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.Robin Hood wrote: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.
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.