Advent of the Son of Man already happened

[jwharton]

The problem you have here jwharton, is that your credibility is shot to pieces.
You started by claiming the Son of Man came in 1890, but it turns out that this was simply a roose to talk about polygamy and how great the fundies are.

It is shot to pieces only in the eyes of those who have reproach for the Father's Celestial Order and who have crucified Son of Man afresh, as is prophesied some would do.

Nobody has actually put forth any substantive refutation of what I have presented so my credibility is doing just fine, so far as real merits are concerned.

See the cop-out your are doing here?

I'm friendly to the origins of the FLDS priesthood claims and the 1880's oracles few know much about, which were ratified as valid, is all you have come up with before you are case closed.

So, you throw several valid oracles under the bus and go with a question and a presumption made by a church president and think that justifies excommunicating the Lord's Anointed Priesthood body that was organized to carry on with the higher laws that the Church abandoned.

If you think that's going to work for you when you are standing before the Son of Man and the Father in your day of judgment, I wish you the best.

[Robin Hood]

The problem you have here jwharton, is that your credibility is shot to pieces.
You started by claiming the Son of Man came in 1890, but it turns out that this was simply a roose to talk about polygamy and how great the fundies are.

It is shot to pieces only in the eyes of those who have reproach for the Father's Celestial Order and who have crucified Son of Man afresh, as is prophesied some would do.

Nobody has actually put forth any substantive refutation of what I have presented so my credibility is doing just fine, so far as real merits are concerned.

See the cop-out your are doing here?

I'm friendly to the origins of the FLDS priesthood claims and the 1880's oracles few know much about, which were ratified as valid, is all you have come up with before you are case closed.

So, you throw several valid oracles under the bus and go with a question and a presumption made by a church president and think that justifies excommunicating the Lord's Anointed Priesthood body that was organized to carry on with the higher laws that the Church abandoned.

If you think that's going to work for you when you are standing before the Son of Man and the Father in your day of judgment, I wish you the best.

It's already been clearly demonstrated that these so-called "oracles" were never "ratified as valid".
Far from it.
In fact, if ever there was a lesson in how not to ratify a revelation, this was it!

When I read your responses, I'm sorry to say the words straws and clutching come forcefully to mind.

You're whistling in the wind my friend.
I fear it won't end well unless you can get past this house of cards you've built. You will probably have to collapse the whole structure and start again.

[freedomforall]

The problem you have here jwharton, is that your credibility is shot to pieces.
You started by claiming the Son of Man came in 1890, but it turns out that this was simply a roose to talk about polygamy and how great the fundies are.

It is shot to pieces only in the eyes of those who have reproach for the Father's Celestial Order and who have crucified Son of Man afresh, as is prophesied some would do.

Nobody has actually put forth any substantive refutation of what I have presented so my credibility is doing just fine, so far as real merits are concerned.

See the cop-out your are doing here?

I'm friendly to the origins of the FLDS priesthood claims and the 1880's oracles few know much about, which were ratified as valid, is all you have come up with before you are case closed.

So, you throw several valid oracles under the bus and go with a question and a presumption made by a church president and think that justifies excommunicating the Lord's Anointed Priesthood body that was organized to carry on with the higher laws that the Church abandoned.

If you think that's going to work for you when you are standing before the Son of Man and the Father in your day of judgment, I wish you the best.

It's already been clearly demonstrated that these so-called "oracles" were never "ratified as valid".
Far from it.
In fact, if ever there was a lesson in how not to ratify a revelation, this was it!

When I read your responses, I'm sorry to say the words straws and clutching come forcefully to mind.

You're whistling in the wind my friend.
I fear it won't end well unless you can get past this house of cards you've built. You will probably have to collapse the whole structure and start again.

Ask him who he believes is "Father"

[rewcox]

The problem you have here jwharton, is that your credibility is shot to pieces.
You started by claiming the Son of Man came in 1890, but it turns out that this was simply a roose to talk about polygamy and how great the fundies are.

It is shot to pieces only in the eyes of those who have reproach for the Father's Celestial Order and who have crucified Son of Man afresh, as is prophesied some would do.

Nobody has actually put forth any substantive refutation of what I have presented so my credibility is doing just fine, so far as real merits are concerned.

See the cop-out your are doing here?

I'm friendly to the origins of the FLDS priesthood claims and the 1880's oracles few know much about, which were ratified as valid, is all you have come up with before you are case closed.

So, you throw several valid oracles under the bus and go with a question and a presumption made by a church president and think that justifies excommunicating the Lord's Anointed Priesthood body that was organized to carry on with the higher laws that the Church abandoned.

If you think that's going to work for you when you are standing before the Son of Man and the Father in your day of judgment, I wish you the best.

It's already been clearly demonstrated that these so-called "oracles" were never "ratified as valid".
Far from it.
In fact, if ever there was a lesson in how not to ratify a revelation, this was it!

When I read your responses, I'm sorry to say the words straws and clutching come forcefully to mind.

You're whistling in the wind my friend.
I fear it won't end well unless you can get past this house of cards you've built. You will probably have to collapse the whole structure and start again.

JW, do you have more than one wife?

Also, doesn't Jacob 2:30 blow your premise, since God can turn on and off polygamy?

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

[jwharton]

The problem you have here jwharton, is that your credibility is shot to pieces.
You started by claiming the Son of Man came in 1890, but it turns out that this was simply a roose to talk about polygamy and how great the fundies are.

It is shot to pieces only in the eyes of those who have reproach for the Father's Celestial Order and who have crucified Son of Man afresh, as is prophesied some would do.

Nobody has actually put forth any substantive refutation of what I have presented so my credibility is doing just fine, so far as real merits are concerned.

See the cop-out your are doing here?

I'm friendly to the origins of the FLDS priesthood claims and the 1880's oracles few know much about, which were ratified as valid, is all you have come up with before you are case closed.

So, you throw several valid oracles under the bus and go with a question and a presumption made by a church president and think that justifies excommunicating the Lord's Anointed Priesthood body that was organized to carry on with the higher laws that the Church abandoned.

