Advent of the Son of Man already happened

[Carlos]

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

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

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

[jwharton]

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

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

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

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

[Carlos]

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

[jwharton]

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

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

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

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

[jwharton]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[jwharton]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[freedomforall]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[jwharton]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is what it says:

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

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

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

So, you have some strong points to address here.

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

[jwharton]

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

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

[freedomforall]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is what it says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And:

[jwharton]

Now, can you instruct any further without condescending remarks?

I do my best to just keep strictly to the topic at hand in a respectful manner.

You have yet to address the clear references I made to our scriptures and oracles that plainly say what they do.
If you disagree with how I have assembled together a composite understanding from all of them....
how about instead of you diverting attention elsewhere you address them with a more fitting understanding.

Please provide meaningful answers to these points.

OD-1 says if a Prophet attempts to lead the people astray, the Lord will remove him. True or false?
OD-1 doesn't exactly say how and in what manner he would be removed. True of false?
OD-1 says that "the programme" of God doesn't permit a leader to lead the people astray. True or false?
OD-1 doesn't say our leaders are infallible but addresses what to do if they go astray. True or false?

D&C 107:21-22 that the President of the Church is chosen by the body. True or false?
D&C 107:91 says the President of the Church has the duty to be like onto Moses. True or false?
D&C 107:82-84 says nobody is above having a controversy raised up against them. True or false?
D&C 107:99-100 says any officer who isn't performing their duty is unworthy to stand. True or false?

There are more, but lets just start with these for now.
Do you acknowledge these points or do you deny them?

[freedomforall]

Please provide meaningful answers to these points.

OD-1 says if a Prophet attempts to lead the people astray, the Lord will remove him. True or false?
OD-1 doesn't exactly say how and in what manner he would be removed. True of false?
OD-1 says that "the programme" of God doesn't permit a leader to lead the people astray. True or false?
OD-1 doesn't say our leaders are infallible but addresses what to do if they go astray. True or false?

D&C 107:21-22 that the President of the Church is chosen by the body. True or false?
D&C 107:91 says the President of the Church has the duty to be like onto Moses. True or false?
D&C 107:82-84 says nobody is above having a controversy raised up against them. True or false?
D&C 107:99-100 says any officer who isn't performing their duty is unworthy to stand. True or false?

There are more, but lets just start with these for now.
Do you acknowledge these points or do you deny them?

You apparently didn't read my post above. You're the one telling the story. The floor is yours. The rest of us that think differently are the onlookers. Besides everything I have ever presented is claimed by you to have no substance, so that leaves me without any credibility. This is on you, caused by your railings against my doctrinal offerings. What more can I say? You wanted control, so control, we'll just observe. The floor is yours as you wished. Go for it.
I have nothing to prove to you because my beliefs, my testimony and my heart felt convictions are mine, leaving you to wonder and yearn.

And you still owe a huge apology.

[jwharton]

Please provide meaningful answers to these points.

OD-1 says if a Prophet attempts to lead the people astray, the Lord will remove him. True or false?
OD-1 doesn't exactly say how and in what manner he would be removed. True of false?
OD-1 says that "the programme" of God doesn't permit a leader to lead the people astray. True or false?
OD-1 doesn't say our leaders are infallible but addresses what to do if they go astray. True or false?

D&C 107:21-22 that the President of the Church is chosen by the body. True or false?
D&C 107:91 says the President of the Church has the duty to be like onto Moses. True or false?
D&C 107:82-84 says nobody is above having a controversy raised up against them. True or false?
D&C 107:99-100 says any officer who isn't performing their duty is unworthy to stand. True or false?

There are more, but lets just start with these for now.
Do you acknowledge these points or do you deny them?

You apparently didn't read my post above. You're the one telling the story. The floor is yours. The rest of us that think differently are the onlookers. Besides everything I have ever presented is claimed by you to have no substance, so that leaves me without any credibility. This is on you, caused by your railings against my doctrinal offerings. What more can I say? You wanted control, so control, we'll just observe. The floor is yours as you wished. Go for it.

