Thoughts on the Pure Revelations Blog

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
User avatar
AI2.0
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3917

Re: Thoughts on the Pure Revelations Blog

Post by AI2.0 »

Tbmbro wrote:Hi friends, I've been following this bloghttps://purerevelations.wordpress.com for around a year or so, and I wanted to know your thoughts on it.

The author, who remains anonymous, has claimed to receive his Baptism of Fire and the Second Comforter. He posts occasionally and has written a book https://www.amazon.com/How-Have-Your-Se ... B01G7B1B12 detailing his experience and some techniques to help individuals get there as well.

For the most part I like the blog, he always tells people to confirm what he says with the Lord and mostly posts spiritually uplifting things and interesting ways to look at gospel ideas.

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.

I'm very hesitant about these kind of blogs because of the whole Denver Snuffer situation. I don't want to get roped in by a charlatan who claims they alone are in the right way, while the leaders of the Church are wrong. However, I do feel that reading the posts have been a positive influence on my spirituality. I feel that I read more, pray better, and really seek more to have a relationship with my father in heaven.

What are your thoughts. Is it a net good or a net bad? Cheers!
This is a blog by someone who is either a follower of Denver Snuffer or cut from the same spiritual cloth as him. I'd say RUN AWAY FAST if you don't want to find yourself lost and outside the Lord's only true church on the earth.

I think you will find that those who are outside the church, critics of the church and Denver Snuffer Devotees will love this blog(you are new so be warned that we have many Denver Snuffer devotees here--which they will deny-- and they will definitely like this blog and its sentiments. Heck, the author is likely a forum member....unless the author is you trying to get more readers ;) ).

Those, like me, who believe that the LDS church is guided by the Lord's prophet and his apostles and has the priesthood authority from God and the saving ordinances, will avoid this and other blogs like it, like the plague. A spiritual plague--and I am not kidding.

Finrock
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4426

Re: Thoughts on the Pure Revelations Blog

Post by Finrock »

rewcox wrote:
Thomas wrote:
Contemplator wrote:
LDS Physician wrote:
A much different situation:

1) he was a prophet
2) his actions didn't cause his access to the temple to be revoked by a prophet
Honest question. How did Lehi become a prophet? Was it because he saw God and received a prophetic call? He was not a Levite, thus did not have priesthood under the Law of Moses. At roughly the same time, Nahum, Huldah (the prophetess), Jeremiah and Zephaniah were also prophets (source: LDS Bible Dictionary, Chronological Tables). In addition, at about the same time as Lehi lived and served, Nephi was a prophet (or so says the song ;-) and we do not have a record of how he was called by a church to be the prophet. We do, however, know of his visions that cause us to think of him as a prophet.

Please understand that there is no agenda behind this question. I honestly am curious about your, or anybody else, thoughts on this. If Lehi is the prototype, how did Lehi (or anyone else) become a prophet? Does it require a calling in a church to be a prophet?
Jeremiah was called of God to preach repentance to the prophets as was Lehi.
•Jeremiah 23:26
26 How long shall this be in the heart of the prophets that prophesy lies? yea, they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart;
Even Amos was called to preach repentance to the prophets. Here is one of the LDS prophets favorite scriptures:
Amos 3: 7 Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets
Amos 7: 14 ¶Then answered Amos, and said to Amaziah, I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet’s son; but I was an herdman, and a gatherer of sycomore fruit:

15 And the Lord took me as I followed the flock, and the Lord said unto me, Go, prophesy unto my people Israel.
The pattern of the Lord does not vary. Just like John the Baptist was a wild man from the wilderness, So was Amos unknown to the leaders of the church in his day. The Lord will call who he will call. And it seems it is usually the church leaders that prophets are sent to warn.

The Book of Mormon gives evidence of Lehi's status in the church verses that of Laban. Laban possessed the plates, which were the scriptures that God told Nephi his people needed to preserve the correct way to follow God. Also, Laban was out drinking, with the elders of the Israel the night Nephi took his life and evidently socialized with the brethren of the church. Meanwhile, Lehi was hiding in the wilderness, Quite doubtful he had any status in the church, while Laban held high status in the church.
1 Nephi 4: 22 And he spake unto me concerning the elders of the Jews, he knowing that his master, Laban, had been out by night among them.

23 And I spake unto him as if it had been Laban.

24 And I also spake unto him that I should carry the engravings, which were upon the plates of brass, to my elder brethren, who were without the walls.

25 And I also bade him that he should follow me.

26 And he, supposing that I spake of the brethren of the church, and that I was truly that Laban whom I had slain, wherefore he did follow me.

27 And he spake unto me many times concerning the elders of the Jews, as I went forth unto my brethren, who were without the walls.
The evidence would suggest Laban was a leader in the church of high status
When Christ was the Sacrifice, church organization changed. The Church was now led by apostles, Peter/James/John, etc. Christ also set this up when He visited the Americas.

The Church was also setup with apostles leading the church in our dispensation with Joseph Smith.

