A message I was asked to share

[Elizabeth]

;) YMWHISTLE

[SmallFarm]

Many LDS posters were "permanently" banned numerous times by Jules, including myself.

I was completely banned ... Most of those who complained against the prophets and put down the church have left and while they may think otherwise, I think over time they couldn't tolerate the testimonies of those who hung on during those years.

Nobody has ever had the ability to ban people but Brian.... try again

[Rose Garden]

Many LDS posters were "permanently" banned numerous times by Jules, including myself.

I was completely banned ... Most of those who complained against the prophets and put down the church have left and while they may think otherwise, I think over time they couldn't tolerate the testimonies of those who hung on during those years.

Nobody has ever had the ability to ban people but Brian.... try again

I'm pretty sure moderators have the power to ban people.

[butterfly]

I used to think that defending truth and fighting the good fight meant that I had to be overwhelmingly vocal whenever anyone else was wrong. It was my duty to expose those poor misguided souls in order to protect them and protect the flock. Younger, inexperienced sheep could fall prey to apostates' deception.

I truly believed that this was what God wanted me to do; I acted out of love for my fellow man.

Now I see that I was actually being like Saul- valiantly throwing into "prison" anyone who, from my viewpoint, was wrong.

If you are acting out of charity, you will not have a mind to injure another. Why attack a person for sharing their beliefs?
I know the answer, I thought the same way before: "to protect the flock."
Fighting the good fight does not mean that I should literally be fighting. The good fight is a much harder battle because it's a battle with yourself, not with your neighbor's beliefs.

If I want to defend the truth, then I will make sure my spirit wins out over my natural man; instead of seeking to injure another, under the guise of protecting the flock, I will teach by example how to be respectful and loving of another person's beliefs.

It is easy to throw cheap shots at someone we disagree with. The good fight is about loving them in spite of the disagreement.

[SmallFarm]

Many LDS posters were "permanently" banned numerous times by Jules, including myself.

I was completely banned ... Most of those who complained against the prophets and put down the church have left and while they may think otherwise, I think over time they couldn't tolerate the testimonies of those who hung on during those years.

Nobody has ever had the ability to ban people but Brian.... try again

I'm pretty sure moderators have the power to ban people.

I didn't

[brlenox]

I used to think that defending truth and fighting the good fight meant that I had to be overwhelmingly vocal whenever anyone else was wrong. It was my duty to expose those poor misguided souls in order to protect them and protect the flock. Younger, inexperienced sheep could fall prey to apostates' deception.

I truly believed that this was what God wanted me to do; I acted out of love for my fellow man.

Now I see that I was actually being like Saul- valiantly throwing into "prison" anyone who, from my viewpoint, was wrong.

If you are acting out of charity, you will not have a mind to injure another. Why attack a person for sharing their beliefs?
I know the answer, I thought the same way before: "to protect the flock."
Fighting the good fight does not mean that I should literally be fighting. The good fight is a much harder battle because it's a battle with yourself, not with your neighbor's beliefs.

If I want to defend the truth, then I will make sure my spirit wins out over my natural man; instead of seeking to injure another, under the guise of protecting the flock, I will teach by example how to be respectful and loving of another person's beliefs.

It is easy to throw cheap shots at someone we disagree with. The good fight is about loving them in spite of the disagreement.

These kind of sentiments have a pleasant ring but it fails to consider the significance of what is being discussed from my point of view. Neither is it so easy to claim that simply because one is willing to be very straightforward that they are lacking in love one for another. Perhaps it is that love that drives them to be candid and to the point. Choosing Paul as your example is far from consistent with your argument as he was definitely inclined to brutal boldness in his declarations.

However, I am going to choose another to make what I consider the point that few are willing to acknowledge. I choose Alma, who expresses a sentiment that I believe to be fully compliant with God's intent concerning those that participate in the process of deceiving and leading others astray. At this point, the time he is referencing is before his conversion and he is little more than a spoiled kid. He has limited gospel understanding in terms of having lived the standards but of those times he states the following:

Alma 36:14

14 Yea, and I had murdered many of his children, or rather led them away unto destruction; yea, and in fine so great had been my iniquities, that the very thought of coming into the presence of my God did rack my soul with inexpressible horror.

After his conversion, he realizes what murder is and it is not the actual spilling of blood but of leading people astray and denying them eternal life because of those actions. It is actually murder in another way concerning the Savior but we can leave that alone for now. That's the battle I think we are engaged in. Sure it sounds strong and to some perhaps over the top. However, your debate is not with me it is whether one is willing to accept the scriptures at face value - and I tend to be very much that way. Someone earlier was concerned that I compared Jules to Korihor. Well from a scriptural perspective that is what fits for those of the DS camp that preach against the church. So I find no need to water down those particular elements of my previous points.

