[Deleted]

[dafty]

 there is no Josephite that is still to come..

Do you mean that you do not believe in "Josephite" as taught by ldsa or you think that there will be no Elias/forerunner before the Lords 2nd coming?
PS.http://www.isaiahinstitute.com/2017/12/ ... o.html?m=1

The tribulations come as a whirlwind and unannounced - all these guys can talk about is some false saviour that will come to save the world.

Elias has come to turn the heart of the children to the fathers and visa versa, Jesus said we will do greater works than what he did!! What works are those - family history. All things relating to our salvation have already been restored. There is no Davitic servant or Joephite or Elias still to come, the Scriptures are clear as well as the words of modern day prophets, those who claim they have exceeded the righteousness and knowledge of the prophets are deceived, God does not give revelation to men beyond that of the prophets.
The prophets and Jesus are the stumbling blocks of the house of Israel since the beginning people have claimed to know better and have greater understanding than the prophets - in every instance they have faild and their folly has been made public, and shouted upon the roof tops.

John 14:12-13
12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

Author: Ludlow, Victor L.http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/David,_Pro ... _Last_Days

King David (c. 1000 B.C.) remains today one of the most renowned Old Testament figures. His personality, spiritual sensitivity, creative abilities, military victories, and leadership carried him to the pinnacle of popularity. He had the potential to become an ideal king, but his kingship deteriorated after his adultery with Bathsheba and his involvement in Uriah's death. However, prophecy states that a model ruler in the last days will be "raised up" from David's lineage.

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that "the throne and kingdom of David is to be taken from him and given to another by the name of David in the last days, raised up out of his lineage" (TPJS, p. 339). Elder Orson Hyde, in his dedicatory prayer on the Mount of Olives, October 24, 1841, prophesied that the Jews would return to Jerusalem and that in time a leader called David, "even a descendant from the loins of ancient David, [would] be their king" (HC 4:457).

This predicted figure corresponds to a promised messianic servant. Hosea, speaking shortly before the loss of northern Israel, foretold that Israelites would return in the latter days "and seek the LORD their God, and David their king" (Hosea 3:5). Jeremiah prophesied of Israel and Judah's future righteousness, and of "David their king, whom I [the LORD] will raise up unto them" (Jer. 30:9; cf. 23:5; 33:15-22). And in Ezekiel it is written, "And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd. And I the LORD will be their God, and my servant David a prince among them" (Ezek. 34:23-24; cf. also 44:1-3).

Speaking to Joseph Smith, the angel Moroni 2 cited Old Testament passages telling of significant figures who would be involved with Christ's millennial reign (JS-H 1:40). As prophesied in Isaiah, it appears that two persons are spoken of, a "rod" and a "root" (11:1, 10)-one a leader "on whom there is laid much power," the other a person with special priesthood keys (D&C 113:3-6). These leaders are believed by some to be two forerunners, spoken of in rabbinic literature, one from Joseph and one from Judah (Encyclopedia Judaica, 11:1411).

Although noble attributes and spiritual powers characterize both of these messianic servants, Jesus Christ exemplifies these qualities perfectly (D&C 113:1-2). Jesus is the exemplar prophet, priest, and king. He identified himself as the prophet "like unto Moses" (Deut. 18:15; Acts 3:22-23; 3 Ne. 20:23) and was a high priest after the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 5:9-10;7:15-22). Jesus is King of Kings (Rev. 19:16), greater than all other leaders of all time. Some see in Jesus Christ the complete fulfillment of the prophecy of a future David. Others feel that, while the titles and functions of the future Davidic king could apply to Jesus, there will also be another righteous king by the name of David in the last days, a leader from the loins of David (and thus of Judah). VICTOR L. LUDLOW

Now, this article originally written in 1992, was resubmitted on an official LDS site in 2011. Therefore, if you can find any of the LDS leaders deny the existence of ROD, ROOT,David(all acting in the office of Elias) since 2011, a quote from them would be much appreciated x

[Spaced_Out]

 there is no Josephite that is still to come..

Do you mean that you do not believe in "Josephite" as taught by ldsa or you think that there will be no Elias/forerunner before the Lords 2nd coming?
PS.http://www.isaiahinstitute.com/2017/12/ ... o.html?m=1

The tribulations come as a whirlwind and unannounced - all these guys can talk about is some false saviour that will come to save the world.

Elias has come to turn the heart of the children to the fathers and visa versa, Jesus said we will do greater works than what he did!! What works are those - family history. All things relating to our salvation have already been restored. There is no Davitic servant or Joephite or Elias still to come, the Scriptures are clear as well as the words of modern day prophets, those who claim they have exceeded the righteousness and knowledge of the prophets are deceived, God does not give revelation to men beyond that of the prophets.
The prophets and Jesus are the stumbling blocks of the house of Israel since the beginning people have claimed to know better and have greater understanding than the prophets - in every instance they have faild and their folly has been made public, and shouted upon the roof tops.

John 14:12-13
12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

Author: Ludlow, Victor L.http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/David,_Pro ... _Last_Days

Although noble attributes and spiritual powers characterize both of these messianic servants, Jesus Christ exemplifies these qualities perfectly (D&C 113:1-2). Jesus is the exemplar prophet, priest, and king. He identified himself as the prophet "like unto Moses" (Deut. 18:15; Acts 3:22-23; 3 Ne. 20:23) and was a high priest after the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 5:9-10;7:15-22). Jesus is King of Kings (Rev. 19:16), greater than all other leaders of all time. Some see in Jesus Christ the complete fulfillment of the prophecy of a future David. Others feel that, while the titles and functions of the future Davidic king could apply to Jesus, there will also be another righteous king by the name of David in the last days, a leader from the loins of David (and thus of Judah). VICTOR L. LUDLOW

Now, this article originally written in 1992, was resubmitted on an official LDS site in 2011. Therefore, if you can find any of the LDS leaders deny the existence of ROD, ROOT,David(all acting in the office of Elias) since 2011, a quote from them would be much appreciated x

The so called official text is not official LDS doctrine and neither does it give a conclusion on who the davtic servant is and what His role will be.
Those scriptures all refer to the Messiah even Jehovah or Jesus the Christ, and Elias who restored the authority for work for the dead.
Below is many quotations and explanations from LDS prophets and manuals of instruction that are still used and printed today.

http://14427784.weebly.talkiforum.com/2 ... v-5362474/

Many here are wondering about the "second david" The following is information was taken directly from LDS.org from a teaching manual. It is very clear on who the "second David" is. It is taken from sources that are above reproach.

It is important to seek further light and knowledge from the 'best books'. So what better place to learn more about what Isaiah is teaching then directly from printed information in a manual from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

You can find and study this on LDS.org at https://www.lds.org/manual/old-testamen ... 1?lang=eng

This quote starts with Elder Bruce R. McConkie's explanation:

“Since it takes a first and a second coming to fulfill many Messianic prophecies, we of necessity must consider them here, and in the case of the Davidic-Messianic utterances show also how they apply to our Lord’s Second Coming.Christ is the Son of David, the Seed of David, the inheritor, through Mary his mother, of the blood of the great king. He is also called the Stem of Jesse and the Branch, meaning Branch of David. Messianic prophecies under these headings deal with the power and dominion he shall wield as he sits on David’s throne, and have reference almost exclusively to his second sojourn on planet earth.

“Jesse was the father of David. Isaiah speaks of the Stem of Jesse, whom he also designates as a branch growing out of the root of that ancient worthy. He recites how the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him; how he shall be mighty in judgment; how he shall smite the earth and slay the wicked; and how the lamb and the lion shall lie down together in that day—all of which has reference to the Second Coming and the millennial era thereby ushered in. (Isa. 11.) As to the identity of the Stem of Jesse, the revealed words says: ‘Verily thus saith the Lord: It is Christ.’ (D&C 113:1–2.) This also means that the Branch is Christ, as we shall now see from other related scriptures.

“By the mouth of Jeremiah, the Lord foretells the ancient scattering and the latter-day gathering of his chosen Israel. After they have been gathered ‘out of all countries whither I have driven them,’ after the kingdom has been restored to Israel as desired by the ancient apostles in Acts 1:6, then this eventuality, yet future and millennial in nature, shall be fulfilled: ‘Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.’ (Jer. 23:3–6.) That is to say, the King who shall reign personally upon the earth during the Millennium shall be the Branch who grew out of the house of David. He shall execute judgment and justice in all the earth because he is the Lord Jehovah, even him whom we call Christ.

Through Zechariah the Lord spoke similarly: ‘Thus saith the Lord of hosts: … I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH. … I will remove the iniquity of the land in one day [meaning]. In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall ye call every man his neighbour under the vine and under the fig tree.’ (Zech. 3:7–10.) Of that glorious millennial day the Lord says also: ‘Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord: Even he shall build the temple of the Lord; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne.’ (Zech. 6:12–13.)

“That the Branch of David is Christ is perfectly clear. We shall now see that he is also called David, that he is a new David, an Eternal David, who shall reign forever on the throne of his ancient ancestor. ‘It shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord of hosts, ‘that is, in the great millennial day of gathering, that ‘they shall serve the Lord their God, and David their king, whom I will raise up unto them.’ (Jer. 30:8–9.)

“‘In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land. In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The Lord our righteousness,’ which is to say that because the Great King himself reigns in her midst, even the city shall be called after him. ‘For thus saith the Lord; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel. … If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season; Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne.’ (Jer. 33:15–21.) David’s temporal throne fell long centuries before our Lord was born, and that portion of Israel which had not been scattered to the ends of the earth was in bondage to the iron yoke of Rome. But the promises remain. The eternal throne shall be restored in due course with a new David sitting thereon, and he shall reign forever and ever. …

“Through Ezekiel, the Lord speaks of this One Shepherd in this way: ‘I will save my flock. … And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd. And I the Lord will be their God, and my servant David a prince among them.’ When that day comes, ‘I will make with them a covenant of peace,’ the Lord says, meaning they shall have again the fulness of the everlasting gospel. Then ‘there shall be showers of blessing’; all Israel shall dwell safely and know that the Lord is their God. (Ezek. 34:22–31.)

“Through Ezekiel, the Lord also tells of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, which becomes the instrument in his hands to bring to pass the gathering of Israel. Of that day of gathering he says, ‘I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all.’ In that day he promises to ‘cleanse them,’ by baptism, ‘so shall they be my people, and I will be their God. And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them. And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children’s children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.’
“Then the Lord restates that his gathered people shall have his everlasting gospel with all its blessings; that he will set his sanctuary, meaning his temple, in their midst forevermore (as Zechariah recorded); and all Israel shall know that the Lord is their God. (Ezek. 37:15–28.)

