A message I was asked to share

[AI2.0]

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".

Jules...it's been so long. I see you have been advancing the cause. It's kind of ironic that several years ago I used to take such heat from you and your group that reigned here on LDSFF. In those days you might have posted such a thing as what you have posted and you would have been extolled as a visionary and an ICON of truth.

Interesting how things can change. It would seem that many here recognize that what you have written falls outside the bounds of the things of God. Not just by content, heck from the right venue the content doesn't trouble me...that much. I fully except that there is so very much that we have no comprehension of and so much would be foreign to our limited understandings. However, every one that has rejected your material has done so for several reasons. Some it doesn't feel right, some ... it's the messenger...and for myself that is certainly a biggie, however another subtle little oversight on your part caught my eye.

I'm pretty familiar with an awful lot of what Joseph Smith said and the quote you provided above didn't set well with me. In a way it becomes part of an appeal to authority which is a common logical fallacy. The essence being that you claimed an authority said something and linking that to your material adds legitimacy. Now I'd be the last guy to fault you from using quotes from a general authority, especially from Joseph Smith, I have always based practically all of my material on sustainment from general authorities - because frankly I'm not an adequate witness of certain things and linking observations to a legitimate witness strengthens the case and should encourage others to ponder over the material with more interest. It is never wise to ignore legitimate witnesses. However, you have done that for as long as I have known you.

However, I have never caught you making up quotes to support a misguided direction until now. More amazing is you had to doctor it up to make it seem legitimate and that was an intentional act of pure deception - drawing upon the authority of Joseph Smith because you knew you had no actual authority to back up your material. Why did you have to create a false quote to support your direction? For me when I notice certain types of deception it undermines everything else that the speaker says. Thus you have undermined your source of your "vision" as being holy and have shaded it in deception.

It is not that your quote does not exist in terms of the words you used - like I said you had to doctor something up and then twist the meaning to force it to seeming truth.

I happen to be looking at the actual quote this very minute. It is found in the book, "The Words of Joseph Smith" page 20 in footnote 21. It is a long footnote so I am only going to copy the part that is germane to your deception. It states:

…On the banks of the Susquehanna River, Michael appeared to intervene and detect the devil when he appeared as an angel of light (D&C 128:20), indicating another dimension to this question of detection. Because the adversary apparently can take light and truth away from the disobedient (D&C 93:39), he can attempt to pass as an angel of glory (2 Corinthians 11:14; D&C 129:8; Moses 1:2, 9, 11-25). As indicated in this discourse, Joseph Smith therefore revealed additional keys of detection. Far from saying that when the instructions of this discourse were followed, the adversary's only recourse was to attempt to return the handshake, in a December 1840 discourse Joseph says, "The Devil . . . will either shrink back ... or offer his hand." He will not remain absolutely still if he is tested. On 28 April 1842, the Prophet revealed to the Relief Society, and on 1 May 1842 to the Nauvoo populace, that there was another dimension for determining whether manifestations and revelations were approved by God. There were "keys of the kingdom," he said to a Sunday audience of the saints in the Grove, "certain signs and words by which false spirits and personages may be detected from true, which cannot be revealed to the Elders till the Temple is completed....(Words of Joseph Smith, Ehat and Cook, page 20)

The footnote is actually a commentary of some of Joseph's statements and the words of the commentary are actually either Andrew F. Ehat's or Lyndon W. Cook's who were the editors of the material. The underlined part is actually their commentary and it simply is using the word dimension to describe an alternate perspective on the subject that Joseph is commenting too. If it helps here is all of the common definitions that can be drawn from the word: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dimension . In other words, Ehat or Cook thought there were multiple dimensions as in means of expansion on the subject that Joseph was referring too. You have wrested the meaning to imply that Joseph is speaking to dimensions as in alternative places in the space time continuum - Einstein would be proud of your efforts.

However, since I can't find a digital source for a cut and paste, I am of the opinion that you actually typed the quote. If this is true then you had to add the quote marks and change the words to make it appear they are Joseph's, then you had to misspell "whether" as "weather" and you left the word "were" out all together in the tail end of the statement.

If you did hand type this in, this is indeed subtle deception, very subtle.

I once wrote a post where I stated something to the effect that you were going to think what I had done in the post was very funny and would leave you laughing for days....or something like that, I can't remember exactly. However, you know what...I think this post of yours tops mine by a mile for it's potential to strike a humorous chord. When you read the portion of the commentary from Ehat and Cook that I provided it is clear what the subject matter is. If you bother to look up the entirety of the footnote you will find it is over a page long and goes into far more detail about the subject. In case it is not obvious, it is about how to detect the devil or other false spirits and to "know the difference between a true spirit and an evil spirit." (quote attributed to Ehat or Cook)

Anyone who want's to can actually verify my source as the Words of Joseph Smith is found online in a couple of places. One is here:

https://archive.org/stream/TheWordsOfJo ... h_djvu.txt

Just search on the phrase "dimension for determining" and it will take you to the appropriate footnote and all can read for themselves.

Jules, if you did actually find this quote somewhere where you actually cut and pasted from then a link or such would partially exonerate you. At present I have taken a screen shot of the results from Google and it only shows up on LDSFF in your post.

Frankly, I think you need to reread the entire section, it is very illuminating and if only you had known how to detect false spirits it could have saved you a lot of time...I mean a LOT of time, writing out your treatise on the other dimensions you have encountered.

So valuable! Thank you so much for taking the time to research this and share what you found. I was dismayed that the fact that Jules' quote was fake seemed to be completely ignored. Especially by those who's kneejerk reaction was to zero in on you and your 'delivery' rather than even considering the information you provided.

Alaris, Butterfly? Did you read that Jules' quote was wrong? Did you notice that she had NOTHING to say about it, not even an acknowledgment that she had led her audience astray? Or are we supposed to just ignore that because it was 'insulting' (Alaris) to point it out? Is the 'knee jerk' reaction to always gloss over or defend missteps by those who belong to the 'Remnant', at the expense of truth and/or accuracy? It may not be, but that seems to be how it is around here.

Also, Brlenox, the quotes you've provided are well worth saving for future reference. I very much appreciate your participation on this forum.

[Alaris]