So you are unwilling to take baby steps through the standard works?
Why are you so insistent to wrest the scriptures now?

All of God's Word, in fact He says every single word of His, is significant.
Why are you resisting the specific ones I am attempting to draw your attention to?

You are also free to be just an on-looker if you wish, just please do so quietly, okay?

[freedomforall]

Please provide meaningful answers to these points.

OD-1 says if a Prophet attempts to lead the people astray, the Lord will remove him. True or false?
OD-1 doesn't exactly say how and in what manner he would be removed. True of false?
OD-1 says that "the programme" of God doesn't permit a leader to lead the people astray. True or false?
OD-1 doesn't say our leaders are infallible but addresses what to do if they go astray. True or false?

D&C 107:21-22 that the President of the Church is chosen by the body. True or false?
D&C 107:91 says the President of the Church has the duty to be like onto Moses. True or false?
D&C 107:82-84 says nobody is above having a controversy raised up against them. True or false?
D&C 107:99-100 says any officer who isn't performing their duty is unworthy to stand. True or false?

There are more, but lets just start with these for now.
Do you acknowledge these points or do you deny them?

You apparently didn't read my post above. You're the one telling the story. The floor is yours. The rest of us that think differently are the onlookers. Besides everything I have ever presented is claimed by you to have no substance, so that leaves me without any credibility. This is on you, caused by your railings against my doctrinal offerings. What more can I say? You wanted control, so control, we'll just observe. The floor is yours as you wished. Go for it.

So you are unwilling to take baby steps through the standard works? Baby steps? Baby steps? How condescending and assumptive of you. You amaze me, JWharton. How dare you! Have I forgotten more doctrine than you'll ever come to know?
Why are you so insistent to wrest the scriptures now? This is BS, only a contrived statement to piss me off. Get something straight Mr Guru, my not responding to you as you like is not in any wresting scripture. You know very well how to do that all by yourself.

All of God's Word, in fact He says every single word of His, is significant. No doubt, but I'll stick with his version, thank you very much.
Why are you resisting the specific ones I am attempting to draw your attention to? No, everything you present. Is that not clear enough, having substance?

Oh, ye of little faith. Why put words in my mouth to suit your own lack? You do not require our responses, our thoughts or our testimonies. To you they are worthless, and we must explore your teachings with open arms, and for what? For whom? How many times have you read all the scriptures cover to cover, huh? Who's word is it we are to feast upon, huh? And where is it that we can gain his word and take it to the bank, huh? :-w :-ss

[freedomforall]

You are also free to be just an on-looker if you wish, just please do so quietly, okay?

How wonderful is your humility. What are you going to do if I don't, send me to my room?

I intend on providing whatever I deem necessary in order for people to ponder two opposing doctrines so they can make an educated decision of which one to internalize, yet I would rather have someone else step up to the plate, I'm tired of of being accused of everything being my way, my doctrine...it isn't. That's fair, isn't it? We don't need a dictatorship last I read the rules.

Don't you have any respect for your elders, either? I'm old enough to be your father. Be quiet, indeed. Pomposity is not a becoming trait. Just where are your manners?

Wow, you just plain amaze me, JWharton.

PS Still waiting for an apology.

[freedomforall]

Still :-w , JWharton. A simple, I'm sorry, should do. But it must come from the heart, yours. Can you afford being labeled as a person having a forked tongue? This is on you.

It's simple, merely put your lips together and say "I'm sorry for labeling people that don't accept my doctrines as TURDS."

Come, on, JWharton, you can do it, I know you can.

[freedomforall]

:-w

[freedomforall]

A heart of deep gratitude goes out to the various members here who have thanked me for my posts. Although imperfect, I try, rather endeavor, to say things that will cause pondering. study and prayer. Thanks for putting up with me.