“How glorious shall be the coming day when the second David, who is Christ, reigns on the throne of the first David; when all men shall dwell safely; when the earth shall be dotted with temples; and when the gospel covenant shall have full force and validity in all the earth!” (The Promised Messiah, pp. 192–95).
(13-59) Isaiah 11:9. “The Earth Shall Be Full of the Knowledge of the Lord”

The sacred knowledge of God will prevail on earth (see Smith, Teachings, p. 93), truth from which no one can hide. Elder Orson Pratt wrote: “The knowledge of God will then cover the earth as the waters cover the mighty deep. There will be no place of ignorance, no place of darkness, no place for those that will not serve God. Why? Because Jesus, the Great Creator, and also the Great Redeemer, will be himself on the earth, and his holy angels will be on the earth, and all the resurrected Saints that have died in former dispensations will all come forth, and they will be on the earth. What a happy earth this creation will be, when this purifying process shall come, and the earth be filled with the knowledge of God as the waters cover the great deep! What a change! Travel, then, from one end of the earth to another, you can find no wicked man, no drunken man, no man to blaspheme the name of the Great Creator, no one to lay hold on his neighbor’s goods, and steal them, no one to commit whoredoms—for all who commit whoredoms will be thrust down to hell, saith the Lord God Almighty, and all persons who commit sin will be speedily visited by the judgments of the Almighty!” (In Journal of Discourses, 21:325.)

The promises of revelation for this great era are outlined in the Doctrine and Covenants (see D&C 101:32–34).
(13-60) Isaiah 11:10–16. The Gathering of Israel from the World
Elder Wilford Woodruff summarized the spirit of this gathering in light of Isaiah’s words when he said:

“Isaiah’s soul seemed to be on fire, and his mind wrapt in the visions of the Almighty, while he declared, in the name of the Lord, that it should come to pass in the last days that God should set His hand again the second time to recover the remnant of His people, assemble the outcasts of Israel, gather together the dispersed of Judah, destroy the tongue of the Egyptian sea and make men go over dry-shod, gather them to Jerusalem on horses, mules, swift beasts, and in chariots, and rebuild Jerusalem upon her own heaps; while, at the same time, the destroyer of the Gentiles will be on his way; and while God was turning the captivity of Israel, he would put all their curses and afflictions upon the heads of the Gentiles, their enemies, who had not sought to recover, but to destroy them, and had trodden them under foot from generation to generation.

“At the same time the standard should be lifted up, that the honest in heart, the meek of the earth among the Gentiles, should seek unto it; and that Zion should be redeemed and be built up a holy city, that the glory and power of God should rest upon her, and be seen upon her; that the watchman upon Mount Ephraim might cry—’Arise ye, and let us go up unto Zion, the city of the Lord our God;’ that the Gentiles might come to her light, and kings to the brightness of her rising; that the Saints of God may have a place to flee to and stand in holy places while judgment works in the earth; that when the sword of God that is bathed in heaven falls upon Idumea, or the world,—when the Lord pleads with all flesh by sword and by fire, and the slain of the Lord are many, the Saints may escape these calamities by fleeing to the places of refuge, like Lot and Noah.” (History of the Church, 6:26).
(13-61) Isaiah 11:10, 12. “An Ensign of the People”

President Joseph Fielding Smith described the ensign and its significance:
“Over 125 years ago, in the little town of Fayette, Seneca County, New York, the Lord set up an ensign to the nations. It was in fulfilment of the prediction made by the Prophet Isaiah, which I have read. That ensign was the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which was established for the last time, never again to be destroyed or given to other people. It was the greatest event the world has seen since the day that the Redeemer was lifted upon the cross and worked out the infinite and eternal atonement. It meant more to mankind than anything else that has occurred since that day. …

“Following the raising of this ensign, the Lord sent forth his elders clothed with the priesthood and with power and authority, among the nations of the earth, bearing witness unto all peoples of the restoration of his Church, and calling upon the children of men to repent and receive the gospel; for now it was being preached in all the world as a witness before the end should come, that is, the end of the reign of wickedness and the establishment of the millennial reign of peace. The elders went forth as they were commanded, and are still preaching the gospel and gathering out from the nations the seed of Israel unto whom the promise was made.” (Doctrines of Salvation, 3:254–55; see also Isaiah 5:26.)

(13-62) Isaiah 11:11. “The Lord Shall Set His Hand Again the Second Time to Recover the Remnant of His People”

Elder LeGrand Richards commented on this scripture as follows:
“From this scripture we learn that the events described were to be in the future: ‘The Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people.’ There could not be a ‘second time’ unless there had been a first. The first time was when the Lord led Israel out of Egyptian bondage and captivity. When did the Lord set his hand the ‘second time’ to recover the remnant of his people? This we will now consider. From the above scripture we learn that three important events were to transpire: (1) He shall set up an ensign for the nations; (2) he shall assemble the outcasts of Israel; (3) he shall gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

“It is clear there are to be two gathering places—one for Israel and one for Judah. …

“Since Moses was the prophet the Lord raised up to lead Israel out of the land of Egypt and gave him power to perform such mighty miracles before Pharaoh, even to the leading of the children of Israel through the Red Sea on dry land, it seems very appropriate that Moses should hold the keys of the gathering of Israel when the Lord would ‘set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people.’ These were the keys Moses committed to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.

“When speaking of Israel, most people have the Jews in mind, and when referring to the gathering of Israel, they have in mind the return of the Jews to the land of Jerusalem. It should be remembered that the Jews, the descendants of Judah, represent but one of the twelve branches, or tribes, of the house of Israel—the family of Jacob.” (A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, pp. 207–9).

(13-63) Isaiah 11:13–14. “Ephraim Shall Not Envy Judah, and Judah Shall Not Vex Ephraim”

Anciently, during the days of the divided kingdoms, Judah (the leading tribe of the Southern Kingdom) and Ephraim (the leading tribe of the Northern Kingdom) were often in competition. Sometimes they were even at war with each other. Isaiah prophesied that in the last days that conflict would come to an end. Ezekiel, in a similar prophecy, promised that the house of Israel would no longer be divided, but under their true king, the New David (see Notes and Commentary on Isaiah 11:1) there would be one united nation again. (see Ezekiel 37:15–25.) Jeremiah and Zechariah also spoke of the future reuniting of the house of Israel (see Jeremiah 3:18; Zechariah 10:6–7).

Elder LeGrand Richards explained how this prophecy must be fulfilled:
“We are from Ephraim. The Lord expects us, since we are the custodians of his gospel as restored in these latter days, according to my understanding, to extend the hand of friendship to Judah, because after all we are all descendants of the prophets Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and we come under the promises that through their descendants should all the nations of the earth be blessed.

“I do not know how the enmity and the envy between Ephraim and Judah can disappear except that we of the house of Ephraim, who have the custody of the gospel, should lead out in trying to bring to this branch of the house of Israel the blessings of the restored gospel. …

“And it seems to me that the only way that the tribe of Judah can be sanctified to dwell in his presence forever and ever will be when we bring to them the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ as the Savior promised them it would be brought in the latter days.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1956, pp. 23–24.)

(13-64) Isaiah 11:15–16. “The Lord Shall Utterly Destroy the Tongue of the Egyptian Sea … and There Shall Be an Highway”

Elder Parley P. Pratt describes the literal meaning of the verses as a part of this gathering of Israel: “We have also presented before us, in verse 15, the marvelous power of God, which will be displayed in the destruction of a small branch of the Red Sea, called the tongue of the Egyptian Sea, and also the dividing of the seven streams of some river [perhaps], and causing men to go over dryshod; and lest any should not understand it literally, verse 16 says that ‘there shall be an highway for the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria; like as it was to Israel in the day that he came up out of the land of Egypt.’ Now we have only to ask whether, in the days of Moses, the Red Sea was literally divided or whether it was only a figure? for as it was then, so it shall be again.” (Voice of Warning, p. 35).

(13-65) Isaiah 12. A Millennial Hymn
This brief chapter is a hymn of praise for the great millennial era when the Lord will reign “in the midst” of His people (Isaiah 12:6).

(13-66) Isaiah 12:2. “God Is My Salvation … the Lord Jehovah Is My Strength”

A literal translation of this verse reveals the sacred names and name-titles of Deity as they are used scripturally.
“‘Behold El is my salvation,
I shall trust and not be afraid;
For my strength and my song is Yah, Yehovah,
And he has become my salvation.’
“‘El’ is the singular of Elohim. It seldom occurs in the Bible in singular. In the English Bible both singular and plural are rendered by the word ‘God.’ ‘Yah’ is a contracted form of Jehovah or Yehovah, which in the Bible is usually rendered in English as ‘LORD.’ In the King James Version here, to avoid LORD LORD, they have rendered it as LORD JEHOVAH. This is one of the few times the name is written out fully as Jehovah in the King James translation. [See] The short form Yah occurs in Hebrew also in Exodus 15:2and Psalms 118:14.” (Ellis T. Rasmussen, An Introduction to the Old Testament and Its Teachings, 2:46.)

It may be hard to read this considering it may not have formatted correctly when I copied and pasted. You can find the link above and read it on LDS.org though. We will never go wrong by seeking truth from the brethren written in official lesson manuals.

[Spaced_Out]

To answer the original thread "The end times will be officially announced by the leadership" is no; there will be sever tribulations that start unannounced, such that the earth has not seen before and they will continue till the second coming.
Ephraim will hold the rights to the PH and the work in the temples till Jesus comes, no decedent of David being of the tribe of Judah will take rule till King David the Messiah comes ie the second comming.

[Love]

Ogden Kraut's very extensive and comprehensive research into this One Mighty and Strong doctrine: One Mighty and Strong.

So I read this feed if Kraut LDSFF Guy that has a lot of Church criticism, and a lot ofMighty and Strong imposters. IT honestly scares me how much faulse stuff out there about the One Mighty ONE as there is good. I don't like that the "best "research" we can find come from the ldsff guy.

[Spaced_Out]

But I won't prophesy concerning you. I don't want you to be destroyed. Your mind is dark, sure. You are a novice, sure. You've got no doctrinal leg to stand on, sure. But you ain't my enemy.

I won't let the devil use me to destroy you, and I won't be destroyed by him.

You and the devil have no power to destroy, you are most welcome to prophecy against me all day long, thinking that it by doing so the power of the evil one will destroy me - hahahahahaaa what a joke.
No one has the ability to destroy another by false prophecy -only the Gods can destroy people - you speak as if you can command God.

I will make a prophecy "Pride comes before a fall".

[Jonesy]

But all my prophecies are made sure by God. And that's the problem. It doesn't matter what you think or believe, either. Should I prophesy, God will make it happen. Call them false all you want. They all end up coming to pass sooner or later. It is, after all, the gift to prophesy. If the prophecy didn't come to pass, it wouldn't be much of a gift, would it?

Sorry to butt in, but does your gift work to save others? I could use some of that...