If you think that's going to work for you when you are standing before the Son of Man and the Father in your day of judgment, I wish you the best.

It's already been clearly demonstrated that these so-called "oracles" were never "ratified as valid".
Far from it.
In fact, if ever there was a lesson in how not to ratify a revelation, this was it!

When I read your responses, I'm sorry to say the words straws and clutching come forcefully to mind.

You're whistling in the wind my friend.
I fear it won't end well unless you can get past this house of cards you've built. You will probably have to collapse the whole structure and start again.

JW, do you have more than one wife?

Also, doesn't Jacob 2:30 blow your premise, since God can turn on and off polygamy?

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

I would only have more than one wife if a woman received unmistakable signs and witnesses that she was to be a wife to me,
and if I also received my own confirmation that her signs and witnesses were of the Lord and that the Lord wished for me to receive her.
In addition to that, my wife would also need to have her own independent witness so that she too knew it was of the Lord.
Additionally, it would not come about through any overt seeking on my part as I believe a man ought not to be doing such.

Jacob 2:30 did not revoke the levirate marriage provision because that is a commandment of the Lord so that seed can be raised up.

Also, the Manifesto didn't revoke plural marriage altogether because there was a legitimate Priesthood Body organized to carry it on.
Unfortunately, that Priesthood Body was murdered and has since fallen into complete disarray and so that is a serious problem.

I am VERY MUCH looking forward to when the Son of Man makes a comeback and has success to ready a small group to receive the Father.

[Robin Hood]

It is shot to pieces only in the eyes of those who have reproach for the Father's Celestial Order and who have crucified Son of Man afresh, as is prophesied some would do.

Nobody has actually put forth any substantive refutation of what I have presented so my credibility is doing just fine, so far as real merits are concerned.

See the cop-out your are doing here?

I'm friendly to the origins of the FLDS priesthood claims and the 1880's oracles few know much about, which were ratified as valid, is all you have come up with before you are case closed.

So, you throw several valid oracles under the bus and go with a question and a presumption made by a church president and think that justifies excommunicating the Lord's Anointed Priesthood body that was organized to carry on with the higher laws that the Church abandoned.

If you think that's going to work for you when you are standing before the Son of Man and the Father in your day of judgment, I wish you the best.

It's already been clearly demonstrated that these so-called "oracles" were never "ratified as valid".
Far from it.
In fact, if ever there was a lesson in how not to ratify a revelation, this was it!

When I read your responses, I'm sorry to say the words straws and clutching come forcefully to mind.

You're whistling in the wind my friend.
I fear it won't end well unless you can get past this house of cards you've built. You will probably have to collapse the whole structure and start again.

JW, do you have more than one wife?

Also, doesn't Jacob 2:30 blow your premise, since God can turn on and off polygamy?

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

I would only have more than one wife if a woman received unmistakable signs and witnesses that she was to be a wife to me,
and if I also received my own confirmation that her signs and witnesses were of the Lord and that the Lord wished for me to receive her.
In addition to that, my wife would also need to have her own independent witness so that she too knew it was of the Lord.
Additionally, it would not come about through any overt seeking on my part as I believe a man ought not to be doing such.

Jacob 2:30 did not revoke the levirate marriage provision because that is a commandment of the Lord so that seed can be raised up.

Also, the Manifesto didn't revoke plural marriage altogether because there was a legitimate Priesthood Body organized to carry it on.
Unfortunately, that Priesthood Body was murdered and has since fallen into complete disarray and so that is a serious problem.

I am VERY MUCH looking forward to when the Son of Man makes a comeback and has success to ready a small group to receive the Father.

Me thinks JW speaks with forked tongue.
What I mean by that is that you have given a completely contradictory answer to the question posed.
In a nutshell you have said that:
1. Yes, you would take another wife so long as she has a witness of it and you have a witness that she has a witness of it (hope you're following ok)

BUT
2. There is no priesthood authority that can or will perform the marriage/sealing.

I would suggest the BUT completely invalidates number 1. Therefore, no matter who receives a witness of what, it is irrelevant.

Give someone enough rope and they will eventually hang themselves.

[freedomforall]

What does it all mean?

[jwharton]

Me thinks JW speaks with forked tongue.
What I mean by that is that you have given a completely contradictory answer to the question posed.
In a nutshell you have said that:
1. Yes, you would take another wife so long as she has a witness of it and you have a witness that she has a witness of it (hope you're following ok)

BUT
2. There is no priesthood authority that can or will perform the marriage/sealing.

I would suggest the BUT completely invalidates number 1. Therefore, no matter who receives a witness of what, it is irrelevant.

Give someone enough rope and they will eventually hang themselves.

What I said is just the straight forward presentation of my current understanding.
It reflects the "forked-tongue" of the circumstances we currently find ourselves in.
The Manifesto was due to the Saints being overcome in our new War in Heaven.
The "forked-tongue" situation we are currently in will remain until we repent, collectively speaking.
The longer we leave this unaddressed the more we keep going deeper and deeper into condemnation.

If it is a matter of concern, when I read the 1886 alleged revelation,
I did not adopt an interpretation that superseded any other oracle.
God's Word has to be gathered together into one great whole to obtain His Law.
The first part of what I said is what I get out of the Lord saying people's agency should be involved.
In other words, I don't believe in some dude getting a revelation and foisting it on some woman.
And, I especially don't agree with what the FLDS of today are doing to take captive wives.

Anyway, just keep up being desperate to discredit me if that's what you feel the need to do.

[jwharton]

What does it all mean?

What does what all mean?

[jwharton]

rewcox, I should also mention that God can turn an entire society over to condemnation and destruction as well.
It isn't a coincidence the Nephite civilization was slated to go to condemnation and destruction in Jacob chapter 2.
This is one of the many crucial lessons we are to learn from reading the Book of Mormon and putting it all together.

So, while you all argue for refusing to address and rectify the forked tongue circumstances the Manifesto put us in,
I am going to stand right by your side and remind you that we shall also remain and go deeper into condemnation as well.

The two are most definitely connected together and I can walk someone's understanding through the underlying spiritual connections.

[freedomforall]

What does it all mean?

