Advent of the Son of Man already happened

[AI2.0]

Aha Grasshopper, you have just learned the secret of your existence to discern truth from error, light from darkness, you may now proceed to the next level of working out your salvation.

Is this a line from It's a Bug's Life?

I remember the grasshoppers laughing and mocking that one little puny ant that defied them...

I'm just one puny little ant, so far as this forum is concerned, but what happens when TRUTH is ignored?

The grasshoppers, who symbolize the elite establishment, know that if TRUTH is ignored, they will be shut down and taken out.

So, who is interacting with me to just try and "show me" whose boss?

The TRUTH is what is ultimately the boss, not any Luciferian cronyism that has usurped the Father's Plan.

I think it's a reference to Karate Kid, not a bug's life, so your analogy doesn't work, sorry. 'Grasshopper' was a term of endearment for a student.

[jwharton]

What is true to you and the FLDS. You do know you have made your bed with 'strange' bedfellows.

You have a pretty serious problem of over-generalizing me or trying to put me in some box.
I detest what is being done by the FLDS today. As I have already said, they are a dead body.
What part about me having said this several times over now don't you understand?

But the strait and narrow path also means sacrifice and obedience.

Of course, Cain made an offering and was obedient to his master as well.
The key to it is what offering is made and to whom were you being obedient.

IMO, the FLDS and those like you who believe this are the ones refusing to obey and 'sacrifice' as you look at it.

The FLDS I am talking about are not the FLDS of today.
Abel, before He was murdered, was rendering the Celestial offering the Father required.
Abel, before He was murdered, was being obedient to the Father's Plan.

I agree the wheat and tares are able to grow together but just who are the wheat and who are the tares is where we disagree.

You think the tares are who were determined to maintain the higher laws, through a legitimate priesthood body?
You think the wheat is supposed to "strangle" those who are simply being adamant to continue to make the Celestial offering the Father requires to be acceptable, through a legitimate priesthood body?

Seems to me you are pretty confused here. If the Manifesto was supposedly a complete refutation of the entirety of plural marriage, then why did it continue post-Manifesto? Was Wilford Woodruff outright lying and the Church was who performed these post-Manifesto plural marriages? Of course not, there was a legitimate Priesthood Body organized for this work to continue.

If this means the degree of condemnation the main body of the saints has fallen to is the broad path leading to deaths, take it up with God rather than me because He is who gave all of the oracles prophesying of all of these things.

I don't believe those prophecies,

And, what was warned if the church took the gift to receive oracles lightly?
I hope you realize the prophecies you speak of are the oracles in the 1880's where this is all pulled together.

Many complain because these weren't presented to the church membership to be accepted by common consent.
Errata: I was shown how it was considered that such had happened at the following general conference.
But, they have yet to demonstrate how the Manifesto was also presented to the church membership to be accepted by common consent.

The way the Manifesto was put in place was not at all in accordance with proper procedure.
There was a QUESTION posed, hypothetical in nature, and then an ASSUMPTION made on everyone's behalf.
The Manifesto was imposed upon the general membership of the Church, contrary to proper procedure.

So, don't complain to me about actual "thus saith the Lord" oracles not being accepted by common consent.
Ask yourself why they weren't presented and I'll say because the church was taking oracles much too lightly.
And, when oracles are taken lightly, what is warned in Section 90 verse 5? It says they shall stumble!

God said HE would turn the people over to strong delusion because they loved NOT the truth and took pleasure in unrighteousness.
That is the "wise purpose" God made reference to in the text of the OD-1, so that His "strange act" could do its thing.

so why should I take it up with the Lord.

Shouldn't you take any oracle received by a Lord's Anointed Prophet as a serious thing, regardless of whether the church accepted it by common consent?

I don't believe the church is under condemnation for ending polygamy, I know the Prophet was told to stop the practice.

You just do not see the "wise purpose" the Lord has in motion here to put His children under tribulation during the War in Heaven we are experiencing right now all over again.

The people rejected the fullness and God turned them over to their own delusions when the kingdoms of the world acquired sufficient strength to prevail against the Saints and to overcome them. Those who accepted and received the Son of Man yet had an open pathway to their exaltation and Celestial glory, but all else were sent to damnation and those who took it to such an extreme as to enforce Lucifer's counterfeit plan with murder shall go to Perdition.

I know that those who are under condemnation are those who rebel against the Lord's true prophets.

Correct. The one's HE anoints who receive Celestial Ministration ORACLES, the ones that you reject outright.

If you want to bank your eternal soul's welfare on the Manifesto, which had no real integrity to it and which simply represented the world overcoming the Saints, then that is of course your prerogative.

As for me, I'm going to see the Manifesto for what it actually was and bank my eternal soul's welfare on what John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff received in their capacity as Lord's Anointed Prophet, which is had in the oracles of the 1880's which clearly indicates the Lord had every intent to keep the pathway to Celestial Exaltation open post-Manifesto.

I also believe that the church is moving forward and the Lord is pleased with our righteous efforts.

Of course the Lord is pleased with any righteous efforts, but nothing less than the Celestial Order will satisfy the Father.
Are you saying the Father has changed the requirements of His Plan to omit several things He said were essential?

I think the Lord cares about missionary work, which I can absolutely guarantee would come to a standstill among the righteous searchers if we started pushing polygamy again. Polygamy really hurt missionary work and it would destroy the church if it were brought back at this time.

The Father would prefer a small acceptable offering than a large one of unacceptable quality.
Your problem is you think plural marriage is an expendable part of the Father's Plan.
Lucifer always does think he has it figured out better than the Father.