[Jonesy]

Sorry to butt in, but does your gift work to save others? I could use some of that...

What do you mean? You want me to prophesy that some money is coming your way, or something? Lol.

Haha Not concerned temporally speaking. I’m talking about prophesying salvation to a person.

[Jonesy]

Sorry to butt in, but does your gift work to save others? I could use some of that...

What do you mean? You want me to prophesy that some money is coming your way, or something? Lol.

Haha Not concerned temporally speaking. I’m talking about prophesying salvation to a person.

That's the more sure word of prophecy. Sure, why not? That comes under the jurisdiction of the gift to prophesy. But I've never uttered such a prophecy. However, I do know of a person who has received such a prophecy.

Then wouldn’t you just use that gift for all your loved ones? I don’t get it. Can someone just ask for it, or you just decide to give it?

[Love]

Now, Silver doesn't have a single clue as to what these scriptures are talking about, because he relies solely upon what the leadership says. The leadership don't know what the scripture means, either.

I'm trying to figure out why you are posting anywhere other than Outer Darkness. I hope you repent soon, heretic.

LMAO. I post here because my mind is spiritually enlightened with the light of God, whereas your mind is dark. You also continue to call me a heretic, which might bode badly for you, for in addition to the gift of the word of knowledge, I also have the gift to prophesy, and whatsoever I prophesy, the Lord will make happen. However, I will forego using that gift and just attempt to enlighten that dark mind of yours. Perhaps you will come to your senses and either learn something, or at the very least learn to keep your mouth shut. Gospel novices ought to listen more than speak, and to ponder things they don't understand instead of outright opposing them.

As you quoted me saying, "The leadership don't know what the scripture means." From the Wikipedia entry on One Mighty and Strong:

Interpretation by the LDS Church

In a 1905 statement, the First Presidency of the LDS Church—composed of Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund—offered two possible interpretations of the prophecy.

Possibility #1: Closed prophecy

First, the Presidency stated that Smith's words may have been a prophecy of what would happen if the presiding bishop of the church, Edward Partridge, failed to repent and fulfill his calling in the church:

It is to be observed first of all that the subject of this whole letter, as also the part of it subsequently accepted as a revelation, relates to the affairs of the Church in Missouri, the gathering of the Saints to that land and obtaining their inheritances under the law of consecration and stewardship; and the Prophet [Joseph Smith] deals especially with the matter of what is to become of those who fail to receive their inheritances by order or deed from the bishop. ...

It was while these conditions of rebellion, jealousy, pride, unbelief and hardness of heart prevailed among the brethren in Zion—Jackson county, Missouri—in all of which Bishop Partridge participated, that the words of the revelation taken from the letter to William W. Phelps, of the 27th of November, 1832, were written. The "man who was called and appointed of God" to "divide unto the Saints their inheritance"—Edward Partridge—was at that time out of order, neglecting his own duty, and putting "forth his hand to steady the ark"; hence, he was warned of the judgment of God impending, and the prediction was made that another, "one mighty and strong," would be sent of God to take his place, to have his bishopric—one having the spirit and power of that high office resting upon him, by which he would have power to "set in order the house of God, and arrange by lot the inheritance of the Saints"; in other words, one who would do the work that Bishop Edward Partridge had been appointed to do, but had failed to accomplish. ...

And inasmuch as through his repentance and sacrifices and suffering, Bishop Edward Partridge undoubtedly obtained a mitigation of the threatened judgment against him of falling "by the shaft of death, like as a tree that is smitten by the vivid shaft of lightning," so the occasion for sending another to fill his station—"one mighty and strong to set in order the house of God, and to arrange by lot the inheritances of the Saints"—may also be considered as having passed away and the whole incident of the prophecy closed.[5]

Possibility #2: Prophecy of a future presiding bishop

However, the First Presidency also offered the possibility that the prophecy was not closed, and that the One Mighty and Strong would be a future presiding bishop of the church when the Latter-day Saints return to Jackson County, Missouri. Concerning this possibility, the First Presidency stated:

If, however, there are those who will still insist that the prophecy concerning the coming of "one mighty and strong" is still to be regarded as relating to the future, let the Latter-day Saints know that he will be a future bishop of the Church who will be with the Saints in Zion, Jackson county, Missouri, when the Lord shall establish them in that land; and he will be so blessed with the spirit and power of his calling that he will be able to set in order the house of God, pertaining to the department of the work under his jurisdiction; and in righteousness and justice will "arrange by lot the inheritances of the Saints." He will hold the same high and exalted station that Edward Partridge held; for the latter was called to do just this kind of work—that is, to set in order the house of God pertaining to settling the Saints upon their inheritances.[5]

Contemporary interpretation in the LDS Church

Curriculum material published by the LDS Church for use in the Church Educational System favors the first of the 1905 First Presidency interpretations.[6] In fact, the curriculum does not present the text of the First Presidency's proposed second possibility.

In other words, this is nothing more than an official guess. Then there's this post by someone on this forum:

Hello again,

It is interesting the mix of reviews for Avraham's work. Something that is heavily mis-understood is section 85 about the One mighty and strong. Most LDS today believe that section was for brother partridge, and never meant to be taken out of context as a future prophet or what have you.

Avraham uses this verse numerous times in his work. Why? Is he saying the church is apostate and needs a new prophet? or he is simply saying God has a birthright heir to the presidency of the priesthood yet in the future to take over a church in good standing.

The following will show that the One mighty and Strong concept was not a local 1830's only concept to early members of the church.

About 20 years before the turn of the century, there was a footnote to the words "One Mighty and Strong" in Section 85 stating "a future messenger". This was added by Orson Pratt with official Church approval at that time, and remained in the Doctrine and Covenants for over 40 years. It was removed in 1921 in an effort to eliminate so much speculation among the members.

A future messenger? Really? Not localalized 1830's.

In a letter from Oliver Cowdery to John Whitmer, January 1, 1834, referring to D & C 85, it states:

“Brother Joseph says that the item in his letter that says that the man that <was> called of God, etc. And puts forth his hand to steady the ark of God does not mean that anyone had at that time, but it was given for a caution to those in high <places> standing to beware lest they should fall by the shaft of death.” (original in Huntington Library, California)

Again, future

"The decreed mission of the ‘One Mighty and Strong Strong’ is the second greatest and the second most glorious doctrine found in holy writ. It is a most logical event. It is divine. If records did not reveal his coming, and the Church offered membership in her institution as the only necessary requirement for one to enter Zion when it is redeemed; then that very principle would prove her a man man-made institution. On the other hand, if her doctrines set forth that God has 'one mighty and strong' who is to come and weed out the unworthy, and judge the remainder of us a little more severely, free from all favoritism, then that indicates she is divine."

Francis Michael Darter; Zion Zion’s Redemption s p. 114, 1933; Deseret Book Publishing Co.; Lecture No. 1:THE ONE MIGHTY AND STRONG, ROOT OF JESSE, or MARRED SERVANT.

Read D&C 113

Read D&C 103:15-18

This is all I have time to post for now.

firend's quotes are also found in Ogden Kraut's writings about the One Mighty and Strong. (I will leave a link to Ogden's writings, which include full reproductions of all the letters involved in this doctrine.) If these quotes are accurate, then the belief at that time was that there would be a future messenger coming, and also that the "steady the ark" thing was directed at that leaders of the church, as a warning to them, just as I have taught. So, nothing I have written here is heretical. The only one out of order here, is you, Silver.

Here, then, is Ogden Kraut's very extensive and comprehensive research into this One Mighty and Strong doctrine: One Mighty and Strong.

Regarding the First Presidency's official guess as to the meaning of the passage, Ogden Kraut himself remarks:

It is interesting to note that in the statement itself there are three contradictory conclusions: (1) “the whole incident of the prophecy <is> closed;” (2) if this prophecy does relate to the future, “he will be a future bishop of the Church;” and (3) he “will be called and accepted when the time comes for his services.”

Initially the First Presidency’s statement is putting the matter in the past and considering it a CLOSED issue. They later say, however, that IF he comes, he will be a future bishop in the church, which suggests that there is still room for doubt and it MAY BE a future event. The Official Statement concludes with the positive statement that the One Mighty and Strong WILL COME in the future. Such contradictions leave the reader only more confused.

It's a mass of confusion because the Lord never explained it to the First Presidency (which caused them to just make a guess), just as He never gave Joseph Smith an answer about when the Second Coming would be. That knowledge wasn't meant for their day, but for ours. Why? Because these are the very times of the Josephite, who has finally been born and is now alive and kicking in his box.

The quote is in this chain.

[Love]

Ogden Kraut's very extensive and comprehensive research into this One Mighty and Strong doctrine: One Mighty and Strong.

So I read this feed if Kraut LDSFF Guy that has a lot of Church criticism, and a lot ofMighty and Strong imposters. IT honestly scares me how much faulse stuff out there about the One Mighty ONE as there is good. I don't like that the "best "research" we can find come from the ldsff guy.

firend's quotes are also found in Ogden Kraut's writings about the One Mighty and Strong. (I will leave a link to Ogden's writings, which include full reproductions of all the letters involved in this doctrine.) If these quotes are accurate, then the belief at that time was that there would be a future messenger coming, and also that the "steady the ark" thing was directed at that leaders of the church, as a warning to them, just as I have taught. So, nothing I have written here is heretical. The only one out of order here, is you, Silver.

Here, then, is Ogden Kraut's very extensive and comprehensive research into this One Mighty and Strong doctrine: One Mighty and Strong.

[Love]

So I read this feed if Kraut LDSFF Guy that has a lot of Church criticism, and a lot ofMighty and Strong imposters. IT honestly scares me how much faulse stuff out thier about the One Mighty ONE as there is good. I don't like that the "best "research" we can find come from the ldsff guy.

Well, that book by Ogden Kraut is actually pretty well done. He goes over all the various sources about the One Mighty and Strong, giving the full letters of everything. In other words, he quotes the full letter written by Joseph Smith where we get D&C 85. (That section is a part of that letter.) And he quotes the full First Presidency letter giving the official interpretation of that section. And he quotes a lot of other stuff, in full. From that book he wrote, we learn that the First Presidency letter was written by B.H. Roberts and then signed by the First Presidency. (Roberts was assigned to research the topic.) Also, we learn that at that time (in 1905) there were several individuals claiming to be the One Mighty and Strong. So the letter was used to shut these people up. And we learn of the early understandings of the OMAS among the saints, that it was understood to be a future messenger and so on. Ogden also goes into the many people who have claimed to be the OMAS over the years. It's a pretty well done book, and looks to be fairly accurate.