What does what all mean?

It means that people here don't like my input because I am different than they, so I want unadulterated, pure, right from the horses mouth, so to speak, doctrine that I can take to the bank as though it came right out of God's mouth, doctrine I can take to my family and friends with confidence. So be careful in what is taught, okay? This back and forth dialog containing innuendos, insinuations, hypothetical situations and guess work, and "I know more than you" stuff is making me dizzy.

[jwharton]

What does it all mean?

What does what all mean?

It means that people here don't like my input because I am different than they, so I want unadulterated, pure, right from the horses mouth, so to speak, doctrine that I can take to the bank as though it came right out of God's mouth. So be careful in what is taught, okay? This back and forth dialog containing innuendos, insinuations and "I know more than you" stuff is making me dizzy.

Think of it more like both sides participating are thinking:
"I'm excited to bring what I know that others may not yet know."

In other words, two or more people coming together to both enlarge and edify one another.
I very much look forward, and am the least bit dizzied, when people share their view.
And, the more they view things differently than me, the more excited I get, so long as there is substance to it.
This is because the chances of me getting my view expanded by sharing their view is increased significantly.

What is dizzying to me is when people just start to personally smear me with no real substance.

I'm sure people who think I'm wrong learn and grow in their attempt to challenge me.
This process can be going on and both sides can be learning things the other didn't intend.
This is because when there is love, sincerity and an eye single to God's glory, the Holy Spirit guides.

It is only when personal put-downs and character assassination is attempted that the Spirit flees.
This is why it says in the scriptures that those who mock shall mourn because they shut down edification.
And, as soon as mocking starts, then the process to chase darkness from among you is halted.

[AI2.0]

My responses in red;

and AI2.0 snipped the body of this post because it is extremely long ..Here are some responses to it:

JWharton's comments are in green:

So here is the 'offending' statement which I made;

They ignored the Prophet because they wanted power and prestige in the Eternal worlds wanting to reside in the exclusive 'tippy top' of the Celestial Kingdom, needing several wives--collecting them along with the children they bore as some kind of stamp of their importance in the next world.

You said this;

The quote you made above certainly called names, mocked and went way beyond mere disagreement where my ancestors were concerned.
Seeing as how you felt it appropriate to make that quote without disqualifying your view that it was mocking, jeering and a bit over the top, then you were endorsing its slur.

I categorically deny that anything I said was mocking or jeering or called anyone names. What I said was fact.

It's very first point you claim is a fact is not such.
They didn't ignore the Prophet, as in the Lord's Anointed Prophet. You are using this supposed difference between the 'president' of the church and the Lord's 'Anointed'. I reject that, in the LDS church, they are one in the same. The President of the church is also the Lord's anointed, period. We don't make distinctions--polygamists do, but LDS members of the mainstream church do not. Polygamists DID ignore and defy President and anointed Prophet, Joseph F. Smith. You can't deny that.

What Wilford Woodruff did was in the capacity of being the President of the Church, not in the capacity of being the Lord's Anointed Prophet. Mainstream LDS (which I am) do not make a distinction, they are the same. But, sometimes the Prophet does not speak in his capacity as prophet. In this case, the forbidding of more Polygamous marriages, were pronounced in the capacity of prophet.

There is a difference, and this is a FACT. A FACT which the person saying that quote and you are not giving proper consideration of.To clarify, I am the one who said that, it's not a quote. If I had been quoting someone else I would have put quotations around it and given an attribution. I know what I'm talking about, you simply refuse to admit that polygamists ignore the Prophet of the church and instead, follow the supposed 'oracles' of a dead Prophet.

If President Woodruff was doing something by way of the Lord's Anointed Prophet mantle of authority, it would have been in a "thus saith the Lord" oracle that he received, as this is the simple duty of the Lord's Anointed Prophet, to receive His Word in oracles.Bingo!!!! It's like the test word 'shibboleth'--this statement exposes you--I said you sounded like a fundamentalist and I was right, you are a fundamentalist--I don't know if you are a practicing polygamist, but you espouse the views of those who reject continuing revelation and present leaders. FYI, members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter day saints reject the notion that all revelation must start with 'thus saith the Lord' to be revelation.

Fact: The Prophet told them NO MORE POLYGAMOUS marriages and they ignored him.

Actually, if you read it for what it says, it ends with a question and an assumption about what he presumes all should do.
But, it is clear, the Lord actually only suffered the Church, not the Priesthood, to pretend it was being done away with.
It wasn't actually intended that the Priesthood make any further concessions and an oracle commanded such to be the case.
I believe it was in the oracle Wilford Woodruff received in 1889 where the Lord made it clear the Priesthood was to continue it.Yea, that's another fraudulent document which polygamists trot out to try to defend their claims. And clearly you are under their spell, you've bought their arguments hook line and sinker. FYI, for CofJCofLDS members, the Church and the Priesthood are tied together. We actually believe that our Prophet and the Quorum of 12 are the only ones authorized to receive what you call 'oracles' for the membership and God does not call other prophets to defy them and set up organizations outside the body of the church. Those organizations are what we call 'apostate'.

What I have said here is the FACT of what was actually said by the LORD through HIS Lord's Anointed Prophet.
Have you taken the time to actually read the "thus saith the Lord" oracles to know what the PROPHET actually said?JWharton, you can believe what you want, but don't go around claiming that what you believe is compatible with the CofJCofLDS--you stand against our prophets and you follow after false prophets. Anyone with half a brain can see it.

Why? Fact: Because they believed that having more wives in the eternal world gave them more power and authority in heaven--hence what we call 'prestige' in this life. You going to deny that???

I am most definitely going to deny the sneering and mocking tone of what is being implied and call it out for what it is.
As I said before, this is exactly the same flavor and style of arrogance Cain used to rationalize his murder of Abel.'Sneering and mocking'? If you think I'm sneering, mocking and 'slurring' you, then please report me. I'm tired of your accusations against my tone--which has been nothing but civil. I'm not the one who accused you of having the 'flavor and style and arrogance of Cain'--that's certainly not a compliment.

