Why the George Albert Smith 'prophecy' will not be fulfilled:

[markharr]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rt.com ... ent=safari

US Special Forces deployed in Lithuania.



https://www.google.com/amp/www.cbsnews. ... ent=safari" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Iskander and S-400 in Kaliningrad.

So maybe we WILL get a war before the inauguration.

I doubt it, but you sound pretty excited about the prospect.

[larsenb]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rt.com ... ent=safari

US Special Forces deployed in Lithuania.



https://www.google.com/amp/www.cbsnews. ... ent=safari" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Iskander and S-400 in Kaliningrad.

So maybe we WILL get a war before the inauguration.

I doubt it, but you sound pretty excited about the prospect.

Hardly. Do you always have a tough time with irony or sardonic comments??

[Silver]

So it looks like most people agree that if this doesn't happen by Martin Luther King Jr. day the prophesy is disproved. Martin Luther King Jr. Day is 12 days from now.

Say what you want but it's already over for this prophecy.

I don't see the government being able to confiscate 300 million guns and withdraw all of our missiles from Europe in 12 days. Especially with Russia moving more missiles to the border as they are doing right now.

I could reasonably make the argument that this prophesy was disproven on Christmas day 1991 which is the day that google says the Soviet Union fell. The prophesy specifically mentions the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union has not existed for 25 years.

Man I'm wracking my brain as to where, but in the past 2 weeks I heard/read something about the Soviet Union never really collapsed but that it was a set up, and they willingly 'went underground' to bide their time. I'll keep looking.

https://www.amazon.com/New-Lies-Old-Ana ... y+golitsyn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One reviewer wrote:
Throughout Major Anatoliy Golitsyn's 1995 book The Perestroika Deception, the author decries the West's blind acceptance of the political and economic changes that occurred within the Soviet Bloc, culminating in the collapse of the East Bloc and later the collapse of the USSR. In a typical passage denoting exasperation that can be found throughout the book, Major Golitsyn writes:

"Western acceptance of the changes in the USSR and Eastern Europe [under the `Long-Range Policy', a more subtle strategy to neutralize the West, as signed onto by all Communist nations in 1960] as a trend towards genuine democracy which serves Western interests and therefore merits Western support show how little the West comprehends the essence of the changes and the dangers they entail. In part this non-comprehension arises from confusion over terminology. What the West calls `democratisation', Soviet strategists call the transformation of the `dictatorship of the proletariat' into the `state of the whole people'."

Knowledgeable of limited Soviet strategic planning and operations (intelligence agencies don't tell their intelligence officers everything), KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitisyn presents us with only half of the story, the complete story now clearly apparent thanks to the following observations by this researcher...

The so called `War on Terror' is an operation being carried out by the Marxist co-opted governments of the West in alliance with the USSR and other Communist nations, the purpose being to (1) destroy the prominence of the West in the eyes of the world, where the West is seen (i) invading nations without cause; (ii) causing chaos around the globe; and (iii) killing over one-million civilians and boasting of torture; (2) close off non-Russian supplies of oil for export, thereby increasing the price of oil, the higher price allowing oil exporting Russia to maintain economic stability while she modernizes and increases her military forces; (3) destroy the United States Armed Forces via the never-ending `War on Terror'; the ultimate purpose of the aforementioned to (4) bring about the demise of the United States in the world, opening up a political void to be filled by a new pan-national entity composed of Europe and Russia (replacing the European Union), a union `From the Atlantic to Vladivostok'; which will (5) see the end of NATO.

Now you know how Bolshevik Russia survived in 1917; how the West `lost' China to the Communists in 1949; why the Eisenhower administration turned a deaf ear to the anti-Communist Hungarian uprising in 1956; why the Eisenhower administration in 1959 was indifferent to the Castro brothers' Communist fidelity, actually used the CIA to overthrow the Batista government; why the Nixon administration abandoned Taiwan for Communist China, and signed treaties/provided economic aid to the USSR; why the Nixon administration refused to tell the American People that over 50% of North Vietnamese NVA regiments were actually Chinese People's Liberation Army soldiers (attired in NVA uniforms, and proving that the Sino/Soviet Split was a ruse, as KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn told the West back in 1962), thereby (1) ensuring the Vietnam War would be lost; (2) destroying the prominence of the United States abroad and at home; (3) breeding distrust between the American people and their government; and (4) securing Communist victories in Southeast Asia. Working in the background within the political parties of the United States and Great Britain were Marxist agents doing their best to (1) ensure the survival of Communist nations when they popped up; and (2) sabotage any policies that would bring down a Communist nation. That's why after the fake collapses of the East Bloc nations and USSR there was no mandatory Western verification process to ensure the Communists weren't still in control.