So if you try to use pre-apostle as an example of a prophet showing up out of no where, you are incorrect. That is one reason that Denver Snuffer is not a true prophet, he is a false prophet or messenger if you like.
How does that matter to the point being made? Whether its apostles or high priests, there was a structure that was in place in those different dispensations where the official Church of God had recognized leaders and prophets, and yet other prophets were called and set apart by God outside of the organizational structure that was in place.

Saying that because Jesus set apart apostles does not then mean that prophets can no longer be called and set apart by God outside of the organizational structure of the Church. An apostle is an office in the LDS Church, but anciently an apostle just meant a person who was a witness of the living Christ and Christ had laid His hands on them (they had seen Christ face to face and knew that He lived). It is possible to be ordained to the office of an Apostle in the Church, yet not be an actual witness of the living Christ.

Oliver Cowdery taught the restored Church's early Apostles:
Cowdery wrote:Never cease striving until you have seen God face to face. Strengthen your faith; cast off you doubts, your sins, and all your unbelief; and nothing can prevent you from coming to God. Your ordination is not full and complete till God has laid His hand upon you. We require as much to qualify us as did those who have gone before us; God is the same. If the Savior in former days laid His hands upon His disciples, why not in latter days?
My point is to demonstrate an apostle as it was understood anciently is a person who has seen the face of God and has had God lay His hands on them and ordained them. In the end, it isn't the ordination of men that makes one an apostle or a prophet or anything else in the gospel. It is the ordination of God. He is the Master and you just have His servants acting in His name, but, never are they a replacement for God nor do the servants become the masters or do the servants somehow nullify and prevent God from performing His own works with His own hands.

Whether pre-apostle or post-apostle, it is the same. God has done His work as He sees fit to do it. It is the Spirit that matters most, not positions, titles, or the declarations of men, unless those declarations are done through the inspiration and power of the Holy Ghost and the Spirit's sealing power.

In any event, saying that because Jesus set apart apostles doesn't then demonstrate, by itself, that prophets cannot be called and set apart by God outside of the Church organization. Plus, you further seem to be conflating the role of a prophet and the role of one who is a leader in the Church. It is possible, not that I believe this, but I say this to make a point, it is possible to be the President of the Church and not be a prophet. It is possible to be ordained an Apostle in the Church and not be an apostle indeed (as in having seen the face of God and had God lay His hands upon you).

Let me close my post by stating that understanding that being set apart in the Church to an office through a physical ordinance alone is not complete or is it fulfilled until God/Spirit has sealed the ordinance, is an important distinction and is key to understanding the order of Heaven and is not in any way speaking evil or bad of our leaders. They are just facts and how thing really are. If we conflate these things or believe differently we will likely miss the mark. Without understanding this distinction clearly what you find is that people will have a tendency to put their faith and trust in men and in physical ordinations and then neglect the Spirit. Putting our trust and faith in men and in the physical ordinances is not good and cannot save people. That is why I'm motivated to point this distinction out and that is the reason why apostles and prophets anciently and today have pointed those same distinctions out and taught us to emphasize the Spirit and the true order of Heaven.

-Finrock
Last edited by Finrock on January 24th, 2017, 9:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
rewcox
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5873

Re: Thoughts on the Pure Revelations Blog

Post by rewcox »

With the new church organization based on apostles, Peter and the others went about spreading the gospel. The church did growth, but most people rejected Peter and the apostles, in effect rejecting Christ.

With the organization in the Americas, with Nephi and the other disciples, the wicked people had been destroyed, and they were able over a period of time to convert all people. Then they had Zion for about 200 years.

In our dispensation, with Joseph and the apostles, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has grown, but most people reject the gospel, in effect rejecting Christ.

Interestingly, some members of the Church reject the living Prophet and apostles and in effect also reject Christ. This is where we are today.

User avatar
rewcox
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5873

Re: Thoughts on the Pure Revelations Blog

Post by rewcox »

Finrock wrote:How does that matter to the point being made? Whether its apostles or high priests, there was a structure that was in place in those different dispensations where the official Church of God had recognized leaders and prophets, and yet other prophets were called and set apart by God outside of the organizational structure that was in place.

Saying that because Jesus set apart apostles does not then mean that prophets can no longer be called and set apart by God outside of the organizational structure of the Church. An apostle is an office in the LDS Church, but anciently an apostle just meant a person who was a witness of the living Christ (they had seen Christ and knew that He lived). It is possible to be ordained to the office of an Apostle in the Church, yet not be an actual witness of the living Christ.

-Finrock
You are incorrect, wrong, and preaching false doctrine Finrock. Christ does not compete against His Church and leaders. The leaders have the keys to operate the Church with the direction from Christ.

You are actively promoting false doctrine and will receive the consequences if you continue on.

User avatar
AI2.0
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3917

Re: Thoughts on the Pure Revelations Blog

Post by AI2.0 »

Sarah wrote:
detailing his experience and some techniques to help individuals get there as well.
Techniques? So what are these techniques exactly? What comes to mind are signs or tokens, signalling to the evil one that he may answer you, rather than the right spirit.
Good catch Sarah, this is a definite red flag, that even those unfamiliar with Denver Snuffer and his apostate movement should know to avoid.

