Advent of the Son of Man already happened

[jwharton]

I'm a little late to the game, but luckily for us some people once asked Jesus: "what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?"
And Jesus answered and said unto them, "take heed that no man deceive you." He said some other stuff, then he said: "if they shall say unto you, behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Fantastic! Some fresh content to work with that is relevant and contributive.

Where might we find something that talks about a movement of things from the east to the west?

D&C 64
63 And behold, it shall come to pass that my servants shall be sent forth to the east and to the west, to the north and to the south.
64 And even now, let him that goeth to the east teach them that shall be converted to flee to the west, and this in consequence of that which is coming on the earth, and of secret combinations.

This passage of scripture makes it clear that in some manner the people themselves fulfill this aspect of prophecy.
It is the movements of the people who receive the fullness of the Gospel who move from the east to the west.
These are the people who become the members of the flesh and bone body of the Son of Man born in the Great Basin wilderness out west.

I believe that which is coming on the earth this passage talks about is in fact the Coming of the Son of Man.
The people needed to do this migration from east to west so that the Son of Man could be born to Eve in the wilderness.
This is talking about the manchild that is born during the time of Eve's great peril while under the adversary's buffeting.

Also, I should add, that after there was this movement from the east to the west and then the Coming of the Son of Man...
Afterward, in order to get out of harm's way, the Son of Man also went to the north, in Canada, and to the south, in Mexico.
So, we should also take into consideration that Son of Man (the polygamists), did go to the north and to the south, as D&C 64:63 says.

This is why the Second Manifesto was made, to attempt to stamp out the Son of Man and crucify Him afresh and put Him to an open shame in Canada and Mexico as well.

[AI2.0]

I'm a little late to the game, but luckily for us some people once asked Jesus: "what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?"
And Jesus answered and said unto them, "take heed that no man deceive you." He said some other stuff, then he said: "if they shall say unto you, behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Fantastic! Some fresh content to work with that is relevant and contributive.

Where might we find something that talks about a movement of things from the east to the west?

D&C 64
63 And behold, it shall come to pass that my servants shall be sent forth to the east and to the west, to the north and to the south.
64 And even now, let him that goeth to the east teach them that shall be converted to flee to the west, and this in consequence of that which is coming on the earth, and of secret combinations.

This passage of scripture makes it clear that in some manner the people themselves fulfill this aspect of prophecy.
It is the movements of the people who receive the fullness of the Gospel who move from the east to the west.
These are the people who become the members of the flesh and bone body of the Son of Man born in the Great Basin wilderness.

Also, I should add, that after there was this movement from the east to the west and then the Coming of the Son of Man...
Afterward, in order to get out of harm's way, the Son of Man also went to the north, in Canada, and to the south, in Mexico.
So, we should also take into consideration that Son of Man (the polygamists), did go to the north and to the south, as D&C 64:63 says.

This is why the Second Manifesto was made, to attempt to stamp out the Son of Man and crucify Him afresh and put Him to an open shame.

You do realize you are accusing the modern day church of crucifying Jesus Christ afresh and putting him to open shame, because it was our church and our prophets/apostles that issued the manifesto and enforced it. Once again, it seems you seem unaware that this would be offensive to devout LDS members.

In regards to you comments; You seem to look at all the scriptures we usually interpret as speaking of events, as symbolic, if I am correct, you equate the church with the body of Eve, I think the body of Adam and Seth are the priesthood, and the body of Cain in the LDS church? And it seems that the 'son of man' is symbolic for the polygamists, so are you talking about something other than the second coming of Christ which the world is looking toward? Do you reject the church's belief of the literal second coming in Glory of Jesus Christ?

[jwharton]

You do realize you are accusing the modern day church of crucifying Jesus Christ afresh and putting him to open shame, because it was our church and our prophets/apostles that issued the manifesto and enforced it.

My focus isn't to accuse anyone.
I simply desire to have a clear understanding of true principles.
My focus is purely concerned with what is true and how to please the Father.