Moroni 7
10 Wherefore, a man being evil cannot do that which is good; neither will he give a good gift.
11 For behold, a bitter fountain cannot bring forth good water; neither can a good fountain bring forth bitter water; wherefore, a man being a servant of the devil cannot follow Christ; and if he follow Christ he cannot be a servant of the devil.
12 Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to sin, and to do that which is evil continually.
13 But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God.
14 Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil.
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.
16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.
17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.
18 And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the light by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged.
19 Wherefore, I beseech of you, brethren, that ye should search diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good from evil; and if ye will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not, ye certainly will be a child of Christ.
20 And now, my brethren, how is it possible that ye can lay hold upon every good thing?
21 And now I come to that faith, of which I said I would speak; and I will tell you the way whereby ye may lay hold on every good thing.
22 For behold, God knowing all things, being from everlasting to everlasting, behold, he sent angels to minister unto the children of men, to make manifest concerning the coming of Christ; and in Christ there should come every good thing.
23 And God also declared unto prophets, by his own mouth, that Christ should come.
24 And behold, there were divers ways that he did manifest things unto the children of men, which were good; and all things which are good cometh of Christ; otherwise men were fallen, and there could no good thing come unto them.
25 Wherefore, by the ministering of angels, and by every word which proceeded forth out of the mouth of God, men began to exercise faith in Christ; and thus by faith, they did lay hold upon every good thing; and thus it was until the coming of Christ.
26 And after that he came men also were saved by faith in his name; and by faith, they become the sons of God. And as surely as Christ liveth he spake these words unto our fathers, saying: Whatsoever thing ye shall ask the Father in my name, which is good, in faith believing that ye shall receive, behold, it shall be done unto you.
27 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, have miracles ceased because Christ hath ascended into heaven, and hath sat down on the right hand of God, to claim of the Father his rights of mercy which he hath upon the children of men?
28 For he hath answered the ends of the law, and he claimeth all those who have faith in him; and they who have faith in him will cleave unto every good thing; wherefore he advocateth the cause of the children of men; and he dwelleth eternally in the heavens.
29 And because he hath done this, my beloved brethren, have miracles ceased? Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither have angels ceased to minister unto the children of men.
30 For behold, they are subject unto him, to minister according to the word of his command, showing themselves unto them of strong faith and a firm mind in every form of godliness.
31 And the office of their ministry is to call men unto repentance, and to fulfil and to do the work of the covenants of the Father, which he hath made unto the children of men, to prepare the way among the children of men, by declaring the word of Christ unto the chosen vessels of the Lord, that they may bear testimony of him.
32 And by so doing, the Lord God prepareth the way that the residue of men may have faith in Christ, that the Holy Ghost may have place in their hearts, according to the power thereof; and after this manner bringeth to pass the Father, the covenants which he hath made unto the children of men.
33 And Christ hath said: If ye will have faith in me ye shall have power to do whatsoever thing is expedient in me.
34 And he hath said: Repent all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me, and be baptized in my name, and have faith in me, that ye may be saved.
35 And now, my beloved brethren, if this be the case that these things are true which I have spoken unto you, and God will show unto you, with power and great glory at the last day, that they are true, and if they are true has the day of miracles ceased?
36 Or have angels ceased to appear unto the children of men? Or has he withheld the power of the Holy Ghost from them? Or will he, so long as time shall last, or the earth shall stand, or there shall be one man upon the face thereof to be saved?
37 Behold I say unto you, Nay; for it is by faith that miracles are wrought; and it is by faith that angels appear and minister unto men; wherefore, if these things have ceased wo be unto the children of men, for it is because of unbelief, and all is vain.

45 And charity suffereth long, and is kind, and envieth not, and is not puffed up, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, and rejoiceth not in iniquity but rejoiceth in the truth, beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
46 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, if ye have not charity, ye are nothing, for charity never faileth. Wherefore, cleave unto charity, which is the greatest of all, for all things must fail
47 But charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever; and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him.
48 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that ye may be filled with this love, which he hath bestowed upon all who are true followers of his Son, Jesus Christ; that ye may become the sons of God; that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is; that we may have this hope; that we may be purified even as he is pure. Amen.

Galatians 5:
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
My valid point to brlenox is delivery matters. And he accepted my point. If Jules is lost you can present the truth to her with Christ like love...without seeking your own...

Brlenox knows that the truth speaks for itself and I do not condemn him for posting words of truth. I will however stand up for the truths listed in moroni 7 and find it amazing how one chapter encapsulates so many relevant truths applicable to this thread. Can we strip ourselves off pride and teach truth with gentleness and love unfeigned?

Imagine the Savior here amongst us. Imagine the love He'd show to all of us and His masterful teaching and His masterful ways. Imagine what He would say to Jules. Is it that hard to imagine? Would he insult her?

Too often does it seem that forum members seem to try to emulate the righteous zeal of condemnation and forget the charity that is required of us. Contention is not the Lord's way.

[Serragon]

Imagine the Savior here amongst us. Imagine the love He'd show to all of us and His masterful teaching and His masterful ways. Imagine what He would say to Jules. Is it that hard to imagine? Would he insult her?

Too often does it seem that forum members seem to try to emulate the righteous zeal of condemnation and forget the charity that is required of us. Contention is not the Lord's way.

The Lord might insult her. It would really depend upon where her heart is.

The scriptures are replete with examples of the Lord calling others names and saying or doing things to give offence. There are also examples of Him getting violent with others. Generally this was reserved for those who were deceiving others intentionally, but there are examples where he was downright rude to those who hadn't done anything (like the Canaanite woman whom he equated to a dog). He also contended with others on a regular basis.

If she is intentionally deceiving others then I suspect He would be quite harsh. If she is being deceived He would be quite compassionate.

We often create a magic Jesus in our minds where we only emphasize the aspects we like. It is important we don't do this if we truly want to know Him.

[Alaris]

Imagine the Savior here amongst us. Imagine the love He'd show to all of us and His masterful teaching and His masterful ways. Imagine what He would say to Jules. Is it that hard to imagine? Would he insult her?

Too often does it seem that forum members seem to try to emulate the righteous zeal of condemnation and forget the charity that is required of us. Contention is not the Lord's way.

The Lord might insult her. It would really depend upon where her heart is.

The scriptures are replete with examples of the Lord calling others names and saying or doing things to give offence. There are also examples of Him getting violent with others. Generally this was reserved for those who were deceiving others intentionally, but there are examples where he was downright rude to those who hadn't done anything (like the Canaanite woman whom he equated to a dog). He also contended with others on a regular basis.

If she is intentionally deceiving others then I suspect He would be quite harsh. If she is being deceived He would be quite compassionate.

We often create a magic Jesus in our minds where we only emphasize the aspects we like. It is important we don't do this if we truly want to know Him.

If Jules came intentionally to lure people away to sin ... the Lord may use harsh words of condemnation sure. He would likely not insult her intelligence or engage in the language we see far too often in these forums.

That last statement is very astute. This sentiment seems to be used to justify contention all over the place. Remembering how the Lord called the Pharisees hypocrites yet forgetting how he stood up for the adulterer...Remember the Lord's judgement is perfect....

Moroni 7:18 And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the light by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged.

... Forgetting Jesus words to the people of His church:

3 Neph11: 29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.
30 Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.

The people of Ammon bound Korihor. How would they have treated Korihor if he showed up preaching doctrines that were false but he was otherwise sincere--that he was seeking truth rather than seeking to lead people into sin?

[simpleton]

[/quote]

The people of Ammon bound Korihor. How would they have treated Korihor if he showed up preaching doctrines that were false but he was otherwise sincere--that he was seeking truth rather than seeking to lead people into sin?
[/quote]

IMO, Korihor was as sincere as they come. Remember he was commanded to go and reclaim the people...

But behold, the devil hath deceived me; for he appeared unto me in the form of an angel, and said unto me: Go and reclaim this people, for they have all gone astray after an unknown God. And he said unto me: There is no God; yea, and he taught me that which I should say. And I have taught his words; and I taught them because they were pleasing unto the carnal mind; and I taught them, even until I had much success, insomuch that I verily believed that they were true; and for this cause I withstood the truth, even until I have brought this great curse upon me...

About as sincere as a person can get...

Deceived but sincere.

[Alaris]

The people of Ammon bound Korihor. How would they have treated Korihor if he showed up preaching doctrines that were false but he was otherwise sincere--that he was seeking truth rather than seeking to lead people into sin?

IMO, Korihor was as sincere as they come. Remember he was commanded to go and reclaim the people...

But behold, the devil hath deceived me; for he appeared unto me in the form of an angel, and said unto me: Go and reclaim this people, for they have all gone astray after an unknown God. And he said unto me: There is no God; yea, and he taught me that which I should say. And I have taught his words; and I taught them because they were pleasing unto the carnal mind; and I taught them, even until I had much success, insomuch that I verily believed that they were true; and for this cause I withstood the truth, even until I have brought this great curse upon me...

About as sincere as a person can get...

Deceived but sincere.

I'm not sure what relevance that has or what exactly you are trying to justify with such.

[AI2.0]

Imagine the Savior here amongst us. Imagine the love He'd show to all of us and His masterful teaching and His masterful ways. Imagine what He would say to Jules. Is it that hard to imagine? Would he insult her?

