Advent of the Son of Man already happened

Discuss the last days, Zion, second coming, emergency preparedness, alternative health, etc.
Locked
freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: Advent of the Son of Man already happened

Post by freedomforall »

jwharton wrote:
freedomforall wrote:
jwharton wrote:Know this, I am a Pro-LDS Saint whose eye is single to the Father's glory and the Father's Celestial Kingdom.
Let's put this into perspective. On one hand, your doctrine is full of differences and is not present day doctrine. So let's put you in the 1% category due to some people, a few, listening to and adopting your doctrine. On the other hand, we have another much higher percentage having a different set of beliefs learned from present day prophets and other church GA's, and scripture itself.
1%? Only a guess.

A group? Didn't say that.

Try nobody but me and a few family members, unless someone here believes them and isn't saying so.

I have not shared these discoveries with hardly anyone and many react pretty much the way you are.
In fact, I have several family members who think I've gone off the rails, even some very close and dear family members.

I have had these discoveries for several years and I'm doing my best to prove them out.
I decided perhaps it is time for them to have some public scrutiny.
But, I'm starting to wonder if perhaps I should withdraw them.

And, not because I doubt their veracity.
I'm being convinced more of their veracity based upon people's un-Christlike reactions.
But, this isn't what I want them proven out by.
Just because people are rude and contentious towards them doesn't mean they are true.

But, it does weaken the prospects, if they aren't true, that anybody here has the light to prove otherwise.
So far is all I get is the same old pablum of 'just follow the brethren because they will never lead us astray'.

Also, I think it bears consideration...
The majority you think I should conform to is, as of the last I checked, still considered to be under condemnation by the Lord.
The only condemnation I know of is that the Saints aren't reading the Book of Mormon. I've read it 21 times cover to cover. After all, aren't we told to feast upon the word? It's in the book!

D&C 84:54-57
54 And your minds in times past have been darkened because of unbelief, and because you have treated lightly the things you have received—
55 Which vanity and unbelief have brought the whole church under condemnation.
56 And this condemnation resteth upon the children of Zion, even all.
57 And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written—

So this condemnation is collectively, not individually.

jwharton
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3067
Location: USA

Re: Advent of the Son of Man already happened

Post by jwharton »

freedomforall wrote:The only condemnation I know of is that the Saints aren't reading the Book of Mormon. I've read it 21 times cover to cover. After all, aren't we told to feast upon the word? It's in the book!

D&C 84:54-57
54 And your minds in times past have been darkened because of unbelief, and because you have treated lightly the things you have received—
55 Which vanity and unbelief have brought the whole church under condemnation.
56 And this condemnation resteth upon the children of Zion, even all.
57 And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written—

So this condemnation is collectively, not individually.
It rests upon the entire Church, meaning until those conditions are satisfied, everyone will bear the effects in some way.
And, mind you, you were trying to dissuade me simply upon the notion that I received some original thinking the masses don't share.

Also, God says that EVERY WORD that proceeds from His Mouth needs to be respected.
You seem to have left out a few of the words of that pronouncement of condemnation.
I highlighted them for you so that you would have them to contemplate.

Also, for your consideration:
D&C 91
43 And I now give unto you a commandment to beware concerning yourselves, to give diligent heed to the words of Eternal Life.
44 For you shall live by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God.
45 For the word of the LORD is truth, and whatsoever is truth is light, and whatsoever is light is Spirit, even the Spirit of Jesus Christ.
So, you must also come to know what the FORMER COMMANDMENTS are as well. Unless those are respected and remedied, you can read the Book of Mormon 5,000 times and it won't get you out of condemnation. And, in case some people are going to take this lightly, being under condemnation means you either remedy the problems or a WRECKING BALL is coming your way.

jwharton
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3067
Location: USA

Re: Advent of the Son of Man already happened

Post by jwharton »

Sarah wrote:One red flag is that John W. Taylor asserts that now, rather than one person holding the keys to this power, the Lord is giving a green light for anyone to take on a plural wife. No authority or accountability involved.
Apostle Charles W. Penrose: Do you understand the free agency referred to in the REVELATION gives any one the privilege of taking a plural wife?

Apostle John W. Taylor: I take it that it refers to the individual and relieved the Church of the responsibility and placed the responsibility upon the individual.
I think I may have mentioned this to you already, but ...
I want to make sure I let you know I believe the Lord wouldn't give two contradicting oracles.
When I first read the 1886 oracle I didn't see it as contradicting or superseding Section 132.
I simply saw that it was an additional point of instruction better clarifying how it is to be done properly.

For example, in many cases, ecclesiastical leaders were thinking that it was within their power to assign widows to new families.
In other cases, pressure was being put upon people by the leaders to get married per their instructions.

What I believe the Lord was saying is that there shouldn't be a top-down oriented system commanding people who should be married to who.
Rather, what the Lord is trying to say is the proper way it is supposed to be done is the people themselves receive their own revelations.
Then, once people have had their own revelations, they would submit those to the one who holds the keys over this to ratify their revelations.

Does this make sense?

I believe if the Lord was going to discontinue having the Lord's Anointed Prophet and the Church Patriarch and the sealing authority in whatever capacity it is operative to seal plural marriages, it would have been explicitly spelled out in that matter so that there was no confusion.

I see the 1886 oracle as simply eliminating the top-down aspect that crept into things, which is likely a big reason why it became detested.
And, I know this was the case because I did have some ancestors who were excommunicated for refusing orders to take a certain plural wife.

User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13110
Location: England

Re: Advent of the Son of Man already happened

Post by Robin Hood »

brianj wrote:
Robin Hood wrote: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.
But the fact that there is no priesthood authority would mean there would be no witness. God is not going to give anyone a witness to do something he knows they can't do without committing sin. So this is clearly contradictory.

jwharton
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3067
Location: USA

Re: Advent of the Son of Man already happened

Post by jwharton »

Robin Hood wrote:But the fact that there is no priesthood authority would mean there would be no witness.
God is not going to give anyone a witness to do something he knows they can't do without committing sin.
So this is clearly contradictory.
It isn't so much a contradictory situation as it is merely a quandary.
Do please recall God has a provision in place to cover such quandaries.

For example, in 1 Nephi 3:7 we can read:
I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.

I have rigorously examined the whole scenario surrounding the Manifesto and it is clear to me that its entire intent was to simply get the world off the back of the Saints. There was every intention on the part of the Priesthood for that avenue to fulfill the commandments that pertained to the higher laws to remain as an open pathway. People thought it had been revoked entirely but the actual truth is no such revocation took place. There was a valid Priesthood Body organized to keep the higher laws and higher ordinances preserved.

God will always keep the pathway open for those who truly love Him and want only to serve and glorify Him with singleness of heart and mind.

jwharton
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3067
Location: USA

Re: Advent of the Son of Man already happened

Post by jwharton »

AI2.0, I yet await a substantive response to this post: viewtopic.php?p=767339#p767359" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

brianj
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4066
Location: Vineyard, Utah

Re: Advent of the Son of Man already happened

Post by brianj »

Robin Hood wrote:
brianj wrote:
Robin Hood wrote: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.
But the fact that there is no priesthood authority would mean there would be no witness. God is not going to give anyone a witness to do something he knows they can't do without committing sin. So this is clearly contradictory.
What do you mean by priesthood authority? I am a priesthood holder and have baptized a few living people and performed many vicarious baptisms for the dead. But do I have the authority to baptize? No. I can only baptize when the appropriate priesthood leaders grants the authority even though I have the power to baptize.
Similarly, priesthood holders who have been given the sealing key have the authority to seal families only in limited circumstances. They do not have the authority to seal polygamous relationships at this time. But if the president of the church received a revelation restoring that order of the priesthood, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve agreed, then a declaration was made and approved by the church membership, those called as sealers in the temples would be given the authority to perform such sealings.

It is true that God is not going to give a woman a spiritual witness that they are to become a plural wife or give a man a witness that he is to take additional wives at this time. But that can change in the future. There was no authority to perform plural marriages when the church was in New York. That authority was extended later, and subsequently that authority was rescinded. That authority can be restored, and if it is restored then God will give a witness to people who are supposed to participate in those relationships that it is what He desires for them to do.