From my perspective, if plural marriage were allowed again, it would solve a massive number of serious problems, provided it is implemented correctly. By not having it then the Patriarchal Order is forbidden to be used to address the needs of widows and orphans. Thus, you need some other system of welfare to compensate for this. What does the adversary love to do? He wants centralized control and command and government welfare. The adversary hates plural marriage because it does away with the need for centralized government agencies to shoulder the welfare burden of widows and orphans. It does away with the main reason why people start to cry for socialism and the encroachments upon our individual and unalienable rights. Plural marriage is tied inextricably with liberty and small government. If you knew the full purpose of the Father's Plan and what it is ultimately endeavoring to accomplish, so far as societal governance is concerned, you wouldn't talk about plural marriage so lightly.

[freedomforall]

I have tried, up to now successfully, to steer clear of contention and criticism of anyone on this board, but your adherence to this misguided, utterly unsubstantiated ideal that the church is lost or condemned for forsaking polygamy is beyond absurd. The same men that embraced and upheld polygamy were the same that saw in their wisdom to end it, and I bristle at your contention that the Manifesto was a "delusion and a ruse."

It appears clear to me that your stubborn clinging to this Gospel hobby horse is cankering your testimony, and anyone who so easily spews rancor against Church leadership is no "friend of the Saints" or of mine. I guess I'm just a deluded simpleton to believe that the world doesn't revolve around polygamy and it's a non essential part of the plan of salvation as far as qualifying for eternal life.

There is a profound darkness that accompanies your posts, at least to me, and I won't be reading anymore.

You feel the same darkness I sense as well. But this man will not take a hint. Stubborn isn't the word for it.

BTW, thanks for your input. The manifesto he so eagerly denounces was written by my G-G-Grandfather, yes, Wilford Woodruff, of whom was inspired to word it and present it. And I do not appreciate his unfounded insults toward him.

[freedomforall]

Once again, it seems you seem unaware that this would be offensive to devout LDS members.

I am not at all unaware that this would be a confronting and difficult truth to face off with.
This is exactly why the information I have tapped into, to see our narrative as the Creation narrative, has remained hidden.
It spells out bad bad bad news for all who have drifted away from having pure faith and integrity to the Father's Plan.
It reproves ALL of their ungodly deeds and will only be a source of rejoicing for the penitent and humble of heart.
Those who believe all is well in Zion who are saturated in the precepts of men will of no doubt harden their hearts against it.

So you would have no problem in having all your forum writings sent to church headquarters, by anyone desiring to do so, for review?

If they agreed with them and wished for them to become binding teachings and doctrines everyone should have to accept to be considered a Mormon in good standing, then I suppose they could attempt to have this accomplished. I have had no such inclination to have my personal beliefs elevated to the status of "official doctrine" of the entire organization.

I actually much prefer truth to cut its own path. The actual truth doesn't need the official stamp that it is such to be such. The truth simply is the truth, regardless of whose stamp is on it. If what I am endeavoring to share has truth and light in it, then it can cut its own path all by itself without anyone else's help.

Since you are so bound and determined to get people to somehow espouse all your claims,

You think this but the truth is I simply wish to be given sincere and humble consideration as well as meaningful and substantive refutation if anyone believes such is needed. What people believe for themselves is true is entirely their own personal responsibility.

and seeing that you are condemning the church and its leaders,

Please remind yourself that the church was put under condemnation by the Lord a long time ago.
My aim isn't to condemn the Church but to help it recognize why it is under condemnation and to come out from under it.
I hope at some point you will eventually catch on to this and see that I am a true friend to the Church.

isn't it fitting to let the Prophet in on these serious allegations so that things can be rectified?

If I felt inspired to share this with the President of the Church then I would, but I don't. At least not at this time.
For now the President of the Church is giving the masses exactly what they want and they are happy with him.
He also is giving the government exactly what it wants and expects and so everyone is happy and peaceful now.
I don't think the information I am developing here will be especially useful for anyone until after the calamities.
Only then will the leaders and members alike be sufficiently humbled to take what I am saying all that seriously.
I'd just be looked at like a complete nut and nobody would really make all that serious of an attempt to see it clearly.
I'd be judged because I dared to show a new paradigm that implies the Church has been usurped by Lucifer to some degree.
Since most believe the "just follow the prophet, he will never lead us astray" mantra, all would be happy to lynch me quickly.

I mean, why keep all this stuff from the people who can do the most good, huh?

The Father wants to try His children to see who truly loves the truth and who loves His Plan.
He suffers Cain/Lucifer/tares to dominate and usurp and to put all in a great tribulation, which is a trial.
Will His children turn against one another and yield to un-Constitutional force and use murder for gain?
Or, will His children hold true to His Plan and in no way seek to hinder any in their Constitutional rights?
Section 134 says the purpose of the Constitution is so that all can stand or fall on their own accountability.

The Manifesto was a delusion and a ruse to get the government off the back of the Saints and it has backfired.
There was a legitimate Priesthood Body formed to be true and faithful to the Father who was crucified afresh.
All those who became damned and deceived and who participated in this are those who are sealed up as Cain's.

And why cheat the whole membership out of knowing they're all going to hell because church leadership is withholding doctrine JWharton has discovered and compiled for the purpose of saving all 15,634,199 members from said condemnation?

Nothing I am sharing here comes from anything everyone else doesn't have equal access to.
If among those 15+ million members I'm the only one who takes us being under condemnation seriously then that's how it goes.
If the members aren't happy with the lack of seership they are experiencing from the leaders, this is one of their duties and it is within the power of the members to raise up a controversy and prove them out whether they are prophets and apostles or if they are fraudulent hypocrites who are prophets and apostles in title only, but not in substance.