[freedomforall]

Come on, JWharton, has pride caught hold of your tongue? What are your true colors, anyway?

[jwharton]

FFA,
I'd like to have relevant discussion about the scriptures and the oracles and what they are saying.
I have tried to boil some things down to as simple of a format as possible and yet you do not respect this effort.
At this point I am totally exasperated and I am giving up on the hope of having substantive exchange with you.
I am going to begin ignoring your posts unless I detect a sincere desire to engage with me in a good spirit.

[Delight]

To LDSFF members:

Hi! I have only been a member of LDSFF for about 5 weeks. I came here because I am always looking for further light and knowledge.

I am concerned that several forum members seem to be continually attacking/badgering/targeting JWharton. Do you really consider yourselves to be upstanding LDS while you treat your brother with such contempt and disrespect?

I joined LDSFF so I could learn. And JWharton has a lot of information that I am sincerely trying to process. So far I see absolutely no evidence that the principles he is teaching are incorrect. In fact, it is clear that JWharton has more regard for the LDS Church than do most Mormons I know.

To JWharton:

I believe you have a gift for discerning hidden gems in scripture and a gift for expounding doctrine. You indeed have several people following your thread, so please keep teaching us how to decipher the symbolism in the scriptures. I have been looking for this type of light and knowledge for years and truly value this information you have been sharing with us.

Sincerely,

Delight

[AI2.0]

My responses to you Delight, in blue:

To LDSFF members:

Hi! I have only been a member of LDSFF for about 5 weeks. I came here because I am always looking for further light and knowledge.Yes, I wondered if you might 'join' the conversation. I noticed you've been 'liking' his posts throughout this discussion.

I am concerned that several forum members seem to be continually attacking/badgering/targeting JWharton. Do you really consider yourselves to be upstanding LDS while you treat your brother with such contempt and disrespect?I do my best to live the Gospel of Jesus Christ and I am not ashamed of my treatment of Wharton. I am not treating him with contempt or disrespect, I have been defending the LDS church's position on the manifesto being divinely inspired and reiterated the fact that we believe that only Thomas S. Monson holds the keys to the sealing power (and is the only one who can delegate) and no one else. J.Wharton does not believe that. He believes that others were called and set apart outside the church organization to perform polygamous marriages and they do not answer to our Prophets since 1890.

I joined LDSFF so I could learn. And JWharton has a lot of information that I am sincerely trying to process. So far I see absolutely no evidence that the principles he is teaching are incorrect. In fact, it is clear that JWharton has more regard for the LDS Church than do most Mormons I know.Well, I can only assume you don't know many Mormons then.

Are you a new member of the LDS church? There is plenty of evidence that he's preaching false doctrine and the fact that you are being swayed by him is extremely alarming to me and exactly why I've continued to press him on this. This will be on his head if he leads others into believing apostate teachings and they end up breaking their covenants and/or losing their memberships.

If you TRULY are sincerely unsure of what he is teaching (and not actually of friend of his and fellow believer) and struggling with whether or not it is true, I suggest you print out this thread and take it to your Bishop. Ask him if Wharton is teaching truth. He will be able to show you Wharton's errors and save you the heartache that comes with believing these very damaging false teachings.

To JWharton:

I believe you have a gift for discerning hidden gems in scripture and a gift for expounding doctrine. You indeed have several people following your thread, so please keep teaching us how to decipher the symbolism in the scriptures. I have been looking for this type of light and knowledge for years and truly value this information you have been sharing with us.Delight, you do realize that he's promoting polygamy. Do the others following this thread also know that he's promoting polygamy and lobbying for it to be reinstated? When I say he's promoting polygamy, I mean he believes the LDS church is under condemnation because we stopped practicing it and that polygamists don't answer to Pres. Thomas S. Monson, but are free to do as they please because they were given authority outside the LDS church priesthood hierarchy. Do you all realize that this is what he preaches the same thing that FLDS and AUB polygamists believe about the beginnings of their break off sects?