User avatar
AI2.0
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3917

Re: Thoughts on the Pure Revelations Blog

Post by AI2.0 »

Thomas wrote:
LDS Physician wrote:I'd have to say that if a person's revelations lead them to be unable to enter the temple that the revelations are false.
What about the Jews who were baptized by John the Baptist and accepted Jesus Christ as the Messiah, Son of God? Were they not cast out of the synagogues and lost their temple privileges? Pretty good bargain, I would say. Let the Jews have their temple. I will take Christ.
Jesus Christ came at a time when the jewish church was in apoastasy, so being cast out of the their synagogues was not a real loss. But Thomas, we are members of the restored Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and we don't believe our church is apostate so Why would it ever be considered a good thing to lose our membership and temple privileges????

That's the whole problem with Denver Snuffer. He doesn't believe our church is Jesus Christ's true church. He believes we are false and he encourages people like you and others who listen to him and read his stuff to reject the LDS church, it's leaders and it's ordinances. So, if the church IS true, then you all are unfortunately rejecting Christ by following Snuffer out of his true church.

Finrock
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4426

Re: Thoughts on the Pure Revelations Blog

Post by Finrock »

rewcox wrote:
Finrock wrote:How does that matter to the point being made? Whether its apostles or high priests, there was a structure that was in place in those different dispensations where the official Church of God had recognized leaders and prophets, and yet other prophets were called and set apart by God outside of the organizational structure that was in place.

Saying that because Jesus set apart apostles does not then mean that prophets can no longer be called and set apart by God outside of the organizational structure of the Church. An apostle is an office in the LDS Church, but anciently an apostle just meant a person who was a witness of the living Christ (they had seen Christ and knew that He lived). It is possible to be ordained to the office of an Apostle in the Church, yet not be an actual witness of the living Christ.

-Finrock
You are incorrect, wrong, and preaching false doctrine Finrock. Christ does not compete against His Church and leaders. The leaders have the keys to operate the Church with the direction from Christ.

You are actively promoting false doctrine and will receive the consequences if you continue on.
Which part is incorrect, specifically, and why?

Actually, the President of the Church has delegated keys to operate the Church. Jesus Christ owns all of the keys. It is His Church. Of course Jesus Christ doesn't compete against His Church.

I am not actively promoting false doctrine.

-Finrock

User avatar
rewcox
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5873

Re: Thoughts on the Pure Revelations Blog

Post by rewcox »

Finrock wrote:
rewcox wrote:
Finrock wrote:How does that matter to the point being made? Whether its apostles or high priests, there was a structure that was in place in those different dispensations where the official Church of God had recognized leaders and prophets, and yet other prophets were called and set apart by God outside of the organizational structure that was in place.

Saying that because Jesus set apart apostles does not then mean that prophets can no longer be called and set apart by God outside of the organizational structure of the Church. An apostle is an office in the LDS Church, but anciently an apostle just meant a person who was a witness of the living Christ (they had seen Christ and knew that He lived). It is possible to be ordained to the office of an Apostle in the Church, yet not be an actual witness of the living Christ.

-Finrock
You are incorrect, wrong, and preaching false doctrine Finrock. Christ does not compete against His Church and leaders. The leaders have the keys to operate the Church with the direction from Christ.

You are actively promoting false doctrine and will receive the consequences if you continue on.
Which part is incorrect, specifically, and why?

Actually, the President of the Church has delegated keys to operate the Church. Jesus Christ owns all of the keys. It is His Church. Of course Jesus Christ doesn't compete against His Church.

I am not actively promoting false doctrine.

-Finrock
Name a prophet called outside the apostle organization?

Finrock
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4426

Re: Thoughts on the Pure Revelations Blog

Post by Finrock »

rewcox wrote:
Finrock wrote:
rewcox wrote:
Finrock wrote:How does that matter to the point being made? Whether its apostles or high priests, there was a structure that was in place in those different dispensations where the official Church of God had recognized leaders and prophets, and yet other prophets were called and set apart by God outside of the organizational structure that was in place.

Saying that because Jesus set apart apostles does not then mean that prophets can no longer be called and set apart by God outside of the organizational structure of the Church. An apostle is an office in the LDS Church, but anciently an apostle just meant a person who was a witness of the living Christ (they had seen Christ and knew that He lived). It is possible to be ordained to the office of an Apostle in the Church, yet not be an actual witness of the living Christ.

-Finrock
You are incorrect, wrong, and preaching false doctrine Finrock. Christ does not compete against His Church and leaders. The leaders have the keys to operate the Church with the direction from Christ.

You are actively promoting false doctrine and will receive the consequences if you continue on.
Which part is incorrect, specifically, and why?

Actually, the President of the Church has delegated keys to operate the Church. Jesus Christ owns all of the keys. It is His Church. Of course Jesus Christ doesn't compete against His Church.

I am not actively promoting false doctrine.

-Finrock
Name a prophet called outside the apostle organization?
Please tell me which part of my post specifically is in error and why?