Please remind yourself that mind games, guesswork and unfounded and phony accusations don't fool anyone but the author. I told you how the church was under condemnation, and it ain't your version. It was because the saints were not reading the Book of Mormon, of which I explained in another post, as well as confirmed by A12. :ymsigh:

[jwharton]

I have tried, up to now successfully, to steer clear of contention and criticism of anyone on this board, but your adherence to this misguided, utterly unsubstantiated ideal that the church is lost or condemned for forsaking polygamy is beyond absurd. The same men that embraced and upheld polygamy were the same that saw in their wisdom to end it, and I bristle at your contention that the Manifesto was a "delusion and a ruse."

It appears clear to me that your stubborn clinging to this Gospel hobby horse is cankering your testimony, and anyone who so easily spews rancor against Church leadership is no "friend of the Saints" or of mine. I guess I'm just a deluded simpleton to believe that the world doesn't revolve around polygamy and it's a non essential part of the plan of salvation as far as qualifying for eternal life.

There is a profound darkness that accompanies your posts, at least to me, and I won't be reading anymore.

You feel the same darkness I sense as well. But this man will not take a hint. Stubborn isn't the word for it.

BTW, thanks for your input. The manifesto he so eagerly denounces was written by my G-G-Grandfather, yes, Wilford Woodruff, of whom was inspired to word it and present it. And I do not appreciate his unfounded insults toward him.

I don't denounce the Manifesto.
I said it was suffered by the Lord to happen for a wise purpose in Him.
I have just been expounding on what that wise purpose in Him actually is.
Wilford Woodruff knew what was going on and did things just the way God wanted them done.
Edit note: This is a questionable and unconfirmed statement.
Also, it wasn't something Wilford Woodruff wrote. It was written by Charles W. Penrose.

[freedomforall]

I have tried, up to now successfully, to steer clear of contention and criticism of anyone on this board, but your adherence to this misguided, utterly unsubstantiated ideal that the church is lost or condemned for forsaking polygamy is beyond absurd. The same men that embraced and upheld polygamy were the same that saw in their wisdom to end it, and I bristle at your contention that the Manifesto was a "delusion and a ruse."

It appears clear to me that your stubborn clinging to this Gospel hobby horse is cankering your testimony, and anyone who so easily spews rancor against Church leadership is no "friend of the Saints" or of mine. I guess I'm just a deluded simpleton to believe that the world doesn't revolve around polygamy and it's a non essential part of the plan of salvation as far as qualifying for eternal life.

There is a profound darkness that accompanies your posts, at least to me, and I won't be reading anymore.

You feel the same darkness I sense as well. But this man will not take a hint. Stubborn isn't the word for it.

BTW, thanks for your input. The manifesto he so eagerly denounces was written by my G-G-Grandfather, yes, Wilford Woodruff, of whom was inspired to word it and present it. And I do not appreciate his unfounded insults toward him.

I don't denounce the Manifesto.
I said it was suffered by the Lord to happen for a wise purpose in Him.
I have just been expounding on what that wise purpose in Him actually is.
Wilford Woodruff knew what was going on and did things just the way God wanted them done.
Also, it wasn't something Wilford Woodruff wrote. It was written by Charles W. Penrose.

Again you contradict fact with fiction. Wilford wrote the original draft and then Penrose and Winder modified it for approval.

From: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testa ... 1?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Woodruff later said that on the night of September 23, 1890, he received a revelation from Jesus Christ that the church should cease the practice of plural marriage.[12] The following morning, he reported this to some of the general authorities and placed the hand-written draft on a table. George Reynolds would later recount that he, Charles W. Penrose, and John R. Winder modified Woodruff's draft into the current language accepted by the general authorities and presented to the church as a whole.

Now for the Manifesto itself:

To Whom It May Concern:
Press dispatches having been sent for political purposes, from Salt Lake City, which have been widely published, to the effect that the Utah Commission, in their recent report to the Secretary of the Interior, allege that plural marriages are still being solemnized and that forty or more such marriages have been contracted in Utah since last June or during the past year, also that in public discourses the leaders of the Church have taught, encouraged and urged the continuance of the practice of polygamy—

I, therefore, as President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that these charges are false. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice, and I deny that either forty or any other number of plural marriages have during that period been solemnized in our Temples or in any other place in the Territory.

One case has been reported, in which the parties allege that the marriage was performed in the Endowment House, in Salt Lake City, in the Spring of 1889, but I have not been able to learn who performed the ceremony; whatever was done in this matter was without my knowledge. In consequence of this alleged occurrence the Endowment House was, by my instructions, taken down without delay.

Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.

There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy; and when any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey any such teaching, he has been promptly reproved. And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.

Wilford Woodruff
President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Now comes a comment by President Lorenzo Snow:
“I move that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the only man on the earth at the present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances, we consider him fully authorized by virtue of his position to issue the Manifesto which has been read in our hearing, and which is dated September 24th, 1890, and that as a Church in General Conference assembled, we accept his declaration concerning plural marriages as authoritative and binding.”

Salt Lake City, Utah, October 6, 1890.

Now for some excerpts:
Excerpts from Three Addresses by President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the Manifesto

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)

It matters not who lives or who dies, or who is called to lead this Church, they have got to lead it by the inspiration of Almighty God. If they do not do it that way, they cannot do it at all. …

I have had some revelations of late, and very important ones to me, and I will tell you what the Lord has said to me. Let me bring your minds to what is termed the manifesto. …

The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the Spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to this matter.

The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?

The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for … any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. A large number has already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit world by this people, and shall the work go on or stop? This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have.

… I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. …

I leave this with you, for you to contemplate and consider. The Lord is at work with us. (Cache Stake Conference, Logan, Utah, Sunday, November 1, 1891. Reported in Deseret Weekly, November 14, 1891.)