Also, while I may choose to slip in some unnecessary insinuations in my posts, I do not consider "cheap shots" a proper characterization for what I do. I am a man and imperfect in many ways, but I provide exceptional efforts at seeking to provide solid, sound resources that validate a gospel supported response to mistaken notions. I refuse to limit myself exclusively to one liners and personal opinions. I work for what I present, drawing upon a vast reservoir of hard won knowledge and the spiritual insight that God has blessed me with. I try to use these things to defend the gospel and to do so with any less zeal is in appropriate. Research my posts if it matters to truly understand. I can be painfully kind when the participant indicates a perspective that I simply feel is ignorant innocence. However, I do not encounter that often around here and I actually only tend to come out and play anymore when the people who should know better start in their deceptions.

We live in a time where a false sense of overt kindness is the indicator of propriety. Frankly, if I could be just like Paul with all of his boldness and capacity to stare down all the enemies of God I would consider myself in good company.

[brlenox]

The fact so many thanked you and you took a "bow" after is wrong.

While there were many things I could have responded to in your post, I chose not to. I agree with a couple of your points and so took the burden upon myself to ignore the areas that you completely misinterpreted and let it go at that. However, this little snippet here has dwelt with me a bit and I have decided that it is so egregiously in error that it bears a bit of correction.

I am not comfortable with how you have grouped and unfairly disparaged several others in your condemnations of me. People thanked me because what you could not see for my imperfections, they were able to see by looking around my imperfections. The message was correct.

I have placed a proper emphasis on a grossly mistaken and errant perception of what it is to be one of the elect. If I was to say nothing to try to provide some offset for such misleading material I would be at risk of offending God for more than because my imperfections might draw some critique.

I took no bow as well, I was simply responding to a kind gesture with an explanation of why it was meaningful to me. You have made your point of my imperfections and I genuinely will take it to heart. However, if that is all you saw then I suspect you are letting a few of your own imperfections cloud both your judgments and your vision.

[Robin Hood]

I read the link.
That's a few minutes of my life I'll never get back.

True, but now you have another story to tell.

That would just waste even more time.

[butterfly]

These kind of sentiments have a pleasant ring but it fails to consider the significance of what is being discussed from my point of view. Neither is it so easy to claim that simply because one is willing to be very straightforward that they are lacking in love one for another. Perhaps it is that love that drives them to be candid and to the point.

I appreciate honesty - it is frustrating when people are 2 faced. Do you believe that in order to be straightforward, you must also be insulting?
Are you loving enough to be straightforward without being insulting?

However, I am going to choose another to make what I consider the point that few are willing to acknowledge. I choose Alma, who expresses a sentiment that I believe to be fully compliant with God's intent concerning those that participate in the process of deceiving and leading others astray. At this point, the time he is referencing is before his conversion and he is little more than a spoiled kid. He has limited gospel understanding in terms of having lived the standards but of those times he states the following:

Alma 36:14

14 Yea, and I had murdered many of his children, or rather led them away unto destruction; yea, and in fine so great had been my iniquities, that the very thought of coming into the presence of my God did rack my soul with inexpressible horror.

After his conversion, he realizes what murder is and it is not the actual spilling of blood but of leading people astray and denying them eternal life because of those actions. It is actually murder in another way concerning the Savior but we can leave that alone for now. That's the battle I think we are engaged in. Sure it sounds strong and to some perhaps over the top. However, your debate is not with me it is whether one is willing to accept the scriptures at face value - and I tend to be very much that way. Someone earlier was concerned that I compared Jules to Korihor. Well from a scriptural perspective that is what fits for those of the DS camp that preach against the church. So I find no need to water down those particular elements of my previous points.

I'm concerned about how we treat those we disagree with. What I'm getting from this part of your statement ^^^^ sounds like "an eye for an eye." It sounds like you're saying that if someone is "wrong" enough, then you have the right to insult them. The ends justify the means. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding you.

Also, while I may choose to slip in some unnecessary insinuations in my posts, I do not consider "cheap shots" a proper characterization for what I do. I am a man and imperfect in many ways, but I provide exceptional efforts at seeking to provide solid, sound resources that validate a gospel supported response to mistaken notions.

You know that phrase "I don't care how much you know until I know how much you care"?
You see, I typically enjoy reading your posts. You do have a lot of knowledge and light to share. But when you wrap it up with insults, it just makes me feel disappointed. I see you as a person who can do so much good with the spiritual truths you know. You have no need to resort to insults; you're enlightened enough to speak honestly, and defend your beliefs without using tactics that the adversary would encourage.

I refuse to limit myself exclusively to one liners and personal opinions. I work for what I present, drawing upon a vast reservoir of hard won knowledge and the spiritual insight that God has blessed me with.

Others feel the same way about their beliefs. You've expressed that people used to get after you for your comments, so you know how that feels- was it effective when they did it? Did anyone cause you to change your mind or to even make you have respect for them by insulting you?