Ogden's own idea was that the OMAS will probably be Joseph Smith, returned from the dead in a resurrected body. But he wasn't sure. Also, he reviewed all the OMAS scriptures, with especial focus about things needing to get out of order before they could get back in order. Now, Ogden Kraut was a LDS who later was excommunicated for practicing polygamy, but this particular book seems fairly trustworthy to me, (having read it just yesterday the first time.) It contains a lot of historical information that is quite useful to get to the bottom of this whole OMAS issue, however the conclusions as to who the OMAS is or will be are inconclusive. In other words, Ogden's own assessment was that this OMAS guy must still be coming, but he won't be just any mortal guy, but will be a guy who is more like an angel (hence thinking that it'll be Joseph Smith resurrected.) So, mere mortals don't match the description. Also, Ogden disagreed with the First Presidency's characterization of the OMAS as just a presiding bishop. To Ogden, this guy will have way too much power to be just a presiding bishop.

The conclusions, then, of all the various people mentioned in the book (for Ogden goes over all the different theories put forth by the LDS from the days of Joseph Smith to the time of the publication of this book), are not necessarily correct, but the information found in Ogden's book, the historical information, seems useful and trustworthy. I hope this review helps.

Great review you have a gift for words, I wish the research came from a better source so it could be shared with more confidence vs shame of this guys beliefs.

[Silver]

I have had this uncanny ability for years to make apostates play all their cards.

What you have, pawn, is the spirit of contention. Let's review, shall we? Here's your first comment/attack:

If you want to know when the end times officially starts, I'll tell you: when the Josephite comes out of his box and makes his announcement, he will afterward go to the church leadership and make them eat humble pie. And then those now humbled to the dust leaders will stand in front of the pulpit in general conference, and they will admit all their errors, in doctrine and in practice and in policy, and they will confess all their sins and faults, and they will say that a new era has officially started, that the times of shadows has ceased and now the prophecies will proceed literally. They will tell the saints how long we have before this and that happens, as they receive it from the Josephite, and so forth. And when the end times officially begins, the Josephite will tell them, "The end times has now officially begun. Go and tell the saints." And that, too, will be officially announced by the church leadership. So, nobody needs to guess at these things.

Your writings have always seemed a bit fringy, so I've just skimmed them in the past. Today though I noticed the highlighted section. No wonder you attached the word anarchist to your moniker. I'll give you a 90 for writing with confidence and a ZERO for accuracy. Total score: 45. You fail.

This comment added nothing to the discussion, but was merely a pot shot. It was designed solely to provoke me to anger, to stir up contention. Merely highlighting my own words and then saying, essentially, "You're wrong!" is no argument. Unless you can back up your words with some evidence that I'm wrong, all you do is show that you're nothing but a novice.

The spirit of contention is the spirit of the devil, and the devil played his card, in you. He used his power to tempt you to write this attack on me, to stir up contention, hoping to destroy one or both of us. You immediately came across to me as a servant of Satan, for Satan himself could have typed the above adolescent attack, and likely whispered the words into your ear as you typed them.

I had two options: ignore you or defend myself. I chose to defend. In hindsight, that was a mistake, for which I apologize. I got played. Not by you, but by the adversary. For he is always seeking to stop me, at every turn. At this time, you were his pawn, and you are still his pawn. Nevertheless, my hat's off to the cunning devil. It was a brilliant maneuver, but the chess game we are playing ain't over, yet.

Then he again inspired you to make the following comment/attack, this time applying the label of heresy to what I teach:

This is the kind of heresy that the scriptures warns about. It is pleasing to the ears of those who have been "offended" by some mean ol' bad ol' Bishop/Stake President/whomever yet it leads to spiritual death. Those who have those sorts of feelings would do well to recall Elder Holland's message about imperfect leaders and our attitudes towards them.

Where the heretics always mess up is in their assumption that the church leadership has gone astray. That's essentially saying that Christ can't run His own Church, that he's not the Head of it, that He turned it over to a bunch of mortals and they have completely ruined it. Well, as clear thinkers know, it's not our Church to mess up. The Church belongs to Christ and He will pick the servants to run it.

This was a second attack. Once again I defended myself and my position. (In hindsight, I should have just ignored you.)

Then you posted yet another attack, again calling me a heretic:

I'm trying to figure out why you are posting anywhere other than Outer Darkness. I hope you repent soon, heretic.

Once again, I took the satanic bait and defended myself and my position, but this time I got wise to what was going on, for the option of using one of my gifts against you presented itself, and that's when I realized what the devil's plan in this was all about. So I defended myself, with words only, and put that other option on the shelf. And then proceeded to receive a lashing from God for letting the devil get so far.

So, now it ends. I won't take the bait any longer. The devil has played his card in you, to get to me, to get me to sin and perhaps be destroyed by it, and perhaps to get me to prophesy some evil upon you, to have you destroyed thereby. I'm not going to do it, though. And I'm not going to take this bait any longer.

The devil can't get to me directly, so he uses pawns such as you. But I won't prophesy concerning you. I don't want you to be destroyed. Your mind is dark, sure. You are a novice, sure. You've got no doctrinal leg to stand on, sure. But you ain't my enemy. You are just a pawn of my real enemy. His little maneuver distracted me for a little while, and might have worked, but didn't.

So, you can call me all the labels and names you want. I'm going to use option one and just ignore you. I won't let the devil use me to destroy you, and I won't be destroyed by him. If one of us is going to be destroyed, it won't be me. It will be you. Like I said before, if you continue in this path you have chosen of taking pot shots and stirring up contention and attacking people, it will bode badly for you. Either the devil will lead you into destruction, as he is already leading you, or God will do it Himself. Hopefully you realize before it's too late that you've been played by the adversary.

Please, for your sake, and for those around you, seek help. You have really let this nonsense you're spouting take over your mental faculties. Like Sherem. Like Nehor. Like Korihor. It ended badly for all of them.

[gardener4life]

I have had this uncanny ability for years to make apostates play all their cards.

What you have, pawn, is the spirit of contention. Let's review, shall we? Here's your first comment/attack:

If you want to know when the end times officially starts, I'll tell you: when the Josephite comes out of his box and makes his announcement, he will afterward go to the church leadership and make them eat humble pie. And then those now humbled to the dust leaders will stand in front of the pulpit in general conference, and they will admit all their errors, in doctrine and in practice and in policy, and they will confess all their sins and faults, and they will say that a new era has officially started, that the times of shadows has ceased and now the prophecies will proceed literally. They will tell the saints how long we have before this and that happens, as they receive it from the Josephite, and so forth. And when the end times officially begins, the Josephite will tell them, "The end times has now officially begun. Go and tell the saints." And that, too, will be officially announced by the church leadership. So, nobody needs to guess at these things.

Your writings have always seemed a bit fringy, so I've just skimmed them in the past. Today though I noticed the highlighted section. No wonder you attached the word anarchist to your moniker. I'll give you a 90 for writing with confidence and a ZERO for accuracy. Total score: 45. You fail.

This comment added nothing to the discussion, but was merely a pot shot. It was designed solely to provoke me to anger, to stir up contention. Merely highlighting my own words and then saying, essentially, "You're wrong!" is no argument. Unless you can back up your words with some evidence that I'm wrong, all you do is show that you're nothing but a novice.

The spirit of contention is the spirit of the devil, and the devil played his card, in you. He used his power to tempt you to write this attack on me, to stir up contention, hoping to destroy one or both of us. You immediately came across to me as a servant of Satan, for Satan himself could have typed the above adolescent attack, and likely whispered the words into your ear as you typed them.

I had two options: ignore you or defend myself. I chose to defend. In hindsight, that was a mistake, for which I apologize. I got played. Not by you, but by the adversary. For he is always seeking to stop me, at every turn. At this time, you were his pawn, and you are still his pawn. Nevertheless, my hat's off to the cunning devil. It was a brilliant maneuver, but the chess game we are playing ain't over, yet.

Then he again inspired you to make the following comment/attack, this time applying the label of heresy to what I teach:

This is the kind of heresy that the scriptures warns about. It is pleasing to the ears of those who have been "offended" by some mean ol' bad ol' Bishop/Stake President/whomever yet it leads to spiritual death. Those who have those sorts of feelings would do well to recall Elder Holland's message about imperfect leaders and our attitudes towards them.

Where the heretics always mess up is in their assumption that the church leadership has gone astray. That's essentially saying that Christ can't run His own Church, that he's not the Head of it, that He turned it over to a bunch of mortals and they have completely ruined it. Well, as clear thinkers know, it's not our Church to mess up. The Church belongs to Christ and He will pick the servants to run it.

This was a second attack. Once again I defended myself and my position. (In hindsight, I should have just ignored you.)

Then you posted yet another attack, again calling me a heretic:

I'm trying to figure out why you are posting anywhere other than Outer Darkness. I hope you repent soon, heretic.

Once again, I took the satanic bait and defended myself and my position, but this time I got wise to what was going on, for the option of using one of my gifts against you presented itself, and that's when I realized what the devil's plan in this was all about. So I defended myself, with words only, and put that other option on the shelf. And then proceeded to receive a lashing from God for letting the devil get so far.

So, now it ends. I won't take the bait any longer. The devil has played his card in you, to get to me, to get me to sin and perhaps be destroyed by it, and perhaps to get me to prophesy some evil upon you, to have you destroyed thereby. I'm not going to do it, though. And I'm not going to take this bait any longer.

The devil can't get to me directly, so he uses pawns such as you. But I won't prophesy concerning you. I don't want you to be destroyed. Your mind is dark, sure. You are a novice, sure. You've got no doctrinal leg to stand on, sure. But you ain't my enemy. You are just a pawn of my real enemy. His little maneuver distracted me for a little while, and might have worked, but didn't.

So, you can call me all the labels and names you want. I'm going to use option one and just ignore you. I won't let the devil use me to destroy you, and I won't be destroyed by him. If one of us is going to be destroyed, it won't be me. It will be you. Like I said before, if you continue in this path you have chosen of taking pot shots and stirring up contention and attacking people, it will bode badly for you. Either the devil will lead you into destruction, as he is already leading you, or God will do it Himself. Hopefully you realize before it's too late that you've been played by the adversary.

Please, for your sake, and for those around you, seek help. You have really let this nonsense you're spouting take over your mental faculties. Like Sherem. Like Nehor. Like Korihor. It ended badly for all of them.

You know lately Silver's comments have been sort of useful sometimes. I've been surprised. XD And in this case what's interesting is that you are right. Today when I was reading in the book of Mormon one of the characteristics I saw in a few verses about Nehor types was that they weren't just studying how to lead the good astray, they were doing a very vile version of it. One concept was to play the victim and make the real victim as the aggressor in perverted law mechanisms. This couldn't be allowed to remain because this confuses people. You have to have the spirit of revelation and also even sometimes need to know someone for a while to identify this. Many parents fall for the idea that their kid was bullied at school and only find out many years later their child was actually the bully. I ran into a case like this in a relative recently. It was sad to think about.

