The Charge to the Twelve

[Thomas]

55 Let us here observe, that after any portion of the human family are made acquainted with the important fact that there is a God who has created and does uphold all things, the extent of their knowledge, respecting his character and glory, will depend upon their diligence and faithfulness in seeking after him, until like Enoch the brother of Jared, and Moses, they shall obtain faith in God, and power with him to. behold him face to face.

56 We have now clearly set forth how it is, and how it was, that God became an object of faith for rational beings; and also, upon what foundation the testimony was based, which excited the enquiry and diligent search of the ancient saints, to seek after and obtain a knowledge of the glory of God: and we have seen that it was human testimony, and human testimony only, that excited this enquiry, in the first instance in their minds--it was the credence they gave to the testimony of their fathers--this testimony having aroused their minds to enquire after the knowledge of God, the enquiry frequently terminated, indeed, always terminated, when rightly persued, in the most glorious discoveries, and eternal certainty.

http://www.mormonbeliefs.com/lectures_on_faith.htm

Enoch was not a dispensation head. His knowledge of God was passed down from Adam, yet we have his testimony of seeing God.

How do you know Thomas? Did you lean only on your own understanding? Maybe you took the time to research it out and ponder it in your mind. If not, you probably should research this out a bit better. Beyond a multitude of obvious statements, if you had the spirit of understanding and grasped the doctrine, you would be able to extrapolate out why he is a dispensational head.

According to your theory, Enoch would only be able to testify of Adam seeing God. Enoch was taught of God by a direct line of his fathers from Adam. Here is the linage:

. How many noted righteous men lived from Adam to Noah?
A. Nine; which includes Abel, who was slain by his brother.

Q. What are their names?
A. Abel, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methusalah, and Lamech.

There was an unbroken line of righteous men that were able to testify of Adam seeing God. I am well aware of the fact that Enoch could be considered a dispensation head but it is incompatible with your theory. Does that mean Faust is now a dispensation head because he testified of seeing Christ?

I am not giving much credence to a theory that conflicts with what Cowdery taught. Why do you give greater weight to McConkie's teachings than Cowdery's? Cowdery saw God the Father, Christ and many angels. Joseph taught that more could be learned by gazing into heaven for five minutes than a lifetime of studying the gospel. Cowdery had that five minutes. As far as we all know, McConkie never did. McConkie's claim to authority rests upon the base that Cowdery had a big part in building. If you want to say it is false , you proclaim the modern leaders' claim to authority to be false.

[Thomas]

brlenox wrote:
Thus I would recommend you to the sources of the quotes I utilized in my earlier comments. I would much rather be in the company of Elder McConkie who teaches the same things such as this in two different sources than those of incorrect understanding such as others who disagree with him.

Perhaps you might want to look these two talks up and actually consider the material again as your misunderstanding of it places you not in opposition against me but in opposition against apostles of this dispensation.

How do we know which of McConkie's teachings to believe and which we should disregard?

I think that you must first understand what is constituted in recognizing the servants of God, then ask in the spirit and it shall be manifest what you should do. If that not doable for you then I would go with believe everything and follow it all closely and you will be off far less often than has been the norm.

So if I am understanding you right, I should rely on men because of their position, to always be right, in spite of a track record of being proven wrong. That is what I call a cult.

I would ask you to study McConkie's teachings and compare them to modern teachings. How could I possibly depend on anything McConkie has said? While I believe he taught many great and important truths, he also taught many things that if I were to teach in church today, I would be excommunicated for.

Here is one quote of his I am quite fond of:

I do not know all of the providences of the Lord, but I do know that he permits false doctrine to be taught in and out of the Church and that such teaching is part of the sifting process of mortality.

Bruce R. McConkie, McConkie's 1981 letter to BYU


Here are some that would land me in hot water were I to teach the same:

Negroes in this life are denied the Priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. (Abra. 1:20‑27.) The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them... negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow there from, but this inequality is not of man's origin. It is the Lord's doing, is based on his eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the lack of Spiritual valiance of those concerned in their first estate.

Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pp. 527‑528

As a result of his rebellion, Cain was cursed with a dark skin; he became the father of the Negroes, and those spirits who are not worthy to receive the priesthood are born through this lineage...

Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p.102,477

There is a lot more but I am short on time now. Don't throw out your brain. God gave it to you for a purpose.

[Robert Sinclair]

Is not Olivers five minutes worthy of inclusion into what could be that deemed true knowledge doctrine and covenants to be learned and taught?

[brlenox]

Enoch was not a dispensation head. His knowledge of God was passed down from Adam, yet we have his testimony of seeing God.

I am not giving much credence to a theory that conflicts with what Cowdery taught. Why do you give greater weight to McConkie's teachings than Cowdery's? Cowdery saw God the Father, Christ and many angels. Joseph taught that more could be learned by gazing into heaven for five minutes than a lifetime of studying the gospel. Cowdery had that five minutes. As far as we all know, McConkie never did. McConkie's claim to authority rests upon the base that Cowdery had a big part in building. If you want to say it is false , you proclaim the modern leaders' claim to authority to be false.

Thomas, It is apparent that you have not read my previous post’s for understanding as I never have stated, when considering the context of the full presentation what you imply in this comment of yours, ”According to your theory, Enoch would only be able to testify of Adam seeing God. “

I am also interest in what way you might consider Enoch as a dispensational head which you are “well aware” of…? Perhaps understanding how you see him as such will enable me to better grasp why you do not think he fits, Bruce R. McConkie’s, President Young’s etc and my agreement with them as fitting.

Did you read the two talks by Elder McConkie that I sited? They will be very valuable to you in your quest for truth on this subject. I agree that my thoughts on the subject carry little weight if I stand alone but where I can site the legal servants of the Lord pm this material, I think it worthwhile in your efforts.

As stated earlier Oliver and Bruce are perfectly compatible however the bulk of their conversation is on different aspects of focus. I am entitled to view Elder McConkie and Oliver Cowdery as equally valid sources of spiritual guidance in addition to my efforts to maintain the spirit in my studies. I have always maintained that the Lord is at the head of this church and the men he selects are indeed in the positions he has called them to to testify of the particular truths they possessed. I have not exercised any privilege in second guessing the Lord and choosing to accept the words of some apostles while ignoring the contributions of another. Thus I fully expect to have a far broader range to seek spiritual insight concerning as the pool is much larger that I am entitled to use that what you have limited yourself to.

Specifically as it states that the Lord provides apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers evangelists and such specifically that we be able to safeguard and not be carried about by every wind of doctrine and thus they are guides to help us be consistent with Christ’s doctrines. I am sorry that you have limited your resource pool but it is not anything I can help you with to understand these principles that they speak to.

In my mind you might completely withdraw from this conversation as it relies heavily on knowing the servants of the Lord and their teachings and back step to more foundational principles and reconsider how to recognize his servants and this will greatly enhance your understanding of truth.
Best of luck and Have a lovely day:)

P.S. I have attached an image that will illustrate how the major dispensations break. Of course this is correlated material and I realize that the church for over a Hundred years has been hiding the truth of Enoch. This subversive effort has been afoot to paint him as a dispensation head and I'm sure you may be only one who is onto the plot and denies this reality. Use this image as you see fit to continue disabusing the masses of this heinous plot.

[brlenox]

How do we know which of McConkie's teachings to believe and which we should disregard?

I think that you must first understand what is constituted in recognizing the servants of God, then ask in the spirit and it shall be manifest what you should do. If that not doable for you then I would go with believe everything and follow it all closely and you will be off far less often than has been the norm.

So if I am understanding you right, I should rely on men because of their position, to always be right, in spite of a track record of being proven wrong. That is what I call a cult.

I would ask you to study McConkie's teachings and compare them to modern teachings. How could I possibly depend on anything McConkie has said? While I believe he taught many great and important truths, he also taught many things that if I were to teach in church today, I would be excommunicated for.

Here is one quote of his I am quite fond of:

I do not know all of the providences of the Lord, but I do know that he permits false doctrine to be taught in and out of the Church and that such teaching is part of the sifting process of mortality.

Bruce R. McConkie, McConkie's 1981 letter to BYU


Here are some that would land me in hot water were I to teach the same:

Negroes in this life are denied the Priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. (Abra. 1:20‑27.) The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them... negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow there from, but this inequality is not of man's origin. It is the Lord's doing, is based on his eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the lack of Spiritual valiance of those concerned in their first estate.

Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pp. 527‑528

As a result of his rebellion, Cain was cursed with a dark skin; he became the father of the Negroes, and those spirits who are not worthy to receive the priesthood are born through this lineage...

Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p.102,477

There is a lot more but I am short on time now. Don't throw out your brain. God gave it to you for a purpose.

Thomas, again you continue to point to issues concerning how to discern and receive understanding as to who is a legal representative of the Lord in this dispensation. You definitely must acquire that testimony. There is no common ground for you and I to meet on if we have radically different perspectives on sources of truth. I am positive that humbly seeking the spirit and renouncing the attitude that you are better able to recommend to the Savior who he should have selected than he is will enable you to see more clearly and receive confirmation of His choices.

The quotes you provide from Elder McConkie are appreciated. I can see possibilities for why you believe as you do. However, I do not understand why you think if you taught this material it would cause grief. It may be that as with so many things you have developed improper understandings of the material and your presentation is condemnatory and inappropriate. That would be my first guess.

However, perhaps I can provide some insight that would put you on the right track...just generally as principles of understanding that you can hopefully tailor to your own appropriate use. Prior to Christ’s atonement I can see Peter making the exact same statements concerning the Gentiles AND the children of Cain as it was exactly the doctrine of the Church in his day. We also see that the Lord through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob making this distinction and we see apostles espousing such until the vision of Cornelius and Peter where we find Peter doing a complete about face as he understands that a new day has dawned. Did not Elder McConkie do the same? And he seemed to do so with a bit more graceful transition than is illustrated by Peter and Paul’s conversations on the matter.

I’m going to guess, though in your case I may be entirely wrong, that you have no trouble with the historical representation of this exact scenario. However, somewhere, somehow and for reasons I cannot understand you draw different standards of measurement for the servants of the Lord in this dispensation than in a former.

I myself see it as the Satan inspired societal taint that has attempted to dictate to society, including you, what is an appropriate response to certain standards established by the Father and the Son concerning how they govern the Priesthood and those whom they deem as having a right to access the authority thereof. I am sympathetic to the difficulty this provides to our dispensation to see the truth of history when it conflicts with a predominant societal brainwashing that begins in infancy confusing those who would seek God but confused in how to interpret His actions in light of a distorted source of truth.

Thus all the more reason you might consider abandoning leaning to your own understanding in these matters and allow the Lord to purge you of the taint that obscures your view. Bruce R. McConkie and Peter are both legitimate servants of God, leading the people aright in the era of their service and adjusting their perspectives as required when the Lord dictates…great men both of them.

As far as our discussion on Dispensational heads and their roles, again I may err, but for the moment I think this and many other doctrines of the church exceed your comprehension for your lack of acknowledgement of the true servants of God to guide your path to greater understanding. For your rejection of them causes you to reject their words and my understanding is predicated on the process of searching it out in my mind, which includes insight provided by the words of the servants of God and then allowing the spirit to reveal to me the things I did not know.

While you do credit to your name Thomas, doubting the servants of God really does hinder the process of learning truth; best of luck in your efforts, and my sincerest hopes that you will succeed in finding the truths of the Lord.

[brlenox]

Is not Olivers five minutes worthy of inclusion into what could be that deemed true knowledge doctrine and covenants to be learned and taught?

Absolutely, keeping in mind that the same spirit that inspired Oliver will provide insight into his observations. Now would we expect that a proper interpretation would find necessarily that he is not at odds with other servants of God but understanding properly embracing both perspective should be the goal. Though not always perfectly doable, the majority of the time we can see the correctness of both applications.
This is evident in the reading of Christ’s statement that there is no marriage or giving in marriage in heaven. While others interpret that to deny the temple ordinances, the LDS are able to see behind the obvious reading of his words and draw compatible understandings with true doctrine. We should be able to do the same within our own population and collections of religious writings instead of making the mistakes commonly experienced outside the body of the church.