Here's where I'm at in relation to this kind of statement:
Since when does it become a sin to wish to increase your knowledge, experience, power and glory by hearkening diligently to the Father's Celestial Patriarchal Order?
If we held Abraham up to your standard you would also call him a power seeking glory hog who should be abased for his desire to have the blessings of the Fathers and the power, glory and knowledge of God and to be exalted and become a God.Abraham was commanded by God, he didn't rebel against God and do as he pleased. The Lord knows the heart, he will judge.

This belief is what drove them to defy their Prophet.

As I have said over and over already.
It was their belief in what the Prophet (as-in Lord's Anointed Prophet) said,Which Prophet??? What Prophet told them to ignore their present Prophet, Joseph F. Smith and continue polygamous marriages? Which Prophet? Who was the 'Lord's anointed Prophet' if it wasn't Joseph F. Smith? Please enlighten me, because the only one I recognize and the bulk of t he members, was also the President of the LDS church at the time. instead of what the Church President asked and presumed,'presumed'? He was the Prophet!!! They were supposed to listen and be obedient to him, not anyone else. They rebelled against their own faith and their own teachings by following after false 'oracles' and dead prophets and they knew better! that encouraged them to be willing to suffer being crucified afresh and put to an open shame in order to show the Father that they truly were willing to suffer and give up their lives, even their spiritual lives, if that's what holding true and faithful in all things required.If that's what they thought they were doing, they were wrong. They were in open rebellion against their faith when they defied the Lord's Prophet--Joseph F. Smith, and so, if they were 'put to shame' and suffered, it was of their own making.

This is the accurate and factual representation of what was motivating the early polygamists.

Fact: These polygamists believed that they needed at least three wives to qualify for the very top of the Celestial Kingdom. They got that impression from some unfounded speculation by early church leaders--but which had no basis in fact.

I agree there isn't complete support in the oracles, at least that I am aware of, that says in a direct manner that a minimum of three wives are required for exaltation. I too am pretty skeptical on some of the details of what the FLDS came to believe. (And, for the record, I am utterly aghast at where it has gone now and see it as a gross abomination.) But, there is an oracle from the Lord that does indicate that an exalted leader in the kingdom should have a plurality of wives. I'll look it up and get back to you on that...You are welcome to look it up, but let's be clear, I don't accept your 'oracles' , especially when they speak in contradiction to the Lord's TRUE prophets in our church's line of succession. I utterly reject the notion that women are given to men for purposes of 'exaltation', we are individuals, not prizes to be handed out. Adam had one wife and he's no slouch in the eternities. It's like 'who dies with the most toys wins'--only 'who dies with the most wives wins'---it is offensive, and worldy thinking.

Fact: Being a polygamist, having at least three wives and the more the better, gave them the feeling that they were more righteous than monogamists and looked to have been rewarded for that righteousness with additional wives and children. You going to deny that??

As of today, I definitely believe it has degraded into a totally dead and decaying body.
Was this what the Lord intended them to turn into when He gave the oraclesHe didn't encourage the 'oracles', misguided members followed after false prophets and lies. He did to encourage those who preside to have a plurality of wives?To me it is clear, God didn't influence them to have a plurality of wives, Satan did. They rebelled against the Prophet and refused to follow his commands to end the practice.
I don't believe so. Does the fact that perhaps a few wayward individuals who got caught up in a bit of an ego-oriented approach instead of a Celestial approach utterly and completely disqualify the entire effort to have a valid Priesthood Body to keep the higher laws alive? Of course not!There is no question that you can say their 'fruits' for the whole of them have been anything but evil. THis is not just a couple of bad apples.

There is nothing of a 'slur' in this, it is not mocking, it is not jeering, it is simply stating what they believe.

The entirety of it was a complete slur and it was not based on fact as you believe.That's an utter falsehood. I have spoken plainly truth, not slur. I know the history, the practices and what has come of the polygamist sects which have broken off from the church, I'm not making things up and calling them facts. You reject what I say because you are either a practicing polygamist or sympathize with them and refuse to hear anything negative about them.
It was based on a delusion that was intended to throw the world off while the Priesthood carried right on with the Father's Celestial Order.This is an utter falsehood. There was never any intention for the Lord's restored, true and living church to have some secret combination, working under cover of deceit and darkness, defying the Prophet to continue a practice which he held the keys to authorize or reject. To believe this is chaos and against the divine order of the Lord's organization and kingdom on earth. And that is exactly why people who promote it are excommunicated, it infects the church with apostate beliefs and if left unchecked, will destroy us.
This was indeed the FACT of the matter at that time and it is proven because plural marriages did in FACT continue post-Manifesto.

I didn't deny that they did continue after the manifesto. I realize there was a time when Wilford Woodruff allowed some marriages to take place, he had that right, he was the prophet. But, after Joseph F. Smith's second manifesto, polygamy was NOT tolerated, approved, sanctioned or allowed. As Prophet and president and Lord's anointed, it was his right and responsibility to allow it or end the practice and he ended it. Those who continued the practice were correctly excommunicated, just as they were warned. All polygamous marriages now are not allowed and to suggest that some shadow priesthood body are able to defy the prophet and work outside the church with the full authorization and approval of God is apostate thinking.

[AI2.0]

What does it all mean?

What does what all mean?

It means that people here don't like my input because I am different than they, so I want unadulterated, pure, right from the horses mouth, so to speak, doctrine that I can take to the bank as though it came right out of God's mouth. So be careful in what is taught, okay? This back and forth dialog containing innuendos, insinuations and "I know more than you" stuff is making me dizzy.

Think of it more like both sides participating are thinking:
"I'm excited to bring what I know that others may not yet know."

In other words, two or more people coming together to both enlarge and edify one another.
I very much look forward, and am the least bit dizzied, when people share their view.
And, the more they view things differently than me, the more excited I get, so long as there is substance to it.
This is because the chances of me getting my view expanded by sharing their view is increased significantly.

What is dizzying to me is when people just start to personally smear me with no real substance.

I'm sure people who think I'm wrong learn and grow in their attempt to challenge me.
This process can be going on and both sides can be learning things the other didn't intend.
This is because when there is love, sincerity and an eye single to God's glory, the Holy Spirit guides.