[Talon65]

Now, Silver doesn't have a single clue as to what these scriptures are talking about, because he relies solely upon what the leadership says. The leadership don't know what the scripture means, either.

I'm trying to figure out why you are posting anywhere other than Outer Darkness. I hope you repent soon, heretic.

LMAO. I post here because my mind is spiritually enlightened with the light of God, whereas your mind is dark. You also continue to call me a heretic, which might bode badly for you, for in addition to the gift of the word of knowledge, I also have the gift to prophesy, and whatsoever I prophesy, the Lord will make happen. However, I will forego using that gift and just attempt to enlighten that dark mind of yours. Perhaps you will come to your senses and either learn something, or at the very least learn to keep your mouth shut. Gospel novices ought to listen more than speak, and to ponder things they don't understand instead of outright opposing them.

As you quoted me saying, "The leadership don't know what the scripture means." From the Wikipedia entry on One Mighty and Strong:

Interpretation by the LDS Church

In a 1905 statement, the First Presidency of the LDS Church—composed of Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund—offered two possible interpretations of the prophecy.

Possibility #1: Closed prophecy

First, the Presidency stated that Smith's words may have been a prophecy of what would happen if the presiding bishop of the church, Edward Partridge, failed to repent and fulfill his calling in the church:

It is to be observed first of all that the subject of this whole letter, as also the part of it subsequently accepted as a revelation, relates to the affairs of the Church in Missouri, the gathering of the Saints to that land and obtaining their inheritances under the law of consecration and stewardship; and the Prophet [Joseph Smith] deals especially with the matter of what is to become of those who fail to receive their inheritances by order or deed from the bishop. ...

It was while these conditions of rebellion, jealousy, pride, unbelief and hardness of heart prevailed among the brethren in Zion—Jackson county, Missouri—in all of which Bishop Partridge participated, that the words of the revelation taken from the letter to William W. Phelps, of the 27th of November, 1832, were written. The "man who was called and appointed of God" to "divide unto the Saints their inheritance"—Edward Partridge—was at that time out of order, neglecting his own duty, and putting "forth his hand to steady the ark"; hence, he was warned of the judgment of God impending, and the prediction was made that another, "one mighty and strong," would be sent of God to take his place, to have his bishopric—one having the spirit and power of that high office resting upon him, by which he would have power to "set in order the house of God, and arrange by lot the inheritance of the Saints"; in other words, one who would do the work that Bishop Edward Partridge had been appointed to do, but had failed to accomplish. ...

And inasmuch as through his repentance and sacrifices and suffering, Bishop Edward Partridge undoubtedly obtained a mitigation of the threatened judgment against him of falling "by the shaft of death, like as a tree that is smitten by the vivid shaft of lightning," so the occasion for sending another to fill his station—"one mighty and strong to set in order the house of God, and to arrange by lot the inheritances of the Saints"—may also be considered as having passed away and the whole incident of the prophecy closed.[5]

Possibility #2: Prophecy of a future presiding bishop

However, the First Presidency also offered the possibility that the prophecy was not closed, and that the One Mighty and Strong would be a future presiding bishop of the church when the Latter-day Saints return to Jackson County, Missouri. Concerning this possibility, the First Presidency stated:

If, however, there are those who will still insist that the prophecy concerning the coming of "one mighty and strong" is still to be regarded as relating to the future, let the Latter-day Saints know that he will be a future bishop of the Church who will be with the Saints in Zion, Jackson county, Missouri, when the Lord shall establish them in that land; and he will be so blessed with the spirit and power of his calling that he will be able to set in order the house of God, pertaining to the department of the work under his jurisdiction; and in righteousness and justice will "arrange by lot the inheritances of the Saints." He will hold the same high and exalted station that Edward Partridge held; for the latter was called to do just this kind of work—that is, to set in order the house of God pertaining to settling the Saints upon their inheritances.[5]

Contemporary interpretation in the LDS Church

Curriculum material published by the LDS Church for use in the Church Educational System favors the first of the 1905 First Presidency interpretations.[6] In fact, the curriculum does not present the text of the First Presidency's proposed second possibility.

In other words, this is nothing more than an official guess. Then there's this post by someone on this forum:

Hello again,

It is interesting the mix of reviews for Avraham's work. Something that is heavily mis-understood is section 85 about the One mighty and strong. Most LDS today believe that section was for brother partridge, and never meant to be taken out of context as a future prophet or what have you.

Avraham uses this verse numerous times in his work. Why? Is he saying the church is apostate and needs a new prophet? or he is simply saying God has a birthright heir to the presidency of the priesthood yet in the future to take over a church in good standing.

The following will show that the One mighty and Strong concept was not a local 1830's only concept to early members of the church.

About 20 years before the turn of the century, there was a footnote to the words "One Mighty and Strong" in Section 85 stating "a future messenger". This was added by Orson Pratt with official Church approval at that time, and remained in the Doctrine and Covenants for over 40 years. It was removed in 1921 in an effort to eliminate so much speculation among the members.

A future messenger? Really? Not localalized 1830's.

In a letter from Oliver Cowdery to John Whitmer, January 1, 1834, referring to D & C 85, it states:

“Brother Joseph says that the item in his letter that says that the man that <was> called of God, etc. And puts forth his hand to steady the ark of God does not mean that anyone had at that time, but it was given for a caution to those in high <places> standing to beware lest they should fall by the shaft of death.” (original in Huntington Library, California)

Again, future

"The decreed mission of the ‘One Mighty and Strong Strong’ is the second greatest and the second most glorious doctrine found in holy writ. It is a most logical event. It is divine. If records did not reveal his coming, and the Church offered membership in her institution as the only necessary requirement for one to enter Zion when it is redeemed; then that very principle would prove her a man man-made institution. On the other hand, if her doctrines set forth that God has 'one mighty and strong' who is to come and weed out the unworthy, and judge the remainder of us a little more severely, free from all favoritism, then that indicates she is divine."

Francis Michael Darter; Zion Zion’s Redemption s p. 114, 1933; Deseret Book Publishing Co.; Lecture No. 1:THE ONE MIGHTY AND STRONG, ROOT OF JESSE, or MARRED SERVANT.

Read D&C 113

Read D&C 103:15-18

This is all I have time to post for now.

firend's quotes are also found in Ogden Kraut's writings about the One Mighty and Strong. (I will leave a link to Ogden's writings, which include full reproductions of all the letters involved in this doctrine.) If these quotes are accurate, then the belief at that time was that there would be a future messenger coming, and also that the "steady the ark" thing was directed at that leaders of the church, as a warning to them, just as I have taught. So, nothing I have written here is heretical. The only one out of order here, is you, Silver.

Here, then, is Ogden Kraut's very extensive and comprehensive research into this One Mighty and Strong doctrine: One Mighty and Strong.

Regarding the First Presidency's official guess as to the meaning of the passage, Ogden Kraut himself remarks:

It is interesting to note that in the statement itself there are three contradictory conclusions: (1) “the whole incident of the prophecy <is> closed;” (2) if this prophecy does relate to the future, “he will be a future bishop of the Church;” and (3) he “will be called and accepted when the time comes for his services.”

Initially the First Presidency’s statement is putting the matter in the past and considering it a CLOSED issue. They later say, however, that IF he comes, he will be a future bishop in the church, which suggests that there is still room for doubt and it MAY BE a future event. The Official Statement concludes with the positive statement that the One Mighty and Strong WILL COME in the future. Such contradictions leave the reader only more confused.

It's a mass of confusion because the Lord never explained it to the First Presidency (which caused them to just make a guess), just as He never gave Joseph Smith an answer about when the Second Coming would be. That knowledge wasn't meant for their day, but for ours. Why? Because these are the very times of the Josephite, who has finally been born and is now alive and kicking in his box.

aside from all the things you claim to possess (which are many) its quite apparent that the one thing you lack, is humility, your boasting, belittling and lack of kindness aptly illustrates that I should completely ignore your postings in the future - see? you DID teach me something after all...

[Durzan]

LDSAnarchist, you and others have often brought interesting things to the table. You have said many things that have enlightened my mind and gotten me to think, and these thoughts have also led to some moments of communication by the spirit; however, you have also said things that have caused my spirit to shy away.

Your words are as dull two-edged sword; You speak with an enlightened spiritual tongue, but at the same time, the words with which you speak run with a subtle corruption. A corruption that you may or may not realize exists. Your words are even as the writings in the Apocrypha, valuable to those with the Spirit of Discernment, but able to sway those who don't have such gifts onto unseen paths where the Devil can snare them. Note that my words may very well be the same.

Your words and power can unintentionally harm others as much as it helps. Be careful about what you say, as well as what you don't say. Bridle your words, actions, and abilities if you have them, for they are as much a blessing as they are a curse. Also, I do sense a degree of pride and arrogance coming from you. Bridle that as well, lest it lead you unto forbidden paths yourself. True followers of Christ seeks to be humble regardless of the gifts they posses, lest he or she be compelled to be humble by the Lord.

Silver and those of you who are "attacking" LDSA, you are all staunch defenders of the traditional gospel, I can sense that. Your rebukes to LDSAnarchist come out of your sense of christ-like love for him, I am sure... but nevertheless you have crossed from a plain and simple rebuke of love into contentious territory, and I would also gently ask you to bridle your tongue.Lets keep things alive in this thread without the corruption of the spirit of contention. If I see it again, I may not be so gentle with my words.

Now, with that out of the way back on topic: this thread is incredibly interesting.

[Silver]

LDSAnarchist, you and others have often brought interesting things to the table. You have said many things that have enlightened my mind and gotten me to think, and these thoughts have also led to some moments of communication by the spirit; however, you have also said things that have caused my spirit to shy away.

Your words are as dull two-edged sword; You speak with an enlightened spiritual tongue, but at the same time, the words with which you speak run with a subtle corruption. A corruption that you may or may not realize exists. Your words are even as the writings in the Apocrypha, valuable to those with the Spirit of Discernment, but able to sway those who don't have such gifts onto unseen paths where the Devil can snare them. Note that my words may very well be the same.

Your words and power can unintentionally harm others as much as it helps. Be careful about what you say, as well as what you don't say. Bridle your words, actions, and abilities if you have them, for they are as much a blessing as they are a curse. Also, I do sense a degree of pride and arrogance coming from you. Bridle that as well, lest it lead you unto forbidden paths yourself. True followers of Christ seeks to be humble regardless of the gifts they posses, lest he or she be compelled to be humble by the Lord.

Silver and those of you who are "attacking" LDSA, you are all staunch defenders of the traditional gospel, I can sense that. Your rebukes to LDSAnarchist come out of your sense of christ-like love for him, I am sure... but nevertheless you have crossed from a plain and simple rebuke of love into contentious territory, and I would also gently ask you to bridle your tongue.Lets keep things alive in this thread without the corruption of the spirit of contention. If I see it again, I may not be so gentle with my words.