Now I will tell you what was manifested to me and what the Son of God performed in this thing. … All these things would have come to pass, as God Almighty lives, had not that Manifesto been given. Therefore, the Son of God felt disposed to have that thing presented to the Church and to the world for purposes in his own mind. The Lord had decreed the establishment of Zion. He had decreed the finishing of this temple. He had decreed that the salvation of the living and the dead should be given in these valleys of the mountains. And Almighty God decreed that the Devil should not thwart it. If you can understand that, that is a key to it. (From a discourse at the sixth session of the dedication of the Salt Lake Temple, April 1893. Typescript of Dedicatory Services, Archives, Church Historical Department, Salt Lake City, Utah.)

Now a comment from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1890_Manifesto" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Some Mormon fundamentalists dispute that Woodruff received any such revelation.

SEE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_fundamentalism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[jwharton]

Again you contradict fact with fiction. Wilford wrote the original draft and then Penrose and Winder modified it for approval.

Even if Wilford Woodruff did pen it, he had seen the language of a proposed Manifesto by Penrose before I'm sure.

From: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testa ... 1?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Woodruff later said that on the night of September 23, 1890, he received a revelation from Jesus Christ that the church should cease the practice of plural marriage.[12] The following morning, he reported this to some of the general authorities and placed the hand-written draft on a table. George Reynolds would later recount that he, Charles W. Penrose, and John R. Winder modified Woodruff's draft into the current language accepted by the general authorities and presented to the church as a whole.

Was it presented for acceptance by common consent?
Or, was it imposed by official declaration?
Which method does the Law of the Church require?

Does a Church President have the power to dictate or mandate such?
Do recall that the practice of plural marriage was accepted by common consent in 1852.
So, if it was establish in the Church by common consent, it should have also been removed in like manner.
It wasn't! It was PRESUMED all would agree and then foisted forward in a dictatorial manner as if all had.
This kind of governance is non-Celestial and it represents the same rights violating force of government as the evil nation.

Now for the Manifesto itself:

To Whom It May Concern:
Press dispatches having been sent for political purposes, from Salt Lake City, which have been widely published, to the effect that the Utah Commission, in their recent report to the Secretary of the Interior, allege that plural marriages are still being solemnized and that forty or more such marriages have been contracted in Utah since last June or during the past year, also that in public discourses the leaders of the Church have taught, encouraged and urged the continuance of the practice of polygamy—

I, therefore, as President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that these charges are false. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice, and I deny that either forty or any other number of plural marriages have during that period been solemnized in our Temples or in any other place in the Territory.

One case has been reported, in which the parties allege that the marriage was performed in the Endowment House, in Salt Lake City, in the Spring of 1889, but I have not been able to learn who performed the ceremony; whatever was done in this matter was without my knowledge. In consequence of this alleged occurrence the Endowment House was, by my instructions, taken down without delay.

Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.

There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy; and when any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey any such teaching, he has been promptly reproved. And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.

Wilford Woodruff
President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I put in a bunch of highlighting and colored stuff so you can key in on certain aspects of his choice of words.
At no time did he actually deny the principle of plural marriage itself and say that God had revoked it for everyone.
Also, notice how he was VERY careful to make this declaration with precise language to apply only to the Church and that his actions were only as the President of the Church and not as a Lord's Anointed Prophet. Yes, there is a difference.

The fact is, a priesthood body totally separate from the Church did in fact exist that was prepared ahead of time with legitimate authority to continue on with the higher laws. Therefore, this Priesthood Body carried forward in such a way that no provision of the Manifesto was violated. Also, he only declared that it was his intention to submit, but we know we can intend to do one thing and find reasons to do or even allow another. Also, he didn't say he was invoking any priesthood authority or keys in making this declaration. He spoke as a person and said he would use his "influence" with nothing more at stake than someone receiving a "reprimand" if someone didn't keep his "advice". This wording is so flimsy and weak and devoid of real authority being invoked here you can see how he really felt about what was going on. It wasn't a mistake that it was so weak and flimsy either. He was told to do nothing to deny the laws of God so his wording was careful to hold true to what that oracle said.

President Woodruff knew exactly what was going on as I'm sure he was well aware of his own oracle received November 24, 1889 which said:

Thus saith the LORD to My servant Wilford, I the Lord have heard thy prayer and thy request, and will answer thee by the voice of My Spirit.
Thus saith the LORD, unto My servants, the Presidency of My Church, who hold the keys of the Kingdom of God on the earth.
I the Lord hold the destiny of the Courts in your midst, and the destiny of this nation, and all other nations of the earth in Mine own hands; all that I have revealed, and promised and decreed concerning the generation in which you live, shall come to pass, and no power shall stay My hand.
Let not My servants who are called to the Presidency of My Church, deny My word or My law, which concerns the salvation of the children of men.
Let them pray for the Holy Spirit, which shall be given them, to guide them in their acts.
Place not yourselves in jeopardy to your enemies by promise;
Your enemies seek your destruction and the destruction of My people.
If the Saints will hearken unto My voice, and the counsel of My servants, the wicked shall not prevail.
Let My servants, who officiate as your Counselors before the Courts, make their pleadings as they are moved upon by the Holy Spirit, without any further pledges from the Priesthood, and they shall be justified.
I the LORD will hold the Courts, with the officers of government, and the nation responsible for their acts towards the inhabitants of Zion.
I, Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, am in your midst. I am your Advocate with the Father.

What do we see here?

Instead of it saying "My coming is nigh, even at the door" as it did in oracles just a few years prior, now He is saying "I, Jesus Christ ... am in your midst". So, as I have been saying in this thread, Son of Man does indeed come circa 1890 because of the perils of Eve. She delivered Her manchild in order to be what? Our advocate with the Father. How is he going to do this? He is going to facilitate things so that the Saints who are faithful, in spite of the Church having to do the Manifesto, can continue to render the only offering that the Father is accepting of. This Priesthood Body ordained and set apart to continue the Higher Laws is in fact the advent of the Son of Man....