It is only when personal put-downs and character assassination is attempted that the Spirit flees.
This is why it says in the scriptures that those who mock shall mourn because they shut down edification.
And, as soon as mocking starts, then the process to chase darkness from among you is halted.

Once again, there is no mocking, character assassination, personal putdowns or slurs on my part, If you have a problem with my posts, please report them, I have spoken plainly, but have done my best to defend the faith.

I'm on FIRE with the spirit as I write my responses to you, I feel no spirit of contention--I just wish I had more time to participate. Abinadi, Alma, Amulek--they show us that we can 'contend' but not be contentious. But, be warned jWharton,-- if you preach false doctrine on this forum, and I read it, I will join others here to speak out boldly against it.

[Mark]

It's already been clearly demonstrated that these so-called "oracles" were never "ratified as valid".
Far from it.
In fact, if ever there was a lesson in how not to ratify a revelation, this was it!

When I read your responses, I'm sorry to say the words straws and clutching come forcefully to mind.

You're whistling in the wind my friend.
I fear it won't end well unless you can get past this house of cards you've built. You will probably have to collapse the whole structure and start again.

JW, do you have more than one wife?

Also, doesn't Jacob 2:30 blow your premise, since God can turn on and off polygamy?

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

I would only have more than one wife if a woman received unmistakable signs and witnesses that she was to be a wife to me,
and if I also received my own confirmation that her signs and witnesses were of the Lord and that the Lord wished for me to receive her.
In addition to that, my wife would also need to have her own independent witness so that she too knew it was of the Lord.
Additionally, it would not come about through any overt seeking on my part as I believe a man ought not to be doing such.

Jacob 2:30 did not revoke the levirate marriage provision because that is a commandment of the Lord so that seed can be raised up.

Also, the Manifesto didn't revoke plural marriage altogether because there was a legitimate Priesthood Body organized to carry it on.
Unfortunately, that Priesthood Body was murdered and has since fallen into complete disarray and so that is a serious problem.

I am VERY MUCH looking forward to when the Son of Man makes a comeback and has success to ready a small group to receive the Father.

Me thinks JW speaks with forked tongue.
What I mean by that is that you have given a completely contradictory answer to the question posed.
In a nutshell you have said that:
1. Yes, you would take another wife so long as she has a witness of it and you have a witness that she has a witness of it (hope you're following ok)

BUT
2. There is no priesthood authority that can or will perform the marriage/sealing.

I would suggest the BUT completely invalidates number 1. Therefore, no matter who receives a witness of what, it is irrelevant.

Give someone enough rope and they will eventually hang themselves.

Indeed. JW has so much confirmation bias going on in his head about plural marriage that he has in essence become a law unto himself. He misunderstands the necessary roles in Priesthood Govt and really is no different than Snuffer who loudly proclaims that the Lord no longer recognizes the LDS church hierchy as valid administrators holding necessary proper Priesthood keys and authority. He also doesnt understand the significance the living oracles of God play in the operation of the kingdom of God on earth today. I feel very sorry for him in the delusion he labors under. It reminds me on the experience recorded by Wilford Woodruff in a meeting of the Saints attended by Joseph and Brigham:

"Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, ‘Brother Brigham I want you to take the stand and tell us your views with regard to the written oracles and the written word of God.’ Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: ‘There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day.’ ‘And now,’ said he, ‘when compared with the living oracles [living prophets] those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.’ That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation: ‘Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth’” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1897, 22–23; emphasis added).

[jwharton]

Mainstream LDS (which I am) do not make a distinction, they are the same.

They were made the same at one point but also at the same time there was a warning associated with the joining together of these mantles.
I'm pretty sure I have already walked you through this, but if you like, I'll walk you through it all again.
In brief, an oracle was received (D&C 90) which said the gift to receive oracles would go to the Church.
It also said to take heed how this gift is handled because if it is taken lightly it would turn to condemnation.
So, yes, the Church did receive the gift to receive ongoing oracles upon Joseph Smith Jr. passing away.
This is why Brigham Young, John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff also received "thus saith the Lord" oracles.
What is quite obvious is this gift to receive oracles began to be taken lightly by the Church.
There were several very important oracles received in the 1880's that were taken much too lightly.
As a result the church did get slated to go deeper into condemnation and this gift was taken from them.
The leadership of the people of Israel was only to remain with the Apostles until the Son of Man came.

Thus, as I am establishing in this thread, the Lord's Anointed Prophet mantle, which is the gift to receive oracles, was indeed transferred from the Apostles to a new Priesthood Body, the Son of Man, that was organized for the purpose of keeping integrity to the Celestial Order, so that the Father's Plan would remain operative even though the Church had lost it due to their neglect and disobedience.

This is evidenced by the fact that "thus saith the Lord" oracles ceased entirely from the Church post-Manifesto.
The transfer of the title of Prophet was again separated from the Church and the leadership went to the Son of Man.

But, sometimes the Prophet does not speak in his capacity as prophet. In this case, the forbidding of more Polygamous marriages, were pronounced in the capacity of prophet.

The Manifesto merely removed plural marriages from being a Church related affair.
And, that's no big deal because it really wasn't ever a Church related affair anyway.
Plural marriages were always a function of the organization surrounding the Lord's Anointed Prophet, which is the School of the Prophets.
Telling the world that the Church wouldn't do it anymore was just a smokescreen because the Priesthood definitely continued it, and legitimately so.

To clarify, I am the one who said that, it's not a quote. If I had been quoting someone else I would have put quotations around it and given an attribution. I know what I'm talking about, you simply refuse to admit that polygamists ignore the Prophet of the church and instead, follow the supposed 'oracles' of a dead Prophet.

I accept your clarification that you are who said that. Not sure why I thought it was someone else's words being quoted.

I do not ignore all of the pieces of crucial information stated in the oracles that support what I am trying to draw your attention to.
You likely will not be able to find or prove where I have taken any oracle from the Lord lightly.
But, if you are aware of anything in a "thus saith the Lord" oracle that I appear to be taking lightly, please make sure you let me know.
This is because it is only those who receive "thus saith the Lord" pronouncements who are an actual Lord's Anointed Prophet.