Now you also know why not one political party in the West requested verification of the collapse of the USSR, and the media failed to alert your attention to this fact, including the `alternative' media. When determining whether the `former' USSR is complying with arms control treaties, what does the United States do to confirm compliance? Right, the United States sends into the `former' USSR investigative teams to VERIFY compliance, yet when it's the fate of the West that's at stake should the collapse of the USSR be a ruse, what does the United States do to confirm the collapse? Nothing!

The fraudulent `collapse' of the USSR (and East Bloc) couldn't have been pulled off until both political parties in the United States (and political parties elsewhere in the West) were co-opted by Marxists, which explains why verification of the `collapse' was never undertaken by the West, such verification being (1) a natural administrative procedure (since the USSR wasn't occupied by Western military forces); and (2) necessary for the survival of the West. Recall President Reagan's favorite phrase, "Trust, but verify".

It gets worse--the `freed' Soviets and West also never (1) de-Communized the Soviet Armed Forces of its Communist Party officer corps, which was 90% officered by Communist Party members; and (2) arrested/de-mobilized the 6-million vigilantes that assisted the Soviet Union's Ministry of the Interior and police control the populations of the larger cities during the period of `Perestroika' (1986-1991)!

There can be no collapse of the USSR (or East Bloc nations) without...

Verification, De-Communization and De-mobilization.

The West never verified the collapse of the USSR because no collapse occurred, since if a real collapse had occurred the West would have verified it, since the survival of the West depends on verification. Conversely, this proves that the political parties of the West were co-opted by Marxists long before the fraudulent collapse of the USSR, since the survival of the West depends on verification.

The following is a discovery I made in April 2015 regarding the fake collapse of the USSR, and what that fraudulent collapse proves about the institutions of the West...

When Soviet citizens were liberated from up to 74 years of horrific Marxist oppression on December 26, 1991 there were ZERO celebrations throughout the USSR, proving (1) the `collapse' of the USSR is a strategic ruse; and (2) the political parties of the West were already co-opted by Marxists, otherwise the USSR (and East Bloc nations) couldn't have gotten away with the ruse. Notice, however, the Kremlin staged anti-government demonstrations that took place in Russia (and other Soviet republics) in the years immediately preceding the 'collapse', yet ZERO celebrations after the 'collapse'!

Very interesting, and probably very much in line with Joel Skousen's views.

But, who by the way, is the reviewer, and is the reviewer the same as the 'researcher' mentioned in: "the complete story now clearly apparent thanks to the following observations by this researcher..."

And do you know if the researcher has written his/her own book covering this issue?

Sorry, Larsen, I wish I knew more. The info provided was merely a random selection of one of the longer reviews for the book on Amazon. I included it as a quick synopsis for those who didn't already know Golitsyn. I learned of him some years back in another publication which old age has taken from my memory.

[mirkwood]

Did it ever occur to you that you could learn who this person is??

Did it ever occur to you that I may have studied this topic extensively?

[mirkwood]

Man I'm wracking my brain as to where, but in the past 2 weeks I heard/read something about the Soviet Union never really collapsed but that it was a set up, and they willingly 'went underground' to bide their time. I'll keep looking.

Joel Skousen has said this for years. There are a lot of high ranking KGB officials who ended up in positions of power/leadership in the "satellite" countries that were once part of the Soviet Union. I can buy into the possibility that the Soviet Union still exists behind the scenes.

[kittycat51]

So it looks like most people agree that if this doesn't happen by Martin Luther King Jr. day the prophesy is disproved. Martin Luther King Jr. Day is 12 days from now.

Say what you want but it's already over for this prophecy.

I don't see the government being able to confiscate 300 million guns and withdraw all of our missiles from Europe in 12 days. Especially with Russia moving more missiles to the border as they are doing right now.

I could reasonably make the argument that this prophesy was disproven on Christmas day 1991 which is the day that google says the Soviet Union fell. The prophesy specifically mentions the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union has not existed for 25 years.

Man I'm wracking my brain as to where, but in the past 2 weeks I heard/read something about the Soviet Union never really collapsed but that it was a set up, and they willingly 'went underground' to bide their time. I'll keep looking.

https://www.amazon.com/New-Lies-Old-Ana ... y+golitsyn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One reviewer wrote:
Throughout Major Anatoliy Golitsyn's 1995 book The Perestroika Deception, the author decries the West's blind acceptance of the political and economic changes that occurred within the Soviet Bloc, culminating in the collapse of the East Bloc and later the collapse of the USSR. In a typical passage denoting exasperation that can be found throughout the book, Major Golitsyn writes:

"Western acceptance of the changes in the USSR and Eastern Europe [under the `Long-Range Policy', a more subtle strategy to neutralize the West, as signed onto by all Communist nations in 1960] as a trend towards genuine democracy which serves Western interests and therefore merits Western support show how little the West comprehends the essence of the changes and the dangers they entail. In part this non-comprehension arises from confusion over terminology. What the West calls `democratisation', Soviet strategists call the transformation of the `dictatorship of the proletariat' into the `state of the whole people'."