[Carlos]

I think I understand your proposition and your reasoning. Obviously you've ruffled feathers. Let me suggest that you adjust your concept that Cain and Abel are birth children of Adam and therefore must translate to members of the church. Maybe Eve is not the "church body", but traditional Christianity which came to America, those without priesthood. The Christian awakening of freedom loving Americans established a "living" form of Christianity not seen in the world prior to. Maybe that body of believers is "Eve".
This line of thought would allow the "Christian" US government, Eve's posterity, to be Cain. It was the US government who actually murdered Abel. The Lord said he would hold the US directly responsible for it's actions, as he did Cain.
I'm not sure whom you've identified as Seth, but maybe Seth is the church we have now, who followed the death of Abel.
Allegories and types are not always exact and have limitations but serve as guides.

Carlos

[jwharton]

I think I understand your proposition and your reasoning. Obviously you've ruffled feathers. Let me suggest that you adjust your concept that Cain and Abel are birth children of Adam and therefore must translate to members of the church. Maybe Eve is not the "church body", but traditional Christianity which came to America, those without priesthood. The Christian awakening of freedom loving Americans established a "living" form of Christianity not seen in the world prior to. Maybe that body of believers is "Eve".
This line of thought would allow the "Christian" US government, Eve's posterity, to be Cain. It was the US government who actually murdered Abel. The Lord said he would hold the US directly responsible for it's actions, as he did Cain.
I'm not sure whom you've identified as Seth, but maybe Seth is the church we have now, who followed the death of Abel.
Allegories and types are not always exact and have limitations but serve as guides.

Carlos

I see what you are saying and in some respects you could apply the pattern a bit more loosely to make it more broad.
I'm happy to go into the nitty-gritty details of it with you, but there is way too much precision for me to spend time there.
When this came to me it was a vision where the eyes of my understanding were opened with the interpretation I am making.

I would be highly interested in whatever you come up with if you do put more work into taking a more broad stroke approach.

[Carlos]

Sometimes our "inspiration" is limited by the current knowledge at the time of the revelation. I know that has been my experience in understanding scripture.
Part of my discovery has been to more appreciate who traditional Christianity is and how they participate/fit in with God's work of fulfillment and gathering. They are part of covenant Israel. They are "last day's" Judah, the woman in the wilderness, those clothed in white robes "without number", Joseph's brothers, the prodigal son, the ruined daughters of Zion, and even the 10 tribes. In my eyes, as you can see, they hold a prominent role in the Lords work. If the story of Adam is about covenant bodies in the last days, I would hold that traditional Christians should play a role there somewhere. IMO

[brianj]

Was it presented for acceptance by common consent?
Or, was it imposed by official declaration?
Which method does the Law of the Church require?

I PREVIOUSLY POINTED OUT that the 1890 Manifesto was presented to the church in general conference and unanimously accepted under the principle of common consent.
Though you claimed that you don't denounce the manifesto, you repeatedly claimed that it was never presented for acceptance by common consent then ask if it was after at least two of us provided evidence that it was accepted by common consent. You also claimed that Woodruff never claimed to have received revelation in association with this manifesto, and I haven't seen you acknowledge that Woodruff's description of revelations received on the subject contradict your claim.

[jwharton]

Was it presented for acceptance by common consent?
Or, was it imposed by official declaration?
Which method does the Law of the Church require?

I PREVIOUSLY POINTED OUT that the 1890 Manifesto was presented to the church in general conference and unanimously accepted under the principle of common consent.

Though you claimed that you don't denounce the manifesto, you repeatedly claimed that it was never presented for acceptance by common consent then ask if it was after at least two of us provided evidence that it was accepted by common consent. You also claimed that Woodruff never claimed to have received revelation in association with this manifesto, and I haven't seen you acknowledge that Woodruff's description of revelations received on the subject contradict your claim.

Please show me the exact piece of data that proves it was accepted by common consent.
It is true Lorenzo Snow addressed the Manifesto but it didn't seem to me like anyone was asked.
It appeared to me that he simply stated the President had the keys and that all SHOULD accept it as binding.

And, if I am incorrect on this particular point, I am happy to improve my understanding.
It won't change the fact of what I know the will of the Lord was concerning the Manifesto.

[jwharton]

Sometimes our "inspiration" is limited by the current knowledge at the time of the revelation. I know that has been my experience in understanding scripture.

I definitely agree with this principle, and most especially when people have visual dreams.
In my case though it was an "eyes of understanding being opened" kind of vision.
This means it was a vision of the understanding itself that was given by revelation.
I hope I am making a clear distinction in regard to the kind of vision I had.
And, I've only met one other person who had bone quaking accompany their vision.
Have you ever had your bones quake like it mentions Joseph Smith's bones would quake?

Part of my discovery has been to more appreciate who traditional Christianity is and how they participate/fit in with God's work of fulfillment and gathering. They are part of covenant Israel. They are "last day's" Judah, the woman in the wilderness, those clothed in white robes "without number", Joseph's brothers, the prodigal son, the ruined daughters of Zion, and even the 10 tribes. In my eyes, as you can see, they hold a prominent role in the Lords work. If the story of Adam is about covenant bodies in the last days, I would hold that traditional Christians should play a role there somewhere. IMO

I agree Christians do indeed have an important role to play.
In fact, a significant chunk of Christianity is in fact the preserved "natural branches" who will be the native grafts into Israel.
A good number of those who are of the choicest quality are kept at bay from joining the church because it is so polluted.
As soon as the Gentile filth that has rejected the Father's Celestial Plan are purged out and Zion is cleansed, many shall join.

[brianj]

Was it presented for acceptance by common consent?
Or, was it imposed by official declaration?
Which method does the Law of the Church require?

I PREVIOUSLY POINTED OUT that the 1890 Manifesto was presented to the church in general conference and unanimously accepted under the principle of common consent.