If President Woodruff was doing something by way of the Lord's Anointed Prophet mantle of authority, it would have been in a "thus saith the Lord" oracle that he received, as this is the simple duty of the Lord's Anointed Prophet, to receive His Word in oracles.

Bingo!!!! It's like the test word 'shibboleth'--this statement exposes you--I said you sounded like a fundamentalist and I was right, you are a fundamentalist--

I am not a part of any so-called Fundamentalist groups.
The various FLDS derived sects out there are now a dead body that is rotten and putrid.
I have much kinder things to say to mainstream LDS than I have to FLDS sects of today.
If any of them were actually here and spouting their corruptions I'd be just as candid and frank with them to oppose such.

I don't know if you are a practicing polygamist, but you espouse the views of those who reject continuing revelation and present leaders.

Actually, I don't. I have just taken a position to not take any oracles a Lord's Anointed Prophet has received lightly.
I have taken out my Priesthood magnifying glass and I am carefully examining everything I can find and making discoveries.
I am sharing them with you here simply for the fact that I have not as of yet found any critical flaws in this discovery.
I am hopeful I'll get some kind of substantive push-back or that perhaps by subjecting it to the fire it will be proven out as correct.
It's going to go one way or the other and if you want me to give respect for your views, I need to sense you are sincerely handling mine.

FYI, members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter day saints reject the notion that all revelation must start with 'thus saith the Lord' to be revelation.

Yes, of course, all of the top 15 leaders in the Church have the duty to be prophets, seers and revelators, in their various Church capacities. I am firmly loyal to the Church and I am not of the opinion or belief that any of the keys that belong specifically to the Church have been lost. I orient myself to the mainstream LDS because I hold that they are yet the most correct and worthwhile organized Church that exists and I don't believe any other body out there has in anyway supplanted the fact that the Church body is in fact Eve's body of flesh and bone. It is Eve who is cleansed and redeemed and who throws off the false teachings of Lucifer and who casts him down from the heavenly (governing) positions he has usurped. It is the mainstream body of the Church who shall pass through the veil and go on to Her exaltation.

Unfortunately, I have personal matters to attend to and will have to leave off for now.

[Mark]

"Yes, of course, all of the top 15 leaders in the Church have the duty to be prophets, seers and revelators, in their various Church capacities. I am firmly loyal to the Church and I am not of the opinion or belief that any of the keys that belong specifically to the Church have been lost. I orient myself to the mainstream LDS because I hold that they are yet the most correct and worthwhile organized Church that exists and I don't believe any other body out there has in anyway supplanted the fact that the Church body is in fact Eve's body of flesh and bone. It is Eve who is cleansed and redeemed and who throws off the false teachings of Lucifer and who casts him down from the heavenly (governing) positions he has usurped. It is the mainstream body of the Church who shall pass through the veil and go on to Her exaltation"

All I can say is with friends and loyalists like you claim to be towards the LDS church who needs enemies!

[freedomforall]

What does it all mean?

What does what all mean?

It means that people here don't like my input because I am different than they, so I want unadulterated, pure, right from the horses mouth, so to speak, doctrine that I can take to the bank as though it came right out of God's mouth. So be careful in what is taught, okay? This back and forth dialog containing innuendos, insinuations and "I know more than you" stuff is making me dizzy.

Think of it more like both sides participating are thinking:
"I'm excited to bring what I know that others may not yet know." This is fine as long as your teachings are based and corroborated by scripture and modern day prophet teachings.

In other words, two or more people coming together to both enlarge and edify one another. Like a big cat and a Goldfish?
I very much look forward, and am the least bit dizzied, when people share their view.
And, the more they view things differently than me, the more excited I get, so long as there is substance to it. Scripture after scripture and modern day articles from church leaders have been presented to you, but are rejected. So much for substance.
This is because the chances of me getting my view expanded by sharing their view is increased significantly.

What is dizzying to me is when people just start to personally smear me with no real substance. Like scriptures and talks?

I'm sure people who think I'm wrong learn and grow in their attempt to challenge me. Some of us have learned your true colors. It's not your doctrine that is important, it is modern day oracles to us and presented by us for you to learn and believe. Some here have already warned you about false doctrine and we will stand against it boldly.
This process can be going on and both sides can be learning things the other didn't intend. The concept might work, but what have you learned of any significance you would care to divulge.
This is because when there is love, sincerity and an eye single to God's glory, the Holy Spirit guides. True statement.

It is only when personal put-downs and character assassination is attempted that the Spirit flees. Is your doctrine the basic construct of your character. I have not attacked your character. Had I said you were hardheaded and dumber than a bag of rocks...then that would be attacking your character. But I have only attacked your doctrine for what it is.
This is why it says in the scriptures that those who mock shall mourn because they shut down edification. Let's put this into proper perspective. Edification only comes when two people are on the same wave length, in that the Spirit teaches and the receiver learns by that same spirit, both parties being uplifted and edified. False doctrine is not edifying by any stretch of the imagination.
And, as soon as mocking starts, then the process to chase darkness from among you is halted.

Doctrine and Covenants 50:22
22 Wherefore, he that preacheth and he that receiveth, understand one another, and both are edified and rejoice together.

Doctrine and Covenants 50:23
23 And that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness.


True edification comes from both parties knowing and receiving the same doctrine, not two opposing doctrines mingled with precepts of men.

Where is any edification derived from being told we're going to perdition and we need to be taken out of mainstream, orthodox, Mormon Christianity, huh?

Let's see how you explain this away in the name of edification.

Further, here is some more sure word of God:

24 That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day.
25 And again, verily I say unto you, and I say it that you may know the truth, that you may chase darkness from among you;

What you call character attacking is actually me and a few others chasing darkness away as admonished.