[brlenox]

(See, I can be just as condescending as you are when I want to be) ;)

Lance, as far as my condescending tone, I’m not trying to be, I just fail in a few social graces - have most of my life but am trying to identify what the mechanism is that seems condescending. If it is my snappy wit, then I’m just going to have to massage it till I get it right.

Nonetheless, as I read your response you make a grievous error in stating the ideology that one apostle is superior to another as a categorical blanket refutation of an apostle. That just looks like you are picking and choosing the ones that agree with you based on your interpretations. As well where you place your testimony as more valid than Elder McConkie’s, does it make any sense to you that I would take a spiritually limited perception over a spiritually mature one such as Elder McConkie’s.

No more so than I would expect you to discount mine if all I provided was an anecdote and an opinion. That’s why the law of witnesses is such an important gospel principle. However, by citing Alma 32, Brigham Young, Elder McConkie, the Lectures on Faith I lend the power of the witnesses to my efforts; something you cannot do for your perspective.

On that cause, I do have to respectfully decline your offer of naming the doctrine of the Dispensational Head after me – the hedgehog. Since there are legitimate representatives of the Lord that came long before me, it would be rather audacious of me to try to horn in on apostolic authority – don’t you think? I know some think that is the way to go but if I was trying to measure true condescending behavior, I definitely might start there.

Plus, next time you’re in the room with Elder Faust be sure you have a copy of Elder McConkie’s two talks and ask him what he thinks about the concepts of the Dispensational head. Dollars to doughnut’s you’ll get a better perception of what smithereens actually implies, if you should publically attempt to discredit Elder McConkie. Kindly delivered of course but it should be clear nonetheless. Besides I’ll stand here all day long and you can take pot shots as long as I can have the support of Elder McConkie’s testimony on the matter.

As for those that claim to have stood in the Saviors presence of those on this forum, whether that is true or not I do not say, however no one should accept their testimony without an appropriate witness of such. Which, if was understood, is two witnesses who observed the exchange. If such was required for Jesus Christ, I suspect it is not too much to ask for your pals.

In fact if you wanted to understand the law of witnesses better feel free to start a thread on that. I have a rather well researched bit of material on that as well. A lot of pesky references and quotes but you can just skip over those if they are too cluttery.

Anyway , Lance it is apparent that you have taken no thought with this material and that in all probability it was new material that you have never considered before. Thus I can’t quite grant the expert status rating you seek. All jesting aside, I know of what I speak, when you have walked the miles I have walked, when you can rally your witnesses, when with them you can claim the same witness that lead them to the truths they contemplated then I can at least begin to entertain your perspectives. Until then you are but one more who did not even take enough thought to ask if it be true let alone study it out in your mind. I didn't create the means for finding spiritual truths but I adhere to them as best as I am able. When you have done the same, then, let’s talk.

[Robert Sinclair]

Just curious but was Melchizedek a dispensational head?

And why does Jeremiah so distinctly separate those who have dreams and visions from those who have stood in the presence of God?

He seems to say unless they have stood in the presence of God
"and"
Turned them from their evil way that God himself had not sent them.

To speak plainly if you have had a dream fine, say that.

If you have stood in the presence of God and he has commanded you to go forth say that.

And for the latter days he has said by this you may consider it perfectly whether God himself has sent them or they have come on their own.

Those who have said I have met face to face with God and this is what he commanded me to say is that testimony to seek for.

Too bad the complete testimony of Melchizedek is not with us as it might be at the Lords will.

Many great things have been held back because of our forseen iniquity.

Any volunteers to bring forth fruit meet for their repentance and meet God face to face by themselves?

If not maybe we can go there in the solemn assembly that Joel tells us to together in broken hearts and contrite spirits having brought his bride out of the closet clothed with equity and justice and righteousness as he has asked of us, O house of Ephraim.
Someone go and awake those asleep in the watch tower.

Sound the alarm and blow the trumpet that they may awaken.

You will be glad you did:)

[Thomas]

It seems to me that you pick and choose which legal servants of the Lord to believe. Is there some formula you use to determine which authority is to be believed and which is not to be believed? We have a plainly written, easily understood statement from Oliver Cowdery. A legal servant of the Lord.