Too often does it seem that forum members seem to try to emulate the righteous zeal of condemnation and forget the charity that is required of us. Contention is not the Lord's way.

The Lord might insult her. It would really depend upon where her heart is.

The scriptures are replete with examples of the Lord calling others names and saying or doing things to give offence. There are also examples of Him getting violent with others. Generally this was reserved for those who were deceiving others intentionally, but there are examples where he was downright rude to those who hadn't done anything (like the Canaanite woman whom he equated to a dog). He also contended with others on a regular basis.

If she is intentionally deceiving others then I suspect He would be quite harsh. If she is being deceived He would be quite compassionate.

We often create a magic Jesus in our minds where we only emphasize the aspects we like. It is important we don't do this if we truly want to know Him.

If Jules came intentionally to lure people away to sin ... the Lord may use harsh words of condemnation sure. He would likely not insult her intelligence or engage in the language we see far too often in these forums.

That last statement is very astute. This sentiment seems to be used to justify contention all over the place. Remembering how the Lord called the Pharisees hypocrites yet forgetting how he stood up for the adulterer...Remember the Lord's judgement is perfect....

Moroni 7:18 And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the light by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged.

... Forgetting Jesus words to the people of His church:

3 Neph11: 29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.
30 Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.

The people of Ammon bound Korihor. How would they have treated Korihor if he showed up preaching doctrines that were false but he was otherwise sincere--that he was seeking truth rather than seeking to lead people into sin?

Insults, rudeness, uncharitable remarks can be in the eye of the beholder. You want to believe that Jesus was never unkind to people? By the standard you've shared in this thread, then he WAS unkind and even insulting. He called some that he contended with; 'whited sepulchres' filled with the bones of dead men. He accused the moneychangers of making the temple a 'den of thieves'--essentially accusing them of being thieves. He chastised Peter by telling him; 'Get thee behind me, Satan'. I don't fault Jesus for these things even though if he said them on our forum, he'd be criticized for being insulting and harsh and I'm certain some here would accuse him of being 'prideful'.

And so what if they were sincere while leading people into sin? Seriously? You have to ask this? It doesn't matter if the person is sincere, we're talking about the precious eternal souls of God's children. Alma the Younger likened this to 'murder' when he described his own actions. Preaching false doctrines and attempting to lead others away from the truth is a serious threat to one's eternal salvation, whether the person doing so is sincere or not.

And look at the example of Amulek and Zeezrom. Zeezrom was clearly sincere in his efforts, because when he recognized he was wrong, he tried to repair the damage; yet despite his sincerity, Amulek called him a 'child of hell'. So, I'd say that whether they are 'sincere' or lying, we still have an obligation, as the examples I shared from the scriptures show, to counter the deceptive teachings and influence of those who attempt to lead others astray spiritually. As Jacob showed with Sherem, Amulek showed with Zeezrom and Alma showed with Korihor, it was necessary to expose their false teachings, in order to protect others from falling into apostasy and sin. On this forum we need to follow the guidelines, but that doesn't mean we have to tolerate false teachings or remain silent simply to keep peace.
I think how Brlenox did it was brilliant--he was not insulting or mocking. He also clearly exposed the falsehood in what Jules was preaching in her attempt to harmonize her beliefs with the teachings of Joseph Smith.

[Alaris]

Did you even read what Brlenox posted or how I responded or how he conceded? Try to imagine one of the apostles participating in this thread if you have a testimony of such as I do. Would they say something like "this is a actual quote" before quoting something? Of course not. Sorry to use that again Brlenox as I know you conceded that... AI 2.0 is apparently still trying to justify unacceptable behavior. Why anyone would try to justify truth declaration with condescending and contentious language with examples of the Savior is truly appalling. Watching people in these forums invite contention and condescend and justify such behavior as being Christ-like is not something I can stand idly by and watch.

So why are you still contending with me AI 2.0? For what purpose? What are you trying to justify?

Can we not agree we can all teach and correct with meekness and gentleness and love unfeigned? This is all I am saying yet so many of you are eager to justify the opposite. Language matters. You will be judged for such. Please read the scriptures I quoted from Moroni 7. Nowhere in there nor anywhere in Christ's teaching can you justify treating those in error with contention.

Yes. If someone is sincerely seeking truth and not seeking to lure people to sin... Yes of course that matters for you should treat someone by the tenants of the Priesthood as outlined in D&C 121 with gentle guidance rather than unnecessary rudeness then that could be the difference in that souls path.

Zeezrom was sincere in his efforts to confound the men of God ... not sincerely seeking truth. Zeezrom was trying to catch them in their words to deny God - truly the spirit of antichrist. Is that what Jules is? Can you qualify such? I truly cannot believe you used Zeezrom as an example of "sincerity." The deceived truthseeker sincerely seeking truth and the deliberate sinner sincerely fighting against God does not somehow equate because the word "sincerity" is in both sentences. Both are in error - but only one is aligned to Jesus Christ.

Brelnox discovered Jules altered a quote - that may be evidence to deliberately deceive. I think it's fine he pointed it out and asked her to justify such. Can we do such as disciples of Jesus Christ and show love in the process rather than trying to gratify our "aha got you!" pride? Are we all so eager to call someone a "Child of hell?" Do you really believe Jesus was laying the example to you AI2.0 of how to treat people when he called the Pharisees white sepulchers? Or was this a moment where the Judge Himself is judging?

Matthew 23:27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.

What am I trying to justify? I will tell you plainly. Stand up for the truth as you do ... but do not be so eager to throw in language that invites contention or language that is obviously rude. The truth doesn't need that sort of help. The truth is comfortable all on its own. This is my invitation to you to invite the spirit of the Lord in all your dealings. I have faltered in this myself being human. I have been called out for being rude. I apologized both in public and in private for such--search my posts and you will find this.

I cannot sit by and watch you guys thank each other while breaking the golden rule and treating others with rudeness and condescension. Is there so much pride in you that you cannot simply say, "Alaris - I can clearly see your only aim is to elevate our treatment of each other, which is a noble principle indeed. I accept your invitation."

[AI2.0]

Did you even read what Brlenox posted or how I responded or how he conceded? Try to imagine one of the apostles participanting in this thread if you have a testimony of such as I do. Would they say something like "this is a actual quote" before quoting something? Of course not. Sorry to use that again Brlenox as I know you conceded that... Others however seem to try to justify unacceptable behavior. Why AI 2.0 or others are trying to justify truth declaration with condescending and contentious language is truly appalling. Watching people in these forums invite contention and condescend and justify such behavior as being Christ like is not something I can stand idly by and watch.

So why are you still contending with me AI 2.0? For what purpose? What are you trying to justify?

It's not what I'M trying to justify, it's what YOU'RE trying to justify that is of concern....

Are you aware of what YOU are defending? Did you read Jules' blog? Do you know her religious beliefs and her views of the LDS church? It might be better if you read her blog post in the context of her beliefs. I'm certain that if you did, you'd also better understand Brlenox's remarks. I don't believe you can go back and look at Jules' posts on the forum because I believe they were all removed, but if you could, you might have a more balanced view of Brlenox' comments to her.


To answer your question, yes, I did read what Brlenox posted--that's why I responded. And I can imagine many of the more forthright apostles responding very similarly to what he said. Elder Bruce McConkie, Elder Boyd Packer, and Elder Russell Nelson would have responded in such a way. Elder Ballard would have too. He was pretty strong in his 'Beware of False Prophets' talk.

I'm 'contending' with you because you called what Brlenox said 'insults' and I took issue. You also seem unaware of Jules' past influence and interactions on this forum and you seem to think that simply disagreeing is contentious. If you felt Brlenox violated forum guidelines with his post, then you could report it. If you think I'm 'contentious' and 'justifying unacceptable behavior', you can also report it and let the moderator decide. They do take actions against posters who are contentious and violate forum rules.