User avatar
BeNotDeceived
Agent38
Posts: 8960
Location: Tralfamadore
Contact:

Re: Advent of the Son of Man already happened

Post by BeNotDeceived »

jwharton wrote:
Robin Hood wrote:But the fact that there is no priesthood authority would mean there would be no witness.
God is not going to give anyone a witness to do something he knows they can't do without committing sin.
So this is clearly contradictory.
It isn't so much a contradictory situation as it is merely a quandary.
Do please recall God has a provision in place to cover such quandaries.

For example, in 1 Nephi 3:7 we can read:
I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.

I have rigorously examined the whole scenario surrounding the Manifesto and it is clear to me that its entire intent was to simply get the world off the back of the Saints. There was every intention on the part of the Priesthood for that avenue to fulfill the commandments that pertained to the higher laws to remain as an open pathway. People thought it had been revoked entirely but the actual truth is no such revocation took place. There was a valid Priesthood Body organized to keep the higher laws and higher ordinances preserved.

God will always keep the pathway open for those who truly love Him and want only to serve and glorify Him with singleness of heart and mind.
Good point about the manifesto.

.

User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13110
Location: England

Re: Advent of the Son of Man already happened

Post by Robin Hood »

jwharton wrote:
Robin Hood wrote:But the fact that there is no priesthood authority would mean there would be no witness.
God is not going to give anyone a witness to do something he knows they can't do without committing sin.
So this is clearly contradictory.
It isn't so much a contradictory situation as it is merely a quandary.
Do please recall God has a provision in place to cover such quandaries.

For example, in 1 Nephi 3:7 we can read:
I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.

I have rigorously examined the whole scenario surrounding the Manifesto and it is clear to me that its entire intent was to simply get the world off the back of the Saints. There was every intention on the part of the Priesthood for that avenue to fulfill the commandments that pertained to the higher laws to remain as an open pathway. People thought it had been revoked entirely but the actual truth is no such revocation took place. There was a valid Priesthood Body organized to keep the higher laws and higher ordinances preserved.

God will always keep the pathway open for those who truly love Him and want only to serve and glorify Him with singleness of heart and mind.
Ok JW, here's the crux of the matter.
When Pres. Woodruff said that he had received a revelation that the practice of plural marriage should stop, was he telling the truth?

User avatar
rewcox
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5873

Re: Advent of the Son of Man already happened

Post by rewcox »

Robin Hood wrote:
jwharton wrote:
Robin Hood wrote:But the fact that there is no priesthood authority would mean there would be no witness.
God is not going to give anyone a witness to do something he knows they can't do without committing sin.
So this is clearly contradictory.
It isn't so much a contradictory situation as it is merely a quandary.
Do please recall God has a provision in place to cover such quandaries.

For example, in 1 Nephi 3:7 we can read:
I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.

I have rigorously examined the whole scenario surrounding the Manifesto and it is clear to me that its entire intent was to simply get the world off the back of the Saints. There was every intention on the part of the Priesthood for that avenue to fulfill the commandments that pertained to the higher laws to remain as an open pathway. People thought it had been revoked entirely but the actual truth is no such revocation took place. There was a valid Priesthood Body organized to keep the higher laws and higher ordinances preserved.

God will always keep the pathway open for those who truly love Him and want only to serve and glorify Him with singleness of heart and mind.
Ok JW, here's the crux of the matter.
When Pres. Woodruff said that he had received a revelation that the practice of plural marriage should stop, was he telling the truth?
This whole argument has no substance. In Jacob 2, Christ clearly shows that plural marriage was an abomination in His eyes the way the Nephites were practicing it, and that Lehi clearly told his group they were not to practice it. God/Christ makes the call when and where.

As individuals, we might come up with what we personally believe, but if that is at odds with the Church and Leaders (where the keys are), then our personal belief has no substance.

Christ's Gospel is for everyone, not just a few individuals who think they have it figured out.

jwharton
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3067
Location: USA

Re: Advent of the Son of Man already happened

Post by jwharton »

Robin Hood wrote:
jwharton wrote:
Robin Hood wrote:But the fact that there is no priesthood authority would mean there would be no witness.
God is not going to give anyone a witness to do something he knows they can't do without committing sin.
So this is clearly contradictory.
It isn't so much a contradictory situation as it is merely a quandary.
Do please recall God has a provision in place to cover such quandaries.

For example, in 1 Nephi 3:7 we can read:
I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.

I have rigorously examined the whole scenario surrounding the Manifesto and it is clear to me that its entire intent was to simply get the world off the back of the Saints. There was every intention on the part of the Priesthood for that avenue to fulfill the commandments that pertained to the higher laws to remain as an open pathway. People thought it had been revoked entirely but the actual truth is no such revocation took place. There was a valid Priesthood Body organized to keep the higher laws and higher ordinances preserved.

God will always keep the pathway open for those who truly love Him and want only to serve and glorify Him with singleness of heart and mind.
Ok JW, here's the crux of the matter.
When Pres. Woodruff said that he had received a revelation that the practice of plural marriage should stop, was he telling the truth?
Did he actually publish this alleged revelation, as-in a "thus saith the Lord" oracle?
If he was acting in the capacity of Prophet instead of merely as president, this is the manner in which it would have been received.
Was this alleged "thus saith the Lord" oracle ...
... presented for ratification to the Priesthood and found approved?
... presented as-is for acceptance by the members of the Church with full unanimous consent to be bound by it?

Or, was Wilford Woodruff just acting in the capacity as the president and delivering an official declaration?
Did he actually obtain the full consent of the membership or did he just claim that they would all consent so it was counted that they did, when the truth is, he did what he did without truly subjecting it to their consent as he should?

As I see it, he didn't follow correct protocol. He didn't present things in a way that they were actually binding upon the Saints. He claimed a REVELATION but didn't give us any actual revelation, as-in an oracle. He put forward a QUESTION and then PRESUMED an answer on their behalf, and then left it as if that is how everyone had acted in the matter. Nobody actually had any say in the matter and their answer was forced upon them. THIS MANNER IS NOT OF GOD.

If the vast majority of the Saints, including the upper leadership of the Church, really had the Spirit of God, they would have done just as John Taylor did when pressed to enter into a Manifesto. He utterly refused. But, because there was "darkness in the heavens" the people sustained something that went contrary to oracles of God that had been received within just 10 years and that was presented and made binding in a manner that violated the instructions in the oracles of God as to how official Church business is to be conducted.

I find it ironic that many here are so eager to be subject to the terms of the Manifesto, and yet it wasn't actually ratified by the common consent of the Church members. But, when I bring up "thus saith the Lord" oracles that were received in the 1880's by the Lord's Anointed Prophet, the fact that some of them weren't presented to the body of the church for acceptance by common consent means they can just blow off those oracles.

This is exactly what the Lord warned about in section 90 when he warned about taking the oracles of God lightly and falling under condemnation thereby. Why weren't those oracles taken more seriously? Why weren't the members of the Church given an opportunity to accept them by common consent?

I persist in this conversation's direction because it all serves as proof that the main body of Saints was overcome by Satan making war upon them. The kingdoms of the world did prevail against the Saints. But, the Son of Man came during this great period of darkness, peril and apostasy and saved all those who truly loved the Father and who kept the pathway open for Eternal Life and exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom for many decades to follow. And, one of the things the oracles said is that when the Son of Man comes the leadership of the people goes from the Apostles to Him. This is why OD-1 says the Lord will remove out of their place those who go contrary to the oracles of God and their duty. This is exactly what Wilford Woodruff did. He went contrary to the oracles of God and his duty as a Lord's Anointed Prophet and when he did this he was removed out of his place as the Lord's Anointed Prophet and the leadership of the people transferred from him and went to the Priesthood Body that was formed in order to preserve the higher laws. And, this was necessary anyway. You cannot continue to be worthy to receive the higher level ministration of the direct words of Christ and the Father when you have allowed yourself to fall to the Telestial level. It is impossible for the Church to continue receiving Terrestrial or Celestial ministration when they have rejected those laws. The mantle of Lord's Anointed Prophet had to be transferred to a body that was still keeping the laws that qualified them to continue to receive that level of ministration.

This is the crux of the matter.

jwharton
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3067
Location: USA

Re: Advent of the Son of Man already happened

Post by jwharton »

rewcox wrote:
Robin Hood wrote:
jwharton wrote:
Robin Hood wrote:But the fact that there is no priesthood authority would mean there would be no witness.
God is not going to give anyone a witness to do something he knows they can't do without committing sin.
So this is clearly contradictory.
It isn't so much a contradictory situation as it is merely a quandary.
Do please recall God has a provision in place to cover such quandaries.

For example, in 1 Nephi 3:7 we can read:
I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.

I have rigorously examined the whole scenario surrounding the Manifesto and it is clear to me that its entire intent was to simply get the world off the back of the Saints. There was every intention on the part of the Priesthood for that avenue to fulfill the commandments that pertained to the higher laws to remain as an open pathway. People thought it had been revoked entirely but the actual truth is no such revocation took place. There was a valid Priesthood Body organized to keep the higher laws and higher ordinances preserved.

God will always keep the pathway open for those who truly love Him and want only to serve and glorify Him with singleness of heart and mind.
Ok JW, here's the crux of the matter.
When Pres. Woodruff said that he had received a revelation that the practice of plural marriage should stop, was he telling the truth?
This whole argument has no substance. In Jacob 2, Christ clearly shows that plural marriage was an abomination in His eyes the way the Nephites were practicing it, and that Lehi clearly told his group they were not to practice it. God/Christ makes the call when and where.

As individuals, we might come up with what we personally believe, but if that is at odds with the Church and Leaders (where the keys are), then our personal belief has no substance.

Christ's Gospel is for everyone, not just a few individuals who think they have it figured out.
If you carefully follow the oracles of God received by the Lord's Anointed Prophet, no such revocation took place.
The Manifesto was not advanced by proper procedure and no actual revelation was accepted by common consent.

The Saints were full of darkness and so they were given strong delusion and led to believe a lie and are headed to destruction.
And, if they remain under this delusion and continue to believe this lie, they will continue on their path of destruction.
Jacob chapter 2 also speaks very clearly about the fact that the Nephites would be utterly destroyed by such condemnation.

The fact is God did command His people and if we do not live up to these commandments worthily we are salt with no savor.
So, go ahead and keep arguing for and supporting our Church taking no position to reverse what the Manifesto alleges.
Is all that does is leave us with condemnation and a sword of vengeance hanging over our heads for our unworthiness.

We are required to repent of every form and species of evil that holds us back from Celestial Glory and Exaltation.
In our current state we are FAR FAR removed from being worthy of Celestial Glory and Exaltation.
Do you really think we can be under the world's power and submission, such as the Manifesto exposes, and be exalted too?

Wake up people!

User avatar
rewcox
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5873

Re: Advent of the Son of Man already happened

Post by rewcox »

jwharton wrote:
rewcox wrote:
Robin Hood wrote:
jwharton wrote: It isn't so much a contradictory situation as it is merely a quandary.
Do please recall God has a provision in place to cover such quandaries.

For example, in 1 Nephi 3:7 we can read:
I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.

I have rigorously examined the whole scenario surrounding the Manifesto and it is clear to me that its entire intent was to simply get the world off the back of the Saints. There was every intention on the part of the Priesthood for that avenue to fulfill the commandments that pertained to the higher laws to remain as an open pathway. People thought it had been revoked entirely but the actual truth is no such revocation took place. There was a valid Priesthood Body organized to keep the higher laws and higher ordinances preserved.

God will always keep the pathway open for those who truly love Him and want only to serve and glorify Him with singleness of heart and mind.
Ok JW, here's the crux of the matter.
When Pres. Woodruff said that he had received a revelation that the practice of plural marriage should stop, was he telling the truth?
This whole argument has no substance. In Jacob 2, Christ clearly shows that plural marriage was an abomination in His eyes the way the Nephites were practicing it, and that Lehi clearly told his group they were not to practice it. God/Christ makes the call when and where.

As individuals, we might come up with what we personally believe, but if that is at odds with the Church and Leaders (where the keys are), then our personal belief has no substance.

Christ's Gospel is for everyone, not just a few individuals who think they have it figured out.
If you carefully follow the oracles of God received by the Lord's Anointed Prophet, no such revocation took place.
The Manifesto was not advanced by proper procedure and no actual revelation was accepted by common consent.

The Saints were full of darkness and so they were given strong delusion and led to believe a lie and are headed to destruction.
And, if they remain under this delusion and continue to believe this lie, they will continue on their path of destruction.
Jacob chapter 2 also speaks very clearly about the fact that the Nephites would be utterly destroyed by such condemnation.

The fact is God did command His people and if we do not live up to these commandments worthily we are salt with no savor.
So, go ahead and keep arguing for and supporting our Church taking no position to reverse what the Manifesto alleges.
Is all that does is leave us with condemnation and a sword of vengeance hanging over our heads for our unworthiness.

We are required to repent of every form and species of evil that holds us back from Celestial Glory and Exaltation.
In our current state we are FAR FAR removed from being worthy of Celestial Glory and Exaltation.
Do you really think we can be under the world's power and submission, such as the Manifesto exposes, and be exalted too?

Wake up people!
Sorry JW, you are a one man band on this. Christ doesn't work that way. You are certainly welcome to believe the way you do, but you are alone and there is no substance to your theory.

User avatar
Mark
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6929

Re: Advent of the Son of Man already happened

Post by Mark »

jwharton wrote:
Robin Hood wrote:
jwharton wrote:
Robin Hood wrote:But the fact that there is no priesthood authority would mean there would be no witness.
God is not going to give anyone a witness to do something he knows they can't do without committing sin.
So this is clearly contradictory.
It isn't so much a contradictory situation as it is merely a quandary.
Do please recall God has a provision in place to cover such quandaries.

For example, in 1 Nephi 3:7 we can read:
I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.

I have rigorously examined the whole scenario surrounding the Manifesto and it is clear to me that its entire intent was to simply get the world off the back of the Saints. There was every intention on the part of the Priesthood for that avenue to fulfill the commandments that pertained to the higher laws to remain as an open pathway. People thought it had been revoked entirely but the actual truth is no such revocation took place. There was a valid Priesthood Body organized to keep the higher laws and higher ordinances preserved.

God will always keep the pathway open for those who truly love Him and want only to serve and glorify Him with singleness of heart and mind.
Ok JW, here's the crux of the matter.
When Pres. Woodruff said that he had received a revelation that the practice of plural marriage should stop, was he telling the truth?
Did he actually publish this alleged revelation, as-in a "thus saith the Lord" oracle?
If he was acting in the capacity of Prophet instead of merely as president, this is the manner in which it would have been received.
Was this alleged "thus saith the Lord" oracle ...
... presented for ratification to the Priesthood and found approved?
... presented as-is for acceptance by the members of the Church with full unanimous consent to be bound by it?

Or, was Wilford Woodruff just acting in the capacity as the president and delivering an official declaration?
Did he actually obtain the full consent of the membership or did he just claim that they would all consent so it was counted that they did, when the truth is, he did what he did without truly subjecting it to their consent as he should?

As I see it, he didn't follow correct protocol. He didn't present things in a way that they were actually binding upon the Saints. He claimed a REVELATION but didn't give us any actual revelation, as-in an oracle. He put forward a QUESTION and then PRESUMED an answer on their behalf, and then left it as if that is how everyone had acted in the matter. Nobody actually had any say in the matter and their answer was forced upon them. THIS MANNER IS NOT OF GOD.

If the vast majority of the Saints, including the upper leadership of the Church, really had the Spirit of God, they would have done just as John Taylor did when pressed to enter into a Manifesto. He utterly refused. But, because there was "darkness in the heavens" the people sustained something that went contrary to oracles of God that had been received within just 10 years and that was presented and made binding in a manner that violated the instructions in the oracles of God as to how official Church business is to be conducted.

I find it ironic that many here are so eager to be subject to the terms of the Manifesto, and yet it wasn't actually ratified by the common consent of the Church members. But, when I bring up "thus saith the Lord" oracles that were received in the 1880's by the Lord's Anointed Prophet, the fact that some of them weren't presented to the body of the church for acceptance by common consent means they can just blow off those oracles.

This is exactly what the Lord warned about in section 90 when he warned about taking the oracles of God lightly and falling under condemnation thereby. Why weren't those oracles taken more seriously? Why weren't the members of the Church given an opportunity to accept them by common consent?

I persist in this conversation's direction because it all serves as proof that the main body of Saints was overcome by Satan making war upon them. The kingdoms of the world did prevail against the Saints. But, the Son of Man came during this great period of darkness, peril and apostasy and saved all those who truly loved the Father and who kept the pathway open for Eternal Life and exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom for many decades to follow. And, one of the things the oracles said is that when the Son of Man comes the leadership of the people goes from the Apostles to Him. This is why OD-1 says the Lord will remove out of their place those who go contrary to the oracles of God and their duty. This is exactly what Wilford Woodruff did. He went contrary to the oracles of God and his duty as a Lord's Anointed Prophet and when he did this he was removed out of his place as the Lord's Anointed Prophet and the leadership of the people transferred from him and went to the Priesthood Body that was formed in order to preserve the higher laws. And, this was necessary anyway. You cannot continue to be worthy to receive the higher level ministration of the direct words of Christ and the Father when you have allowed yourself to fall to the Telestial level. It is impossible for the Church to continue receiving Terrestrial or Celestial ministration when they have rejected those laws. The mantle of Lord's Anointed Prophet had to be transferred to a body that was still keeping the laws that qualified them to continue to receive that level of ministration.

This is the crux of the matter.

Here is jwhartons line of succession as pertaining to the transfer of proper Priesthood keys and the mantle of the Lords Annointed Prophet. John C Woolley and his son Lorin succeeded John Taylor as the Lords rightful spokesman in his eyes. He is a fundamentalist Mormon. Pure and simple. Own it brother. You are looking to proselyte your paradigm to anyone who will buy it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council ... s_(Woolley" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

brianj
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4066
Location: Vineyard, Utah

Re: Advent of the Son of Man already happened

Post by brianj »

jwharton wrote:Did he actually publish this alleged revelation, as-in a "thus saith the Lord" oracle?
If he was acting in the capacity of Prophet instead of merely as president, this is the manner in which it would have been received.
Was this alleged "thus saith the Lord" oracle ...
... presented for ratification to the Priesthood and found approved?
... presented as-is for acceptance by the members of the Church with full unanimous consent to be bound by it?
Please show me where in scripture it says the phrase "thus sayeth the Lord" must be appended to every revelation. There are many revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants that do not contain that phrase.

If you review the October 1890 General Conference, specifically the third day, you will find the official declaration was presented to the church membership and unanimously accepted by them in accordance with the principle of common consent.
As I see it, he didn't follow correct protocol. He didn't present things in a way that they were actually binding upon the Saints. He claimed a REVELATION but didn't give us any actual revelation, as-in an oracle. He put forward a QUESTION and then PRESUMED an answer on their behalf, and then left it as if that is how everyone had acted in the matter. Nobody actually had any say in the matter and their answer was forced upon them. THIS MANNER IS NOT OF GOD.
So, as you see it, all blacks who have been ordained to the priesthood have invalid ordinations because there was no big revelation written down and presented to church membership that included the phrase "thus sayeth the Lord." The procedure followed for OD2 is the same as the procedure followed for OD1, but I am not familiar with any further revelations on the subject of blacks receiving the priesthood being shared with the general church membership.
In a regional conference held in late 1891, Woodruff gave details of revelations he received on the subject. One highlight that contradicts your post is here: "I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. I laid it before my brethren—such strong men as Brother George Q. Cannon, Brother Joseph F. Smith, and the Twelve Apostles. I might as well undertake to turn an army with banners out of its course as to turn them out of a course that they considered to be right. These men agreed with me, and ten thousand Latter-day Saints also agreed with me. … Why? Because they were moved upon by the Spirit of God and by the revelations of Jesus Christ to do it.” (see Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, pp. 214–16.)
If the vast majority of the Saints, including the upper leadership of the Church, really had the Spirit of God, they would have done just as John Taylor did when pressed to enter into a Manifesto. He utterly refused. But, because there was "darkness in the heavens" the people sustained something that went contrary to oracles of God that had been received within just 10 years and that was presented and made binding in a manner that violated the instructions in the oracles of God as to how official Church business is to be conducted.
Assuming, of course, that Taylor was on the correct side of the issue. And that the story you received from the Council of Friends regarding Taylor's setting apart five men to protect plural marriage is true.
I find it ironic that many here are so eager to be subject to the terms of the Manifesto, and yet it wasn't actually ratified by the common consent of the Church members. But, when I bring up "thus saith the Lord" oracles that were received in the 1880's by the Lord's Anointed Prophet, the fact that some of them weren't presented to the body of the church for acceptance by common consent means they can just blow off those oracles.

This is exactly what the Lord warned about in section 90 when he warned about taking the oracles of God lightly and falling under condemnation thereby. Why weren't those oracles taken more seriously? Why weren't the members of the Church given an opportunity to accept them by common consent?
When something is presented before the gathered body of Saints in general conference, they are asked to sustain that item, and they unanimously do so, I thought that item was actually ratified by the common consent of church members. Silly me!
I persist in this conversation's direction because it all serves as proof that the main body of Saints was overcome by Satan making war upon them. The kingdoms of the world did prevail against the Saints. But, the Son of Man came during this great period of darkness, peril and apostasy and saved all those who truly loved the Father and who kept the pathway open for Eternal Life and exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom for many decades to follow. And, one of the things the oracles said is that when the Son of Man comes the leadership of the people goes from the Apostles to Him. This is why OD-1 says the Lord will remove out of their place those who go contrary to the oracles of God and their duty. This is exactly what Wilford Woodruff did. He went contrary to the oracles of God and his duty as a Lord's Anointed Prophet and when he did this he was removed out of his place as the Lord's Anointed Prophet and the leadership of the people transferred from him and went to the Priesthood Body that was formed in order to preserve the higher laws. And, this was necessary anyway. You cannot continue to be worthy to receive the higher level ministration of the direct words of Christ and the Father when you have allowed yourself to fall to the Telestial level. It is impossible for the Church to continue receiving Terrestrial or Celestial ministration when they have rejected those laws. The mantle of Lord's Anointed Prophet had to be transferred to a body that was still keeping the laws that qualified them to continue to receive that level of ministration.

This is the crux of the matter.
No. The crux of the matter is really: did Woodruff act with the authority of his office, under direction of the Lord, in writing this manifesto, presenting it to his counselors and the Quorum of the Twelve before presenting it to the church membership? Or was he acting without authority? You obviously believe that he did so entirely on his own, that the support of the first presidency and twelve was not legitimate, and that receiving unanimous approval of church members gathered in general conference does not fulfill the standards of common consent. Yet Woodriff claims that he prayed about the subject, received revelation, and wrote down that revelation before presenting it to other general authorities. Historical records show that this was accepted by common consent.

You are entitled to believe whatever you want. But when there is ample evidence that your assertions contradict historical reality, you really should reconsider.

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6702

Re: Advent of the Son of Man already happened

Post by Sarah »

jwharton wrote:
Sarah wrote:One red flag is that John W. Taylor asserts that now, rather than one person holding the keys to this power, the Lord is giving a green light for anyone to take on a plural wife. No authority or accountability involved.
Apostle Charles W. Penrose: Do you understand the free agency referred to in the REVELATION gives any one the privilege of taking a plural wife?

Apostle John W. Taylor: I take it that it refers to the individual and relieved the Church of the responsibility and placed the responsibility upon the individual.
I think I may have mentioned this to you already, but ...
I want to make sure I let you know I believe the Lord wouldn't give two contradicting oracles.
When I first read the 1886 oracle I didn't see it as contradicting or superseding Section 132.
I simply saw that it was an additional point of instruction better clarifying how it is to be done properly.

For example, in many cases, ecclesiastical leaders were thinking that it was within their power to assign widows to new families.
In other cases, pressure was being put upon people by the leaders to get married per their instructions.

What I believe the Lord was saying is that there shouldn't be a top-down oriented system commanding people who should be married to who.
Rather, what the Lord is trying to say is the proper way it is supposed to be done is the people themselves receive their own revelations.
Then, once people have had their own revelations, they would submit those to the one who holds the keys over this to ratify their revelations.

Does this make sense?

I believe if the Lord was going to discontinue having the Lord's Anointed Prophet and the Church Patriarch and the sealing authority in whatever capacity it is operative to seal plural marriages, it would have been explicitly spelled out in that matter so that there was no confusion.

I see the 1886 oracle as simply eliminating the top-down aspect that crept into things, which is likely a big reason why it became detested.
And, I know this was the case because I did have some ancestors who were excommunicated for refusing orders to take a certain plural wife.
But if you read the trial minutes, it is obvious this was not the question, whether or not a man had agency as to the "who" and "when." The question was whether these sealings were authorized by the prophet. And John W. is not very forthcoming in his answers. At one point he gives the impression that he received permission, but at another point he says he does not want to answer the question. All his comments come off as defensive, and not what I would expect from an apostle of God. I still say that part of this was a test to weed out some of the proud apostles who would not listen to authority.

The other question the council was trying to answer, was how this revelation influenced the other Saints. They wondered if this revelation was the reason some went to Mexico or Canada, and if they now assumed that they now had the authority or "agency" themselves to contract and seal these marriages. Whatever the intent of the revelation, it obviously was interpreted by some to mean that they didn't need permission from presiding authority. Was it because they felt that they held the keys? Where are the statements claiming that they, this new priesthood body, now had the keys, and W.W. or J.S.F. did not? Sec. 132. makes it clear that you cannot have it both ways.

jwharton
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3067
Location: USA

Re: Advent of the Son of Man already happened

Post by jwharton »

rewcox wrote:Sorry JW, you are a one man band on this.
Well, I agree on LDSFF that appears to be the case.

But, there are tens of thousands of people over those early decades that aligned with the Priesthood Body I am talking about.
They weren't alone and many of them did willingly lay down their (spiritual) lives for the sake of their testimony of these things.
Isn't it interesting that the prophecy of the Son of Man says He comes with his ten thousands of angels with Him?
Seems the numbers pretty well line up on this as well, if we are going to be looking at that aspect of things.

Note, please read the Book of Jude in its entirety as it is speaking about the time of the War in Heaven that we are now in again.
It speaks of Michael contending with the devil and those who err and who become partakers of Cain's curse, and so on.
And, also, it is where it is said there are only ten thousands who are standing in the correct place to stand during this conflict.
rewcox wrote:Christ doesn't work that way.
Doesn't work what way? Please be specific.
The oracles He spoke to His Lord's Anointed Prophet said it works just the way I said.
rewcox wrote:You are certainly welcome to believe the way you do, but you are alone and there is no substance to your theory.
There is no substance to your rebuttal other than because you say so.


Because this Book is so relevant, and especially if you look at the word links between it and the oracles of the 1880's, I am going to go ahead and insert its content here for your viewing and pondering pleasure. When I read it I get great comfort and encouragement because I am speaking of those who are sanctified by God the Father, which means the Celestial Higher Laws have sanctified those who hold true to them, through Jesus Christ, who is who comes as Son of Man in our time.

We are literally in a repeat of the end-times war in heaven waged by Michael against the devil.

Oracle received by Wilford Woodruff in 1880 where he inquired the will of the Lord about plural marriage, which says:
The devil is ruling over his kingdom, and My Spirit has no place in the hearts of the rulers of this nation, and the devil stirs them up to defy My power, and to make war upon My saints. Therefore, let Mine Apostles and Mine Elders who are faithful obey My commandments which are already written for your profit and guidance.
...
And I say again, woe unto that nation or house or people who seek to hinder My people from obeying the Patriarchal Law of Abraham, which leadeth to a Celestial glory, which has been revealed unto My saints through the mouth of My servant Joseph. For whosoever doeth these things shall be damned, saith the Lord of Hosts, and shall be broken up and wasted away from under heaven by the judgments which I have sent forth, and which shall not return unto Me void.
So, if you bear in mind, the Father means serious business and not anyone is exempt from the reach of His Words. Read the Book of Jude that speaks about when this War in Heaven already took place that is in a literal repeat now.
Jude
1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ [Son of Man], and called:
2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.
3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. [Jude is a Fundamentalist minded preacher who holds true to the Celestial Foundation and Father's Plan.]
4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.
14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit. [The Spirit of Truth for true edification.]
20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:
23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.
So, yes, I am exercising my compassion muscles as much as I can and bringing forward arguments, in as respectful of a way as I can, to show that there are indeed perils putting many souls in dire jeopardy, that perhaps people might fear the true dangers they are not perceiving.

My whole aim is to attempt to share a unique perspective that will strengthen one's faith in the Father's Plan and our need to be sanctified in it by upholding and keeping the higher laws of it. And, if those higher laws have been removed, to awaken to the fact that such would only be so if we are under condemnation and slated for the very destruction God says would overcome us.

jwharton
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3067
Location: USA

Re: Advent of the Son of Man already happened

Post by jwharton »

Sarah wrote:But if you read the trial minutes, it is obvious this was not the question, whether or not a man had agency as to the "who" and "when." The question was whether these sealings were authorized by the prophet. And John W. is not very forthcoming in his answers. At one point he gives the impression that he received permission, but at another point he says he does not want to answer the question. All his comments come off as defensive, and not what I would expect from an apostle of God. I still say that part of this was a test to weed out some of the proud apostles who would not listen to authority.

The other question the council was trying to answer, was how this revelation influenced the other Saints. They wondered if this revelation was the reason some went to Mexico or Canada, and if they now assumed that they now had the authority or "agency" themselves to contract and seal these marriages. Whatever the intent of the revelation, it obviously was interpreted by some to mean that they didn't need permission from presiding authority. Was it because they felt that they held the keys? Where are the statements claiming that they, this new priesthood body, now had the keys, and W.W. or J.S.F. did not? Sec. 132. makes it clear that you cannot have it both ways.
I hear what you are saying.
Remember, when the Son of Man comes, there is darkness in the heavens.
Those trial minutes should make it clear there was plenty of darkness among the governing ones.
Not all of the Apostles "got the memo" about the Priesthood Body that existed as a "thief in the night".
Neither did they "get the memo" on the fact that they were no longer in leadership over the people.
John W. Taylor was likely keeping that "memo" from being made aware to those whose "house" was being spoiled by the "thief".
Those brethren had succumbed to the adversary's will, combined against the higher laws and forced their will upon the people.
Thus, they have gone in the way of Cain and they and all those who fall under their devices shall follow them to everlasting damnation.
Last edited by jwharton on February 11th, 2017, 11:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
AI2.0
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3917

Re: Advent of the Son of Man already happened

Post by AI2.0 »

My responses in blue;
jwharton wrote:
AI2.0 wrote: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.

You are making assumptions based on your belief, that it was wrong to stop the practice of polygamy by the church. You are interpreting scripture based on this premise. You also interpret D&C 90 to believe that John Taylor had the right to set up a shadow priesthood body made up of five men, who were set apart to continue the practice of polygamy making sure that a baby was born into polygamous unions every single year after. This is the foundation which the FLDS church grew out of. The 'oracles' you are referring to in the 1880's are those that fundamentalists believed supported their claim that polygamy was the 'new and everlasting covenant' and so, could not ever be abandoned.

But you have a problem and that is that only a small portion of the members believed any of this--and they eventually broke away and started their own church. The majority of members accepted the definition and practice of polygamy as outlined in the Book of Mormon. They believed that the Prophet could require it or end it. They believed that the 'new and everlasting covenant' is talking about marriage, not exclusively polygamous marriages. You are forgetting that most of the members of the church were not practicing polygmay and were still expecting and promised exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom. You are ignoring the second manifesto which Joseph F. Smith gave which ended the practice of polygamy in the church--even in the shadows. The members knew the scriptures and the teachings of the church and they understood that it was his right to rescind the practice. Joseph F. Smith and all the other apostles (except the two who were excommunicated) rejected the notion that John Taylor would have done such a foolish and wrong thing to call five men to continue a practice in secret, outside of the mandated priesthood line of authority and organization of the church. They also found the evidence of this severely lacking and suspect.
Lorin Woolley is the only claimed eyewitness to this event (he said George Earl also witnessed it but Earl gave several written statements saying strongly denying this) and he did not write it down until some 40 years later, after all the other supposed witnesses were dead.

Your whole belief in this alleged event is based on Lorin Woolley. He's the one who brought others into this belief and he set up his separate 'priesthood' and worked in the dark, sneaking around, trying to get recruits to engage in a practice which was illegal and would get them excommunicated. Your whole premise that the 'advent of the son of man' has happened, is tied to the beginnings of the fundamentalist movement, and that's why this thread had turned into a polygamy thread, unfortunately.


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.Speak plainly Wharton. You are talking about the unsubstantiated claims made by Lorin Woolley which were later used by Joseph Musse et al, to set up the 'council of friends' which was the basis for passing on supposed authority to perform polygamous marriages. The 'celestial order' is code for polygamy. The 'priesthood body' are the five men, Lorin Woolley claims were set apart (including him) who supposedly could defy the Prophets and do as they pleased because they did not answer to the church leadership any longer. And apparently the 'Father's plan' means that a baby must be born by polygamy every year. And this is supposed to take the church out of condemnation?

This is evidenced by the fact that "thus saith the Lord" oracles ceased entirely from the Church post-Manifesto.I'm not interested in looking it up, but can you prove that all 'oracles' began with 'thus saith the Lord' before the manifesto? I doubt it.
The transfer of the title of Prophet was again separated from the Church and the leadership went to the Son of Man.This is rationalization for believing that Lorin Woolley was not a false prophet who led people to rebel against their priesthood leaders and the church and continue a practice which was forbidden and even illegal. This is the excuse that all fundamentalist polygamists use to justify their breaking off from the LDS church. Can you see why I question that you can actually be a member in good standing when you clearly don't believe Pres. Monson is the Lord's true prophet and the only one authorized to allow or forbid this practice?
AI2.0 wrote: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.First, this is so wrong on all levels. The church started the practice, the church ended it,--those who refused to stop knew they were breaking with the church, period. The second manifesto ENDED the practice, there was no room for entering these unions and still remaining a member in good standing. YOu know this, why do you refuse to admit it.
And, that's no big deal because it really wasn't ever a Church related affair anyway.How can you even suggest this? The church started the practice and the church ended it. Of course it was 'church related'.
Plural marriages were always a function of the organization surrounding the Lord's Anointed Prophet, which is the School of the Prophets.More 'gospel according to wharton'. Plural marriages were under the actual prophet and president of the church, not some symbolic organization you've made up.
Telling the world that the Church wouldn't do it anymore was just a smokescreen because the Priesthood definitely continued it, and legitimately so.You are referring to the first manifesto and you are still incorrect. It was heavily curtailed as they tried to figure out a way to still continue it, but not be punished by the govt. Then, the second manifesto ENDED THE PRACTICE completely--it was forbidden. Those who continued were exed, just as two apostles and others were who refused to submit to priesthood authority--the prophets who actually held the sealing power to do so.
AI2.0 wrote: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.Seriously, you simply can't be a regular, practicing member of the mainstream LDS church with this kind of view, sorry, but I am flabbergasted by this. It means you don't consider yourself subject to following hardly any of the continuing revelation which has come to the church over the last 170 odd years! Just why did the Lord set up a church with continuing revelation if you only care about a handful or pronouncements? You should ask yourself that.

jwharton wrote: 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.You and the fundamentalists are the only one's who make this strict demand.
AI2.0 wrote: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.I didn't say you were and I'm not surprised. I think you are one of those misguided members who have one foot in the church and one foot out the door. Unfortunately, this can end up taking you out of the church one day if you aren't careful. I think we all know of cases where a man started out thinking as you do and ended up talking some poor woman into 'marrying' him polygamously. They destroy their existing families, damage their children and lose their church membership and temple blessings. I know of several families which were broken up because of this.
The various FLDS derived sects out there are now a dead body that is rotten and putrid.But they grew out the things you believe! YOu don't find that a concern?
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.Yea, but you'd agree with them on their origins--because you share their belief. Doesn't that concern you at all?
AI2.0 wrote: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.THat may be, but you DO espouse their views. And you are foolishly accepting the unsubstantiated claims of Lorin Woolley to base your belief that those revelations (oracles) are actually true and that the meeting he claims happened, actually happened. Does it not concern you that George Earl denies it and everyone else was dead and couldn't be asked about Woolley's claims?
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.If you haven't found the flaws yet, you need to read more, instead of disregarding the research others have done on FLDS claims for the origin of their 'authority'.
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.I sincerely am concerned for your welfare J.Wharton, if that helps. But, if you expect me to discuss this on the assumption that these 'oracles' and claims of the separate priesthood body allowed for a separate priesthood to act independently of the LDS church Prophets, apostles etc. are true, I cannot do that.
AI2.0 wrote: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.The problem is that you share the same notions as early fundamentalists--those who started the FLDS church. They also believed that the church was 'true' and they wanted to continue to attend the temple, send sons on missions, marry in the temple, wear their garments, have callings, etc. It was not their intention to break with the church at first, but to simply hide within it and continue the practice of polygamy. But, there was no way that the church could allow that, because they were out of harmony with church teachings. They were defying and lying to remain in good standing. They were wrong in thinking they could hide and lie to their leaders and so, as they were found it, they were exed. They didn't start out creating a new church, it came about over time. That is my fear for you. You don't think you are believing something that could take you out of the LDS church, but the fact is, it's already doing that. You said some of your loved ones think you've gone off the rails. They are right to be alarmed and I hope their love and concern will make you pause and consider where you are headed.
Unfortunately, I have personal matters to attend to and will have to leave off for now.

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6702

Re: Advent of the Son of Man already happened

Post by Sarah »

The devil is ruling over his kingdom, and My Spirit has no place in the hearts of the rulers of this nation, and the devil stirs them up to defy My power, and to make war upon My saints. Therefore, let Mine Apostles and Mine Elders who are faithful obey My commandments which are already written for your profit and guidance.
...
And I say again, woe unto that nation or house or people who seek to hinder My people from obeying the Patriarchal Law of Abraham,
Wilford Woodruff was in no way hindering the people. He did everything he could to not only live the law himself, and allow all those who desired to enter it do so, but to meet with gov. officials to try and soften their hearts. He went to the Lord when the entire Church was hanging by a thread. The nation and it's leaders are condemned, and this includes any people or house in the entire world that will fight against the Lord's people. It is the exact same situation as when they marched into Missouri. The Lord declares that he will fight your battles, and now is not the time to keep fighting. They are going to have power over you, but it is for a wise purpose in me that you let me do the fighting, back off from fighting, and demonstrate your faithfulness by obeying me. This is a repeat of Zion's camp. Those men who were willing to switch courses, and not redeem Zion in the way they had been led to believe from the Lord that it would happen, had to be humble enough to follow their priesthood leader, and those were the men the Lord had respect for and called to be apostles.

User avatar
rewcox
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5873

Re: Advent of the Son of Man already happened

Post by rewcox »

jwharton wrote:
rewcox wrote:Sorry JW, you are a one man band on this.
Well, I agree on LDSFF that appears to be the case.

But, there are tens of thousands of people over those early decades that aligned with the Priesthood Body I am talking about.
They weren't alone and many of them did willingly lay down their (spiritual) lives for the sake of their testimony of these things.
Isn't it interesting that the prophecy of the Son of Man says He comes with his ten thousands of angels with Him?
Seems the numbers pretty well line up on this as well, if we are going to be looking at that aspect of things.

Note, please read the Book of Jude in its entirety as it is speaking about the time of the War in Heaven that we are now in again.
It speaks of Michael contending with the devil and those who err and who become partakers of Cain's curse, and so on.
And, also, it is where it is said there are only ten thousands who are standing in the correct place to stand during this conflict.
rewcox wrote:Christ doesn't work that way.
Doesn't work what way? Please be specific.
The oracles He spoke to His Lord's Anointed Prophet said it works just the way I said.
rewcox wrote:You are certainly welcome to believe the way you do, but you are alone and there is no substance to your theory.
There is no substance to your rebuttal other than because you say so.


Because this Book is so relevant, and especially if you look at the word links between it and the oracles of the 1880's, I am going to go ahead and insert its content here for your viewing and pondering pleasure. When I read it I get great comfort and encouragement because I am speaking of those who are sanctified by God the Father, which means the Celestial Higher Laws have sanctified those who hold true to them, through Jesus Christ, who is who comes as Son of Man in our time.

We are literally in a repeat of the end-times war in heaven waged by Michael against the devil.

Oracle received by Wilford Woodruff in 1880 where he inquired the will of the Lord about plural marriage, which says:
The devil is ruling over his kingdom, and My Spirit has no place in the hearts of the rulers of this nation, and the devil stirs them up to defy My power, and to make war upon My saints. Therefore, let Mine Apostles and Mine Elders who are faithful obey My commandments which are already written for your profit and guidance.
...
And I say again, woe unto that nation or house or people who seek to hinder My people from obeying the Patriarchal Law of Abraham, which leadeth to a Celestial glory, which has been revealed unto My saints through the mouth of My servant Joseph. For whosoever doeth these things shall be damned, saith the Lord of Hosts, and shall be broken up and wasted away from under heaven by the judgments which I have sent forth, and which shall not return unto Me void.
So, if you bear in mind, the Father means serious business and not anyone is exempt from the reach of His Words. Read the Book of Jude that speaks about when this War in Heaven already took place that is in a literal repeat now.
Jude
1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ [Son of Man], and called:
2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.
3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. [Jude is a Fundamentalist minded preacher who holds true to the Celestial Foundation and Father's Plan.]
4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.
14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit. [The Spirit of Truth for true edification.]
20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:
23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.
So, yes, I am exercising my compassion muscles as much as I can and bringing forward arguments, in as respectful of a way as I can, to show that there are indeed perils putting many souls in dire jeopardy, that perhaps people might fear the true dangers they are not perceiving.

My whole aim is to attempt to share a unique perspective that will strengthen one's faith in the Father's Plan and our need to be sanctified in it by upholding and keeping the higher laws of it. And, if those higher laws have been removed, to awaken to the fact that such would only be so if we are under condemnation and slated for the very destruction God says would overcome us.
Just because you quote a scripture that you twist for your belief, doesn't mean you have substance, or that you studied past history to come to your conclusions.

Do this, tell your bishop (do you have one?) you want to discuss Oracles including Polygamy in the 5th Sunday 3rd hour, so you can present it to your ward.

First, would your bishop say yes? (The answer would be hell no, but let's say he says yes.)

As you do your presentation, who would understand what you are talking about? No one. You are a one man band on this.

Your opinion on this doesn't have any substance.

User avatar
AI2.0
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3917

Re: Advent of the Son of Man already happened

Post by AI2.0 »

jwharton wrote:
Sarah wrote:But if you read the trial minutes, it is obvious this was not the question, whether or not a man had agency as to the "who" and "when." The question was whether these sealings were authorized by the prophet. And John W. is not very forthcoming in his answers. At one point he gives the impression that he received permission, but at another point he says he does not want to answer the question. All his comments come off as defensive, and not what I would expect from an apostle of God. I still say that part of this was a test to weed out some of the proud apostles who would not listen to authority.

The other question the council was trying to answer, was how this revelation influenced the other Saints. They wondered if this revelation was the reason some went to Mexico or Canada, and if they now assumed that they now had the authority or "agency" themselves to contract and seal these marriages. Whatever the intent of the revelation, it obviously was interpreted by some to mean that they didn't need permission from presiding authority. Was it because they felt that they held the keys? Where are the statements claiming that they, this new priesthood body, now had the keys, and W.W. or J.S.F. did not? Sec. 132. makes it clear that you cannot have it both ways.
I hear what you are saying.
Remember, when the Son of Man comes, there is darkness in the heavens.
Those trial minutes should make it clear there was plenty of darkness among the governing ones.
Not all of the Apostles "got the memo" about the Priesthood Body that existed as a "thief in the night".
Neither did they "get the memo" on the fact that they were no longer in leadership over the people.
John W. Taylor was likely keeping that "memo" from being made aware to those whose "house" was being spoiled by the "thief" in chief.
Those brethren had succumbed to the adversary's will, combined against the higher laws and forced their will upon the people.
Thus, they have gone in the way of Cain and they and all those who fall under their devices shall follow them to everlasting damnation.
Sarah is absolutely right. This all comes down to authority. She asked 'where are the statements claiming that they, this new priesthood body, now had the keys? There aren't any ;There is only Lorin Woolley's claims.

He says this is how it happened:

"After the meeting referred to, President Taylor had L. John Nuttall write five copies of the revelation. He called five of us together: Samuel Bateman, charles H. Wilkins, George Q. Cannon, John Woolley, and myself(Lorin Woolley)."
"He then set us apart and placed us under covenant that while we lived we would see to it that no year passed by without children being born in the principle of plural marriage. We were given authority to carry this work on, they in turn to be given authority to ordain others when necessary, under the direction of the worthy senior (by ordination), so that there should be no cessation in the work. He then gave each of us a copy of the Revelation."

This comes from Lorin Woolley alone and he didn't write it down until 1929. HIs father, John Woolley was the only one of the five still alive, besides Lorin, when Lorin started claiming this ordination took place, but he was in his nineties and hard of hearing--he may not have known what he son was up to.

MIchael Quinn, who certainly would have published evidence if he found it said this:
Historian D. Michael Quinn admitted: “I find no historical contemporary evidence to support that ordination of the Council of Friends in 1886… As a historian, I have no evidence that there was a setting apart or an ordination of a Council of Friends in 1886… I would be more than happy to find verification, and if I did find it, I certainly wouldn't conceal evidence of the ordination of men in 1886 as a Council of Friends to continue plural marriage… I find no evidence of that event prior to Lorin Woolley's detailed statements on various occasions in the 1920s concerning the 1886 ordination.” (August, 1991 meeting with the Allred Group, Bluffdale, Utah.)
http://www.mormonfundamentalism.com/arc ... stions.htm

Also, Woolley claimed that thirteen people were present at this momentous eight hour meeting before the ordination, but not one of the others ever mentioned it in any letters, diaries etc. Also, Woolley didn't start talking of this event until the late 1920's.

If you believe Lorin Woolley's claim about the 1886 revelation, then you believe these five men had more authority than the LDS apostles and Prophet and that they were a stumbling block to God's work. You are claiming that John Taylor was trying to protect the Lord's work from being 'spoiled' by the 'thief'--you mean the LDS church, it's Prophet and Quorum of 12. You are accusing the LDS church of 'going the way of Cain' and leading the membership to 'everlating damnation'. Do you know what you are saying, because it's pretty alarming to me.

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: Advent of the Son of Man already happened

Post by freedomforall »

Mark wrote:
jwharton wrote:
Robin Hood wrote:
jwharton wrote: It isn't so much a contradictory situation as it is merely a quandary.
Do please recall God has a provision in place to cover such quandaries.

For example, in 1 Nephi 3:7 we can read:
I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.

I have rigorously examined the whole scenario surrounding the Manifesto and it is clear to me that its entire intent was to simply get the world off the back of the Saints. There was every intention on the part of the Priesthood for that avenue to fulfill the commandments that pertained to the higher laws to remain as an open pathway. People thought it had been revoked entirely but the actual truth is no such revocation took place. There was a valid Priesthood Body organized to keep the higher laws and higher ordinances preserved.

God will always keep the pathway open for those who truly love Him and want only to serve and glorify Him with singleness of heart and mind.
Ok JW, here's the crux of the matter.
When Pres. Woodruff said that he had received a revelation that the practice of plural marriage should stop, was he telling the truth?
Did he actually publish this alleged revelation, as-in a "thus saith the Lord" oracle?
If he was acting in the capacity of Prophet instead of merely as president, this is the manner in which it would have been received.
Was this alleged "thus saith the Lord" oracle ...
... presented for ratification to the Priesthood and found approved?
... presented as-is for acceptance by the members of the Church with full unanimous consent to be bound by it?

Or, was Wilford Woodruff just acting in the capacity as the president and delivering an official declaration?
Did he actually obtain the full consent of the membership or did he just claim that they would all consent so it was counted that they did, when the truth is, he did what he did without truly subjecting it to their consent as he should?

As I see it, he didn't follow correct protocol. He didn't present things in a way that they were actually binding upon the Saints. He claimed a REVELATION but didn't give us any actual revelation, as-in an oracle. He put forward a QUESTION and then PRESUMED an answer on their behalf, and then left it as if that is how everyone had acted in the matter. Nobody actually had any say in the matter and their answer was forced upon them. THIS MANNER IS NOT OF GOD.

If the vast majority of the Saints, including the upper leadership of the Church, really had the Spirit of God, they would have done just as John Taylor did when pressed to enter into a Manifesto. He utterly refused. But, because there was "darkness in the heavens" the people sustained something that went contrary to oracles of God that had been received within just 10 years and that was presented and made binding in a manner that violated the instructions in the oracles of God as to how official Church business is to be conducted.

I find it ironic that many here are so eager to be subject to the terms of the Manifesto, and yet it wasn't actually ratified by the common consent of the Church members. But, when I bring up "thus saith the Lord" oracles that were received in the 1880's by the Lord's Anointed Prophet, the fact that some of them weren't presented to the body of the church for acceptance by common consent means they can just blow off those oracles.

This is exactly what the Lord warned about in section 90 when he warned about taking the oracles of God lightly and falling under condemnation thereby. Why weren't those oracles taken more seriously? Why weren't the members of the Church given an opportunity to accept them by common consent?

I persist in this conversation's direction because it all serves as proof that the main body of Saints was overcome by Satan making war upon them. The kingdoms of the world did prevail against the Saints. But, the Son of Man came during this great period of darkness, peril and apostasy and saved all those who truly loved the Father and who kept the pathway open for Eternal Life and exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom for many decades to follow. And, one of the things the oracles said is that when the Son of Man comes the leadership of the people goes from the Apostles to Him. This is why OD-1 says the Lord will remove out of their place those who go contrary to the oracles of God and their duty. This is exactly what Wilford Woodruff did. He went contrary to the oracles of God and his duty as a Lord's Anointed Prophet and when he did this he was removed out of his place as the Lord's Anointed Prophet and the leadership of the people transferred from him and went to the Priesthood Body that was formed in order to preserve the higher laws. And, this was necessary anyway. You cannot continue to be worthy to receive the higher level ministration of the direct words of Christ and the Father when you have allowed yourself to fall to the Telestial level. It is impossible for the Church to continue receiving Terrestrial or Celestial ministration when they have rejected those laws. The mantle of Lord's Anointed Prophet had to be transferred to a body that was still keeping the laws that qualified them to continue to receive that level of ministration.

This is the crux of the matter.

Here is jwhartons line of succession as pertaining to the transfer of proper Priesthood keys and the mantle of the Lords Annointed Prophet. John C Woolley and his son Lorin succeeded John Taylor as the Lords rightful spokesman in his eyes. He is a fundamentalist Mormon. Pure and simple. Own it brother. You are looking to proselyte your paradigm to anyone who will buy it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council ... s_(Woolley" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)
Reminds me of this slogan:
Takes a Licking.jpg
Takes a Licking.jpg (49.13 KiB) Viewed 1499 times

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: Advent of the Son of Man already happened

Post by freedomforall »

The more resistance JWharton receives, the stronger he comes on. My assertion is, he's bound and determined to undermine the faith and testimonies of everyone on this forum, sometimes is subtle ways. I've asked him to quit screwing with our minds to no avail. I and a few others here are fed up with doctrine geared to make the saints appear as a bunch of reprobates.

Some forum members think I've been to harsh, but I could care less. I was only trying to protect the integrity of the forum, it supposedly being a pro-lds site. Evidence shows it is quickly losing that status and has become just like every other forum where lurkers can only see contention and gospel bashing, and if people have noticed as of recent...my name isn't even in the discussion.

This I will guaranty, this forum will attract people just like the man here who does not care or respect our views and will bring to the table even more crap to contend with, more false doctrine to sort through and apostates bent on tearing this forum apart with their complaints and accusations. Those of us that have been here for quite some time have already seen the progression of decay within this forum. And a good number of forum members have left due to the lack of control and increase of disgruntled people coming here to vent and raise cain.

If this doctrine overtakes the forum with little resistance shame on the rest of you. I'm sick and tired of getting ragged on for trying to bring forward true believers of current doctrine and not living in the past and trying to discredit the church and its leaders as has been evidenced by the relentless presenting of doctrine geared to twist and distort our beliefs, our testimonies and our hard earned knowledge as taught in scripture and by current prophets.

Ragging on me has only given the guilty more power...evidenced by those who have awakened to the real purpose of this shocking and warped doctrine. I know they are holding back from saying harsher things because they are trying to adhere to forum rules as well as the keeping peace.
So if this forum goes to the dogs, the burden is on you...the apathetic. I am not the new kid on the block.

His great defense is...that which you bring against me has no substance. This has been stated multiple times. So expect this line whenever engaging him and trying to set the record straight. To him, most evidence brought to him is gobbledygook.

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: Advent of the Son of Man already happened

Post by freedomforall »

jwharton wrote:
freedomforall wrote:The only condemnation I know of is that the Saints aren't reading the Book of Mormon. I've read it 21 times cover to cover. After all, aren't we told to feast upon the word? It's in the book!

D&C 84:54-57
54 And your minds in times past have been darkened because of unbelief, and because you have treated lightly the things you have received—
55 Which vanity and unbelief have brought the whole church under condemnation.
56 And this condemnation resteth upon the children of Zion, even all.
57 And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written—

So this condemnation is collectively, not individually.
It rests upon the entire Church, meaning until those conditions are satisfied, everyone will bear the effects in some way. This is your twisted belief, pure and complete BS You will make frivolous claims in order to keep the dialog in your favor. I know your game.
And, mind you, you were trying to dissuade me simply upon the notion that I received some original thinking the masses don't share. I try to dismiss you because of your lack of respect and your arrogance and pompous attitude, plain and simple. In fact, I fully expect a rebuttal from you so you will feel ratified in your arrogance and wanting to stay on top of your game. This is a given, JWharton. You are relentless in your accusations, condemnations and in delivering your own doctrine. I know there is a name for that.

Also, God says that EVERY WORD that proceeds from His Mouth needs to be respected.
You seem to have left out a few of the words of that pronouncement of condemnation.
I highlighted them for you so that you would have them to contemplate.

Also, for your consideration:
D&C 91
43 And I now give unto you a commandment to beware concerning yourselves, to give diligent heed to the words of Eternal Life.
44 For you shall live by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God.
45 For the word of the LORD is truth, and whatsoever is truth is light, and whatsoever is light is Spirit, even the Spirit of Jesus Christ.

So in return, I give you this wording also from God's mouth for your education.

Doctrine and Covenants 56:4
4 Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord.

Can you take a hint? Are you able to read God's mind and counsel him? So quit being so cocky and such a know it all!
So, you must also come to know what the FORMER COMMANDMENTS are as well. But it is sin to discredit and ignore current ones. Unless those are respected and remedied, not your self imposed calling you can read the Book of Mormon 5,000 times and it won't get you out of condemnation. Speak for yourself and quit condemning everyone just because you assume you know everything. You don't. You are not God, nor a prophet. Condescending, yes. And, in case some people are going to take this lightly, being under condemnation means you either remedy the problems or a WRECKING BALL is coming your way. It may hit you first. Have you ever considered that?
This is exactly why I would rather see you back off. You're too judgemental and all assuming, even to the point of speaking for and putting words into the mouth of God. It is apparent that you know nothing of what is written in he book of Mormon. You apparently do not know or believe that living the gospel is an individual process, not a collective. What are the promises given in the Book of Mormon to the faithful, huh? Come on, recite them. Enlighten us with that info, please! Can you do even this much? I know, I know what they are, so let's see you recite them.

Good grief, JWharton...get real.

Locked