Though you claimed that you don't denounce the manifesto, you repeatedly claimed that it was never presented for acceptance by common consent then ask if it was after at least two of us provided evidence that it was accepted by common consent. You also claimed that Woodruff never claimed to have received revelation in association with this manifesto, and I haven't seen you acknowledge that Woodruff's description of revelations received on the subject contradict your claim.

Please show me the exact piece of data that proves it was accepted by common consent.
It is true Lorenzo Snow addressed the Manifesto but it didn't seem to me like anyone was asked.
It appeared to me that he simply stated the President had the keys and that all SHOULD accept it as binding.

And, if I am incorrect on this particular point, I am happy to improve my understanding.
It won't change the fact of what I know the will of the Lord was concerning the Manifesto.

Take another look at the statement that Lorenzo Snow made regarding the manifesto. It began with the phrase: "I move that..."
You can believe that Snow was only addressing the manifesto without asking anything, but it is clear from the wording that he was asking for the membership to accept or reject the manifesto. And if you look at the conference report for the October 1890 general conference you will find the record shows that the manifesto was accepted by common consent.

And you are right, this changes nothing. No matter what could be presented, you are convinced that you are right and the Lord's anointed are wrong.

[jwharton]

Take another look at the statement that Lorenzo Snow made regarding the manifesto. It began with the phrase: "I move that..."
You can believe that Snow was only addressing the manifesto without asking anything, but it is clear from the wording that he was asking for the membership to accept or reject the manifesto. And if you look at the conference report for the October 1890 general conference you will find the record shows that the manifesto was accepted by common consent.

And you are right, this changes nothing. No matter what could be presented, you are convinced that you are right and the Lord's anointed are wrong.

Which Lord's Anointed are you talking about?

[Carlos]

As soon as the Gentile filth that has rejected the Father's Celestial Plan are purged out and Zion is cleansed, many shall join.

Back to polygamy, I assume that's what you mean by the Celestial Plan.

What is the spiritual/temporal significance of polygamy? Why would the Lord prefer polygamy over a monogamous marriage? What godly attributes am I not acquiring because I only have one wife? In a zion society, there would be no room for polygamy since 50% of the population would be male/female. In other words, men having multiple wives would be depriving other men of finding available women. So, this implies that the ideal society is monogamous.
Please enlighten.

[jwharton]

As soon as the Gentile filth that has rejected the Father's Celestial Plan are purged out and Zion is cleansed, many shall join.

Back to polygamy, I assume that's what you mean by the Celestial Plan.

What is the spiritual/temporal significance of polygamy? Why would the Lord prefer polygamy over a monogamous marriage? What godly attributes am I not acquiring because I only have one wife? In a zion society, there would be no room for polygamy since 50% of the population would be male/female. In other words, men having multiple wives would be depriving other men of finding available women. So, this implies that the ideal society is monogamous.
Please enlighten.

My biggest concern where the Celestial Plan goes is the economic side of things.
I much prefer to address the United Order than I do plural marriage.
This is because the economic stuff affects everyone across the board.
The marriage laws only affect a very small percentage of people who need plural marriage.

[Carlos]

So I assume only widows and "troubled" women would need plural marriage as you've indicated before.
But you've associated this Abel event on the polygamy issue and not the united order. The US confiscated church properties and denied ecclesiastical governance to the church community. The church authorities (Cain) didn't do these actions voluntarily, the force of the US demanded that change of economic "Celestial Law". I don't see how you can blame church leaders for that.

[jwharton]

So I assume only widows and "troubled" women would need plural marriage as you've indicated before.
But you've associated this Abel event on the polygamy issue and not the united order.

It is definitely the most pronounced and easiest to see.
And, plural marriage may not be needed by many,
but the Lord is a champion of the needs of widows.
If you mess with them you mess with the entire foundation.
If their needs aren't met by the Patriarchal Order System, then the people start calling for Centralized Big Government, which is exactly what the adversary wants. Plural marriage is at the fulcrum or balancing point between a system of Patriarchal Government, which stays small with maximum individual rights, and the government of the adversary, which is big and eventually subsumes everyone's individual rights. It's a critically important piece that most people fail to realize how it is connected to liberty.

The US confiscated church properties and denied ecclesiastical governance to the church community. The church authorities (Cain) didn't do these actions voluntarily, the force of the US demanded that change of economic "Celestial Law". I don't see how you can blame church leaders for that.

It's not the leader's fault. What happened with the Manifesto and the succeeding developments where the world has continued to prevail against the Saints is due to their own negligence. However, if the leaders become a party to begin to use force and become agents of the government then they will be held accountable for their actions to oppose the Father's Celestial Plan, just as Cain eventually went down the same slippery slope and found himself beholden and bonded to the adversary's plan and ways.

[jwharton]

The LDS people gave up plural marriage and quickly thereafter they also gave up ...
... the United Order system was abandoned so nobody built up inheritances anymore and all are under buffetings of Satan now.
... the Kingdom of God when they sought for and obtained statehood instead of keeping their political sovereignty as a kingdom.

The FLDS never gave up any of those 3 aspects of Zion and the Father's Kingdom, which is why they were mass excommunicated.
But, yes, the plural marriage issue was the ice-breaker and the one that gives rise to everything else that followed.
This is why the adversary fights against this principle first and foremost. If he defeats it, then everything else is sure to follow.

Ever since this time the people who were supposed to be building Zion have had deeper and deeper intercourse with the adversary.
We are so deeply enmeshed with the world and its ways and so far departed from a Celestial Patriarchal Order with minimal govt.

We are already suffering a massive spiritual scourge and judgment because people's religious views are full of lies and murder.
They just don't have eyes to see on the spiritual plane to realize just how awful their situation truly is and the price they are paying.