As I've said, this is in the eye of the beholder--to one, this is simply a discussion, to another, it's contentious debate, but since it's Brian's forum, I think we follow his views on what's 'contentious' and what is discussion/debate.

[Alaris]

Did you even read what Brlenox posted or how I responded or how he conceded? Try to imagine one of the apostles participanting in this thread if you have a testimony of such as I do. Would they say something like "this is a actual quote" before quoting something? Of course not. Sorry to use that again Brlenox as I know you conceded that... Others however seem to try to justify unacceptable behavior. Why AI 2.0 or others are trying to justify truth declaration with condescending and contentious language is truly appalling. Watching people in these forums invite contention and condescend and justify such behavior as being Christ like is not something I can stand idly by and watch.

So why are you still contending with me AI 2.0? For what purpose? What are you trying to justify?

It's not what I'M trying to justify, it's what YOU'RE trying to justify that is of concern....

Are you aware of what YOU are defending? Did you read Jules' blog? Do you know her religious beliefs and her views of the LDS church? It might be better if you read her blog post in the context of her beliefs. I'm certain that if you did, you'd also better understand Brlenox's remarks. I don't believe you can go back and look at Jules' posts on the forum because I believe they were all removed, but if you could, you might have a more balanced view of Brlenox' comments to her.


To answer your question, yes, I did read what Brlenox posted--that's why I responded. And I can imagine many of the more forthright apostles responding very similarly to what he said. Elder Bruce McConkie, Elder Boyd Packer, and Elder Russell Nelson would have responded in such a way. Elder Ballard would have too. He was pretty strong in his 'Beware of False Prophets' talk.

I'm 'contending' with you because you called what Brlenox said 'insults' and I took issue. You also seem unaware of Jules' past influence and interactions on this forum and you seem to think that simply disagreeing is contentious. If you felt Brlenox violated forum guidelines with his post, then you could report it. If you think I'm 'contentious' and 'justifying unacceptable behavior', you can also report it and let the moderator decide. They do take actions against posters who are contentious and violate forum rules.

As I've said, this is in the eye of the beholder--to one, this is simply a discussion, to another, it's contentious debate, but since it's Brian's forum, I think we follow his views on what's 'contentious' and what is discussion/debate.

OK. In my eye and in Brlenox eye, I'm pretty sure we both saw Eye to Eye on how the content of what he said to Jules was not wrong, but that the tone could have been better. I thanked Brlenox post and moved on. Then others chimed in and tried to justify it again.... something I cannot sit idly by and allow others to do in the name of the Lord and Savior.

If Jules is here in the spirit of Korihor and Zeezrom, please provide the evidence of such - that she is trying to lead people to deny the Christ. If she isn't then those comparisons are incompatible. If she is, are you still so eager to accomplish something with harsh language that can be accomplished with love?

Yes I am aware of what I am defending. I just sent you a PM to that effect. I have spelled it out clearly. You however have not answered. Jules blog is almost irrelevant to what I am defending -> What I am defending is my invitation to you and others to be more Christ-like and follow His teachings spelled out in D&C 121 - in Moroni 7 - in Galatians 5. I promise you HE does not support using Zeezrom and the Pharisees to justify contention and rude language.

I promise you that many of you would not use such rude language were we all discussing these things in person. The safe anonymity of the Internet is a lure the devil uses to invite contention. Just remember that you will have to account for every word spoken here to real people with families and children and jobs.

[AI2.0]

Did you even read what Brlenox posted or how I responded or how he conceded? Try to imagine one of the apostles participating in this thread if you have a testimony of such as I do. Would they say something like "this is a actual quote" before quoting something? Of course not. Sorry to use that again Brlenox as I know you conceded that... AI 2.0 is apparently still trying to justify unacceptable behavior. Why anyone would try to justify truth declaration with condescending and contentious language with examples of the Savior is truly appalling. Watching people in these forums invite contention and condescend and justify such behavior as being Christ-like is not something I can stand idly by and watch.

So why are you still contending with me AI 2.0? For what purpose? What are you trying to justify?

Can we not agree we can all teach and correct with meekness and gentleness and love unfeigned? This is all I am saying yet so many of you are eager to justify the opposite. Language matters. You will be judged for such. Please read the scriptures I quoted from Moroni 7. Nowhere in there nor anywhere in Christ's teaching can you justify treating those in error with contention.

Yes. If someone is sincerely seeking truth and not seeking to lure people to sin... Yes of course that matters for you should treat someone by the tenants of the Priesthood as outlined in D&C 121 with gentle guidance rather than unnecessary rudeness then that could be the difference in that souls path.

Zeezrom was sincere in his efforts to confound the men of God ... not sincerely seeking truth. Zeezrom was trying to catch them in their words to deny God - truly the spirit of antichrist. Is that what Jules is? Can you qualify such? I truly cannot believe you used Zeezrom as an example of "sincerity." The deceived truthseeker sincerely seeking truth and the deliberate sinner sincerely fighting against God does not somehow equate because the word "sincerity" is in both sentences. Both are in error - but only one is aligned to Jesus Christ.

Brelnox discovered Jules altered a quote - that may be evidence to deliberately deceive. I think it's fine he pointed it out and asked her to justify such. Can we do such as disciples of Jesus Christ and show love in the process rather than trying to gratify our "aha got you!" pride? Are we all so eager to call someone a "Child of hell?" Do you really believe Jesus was laying the example to you AI2.0 of how to treat people when he called the Pharisees white sepulchers? Or was this a moment where the Judge Himself is judging?

Matthew 23:27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.

What am I trying to justify? I will tell you plainly. Stand up for the truth as you do ... but do not be so eager to throw in language that invites contention or language that is obviously rude. The truth doesn't need that sort of help. The truth is comfortable all on its own. This is my invitation to you to invite the spirit of the Lord in all your dealings. I have faltered in this myself being human. I have been called out for being rude. I apologized both in public and in private for such--search my posts and you will find this.

I cannot sit by and watch you guys thank each other while breaking the golden rule and treating others with rudeness and condescension. Is there so much pride in you that you cannot simply say, "Alaris - I can clearly see your only aim is to elevate our treatment of each other, which is a noble principle indeed. I accept your invitation."

I'm sorry but I simply will not join you in condemning what Brlenox wrote to Jules. I felt he was justified in what he wrote and I appreciated his research and since I know a little more about what went on on this forum when she was a moderator here, I did not feel he was out of line in his comments to her. And I will continue to 'thank' those I feel deserve it, it's not a matter of pride, but if that's how you want to perceive it, you are free to do so.

I can respect that you want to 'elevate' our treatment of each other on the forum; this is a valuable thing and something we all can work on, but I won't throw Brlenox 'under the bus' in order to keep some kind of peace here, when I don't feel he did anything wrong and in fact, did us a great service in exposing a falsehood.

[Alaris]

Did you even read what Brlenox posted or how I responded or how he conceded? Try to imagine one of the apostles participating in this thread if you have a testimony of such as I do. Would they say something like "this is a actual quote" before quoting something? Of course not. Sorry to use that again Brlenox as I know you conceded that... AI 2.0 is apparently still trying to justify unacceptable behavior. Why anyone would try to justify truth declaration with condescending and contentious language with examples of the Savior is truly appalling. Watching people in these forums invite contention and condescend and justify such behavior as being Christ-like is not something I can stand idly by and watch.

So why are you still contending with me AI 2.0? For what purpose? What are you trying to justify?

Can we not agree we can all teach and correct with meekness and gentleness and love unfeigned? This is all I am saying yet so many of you are eager to justify the opposite. Language matters. You will be judged for such. Please read the scriptures I quoted from Moroni 7. Nowhere in there nor anywhere in Christ's teaching can you justify treating those in error with contention.