Sincerely,

Delight

[freedomforall]

FFA,
I'd like to have relevant discussion about the scriptures and the oracles and what they are saying.
I have tried to boil some things down to as simple of a format as possible and yet you do not respect this effort.
At this point I am totally exasperated and I am giving up on the hope of having substantive exchange with you.
I am going to begin ignoring your posts unless I detect a sincere desire to engage with me in a good spirit.

So I conclude that you do not believe in giving apologies for wrong doing, yet expect me to listen to your doctrine? You got a lot of nerve but are lacking in humility and manners. Are you for real? Are you above saying you're sorry? You want to dialog with me and discuss who knows what and talk about Jesus and Father and gospel teachings, but you avoid a simple truth that an apology can go a long way and is Christ-like? I proved, I proved your part in that name calling. And I also proved that the term "turds" was plural, being directed to all those rejecting your gospel. I provided proof, substance and clarity just like you want.

Tell you what, why do you not get another person or two to dialog with, I am done with this back and forth "who has the best and most doctrine" and "I have more pride than you". I know it is best for me to back away because it is the right thing to do.

So please find yourself someone else that is not as well grounded in the gospel having a superb testimony and a strong conviction that his knowledge is not to be messed with or diluted by someone elses beliefs, or just plain gullible.
I'm sure you can find some people willing to discuss things that I find not to my liking. It is not worth it to me. I thought I was doing some good for the forum, but find all I did was draw negative results, even criticisms against my efforts. Goes to show what kind of Mormons can be found that will shew someone away because they like false doctrine and are somehow drawn to it. More power to you, I say.

[jwharton]

To LDSFF members:

Hi! I have only been a member of LDSFF for about 5 weeks. I came here because I am always looking for further light and knowledge.

Welcome to LDSFF Delight. I've been wondering if I might hear from you eventually.

I am concerned that several forum members seem to be continually attacking/badgering/targeting JWharton. Do you really consider yourselves to be upstanding LDS while you treat your brother with such contempt and disrespect?

I joined LDSFF so I could learn. And JWharton has a lot of information that I am sincerely trying to process. So far I see absolutely no evidence that the principles he is teaching are incorrect. In fact, it is clear that JWharton has more regard for the LDS Church than do most Mormons I know.

I appreciate you recognizing that I do sincerely care about and regard the LDS Church.
Although, I'm sure you can see I have attempted in a new way to re-open some old issues many feel are a "done deal".
I understand why they are extremely uncomfortable with some aspects I have brought up.

To JWharton:

I believe you have a gift for discerning hidden gems in scripture and a gift for expounding doctrine. You indeed have several people following your thread, so please keep teaching us how to decipher the symbolism in the scriptures. I have been looking for this type of light and knowledge for years and truly value this information you have been sharing with us.

Sincerely,

Delight

I would have much rather had this conversation among a predominant LDS faithful crowd, such as you....
But, I have agreed with the forum owner that I would no longer pursue investigation of these things here.
Part of the reason is he believes there are other forums out there better suited for this line of inquiry.

So, it appears I am going to have to wade into other forums where much disrespect for the LDS Church is common place.
And, actually, I think I will just avoid going there altogether and just keep these things to myself.
I automatically discredit anyone who does not have a posture of respect for the LDS Church.
So, I don't believe any of the other forums I have been invited to redirect my investigation to are going to be worth my time.

I'm not sure what I will do but you are welcome to approach me privately if you have any further questions.

[jwharton]

FFA, as I have said, I will engage in dialog with you if it pertains to the subject of the OP and it has a good spirit about it.
I wholeheartedly welcome any substantive and respectfully presented criticisms you feel to share about me and my views.
Otherwise, you will merely be offered a reminder just like I am giving you here and now.