You have been indebted to other men, in the first instance, for evidence; on that you have acted; but it is necessary that you receive a testimony from heaven for yourselves; so that you can bear testimony to the truth of the Book of Mormon, and that you have seen the face of God. That is more than the testimony of an angel. When the proper time arrives, you shall be able to bear this testimony to the world. When you bear testimony that you have seen God, this testimony God will never suffer to fall, but will bear you out; although many will not give heed, yet others will. You will therefore see the necessity of getting this testimony from heaven.

Why exactly is Cowdery not to be listened but McConkie is? I can only assume your intent is to discredit Cowdery. It doesn't seem compatible with your brethernite view.


In an earlier post, you stated your theory came from the Lectures on Faith. The Lectures on Faith say, that Enoch was 308 years old when Adam died. If only the dispensation head is allowed to bear testimony of seeing the Lord then why wouldn't Enoch defer to Adam?

Q. How many of these noted men were contemporary with Adam?
A. Nine.

Q. What are their names?
A. Abel, Seth; Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, and Lamech. (2:39.)

They evidently knew each other.

Your theory makes no sense. It is a poor attempt to cover the reasons why we don't hear the apostles bear testimony of seeing God.

Your explanation of McConkie's quotes is the epitome of Cognitive dissonance.

[brlenox]

It seems to me that you pick and choose which legal servants of the Lord to believe. Is there some formula you use to determine which authority is to be believed and which is not to be believed? We have a plainly written, easily understood statement from Oliver Cowdery. A legal servant of the Lord.

You have been indebted to other men, in the first instance, for evidence; on that you have acted; but it is necessary that you receive a testimony from heaven for yourselves; so that you can bear testimony to the truth of the Book of Mormon, and that you have seen the face of God. That is more than the testimony of an angel. When the proper time arrives, you shall be able to bear this testimony to the world. When you bear testimony that you have seen God, this testimony God will never suffer to fall, but will bear you out; although many will not give heed, yet others will. You will therefore see the necessity of getting this testimony from heaven.

Why exactly is Cowdery not to be listened but McConkie is? I can only assume your intent is to discredit Cowdery. It doesn't seem compatible with your brethernite view.


In an earlier post, you stated your theory came from the Lectures on Faith. The Lectures on Faith say, that Enoch was 308 years old when Adam died. If only the dispensation head is allowed to bear testimony of seeing the Lord then why wouldn't Enoch defer to Adam?

Q. How many of these noted men were contemporary with Adam?
A. Nine.

Q. What are their names?
A. Abel, Seth; Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, and Lamech. (2:39.)

They evidently knew each other.

Your theory makes no sense. It is a poor attempt to cover the reasons why we don't hear the apostles bear testimony of seeing God.

Your explanation of McConkie's quotes is the epitome of Cognitive dissonance.

Thomas...I'm feeling entirely embarrassed for you. Will you kick against the pricks even though it stares you in the face that you are alone in your understandings of what is doctrine and what is not? In addition, you continue to mis-represent virtually everything I say. You will never find anything out of hundreds of post that indicates anything other than I sustain and support every general authority. Thus Oliver Cowdery receives my full endorsement and sustaining vote as does Brigham Young, Joseph Smith and all that have served as Apostles and Prophets of this last dispensation and in fact all dispensations. Can you say the same? You condemn substantiated materials and then offer no sustaining support whatsoever. Just a lone voice...

Calling it my theory may enable you to distance yourself from feeling any sense of responsibility to acknowledge the witnesses I provide who share the understanding but it is entirely a deceptive practice that again seems incongruous with one who claims to seek truth.

...and cognative dissonance? - my goodness man ... reread this thread and objectively consider how much valid material sourced out of scripture and prophetic utterance you have twisted and denied ...I see no need to go further - genuinely astounding. I'm calling it quits for the time being - you are completely incapable of being truthful at the very least with yourself...sorrowful indeed. Best of luck in your endeavors, I mean you no malice but do feel sorrowful in your behalf.

[brlenox]

Just curious but was Melchizedek a dispensational head?

And why does Jeremiah so distinctly separate those who have dreams and visions from those who have stood in the presence of God?

He seems to say unless they have stood in the presence of God
"and"
Turned them from their evil way that God himself had not sent them.

To speak plainly if you have had a dream fine, say that.