Now, with that out of the way back on topic: this thread is incredibly interesting.

Durzan, unfortunately a red line has been crossed. LDSA asserted that the Brethren don't understand the scriptures. That falsehood needed to be struck down. Let's liken the scriptures unto ourselves. LDSA is clearly following in the footsteps of Sherem by denigrating the General Authorities. In the 7th chapter of his eponymously named book, we see how Jacob dealt with the deceiver, especially after giving Sherem a few opportunities to recant his heresy.

[Durzan]

LDSAnarchist, you and others have often brought interesting things to the table. You have said many things that have enlightened my mind and gotten me to think, and these thoughts have also led to some moments of communication by the spirit; however, you have also said things that have caused my spirit to shy away.

Your words are as dull two-edged sword; You speak with an enlightened spiritual tongue, but at the same time, the words with which you speak run with a subtle corruption. A corruption that you may or may not realize exists. Your words are even as the writings in the Apocrypha, valuable to those with the Spirit of Discernment, but able to sway those who don't have such gifts onto unseen paths where the Devil can snare them. Note that my words may very well be the same.

Your words and power can unintentionally harm others as much as it helps. Be careful about what you say, as well as what you don't say. Bridle your words, actions, and abilities if you have them, for they are as much a blessing as they are a curse. Also, I do sense a degree of pride and arrogance coming from you. Bridle that as well, lest it lead you unto forbidden paths yourself. True followers of Christ seeks to be humble regardless of the gifts they posses, lest he or she be compelled to be humble by the Lord.

Silver and those of you who are "attacking" LDSA, you are all staunch defenders of the traditional gospel, I can sense that. Your rebukes to LDSAnarchist come out of your sense of christ-like love for him, I am sure... but nevertheless you have crossed from a plain and simple rebuke of love into contentious territory, and I would also gently ask you to bridle your tongue.Lets keep things alive in this thread without the corruption of the spirit of contention. If I see it again, I may not be so gentle with my words.

Now, with that out of the way back on topic: this thread is incredibly interesting.

Durzan, unfortunately a red line has been crossed. LDSA asserted that the Brethren don't understand the scriptures. That falsehood needed to be struck down. Let's liken the scriptures unto ourselves. LDSA is clearly following in the footsteps of Sherem by denigrating the General Authorities. In the 7th chapter of his eponymously named book, we see how Jacob dealt with the deceiver, especially after giving Sherem a few opportunities to recant his heresy.

He has asserted many things, including that the Brethren have an incomplete and flawed understanding of the scriptures... which is a viewpoint that while I do not necessarily agree with, I can understand.

The definition of the word Heresy is as follows: Heresy-- n. belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (especially Christian) doctrine.

By definition, any of us who has a opinion contrary to orthodox mormon beliefs, no matter how slight, would be considered a Heretic. Using the term against one of our own brethren regardless of the fact that he may or may not be a wayward traveler is hypocritical at best, and un-christlike at worst... especially in modern society, where we are supposed to be above such things.

On a spiritual note, our understanding of the Scriptures is dependent on the light which the Lord shines through us, and as Alaris aptly pointed out earlier in the thread, the scriptures teach many things, through different interpretations of the same passages. It is entirely possible that LDSA's viewpoint is indeed legitimate to some degree or another. For instance, President Monson may have a greater understanding and a different perspective of the subject of Missionary Work, than say, Elder Oaks, while Elder Bednar may have greater light and knowledge in other areas. Why is it so hard to believe that one not of the Bretheren could potentially have such knowledge concerning the second coming?

Perhaps... just perhaps LDSAnarchy has a greater understanding of certain second coming prophecies than most people in the church. But no man on earth has a complete understanding of anything, as we are all flawed men, subject to seeing through a mirror darkly, and clouded by our own judgement as well.

LDSA may have some of the pieces of the puzzle, as do I, Alaris, and many others, but we do not have the full picture, nor could we even come close to putting all the pieces together. We all have our flaws, just as you have yours. Don't point out the mote in our eyes, while ignoring the beam in your own eye.

[Silver]

LDSAnarchist, you and others have often brought interesting things to the table. You have said many things that have enlightened my mind and gotten me to think, and these thoughts have also led to some moments of communication by the spirit; however, you have also said things that have caused my spirit to shy away.

Your words are as dull two-edged sword; You speak with an enlightened spiritual tongue, but at the same time, the words with which you speak run with a subtle corruption. A corruption that you may or may not realize exists. Your words are even as the writings in the Apocrypha, valuable to those with the Spirit of Discernment, but able to sway those who don't have such gifts onto unseen paths where the Devil can snare them. Note that my words may very well be the same.

Your words and power can unintentionally harm others as much as it helps. Be careful about what you say, as well as what you don't say. Bridle your words, actions, and abilities if you have them, for they are as much a blessing as they are a curse. Also, I do sense a degree of pride and arrogance coming from you. Bridle that as well, lest it lead you unto forbidden paths yourself. True followers of Christ seeks to be humble regardless of the gifts they posses, lest he or she be compelled to be humble by the Lord.

Silver and those of you who are "attacking" LDSA, you are all staunch defenders of the traditional gospel, I can sense that. Your rebukes to LDSAnarchist come out of your sense of christ-like love for him, I am sure... but nevertheless you have crossed from a plain and simple rebuke of love into contentious territory, and I would also gently ask you to bridle your tongue.Lets keep things alive in this thread without the corruption of the spirit of contention. If I see it again, I may not be so gentle with my words.

Now, with that out of the way back on topic: this thread is incredibly interesting.

Durzan, unfortunately a red line has been crossed. LDSA asserted that the Brethren don't understand the scriptures. That falsehood needed to be struck down. Let's liken the scriptures unto ourselves. LDSA is clearly following in the footsteps of Sherem by denigrating the General Authorities. In the 7th chapter of his eponymously named book, we see how Jacob dealt with the deceiver, especially after giving Sherem a few opportunities to recant his heresy.

He has asserted many things, including that the Brethren have an incomplete and flawed understanding of the scriptures... which is a viewpoint that while I do not necessarily agree with, I can understand.

The definition of the word Heresy is as follows: Heresy-- n. belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (especially Christian) doctrine.

By definition, any of us who has a opinion contrary to orthodox mormon beliefs, no matter how slight, would be considered a Heretic. Using the term against one of our own brethren regardless of the fact that he may or may not be a wayward traveler is hypocritical at best, and un-christlike at worst... especially in modern society, where we are supposed to be above such things.

On a spiritual note, our understanding of the Scriptures is dependent on the light which the Lord shines through us, and as Alaris aptly pointed out earlier in the thread, the scriptures teach many things, through different interpretations of the same passages. It is entirely possible that LDSA's viewpoint is indeed legitimate to some degree or another. For instance, President Monson may have a greater understanding and a different perspective of the subject of Missionary Work, than say, Elder Oaks, while Elder Bednar may have greater light and knowledge in other areas. Why is it so hard to believe that one not of the Bretheren could potentially have such knowledge concerning the second coming?

Perhaps... just perhaps LDSAnarchy has a greater understanding of certain second coming prophecies than most people in the church. But no man on earth has a complete understanding of anything, as we are all flawed men, subject to seeing through a mirror darkly, and clouded by our own judgement as well.

LDSA may have some of the pieces of the puzzle, as do I, Alaris, and many others, but we do not have the full picture, nor could we even come close to putting all the pieces together. We all have our flaws, just as you have yours. Don't point out the mote in our eyes, while ignoring the beam in your own eye.

We'll agree to disagree on that one because not only did he disrespect the Brethren, he held himself up as having greater enlightenment. A pox on that kind of thinking.

[Z2100]

The Great Tribulations will come as a surprise to those who aren’t watching and waiting.

[harakim]

Paul wrote:If the standard that the primitive church lived under was to not be shaken in mind or troubled by letter or by spirit or by word, as that the day of Christ is at hand, then why are so many Mormons so soon shaken in mind and troubled, thinking the end times are here? Has the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve issued a letter or said that these are the "end times?" No, they haven't. All they say is that these are the last days and the latter days. So what's with all the beliefs that people have, thinking that "the day of Christ is at hand" given there hasn't been any such announcement from the church leadership?

If you want to know when the end times officially starts, I'll tell you: when the Josephite comes out of his box and makes his announcement, he will afterward go to the church leadership and make them eat humble pie. And then those now humbled to the dust leaders will stand in front of the pulpit in general conference, and they will admit all their errors, in doctrine and in practice and in policy, and they will confess all their sins and faults, and they will say that a new era has officially started, that the times of shadows has ceased and now the prophecies will proceed literally. They will tell the saints how long we have before this and that happens, as they receive it from the Josephite, and so forth. And when the end times officially begins, the Josephite will tell them, "The end times has now officially begun. Go and tell the saints." And that, too, will be officially announced by the church leadership. So, nobody needs to guess at these things.

The Lord will not make the saints guess at the signs of the times, but will very clearly tell them these things, so that no one is left with any excuse that they didn't know.



All the people who have left this church believing that the end times are upon us (for a recent example, see the Snufferites), have not understood the principle that Paul wrote about. They have thought that the church leadership is out of tune with the Spirit, out of line and unaware of the signs of the times. They have supposed that they know better than the leadership and that the end times are now upon us and have looked at the leadership as out of touch, for they say nothing concerning the end times signs. But they say nothing about this because we are not in the end times! If we were in the end times, our leaders would open their mouths, because as the above scriptures explain, it is a gospel principle that the Lord must leave all men, including His saints, without excuse.

This is the kind of heresy that the scriptures warns about. It is pleasing to the ears of those who have been "offended" by some mean ol' bad ol' Bishop/Stake President/whomever yet it leads to spiritual death. Those who have those sorts of feelings would do well to recall Elder Holland's message about imperfect leaders and our attitudes towards them.

Where the heretics always mess up is in their assumption that the church leadership has gone astray. That's essentially saying that Christ can't run His own Church, that he's not the Head of it, that He turned it over to a bunch of mortals and they have completely ruined it. Well, as clear thinkers know, it's not our Church to mess up. The Church belongs to Christ and He will pick the servants to run it.

After all, the Catholic Church is also the true church seeing as it was set up by Christ and carried on by Peter. Christ could run his own church. He is the Head of it. He didn't turn it over to bunch of mortals who have completely ruined it. Case closed. Catholic Church: Also True.

I can't tell if you were smiling as you typed or if you were pounding ferociously on your keyboard.

I don't remember exactly what I was thinking but something like "Man, this is the perfect thing to write to demonstrate the fallacy of the argument." So perhaps a smile or perhaps just an invisible contentedness.

As a side note: I cut my teeth on the stiffest keyboard in the free world, so I am always pounding furiously.