Thank you!

-Finrock

Kitkat
captain of 100
Posts: 594

Re: Thoughts on the Pure Revelations Blog

Post by Kitkat »

rewcox wrote:
Finrock wrote:
rewcox wrote:
Finrock wrote:How does that matter to the point being made? Whether its apostles or high priests, there was a structure that was in place in those different dispensations where the official Church of God had recognized leaders and prophets, and yet other prophets were called and set apart by God outside of the organizational structure that was in place.

Saying that because Jesus set apart apostles does not then mean that prophets can no longer be called and set apart by God outside of the organizational structure of the Church. An apostle is an office in the LDS Church, but anciently an apostle just meant a person who was a witness of the living Christ (they had seen Christ and knew that He lived). It is possible to be ordained to the office of an Apostle in the Church, yet not be an actual witness of the living Christ.

-Finrock
You are incorrect, wrong, and preaching false doctrine Finrock. Christ does not compete against His Church and leaders. The leaders have the keys to operate the Church with the direction from Christ.

You are actively promoting false doctrine and will receive the consequences if you continue on.
Which part is incorrect, specifically, and why?

Actually, the President of the Church has delegated keys to operate the Church. Jesus Christ owns all of the keys. It is His Church. Of course Jesus Christ doesn't compete against His Church.

I am not actively promoting false doctrine.

-Finrock
Name a prophet called outside the apostle organization?
Amos...from Amos 3:7 read on verse 14. He was a herdsman and a gatherer of fruit.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/amos/7.14?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Kitkat
captain of 100
Posts: 594

Re: Thoughts on the Pure Revelations Blog

Post by Kitkat »

AI2.0 wrote:
Thomas wrote:
LDS Physician wrote:I'd have to say that if a person's revelations lead them to be unable to enter the temple that the revelations are false.
What about the Jews who were baptized by John the Baptist and accepted Jesus Christ as the Messiah, Son of God? Were they not cast out of the synagogues and lost their temple privileges? Pretty good bargain, I would say. Let the Jews have their temple. I will take Christ.
Jesus Christ came at a time when the jewish church was in apoastasy, so being cast out of the their synagogues was not a real loss. But Thomas, we are members of the restored Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and we don't believe our church is apostate so Why would it ever be considered a good thing to lose our membership and temple privileges????

That's the whole problem with Denver Snuffer. He doesn't believe our church is Jesus Christ's true church. He believes we are false and he encourages people like you and others who listen to him and read his stuff to reject the LDS church, it's leaders and it's ordinances. So, if the church IS true, then you all are unfortunately rejecting Christ by following Snuffer out of his true church.
So, is being in apostasy different from being under condemnation? President Benson said we are under condemnation.

User avatar
AI2.0
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3917

Re: Thoughts on the Pure Revelations Blog

Post by AI2.0 »

rewcox wrote:
Finrock wrote:
rewcox wrote:
Finrock wrote:How does that matter to the point being made? Whether its apostles or high priests, there was a structure that was in place in those different dispensations where the official Church of God had recognized leaders and prophets, and yet other prophets were called and set apart by God outside of the organizational structure that was in place.

Saying that because Jesus set apart apostles does not then mean that prophets can no longer be called and set apart by God outside of the organizational structure of the Church. An apostle is an office in the LDS Church, but anciently an apostle just meant a person who was a witness of the living Christ (they had seen Christ and knew that He lived). It is possible to be ordained to the office of an Apostle in the Church, yet not be an actual witness of the living Christ.

-Finrock
You are incorrect, wrong, and preaching false doctrine Finrock. Christ does not compete against His Church and leaders. The leaders have the keys to operate the Church with the direction from Christ.

You are actively promoting false doctrine and will receive the consequences if you continue on.
Which part is incorrect, specifically, and why?

Actually, the President of the Church has delegated keys to operate the Church. Jesus Christ owns all of the keys. It is His Church. Of course Jesus Christ doesn't compete against His Church.

I am not actively promoting false doctrine.

-Finrock
Name a prophet called outside the apostle organization?
If you are talking about times when the Lord's church was not organized or had fallen into apostasy, possibly, but when the Lord has set up his church, he works through his duly called apostles and prophet. The Lord will NOT call a competing prophet, he works through the order and organization which he has set up.

Denver Snuffer tried to present himself up as simply one of many 'prophets' which could exist within the church, because we believe in personal revelation. Where he went wrong was in challenging the Lord's established prophet by preaching things that were not in harmony and setting himself up as a competing voice. Unless the church was in error (which it was not), then Snuffer was a false prophet.

And THIS is what the Remnant group(the Snuffer followers) will not be honest about--they will not admit that they believe the LDS church is apostate and so god called Snuffer to be his prophet and start up a new church. That's the only way it can be, you can't have two 'only true and living churches on the earth'...one has to be false. You can't have people joining the Remnant group and still being LDS. They must choose and they will choose the one they believe is true. If a person considers themselves a Remnant member, then they've rejected the LDS faith and they follow the remnant prophet (even if they think they are not following 'any man'...they ARE actually following him because they are listening and heeding his teachings).