John 8:32
32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

[jwharton]

"Yes, of course, all of the top 15 leaders in the Church have the duty to be prophets, seers and revelators, in their various Church capacities. I am firmly loyal to the Church and I am not of the opinion or belief that any of the keys that belong specifically to the Church have been lost. I orient myself to the mainstream LDS because I hold that they are yet the most correct and worthwhile organized Church that exists and I don't believe any other body out there has in anyway supplanted the fact that the Church body is in fact Eve's body of flesh and bone. It is Eve who is cleansed and redeemed and who throws off the false teachings of Lucifer and who casts him down from the heavenly (governing) positions he has usurped. It is the mainstream body of the Church who shall pass through the veil and go on to Her exaltation"

All I can say is with friends and loyalists like you claim to be towards the LDS church who needs enemies!

I am merely an enemy of those aspects of pollution and usurpation that Eve is dealing with in Her time of peril.

[jwharton]

What does what all mean?

It means that people here don't like my input because I am different than they, so I want unadulterated, pure, right from the horses mouth, so to speak, doctrine that I can take to the bank as though it came right out of God's mouth. So be careful in what is taught, okay? This back and forth dialog containing innuendos, insinuations and "I know more than you" stuff is making me dizzy.

Think of it more like both sides participating are thinking:
"I'm excited to bring what I know that others may not yet know." This is fine as long as your teachings are based and corroborated by scripture and modern day prophet teachings.

In other words, two or more people coming together to both enlarge and edify one another. Like a big cat and a Goldfish?
I very much look forward, and am the least bit dizzied, when people share their view.
And, the more they view things differently than me, the more excited I get, so long as there is substance to it. Scripture after scripture and modern day articles from church leaders have been presented to you, but are rejected. So much for substance.
This is because the chances of me getting my view expanded by sharing their view is increased significantly.

What is dizzying to me is when people just start to personally smear me with no real substance. Like scriptures and talks?

I'm sure people who think I'm wrong learn and grow in their attempt to challenge me. Some of us have learned your true colors. It's not your doctrine that is important, it is modern day oracles to us and presented by us for you to learn and believe. Some here have already warned you about false doctrine and we will stand against it boldly.
This process can be going on and both sides can be learning things the other didn't intend. The concept might work, but what have you learned of any significance you would care to divulge.
This is because when there is love, sincerity and an eye single to God's glory, the Holy Spirit guides. True statement.

It is only when personal put-downs and character assassination is attempted that the Spirit flees. Is your doctrine the basic construct of your character. I have not attacked your character. Had I said you were hardheaded and dumber than a bag of rocks...then that would be attacking your character. But I have only attacked your doctrine for what it is.
This is why it says in the scriptures that those who mock shall mourn because they shut down edification. Let's put this into proper perspective. Edification only comes when two people are on the same wave length, in that the Spirit teaches and the receiver learns by that same spirit, both parties being uplifted and edified. False doctrine is not edifying by any stretch of the imagination.
And, as soon as mocking starts, then the process to chase darkness from among you is halted.

Doctrine and Covenants 50:22
22 Wherefore, he that preacheth and he that receiveth, understand one another, and both are edified and rejoice together.

Doctrine and Covenants 50:23
23 And that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness.


True edification comes from both parties knowing and receiving the same doctrine, not two opposing doctrines mingled with precepts of men.

Where is any edification derived from being told we're going to perdition and we need to be taken out of mainstream, orthodox, Mormon Christianity, huh?

Let's see how you explain this away in the name of edification.

Further, here is some more sure word of God:

24 That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day.
25 And again, verily I say unto you, and I say it that you may know the truth, that you may chase darkness from among you;

What you call character attacking is actually me and a few others chasing darkness away as admonished.

John 8:32
32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Character attacking is just that, character attacking and it is contention, the kind the adversary wants to stir up.

But, you can have your way if that is what you want.

If there aren't at least two people who request for me to continue, then I will cease and desist with my attempt to contribute here.

[Lizzy60]

I enjoy reading your posts, jwharton, and hope you continue. You've given me many things to consider, and I also find some things in your posts that I've previously been taught by the spirit. I would prefer that we all just ignore posts that cause us to feel contentious, and yes, this goes both ways. It would be nice if FFA just left your threads alone, just as I realized long ago that I couldn't have a conversation with FFA (and a few others) as we differed on some very basic doctrinal points.

[Zion2080]

This whole topic is just people commenting each-other. No wonder this is the 6th page.

[freedomforall]

It is only when personal put-downs and character assassination is attempted that the Spirit flees.

Is your doctrine the basic construct of your character. I have not attacked your character. Had I said you were hardheaded and dumber than a bag of rocks...then that would be attacking your character. But I have only attacked your doctrine for what it is.

This is why it says in the scriptures that those who mock shall mourn because they shut down edification. And, as soon as mocking starts, then the process to chase darkness from among you is halted.

Let's put this into proper perspective. Edification only comes when two people are on the same wave length, in that the Spirit teaches and the receiver learns by that same spirit, both parties being uplifted and edified. False doctrine is not edifying by any stretch of the imagination.

Doctrine and Covenants 50:22
22 Wherefore, he that preacheth and he that receiveth, understand one another, and both are edified and rejoice together.

Doctrine and Covenants 50:23
23 And that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness.


True edification comes from both parties knowing and receiving the same doctrine, not two opposing doctrines mingled with precepts of men.

Where is any edification derived from being told we're going to perdition and we need to be taken out of mainstream, orthodox, Mormon Christianity, huh?

Let's see how you explain this away in the name of edification.

Further, here is some more sure word of God:

24 That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day.
25 And again, verily I say unto you, and I say it that you may know the truth, that you may chase darkness from among you;

What you call character attacking is actually me and a few others chasing darkness away as admonished.

John 8:32
32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.[/quote]

Character attacking is just that, character attacking and it is contention, the kind the adversary wants to stir up.

Please comprehend this. I've already explained to you that I am not attacking your character, rather your doctrine...unless your character is solely constructed with your doctrine. Don't twist my words around, okay. You ask for clarification but reject it and twist it around because you don't seem to be able to take your own medicine.

But, you can have your way if that is what you want.

We went through this same pouting attitude many months ago. Do you remember?

If there aren't at least two people who request for me to continue, then I will cease and desist with my attempt to contribute here.