Knowledgeable of limited Soviet strategic planning and operations (intelligence agencies don't tell their intelligence officers everything), KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitisyn presents us with only half of the story, the complete story now clearly apparent thanks to the following observations by this researcher...

The so called `War on Terror' is an operation being carried out by the Marxist co-opted governments of the West in alliance with the USSR and other Communist nations, the purpose being to (1) destroy the prominence of the West in the eyes of the world, where the West is seen (i) invading nations without cause; (ii) causing chaos around the globe; and (iii) killing over one-million civilians and boasting of torture; (2) close off non-Russian supplies of oil for export, thereby increasing the price of oil, the higher price allowing oil exporting Russia to maintain economic stability while she modernizes and increases her military forces; (3) destroy the United States Armed Forces via the never-ending `War on Terror'; the ultimate purpose of the aforementioned to (4) bring about the demise of the United States in the world, opening up a political void to be filled by a new pan-national entity composed of Europe and Russia (replacing the European Union), a union `From the Atlantic to Vladivostok'; which will (5) see the end of NATO.

Now you know how Bolshevik Russia survived in 1917; how the West `lost' China to the Communists in 1949; why the Eisenhower administration turned a deaf ear to the anti-Communist Hungarian uprising in 1956; why the Eisenhower administration in 1959 was indifferent to the Castro brothers' Communist fidelity, actually used the CIA to overthrow the Batista government; why the Nixon administration abandoned Taiwan for Communist China, and signed treaties/provided economic aid to the USSR; why the Nixon administration refused to tell the American People that over 50% of North Vietnamese NVA regiments were actually Chinese People's Liberation Army soldiers (attired in NVA uniforms, and proving that the Sino/Soviet Split was a ruse, as KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn told the West back in 1962), thereby (1) ensuring the Vietnam War would be lost; (2) destroying the prominence of the United States abroad and at home; (3) breeding distrust between the American people and their government; and (4) securing Communist victories in Southeast Asia. Working in the background within the political parties of the United States and Great Britain were Marxist agents doing their best to (1) ensure the survival of Communist nations when they popped up; and (2) sabotage any policies that would bring down a Communist nation. That's why after the fake collapses of the East Bloc nations and USSR there was no mandatory Western verification process to ensure the Communists weren't still in control.

Now you also know why not one political party in the West requested verification of the collapse of the USSR, and the media failed to alert your attention to this fact, including the `alternative' media. When determining whether the `former' USSR is complying with arms control treaties, what does the United States do to confirm compliance? Right, the United States sends into the `former' USSR investigative teams to VERIFY compliance, yet when it's the fate of the West that's at stake should the collapse of the USSR be a ruse, what does the United States do to confirm the collapse? Nothing!

The fraudulent `collapse' of the USSR (and East Bloc) couldn't have been pulled off until both political parties in the United States (and political parties elsewhere in the West) were co-opted by Marxists, which explains why verification of the `collapse' was never undertaken by the West, such verification being (1) a natural administrative procedure (since the USSR wasn't occupied by Western military forces); and (2) necessary for the survival of the West. Recall President Reagan's favorite phrase, "Trust, but verify".

It gets worse--the `freed' Soviets and West also never (1) de-Communized the Soviet Armed Forces of its Communist Party officer corps, which was 90% officered by Communist Party members; and (2) arrested/de-mobilized the 6-million vigilantes that assisted the Soviet Union's Ministry of the Interior and police control the populations of the larger cities during the period of `Perestroika' (1986-1991)!

There can be no collapse of the USSR (or East Bloc nations) without...

Verification, De-Communization and De-mobilization.

The West never verified the collapse of the USSR because no collapse occurred, since if a real collapse had occurred the West would have verified it, since the survival of the West depends on verification. Conversely, this proves that the political parties of the West were co-opted by Marxists long before the fraudulent collapse of the USSR, since the survival of the West depends on verification.

The following is a discovery I made in April 2015 regarding the fake collapse of the USSR, and what that fraudulent collapse proves about the institutions of the West...