Yes. If someone is sincerely seeking truth and not seeking to lure people to sin... Yes of course that matters for you should treat someone by the tenants of the Priesthood as outlined in D&C 121 with gentle guidance rather than unnecessary rudeness then that could be the difference in that souls path.

Zeezrom was sincere in his efforts to confound the men of God ... not sincerely seeking truth. Zeezrom was trying to catch them in their words to deny God - truly the spirit of antichrist. Is that what Jules is? Can you qualify such? I truly cannot believe you used Zeezrom as an example of "sincerity." The deceived truthseeker sincerely seeking truth and the deliberate sinner sincerely fighting against God does not somehow equate because the word "sincerity" is in both sentences. Both are in error - but only one is aligned to Jesus Christ.

Brelnox discovered Jules altered a quote - that may be evidence to deliberately deceive. I think it's fine he pointed it out and asked her to justify such. Can we do such as disciples of Jesus Christ and show love in the process rather than trying to gratify our "aha got you!" pride? Are we all so eager to call someone a "Child of hell?" Do you really believe Jesus was laying the example to you AI2.0 of how to treat people when he called the Pharisees white sepulchers? Or was this a moment where the Judge Himself is judging?

Matthew 23:27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.

What am I trying to justify? I will tell you plainly. Stand up for the truth as you do ... but do not be so eager to throw in language that invites contention or language that is obviously rude. The truth doesn't need that sort of help. The truth is comfortable all on its own. This is my invitation to you to invite the spirit of the Lord in all your dealings. I have faltered in this myself being human. I have been called out for being rude. I apologized both in public and in private for such--search my posts and you will find this.

I cannot sit by and watch you guys thank each other while breaking the golden rule and treating others with rudeness and condescension. Is there so much pride in you that you cannot simply say, "Alaris - I can clearly see your only aim is to elevate our treatment of each other, which is a noble principle indeed. I accept your invitation."

I'm sorry but I simply will not join you in condemning what Brlenox wrote to Jules. I felt he was justified in what he wrote and I appreciated his research and since I know a little more about what went on on this forum when she was a moderator here, I did not feel he was out of line in his comments to her. And I will continue to 'thank' those I feel deserve it, it's not a matter of pride, but if that's how you want to perceive it, you are free to do so.

I can respect that you want to 'elevate' our treatment of each other on the forum; this is a valuable thing and something we all can work on, but I won't throw Brlenox 'under the bus' in order to keep some kind of peace here, when I don't feel he did anything wrong and in fact, did us a great service in exposing a falsehood.

I am glad we can agree about elevating treatment. I have not thrown Brelnox under the bus - neither did he throw himself under the bus when he conceded my point.

[AI2.0]

Did you even read what Brlenox posted or how I responded or how he conceded? Try to imagine one of the apostles participanting in this thread if you have a testimony of such as I do. Would they say something like "this is a actual quote" before quoting something? Of course not. Sorry to use that again Brlenox as I know you conceded that... Others however seem to try to justify unacceptable behavior. Why AI 2.0 or others are trying to justify truth declaration with condescending and contentious language is truly appalling. Watching people in these forums invite contention and condescend and justify such behavior as being Christ like is not something I can stand idly by and watch.

So why are you still contending with me AI 2.0? For what purpose? What are you trying to justify?

It's not what I'M trying to justify, it's what YOU'RE trying to justify that is of concern....

Are you aware of what YOU are defending? Did you read Jules' blog? Do you know her religious beliefs and her views of the LDS church? It might be better if you read her blog post in the context of her beliefs. I'm certain that if you did, you'd also better understand Brlenox's remarks. I don't believe you can go back and look at Jules' posts on the forum because I believe they were all removed, but if you could, you might have a more balanced view of Brlenox' comments to her.


To answer your question, yes, I did read what Brlenox posted--that's why I responded. And I can imagine many of the more forthright apostles responding very similarly to what he said. Elder Bruce McConkie, Elder Boyd Packer, and Elder Russell Nelson would have responded in such a way. Elder Ballard would have too. He was pretty strong in his 'Beware of False Prophets' talk.

I'm 'contending' with you because you called what Brlenox said 'insults' and I took issue. You also seem unaware of Jules' past influence and interactions on this forum and you seem to think that simply disagreeing is contentious. If you felt Brlenox violated forum guidelines with his post, then you could report it. If you think I'm 'contentious' and 'justifying unacceptable behavior', you can also report it and let the moderator decide. They do take actions against posters who are contentious and violate forum rules.

As I've said, this is in the eye of the beholder--to one, this is simply a discussion, to another, it's contentious debate, but since it's Brian's forum, I think we follow his views on what's 'contentious' and what is discussion/debate.

OK. In my eye and in Brlenox eye, I'm pretty sure we both saw Eye to Eye on how the content of what he said to Jules was not wrong, but that the tone could have been better. I thanked Brlenox post and moved on. Then others chimed in and tried to justify it again.... something I cannot sit idly by and allow others to do in the name of the Lord and Savior.

If Jules is here in the spirit of Korihor and Zeezrom, please provide the evidence of such - that she is trying to lead people to deny the Christ. If she isn't then those comparisons are incompatible. If she is, are you still so eager to accomplish something with harsh language that can be accomplished with love?

Yes I am aware of what I am defending. I just sent you a PM to that effect. I have spelled it out clearly. You however have not answered. Jules blog is almost irrelevant to what I am defending -> What I am defending is my invitation to you and others to be more Christ-like and follow His teachings spelled out in D&C 121 - in Moroni 7 - in Galatians 5. I promise you HE does not support using Zeezrom and the Pharisees to justify contention and rude language.

I promise you that many of you would not use such rude language were we all discussing these things in person. The safe anonymity of the Internet is a lure the devil uses to invite contention. Just remember that you will have to account for every word spoken here to real people with families and children and jobs.

I'm sorry, I was not ignoring you--If you sent me a PM, I didn't get it--I just looked.

Personally, I feel like we've taken this discussion far off from the OP long enough. Four pages of content and I don't think hardly anything has been said about the actual claims she made...

[Alaris]

Did you even read what Brlenox posted or how I responded or how he conceded? Try to imagine one of the apostles participanting in this thread if you have a testimony of such as I do. Would they say something like "this is a actual quote" before quoting something? Of course not. Sorry to use that again Brlenox as I know you conceded that... Others however seem to try to justify unacceptable behavior. Why AI 2.0 or others are trying to justify truth declaration with condescending and contentious language is truly appalling. Watching people in these forums invite contention and condescend and justify such behavior as being Christ like is not something I can stand idly by and watch.

So why are you still contending with me AI 2.0? For what purpose? What are you trying to justify?

It's not what I'M trying to justify, it's what YOU'RE trying to justify that is of concern....

Are you aware of what YOU are defending? Did you read Jules' blog? Do you know her religious beliefs and her views of the LDS church? It might be better if you read her blog post in the context of her beliefs. I'm certain that if you did, you'd also better understand Brlenox's remarks. I don't believe you can go back and look at Jules' posts on the forum because I believe they were all removed, but if you could, you might have a more balanced view of Brlenox' comments to her.


To answer your question, yes, I did read what Brlenox posted--that's why I responded. And I can imagine many of the more forthright apostles responding very similarly to what he said. Elder Bruce McConkie, Elder Boyd Packer, and Elder Russell Nelson would have responded in such a way. Elder Ballard would have too. He was pretty strong in his 'Beware of False Prophets' talk.

I'm 'contending' with you because you called what Brlenox said 'insults' and I took issue. You also seem unaware of Jules' past influence and interactions on this forum and you seem to think that simply disagreeing is contentious. If you felt Brlenox violated forum guidelines with his post, then you could report it. If you think I'm 'contentious' and 'justifying unacceptable behavior', you can also report it and let the moderator decide. They do take actions against posters who are contentious and violate forum rules.