[Silver]

LDSAnarchist, you and others have often brought interesting things to the table. You have said many things that have enlightened my mind and gotten me to think, and these thoughts have also led to some moments of communication by the spirit; however, you have also said things that have caused my spirit to shy away.

Your words are as dull two-edged sword; You speak with an enlightened spiritual tongue, but at the same time, the words with which you speak run with a subtle corruption. A corruption that you may or may not realize exists. Your words are even as the writings in the Apocrypha, valuable to those with the Spirit of Discernment, but able to sway those who don't have such gifts onto unseen paths where the Devil can snare them. Note that my words may very well be the same.

I appreciate the care and concern, Durzan. Remember, though, that the word of the Spirit is a two-edged sword:

Behold, I am God; give heed to my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow; therefore, give heed unto my word. (D&C 12:2)

And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: (Ephesians 6:17)

Nevertheless, my words will never lead you into devilish paths. I speak plainly and forcefully and authoritatively, but it will cut you both ways. If you believe it, or ponder it and then gain an understanding of it, it'll bless you. But if you disbelieve it, or refuse to ponder and consider it, it'll cut you and make you bleed. What you perceive as the "corruption" of my words is merely the other side of the coin. For there are two sides of the word of the Lord: on one side is mercy and compassion and forgiveness, and on the other side is justice and judgment and condemnation. Everyone sides on the side of mercy, holds to that side, and speaks from that side only. I don't. I happen to like both sides of the coin.

Your words and power can unintentionally harm others as much as it helps. Be careful about what you say, as well as what you don't say. Bridle your words, actions, and abilities if you have them, for they are as much a blessing as they are a curse. Also, I do sense a degree of pride and arrogance coming from you. Bridle that as well, lest it lead you unto forbidden paths yourself. True followers of Christ seeks to be humble regardless of the gifts they posses, lest he or she be compelled to be humble by the Lord.

I do appreciate the counsel, Durzan. What you perceive as pride and arrogance, though, is simply an abundance of confidence and faith. I am routinely called "the most prideful man I've ever met" and also "the most humble man I've ever met," by people who know me in real life, and often by the very same people at different moments. What they are perceiving are the two sides of the coin. When one side manifests, I appear more humble than anyone they've ever met. And when the other side manifests, I appear filled with pride and arrogance. But it's just the Spirit manifesting in me. If you can't deal with little old mortal me manifesting a small portion of both modes of the Spirit, you ain't gonna be able to handle being in the presence of God's fullness.

As for the Lord humbling me, He is the only one capable of humbling me to the dust, and He has done this, which is why I am blessed with all these gifts. He doesn't give all these gifts to the prideful, but only to those who humble themselves before Him and exercise mighty faith before Him. And if I ever get out of hand, He is the one who deals with me. But He makes allowances for my nature, for I embrace both modes of His Spirit, not just the one side like everyone else, and as He makes allowances for me, everyone else would be wise to do the same. For God doesn't just love me like He does everyone else, but He also likes me and my nature.

Nevertheless, it is always a joy to find a saint gently scolding me, as you have done. I do not mind that, at all. But just know that behind the scenes God also deals with me. (We like to think of God as merciful, compassionate and so forth, and that's all true for mode one, but mode two of the Spirit is harsh. I am used to basking in both modes from God, which is why I find it kind of amusing when a saint gently slaps my wrists. Compared to what God does with me, it makes me laugh it's so small. But I appreciate the saintly concern, nonetheless.)

Nevertheless, gentle scolding is one thing, a saintly thing, but if you openly oppose and defy me, tell me to take a trip to outer darkness, etc., that ain't saintly behavior. That's the spirit of contention, which is of the devil, and I am liable to respond to it just as harshly with the other edge of the sword of the Spirit. Or maybe I'll turn the other cheek, like Jesus. My options are always open.

Silver and those of you who are "attacking" LDSA, you are all staunch defenders of the traditional gospel, I can sense that. Your rebukes to LDSAnarchist come out of your sense of christ-like love for him, I am sure... but nevertheless you have crossed from a plain and simple rebuke of love into contentious territory, and I would also gently ask you to bridle your tongue.Lets keep things alive in this thread without the corruption of the spirit of contention. If I see it again, I may not be so gentle with my words.

Now, with that out of the way back on topic: this thread is incredibly interesting.

Silver and the rest have dark minds. They are not defending the traditional gospel. I have given the traditional gospel in the OP, namely, that the leadership will tell the saints what they need to know, even concerning the signs of the times, and I quoted Paul to prove the principle, and they have rejected it. They do not believe the words of Paul, nor do they believe that what he said is a gospel principle, nor do they believe that that principle applies to our day. I have explained that the church leadership operate on "lines and precepts and here-a-littles," in which the Lord gives them more and more information over time, but Silver and the others have rejected it. So, when I quote Bruce R. McConkie to prove that the leadership never has all the information, but give knowledge to the saints as they themselves learn it, they will reject it:

We have read these passages and their associated passages for many years. We have seen what the words say and have said to ourselves, “Yes, it says that, but we must read out of it the taking of the gospel and the blessings of the temple to the Negro people, because they are denied certain things.” There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more. (All Are Alike unto God by Bruce R. McConkie, Aug. 18, 1978.)

So, I come forth and use my gift of the word of knowledge to teach something none of you have ever heard of before, namely that the brethren will announce the start of the end times from the pulpit, and you, Durzan, find it interesting, for your mind is still open to being enlightened, but the others such as Silver have dark minds, and cannot accept it, so they fight against it. They don't find this teaching interesting, at all. They find it heretical, and yet it patently isn't heretical.

What is the gift of the word of knowledge for?

And again, verily I say unto you, to some is given, by the Spirit of God, the word of wisdom. To another is given the word of knowledge, that all may be taught to be wise and to have knowledge. (D&C 46:17-18)

But Silver and the rest cannot be taught, for they don't understand that the gift of the word of knowledge brings forth new knowledge. It doesn't regurgitate the same old teachings over and over again. But that's what they want. They want regurgitation. They can't handle new stuff, because dark minds are stupid minds. (Remember, I speak plainly.) It's impossible to get new ideas into dark minds. Unless they repent of their sin of unbelief, that is.

Now, concerning this thread that you find "incredibly interesting," remove my words from it, Durzan. Remove the OP and all my follow up posts. Is the thread still "incredibly interesting" to you? Are Silver's words "incredibly interesting" to you? Would you classify the words of the others who have mocked me on this post as "incredibly interesting?" Or, is it only my words that are "incredibly interesting?" And if so, if it's not the thread, per se, that is "incredibly interesting," but the words of one particular poster on the thread, namely me, that is "incredibly interesting," then why is that? Why do my words stand out from the words of the others? Is it not because they are words of knowledge which proceed from the gift of the word of knowledge?

See, I agree with you Durzan. I think the premise of the OP is "incredibly interesting." Not because I wrote it, but because it comes of the Spirit, of the gift of the word of knowledge. I don't care who has this gift, or any of the other gifts. If you have the gift of the word of knowledge, your words are incredibly interesting to me, and I want to learn from you. But if you don't have that gift, and cannot enlighten my mind with the things of God, then your words are of no interest to me. Now, I have this gift, and whatever comes of it I find interesting. And when I share these interesting tidbits of knowledge that come of this gift with others, I expect others to be interested, too. Why? Because everything that comes of God is interesting and excellent and enlightening, and I fully expect saints who profess to follow Christ to be just as interested in learning more about the things of God, as I am.

So, when I come across a fake saint like Silver (and yes, Silver is a fake saint, a pretend saint), claiming to be "traditional" and mainstream and yet opposing what comes of the gift of the word of knowledge, outright, without pondering or praying about it, just attacking it from the get-go, my gift of the discerning of spirits lights up (for I have all the gifts) and indicates that I've come across a fake saint, who instead of having the Holy Spirit, is acting under direction of the evil one. Just as Silver reacted to me (because this is what happens with those who operate under the spirit of the devil when they come across me), even so I react to anyone possessed of the devil's spirit. Hence this little back and forth clash.

But that's all in the past. I'm done with Hi-Oh silvery-tongued Silver. You and the others can interact with him if you like.

We'll see.

[Finrock]

LDSAnarchist, you and others have often brought interesting things to the table. You have said many things that have enlightened my mind and gotten me to think, and these thoughts have also led to some moments of communication by the spirit; however, you have also said things that have caused my spirit to shy away.

Your words are as dull two-edged sword; You speak with an enlightened spiritual tongue, but at the same time, the words with which you speak run with a subtle corruption. A corruption that you may or may not realize exists. Your words are even as the writings in the Apocrypha, valuable to those with the Spirit of Discernment, but able to sway those who don't have such gifts onto unseen paths where the Devil can snare them. Note that my words may very well be the same.

Your words and power can unintentionally harm others as much as it helps. Be careful about what you say, as well as what you don't say. Bridle your words, actions, and abilities if you have them, for they are as much a blessing as they are a curse. Also, I do sense a degree of pride and arrogance coming from you. Bridle that as well, lest it lead you unto forbidden paths yourself. True followers of Christ seeks to be humble regardless of the gifts they posses, lest he or she be compelled to be humble by the Lord.

Silver and those of you who are "attacking" LDSA, you are all staunch defenders of the traditional gospel, I can sense that. Your rebukes to LDSAnarchist come out of your sense of christ-like love for him, I am sure... but nevertheless you have crossed from a plain and simple rebuke of love into contentious territory, and I would also gently ask you to bridle your tongue.Lets keep things alive in this thread without the corruption of the spirit of contention. If I see it again, I may not be so gentle with my words.

Now, with that out of the way back on topic: this thread is incredibly interesting.

Durzan, unfortunately a red line has been crossed. LDSA asserted that the Brethren don't understand the scriptures. That falsehood needed to be struck down. Let's liken the scriptures unto ourselves. LDSA is clearly following in the footsteps of Sherem by denigrating the General Authorities. In the 7th chapter of his eponymously named book, we see how Jacob dealt with the deceiver, especially after giving Sherem a few opportunities to recant his heresy.

He has asserted many things, including that the Brethren have an incomplete and flawed understanding of the scriptures... which is a viewpoint that while I do not necessarily agree with, I can understand.

The definition of the word Heresy is as follows: Heresy-- n. belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (especially Christian) doctrine.

By definition, any of us who has a opinion contrary to orthodox mormon beliefs, no matter how slight, would be considered a Heretic. Using the term against one of our own brethren regardless of the fact that he may or may not be a wayward traveler is hypocritical at best, and un-christlike at worst... especially in modern society, where we are supposed to be above such things.