When Soviet citizens were liberated from up to 74 years of horrific Marxist oppression on December 26, 1991 there were ZERO celebrations throughout the USSR, proving (1) the `collapse' of the USSR is a strategic ruse; and (2) the political parties of the West were already co-opted by Marxists, otherwise the USSR (and East Bloc nations) couldn't have gotten away with the ruse. Notice, however, the Kremlin staged anti-government demonstrations that took place in Russia (and other Soviet republics) in the years immediately preceding the 'collapse', yet ZERO celebrations after the 'collapse'!

Very interesting, and probably very much in line with Joel Skousen's views.

But, who by the way, is the reviewer, and is the reviewer the same as the 'researcher' mentioned in: "the complete story now clearly apparent thanks to the following observations by this researcher..."

And do you know if the researcher has written his/her own book covering this issue?

That's it! You joggled my brain. Thank you Silver and Larsenb. It was from that Joel Skousen's presentation in Highland Video. Although I question many of his views, I think there is merit to this one.

[larsenb]

Did it ever occur to you that you could learn who this person is??

Did it ever occur to you that I may have studied this topic extensively?

My, such catty sensitivity. How should I know what you've studied extensively, or what you know about this topic?

My question to you was serious. There at least was, a very easy way for you to learn who this person was who told this story. But then you would be up against the difficulty of believing what you learned.

[mirkwood]

My, such catty sensitivity. How should I know what you've studied extensively, or what you know about this topic?

I simply answered your snotty sarcasm in kind.

[Ungläubige]

I think Pres. Smith had the visionary experience. This was reinforced for me when I heard a well-known individual say to me in my own house that the experience Smith had, and I believe it was in a conference in Oregon as I recall (could be wrong), was heard by Hugh Nibley's mother who was there, and who later told it to, I believe, was a relative of the aforementioned well-known individual

Let me get this straight so that I can credibly pass it along to my friends - you heard it from someone, who heard it from their relative,who heard it from Hugh Nibley's mother, her heard it from...

[Silver]

I think Pres. Smith had the visionary experience. This was reinforced for me when I heard a well-known individual say to me in my own house that the experience Smith had, and I believe it was in a conference in Oregon as I recall (could be wrong), was heard by Hugh Nibley's mother who was there, and who later told it to, I believe, was a relative of the aforementioned well-known individual

Let me get this straight so that I can credibly pass it along to my friends - you heard it from someone, who heard it from their relative,who heard it from Hugh Nibley's mother, her heard it from...

Thou shalt not mock the name of Hugh NIbley's mother's acquaintance's relative.

[Silver]

Does anyone here have an account over on AVOW? Are their collective heads exploding over this same discussion?

[Robin Hood]

Joel Skousen has said this for years. There are a lot of high ranking KGB officials who ended up in positions of power/leadership in the "satellite" countries that were once part of the Soviet Union. I can buy into the possibility that the Soviet Union still exists behind the scenes.

Joel Skousen knows nothing.
He peddles fear in order to make a living.
I have zero respect for the man and the only reason anyone listens to anything he says is because he has the same surname as his great uncle.

[larsenb]

My, such catty sensitivity. How should I know what you've studied extensively, or what you know about this topic?

I simply answered your snotty sarcasm in kind.

That's where you misread me. It was a genuine question and even invitation . . . with emphasis on 'was'.

You're projecting, Mirkwood.

[larsenb]

I think Pres. Smith had the visionary experience. This was reinforced for me when I heard a well-known individual say to me in my own house that the experience Smith had, and I believe it was in a conference in Oregon as I recall (could be wrong), was heard by Hugh Nibley's mother who was there, and who later told it to, I believe, was a relative of the aforementioned well-known individual

Let me get this straight so that I can credibly pass it along to my friends - you heard it from someone, who heard it from their relative,who heard it from Hugh Nibley's mother, her heard it from...

Why would you want to pass on such hearsay to your friends?? ;)

I simply floated this to suggest that there was another avenue of the GAS story inquiry outside of Horne. Hearing this had the effect of increasing my sense that the GAS story, in its rudiments at least (atomic attack by Russians and people dying like flies), had merit . . . and because of who told me this. And when I say 'merit', I mean that GAS really had a visionary experience during the conference.

That is all. Good grief, let it go. So much touchy feeling about this whole subject, and sarcastic, blustery positioning.

All the rest of the GAS story is hearsay, as well. Was anyone else present when GAS told the story to Horne? Would you repeat his story?

[larsenb]

Joel Skousen has said this for years. There are a lot of high ranking KGB officials who ended up in positions of power/leadership in the "satellite" countries that were once part of the Soviet Union. I can buy into the possibility that the Soviet Union still exists behind the scenes.