Do as you wish, but don't be alarmed when some people stand against non LDS doctrine, or feel offended by being told they're going to perdition, or correcting doctrine not acceptable to LDS's You do not like insults, so quit insulting our intelligence and testimonies. Respect our views and our insights and scriptural knowledge for respect is a two way street. Know that about five people have given you a heads up on trying to pass off bad doctrine.

ABOVE ALL>>>know this is a Pro-LDS site!

[brianj]

Me thinks JW speaks with forked tongue.
What I mean by that is that you have given a completely contradictory answer to the question posed.
In a nutshell you have said that:
1. Yes, you would take another wife so long as she has a witness of it and you have a witness that she has a witness of it (hope you're following ok)

BUT
2. There is no priesthood authority that can or will perform the marriage/sealing.

I would suggest the BUT completely invalidates number 1. Therefore, no matter who receives a witness of what, it is irrelevant.

Give someone enough rope and they will eventually hang themselves.

I disagree with the forced tongue suspicion as well as your second point. Regarding the second point, the fact that there is no priesthood authority that can or will perform a marriage or sealing of a second living wife at this time does not suggest that that authority will not be delegated in the future.

I don't know all that will be in the future, but I anticipate that plural marriage will return to this church at some point - possibly after the Millennium begins, possibly before then. Assuming this doctrine is reintroduced, the church would have to be given the authority to conduct those sealings.

I have very mixed opinions on the subject. I can see a lot of good that can come out of that order of the priesthood, but I have a hard time imagining a more difficult trial. I do understand that when polygamy was allowed a man had to be called to participate, and though I don't think that I want to have multiple wives I really hope that if that order returns I would be worthy of it.

[jwharton]

It is only when personal put-downs and character assassination is attempted that the Spirit flees.

Is your doctrine the basic construct of your character. I have not attacked your character. Had I said you were hardheaded and dumber than a bag of rocks...then that would be attacking your character. But I have only attacked your doctrine for what it is.

I hear the context from which you speak as well as what you speak.

If I put in the time to help show you how and where you cross this line, would you sincerely give it consideration?

This is why it says in the scriptures that those who mock shall mourn because they shut down edification. And, as soon as mocking starts, then the process to chase darkness from among you is halted.

Let's put this into proper perspective. Edification only comes when two people are on the same wave length, in that the Spirit teaches and the receiver learns by that same spirit, both parties being uplifted and edified. False doctrine is not edifying by any stretch of the imagination.

The purpose of edification isn't for "the choir to sing to its own", so to speak.

Edification is the process of two parties who have differing perspectives coming together who are on a differing wavelength for the purpose of bringing light to each other. This is because between the two of them some darkness does exist somewhere that it is hoped can be chased from one or both of them.

The purpose of preaching by this Spirit is so that between the two of each side the light they have to offer the other and visa versa will be able to enlighten and uplift wherever it is needed. Put another way, through the spirit of humility and basic human decency, each puts forth the effort to genuinely understand one another. And, a hallmark of someone who truly has the Spirit of Truth is they reserve casting judgment until they are confident they truly understand what the other is trying to communicate.

So, when this Spirit (mindset) exists, which ever person holds the greater light and the greater truth has an opportunity to bestow that upon the other, if they are humble and willing to genuinely allow that light in so that it can be received.

In many cases, the enlightenment can go both ways so that each participant in the edification process has the opportunity to increase one another's light. In this way it is assured that both he that preacheth and he that receiveth can indeed both understand one another and both are able to rejoice together.

Doctrine and Covenants 50:22
22 Wherefore, he that preacheth and he that receiveth, understand one another, and both are edified and rejoice together.

Doctrine and Covenants 50:23
23 And that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness.

True edification comes from both parties knowing and receiving the same doctrine, not two opposing doctrines mingled with precepts of men.

Where is any edification derived from being told we're going to perdition and we need to be taken out of mainstream, orthodox, Mormon Christianity, huh?

Let's see how you explain this away in the name of edification.

We have a different understanding of the purpose of edification.

As I explained above, the purpose for edification is for light to be shared in such a way that it fills in darkness that previously existed.
If you and I sat down to talk and we agreed on everything and neither had any light to offer the other, sure, we could be peaceful and comfortable and feel like we could let our guard down and so on. We could also reminisce the time that we learned the truths we came to appreciate and again experience one another's rejoicing together. But, that isn't really the setting D&C 50 is talking about. The setting D&C 50 is talking about is when two parties with considerably differing views are attempting to uplift one another and to preach things to others that they have not yet heard.

If a person has darkness in them but they are sincere in their desire to increase their light and they have the Spirit of Truth, then everyone they interact with who has light to offer will have a great chance of giving them light that will chase away their darkness. This happens because the they truly put in effort to try to understand them and even if it was a bit awkward and difficult and even confronting, they made sure to understand the person offering them the light they offered. In this way, it is a given that the person who once had darkness will indeed allow in the light others have to offer and every time they will rejoice together because darkness was chased away in one or even both of them.

So, if one party has light to offer to fill in darkness in another, but if instead of really trying to understand that person the other person just felt threatened and then decided they needed to lash out in some way and derail the conversation, then the means by which that light could have been shared has been critically interfered with.

This can go in either direction. The person who has the light to offer will not really be in an effective position to deliver that light if they are insecure and unwilling to gain an understanding of the person they are preaching to. So, when you endeavor to preach, you really don't have much power to edify unless you are willing to be gracious and to give the person you are preaching to the satisfaction of knowing that you are genuinely trying to understand their point of view.

This is why when I sense that you don't really understand me and that you are in fact not really wanting to understand me, that you fail to be able to share with me whatever light you believe you have to offer me. I want to reap the benefit of any light you have to offer me, but for that to happen we need to be able to reach the point where we truly do understand one another's views fully.

If I am stuck in a pit and I need direct assistance, someone needs to be able to come right down into that pit with me where I am in order to pull me out of it. Perhaps rescuing people out of pits isn't something many are up for doing and perhaps it only takes a special person with special skills to pull people out of pits, but if they are to be saved via edification, that is how it needs to happen.

I'll address the rest of your post separately.