User avatar
AI2.0
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3917

Re: Thoughts on the Pure Revelations Blog

Post by AI2.0 »

Kitkat wrote:
AI2.0 wrote:
Thomas wrote:
LDS Physician wrote:I'd have to say that if a person's revelations lead them to be unable to enter the temple that the revelations are false.
What about the Jews who were baptized by John the Baptist and accepted Jesus Christ as the Messiah, Son of God? Were they not cast out of the synagogues and lost their temple privileges? Pretty good bargain, I would say. Let the Jews have their temple. I will take Christ.
Jesus Christ came at a time when the jewish church was in apoastasy, so being cast out of the their synagogues was not a real loss. But Thomas, we are members of the restored Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and we don't believe our church is apostate so Why would it ever be considered a good thing to lose our membership and temple privileges????

That's the whole problem with Denver Snuffer. He doesn't believe our church is Jesus Christ's true church. He believes we are false and he encourages people like you and others who listen to him and read his stuff to reject the LDS church, it's leaders and it's ordinances. So, if the church IS true, then you all are unfortunately rejecting Christ by following Snuffer out of his true church.
So, is being in apostasy different from being under condemnation? President Benson said we are under condemnation.
Good question, yes, absolutely it is different. The church was under condemnation in Joseph Smith's day too--the same thing that Pres. Benson was complaining about. He even was referring to it when he said this. We were under condemnation for taking the Book of Mormon lightly--both times. He was calling us to repentance and if you look at the statistics, the church did, collectively repent because we now use and know the Book of Mormon tons more than we did, when he said this. Condemnation is like Chastisement--the Lord says he loves those he chastens and we can expect that when we aren't doing all we can, we will be chastened, but that doesn't mean we are in apostasy.

Apostasy means that you have veered away/and or rejected the true doctrines and teachings. When that happens, it's pretty hard to get a church back on track. When Christ appeared to the Nephites, he told them that they needed to stop with the disputations, so there was some apostate teaching which had probably crept in, but he straightened them out. Also, Mormon's letter condemning infant baptism is an example that apostate teaching had crept into the Nephite church and considering how bad things were at that time, I'm sure it wasn't the only one that had. Apostate teachings can become mingled with true doctrines and so that is why we need to be ever vigilant of teaching from approved manuals, scriptures etc. and why we are asked to be obedient to our leaders' counsel and to the commandments given.

Apostasy also happens when you come to have no divinely called leaders--such as when the last of the Apostles died off in the old world and in the new. The church no longer has divine guidance and it will flounder, those without authority will step in to take over and it will become corrupted.

Denver Snuffer has challenged the LDS church, claiming that the keys were 'wrested' from our leaders when his excommunication was upheld. That means clearly that Snuffer is calling our church 'apostate' because he says our leaders no longer have the keys of authority to run it. I'm not sure he claims to have those keys now, but I'd say it's a good chance he and his followers believe he does.

User avatar
rewcox
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5873

Re: Thoughts on the Pure Revelations Blog

Post by rewcox »

Kitkat wrote:
rewcox wrote:
Finrock wrote:
rewcox wrote:
You are incorrect, wrong, and preaching false doctrine Finrock. Christ does not compete against His Church and leaders. The leaders have the keys to operate the Church with the direction from Christ.

You are actively promoting false doctrine and will receive the consequences if you continue on.
Which part is incorrect, specifically, and why?

Actually, the President of the Church has delegated keys to operate the Church. Jesus Christ owns all of the keys. It is His Church. Of course Jesus Christ doesn't compete against His Church.

I am not actively promoting false doctrine.

-Finrock
Name a prophet called outside the apostle organization?
Amos...from Amos 3:7 read on verse 14. He was a herdsman and a gatherer of fruit.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/amos/7.14?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Sorry KitKat, I'm talking about a prophet outside the apostle organization instituted by Christ after He was crucified, after the organization was setup in the Americas, and after the restoration with Joseph Smith.

User avatar
rewcox
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5873

Re: Thoughts on the Pure Revelations Blog

Post by rewcox »

Finrock wrote:
rewcox wrote:
Finrock wrote:
rewcox wrote:
You are incorrect, wrong, and preaching false doctrine Finrock. Christ does not compete against His Church and leaders. The leaders have the keys to operate the Church with the direction from Christ.

You are actively promoting false doctrine and will receive the consequences if you continue on.
Which part is incorrect, specifically, and why?

Actually, the President of the Church has delegated keys to operate the Church. Jesus Christ owns all of the keys. It is His Church. Of course Jesus Christ doesn't compete against His Church.

I am not actively promoting false doctrine.

-Finrock
Name a prophet called outside the apostle organization?
Please tell me which part of my post specifically is in error and why?

Thank you!

-Finrock
This is your error:
Saying that because Jesus set apart apostles does not then mean that prophets can no longer be called and set apart by God outside of the organizational structure of the Church. An apostle is an office in the LDS Church, but anciently an apostle just meant a person who was a witness of the living Christ (they had seen Christ and knew that He lived). It is possible to be ordained to the office of an Apostle in the Church, yet not be an actual witness of the living Christ.

Name a prophet outside the apostle organization.

Finrock
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4426

Re: Thoughts on the Pure Revelations Blog

Post by Finrock »

rewcox wrote:
Finrock wrote:
rewcox wrote:
Finrock wrote:
Which part is incorrect, specifically, and why?

Actually, the President of the Church has delegated keys to operate the Church. Jesus Christ owns all of the keys. It is His Church. Of course Jesus Christ doesn't compete against His Church.

I am not actively promoting false doctrine.

-Finrock
Name a prophet called outside the apostle organization?
Please tell me which part of my post specifically is in error and why?

Thank you!

-Finrock
This is your error:
Saying that because Jesus set apart apostles does not then mean that prophets can no longer be called and set apart by God outside of the organizational structure of the Church. An apostle is an office in the LDS Church, but anciently an apostle just meant a person who was a witness of the living Christ (they had seen Christ and knew that He lived). It is possible to be ordained to the office of an Apostle in the Church, yet not be an actual witness of the living Christ.

Name a prophet outside the apostle organization.
Which part? There are three claims being made in the paragraph. 1) Saying that because Jesus set apart apostles does not mean, by itself, that prophets can no longer be called and set apart by God outside of the organizational structure of the Church. 2) An apostles is an office in the LDS Church, but anciently an apostle just meant a person who was a witness of the living Christ and Christ had laid His hands on them (they had seen Christ and knew that He lived). 3) It is possible to be ordained to the office of an Apostle in the Church, yet not be an actual witness of the living Christ.

Point 1 was my refutation of your assertion and I demonstrated why your thinking is in error. Point 2 seems scripturally accurate and it is what the early restoration apostles believed too according to Oliver Cowdery. Point 3 I demonstrated through quoting Oliver Cowdery's charge to the twelve apostles. All three of these work together to demonstrate my overarching point which I will go over again below...

I demonstrated in my post that scripturally God's Church had been duly organized with priests and high priests. They did not have an office of an Apostle like we do today but there were offices that were functionally equivalent to that of an Apostle in today's Church. Furthermore, I propose that based on what the word apostle means in the New Testament, if an individual at any time had seen the living Christ and He laid His hands on them, they were apostles in that sense. For instance, the brother of Jared most assuredly was an apostle even though Christ had not yet been born in the flesh. Therefore, it doesn't hold water for you to claim a special exception by stating that the instances of prophets being called outside of the duly organized Church in the scriptures do not count because they happened pre-Apostles being instituted. I disagreed and showed why your claim was in error. The real question is were there instances where God's official Church was duly organized, with duly called and recognized leaders of the Church, and yet a prophet was called outside of that official structure? Scripturally speaking this has happened several times both in the Bible and in the Book of Mormon. My post did the function of demonstrating that the question of whether this has happened after the establishment of the office of Apostles is really irrelevant.

Just as it is quite often the case, a part of the issue here is the conflating of the word "prophet" and the use of two different definitions of the word. I have tried to make clear in other instances and I do so now that when I speak of a prophet, I am speaking of the purely scriptural definition of a prophet. It is important that this is understood to avoid misinterpreting my words or misunderstanding my point. I understand how the word "prophet" is quite often used and understood in common Mormon parlance, but, that common usage of the word "prophet" is not completely scripturally accurate. Using the scriptural definition of the word prophet, a prophet is anyone who has a testimony of Jesus by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Further, we know from scripture that in the last days, God will pour out His Spirit upon all mankind (not just Mormons) and there will be many who see visions and who shall prophesy without being called or ordained through the established leaders of the Church:
Joel 2 wrote:28 ¶And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:

29 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.
Have you, rewcox, received a testimony of Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Ghost? Do you know that He lives and can you testify of His reality through the power of the Spirit? Are there other individuals on this planet who have received this same witness of Jesus Christ and can testify through the power of the Holy Ghost of His reality and that He lives? I believe this is a certainty. Are these people who know through the power of the Holy Ghost that Jesus Christ lives, are they only Mormons? I don't believe that to be true. I'm certain that millions of non-Mormons know, through the power of the Holy Ghost, that Jesus Christ lives and can testify of His reality with power through the Spirit. Whoever these individuals are, they are prophets who have been called and ordained by God to be prophets of Jesus Christ. For a testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. Anyone who speaks by the power of the Holy Ghost is a prophet. I am wrong if it is true that only Mormon leaders are able to speak by the power of the Holy Ghost. Otherwise, I am right.

Final thought to add some perspective: God's Church is greater and more encompassing than the Mormon paradigm. He doesn't compete against His Church, true, and what I am saying doesn't equate to that nor does it mean that. This only appears to be the case if you are limiting God and the scope of His Church. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a part of Zion, but it is not Zion.

-Finrock
Last edited by Finrock on January 24th, 2017, 1:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
rewcox
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5873

Re: Thoughts on the Pure Revelations Blog

Post by rewcox »

Finrock wrote:
rewcox wrote:
Finrock wrote:
rewcox wrote:
Name a prophet called outside the apostle organization?
Please tell me which part of my post specifically is in error and why?