Joel Skousen knows nothing.
He peddles fear in order to make a living.
I have zero respect for the man and the only reason anyone listens to anything he says is because he has the same surname as his great uncle.

The one thing that always amazes me about some people on this forum is their tendency to lapse into black-and-white judgementality. Is it an LDS characteristic alone, or more wide spread among the general population than I might have guessed?

Probably just another human characteristic and weakness, maybe amplified in groups with a lot of rules. It does simplify (i.e., short circuit) thinking and judgement, and therefore can be a great temptation to employ it.

[Silver]

I think Pres. Smith had the visionary experience. This was reinforced for me when I heard a well-known individual say to me in my own house that the experience Smith had, and I believe it was in a conference in Oregon as I recall (could be wrong), was heard by Hugh Nibley's mother who was there, and who later told it to, I believe, was a relative of the aforementioned well-known individual

Let me get this straight so that I can credibly pass it along to my friends - you heard it from someone, who heard it from their relative,who heard it from Hugh Nibley's mother, her heard it from...

Why would you want to pass on such hearsay to your friends?? ;)

I simply floated this to suggest that there was another avenue of the GAS story inquiry outside of Horne. Hearing this had the effect of increasing my sense that the GAS story, in its rudiments at least (atomic attack by Russians and people dying like flies), had merit . . . and because of who told me this. And when I say 'merit', I mean that GAS really had a visionary experience during the conference.

That is all. Good grief, let it go. So much touchy feeling about this whole subject, and sarcastic, blustery positioning.

All the rest of the GAS story is hearsay, as well. Was anyone else present when GAS told the story to Horne? Would you repeat his story?

Larsen,
You have to admit that introducing your mystery informant sort of invited the sarcastic attacks on you and him/her. As for your question of "Was anyone else present when GAS told the story to Horne?" supposedly Horne's whole family was there...and none of them wrote it down, at least not at that time. Of course, the events that started with "In the beginning..." didn't get written down for ages either, waiting inexplicably for Moses to do it. (Why didn't Adam, Seth, etc. bother?)

This thread is "touchy feely" due to certain individuals here warning us to believe it or else. You know, all the usual suspects, with those prophesied itchy ears, who cling to unsubstantiated whisperings from unreliable sources.

[larsenb]

I think Pres. Smith had the visionary experience. This was reinforced for me when I heard a well-known individual say to me in my own house that the experience Smith had, and I believe it was in a conference in Oregon as I recall (could be wrong), was heard by Hugh Nibley's mother who was there, and who later told it to, I believe, was a relative of the aforementioned well-known individual

Let me get this straight so that I can credibly pass it along to my friends - you heard it from someone, who heard it from their relative,who heard it from Hugh Nibley's mother, her heard it from...

Why would you want to pass on such hearsay to your friends?? ;)

I simply floated this to suggest that there was another avenue of the GAS story inquiry outside of Horne. Hearing this had the effect of increasing my sense that the GAS story, in its rudiments at least (atomic attack by Russians and people dying like flies), had merit . . . and because of who told me this. And when I say 'merit', I mean that GAS really had a visionary experience during the conference.

That is all. Good grief, let it go. So much touchy feeling about this whole subject, and sarcastic, blustery positioning.

All the rest of the GAS story is hearsay, as well. Was anyone else present when GAS told the story to Horne? Would you repeat his story?

Larsen,
You have to admit that introducing your mystery informant sort of invited the sarcastic attacks on you and him/her. As for your question of "Was anyone else present when GAS told the story to Horne?" supposedly Horne's whole family was there...and none of them wrote it down, at least not at that time. Of course, the events that started with "In the beginning..." didn't get written down for ages either, waiting inexplicably for Moses to do it. (Why didn't Adam, Seth, etc. bother?)

This thread is "touchy feely" due to certain individuals here warning us to believe it or else. You know, all the usual suspects, with those prophesied itchy ears, who cling to unsubstantiated whisperings from unreliable sources.

I realized the risk. But had no proper idea of the passion and sensitivity many people have about this story, one way or the other. And as I've hinted, any serious person (not the touch feeling, sensitive, easily offended or sarcastic ones) could always ask me directly who it was.

[AI2.0]

I think Pres. Smith had the visionary experience. This was reinforced for me when I heard a well-known individual say to me in my own house that the experience Smith had, and I believe it was in a conference in Oregon as I recall (could be wrong), was heard by Hugh Nibley's mother who was there, and who later told it to, I believe, was a relative of the aforementioned well-known individual

Let me get this straight so that I can credibly pass it along to my friends - you heard it from someone, who heard it from their relative,who heard it from Hugh Nibley's mother, her heard it from...

Why would you want to pass on such hearsay to your friends?? ;)

I simply floated this to suggest that there was another avenue of the GAS story inquiry outside of Horne. Hearing this had the effect of increasing my sense that the GAS story, in its rudiments at least (atomic attack by Russians and people dying like flies), had merit . . . and because of who told me this. And when I say 'merit', I mean that GAS really had a visionary experience during the conference.

That is all. Good grief, let it go. So much touchy feeling about this whole subject, and sarcastic, blustery positioning.

All the rest of the GAS story is hearsay, as well. Was anyone else present when GAS told the story to Horne? Would you repeat his story?

If he had a visionary experience during conference, 1,000's of people would be able to tell us, they'd have written of it in their journals--it would be in the 'Teachings of the Presidents, GAS' Manual--we wouldn't have only one person supposedly claiming it--Hugh Nibley's mother?? And only one written account of it--conveniently written by David Horne. (-|


Clearly you believe it and you want US to believe YOU because you are 'vouching' for this 'informant', an informant who won't share their 'witness' even. Why should we give it any credence? Sorry, but no.

What I don't want to see is the possibility that in a couple of years when this 'vision' is resurrected, your claims are then morphed into 'fact'. We'll read people breathlessly claiming that George Albert Smith shared his vision with Hugh Nibley's mother and no one will even question it. So, to ward that off, I'm questioning it now and hopefully in years to come, others will pull up this thread and see that this was NOT settled at all.

[AI2.0]

I think Pres. Smith had the visionary experience. This was reinforced for me when I heard a well-known individual say to me in my own house that the experience Smith had, and I believe it was in a conference in Oregon as I recall (could be wrong), was heard by Hugh Nibley's mother who was there, and who later told it to, I believe, was a relative of the aforementioned well-known individual

Let me get this straight so that I can credibly pass it along to my friends - you heard it from someone, who heard it from their relative,who heard it from Hugh Nibley's mother, her heard it from...

Why would you want to pass on such hearsay to your friends?? ;)

I simply floated this to suggest that there was another avenue of the GAS story inquiry outside of Horne. Hearing this had the effect of increasing my sense that the GAS story, in its rudiments at least (atomic attack by Russians and people dying like flies), had merit . . . and because of who told me this. And when I say 'merit', I mean that GAS really had a visionary experience during the conference.

That is all. Good grief, let it go. So much touchy feeling about this whole subject, and sarcastic, blustery positioning.

All the rest of the GAS story is hearsay, as well. Was anyone else present when GAS told the story to Horne? Would you repeat his story?

Larsen,
You have to admit that introducing your mystery informant sort of invited the sarcastic attacks on you and him/her. As for your question of "Was anyone else present when GAS told the story to Horne?" supposedly Horne's whole family was there...and none of them wrote it down, at least not at that time. Of course, the events that started with "In the beginning..." didn't get written down for ages either, waiting inexplicably for Moses to do it. (Why didn't Adam, Seth, etc. bother?)

This thread is "touchy feely" due to certain individuals here warning us to believe it or else. You know, all the usual suspects, with those prophesied itchy ears, who cling to unsubstantiated whisperings from unreliable sources.

Well said. But, for the record, no other Horne family member EVER wrote ANYTHING down. There are only David Horne's accounts and there is nothing written of it by George Albert Smith or anyone in the Smith family. Horne makes the claim that GAS is referring to his vision in a couple of General Conference talks--but that's not clear, IMO. The other account, which has been discussed lately and sometimes called the LaVerkin account, was written by another guy, I believe, who claimed GAS shared the vision with his brother while he was out driving GAS around in a car and it's clearly fraudulent.

[AI2.0]

Let me get this straight so that I can credibly pass it along to my friends - you heard it from someone, who heard it from their relative,who heard it from Hugh Nibley's mother, her heard it from...

Why would you want to pass on such hearsay to your friends?? ;)

I simply floated this to suggest that there was another avenue of the GAS story inquiry outside of Horne. Hearing this had the effect of increasing my sense that the GAS story, in its rudiments at least (atomic attack by Russians and people dying like flies), had merit . . . and because of who told me this. And when I say 'merit', I mean that GAS really had a visionary experience during the conference.

That is all. Good grief, let it go. So much touchy feeling about this whole subject, and sarcastic, blustery positioning.

All the rest of the GAS story is hearsay, as well. Was anyone else present when GAS told the story to Horne? Would you repeat his story?