If you have stood in the presence of God and he has commanded you to go forth say that.

And for the latter days he has said by this you may consider it perfectly whether God himself has sent them or they have come on their own.

Those who have said I have met face to face with God and this is what he commanded me to say is that testimony to seek for.

Too bad the complete testimony of Melchizedek is not with us as it might be at the Lords will.

Many great things have been held back because of our forseen iniquity.

Any volunteers to bring forth fruit meet for their repentance and meet God face to face by themselves?

If not maybe we can go there in the solemn assembly that Joel tells us to together in broken hearts and contrite spirits having brought his bride out of the closet clothed with equity and justice and righteousness as he has asked of us, O house of Ephraim.
Someone go and awake those asleep in the watch tower.

Sound the alarm and blow the trumpet that they may awaken.

You will be glad you did:)

Many have blown the warning trumpets on this forum for years now.

[Robert Sinclair]

Glad to have joined:)

Possibly in the mouths of two or three witnesses (or more) shall the matter be established.

Will a bigger and louder trumpet help like "60 Minutes" asking these facts?

Or can one watching these sites possibly bring this to be heard amoung the Twelve and acknowledged as Hosea has testified the words "till they acknowledge"?

[Robert Sinclair]

The two facts being asked of (60 Minutes) or better yet themselves:

What hath the Lord answered thee?

And.

What hath the Lord spoken?

By these two questions Jeremiah has said in the latter days you may consider it perfectly.

[brlenox]

Brienox,
thank you for your good hearted searching for the truth.


I too do not know all things as yet nor have been visited by Jesus Christ face to face in the flesh. But I have been carried away in a daydream once where I watched a prayer I had just prayed to be an instrument in his hands to help redeem Zion, being taken up by whom took down my prayer to a group over them and next to a group over them again and again till it reached a host of those standing around the throne of him who sits on high. I heard him say "What is this I hear?"

Then I saw him who looked like spinning particles of light and energy turn and look at me. It was as if electric reins from his eyes pierced throuh mine to the center of my heart and I heard him say "He is not yet right, but if he does the things I say I will come and speak with him" all the hosts around the trone turned to me and started speaking all of the commandments of Jesus Christ all at once and it sounded like rushing water then the daydream or thoughts ended abruptly and I was left wondering why my heart felt like it had been tugged upon and judged in an instant and could still feel it.

This was well over 20 years ago after which in somewhat fear that he might come and talk to me I did run and ripvanwinkleize myself into a drunken slumber that he not come and speak with me. I desparately wanted to hear from the leaders of the church first that they had met with him face to face first then I would stop drinking and come back to church.

I had previously made lots of money helping put together large housing developments in Southern California and had given it all away including the house I had in Valencia California and thought I was ready but realized I was in no way pure in heart yet after reading many of the scriptures of the world as well as the "One Stick" and the book of Enoch.

In 2012 on the day of atonement having missionaries keep asking me to please come back I decided to covenant with God that I would cease from drinking and ripvanwinkleizeing my life away waiting for this testimony from the prophet of the church. I would no longer worry if members would rise up in anger and raise their hand to cast Satan out of me as their children kicked me in the shins and threw dirt on me for the things I would say as they had done.

I am still not ready to go to church full time and am laboring to know when not to open my mouth and try to give meat to the tender that can barely take milk.

But I can tell you I know the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the house of Ephraim that has been invited at present so where else can I go to since the Lord has placed me in this house? Run to the house of Judah and say let us keep the feast of tabernacles? Or run to the house of Ismael and say let us all keep the Bible along with the Koran and keep the laws written therein as the Koran says to do? No I had better stick with the house the Lord has placed me in and now labor dilligently to help my family the best that I can. This I felt was to be as Joel has testified awake ye drunkards and weep and howl and sound the alarm as best you can. And labor with your all to santify and purify your own heart Robert so that you can help others. This is what in my imperfect state I am laboring to do. To help the house of Ephraim and not to harm it.


Does this help you understand about where I am coming from just a little and see how long and far the journey before me still lies?

I am thankful for this forum where I can be enlightened myself along with others who seek the truth and I hope someday along with you and not in front of you see the face of Jesus Christ as he has promised all who keep his commandments.