As I've said, this is in the eye of the beholder--to one, this is simply a discussion, to another, it's contentious debate, but since it's Brian's forum, I think we follow his views on what's 'contentious' and what is discussion/debate.

OK. In my eye and in Brlenox eye, I'm pretty sure we both saw Eye to Eye on how the content of what he said to Jules was not wrong, but that the tone could have been better. I thanked Brlenox post and moved on. Then others chimed in and tried to justify it again.... something I cannot sit idly by and allow others to do in the name of the Lord and Savior.

If Jules is here in the spirit of Korihor and Zeezrom, please provide the evidence of such - that she is trying to lead people to deny the Christ. If she isn't then those comparisons are incompatible. If she is, are you still so eager to accomplish something with harsh language that can be accomplished with love?

Yes I am aware of what I am defending. I just sent you a PM to that effect. I have spelled it out clearly. You however have not answered. Jules blog is almost irrelevant to what I am defending -> What I am defending is my invitation to you and others to be more Christ-like and follow His teachings spelled out in D&C 121 - in Moroni 7 - in Galatians 5. I promise you HE does not support using Zeezrom and the Pharisees to justify contention and rude language.

I promise you that many of you would not use such rude language were we all discussing these things in person. The safe anonymity of the Internet is a lure the devil uses to invite contention. Just remember that you will have to account for every word spoken here to real people with families and children and jobs.

I'm sorry, I was not ignoring you--If you sent me a PM, I didn't get it--I just looked.

Personally, I feel like we've taken this discussion far off from the OP long enough. Four pages of content and I don't think hardly anything has been said about the actual claims she made...

I'm not sure what happened to the PM as it wasn't in my outbox or sent items. It was meant in the spirit of brotherhood as I have enjoyed your posts and interactions. Agreed - for someone who has only read about 5 minutes worth of Jules post I'll be quiet now. :ymhug:

[brlenox]

I do have 1 question for you: why is it that people like myself, and others, experience miracles like healings, visions, revelation, and other gifts of the spirit, when I/we interpret the gospel differently than you? Do you believe that every miracle that doesn't happen through your interpretation of LDS protocol is a deception?

Well, my mistake - you did very well at addressing my post. Interpreting my intent, state of mind you are not doing so good at. I am not sure why you see direct questions seeking specificity as hostile, or angry. I'm not in the least of either. I dig by nature, it is how I learn.

I appreciate your efforts in your response. I do however, think there is a challenge of putting into words an exact accounting for the clarity of Brigham's statements of what those who are deceived will do and the fact that some of your material is precisely consistent with what he warns against. Yet that issue is never addressed. However, please you need not feel pushed, prodded, or persecuted into any further response - that is not my intent if you are not willing - I think you have done your best.

At this time, as I must be heading out to work, so I'm not going have the moment or two it requires to do a proper response but I will get to it , hopefully this evening but it may have to wait until tomorrow.

Just a snippet of a response to address the question you asked. First, what makes you think that those of us that defend the prophets have not had the experiences that you describe above. Now I realize what each of these things is and I have my own very sacred multiple experiences in each, but the attitude in how these things are presented to the world is one of the fruits of deception unless it is as Brigham attempts to educate. It is because of the knowledge I possess that I question you, Jules, Amonhi, and several others. Because of the tempting nature, and the desirable elements of how your message is presented it is entirely too attractive for those unfamiliar with the wiles of Satan who possess an excessive zeal to participate without being deceived. I have a nephew, that would call me periodically and we would discuss these matters of calling and election, second anointings etc. He was particularly zealous, a good head with a great desire to do righteousness but he was inexperienced. Now he has fallen into the trap of having been deceived and he sounds just like the genre of folks, that yes ... I group you into.

I need to leave now for work
, and I again do not want to tax you beyond your capacity - you have tried and I appreciate that. If Jules had had the courage to engage in this conversation without fleeing the forum I would have left your gentler soul out of the mix but there are things that need to be said and addressed for the sake of people like my Nephew who lurk and obviously can be deceived.

Beware of pride, brlenox.

Hello Obrien. Thanks for the voice of concern...by the way...you asked me a question a few weeks back and I put together an exceptional answer for you and I was a bit disappointed that you didn't even reply. I wasn't sure if the answer was too good, too bad or you weren't really interested in the question you asked anyway...I'm always interested in good commentary.

[sushi_chef]

"I’ve always heard that Joseph Smith knew more about the kingdom of God than he could share. Because if he did, people in the church would want to kill him. Sound absurd? Robert Horne, while living in Nauvoo, heard the prophet speak in the Nauvoo Temple —

“On May 23, 1843, I listened to a discourse preached in the Nauvoo temple, which was then only partially finished. Brother Joseph was talking on the pre-existence of our spirits, and our relations to God in the spirit world, and our standing in the family circle of our Father. Now I am telling the truth, and I remember that while thus talking he suddenly turned around to the Apostles sitting on the stand and said in effect:

‘Brethren, if I were to tell you all I know of the kingdom of God, I do know that you would rise up and kill me.’

Brother Brigham arose and said, ‘Don’t tell me anything that I can’t bear, for I don’t want to apostatize.’
....

"
http://www.deilataylor.com/if-i-were-to-tell-you-all/

he might have been potentially to become a hit person sender against the dispensation head....
:-B

[brlenox]

Imagine the Savior here amongst us. Imagine the love He'd show to all of us and His masterful teaching and His masterful ways. Imagine what He would say to Jules. Is it that hard to imagine? Would he insult her?

Too often does it seem that forum members seem to try to emulate the righteous zeal of condemnation and forget the charity that is required of us. Contention is not the Lord's way.

The Lord might insult her. It would really depend upon where her heart is.

The scriptures are replete with examples of the Lord calling others names and saying or doing things to give offence. There are also examples of Him getting violent with others. Generally this was reserved for those who were deceiving others intentionally, but there are examples where he was downright rude to those who hadn't done anything (like the Canaanite woman whom he equated to a dog). He also contended with others on a regular basis.

If she is intentionally deceiving others then I suspect He would be quite harsh. If she is being deceived He would be quite compassionate.

We often create a magic Jesus in our minds where we only emphasize the aspects we like. It is important we don't do this if we truly want to know Him.

Serragon's answer here is excellent as we develop this discussion. The only thing I might qualify is I do not ever think the Lord is insulting. However, how exceptional a response to note how we have a tendency to default perceive something as insulting when that is not its intent. This is so much because of the social bias and political correctness influence that has permeated our lives.

The Lord however has a set of responses to behaviors.

1.) If you know better and choose to be unrighteous then he is angry.
2.) After he is angry he speaks the truth very clearly to these people via his servants
3.) If the people repent the Lord withdraws his anger but will observe to see if they are sincere. They will probably have to endure for a bit.
4.) If they are sincere the Lord begins to bless them.

Points 1, 2, and partial 3 any person might say that the Lord is being rude and again I do not see that as the case but for your paradigm, Alaris, it is exactly the way it appears that you perceive things.

The final point that Serragon makes about the "magic Jesus" is precisely what I feel like you have a tendency to do and he is precisely correct that is not the true Jesus if you really accept the scriptures for what they say and do not try to repackage everything into a pink cup cake for a 4 year old's my little pony birthday party. (Now I'm sure you are going to read this as an insult - when really I am simply trying to add a bit of levity)

Nonetheless, I am not the Lord and I am not saying that how he might respond to a situation is an entitlement to me to respond in like manner.