Thank you!

-Finrock
This is your error:
Saying that because Jesus set apart apostles does not then mean that prophets can no longer be called and set apart by God outside of the organizational structure of the Church. An apostle is an office in the LDS Church, but anciently an apostle just meant a person who was a witness of the living Christ (they had seen Christ and knew that He lived). It is possible to be ordained to the office of an Apostle in the Church, yet not be an actual witness of the living Christ.

Name a prophet outside the apostle organization.
Which part? There are three claims being made in the paragraph. 1) Saying that because Jesus set apart apostles does not mean, by itself, that prophets can no longer be called and set apart by God outside of the organizational structure of the Church. 2) An apostles is an office in the LDS Church, but anciently an apostle just meant a person who was a witness of the living Christ and Christ had laid His hands on them (they had seen Christ and knew that He lived). 3) It is possible to be ordained to the office of an Apostle in the Church, yet not be an actual witness of the living Christ.

Point 1 was my refutation of your assertion and I demonstrated why your thinking is in error. Point 2 seems scripturally accurate and it is what the early restoration apostles believed too according to Oliver Cowdery. Point 3 I demonstrated through quoting Oliver Cowdery's charge to the twelve apostles. All three of these work together to demonstrate my overarching point which I will go over again below...

I demonstrated in my post that scripturally God's Church had been duly organized with priests and high priests. They did not have an office of an Apostle like we do today but there were offices that were functionally equivalent to that of an Apostle in today's Church. Furthermore, I propose that based on what the word apostle means in the New Testament, if an individual at any time had seen the living Christ and He laid His hands on them, they were apostles in that sense. For instance, the brother of Jared most assuredly was an apostle even though Christ had not yet been born in the flesh. Therefore, it doesn't hold water for you to claim a special exception by stating that the instances of prophets being called outside of the duly organized Church in the scriptures do not count because they happened pre-Apostles being instituted. I disagreed and showed why your claim was in error. The real question is were there instances where God's official Church was duly organized, with duly called and recognized leaders of the Church, and yet a prophet was called outside of that official structure? Scripturally speaking this has happened several times both in the Bible and in the Book of Mormon. My post did the function of demonstrating that the question of whether this has happened after the establishment of the office of Apostles is really irrelevant.

Just as it is quite often the case, a part of the issue here is the conflating of the word "prophet" and the use of two different definitions of the word. I have tried to make clear in other instances and I do so now that when I speak of a prophet, I am speaking of the purely scriptural definition of a prophet. It is important that this is understood to avoid misinterpreting my words or misunderstanding my point. I understand how the word "prophet" is quite often used and understood in common Mormon parlance, but, that common usage of the word "prophet" is not completely scripturally accurate. Using the scriptural definition of the word prophet, a prophet is anyone who has a testimony of Jesus by the power of the Holy Ghost. In the last days, God will pour out His Spirit upon all mankind (not just Mormons) and there will be many who see visions and who shall prophesy without being called or ordained through the established leaders of the Church:
Joel 2 wrote:28 ¶And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:

29 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.
Have you, rewcox, received a testimony of Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Ghost? Do you know that He lives and can you testify of His reality through the power of the Spirit? Are there other individuals on this planet who have received this same witness of Jesus Christ and can testify through the power of the Holy Ghost of His reality and that He lives? I believe this is a certainty. Are these people who know through the power of the Holy Ghost that Jesus Christ lives, are they only Mormons? I don't believe that to be true. I'm certain that millions of non-Mormons know, through the power of the Holy Ghost, that Jesus Christ lives and can testify of His reality with power through the Spirit. Whoever these individuals are, they are prophets who have been called and ordained by God to be prophets of Jesus Christ. For a testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. Anyone who speaks by the power of the Holy Ghost is a prophet. I am wrong if it is true that only Mormon leaders are able to speak by the power of the Holy Ghost. Otherwise, I am right.

Final thought to add some perspective: God's Church is greater and more encompassing than the Mormon paradigm. He doesn't compete against His Church, true, and what I am saying doesn't equate to that nor does it mean that. This only appears to be the case if you are limiting God and the scope of His Church. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a part of Zion, but it is not Zion.

-Finrock
Simple question Finrock, name a prophet called outside the apostle organization?

You are playing like the Amonhies, you can call yourself whatever you like, just answer a simple question. Wouldn't that be a nice thing to do?

Finrock
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4426

Re: Thoughts on the Pure Revelations Blog

Post by Finrock »

rewcox wrote:
Finrock wrote:
rewcox wrote:
Finrock wrote:
Please tell me which part of my post specifically is in error and why?

Thank you!

-Finrock
This is your error:
Saying that because Jesus set apart apostles does not then mean that prophets can no longer be called and set apart by God outside of the organizational structure of the Church. An apostle is an office in the LDS Church, but anciently an apostle just meant a person who was a witness of the living Christ (they had seen Christ and knew that He lived). It is possible to be ordained to the office of an Apostle in the Church, yet not be an actual witness of the living Christ.

Name a prophet outside the apostle organization.
Which part? There are three claims being made in the paragraph. 1) Saying that because Jesus set apart apostles does not mean, by itself, that prophets can no longer be called and set apart by God outside of the organizational structure of the Church. 2) An apostles is an office in the LDS Church, but anciently an apostle just meant a person who was a witness of the living Christ and Christ had laid His hands on them (they had seen Christ and knew that He lived). 3) It is possible to be ordained to the office of an Apostle in the Church, yet not be an actual witness of the living Christ.

Point 1 was my refutation of your assertion and I demonstrated why your thinking is in error. Point 2 seems scripturally accurate and it is what the early restoration apostles believed too according to Oliver Cowdery. Point 3 I demonstrated through quoting Oliver Cowdery's charge to the twelve apostles. All three of these work together to demonstrate my overarching point which I will go over again below...

I demonstrated in my post that scripturally God's Church had been duly organized with priests and high priests. They did not have an office of an Apostle like we do today but there were offices that were functionally equivalent to that of an Apostle in today's Church. Furthermore, I propose that based on what the word apostle means in the New Testament, if an individual at any time had seen the living Christ and He laid His hands on them, they were apostles in that sense. For instance, the brother of Jared most assuredly was an apostle even though Christ had not yet been born in the flesh. Therefore, it doesn't hold water for you to claim a special exception by stating that the instances of prophets being called outside of the duly organized Church in the scriptures do not count because they happened pre-Apostles being instituted. I disagreed and showed why your claim was in error. The real question is were there instances where God's official Church was duly organized, with duly called and recognized leaders of the Church, and yet a prophet was called outside of that official structure? Scripturally speaking this has happened several times both in the Bible and in the Book of Mormon. My post did the function of demonstrating that the question of whether this has happened after the establishment of the office of Apostles is really irrelevant.

Just as it is quite often the case, a part of the issue here is the conflating of the word "prophet" and the use of two different definitions of the word. I have tried to make clear in other instances and I do so now that when I speak of a prophet, I am speaking of the purely scriptural definition of a prophet. It is important that this is understood to avoid misinterpreting my words or misunderstanding my point. I understand how the word "prophet" is quite often used and understood in common Mormon parlance, but, that common usage of the word "prophet" is not completely scripturally accurate. Using the scriptural definition of the word prophet, a prophet is anyone who has a testimony of Jesus by the power of the Holy Ghost. In the last days, God will pour out His Spirit upon all mankind (not just Mormons) and there will be many who see visions and who shall prophesy without being called or ordained through the established leaders of the Church:
Joel 2 wrote:28 ¶And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:

29 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.
Have you, rewcox, received a testimony of Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Ghost? Do you know that He lives and can you testify of His reality through the power of the Spirit? Are there other individuals on this planet who have received this same witness of Jesus Christ and can testify through the power of the Holy Ghost of His reality and that He lives? I believe this is a certainty. Are these people who know through the power of the Holy Ghost that Jesus Christ lives, are they only Mormons? I don't believe that to be true. I'm certain that millions of non-Mormons know, through the power of the Holy Ghost, that Jesus Christ lives and can testify of His reality with power through the Spirit. Whoever these individuals are, they are prophets who have been called and ordained by God to be prophets of Jesus Christ. For a testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. Anyone who speaks by the power of the Holy Ghost is a prophet. I am wrong if it is true that only Mormon leaders are able to speak by the power of the Holy Ghost. Otherwise, I am right.

Final thought to add some perspective: God's Church is greater and more encompassing than the Mormon paradigm. He doesn't compete against His Church, true, and what I am saying doesn't equate to that nor does it mean that. This only appears to be the case if you are limiting God and the scope of His Church. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a part of Zion, but it is not Zion.

-Finrock
Simple question Finrock, name a prophet called outside the apostle organization?

You are playing like the Amonhies, you can call yourself whatever you like, just answer a simple question. Wouldn't that be a nice thing to do?
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

User avatar
rewcox
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5873

Re: Thoughts on the Pure Revelations Blog

Post by rewcox »

Finrock wrote: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.

Finrock
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4426

Re: Thoughts on the Pure Revelations Blog

Post by Finrock »

rewcox wrote:
Finrock wrote: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

User avatar
rewcox
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5873

Re: Thoughts on the Pure Revelations Blog

Post by rewcox »

Finrock wrote:
rewcox wrote:
Finrock wrote: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
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4426

Re: Thoughts on the Pure Revelations Blog

Post by Finrock »

rewcox wrote:
Finrock wrote:
rewcox wrote:
Finrock wrote: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
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4426

Re: Thoughts on the Pure Revelations Blog

Post by Finrock »

rewcox wrote: 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

User avatar
rewcox
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5873

Re: Thoughts on the Pure Revelations Blog

Post by rewcox »

Finrock wrote:
rewcox wrote: 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
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4426

Re: Thoughts on the Pure Revelations Blog

Post by Finrock »

rewcox wrote:
Finrock wrote:
rewcox wrote: 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

Post Reply