Larsen,
You have to admit that introducing your mystery informant sort of invited the sarcastic attacks on you and him/her. As for your question of "Was anyone else present when GAS told the story to Horne?" supposedly Horne's whole family was there...and none of them wrote it down, at least not at that time. Of course, the events that started with "In the beginning..." didn't get written down for ages either, waiting inexplicably for Moses to do it. (Why didn't Adam, Seth, etc. bother?)

This thread is "touchy feely" due to certain individuals here warning us to believe it or else. You know, all the usual suspects, with those prophesied itchy ears, who cling to unsubstantiated whisperings from unreliable sources.

I realized the risk. But had no proper idea of the passion and sensitivity many people have about this story, one way or the other. And as I've hinted, any serious person (not the touch feeling, sensitive, easily offended or sarcastic ones) could always ask me directly who it was.

It doesn't matter who it was if the person refuses to come forward and directly own the experience and their witness of it. If they do, then we can can determine it's content and credibility.

[DesertWonderer]

“When visions, dreams, tongues, prophecy, impressions or an extraordinary gift or inspiration convey something out of harmony with the accepted revelations of the Church or contrary to the decisions of its constituted authorities, Latter-day Saints may know that it is not of God, no matter how plausible it may appear. Also, they should understand that directions for the guidance of the Church will come, by revelation, through the head. All faithful members are entitled to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit for themselves, their families, and for those over whom they are appointed and ordained to preside. But anything at discord with that which comes from God through the head of the Church is not to be received as authoritative or reliable. In secular as well as spiritual affairs, Saints may receive Divine guidance and revelation affecting themselves, but this does not convey authority to direct others, and is not to be accepted when contrary to Church covenants, doctrine or discipline, or to known facts, demonstrated truths, or good common sense. No person has the right to induce his fellow members of the Church to engage in speculations or take stock in ventures of any kind on the specious claim of Divine revelation or vision or dream, especially when it is in opposition to the voice of recognized authority, local or general. The Lord’s Church ‘is a house of order.’ It is not governed by individual gifts or manifestations, but by the order and power of the Holy Priesthood as sustained by the voice and vote of the Church in its appointed conferences.

“The history of the Church records many pretended revelations claimed by impostors or zealots who believed in the manifestations they sought to lead other persons to accept, and in every instance, disappointment, sorrow and disaster have resulted therefrom. Financial loss and sometimes utter ruin have followed.”

This is something that is recurring time and time again, and we call upon you holders of the priesthood to stamp out any such and to set to flight all such things as are creeping in, people rising up here and there who have had some “marvelous” kind of a manifestation, as they claim, and who try to lead the people in a course that has not been dictated from the heads of the Church.

As I say, it never ceases to amaze me how gullible some of our Church members are in broadcasting these sensational stories, or dreams, or visions, some alleged to have been given to Church leaders, past or present, supposedly from some person’s private diary, without first verifying the report with proper Church authorities."

Harold B Lee https://www.lds.org/ensign/1973/01/admo ... d?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[larsenb]

Why would you want to pass on such hearsay to your friends?? ;)

I simply floated this to suggest that there was another avenue of the GAS story inquiry outside of Horne. Hearing this had the effect of increasing my sense that the GAS story, in its rudiments at least (atomic attack by Russians and people dying like flies), had merit . . . and because of who told me this. And when I say 'merit', I mean that GAS really had a visionary experience during the conference.

That is all. Good grief, let it go. So much touchy feeling about this whole subject, and sarcastic, blustery positioning.

All the rest of the GAS story is hearsay, as well. Was anyone else present when GAS told the story to Horne? Would you repeat his story?

Larsen,
You have to admit that introducing your mystery informant sort of invited the sarcastic attacks on you and him/her. As for your question of "Was anyone else present when GAS told the story to Horne?" supposedly Horne's whole family was there...and none of them wrote it down, at least not at that time. Of course, the events that started with "In the beginning..." didn't get written down for ages either, waiting inexplicably for Moses to do it. (Why didn't Adam, Seth, etc. bother?)

This thread is "touchy feely" due to certain individuals here warning us to believe it or else. You know, all the usual suspects, with those prophesied itchy ears, who cling to unsubstantiated whisperings from unreliable sources.

I realized the risk. But had no proper idea of the passion and sensitivity many people have about this story, one way or the other. And as I've hinted, any serious person (not the touch feeling, sensitive, easily offended or sarcastic ones) could always ask me directly who it was.

It doesn't matter who it was if the person refuses to come forward and directly own the experience and their witness of it. If they do, then we can can determine it's content and credibility.

More confusion by AI2.0 . This person hasn't refused to do anything that I know about. And I'm sure he's shared his knowledge with other people, and has maybe even written about it. And who is 'we'?? The imperial 'we' or some grand council you belong to?

Let me state for the 4th or 5the time: the only reason I shared this is to suggest that there really are sources other than Horne for the GAS story. That is all. Why can't you amazingly insistent people accept this and move on?

[mirkwood]

That's where you misread me. It was a genuine question and even invitation . . . with emphasis on 'was'.

You're projecting, Mirkwood.

Uh-huh...sure...

Keep playing the I have secret knowledge game so beg me for more information. It's the same self important game Kirtland has been playing. You should already know how well that is going to be received. :-w

[larsenb]

I think Pres. Smith had the visionary experience. This was reinforced for me when I heard a well-known individual say to me in my own house that the experience Smith had, and I believe it was in a conference in Oregon as I recall (could be wrong), was heard by Hugh Nibley's mother who was there, and who later told it to, I believe, was a relative of the aforementioned well-known individual

Let me get this straight so that I can credibly pass it along to my friends - you heard it from someone, who heard it from their relative,who heard it from Hugh Nibley's mother, her heard it from...

Why would you want to pass on such hearsay to your friends?? ;)

I simply floated this to suggest that there was another avenue of the GAS story inquiry outside of Horne. Hearing this had the effect of increasing my sense that the GAS story, in its rudiments at least (atomic attack by Russians and people dying like flies), had merit . . . and because of who told me this. And when I say 'merit', I mean that GAS really had a visionary experience during the conference.

That is all. Good grief, let it go. So much touchy feeling about this whole subject, and sarcastic, blustery positioning.

All the rest of the GAS story is hearsay, as well. Was anyone else present when GAS told the story to Horne? Would you repeat his story?

If he had a visionary experience during conference, 1,000's of people would be able to tell us, they'd have written of it in their journals--it would be in the 'Teachings of the Presidents, GAS' Manual--we wouldn't have only one person supposedly claiming it--Hugh Nibley's mother?? And only one written account of it--conveniently written by David Horne. (-|


Clearly you believe it and you want US to believe YOU because you are 'vouching' for this 'informant', an informant who won't share their 'witness' even. Why should we give it any credence? Sorry, but no.

What I don't want to see is the possibility that in a couple of years when this 'vision' is resurrected, your claims are then morphed into 'fact'. We'll read people breathlessly claiming that George Albert Smith shared his vision with Hugh Nibley's mother and no one will even question it. So, to ward that off, I'm questioning it now and hopefully in years to come, others will pull up this thread and see that this was NOT settled at all.

Still more confusion from AI2.0. I couldn't care less if you believe it or not . . . . or who believes it. Don't you get it??

My understanding of the vision he may have had, is that he had it during a talk; and paused during this event, and even muttered something about it out loud while he was still in front of the audience. Again, to my understanding, he did not relate the vision to his audience, except for whatever he 'muttered' (not meant disparagingly).

My memory of what I heard via Hugh Nibley's mother via the person who talked to me, was that she was at the conference and went up later to talk to him about what happened, and he told her. She was obviously a friend of GAS.

So this does NOT mean that 1,000's of people could then replicate it in their journals. A few, may have noted the peculiarity of his behaviour in their journals, and even mentioned what they heard him 'mutter'. Otherwise, your assumption about this is rather strained.

And I have no idea whether he related the vision to any one else at that time . . . or any other time. Could he have done so? Of course. Were there others who were standing around when he was talking to Hugh Nibley's mother. Probably.

Again . . . now pay attention: I don't care who believes the story. I really don't. It was offered for those who may be curious, as a suggestion that there are other sources for the GAS story.

For the more mild-mannered, non-imperious, non-demanding, non-accusing, non-sarcastic, non-mocking people in the curious group, there really is a way for you to learn who talked to me. You, AI.20, are obviously not in this group. But then if you were, and followed through, you would still be up against the problem of believing this person.

As mentioned, it's all hearsay. Aw, what fun.

[larsenb]

That's where you misread me. It was a genuine question and even invitation . . . with emphasis on 'was'.

You're projecting, Mirkwood.

Uh-huh...sure...

Keep playing the I have secret knowledge game so beg me for more information. It's the same self important game Kirtland has been playing. You should already know how well that is going to be received. :-w

What a laugh. You're playing with yourself. I couldn't care less how you receive it.

However, I will defend my position in a public forum that has maybe 500-800 people monitoring it at any given time. I'll let them judge who is off the beam. I think most of them will accept my simple explanations . . . i.e., pay me the respect of taking me at my word regarding my motives.

My take away from this is how astonishing it is to see people let themselves get worked up about this topic. Astonishing . . . really. I don't understand it, but think Silver had it nailed.