However, I completely agree that there is an awful lot of charges here of "rudeness" when it is nothing more that direct questions seeking truth. Again I have no trouble if you wish to teach me how to be as precise as I tend to be while planting tulips and daisy's at the same time. None should take any of my usual dialogue as trying to be insulting. I did slip on the Jules thing because that she would go to such lengths to deceive was so affrontive and so repulsive to me that I wigged out. As well, Jules and I have a history of many years more than you are aware and she has never appreciated my directness when it came to calling her out for her constant berating of the general authorities the church and for peddling intentional doctrines designed to lead people out of the church - which she resigned from some few years ago. I let that get to me and I have no trouble that you made that observation. I do desire to be better. However, if you continue to read everything I do as rude I suspect you are going to miss the moment

If Jules came intentionally to lure people away to sin ... the Lord may use harsh words of condemnation sure. He would likely not insult her intelligence or engage in the language we see far too often in these forums.

That last statement is very astute. This sentiment seems to be used to justify contention all over the place. Remembering how the Lord called the Pharisees hypocrites yet forgetting how he stood up for the adulterer...Remember the Lord's judgement is perfect....

Moroni 7:18 And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the light by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged.

... Forgetting Jesus words to the people of His church:

3 Neph11: 29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.
30 Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.

This verse is a non-sequitur as it depends on your personal assessment that someone is being rude. And that is just not the intent. The Lord has no trouble with penetrating questions and was the master at asking such.

The people of Ammon bound Korihor. How would they have treated Korihor if he showed up preaching doctrines that were false but he was otherwise sincere--that he was seeking truth rather than seeking to lead people into sin?

Here is the point. Scriptures provide a clear example and instead of taking the example for its intent you want to dress it up. Korihor was not seeking truth. He is symbolic of all who have been grievously mislead and then seek to destroy the children of God. That is his role and purpose in scripture is to educate you and I on these types of people. The Ammonites are extolled because they have the good sense to bind him up and remove the temptation he represents. There is no need to alter what the method of dealing with a Korihor is as that undermines the purpose of coming to know this type of person.

The people of Ammon bound Korihor. How would they have treated Korihor if he showed up preaching doctrines that were false but he was otherwise sincere--that he was seeking truth rather than seeking to lead people into sin?

IMO, Korihor was as sincere as they come. Remember he was commanded to go and reclaim the people...

But behold, the devil hath deceived me; for he appeared unto me in the form of an angel, and said unto me: Go and reclaim this people, for they have all gone astray after an unknown God. And he said unto me: There is no God; yea, and he taught me that which I should say. And I have taught his words; and I taught them because they were pleasing unto the carnal mind; and I taught them, even until I had much success, insomuch that I verily believed that they were true; and for this cause I withstood the truth, even until I have brought this great curse upon me...

About as sincere as a person can get...

Deceived but sincere.

simpleton's post here is equally germane to your observations. You appear to have missed why he provides this insight in one of your later posts but it is to counter your observation that what if Korihor were sincerely but innocently presenting false doctrine. As I stated earlier I'm not sure why you would take the tack of contriving to create a "nicer" Korihor. That is not his purpose in scripture. He is the warning symbology for those who follow Satan and then try to get others to follow - and he WAS sincere. When I made my comparison of Jules to Korihor, I understand very clearly why I make that comparison. It was to borrow upon the clear standard of what it is to be a Korihor, what it is to decieve like a Korihor and what it is that we should do in the presence of a Korihor. You inquired if maybe I thought I should bind her up and deliver her to the mods...I have never called upon a mod but in the rarest of instances and frankly it was in the old days when the Snuffers had such free reign here.

However, NO, I don't want to deliver her to the mods. I need her to continue to dig the pit she digs for herself when AI2.0 or myself or a couple of others who produce very good truth based material to combat the deception have the opportunity to engage her.

[brlenox]

Moroni 7
14 Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil.

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.

16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.

17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.

18 And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the light by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged.

19 Wherefore, I beseech of you, brethren, that ye should search diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good from evil; and if ye will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not, ye certainly will be a child of Christ.

Brock replies
Moroni 7 is one of my favorite chapters in all of scripture. Several years ago I memorized much of it. You ever memorize whole chapters of scripture? Well if you have, you probably already realize that because of the huge investment and the repetition over and over it begins to seep deep into your soul. I have found that much of what I know today is because of years of memorization where one gets to see so much more than I usually see when I simply read through.


I have left the portion that I think is being under appreciated. As I mentioned earlier Moroni 7 is an imperative intrinsically connected set of doctrines that are linked to teach us FIRST how to recognize evil. Several here recognize this test works and the material of the OP fails the test to be considered of God or Christ. Perhaps more so if one knows the person who has written the post and the animosity she holds for the brethren and the church and the adoring fan she is of the Snuffer camp and the intent she maintains to draw others away to that camp. The chapter proceeds from there to the Charity section that you are focused on but it is imperative that you first understand what is good and what is evil then you know which way to go with your charity. It is not charitable to turn a blind eye to evil. To do so fails to charitably warn the offender which may require some straight forward context and worse still it may allow those others who might be attracted to the message to not realize there are alternative reasons for them to consider carefully the message.

You have a single level interpretation for charity and yet the scriptures bear out that the charitable thing to do is to be focused on the salvation of souls and at times that charitable approach may utilize a multitude of approaches. I will always agree (though I may fail) that sarcasm, belittling, making an offender for a word, and other similar undermining approaches are practically never found within the bounds of charity. However, pointed questions, holding people accountable to their intentional contrivances and deceptions is in no way rude or inappropriate when the intent is pure.

Thing is for all of your pointing to kindness and benevolence and such you have your issues with certain ways people respond to you. Except for now that I am mentioning it, I can push your buttons consistently. There is a certain nature of response that kicks your little keyboard into overdrive. Actually I have seen two different types but the one seems to pivot on the other. In other words, once you start the engine, then the sparks will fly. I'm not going into specifics because that is not the point. The point is that we all have different issues in how we communicate that permit others who seek to miss the truths written by weakly capacitated individuals if that is their preference. When I read your material, I simply ignore the aspects of your personality (that I find more entertaining than anything but some would consider otherwise), and I look for what you wrote to see if your points have any merit. In the past, I have never engaged you because I can tell enough by what I see in your material that you will never receive anything from my venue. Sometimes, I see things that seem consistent with someone who understands the gospel and other times I can see that you are working with a personal paradigm that ignores actual realities of how prophets and apostles really do act as they seek to correct evil. Elijah with his sarcasm towards the Priests of Baal must offend you greatly.

Galatians 5:

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

My valid point to brlenox is delivery matters. And he accepted my point. If Jules is lost you can present the truth to her with Christ like love...without seeking your own...

Junior achiever Brock rejoinders

I covered that effort years ago. Jules has no interest in Christ like love. She cannot deliver it and she cannot receive it unless you are one of the "chosen" ones. At one time that group literally destroyed this forum until Brian finally caught on to what was happening. Now of course, I am very direct and I suspect that you would not consider any of my posts Christ like, but as we observed earlier I am not sold on the magical Jesus that I believe you have become entirely too enamored of.

Brlenox knows that the truth speaks for itself and I do not condemn him for posting words of truth. I will however stand up for the truths listed in moroni 7 and find it amazing how one chapter encapsulates so many relevant truths applicable to this thread. Can we strip ourselves off pride and teach truth with gentleness and love unfeigned?

Imagine the Savior here amongst us. Imagine the love He'd show to all of us and His masterful teaching and His masterful ways. Imagine what He would say to Jules. Is it that hard to imagine? Would he insult her?

Too often does it seem that forum members seem to try to emulate the righteous zeal of condemnation and forget the charity that is required of us. Contention is not the Lord's way.

Brock ends with

Enough said...

[brlenox]

So valuable! Thank you so much for taking the time to research this and share what you found. I was dismayed that the fact that Jules' quote was fake seemed to be completely ignored. Especially by those who's kneejerk reaction was to zero in on you and your 'delivery' rather than even considering the information you provided.

