A message I was asked to share

[zionbuilder]

I believe you're post is missing a vital element. I would ask you to consider whether you have prayed about whether or not President Monson is a prophet and whether you have prayed about whether or not the scriptures that say the prophets will warn us is true. Otherwise, I would say you might as well believe whatever stay at home mom you stumble across because you would be better situated to discover truth that way.

Jules has stated that she was asked to share a message and has no qualifications for that statement. She cannot rely on status or reputation to validate her claim. President Monson can rely on status and reputation to validate his claims. However, when it comes to accepting the word of God, status and reputation are meaningless.

If President Monson came on this forum in disguise and said he had a message to share from the Lord, would you recognize it then as a message from God? If so, how? If not, why not? How would you know he was different than the housewives on the forum?

Only through the Spirit of God can we know the things of God are true. Otherwise, you cannot be sure you aren't just another member of a misled group following the crowd. This goes for the scriptures as well as the words of living prophets. If you believe them to be true then there is no reason not to pray about them and receive a confirmation from the author of truth.

I think you miss by a bit.
God is one of order, He does this so we know which way to turn when we need Him. This is also the case because He loves us and is not playing games.
He will not try to trick us in determining which messenger to follow, Satan does that.
Much of what you say is true, but when it comes to stewardship, revelation is given to that person that has stewardship.
Your analogy of just a random person having a message to share for others is not backed up when there is a viable steward in authority.
You are correct about status and reputation, but not when it comes to stewardship, Authority is the key. Much different than reputation/status.

Except in 1 Kings chapter 13, with the JST, we see that He tested him to see if he would follow the words given by a prophet, after receiving contrary words from the Lord himself. He followed the words of the prophet without seeking confirmation and lost his life.

[AI2.0]

I believe you're post is missing a vital element. I would ask you to consider whether you have prayed about whether or not President Monson is a prophet and whether you have prayed about whether or not the scriptures that say the prophets will warn us is true. Otherwise, I would say you might as well believe whatever stay at home mom you stumble across because you would be better situated to discover truth that way.

Jules has stated that she was asked to share a message and has no qualifications for that statement. She cannot rely on status or reputation to validate her claim. President Monson can rely on status and reputation to validate his claims. However, when it comes to accepting the word of God, status and reputation are meaningless.

If President Monson came on this forum in disguise and said he had a message to share from the Lord, would you recognize it then as a message from God? If so, how? If not, why not? How would you know he was different than the housewives on the forum?

Only through the Spirit of God can we know the things of God are true. Otherwise, you cannot be sure you aren't just another member of a misled group following the crowd. This goes for the scriptures as well as the words of living prophets. If you believe them to be true then there is no reason not to pray about them and receive a confirmation from the author of truth.

I think you miss by a bit.
God is one of order, He does this so we know which way to turn when we need Him. This is also the case because He loves us and is not playing games.
He will not try to trick us in determining which messenger to follow, Satan does that.
Much of what you say is true, but when it comes to stewardship, revelation is given to that person that has stewardship.
Your analogy of just a random person having a message to share for others is not backed up when there is a viable steward in authority.
You are correct about status and reputation, but not when it comes to stewardship, Authority is the key. Much different than reputation/status.

My point wasn't that there might be a random person sent to give a message. My point was, how do you know the person you accept as one in authority is truly one in authority? How do you know you aren't just foolishly following the crowd?

When I was young we were encouraged to pray. When President Monson became the President of the church, I didn't just assume he was a prophet because he held that calling. I prayed and asked. When conference talks were given, I prayed about them. I assumed they were true and the speakers were guided by the Lord but I prayed anyway and the Spirit opened my understanding.

If you accept President Monson as a prophet simply because he's head of the church and accept whatever the leaders say simply because they are the leaders then you are missing a great opportunity to have your understanding expanded by the Spirit of God. In that case, you would be better off not having an authority figure to rely on because then you would be less sure that you already know what's true and more motivated to ponder and pray over what you are receiving.

I agree that we shouldn't just assume that the Prophet called is the one Heavenly father wants. If we do, we are doing ourselves a spiritual disservice.

Part of being a 'witness' is praying for a witness or testimony. Members who don't take the time to pray for a witness that our Prophet, IS the Lord's prophet, are not fulfilling their responsibility and I think they leave themselves vulnerable. But, once you receive that witness, you don't need to ask over and over for things you already know--that is a type of 'wearying the Lord', IMO. And if we struggle with something the prophet teaches, then we definitely need to go to God for confirmation and that witness so we can serve and teach others effectively.