When the Son of Man makes His comeback via Seth's advent and the Father's Kingdom obtains the victory, house cleaning will begin.

All who have had a hand in officially denying the Father's Laws and Principles and can be found to have instead enforced the will of the government to deny people's Constitutional rights and who have used spiritual capital punishment to implement the adversary's plan of force via big government, these shall all posthumously be excommunicated. They may be enjoying all manner of praise and acceptance and even adulation from the people now, but when things are set right, they are going to be the ones upon whom eternal shame and condemnation is heaped on for their arrogance and rebellion to go against the Father's Plan.

So, everyone beware. The Son of Man is indeed coming yet again and is in fact here already. But, as did Abel, He goes through quite a battle and a struggle with Cain, only this time Seth wins and Cain is cast down so that the Father's Kingdom obtains the victory. Seth does suffer a nearly deadly wound from a bite of the Serpent and goes to His deathbed for a time, per the apocryphal texts. This is in fact where Seth is right now at the moment, which is what is prophesied of in Isaiah chapter 28 when there shall be vomit on all tables and no place clean. Son of Man is in the process of completing His mission to descend below all things and when He makes His comeback from this, Cain is going down.

So, I consider it a mercy on my part to be helping the LDS people awaken to the degree to which they are of Cain to be standing with such contempt and willingness to excommunicate people who do not go along with what the adversary has dictated to us because the kingdoms of the world have overcome us, due to our own collective neglect and taking the oracles lightly. Perhaps I'll say something that will cause perhaps a few of my brothers and sisters to recognize the need to soften our hearts towards those who simply long for and call for a restitution of all things Celestial. That is my hope.

[jwharton]

That battle was fought over 100 years ago, the church lost.
Polygamy was not seen as a constitutional right.

God declared keeping His Law, where the Patriarchal Order of Abraham is concerned, constitutional in the oracle He gave to John Taylor in June of 1882.

Concerning the course taken by the United States, they have a right to reject this law themselves, as they have a right to reject the gospel; but it is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, for them to prohibit you from obeying it.
Therefore, abide in My law which I have revealed unto you, saith the Lord God, and contend for your rights by every legal and constitutional method and in accordance with the institutions, laws, and Constitution of the United States.

Does man saying it isn't constitutional justify the Church to now treat it as unconstitutional too?
The Church is justified to lobby to actually keep it a punishable criminal offense when it is constitutional?

This is where all shall be held accountable for how they use their agency.

The oracles of God state that the Patriarchal Order in its fullness is Constitutional.
And, the leaders have the responsibility to do all in their power to seek for these rights to be maintained.

If our leaders are not doing this then they are not keeping the oracles and not performing their duty.

[freedomforall]

That battle was fought over 100 years ago, the church lost.
Polygamy was not seen as a constitutional right.

God declared keeping His Law, where the Patriarchal Order of Abraham is concerned, constitutional in the oracle He gave to John Taylor in June of 1882.

Concerning the course taken by the United States, they have a right to reject this law themselves, as they have a right to reject the gospel; but it is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, for them to prohibit you from obeying it.
Therefore, abide in My law which I have revealed unto you, saith the Lord God, and contend for your rights by every legal and constitutional method and in accordance with the institutions, laws, and Constitution of the United States.

Does man saying it isn't constitutional justify the Church to now treat it as unconstitutional too?
The Church is justified to lobby to actually keep it a punishable criminal offense when it is constitutional?

This is where all shall be held accountable for how they use their agency.

The oracles of God state that the Patriarchal Order in its fullness is Constitutional.
And, the leaders have the responsibility to do all in their power to seek for these rights to be maintained.

If our leaders are not doing this then they are not keeping the oracles and not performing their duty.

[jwharton]

That battle was fought over 100 years ago, the church lost.
Polygamy was not seen as a constitutional right.

God declared keeping His Law, where the Patriarchal Order of Abraham is concerned, constitutional in the oracle He gave to John Taylor in June of 1882.

Concerning the course taken by the United States, they have a right to reject this law themselves, as they have a right to reject the gospel; but it is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, for them to prohibit you from obeying it.
Therefore, abide in My law which I have revealed unto you, saith the Lord God, and contend for your rights by every legal and constitutional method and in accordance with the institutions, laws, and Constitution of the United States.

Does man saying it isn't constitutional justify the Church to now treat it as unconstitutional too?
The Church is justified to lobby to actually keep it a punishable criminal offense when it is constitutional?

This is where all shall be held accountable for how they use their agency.

The oracles of God state that the Patriarchal Order in its fullness is Constitutional.
And, the leaders have the responsibility to do all in their power to seek for these rights to be maintained.

If our leaders are not doing this then they are not keeping the oracles and not performing their duty.

Ok, let's walk through this VERY carefully so that you see for yourself what is in the words I am referencing.
I want you to see this isn't just coming from me and my words alone but from those appointed and ordained.

What does the OD-1 say should happen to a Church President who goes contrary to the oracles of God and their duty?

Here is what it says:

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.

Wilford Woodruff is telegraphing for those who have ears to hear and know that Celestial Plural Marriage is an essential part of the New and Everlasting Covenant that the Lord is in fact removing him out of his place as the Lord's Anointed Prophet. He knows this course of action to reject this as a Church is only being done because the world has acquired the power to prevail against the Saints, and that this is due to their own neglect and disobedience. He knows the Lord is turning them over to deeper condemnation and destruction.