I try to use these things to defend the gospel and to do so with any less zeal is in appropriate

Of course, defend what you believe, but the gospel does not say we attack other's beliefs as part of defending ours. We claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God...and allow ALL MEN (and women) the same privilege. Let them worship how, where, or what they may.

One caveat- you responded to my post, but I didn't specifically direct it towards you. I thought what I posted was a good reminder for us all. I don't want you to think that I'm singling you out :ymhug:

[Rose Garden]

Many LDS posters were "permanently" banned numerous times by Jules, including myself.

Nobody has ever had the ability to ban people but Brian.... try again

I'm pretty sure moderators have the power to ban people.

I didn't

Oh, okay. I was remembering some post where I vaguely remember Marc saying something about banning someone. Plus, on the forum I was a moderator on for a while, I could ban people. It's likely I'm wrong.

[shadow]

Many LDS posters were "permanently" banned numerous times by Jules, including myself.

I was completely banned ... Most of those who complained against the prophets and put down the church have left and while they may think otherwise, I think over time they couldn't tolerate the testimonies of those who hung on during those years.

Nobody has ever had the ability to ban people but Brian.... try again

Maybe. Brian seemed to have quite a bit of trust in his mods. At one point most if not all of his mods were Snufferites and Brian had 1 3/4 feet into Snufferism too. Back when Snufferism took over, the mods sucked royally. I was banned for over a year for treating mods no worse than they treated me. Eventually Brian cleaned house, thankfully.

[brlenox]

It sounds like you're saying that if someone is "wrong" enough, then you have the right to insult them. The ends justify the means. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding you.

Misunderstanding me? Yes that mildly represents my take on this. Case in point is simply that you find some honor in taking me to task but Jules post had absolutely no visible impact on you whatsoever.

You have a bit of a challenge evaluating this situation because I didn't give a detailed response to the original post that made such a point of correcting me. I simply responded with a mia culpa and left it a that. That is not to say that I agreed with everything that was said. So I'll say it now - the only thing that I agreed with was simply that I didn't need to keep rubbing over and over in Jules face that she created a false quote to support a false perspective by stating several times how my quotes were not doctored ones to suit my purposes. When and if she reads my response she will know that she has been revealed and she'll have nothing to say because what can she say? I should have left it at that. However, that was the only point that I considered salient of what the other person was stating. That's it. The other accusations of me being insulting were simply his or hers perspective but certainly not what I intended. That is just what his or her state of mind was capable of receiving.

Again, what is interesting is why it is not perceived as insulting to have someone lie to you and sustain a completely false interpretation of something that has the potential to lead others astray and in fact was precisely calculated to do so. Why this does not trouble you in the least sufficient to warrant a comment is indicative. When you can understand and respond with true concern for others welfare who might be deceived by such then you will understand Alma and perhaps me a bit better.

Bottom line is that you and I are from entirely different worlds and in fact I have always observed a tendency for you to appear more suitable for Jules world than that of one who truly seeks to sustain the Gospel of Jesus Christ, his chosen leaders, and what is truly right. That's okay with me as long as your presentation does not become one of direct sponsorship of the things that are destructive to good members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. That said I still think that you learn from the same voices that Jules learns from and are failing the safety of staying within the counsel and sustainment of the Brethren. My genuine concern recommends that you reconsider but that is of course your choice to make.

Now, I confess it is very difficult for me to put this kind of effort into a post of such utter uselessness as discussing my imperfections. They are there - no question but I borrow a perspective from Brigham Young to end any further discussion of this type - please consider:

I remember that when I made a profession of religion, after being called an infidel by the Christians, I often used to get a little puzzled. The Evil One would whisper to me that I had done this, that, or some other thing wrong, and inquire whether that looked like a Christian act, and remark, "You have missed it; you have not done right, and you know it; you did not do as well in such a thing as you might; and are you not ashamed of yourself in saying that you are a Christian? You profess the religion of Jesus Christ, and now manifest such weakness!" Said I, "Mr. Devil, it is none of your business. You may go behind, or before, or in any other direction; but you and I have dissolved partnership; and what I do, I am accountable for to a more glorious Being than you are. So long as we were in partnership, I had to give an account of my doings to you; but now it is not for you to fret yourself about my doings, for you have no interest whatever in the matter." And thus I have acted with him from that time until now. (Jrnal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 7: 6.)

When it comes to the Being I am accountable to, I know when I have fallen outside of His favor and expectations. I know He knows my heart and that I am trying to move towards perfection and that I am making progress. I'm not there yet but my willingness and capacity to address certain levels of evil such as in this thread are within acceptable bounds. Since you have inquired as to my perceptions as to where you might possess misunderstanding, I think perhaps you might reconsider your targets - I'm not the one that matters.

[shadow]

We don't actually believe the crazy stories in the scriptures - we regard them as fairy tales with lessons; we believe the organization with paperwork and a building in front of us. If we actually believed our scriptures, we would be EXPECTING the things in them to be happening every day - including the weird things the prophets discuss in their encounters with God and Jesus Christ and angels and beings.

I'm expecting Dieter to call out some bears to devour those who vocally oppose the Lord's Prophets in General Conference. That'd be cra cra.

You're assuming that having weird dreams mean they MUST be from God. That assumption is simply false.

[Rose Garden]

We don't actually believe the crazy stories in the scriptures - we regard them as fairy tales with lessons; we believe the organization with paperwork and a building in front of us. If we actually believed our scriptures, we would be EXPECTING the things in them to be happening every day - including the weird things the prophets discuss in their encounters with God and Jesus Christ and angels and beings.

I'm expecting Dieter to call out some bears to devour those who vocally oppose the Lord's Prophets in General Conference. That'd be cra cra.

You're assuming that having weird dreams mean they MUST be from God. That assumption is simply false.

I was told by a friend that every dream we have has significance vital to our lives. I have been paying attention to my dreams and they have brought me great insight into the struggles I have in my life, helping me understand where I am at and what I need to do to get where I want to go. I would say that every dream is from God and has a message in it, although usually that message is: repent! I also believe that when the Lord asks you to share things with others, it's for your own benefit. If others benefit from what you have shared, then that's great too. But ultimately, all your personal dealings with God are for your benefit personally, including any messages you might have to share with others.

[Rose Garden]

Yes my experiences are weird - just as weird as Lehi's / Nephi's dreams read to me, just as weird as Joseph Smith's weird experiences sound to me... let me pull out my scriptures and we will talk about "WEIRD" experiences. Of course it's weird - we are used to correlated thinking in this completely different "fallen world" that looks nothing like the spiritual world. We don't actually believe the crazy stories in the scriptures - we regard them as fairy tales with lessons; we believe the organization with paperwork and a building in front of us. If we actually believed our scriptures, we would be EXPECTING the things in them to be happening every day - including the weird things the prophets discuss in their encounters with God and Jesus Christ and angels and beings. Look at the craziness King Lamoni an his wife went through receiving the Second Comforter. Let's talk about the energy Nephi zapped Laman and lemuel with. Let's talk about the energy and powers that are discussed concerning the Arc of the Covenant. Let's talk about weird.... If a little weird and uncomfortable is too much for you, then I'm truly sorry for you - I'm pretty certain everyone who has had these experiences beyond the veil would classify them as "weird" compared to this world. (Do we seriously expect things NOT to look like the crazy scriptural examples when they happen?) YES - things you have not learned about yet or experienced yet are weird. I remember when I learned how babies are made... when I was age 4.... talk about WEIRD AND HORRIBLE in my 4 year old mind.

Joseph Smith said to the Relief Society on April 28, 1842 and also spoke this at a sermon in Nauvoo on May 1, 1842, and he states that "there was another dimension for determining weather manifestations and revelations approved by God".

So maybe you DO have to get out of the box a little if there is another dimension for doing that - one you might need to be quickened to - that is NOT like this one. So that's all the defending of my experiences I'll do - I don't actually care what LDSFF people think of me. The whole point was to post the message I was asked to share, and I hope that part is what people will pay attention to.

In case the MESSAGE of the post was missed, it is this:

**** Become quickened (and yes it's weird - here's a little info on some ways to help with that), receive the pure Love of Christ as you receive your own Second Comforter relationship with the Lord, and spread the pure Love of Christ you receive. ****

I'm truly sorry if that is offensive to some, but THAT is the whole point - in case the "weird" was too distracting for you.

Thanks for all the comments - I'm glad this was helpful and useful for some of you, and I also appreciate those comments that give me an understanding of why people are so uncomfortable receiving the things that we learned in church and in the temple, we can receive. It is all helpful to me in my own journey - including the challenge of coming to the snake pit to post this.

I've finally made it to the end of your post, Jules. I found it interesting for the most part. Since I have no personal means of verifying the experiences you've posted, I prayed shortly after beginning reading and asked how I should know how to receive these things. I hadn't yet read the other comments on this thread but I didn't need to in order to know what would be posted. The Spirit reminded me of what I already knew, that I would understand the intentions of this post better by your reaction to the criticism I knew would result from the post.

I've been following the comments on this thread as I've worked my way through the post. As I suspected, many of the comments were critical, condescending, and some were just plain mean. Still, that does not justify intentional insult, not by one claiming to preach the word of God and the doctrine of Jesus Christ.

I was told that what is meant by our “hardened hearts” is our lack of the pure love of Christ – that we have not received/embraced/accepted/or chosen this condition of existing with the same love in our hearts for even the ones around us we hate, that Jesus had when He bled from every pore in the Garden of Gethsemane.

It is the responsibility of EVERY ONE OF US – no matter how “poor” we think we are, to provide for those who have less than we do – in whatever ways they have less, and in whatever ways we have more. It is our responsibility to be our brother’s keeper, and ensure “the other guy” has joy in their life here.

Are the people of LDSFF your enemies? Are they poor in understanding the word of God? Does the Lord's great sermon apply more to them than it does to you?

It was ironic, I suppose, that you ended your post with the very same words that were running through my head as I read your plea for others to be adhere to the principles of the gospel:

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

I would suggest that your post and the experiences that led to it were given to you for your benefit. I would suggest that the message of the angel was for you, first and foremost. I am reminded also of these words from the Bible:

1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

While you may have had incredible visions beyond anything I could imagine at this point in my life, they are utterly meaningless and useless to others if they are not coupled with charity. They were not given to you so you could beat other people over the head with them and communicate to them your higher spiritual status. They were given to you so you could learn to lift other people up. You say that you are doing that within your own home. That is good. But if you cannot also extend that to your enemies, then, "what reward have ye?" You have nothing more precious than any other person here on earth has.

[butterfly]

It sounds like you're saying that if someone is "wrong" enough, then you have the right to insult them. The ends justify the means. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding you.

Case in point is simply that you find some honor in taking me to task but Jules post had absolutely no visible impact on you whatsoever.

Again, what is interesting is why it is not perceived as insulting to have someone lie to you and sustain a completely false interpretation of something that has the potential to lead others astray and in fact was precisely calculated to do so. Why this does not trouble you in the least sufficient to warrant a comment is indicative. When you can understand and respond with true concern for others welfare who might be deceived by such then you will understand Alma and perhaps me a bit better.

I did comment on things from this thread that were troubling me; I did "respond with true concern for other's welfare."

What surprised me is that you assumed I was talking about you and not about Jules (or anyone else for that matter).

Perhaps you did not notice that I never mentioned your name when I said we should be respectful of other's beliefs. Jules had a pretty harsh reply to some posters. Why did you reply to me and start defending your posts when I never even mentioned you? Why did you not consider that I could've been directing my post towards Jules to begin with?

I'm sorry if I upset you, but really I had no intention of "taking you to task" in the first place. You replied to me, told me your perspective, I shared my thoughts on your perspective, and then ended by letting you know I wasn't singling you out- just replying to what you said.

Why did you assume my original post was about you and not about Jules?

[simpleton]

A message I was not asked to share but why not....

A Conversation with Lucifer

Samuel H. Roundy, a member of the Church who lived in
Salt Lake City in the early part of this century,
relates an interesting dream wherein he had a
conversation with Lucifer. In that experience Lucifer
admitted his continuing desire to deceive the Saints
by imitating the works of God through spiritualism and
mediumism. While the dream's nature is unknown and is
not binding doctrine on the Church, it nevertheless
illustrates how Satan's purpose is to deceive the
Saints and destroy the work of the Savior:

In the year 1925 about February 15th, I found myself
one night sitting on one side of a table in my home
and Lucifer sitting on the other side. How he came I
saw not. I immediately asked this question:

Roundy: Lucifer why do you seek to destroy and tear
down the good works of the Saviour?

Lucifer: That is my mission.... It was then just like
two political parties now. The party that is defeated
still thinks its' platform the best. I not only think
my plan is the best, but I claim Jesus stole my crown
and I am doing all I can to over
throw his work. We have one very important advantage
over the Saints.

Roundy: I asked in what way?

Lucifer: Just think a moment, said he.

Roundy: Suddenly it came to me. Oh, yes, I understand,
it is this; when our Spirits entered our mortal bodies
we lost the knowledge we had in the pre-existent state
and you and your followers, not having the privilege
of entering mortal bodies, retained that knowledge,
therefore, you knew from the beginning the
life-mission of all the great men.

Lucifer: Yes, he said, and we in every instance try to
destroy them so as to prevent God's work through them.

Roundy: I have believed for many years it was you that
sought to destroy Moses, Cyrus, Abraham, The Saviour
and Joseph Smith while they were young, but you
failed, did you not?

Lucifer: Yes, I did, but we know and understand
Jesus's plan and doctrines just as well or better than
do the Saints. We are just as perfectly organized as
you, and are working more faithful than you are.

Roundy: Yes, so l understand, and I also understand
that you send out missionaries, hold your conferences,
receive reports, etc., that you also have a
priesthood.

Lucifer: Yes, I have a priesthood. We send our agents
out two and two as you do. We send our best informed
to the authorities who preside over the people, also
around the temples to discourage the temple work. We
also hold our conferences, hear reports, attend to the
business and pair them off and send them out again.

Roundy: I said, while you hold a priesthood you must
obey the priesthood of God. Must you not? In answering
this question he emphasized it very much and said:

Lucifer: ONLY WHEN 1T IS EXERCISED IN FAITH, do I.

Roundy: Then as your agents travel among the people,
you and your agents know everything that is going on,
don't you? especially among the Latter-day Saints-know
all about their financial condition, social relations,
etc.?

Lucifer: Yes, my agents have all things necessary and
report to me.

Roundy: Then with this knowledge in your possession
you are the author of spiritualism, mediumism, slate
writings and all things connected therewith.

Lucifer: Yes sir, we have all knowledge necessary, and
we can impersonate and imitate any person, so, when
the spiritualists call for a certain person, my
servants answer, having the
information required.

Roundy: You said in the beginning of this conversation
that it was your mission to destroy the works of Jesus
Christ. Now with the perfect organization that you
have, you are, as it has been said, everywhere
present. Is this true?

Lucifer: Yes, it is our mission to overthrow all that
leads to purity and Godliness, and we are everywhere
present, especially in the sick room where the
priesthood is, we are there to offset their power, and
as thoughts are seeds sown, we do all we can to put
evil thoughts into the minds of the people, especially
the young; then teach them to cultivate those evil
thoughts as they grow up to manhood and womanhood.
When the Sons of God met I was present, and when God
would have you do good. we cause you to think evil.
This has been our mission from the beginning, to
OVERCOME good with evil. We knew when Joseph Smith was
to come and we did all in our power to destroy him,
but failed. Also you claim you must overcome evil with
good. This is the conflict called the battle of the
end, the time of times of the End.

Roundy: Do you believe that all the Latter-day Saints
are seeking the glory of God ?

Lucifer: No sir, I do not. All, who are seeking the
praise of man, the pleasure of the world, and the
almighty dollar, are coming my way and that is the
majority of them....

Roundy: 6000 years was the time allotted you for the
establishment of your kingdom, was it not?

Lucifer: Yes sir, that was, or is, the allotted time.

Roundy: Then you must know that your end is near.

Lucifer: Yes, I do, but I want to tell you before I am
bound, every person that can be led astray will be,
and as far as I can, I am going to accomplish my work
through the women from now on, and everything in this
world will be turned upside down before I am bound
[See Revelation 20:1-3. The "chain" by which Satan is
bound means the Priesthood coming down from Heaven].

Roundy: . . . I will say he did not seem to become
vexed at any time during our conversation. Just how
long it lasted I cannot tell. It seems about one-half
the night. I did not see him come or leave.

S. H. ROUNDY, (Signed)
Unpublished Manuscript , Church Historical Department

Very interesting I thought especially lucifers last comment wherein he says he is going to work through the women from now on...

[brlenox]

It sounds like you're saying that if someone is "wrong" enough, then you have the right to insult them. The ends justify the means. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding you.

Case in point is simply that you find some honor in taking me to task but Jules post had absolutely no visible impact on you whatsoever.

Again, what is interesting is why it is not perceived as insulting to have someone lie to you and sustain a completely false interpretation of something that has the potential to lead others astray and in fact was precisely calculated to do so. Why this does not trouble you in the least sufficient to warrant a comment is indicative. When you can understand and respond with true concern for others welfare who might be deceived by such then you will understand Alma and perhaps me a bit better.

I did comment on things from this thread that were troubling me; I did "respond with true concern for other's welfare."

What surprised me is that you assumed I was talking about you and not about Jules (or anyone else for that matter).

Perhaps you did not notice that I never mentioned your name when I said we should be respectful of other's beliefs. Jules had a pretty harsh reply to some posters. Why did you reply to me and start defending your posts when I never even mentioned you? Why did you not consider that I could've been directing my post towards Jules to begin with?

I'm sorry if I upset you, but really I had no intention of "taking you to task" in the first place. You replied to me, told me your perspective, I shared my thoughts on your perspective, and then ended by letting you know I wasn't singling you out- just replying to what you said.

Why did you assume my original post was about you and not about Jules?

Two reasons. 1. Yours followed after the other one in my reading and it seemed like you were piggy backing off of that one as you were seeming to
echo similar perspectives..
2. Your sympathies have always seemed to the "I get my knowledge direct from God and I can't trust the apostles and prophets" crowd.

It is not uncommon that when I participate in a thread of this nature that that particular group does tend to be focusing on my post's. You will note that in my post's I tend to provide enough information so as to limit ambiguity. That may mean I seem be picking on someone but really it is to prevent miscommunication. If you fail to be very specific in your posts then it becomes difficult to guess who is being specified so there is bound to be some confusion. Typically, I do not respond to your posts as a rule as I know we are pretty much always going to have opposing views and you are benign enough that I don't see you really having an impact that requires a counter point. My apologies if I erred - I will return to my previous approach.

You did not upset me, I am simply being my usual direct self. That is the problem with being direct - people either think you are being rude or upset...seldom just trying for clarity.

[butterfly]

Two reasons. 1. Yours followed after the other one in my reading and it seemed like you were piggy backing off of that one as you were seeming to
echo similar perspectives..

2. Your sympathies have always seemed to the "I get my knowledge direct from God and I can't trust the apostles and prophets" crowd.

It is not uncommon that when I participate in a thread of this nature that that particular group does tend to be focusing on my post's. You will note that in my post's I tend to provide enough information so as to limit ambiguity. That may mean I seem be picking on someone but really it is to prevent miscommunication. If you fail to be very specific in your posts then it becomes difficult to guess who is being specified so there is bound to be some confusion. Typically, I do not respond to your posts as a rule as I know we are pretty much always going to have opposing views and you are benign enough that I don't see you really having an impact that requires a counter point. My apologies if I erred - I will return to my previous approach.

You did not upset me, I am simply being my usual direct self. That is the problem with being direct - people either think you are being rude or upset...seldom just trying for clarity.

Thanks for explaining; I can understand your reasoning. I do find it humorous that you think I'm benign enough to not require you to provide a counter point. I truly have no desire to argue with anyone. And I sincerely welcome your perspective if you ever choose to direct it toward me.

I don't see a benefit in placing people into groups, like how they feel about the prophet and apostles, for example. I don't want to misinterpret what they say based on this group I've put them in.
For example, in your case, I see you as being older and more experienced and so I value your insight. It doesn't occur to me to color my understanding of your posts with what you think about the brethren unless that's the topic being discussed.

I was taught that if I focus on dividing things into what i like and don't like, then I will always love one group and hate the other. However, it is not healthy to hate. So I must love both groups, thereby ridding myself of both my enemies and my hate at the same time. Hating often begins with a "me" vs. "them" mentality.

[brlenox]

Two reasons. 1. Yours followed after the other one in my reading and it seemed like you were piggy backing off of that one as you were seeming to
echo similar perspectives..

2. Your sympathies have always seemed to the "I get my knowledge direct from God and I can't trust the apostles and prophets" crowd.

It is not uncommon that when I participate in a thread of this nature that that particular group does tend to be focusing on my post's. You will note that in my post's I tend to provide enough information so as to limit ambiguity. That may mean I seem be picking on someone but really it is to prevent miscommunication. If you fail to be very specific in your posts then it becomes difficult to guess who is being specified so there is bound to be some confusion. Typically, I do not respond to your posts as a rule as I know we are pretty much always going to have opposing views and you are benign enough that I don't see you really having an impact that requires a counter point. My apologies if I erred - I will return to my previous approach.

You did not upset me, I am simply being my usual direct self. That is the problem with being direct - people either think you are being rude or upset...seldom just trying for clarity.

Thanks for explaining; I can understand your reasoning. I do find it humorous that you think I'm benign enough to not require you to provide a counter point. I truly have no desire to argue with anyone. And I sincerely welcome your perspective if you ever choose to direct it toward me.

I don't see a benefit in placing people into groups, like how they feel about the prophet and apostles, for example. I don't want to misinterpret what they say based on this group I've put them in.

For example, in your case, I see you as being older and more experienced and so I value your insight. It doesn't occur to me to color my understanding of your posts with what you think about the brethren unless that's the topic being discussed.

I was taught that if I focus on dividing things into what i like and don't like, then I will always love one group and hate the other. However, it is not healthy to hate. So I must love both groups, thereby ridding myself of both my enemies and my hate at the same time. Hating often begins with a "me" vs. "them" mentality.

A couple of thoughts...since we are interacting...

So many seeming "higher consciousness" ideologies always have a wonderful erudite feel to them but they do not hold up under scriptural comparison or actual events. For instance in the first post the individual wanted to paint the traditional I'm not like the general authority who he quoted who would never insult someone as he was interpreting my post. Obviously he has never sat in a stake leadership meeting with a general authority when someone asks a society based question clearly not in line with gospel standards. Or even a simple statement as the mild rebuke one person received from E? (name not required) when he started a question with "when you guys get together"....where he was interrupted and it was clarified that "we are not guys, we are the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ". It wasn't a comfortable moment and some might think it rude and arrogant. I thought it was perfect.

This mentality also falls into the fence sitter category of Revelations 3:16:

So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

It also fails the Moroni 7 test :

15 For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night.

Since you think it better to not define anyone's teachings as good or evil you are particularly prone to being mislead by the failure to have a standard by which to measure anything by - it is what ever your teacher's voice teaches you and you become trapped.

The other obvious error is that to follow the Moroni test is not to class individuals as unloved or loved. It is to define the behaviors or the doctrine they espouse as of God or not of God and yes that means you should be making choices. However, it is not to judge them as individuals but to strive to maintain an appropriate relationship of love that can be manifest when appropriate. Moroni 7 is an entire encapsulation of appropriate behavior. First it discusses how to judge Good and evil and then it ends on faith hope and charity. It is not a collection of separate ideologies all tossed together but a special grouping of intrinsically required ideologies that are designed to protect man from falling prey to the adversary. You only need to modify one ever so slightly and you start to slide.

Thus what you were taught is a false doctrine as I understand your explanation of it. The problem though is that you have accepted certain necessary deceptions. It is imperative that you accept that men are imperfect. Not just in the way of mortality but with a hyper inappropriate emphasis on the men who lead the church are imperfect. In it's purest form it is not an incorrect statement, but with the emphasis of imperfection swelling in your perceptions you loose trust. You can still see them as trying, good folks but since they are prone to error in your growing paradigm then you need a more accurate voice to guide.

Of course Mormon theology provides you with another doctrine that with just a bit of a tweak, once again, just a nudge, gets you over the hump with a hyper emphasis on you can be guided by the spirit. So where in true LDS theology we use Prophetic guidance, the spirit, and the scriptures as tools to check ourselves and balance our efforts at growth against these three things, you really have excised prophetic guidance and the scriptures out of the mix because this voice always guides you to understand the scriptures correctly and you can't trust Christ's chosen leaders. It is a careful Game and may take a long time like some material you were participating in some while ago about Christ being our Father or Brother or both or neither or a teenage mutant ninja turtle...I don't know, but it was such a mess and because you were unwilling to allow prophetic guidance in as part of your criteria of learning you went so far out in left field with your wanderings as to be miles away from the truth of the matter.

Again I leave this stuff alone with you because once someone has been convinced that they have the superior guidance of "the voice" and that they are "being taught" and they decide they do not need the prophets and apostles and by default the scriptures anymore they are unreachable. If I had not of spent years studying how to try the spirits I might have been as mislead as any of the others that have espoused such things. Honestly, the day could come that I fail as well but I have not as yet.

The fascinating thing is the arguments I make can be misconstrued to say that I am saying we should not let the spirit guide us - and that would be false, or that I'm one of those that blindly just accept the words of apostles and prophets and that would be false as well, or that I am saying that the scriptures are inadequate to teach us truth - and again false as well. However the balance of how these three things interact is scripturally sustainable as the means, manner and method that God has declared for his children to determine truth and excessive emphasis on wrong aspects will definitely leave someone vulnerable to being deceived by Satan because his goal is to always get one to only hear his voice when all is said and done and as I quoted of Joseph Smith "nothing is a greater injury to the children of men than to be under the influence of a false spirit when they think they have the Spirit of God. Thousands have felt the influence of its terrible power and baneful effects."

People who make the mistake of not knowing how to try the spirits do not realize or do not want to realize that for every great experience they have that God provides, Satan gets to claim equal time to mislead at the level of the righteous experience. The type for this is of course Moses 1 and his experience. If you ever received a true angelic visit then it is assured you have received another "angel of light" who was not of God cloaked so carefully and speaking such wonderful sentiments as you are naturally prone to appreciate with a kind and loving spirit that never wants to judge, that thinks it is an act of hate to do so etc etc. It seems, it is the Gods of our own image that trip us up the most.

[brlenox]

A message I was not asked to share but why not....

A Conversation with Lucifer

Very interesting I thought especially lucifers last comment wherein he says he is going to work through the women from now on...

I collect this kind of material in a document about trying the spirits that I have maintained for sometime. It is well over 100 pages with nothing but general authority and prophetic commentary and few things such as this. It is not often anymore that I run into something I haven't collected and yet I had never read this before. Thanks for providing it - it is now in the doc.

[Elizabeth]

What does Lucifer seek to gain? Surely he knows he is just going backwards.

[BeNotDeceived]

People who make the mistake of not knowing how to try the spirits do not realize or do not want to realize that for every great experience they have that God provides, Satan gets to claim equal time to mislead at the level of the righteous experience. If you ever received a true angelic visit then it assured you have received another "angel of light" who was not of God cloaked so carefully and speaking such wonderful sentiments as you are naturally prone to appreciate with a kind and loving spirit that never wants to judge, that thinks it is an act of hate to do so etc etc. It seems, it is the Gods of our own image that trip us up the most.

Interesting, especially for those that have encountered a angel-of-light.

[simpleton]

What does Lucifer seek to gain? Surely he knows he is just going backwards.

Our souls... yours, mine and everybody elses. And at this point in time it seems as if he is winning....

Moses 7:

And after that Zion was taken up into heaven, Enoch beheld, and lo, all the nations of the earth were before him;

And there came generation upon generation; and Enoch was high and lifted up, even in the bosom of the Father, and of the Son of Man; and behold, the power of Satan was upon all the face of the earth.

And he saw angels descending out of heaven; and he heard a loud voice saying: Wo, wo be unto the inhabitants of the earth.

And he beheld Satan; and he had a great chain in his hand, and it veiled the whole face of the earth with darkness; and he looked up and laughed, and his angels rejoiced.

Actually all of Moses 7 is an excellent read pertaining to existing conditions and near future predictions.

[Rose Garden]

What does Lucifer seek to gain? Surely he knows he is just going backwards.

You would think so and yet mortals here on Earth do not recognize when they are going backwards and so it seems that it is possible that Lucifer also does not realize he is going backwards.