Regular people can receive inspiration and even revelation and sometimes they'll share it with others. If we have the spirit of discernment, we can know whether what they share is true and of value for us to learn from or if we can receive some kind of enlightenment from it.

[Seek the Truth]

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.

Jesus said, "get thee behind me Satan". I follow Jesus.

[Seek the Truth]

Sincere question: Can the "high frequency vibrations" of crystals be empirically verified? Or, have they been empirically verified?

-Finrock

no.

[Arenera]

I believe you're post is missing a vital element. I would ask you to consider whether you have prayed about whether or not President Monson is a prophet and whether you have prayed about whether or not the scriptures that say the prophets will warn us is true. Otherwise, I would say you might as well believe whatever stay at home mom you stumble across because you would be better situated to discover truth that way.

Jules has stated that she was asked to share a message and has no qualifications for that statement. She cannot rely on status or reputation to validate her claim. President Monson can rely on status and reputation to validate his claims. However, when it comes to accepting the word of God, status and reputation are meaningless.

If President Monson came on this forum in disguise and said he had a message to share from the Lord, would you recognize it then as a message from God? If so, how? If not, why not? How would you know he was different than the housewives on the forum?

Only through the Spirit of God can we know the things of God are true. Otherwise, you cannot be sure you aren't just another member of a misled group following the crowd. This goes for the scriptures as well as the words of living prophets. If you believe them to be true then there is no reason not to pray about them and receive a confirmation from the author of truth.

I think you miss by a bit.
God is one of order, He does this so we know which way to turn when we need Him. This is also the case because He loves us and is not playing games.
He will not try to trick us in determining which messenger to follow, Satan does that.
Much of what you say is true, but when it comes to stewardship, revelation is given to that person that has stewardship.
Your analogy of just a random person having a message to share for others is not backed up when there is a viable steward in authority.
You are correct about status and reputation, but not when it comes to stewardship, Authority is the key. Much different than reputation/status.

My point wasn't that there might be a random person sent to give a message. My point was, how do you know the person you accept as one in authority is truly one in authority? How do you know you aren't just foolishly following the crowd?

When I was young we were encouraged to pray. When President Monson became the President of the church, I didn't just assume he was a prophet because he held that calling. I prayed and asked. When conference talks were given, I prayed about them. I assumed they were true and the speakers were guided by the Lord but I prayed anyway and the Spirit opened my understanding.

If you accept President Monson as a prophet simply because he's head of the church and accept whatever the leaders say simply because they are the leaders then you are missing a great opportunity to have your understanding expanded by the Spirit of God. In that case, you would be better off not having an authority figure to rely on because then you would be less sure that you already know what's true and more motivated to ponder and pray over what you are receiving.

I agree that we shouldn't just assume that the Prophet called is the one Heavenly father wants. If we do, we are doing ourselves a spiritual disservice.

Part of being a 'witness' is praying for a witness or testimony. Members who don't take the time to pray for a witness that our Prophet, IS the Lord's prophet, are not fulfilling their responsibility and I think they leave themselves vulnerable. But, once you receive that witness, you don't need to ask over and over for things you already know--that is a type of 'wearying the Lord', IMO. And if we struggle with something the prophet teaches, then we definitely need to go to God for confirmation and that witness so we can serve and teach others effectively.

Regular people can receive inspiration and even revelation and sometimes they'll share it with others. If we have the spirit of discernment, we can know whether what they share is true and of value for us to learn from or if we can receive some kind of enlightenment from it.

If a person is new to the church, or they have just recently awakened, they may need to get a spiritual confirmation that the Prophet is indeed Christ's Prophet.

If you have been in the Church for sometime, you have seen the apostles in action and have "spiritually" vetted them so when the Prophet dies and the President of the Quorum of the Apostles takes over, you are good to go.

Some members were concerned when President Benson became the Prophet. It only took one conference address to know he was the Prophet.

I think that knowing local leaders, like Bishop and Stake President, are called of God is more interesting since you may or may not have had seen them in action.

[brlenox]

Sincere question: Can the "high frequency vibrations" of crystals be empirically verified? Or, have they been empirically verified?

-Finrock

no.

Incorrect. Upon certain principles mineral vibration is well documented. A common application is the Quartz crystal watch that many of us wear.