We know that straight and narrow is the way to Life Eternal and few there be who find it.
We also know that broad is the way unto the deaths and many there are who go in there at.

We also know the tares are so dominant and widespread that it would destroy the wheat to remove them.
So, this usurpation and domination is suffered, for a season, so as to at least get a little good fruit instead of none.

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. We were all given fair warning and an accurate invitation to pass the TEST, but many loved not the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness and who neglected the Father's Plan and took the oracles lightly and stumbled when the storms raged and beat upon their house.

So, yes, I fully realize the line of understanding I am revealing here does indeed have severely dire ramifications to the mainstream who are to this day set in their ways to continue to heap shame upon those holding true to the Father's Patriarchal Order. It is also the LDS Church that goes to great length and exerts much power to keep plural marriage illegal in the state of Utah.

If it became legal in Utah then the Church would be fully exposed for continuing to put polygamists to an open shame. Now the question of plural marriage would rest solely and squarely to the responsibility of the Church and no longer upon the government. I say this because the only reason given for the Manifesto was because the government forced such upon us. Now that the people and the government could actually care less. This is evidenced by the acceptance of gay marriage. Surely if gays can marry the Biblical practice of plural marriage could be accomplished without too much difficulty.

Do we find the leaders of the modern day LDS Church being "like unto Moses" to petition the government so that we can again live the fullness of the Father's Celestial Patriarchal Order?
Sadly, even though the oracles instruct them to do so, we do not observe such petitioning happening.

How do you think the Father will feel about His Celestial Patriarchal Order being rebelled against by nothing else but the Church itself? What it it becomes ONLY the Church who seeks to hinder the faithful and righteous from entering into plural marriages? Even if the Church doesn't want plural marriage back, wasn't it still communicated clearly that the early LDS people had a Constitutional right to have them when the Lord did command for such? That being the case, and the oracles of the 1880's most certainly affirmed such, shouldn't the LDS Church be concerned about the Constitutional rights of those who wish to live plural marriage? Aren't we supposed to a a friend to the Constitutional rights of all?

In my opinion, if it could be discovered that the Church is actually lobbying to keep plural marriage in Utah classed a crime, then they are the most despicable form of hypocrites this world has ever seen. Joseph Smith Jr. was murdered over this very issue as this is what the Nauvoo Expositor was castigating in a bad light and what the mobs wanted him dead over. Are we really going to assent to the death of Joseph Smith Jr. to continue to fight against a principle and Celestial Law he gave his life for?

[jwharton]

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.

[simpleton]

The unity of the saints is mainly what the mob (among others) wanted Joseph dead for, celestial marriage being a small part of it. Yes plural marriage is definitely a " smoking gun " but again the unity of the saints is what the adversary fears the most as that is what will bind him in the milenium. (IMO)
"If ye are not one ye are not mine"
But Jwharton you say that you are one with the church but then again you accuse them of being sons of perdition and of crucifying Christ afresh and putting him to an open shame in regards to their handling of those men that were supposedly set apart to perpetuate plural marriage. I think that if that is totally true in regards to their being "handled" and "excommunicated" that does not even come close to being guilty of the ultimate unforgivable sin..
But this is what I find interesting in the matter as I also have investigated those claims somewhat... After all the years of those men who were supposedly set apart to perpetuate plural marriage and they also nailing the church to wall in their writings and publications for abandoning plural marriage and for writing and accepting the manifesto , when those same men ( the ones that did the publishing against the church and or rather promoting there doctrine) when they are put in jail for their beliefs they whipped up and signed a manifesto far worse than the manifesto they accuse the church of signing ..
I think all tables are full of vomit like isaiah says , and none doeth good no not one , except maybe the humble followers of Jesus Christ , but in many instances they do err because they follow the precepts of man... ( a little mixture)

[jwharton]

In regards to you comments; You seem to look at all the scriptures we usually interpret as speaking of events, as symbolic,

I am saying the endowment narrative of Creation, for example, is information totally encoded in layers of symbols.
And, actually, I am not the one who says such. In my temple prep class I was told all of it is information coded in symbols.
So, all of what we see in the presentation of the endowment isn't actually the literal reality of what people should expect to see.
Rather, it is to be taken as a blueprint that when properly and fully deciphered reveals something highly empowering.
To the degree a person takes the symbols as the reality and applies no decipherment, or faulty decipherment, they are lost.