The reason Wilford Woodruff remained as President of the Church and wasn't removed out of that place is because this office or mantle of authority is chosen by the body. The people are solely responsible for who is chosen, appointed and ordained to sit in the seat of Moses. And, as I pointed out recently, Section 107 clearly outlines what "the programme" is in regard to how a President can have a controversy raised up against him and have him removed from his standing simply for the fact that he is not being diligent to perform the duties of his office. It is in this manner, that God makes the people equally responsible for what they sustain, that a leader is not permitted to lead the people astray. If things go astray and the people sustain it then they are just as much to blame. Wilford Woodruff wasn't the one pushing this onto the people, by any means. It is quite the opposite. It was the negligence and lack of faith of the people and their rebellion against the Father's Celestial Plan that ultimately had Zion's empowerment stifled and hindered in such a way that the nation could overpower and overcome it and FORCE this upon the Saints. Wilford dealt with this the very best he knew how and ultimately came to see that the people must be allowed to be turned over to their own delusions because they loved not the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness.

So, you have some strong points to address here.

Will you address them directly or are you going to persist to attack me personally?

[jwharton]

FFA, think of Wilford Woodruff being in the exact same bind that Adam found himself in.
Adam's wife Eve had partaken of fruit that condemned Her to be cast down and fallen.
While Adam knew fully what was right, He also perceived that He should remain with Her.
Thus, Adam said, "I see that this must be, I will partake..." and He willing chose to fall with Her.
So, your ancestor knows personally in a very intimate way what it felt like to be Adam in that situation.
The Church, who is the Bride of Christ, also was condemned and still heading downhill.
Wilford did what he had to do, for a wise purpose in the Lord, to stay with His Bride for Her ultimate redemption.

In all that I am saying, I mean no disrespect upon Wilford Woodruff. He did everything within his power to do right.

[freedomforall]

That battle was fought over 100 years ago, the church lost.
Polygamy was not seen as a constitutional right.

God declared keeping His Law, where the Patriarchal Order of Abraham is concerned, constitutional in the oracle He gave to John Taylor in June of 1882.

Concerning the course taken by the United States, they have a right to reject this law themselves, as they have a right to reject the gospel; but it is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, for them to prohibit you from obeying it.
Therefore, abide in My law which I have revealed unto you, saith the Lord God, and contend for your rights by every legal and constitutional method and in accordance with the institutions, laws, and Constitution of the United States.

Does man saying it isn't constitutional justify the Church to now treat it as unconstitutional too?
The Church is justified to lobby to actually keep it a punishable criminal offense when it is constitutional?

This is where all shall be held accountable for how they use their agency.

The oracles of God state that the Patriarchal Order in its fullness is Constitutional.
And, the leaders have the responsibility to do all in their power to seek for these rights to be maintained.

If our leaders are not doing this then they are not keeping the oracles and not performing their duty.

Ok, let's walk through this VERY carefully so that you see for yourself what is in the words I am referencing.
I want you to see this isn't just coming from me and my words alone but from those appointed and ordained.

What does the OD-1 say should happen to a Church President who goes contrary to the oracles of God and their duty?

Here is what it says:

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.

Wilford Woodruff is telegraphing for those who have ears to hear and know that Celestial Plural Marriage is an essential part of the New and Everlasting Covenant that the Lord is in fact removing him out of his place as the Lord's Anointed Prophet. He knows this course of action to reject this as a Church is only being done because the world has acquired the power to prevail against the Saints, and that this is due to their own neglect and disobedience. He knows the Lord is turning them over to deeper condemnation and destruction.

The reason Wilford Woodruff remained as President of the Church and wasn't removed out of that place is because this office or mantle of authority is chosen by the body. The people are solely responsible for who is chosen, appointed and ordained to sit in the seat of Moses. And, as I pointed out recently, Section 107 clearly outlines what "the programme" is in regard to how a President can have a controversy raised up against him and have him removed from his standing simply for the fact that he is not being diligent to perform the duties of his office. It is in this manner, that God makes the people equally responsible for what they sustain, that a leader is not permitted to lead the people astray. If things go astray and the people sustain it then they are just as much to blame. Wilford Woodruff wasn't the one pushing this onto the people, by any means. It is quite the opposite. It was the negligence and lack of faith of the people and their rebellion against the Father's Celestial Plan that ultimately had Zion's empowerment stifled and hindered in such a way that the nation could overpower and overcome it and FORCE this upon the Saints. Wilford dealt with this the very best he knew how and ultimately came to see that the people must be allowed to be turned over to their own delusions because they loved not the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness.

So, you have some strong points to address here. Wrong, you're the one telling the story as I see it. You're the one that has to supply absolute, unadulterated truth and facts of what you say and claim, because an opinion means nothing to me. I, on the other hand, do not have to believe one word of it. This is your problem, and a strong one. DO NOT confuse PRIDE with CONVICTION! Without conviction, our testimonies fly away in the wind and we are left standing, or should I say, hunched over in shame.

Will you address them directly or are you going to persist to attack me personally? I'm not going to address them at all. You can sink or swim on your own. You're the one that insists taking over the pulpit. Deal with it. All I have to do is sit back, watch and shake my head.

Listen here, MR JWharton, if I ever verbally attack you personally, there will be no room for misunderstanding or doubt. I have not in any way verbally attacked your person's characteristics. How many more times need I explain this to you? And pay heed to ? marks. ? marks are not attacking phrases, rather, they are merely questions. Big difference.
I have, however, aggressively come up against your doctrine and that is as forum rules guide, Got It? Your many, perhaps perceived, childlike responses have been extrapolated from reading your hissy fit, "mommy, he hit me", kind of defensive style, MO.

And you owe everyone here an apology, sir. We are not TURDS you can steer and prod like a bunch of cattle. Are you able to put your money where your mouth is? This is an example of true character slandering, so rectify this problem and quit being judgemental and then doing it yourself

Now, can you instruct any further without condescending remarks? I sense the new found power you have just acquired. Is it exhilarating and grand? Do you somehow, and in a self aggrandizing way, feel exalted?

Me? I'll stick with this amazing message! This is truly comforting and enticing. NOT precepts of men.

And: