the Church, doesn't justify treating others disrespectfully. You have no excuse to NOT engage in reasonable and ethical discourse. You can defend the Church and the leaders by listening to others, making sure you understand them, and responding to them through reason and logic using the principles of intellectual courage, honesty, and empathy.

A true believing Mormon is dedicated to the good. It seems the term TBM has been hijacked by people who think that it's okay to abandon reason and the moral high ground when they perceive their faith is being attacked. I'm a TBM, because a true believing Mormon believes in the principles of intellectual courage, honesty, and empathy.

Your questions, again, are irrelevant. If you will only treat me respectfully if I am on your side, that is unethical. If you will only consider and try to understand me because I agree with your religious beliefs, that is unethical.

Receiving feedback is not the issue. It is how we communicate and discuss with others. Attacking a person, accusing them, and judging them is wrong. You can't justify it by saying this is a pro-LDS site.

You trying to test my loyalty is unethical because it is irrelevant to what I have said. What I have said is either true or it is false but it is not because I sustain the Apostles or because I believe the Church is true. I predict that no matter what declaration I make, because I've made the same declarations before, you will judge and accuse me as you see fit because you don't like something that I say. That is the crux of your unethical behavior. You are using these irrelevant tests to measure the truth of a person's words, rather than dealing with the content. Anyone, be that you or George, or anyone, who does that is unethical and wrong.

You have no excuse. I'm a supporter of the Church. I'm a TBM. I sustain all of our leaders all of the time. Take this sentence and write it down somewhere: Finrock is a TBM who sustains all of his leaders in the Church all of the time.

Now, how about you deal with the rest of the content of my post? How do you feel about us engaging with others with intellectual courage, empathy, and honesty? Do you agree or disagree that we should always respect others and consider their words sincerely and honestly? Do you believe that it is ethical and right for us to use reason and logic in our discourse? Do you believe that as TBMs we are held to a higher standard in how we communicate and treat others and the words that we use?

-Finrock

What I consider shady, maybe unethical, is the multiple people (Amonhies) posting under 1 ID, and sending people to the telestial kingdom.

In this internet world, we have no idea who is posting, until we see what they post about. Some time back there were many discussions about the Denver Snuffer scenario, in fact there was a sub-forum here all about it.

I was thrown out of that sub-forum for expressing different opinion. Yet the DSers would swoop out of the HG forum expressing their different opinion without any consequence.

So express what you like, hopefully good. That's another thing about the Amonhies, with their claims, you would think they could talk about something good.

After George made them mad, what did they post on? Brigham Young and blood atonement. A solid anti-mormon sentiment.

So Finrock, post away. If you get out of line, freedomforall or Mark will say something.

[Finrock]

What I consider shady, maybe unethical, is the multiple people (Amonhies) posting under 1 ID, and sending people to the telestial kingdom.

I haven't had time to respond to that post yet, and so you don't know this yet, but, to me it seems manipulative. I agree it is shady.

In this internet world, we have no idea who is posting, until we see what they post about.

We still don't know. It takes some time to get to know someone. We should focus on the content of their posts and remember who we are and what principles ought to drive our life and decisions. The internet does not negate our commitment to treating all with respect and utilizing the principles of good, fair, and empathetic discourse.

Some time back there were many discussions about the Denver Snuffer scenario, in fact there was a sub-forum here all about it.

I was thrown out of that sub-forum for expressing different opinion. Yet the DSers would swoop out of the HG forum expressing their different opinion without any consequence.

It happens all of the time. It's the phenomenon of sociocentrism. Sociocentrism "...revolve around a person's belief that someone's social or ethnic group is superior to others. Sociocentrism also means putting a group's needs and concerns ahead of someone's personal needs [or another groups needs and concerns]" (https://www.reference.com/world-view/so ... 030034c640" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). It is the cause or at the root of all the strife, contention, and warfare that you find in the Book of Ether. It is at the root of all sorts of bloodshed and violence through-out history.

Christ is against such things. We should recognize and apply everlasting principles of good, always and across the board, and in all situations, regardless of group affiliation. For in reality, we are all just one group, children of Heavenly Father.

You should have been treated fairly and with respect.

So express what you like, hopefully good. That's another thing about the Amonhies, with their claims, you would think they could talk about something good.

Since you are focusing on Amonhi here, I believe a lot of good has been spoken by Amonhi. If something is true, no matter how painful it might be or how poorly it may reflect on our group, it is good. Again, if it is true, it is good.

After George made them mad, what did they post on? Brigham Young and blood atonement. A solid anti-mormon sentiment.

Realistically, you are assuming and speculating that he was mad and that this is why he created that post. Judge others how you would want to be judge. One of the ABC's of marriage is also one of the ABC's of online communication: Believe the best of others.

So Finrock, post away. If you get out of line, freedomforall or Mark will say something.

Whatever...

-Finrock

[Suntumbler]

The answer is simple. Does it testify of Christ and bring further light and truth into your life? Confirm all things with the Holy Ghost, you can ask people on here but until you go to the Lord directly you won't find a solid confirmation. If you want to know something, ask Him. (in His spirit of peace and love, sot that he may connect with you). I follow the blog as well, one reason he prefers to stay anonymous is because he doesn't want followers to his name, he wants people to take the message directly to God; which is understandable. He's actually not a big Remnant follower, his experiences push against Denver Snuffer on several topics like DS's latest translation of St. John.

Joseph Smith often spoke about the fallibility of men, he himself repented often and publicly, asking for forgiveness when something was wrong. " Remember, remember that it is not the work of God that is frustrated, but the work of men;

4 For although a man may have many revelations, and have power to do many mighty works, yet if he boasts in his own strength, and sets at naught the counsels of God, and follows after the dictates of his own will and carnal desires, he must fall and incur the vengeance of a just God upon him."

So if a man encourages you to know God directly and not only that but to see Him, what is the red flag? How can that damn you from the Lord? Yes, you will be tested, the adversary will masquerade as God at times, but we must all walk through that fire to Christ if we are to know His Spirit from deceptive spirits. We must all walk our own path to the Lord if we are to become reliant upon His Spirit personally in all things that we do. The original hebrew meaning for Worship is something like "consistent relationship with God". A consistent connection to the Lord within your own heart, not through the medium of another. "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." John 17:3....

The modern LDS like to think of the words of men (lds presidents) as definitive as the Holy Ghost, which misses the mark. We must not rely upon the arm of flesh or your Salvation, The Lord wants us each to know Him directly, prophets simply share messages and gather people to pierce the veil themselves.



"The Two Comforters, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith,comp. Joseph Fielding Smith (SLC: Deseret Book Co., 1938), 149-151.

There are two Comforters spoken of. One is the Holy Ghost, the same as given on the day of Pentecost, and that all Saints receive after faith, repentance, and baptism. This first Comforter or Holy Ghost has no other effect than pure intelligence. It is more powerful in expanding the mind, enlightening the understanding, and storing the intellect with present knowledge, of a man who is of the literal seed of Abraham, than one that is a Gentile, though it may not have half as much visible effect upon the body; for as the Holy Ghost falls upon one of the literal seed of Abraham, it is calm and serene; and his whole soul and body are only exercised by the pure spirit of intelligence; while the effect of the Holy Ghost upon a Gentile, is to purge out the old blood, and make him actually of the seed of Abraham. That man that has none of the blood of Abraham (naturally) must have a new creation by the Holy Ghost. In such a case, there may be more of a powerful effect upon the body, and visible to the eye, than upon an Israelite, while the Israelite at first might be far before the Gentile in pure intelligence.

The Second Comforter

The other Comforter spoken of is a subject of great interest, and perhaps understood by few of this generation. After a person has faith in Christ, repents of his sins, and is baptized for the remission of his sins and receives the Holy Ghost, (by the laying on of hands), which is the first Comforter, then let him continue to humble himself before God, hungering and thirsting after righteousness, and living by every word of God, and the Lord will soon say unto him, Son, thou shalt be exalted.

When the Lord has thoroughly proved him, and finds that the man is determined to serve Him at all hazards, then the man will find his calling and his election made sure, then it will be his privilege to receive the other Comforter, which the Lord hath promised the Saints, as is recorded in the testimony of St. John, in the 14th chapter, from the 12th to the 27th verses.

Note the 16, 17, 18, 21, 23 verses-

Now what is this other Comforter? It is no more nor less than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself; and this is the sum and substance of the whole matter; that when any man obtains this last Comforter, he will have the personage of Jesus Christ to attend him, or appear unto him from time to time, and even He will manifest the Father unto him, and they will take up their abode with him, and the visions of the heavens will be opened unto him, and the Lord will teach him face to face, and he may have a perfect knowledge of the mysteries of the Kingdom of God; and this is the state and place the ancient Saints arrived at when they had such glorious visions--Isaiah, Ezekiel, John upon the Isle of Patmos, St. Paul in the three heavens, and all the Saints who held communion with the general assembly and Church of the Firstborn.

The Spirit of Revelation

The Spirit of Revelation is in connection with these blessings. A person may profit by noticing the first intimation of the spirit of revelation; for instance, when you feel pure intelligence flowing into you, it may give you sudden strokes of ideas, so that by noticing it, you may find it fulfilled the same day or soon; (i.e.,) those things that were presented unto your minds by the Spirit of God, will come to pass; and thus by learning the Spirit of God and understanding it, you may grow into the principle of revelation, until you become perfect in Christ Jesus.

[truthseekerDave]

I was very excited to read about his process of seeking the 2nd Comforter.

Then I began exploring his website and other books. More and more strange things appeared: not paying tithing and then losing a temple recommend (why not pay your tithing, keep a current temple recommend AND give gifts to the needy??); from his book on Temporal Dispensations, he claims Joseph Smith had thick red brown hair (it was more of a light brown flaxen color); that Jospeph never practiced polygamy; that Fanny Alger never was a wife of Joseph; that monogamy is the true standard; that Brigham changed and embellished the endowment, etc.

The deeper I dig, the more I am disturbed that I read the writings of a deceiver.

[BackBlast]

I do try to be a believing sort, and I gave this blog a try. I believe my participation here has shown that I'm generally supportive of people seeking the face of our Lord. The resulting experiences in my life has prompted me to offer a caution to others about this blog. Honestly this is difficult for me to post, but I believe it true and this is the best place to put it.

I felt strongly enough about my experience I wrote a more detailed critique here https://purerevelationscheck.wordpress.com/

Essentially this one appears to be using subtle means to set himself up among those who seek such things. My impression from my spiritual experiences is that he is spiritually dangerous. These are my thoughts.