For example, if someone thinks to participate in a Creation as a God means you have to have a functioning planetary cosmic tow truck to move planets and moons around, and so on, then they are taking things too literally and not getting the correct picture. There isn't anything in the endowment presented that is beyond our reach here and now, collectively speaking, to accomplish fully right here and right now on this planet. People who think it involves galactic expansion and new planets being put into outer space somewhere and them eventually being carted off to be a new Adam and Eve on some new planet as its first human beings is TOTALLY lost. There is nothing of that interpretation that is within their power in their current life to make such a thing a reality.

But, if they come to understand what all those symbols actually represent in a plain, simple and practical manner and how it is currently personally and immediately relevant to them, and within their power to accomplish here and now, then this would certainly change our tune, would it not?

if I am correct, you equate the church with the body of Eve, I think the body of Adam and Seth are the priesthood, and the body of Cain in the LDS church?

I look at those who receive baptism and the Gift of the Holy Ghost by way of authorized servants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a person receiving their individual spirit birth (resurrection) as a member of the flesh and bone body of "The Mother of all Living", who is collectively the body of Eve.

By entering into the covenant of baptism and receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost, that person becomes "one flesh" with every other member of that covenant. Thus, that covenant body as a whole has its own singular identity as a being of flesh and bone. This is also why we are commanded to all become of One faith, One Spirit and One baptism, etc. So, yes, Eve is a spiritual being and a resurrected being, but She also has a flesh component to it that is "as tangible as man's". This is because the "flesh" component of Her body is the people who are the individual members of it and are literally Her body in the midst of the people here on the planet. Adam and Eve literally are in our midst and many of us are members of Their body of flesh and bone.

So, when there is also the oath and covenant of the Melchizedek Priesthood, this also represents a distinct covenant body, which is also a body of flesh and bone, which has its own distinct identity because its covenant is distinct. So, yes, Adam is a flesh and bone body that is distinct from the flesh and bone body of Eve, but Their bodies share many members who are the same individuals. This is why Adam says Eve is bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. Adam is the covenant body of the Melchizedek Priesthood and if you have entering into its oath and covenant you are literally a member of the flesh and bone body of Michael-Adam.

When you understand the nature of a resurrected body of flesh and bone and our individual relationship to it, and how we become a member of such, then you can begin to understand the sealed meanings behind the symbols. You will also come to understand how and why I say the flesh and bone body of the Son of Man is in fact a Priesthood Body.

And, it is interesting how many things are just outright revealed in the endowment ceremony.
Who are we instructed to consider ourselves? This question should be taken seriously.
If we collectively are Them, then certainly our narrative and Theirs should match.
If you look sincerely and closely enough, you will see they in fact do with great precision.

And it seems that the 'son of man' is symbolic for the polygamists,

Not exactly. It isn't just a polygamy thing only. It is a Priesthood Body that was formed that would take over the leadership of Zion because the Church was about to be forced to fall to a lesser law that would prevent the Apostles from continuing to receive Celestial ministration from the Father. If you do not keep Celestial Law then you cannot have Celestial ministration. This is just simple law. And, so, while the Church went ahead and fell, the Son She birthed in the nick of time was able to keep the higher laws intact and is also to where the gift to receive Celestial ministration was transferred. So, the Apostles led the people until the Son of Man came and then the leadership over the people of Zion went from the Apostles to the Son of Man, which is yet a newly birthed Priesthood Body. They had responsibility not just to keep Celestial Plural Marriage alive but also every other part of the fullness of the Gospel that the condemned and damned members of the mainstream Church rejected and abandoned. So, this would also include things like the United Order as well. Abel was determined to render the acceptable offering the Father required, which is everything at the Celestial level of things. Plural marriage is just one part of that.

so are you talking about something other than the second coming of Christ which the world is looking toward?