On a spiritual note, our understanding of the Scriptures is dependent on the light which the Lord shines through us, and as Alaris aptly pointed out earlier in the thread, the scriptures teach many things, through different interpretations of the same passages. It is entirely possible that LDSA's viewpoint is indeed legitimate to some degree or another. For instance, President Monson may have a greater understanding and a different perspective of the subject of Missionary Work, than say, Elder Oaks, while Elder Bednar may have greater light and knowledge in other areas. Why is it so hard to believe that one not of the Bretheren could potentially have such knowledge concerning the second coming?

Perhaps... just perhaps LDSAnarchy has a greater understanding of certain second coming prophecies than most people in the church. But no man on earth has a complete understanding of anything, as we are all flawed men, subject to seeing through a mirror darkly, and clouded by our own judgement as well.

LDSA may have some of the pieces of the puzzle, as do I, Alaris, and many others, but we do not have the full picture, nor could we even come close to putting all the pieces together. We all have our flaws, just as you have yours. Don't point out the mote in our eyes, while ignoring the beam in your own eye.

We'll agree to disagree on that one because not only did he disrespect the Brethren, he held himself up as having greater enlightenment. A pox on that kind of thinking.

A pox on thinking that someone might be more enlightened than the "Brethren"? The only way that I can understand this type of reaction is within the context of holding the leaders up on a pedestal or because of veneration towards the leaders. I have no problems supporting them, praying for them, sustaining them, and allowing them to lead the church how they feel it should be lead, but I recognize with eyes wide open that they aren't "demigods" or "extra" special, superior to other mortals, or somehow above mortal failings, frailties, and sin. Because you have a title and a position in the church does not by this virtue alone indicate that you are now "more" enlightened than the rest of us or that you are now always operating under the direction of the Holy Ghost or that nobody on this planet can have more knowledge of the truth, understanding of the gospel, or more access to the Spirit and spiritual gifts.

Getting defensive and antagonistic towards a person who says that the "Brethren" may not understand all things or against a person who thinks they understanding something better than the "Brethren" indicates insecurity in belief and insecurity in one's faith.

-Finrock

[Silver]

Durzan, unfortunately a red line has been crossed. LDSA asserted that the Brethren don't understand the scriptures. That falsehood needed to be struck down. Let's liken the scriptures unto ourselves. LDSA is clearly following in the footsteps of Sherem by denigrating the General Authorities. In the 7th chapter of his eponymously named book, we see how Jacob dealt with the deceiver, especially after giving Sherem a few opportunities to recant his heresy.

He has asserted many things, including that the Brethren have an incomplete and flawed understanding of the scriptures... which is a viewpoint that while I do not necessarily agree with, I can understand.

The definition of the word Heresy is as follows: Heresy-- n. belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (especially Christian) doctrine.

By definition, any of us who has a opinion contrary to orthodox mormon beliefs, no matter how slight, would be considered a Heretic. Using the term against one of our own brethren regardless of the fact that he may or may not be a wayward traveler is hypocritical at best, and un-christlike at worst... especially in modern society, where we are supposed to be above such things.

On a spiritual note, our understanding of the Scriptures is dependent on the light which the Lord shines through us, and as Alaris aptly pointed out earlier in the thread, the scriptures teach many things, through different interpretations of the same passages. It is entirely possible that LDSA's viewpoint is indeed legitimate to some degree or another. For instance, President Monson may have a greater understanding and a different perspective of the subject of Missionary Work, than say, Elder Oaks, while Elder Bednar may have greater light and knowledge in other areas. Why is it so hard to believe that one not of the Bretheren could potentially have such knowledge concerning the second coming?

Perhaps... just perhaps LDSAnarchy has a greater understanding of certain second coming prophecies than most people in the church. But no man on earth has a complete understanding of anything, as we are all flawed men, subject to seeing through a mirror darkly, and clouded by our own judgement as well.

LDSA may have some of the pieces of the puzzle, as do I, Alaris, and many others, but we do not have the full picture, nor could we even come close to putting all the pieces together. We all have our flaws, just as you have yours. Don't point out the mote in our eyes, while ignoring the beam in your own eye.

We'll agree to disagree on that one because not only did he disrespect the Brethren, he held himself up as having greater enlightenment. A pox on that kind of thinking.

A pox on thinking that someone might be more enlightened than the "Brethren"? The only way that I can understand this type of reaction is within the context of holding the leaders up on a pedestal or because of veneration towards the leaders. I have no problems supporting them, praying for them, sustaining them, and allowing them to lead the church how they feel it should be lead, but I recognize with eyes wide open that they aren't "demigods" or "extra" special, superior to other mortals, or somehow above mortal failings, frailties, and sin. Because you have a title and a position in the church does not by this virtue alone indicate that you are now "more" enlightened than the rest of us or that you are now always operating under the direction of the Holy Ghost or that nobody on this planet can have more knowledge of the truth, understanding of the gospel, or more access to the Spirit and spiritual gifts.

Getting defensive and antagonistic towards a person who says that the "Brethren" may not understand all things or against a person who thinks they understanding something better than the "Brethren" indicates insecurity in belief and insecurity in one's faith.

-Finrock

Stop making stuff up. I never got defensive. I attacked, which is the opposite of defense. LDSA claimed the Brethren do not understand the scriptures, at least not as well as he does. That's nonsense and if you don't think talk like that is a sandy foundation then have fun with LDSA's version of heresy.

I just laugh when you guys make me your punching bag. You now have a choice. Will you ignore me or fight some more?

[Finrock]

He has asserted many things, including that the Brethren have an incomplete and flawed understanding of the scriptures... which is a viewpoint that while I do not necessarily agree with, I can understand.

The definition of the word Heresy is as follows: Heresy-- n. belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (especially Christian) doctrine.

By definition, any of us who has a opinion contrary to orthodox mormon beliefs, no matter how slight, would be considered a Heretic. Using the term against one of our own brethren regardless of the fact that he may or may not be a wayward traveler is hypocritical at best, and un-christlike at worst... especially in modern society, where we are supposed to be above such things.

On a spiritual note, our understanding of the Scriptures is dependent on the light which the Lord shines through us, and as Alaris aptly pointed out earlier in the thread, the scriptures teach many things, through different interpretations of the same passages. It is entirely possible that LDSA's viewpoint is indeed legitimate to some degree or another. For instance, President Monson may have a greater understanding and a different perspective of the subject of Missionary Work, than say, Elder Oaks, while Elder Bednar may have greater light and knowledge in other areas. Why is it so hard to believe that one not of the Bretheren could potentially have such knowledge concerning the second coming?

Perhaps... just perhaps LDSAnarchy has a greater understanding of certain second coming prophecies than most people in the church. But no man on earth has a complete understanding of anything, as we are all flawed men, subject to seeing through a mirror darkly, and clouded by our own judgement as well.

LDSA may have some of the pieces of the puzzle, as do I, Alaris, and many others, but we do not have the full picture, nor could we even come close to putting all the pieces together. We all have our flaws, just as you have yours. Don't point out the mote in our eyes, while ignoring the beam in your own eye.

We'll agree to disagree on that one because not only did he disrespect the Brethren, he held himself up as having greater enlightenment. A pox on that kind of thinking.

A pox on thinking that someone might be more enlightened than the "Brethren"? The only way that I can understand this type of reaction is within the context of holding the leaders up on a pedestal or because of veneration towards the leaders. I have no problems supporting them, praying for them, sustaining them, and allowing them to lead the church how they feel it should be lead, but I recognize with eyes wide open that they aren't "demigods" or "extra" special, superior to other mortals, or somehow above mortal failings, frailties, and sin. Because you have a title and a position in the church does not by this virtue alone indicate that you are now "more" enlightened than the rest of us or that you are now always operating under the direction of the Holy Ghost or that nobody on this planet can have more knowledge of the truth, understanding of the gospel, or more access to the Spirit and spiritual gifts.

Getting defensive and antagonistic towards a person who says that the "Brethren" may not understand all things or against a person who thinks they understanding something better than the "Brethren" indicates insecurity in belief and insecurity in one's faith.

-Finrock

Stop making stuff up. I never got defensive. I attacked, which is the opposite of defense. LDSA claimed the Brethren do not understand the scriptures, at least not as well as he does. That's nonsense and if you don't think talk like that is a sandy foundation then have fun with LDSA's version of heresy.

I just laugh when you guys make me your punching bag. You now have a choice. Will you ignore me or fight some more?

A person who is insecure in their beliefs and in their faith have a hard time processing information that contradicts their faith, their belief, or their egocentric views. They might feel like a human punching bag. A human punching bag feels attacked. Feeling attacked, a person gets defensive, hoping to stop the perceived attack. Feeling defensive because they feel attacked, its quite common to go on the attack themselves.

You have done the attacking here, Silver. But get this: My post wasn't for you. I fully expect you to reject anything that I say that contradicts your perspective and paradigm.

-Finrock

[Silver]

We'll agree to disagree on that one because not only did he disrespect the Brethren, he held himself up as having greater enlightenment. A pox on that kind of thinking.

A pox on thinking that someone might be more enlightened than the "Brethren"? The only way that I can understand this type of reaction is within the context of holding the leaders up on a pedestal or because of veneration towards the leaders. I have no problems supporting them, praying for them, sustaining them, and allowing them to lead the church how they feel it should be lead, but I recognize with eyes wide open that they aren't "demigods" or "extra" special, superior to other mortals, or somehow above mortal failings, frailties, and sin. Because you have a title and a position in the church does not by this virtue alone indicate that you are now "more" enlightened than the rest of us or that you are now always operating under the direction of the Holy Ghost or that nobody on this planet can have more knowledge of the truth, understanding of the gospel, or more access to the Spirit and spiritual gifts.

Getting defensive and antagonistic towards a person who says that the "Brethren" may not understand all things or against a person who thinks they understanding something better than the "Brethren" indicates insecurity in belief and insecurity in one's faith.

-Finrock

Stop making stuff up. I never got defensive. I attacked, which is the opposite of defense. LDSA claimed the Brethren do not understand the scriptures, at least not as well as he does. That's nonsense and if you don't think talk like that is a sandy foundation then have fun with LDSA's version of heresy.

I just laugh when you guys make me your punching bag. You now have a choice. Will you ignore me or fight some more?

A person who is insecure in their beliefs and in their faith have a hard time processing information that contradicts their faith, their belief, or their egocentric views. They might feel like a human punching bag. A human punching bag feels attacked. Feeling attacked, a person gets defensive, hoping to stop the perceived attack. Feeling defensive because they feel attacked, its quite common to go on the attack themselves.

You have done the attacking here, Silver. But get this: My post wasn't for you. I fully expect you to reject anything that I say that contradicts your perspective and paradigm.

-Finrock

You're not very good at misrepresenting the facts. Your mistake is readily seen. Anyone can return to the first page of this thread and see where I attacked. Being at leisure, I spent a few moments on this obscure website and told another anonymous participant that he is wrong. Because he is. So your psychobabble is wrong just like his doctrinal exposition is wrong.