And just so we can continue on in discussions I think that it is quite possible that Jesus Christ showed the brother of Jared as he would look as he would look while on the earth in Jerusalem which he may not have yet shown anyone else and that would have been the absolute truth if so. Just more food for thought and possible enlightenment.

I truly am glad for this site as I had no where else I could go and not have possibly someone rise in anger and hurt me for the things I have said. I know I must be willing to suffer these things and am preparing for it but I need much prayer and fasting to pull it off successfully as yet.

I had typed with my right thumb on my phone the condensed posts.

Robert I appreciate you effort here...heartfelt and genuine. I wish you well in your journey seeking out your Savior. I might encourage you to consider upon the Brother of Jared scenario as I think it significant, though it is not something I am prepared to discuss on the forum as I still lack understanding but I have been working on things related to this verse for a couple of years now - just still no answers. Note however verse 3:17 of Ether...the distinction is significant

[brlenox]

Glad to have joined:)

Possibly in the mouths of two or three witnesses (or more) shall the matter be established.

Will a bigger and louder trumpet help like "60 Minutes" asking these facts?

Or can one watching these sites possibly bring this to be heard amoung the Twelve and acknowledged as Hosea has testified the words "till they acknowledge"?

I'm not following your points a little more development would be nice.

[Jonesy]

I think brlenox was on to something. This is only a testament to D&C 112:20.

It's interesting, though, that many are weighing heavily on Oliver Cowdery's quote despite him having apostatized from the Church. Not only that, but many attribute and accuse Oliver Cowdery to add to Joseph Smith's words from time to time. Can we trust him?

[isaacs2066]

Not canon. Ignore. De-canonized for legitmate reasons by the Lord's anointed. Please stop preaching false doctrines. Follow the teachings of the current brethren only. Thank you.

Joseph ordained blacks to the priesthood...?
Sorry false doctrine, Brigham is prophet now follow only teachings of the current brethren please.

Brigham said blacks were cursed and could never hold the priesthood...?
Sorry false doctrine, Spencer is prophet now follow only teachings of current brethren please.

Thomas says we should donate to help stop same sex marriage in California...?
Sorry false doctrine, Thomas now says we have to respect the rights of gays, also he is not against same sex unions for Utah.

You are so incredibly and hopelessly blind...

[deep water]

Christ's charge to the twelve.God had a special relasonship with those who truly served him. The lord depended upon them to preach his true Gospel to the people, no matter the conquences, and they depended upon the Lord for all their daily needs. The lord had faith that they would do their job and they had faith that the Lord would keep his promise, and provide their needs. The Lord commanded them to go without purse or script, taking no thought for tomorrow, what they should eat or what they should wear.
They were no longer under the Law, but guided by the spirit. So if they sinned they sinned against the spirit, for it commanded them to turn right or left and they did so. They did not seek or accept compensation for their labors here on this earth. They did not seek or accept aclaim or notoriety. They humbly went too and fro. They knew Christs Gospel and stored their treasures in heaven, where thieves can not break through and steal.
If they had or did seek or accept compensation from man, as Nehor suggested they deserved. What would have been the message they were sending to Christ? Wouldn't they be declairing (Christ you are an unjust master, for I labor for you, and I do not trust you, nor have faith in your words, to supply my living as you promiced.) Therefore I must seek compensation as Nehor suggested. Isn't this what the Lord would hear?
What did Christ tell one of his disciples to do with money he had collected from the people? Is God a changable God?

[Dusty Wanderer]

I think brlenox was on to something. This is only a testament to D&C 112:20.

It's interesting, though, that many are weighing heavily on Oliver Cowdery's quote despite him having apostatized from the Church. Not only that, but many attribute and accuse Oliver Cowdery to add to Joseph Smith's words from time to time. Can we trust him?

I was hoping to see more discussion around this question here. I would be interested in seeing others' rationalizations for him and the other BoM witnesses.

Personally, I have a high degree of respect for all three of the BoM witnesses, regardless of their "apostasy". If Oliver's witness of the BoM still holds, then perhaps I shouldn't be so quick to dismiss his other testimonies. However, I'm also not saying we take everything a man says as if it were a formal trial testimony either. Just curious how others reconcile his words from the OP.