I am saying the formation of this new Priesthood Body, circa 1890, is in fact the advent of the Son of Man prophesied of in holy writ. I am saying this Son was the birth of Abel to Eve and that he functioned in the capacity of Firstborn and is the Son that pleased the Father by holding true and faithful to His Celestial Plan and continued to endeavor to build up the Father's Kingdom.

Do you reject the church's belief of the literal second coming in Glory of Jesus Christ?

I obviously don't reject it because I am endeavoring to show how this advent has already fulfilled much of our prophecy.

There certainly is more prophecy yet to be fulfilled pertaining to the Son of Man. We are still awaiting Abel's appointed substitute Seth to facilitate the redemption of the huge mess Cain makes while he usurps and injects in his delusions and lies and employs murder to try and force everyone to implement his alternative to the Father's Celestial Plan.

We are hopefully soon approaching the time when Seth overcomes His perils and trials and he performs his mission to be the kinsman redeemer for Abel and his mission to facilitate Adam and Eve being cleansed, redeemed and set back in order so that They can enter into Their exaltation, which is in fact Zion's redemption and exaltation.

So, yes, the Father's victory is yet future.

[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? Since you are so bound and determined to get people to somehow espouse all your claims, and seeing that you are condemning the church and its leaders, isn't it fitting to let the Prophet in on these serious allegations so that things can be rectified? I mean, why keep all this stuff from the people who can do the most good, huh? 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, including sending this information all over the internet, for the purpose of saving all 15,634,199 members from said condemnation?
Julie Rowe and Denver Snuffer are well known by church leaders, why aren't you?

[jwharton]

The unity of the saints is mainly what the mob (among others) wanted Joseph dead for, celestial marriage being a small part of it. Yes plural marriage is definitely a " smoking gun " but again the unity of the saints is what the adversary fears the most as that is what will bind him in the milenium. (IMO)
"If ye are not one ye are not mine"

But Jwharton you say that you are one with the church but then again you accuse them of being sons of perdition and of crucifying Christ afresh and putting him to an open shame in regards to their handling of those men that were supposedly set apart to perpetuate plural marriage. I think that if that is totally true in regards to their being "handled" and "excommunicated" that does not even come close to being guilty of the ultimate unforgivable sin..

If you sincerely study it out, you will find it has all of the necessary elements to reward those doing such with Perdition.
The members of Cain's body use spiritual capital punishment on the members of Abel's body.
Excommunication is spiritual capital punishment and it denies someone the Gift of the Holy Ghost.
This terminates their spiritual birth the received upon receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost.
Therefore, it is a manner of shedding someone's (spiritual) blood who is innocent of deserving such.
And, the way it happens is the punishment they sought to have applied to Abel's members is turned back upon them.
All those of Cain's body who participated in these excommunications that were unjust have the same applied to them.
In other words, the pit that they dug for the members of Abel's body will be filled by the members of Cain's body.
When the Father's Kingdom obtains the victory and Cain/Lucifer is cast down from having usurped the governance of Zion,
all of the records of ordinances performed, temple sealings, etc. shall be totally reviewed and remedied.
Revelation will be sought for each excommunication performed as to whether it was done righteously or unjustly.
Those who participated in perpetuating unjust excommunication upon Abel's members shall then be excommunicated.
And, of course, those of Abel's members who were unjustly excommunicated will have all of their blessings restored.

The Father gets the FINAL word at the FINAL judgment, which happens during the Millennium to complete all of this temple work.

But this is what I find interesting in the matter as I also have investigated those claims somewhat... After all the years of those men who were supposedly set apart to perpetuate plural marriage and they also nailing the church to wall in their writings and publications for abandoning plural marriage and for writing and accepting the manifesto , when those same men ( the ones that did the publishing against the church and or rather promoting there doctrine) when they are put in jail for their beliefs they whipped up and signed a manifesto far worse than the manifesto they accuse the church of signing ..
I think all tables are full of vomit like isaiah says , and none doeth good no not one , except maybe the humble followers of Jesus Christ , but in many instances they do err because they follow the precepts of man... ( a little mixture)

Please bear in mind, Abel was murdered.
He became a dead body.
The FLDS are in denial that they are a dead body.
They should be looking for Seth, but they don't even know these things.

[AI2.0]

my responses in blue;

You do realize you are accusing the modern day church of crucifying Jesus Christ afresh and putting him to open shame, because it was our church and our prophets/apostles that issued the manifesto and enforced it.

My focus isn't to accuse anyone.
I simply desire to have a clear understanding of true principles.
My focus is purely concerned with what is true and how to please the Father.What is true to you and the FLDS. You do know you have made your bed with 'strange' bedfellows.

We know that straight and narrow is the way to Life Eternal and few there be who find it.
We also know that broad is the way unto the deaths and many there are who go in there at.But the strait and narrow path also means sacrifice and obedience. IMO, the FLDS and those like you who believe this are the ones refusing to obey and 'sacrifice' as you look at it.

We also know the tares are so dominant and widespread that it would destroy the wheat to remove them.
So, this usurpation and domination is suffered, for a season, so as to at least get a little good fruit instead of none.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.

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, so why should I take it up with the Lord. I don't believe the church is under condemnation for ending polygamy, I know the Prophet was told to stop the practice. I know that those who are under condemnation are those who rebel against the Lord's true prophets. I also believe that the church is moving forward and the Lord is pleased with our righteous efforts. 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. We were all given fair warning and an accurate invitation to pass the TEST, but many loved not the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness and who neglected the Father's Plan and took the oracles lightly and stumbled when the storms raged and beat upon their house.I disagree with you. The test was giving up the principle, and a small group did not pass the test. They have paid dearly for it-- 'by their fruits shall ye know them'. Those who left the faith rather than give up the practice of polygamy have harvested very bitter fruit--bitter consequences for their choices. There's no denying that. And, if you continue to promote and believe this, I'm afraid you may harvest bitter fruit in your own life. This is a real concern considering what I've seen this do to other families.

So, yes, I fully realize the line of understanding I am revealing here does indeed have severely dire ramifications to the mainstream who are to this day set in their ways to continue to heap shame upon those holding true to the Father's Patriarchal Order. It is also the LDS Church that goes to great length and exerts much power to keep plural marriage illegal in the state of Utah. The LDS church promotes traditional marriage, as outlined in the Proclamation to the family. Anyone who thinks there's something wrong with that is swirling around in the mists of darkness Father Lehi saw in his dream of the Tree of Life.

If it became legal in Utah then the Church would be fully exposed for continuing to put polygamists to an open shame. Now the question of plural marriage would rest solely and squarely to the responsibility of the Church and no longer upon the government. I say this because the only reason given for the Manifesto was because the government forced such upon us. Now that the people and the government could actually care less. This is evidenced by the acceptance of gay marriage. Surely if gays can marry the Biblical practice of plural marriage could be accomplished without too much difficulty. I agree that with the legalization of gay marriage, polygamy could be next, I expect it. But I'm also certain the church will be against it, just as they were against same sex marriage, because it diminishes the value and purpose of marriage between one man and one woman. The time for polygamy was for 40 years in the 1800's, it's time is over. If it had continued, we as a people would be as damaged as the FLDS families are to this day. Our families would have suffered the fate their's did. The Book of Mormon says it is temporary and only when commanded by God through his prophet. It was ended, just as it was begun. Thank heavens for continuing revelation.

Do we find the leaders of the modern day LDS Church being "like unto Moses" to petition the government so that we can again live the fullness of the Father's Celestial Patriarchal Order? They are not going to do that and they should not do that. Polygamy today would bring an end to the 'hastening of the work'. If the LDS church abandons our defense of traditional marriage, it's over for the rest of the nation. You have a misunderstanding of what goes on in Father's kingdom, putting polygamy on a pedestal and making it so important is where you have looked way beyond the mark.
Sadly, even though the oracles instruct them to do so, we do not observe such petitioning happening.The 'oracles' do not instruct them to do that, unless you are talking about supposed revelations from false prophets. As I said, the church will never petition the government or even file a 'friend of the court' brief on behalf of legalizing polygamy. Never. And so you must be prepared; what will you do? Will you leave the church? Will you allow your belief in polygamy to cost you your membership in God's kingdom? Will you throw it away because the church rejects your favorite 'key' on the keyboard of gospel hobbies? I honestly hope not.

How do you think the Father will feel about His Celestial Patriarchal Order being rebelled against by nothing else but the Church itself? The church has not rebelled they followed the Lord's counsel by issuing the manifestos. What it it becomes ONLY the Church who seeks to hinder the faithful and righteous from entering into plural marriages? The Lord ended the practice, it was temporary, it's not necessary for exaltation in the Celestial kingdom. Those who say otherwise are repeating speculation and personal opinion.Even if the Church doesn't want plural marriage back, wasn't it still communicated clearly that the early LDS people had a Constitutional right to have them when the Lord did command for such? That being the case, and the oracles of the 1880's most certainly affirmed such, shouldn't the LDS Church be concerned about the Constitutional rights of those who wish to live plural marriage? Aren't we supposed to a a friend to the Constitutional rights of all?That battle was fought over 100 years ago, the church lost. Polygamy was not seen as a constitutional right. And, more ominous, if it goes to court now, it will most likely win, because immoral practices are winning these days--polygamy will be seen as another blow to morality, like Abortion and Same sex marriage.

In my opinion, if it could be discovered that the Church is actually lobbying to keep plural marriage in Utah classed a crime, then they are the most despicable form of hypocrites this world has ever seen. Joseph Smith Jr. was murdered over this very issue as this is what the Nauvoo Expositor was castigating in a bad light and what the mobs wanted him dead over. Are we really going to assent to the death of Joseph Smith Jr. to continue to fight against a principle and Celestial Law he gave his life for?

Be prepared to be outraged and consider the church despicable and hypocritical, because I fully expect the church to speak against legalizing polygamy just as they did same sex marriage. In our hypersexualized, do whatever you want society, polygamy will be seen as just another 'alternate lifestyle' which degrades the true definition of marriage. You'd better look to your own spiritual welfare, because polygamy will very likely be legalized in the next few years and when it is, I guarantee you, the church will not allow it it's practice among LDS. Are you going to stand against the church or humble yourself and be obedient to the Prophet's leadership? You'll have to decide where your allegiance lies.

[jwharton]

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.

[gangbusters]

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.

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.

[Older/wiser?]

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.[/quote]
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.

[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.

Thank you for whatever sincere efforts you made.
I'd be interested in hearing why you believe this is such darkness, but no worries if you prefer to move along.

[jwharton]

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.

[AI2.0]

J.Wharton: 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.

Several on this forum like to say that the church is under condemnation, including you. But the church was not under condemnation for giving up the practice of polygamy and not for being prideful or for not building the Temple in Nauvoo by a certain time. The church was under condemnation (in the D&C and by Pronouncement of Pres. Benson) for taking the Book of Mormon lightly. Frankly, I think the members have made great strides in removing this condemnation by reading and studying the Book of Mormon, making it a central part of our lives and our teachings and trying to flood the world with it. I'm sorry, but I don't see you as a true friend to the church when you talk as you do about it. If you continue in your beliefs regarding polygamy, you won't be a friend when the church forbids the practice even when it is legal--this is obvious considering you've claimed we are all headed to perdition for following our Prophet and giving up the practice over 120 years ago.

[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