Alaris, Butterfly? Did you read that Jules' quote was wrong? Did you notice that she had NOTHING to say about it, not even an acknowledgment that she had led her audience astray? Or are we supposed to just ignore that because it was 'insulting' (Alaris) to point it out? Is the 'knee jerk' reaction to always gloss over or defend missteps by those who belong to the 'Remnant', at the expense of truth and/or accuracy? It may not be, but that seems to be how it is around here.

Also, Brlenox, the quotes you've provided are well worth saving for future reference. I very much appreciate your participation on this forum.

Thank you - it is a challenge to see such a turning of words and twisting of intent. So much reference has been made to Moroni 7 in these series of posts and yet as you note the greater evil seems to be being ignored and the essence of good by pointing it out seems to have fallen prey to the excessive focus on "my weakness in writing".

I also appreciate your observation that this whole idea of calling something insulting when it certainly was not my intent (for the most part, except for that to which I have mia culpa (ed) already.) I hope we can get beyond that and see more sincerity in really understanding correct gospel insight.

[Alaris]

and yet the scriptures bear out that the charitable thing to do is to be focused on the salvation of souls and at times that charitable approach may utilize a multitude of approaches. I will always agree (though I may fail) that sarcasm, belittling, making an offender for a word, and other similar undermining approaches are practically never found within the bounds of charity. However, pointed questions, holding people accountable to their intentional contrivances and deceptions is in no way rude or inappropriate when the intent is pure.

So it sounds like we are on the same page here ...

Brlenox. I will make you a deal. I will forgive you for insulting my levels of understanding of the word "charity," and insulting my little keyboard (poor little guy.) Heck I'll even forgive you for presuming I gave up on researching migraines based off my uneducated decisions (lol but that was lol.) In return, I promise I will no longer call you out in public and will send you private message the next time I see some language that .. maybe can use some dulling. Deal?

[brlenox]

I cannot sit by and watch you guys thank each other while breaking the golden rule and treating others with rudeness and condescension. Is there so much pride in you that you cannot simply say, "Alaris - I can clearly see your only aim is to elevate our treatment of each other, which is a noble principle indeed. I accept your invitation."

I'm sorry but I simply will not join you in condemning what Brlenox wrote to Jules. I felt he was justified in what he wrote and I appreciated his research and since I know a little more about what went on on this forum when she was a moderator here, I did not feel he was out of line in his comments to her. And I will continue to 'thank' those I feel deserve it, it's not a matter of pride, but if that's how you want to perceive it, you are free to do so.

I can respect that you want to 'elevate' our treatment of each other on the forum; this is a valuable thing and something we all can work on, but I won't throw Brlenox 'under the bus' in order to keep some kind of peace here, when I don't feel he did anything wrong and in fact, did us a great service in exposing a falsehood.

I am glad we can agree about elevating treatment. I have not thrown Brelnox under the bus - neither did he throw himself under the bus when he conceded my point.

And I have no concern for how you have continually beat, what I am beginning to judge by the smell is a dead horse and I am not apologizing anymore for the portions I have already owned. Have you ever seen anyone who was angry, condescending, filled with rudeness ever say - yep you are right about an accurate critique. Not around here you haven't. As well I haven't taken any of your constant miss-focus on my delivery while overlooking the message as anything more than someone with passion and a bit of misunderstanding who is willing to stand and be counted. If I was to reply in kind I might begin to attack you personally etc but I just don't feel any such emotion. You have contributed to a spirited discussion and I can tell that overall it has been a positive experience ... at least for me and I hope for you.

I don't know how old you are but you seem overly obsessed with misinterpreting direct conversation, as condescending and rude when it is simply the process of exchange. Typically I chalk this up to the over reach of societal influence for twisting correct principles into false principles. When the word tolerance became a societal demand to tolerate evil as in diverse lifestyles and such I knew the word was compromised for use as a principle of truth. There are several more concepts that have been destroyed for common use and somehow you seem focused on what are correct principles with excessive emphasis that grants a looming presence that dominates an entire range of other doctrines that it should be balanced against instead of dominating over.

Still for my sense of things, you have been helpful in a few ways.

There is and I fully acknowledge a difference in how I respond to those who I believe are intentional in their deceptions and speak evil of the Lords anointed. However, with you, I do not believe that you are there yet. You may someday get there because it is clear that you are seeing things as you want them to be and not as the scriptures illustrate they are.

[brlenox]

and yet the scriptures bear out that the charitable thing to do is to be focused on the salvation of souls and at times that charitable approach may utilize a multitude of approaches. I will always agree (though I may fail) that sarcasm, belittling, making an offender for a word, and other similar undermining approaches are practically never found within the bounds of charity. However, pointed questions, holding people accountable to their intentional contrivances and deceptions is in no way rude or inappropriate when the intent is pure.

So it sounds like we are on the same page here ...

Brlenox. I will make you a deal. I will forgive you for insulting my levels of understanding of the word "charity," and insulting my little keyboard (poor little guy.) Heck I'll even forgive you for presuming I gave up on researching migraines based off my uneducated decisions (lol but that was lol.) In return, I promise I will no longer call you out in public and will send you private message the next time I see some language that .. maybe can use some dulling. Deal?

Was that you....on the migraines...? Ha Ha I had completely forgotten. I'll take your offer but will say as well that I am okay with whatever you choose. Your responses have not been detrimental in my opinion. I don't mind being called out, though usually I think it is usually about my intensity that people want to interpret as rudeness and I'm just not inclined to accept that particular observation. However, you nailed the particular one you called and I'm good with that. I think that sometimes people forget that good exchanges may have moments of passion, and energy and disagreement until finally we can come together in the end.

So you feel free to interact in whatever way you feel is appropriate and I will try to catch the types of tone that I recognize as being off of correct.

[BruceRGilbert]

Having known Jules prior to her resignation from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; being familiar with her level of intelligence and acuity in writing and making that comparison with what she has shared recently as a result of this thread, I lament because the difference is strikingly apparent. I was surprised that no one had mentioned the mistake between "Lot" and "Abraham" in the discussion over Sodom and Gomorrah. The "quickened" Jules would not have made such an error. It saddens me because the "light" and "quickening" to which she was once privy and, hereby, alludes to, has diminished. I wonder if she is even aware? Jules, judgment is meant for identification and not condemnation . . . but judgment does come by way of comparisons. You do not manifest in the same way or spirit as you once did. Falling is a necessary part of learning how to walk and I pray that you, again, regain your balance.

[lone-knight]

As largely an observer, I have really appreciated this discussion. I would move to opening another discussion not centered around the Jules posting and instead opened up to the 'dreamers' discussion. The situation that I face, in my home, is someone that very much believe and espouses dreams and dreamers as modern day prophets. I have seen very thoughtful discussions in point and counterpoint here - that I'd love to capture in a reasonable forum that discusses the main themes from these dreams (tent cities, earthquake, invading China and Russia, etc.). In large part, my home has become infested with the teachings of Julie Rowe, Roger K. Young, Hector Sosa, et al.
I would appreciate the discussion with those that are more familiar with this than I have been able to become over the last 2 years.

[Obrien]

yada yada yada...

[

Beware of pride, brlenox.

Hello Obrien. Thanks for the voice of concern...by the way...you asked me a question a few weeks back and I put together an exceptional answer for you and I was a bit disappointed that you didn't even reply. I wasn't sure if the answer was too good, too bad or you weren't really interested in the question you asked anyway...I'm always interested in good commentary.

My apologies for stepping back from the written thrust and parry here on the forum, brlenox. I've been exceptionally swamped at work - to the point of not even logging on for weeks. I meant no disrespect to you, your commentary or the effort to produce it.. Now,what thread was that on???