Please consider:

[Quarts is] made from a chemical compound called silicon dioxide (silicon is also the stuff from which computer chips are made), and you can find it in sand and most types of rock. Perhaps the most interesting thing about quartz is that it's piezoelectric. That means if you squeeze a quartz crystal, it generates a tiny electric current. The opposite is also true: if you pass electricity through quartz, it vibrates at a precise frequency (it shakes an exact number of times each second).

Inside a quartz clock or watch, the battery sends electricity to the quartz crystal through an electronic circuit. The quartz crystal oscillates (vibrates back and forth) at a precise frequency: exactly 32768 times each second. The circuit counts the number of vibrations and uses them to generate regular electric pulses, one per second. These pulses can either power an LCD display (showing the time numerically) or they can drive a small electric motor (a tiny stepping motor, in fact), turning gear wheels that spin the clock's second, minute, and hour hands.

[Seek the Truth]

High frequency vibration and metaphysical implications have not been documented.

Everything can vibrate. Whether it has anything to do with a second comforter or whatever else is completely speculative.

[brlenox]

High frequency vibration and metaphysical implications have not been documented.

Everything can vibrate. Whether it has anything to do with a second comforter or whatever else is completely speculative.

I believe I have heard you use the term illiterate of late. Hmmm Well, it seems this response has absolutely no relevance to the question that you emphatically stated "No" to and that I was countering by illustrating using valid resources how clearly wrong you were. You could just say you were mistaken and all would be well but whatever....keep conflating if it helps.

Nonetheless 32768 times each second seems a high frequency and well documented for quartz vibration.

[Seek the Truth]

Sorry I was responding to the OP link wherein discussion of vibrating crystals was tied to metaphysics. I was under the impression crystals were being discussed because Jules brought it up in her highly entertaining blog post. I believe nothing like that has been documented.

[brlenox]

Sorry I was responding to the OP link wherein discussion of vibrating crystals was tied to metaphysics. I was under the impression crystals were being discussed because Jules brought it up in her highly entertaining blog post. I believe nothing like that has been documented.

In which case, and that you reference Jules highly entertaining blog post, all is well.

[sushi_chef]

pretty much interesting....

"Why Are Crystals Energized

All that bumping and playing together creates a lot of energy within the crystal itself. As with any living organism, a crystal creates an energy pattern. Energy has form, sound, color and movement or what metaphysical people call vibration. When utilized with other energy sources, crystals can act as an amplifier. You might think of a quartz watch as a good example.

The property that makes a crystal function as an electronic miracle occurs is compressed or bending. When this occurs, a crystal generates a charge or voltage on its surface. This is a fairly common phenomenon called the Piezoelectric effect. In the same way, if a voltage is applied, quartz will bend or change its shape very slightly. The electronics of a watch initially amplifies the noise at the crystal frequency. This builds into oscillation which starts the crystal ringing. This vibration gets transmitted to the circuits of the watch. The battery of a watch sends a constant charge through the crystal, which releases it at such a precise rate it helps the watch keep a very precise and perfect time.

You and everything else in this world are made up of electromagnetic energy. By holding a crystal your electrical impulses interact with the crystal creating this same type of Piezoelectric effect. The crystal begins to vibrate and the energy it creates can be transmitted to your own internal energy circuits.

Some say that the crystal itself is not energized, but when stimulated by an external electromagnetic field, oscillates and creates a vibration that can be generated and directed. Others suggest that the crystal holds it's own energy field and when connected to another energy field (such as a physical body) it can stimulate and enhance the similar energy pattern. Much like the molecules that attract other molecules, a formed crystal attracts other energy that it resembles. Personally I'm of the mind that crystals, much like those used in a watch, need electrical interaction to bend or charge the crystal. The electromagnetic field around your body, generates this reaction when it comes in contact with a crystal.
"
https://www.paganspath.com/meta/stones.htm
:-B

[Z2100]

Why is this back up at the top? lol

[Silver Pie]

Why is this back up at the top? lol

Because you posted. :))
(Sorry. Couldn't resist. And now I've made it go back to the top.)

[BeNotDeceived]

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.

This ANOTHER DIMENSION idea is interesting in view of images that may be SEEN via: search.php?keywords=38ii

Where TIME is another dimension and TIMING PATTERNS point to CHRIST, which as I understand it, assures that it can not be from an evil source.