How did we get here?

[log]

And you could argue that the correlation committee is declaring current church doctrine and not the prophet because the prophet doesn't bother to review all the manuals and approve them to ensure the church is teaching his current beliefs, but what would be the point?

I would say that that which is put out by Correlation is falsely styled the official teachings of the Church.

What then is official church doctrine and who decides it? How do we know when the manuals are teaching official church doctrine or not, or the prophets and even the president of the church?

Gee, I thought I made it plain. It's the scriptures; nothing more, nothing less. The body of the Church decides it by common consent. If the manual is quoting scripture, then it's official church doctrine; when it is not, then it is not official church doctrine.

[Amonhi]

Gee, I thought I made it plain. It's the scriptures; nothing more, nothing less. The body of the Church decides it by common consent. If the manual is quoting scripture, then it's official church doctrine; when it is not, then it is not official church doctrine.

The problem is that you are still following the original order of the church. We have moved on past that and the New current church doctrine doesn't do things by common consent. For example, we used to vote in our leaders including Joseph Smith now, if you raise your hand opposing a particular selected candidate, then you get called into the bishop 's office and are told to repent and sustain your leaders. It's a whole new world! I just am not sure that the scriptures fall under current church doctrine. I say that because I know a number of people who believe and preach the scriptures and are ex'ed for it.

How did we get here? Good question! But, perhaps, even better, now that we are here, how do we get back?

[log]

Gee, I thought I made it plain. It's the scriptures; nothing more, nothing less. The body of the Church decides it by common consent. If the manual is quoting scripture, then it's official church doctrine; when it is not, then it is not official church doctrine.

The problem is that you are still following the original order of the church.

That, to me, doesn't seem like much of a problem. Just sayin'.

We have moved on past that and the New current church doctrine doesn't do things by common consent. For example, we used to vote in our leaders including Joseph Smith now, if you raise your hand opposing a particular selected candidate, then you get called into the bishop 's office and are told to repent and sustain your leaders. It's a whole new world! I just am not sure that the scriptures fall under current church doctrine. I say that because I know a number of people who believe and preach the scriptures and are ex'ed for it.

I do as I'm told.

How did we get here? Good question! But, perhaps, even better, now that we are here, how do we get back?

We don't. The game is played out already, and the Gentiles shall lose, except for the few that repent and join the remnant of Lehi's seed in building the New Jerusalem.

New wine in new bottles; you can't reform the old. When it is fully ripe, it is burned.

All we can individually do is take the Holy Spirit for our guide, and obey its voice in all things.

[Amonhi]

Gee, I thought I made it plain. It's the scriptures; nothing more, nothing less. The body of the Church decides it by common consent. If the manual is quoting scripture, then it's official church doctrine; when it is not, then it is not official church doctrine.

The problem is that you are still following the original order of the church.

That, to me, doesn't seem like much of a problem. Just sayin'.

YOU may be right!! ;)

We have moved on past that and the New current church doctrine doesn't do things by common consent. For example, we used to vote in our leaders including Joseph Smith now, if you raise your hand opposing a particular selected candidate, then you get called into the bishop 's office and are told to repent and sustain your leaders. It's a whole new world! I just am not sure that the scriptures fall under current church doctrine. I say that because I know a number of people who believe and preach the scriptures and are ex'ed for it.

I do as I'm told.[/quote]
I believe that, and that you are told by God...

How did we get here? Good question! But, perhaps, even better, now that we are here, how do we get back?

We don't. The game is played out already, and the Gentiles shall lose, except for the few that repent and join the remnant of Lehi's seed in building the New Jerusalem.

New wine in new bottles; you can't reform the old. When it is fully ripe, it is burned.

Well, hopefully being born again will make us new vessels which can hold new wine... I hope that the outlook is not as bleak as it appears.

All we can individually do is take the Holy Spirit for our guide, and obey its voice in all things.

Amen brother!

[inquirringmind]

I think this can be said for "following the brethren." I have been outspoken on this forum on this topic, because I believe in its proper context it is true. Some have tried to make it out to putting our faith in the "arm of flesh" when it was never meant to be taken to that extent.

I believe that in only one context can it be true - and that is if the Lord God tells you personally to follow the Brethren. And if he does tell you to do that, who are you really following? And is your personal revelation, given to guide and direct your footsteps, applicable to anyone but you?

If "follow the Brethren" or "follow the prophet" were universally true principles, why has the president of the Church, to my knowledge, never said either? Why have the presidents of the Church generally reacted against such teachings when they come forth? Elder Benson's "14 Fundamentals in Following the Prophet" landed him in council with the rest of the 15, and eventually all the GAs, to apologize for it. The famous "when the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done" got specifically and publicly disclaimed by George Albert Smith.

What slays me is that Brigham has, in the description in the OP, there gotten every element of what I might call "the Brethrenite" faith nailed, and declares those of that faith shall not be exalted. What he has described is modern Mormonism as it is generally taught and practiced, as I have observed from my youth.

What are we to make of this development?

I don't know.

I'm just an investigator.

But when you say "from my youth," what does that mean?

How long have you been preaching what you preach here?

And what do you think of this?

...When, more than a year ago, reports reached the First Presidency, to the effect that the people in West Tintic had undertaken to establish the “United Order”, they to have all things in common and to abolish all private ownership, I was appointed to investigate the matter. As a result of my first visit to the Tintic Stake with this as one of my appointed duties, I reported the facts as I found them, which were briefly these: That Moses Gudmundson, who was the leader and dominating figure in the movement, denied all intention of going ahead of the Church, specifically in the matter of attempting to start a colony according to the United Order plan; that I did not believe his protestations, but on the other hand was convinced that the people of West Tintic, then organized into an independent branch in the Tintic Stake, were being led by an evil influence.

Many other investigations have followed; and we have found to our sorrow that what we saw as the inevitable development of evil unless the people placed themselves in strict harmony with the order and government of the Church, had become a reality, namely, erotic ideas and practises [sic] concerning the marital state and the sexual relation. The best I can say of the people is that they have become fanatical through the power of evil. They have made sacrifice their hobby. The eating of meat, the taking of animal life even to provide food, and many other practises common with other people have been forbidden there; while long fasts and particularly the sacrificing of comforts and wholesome desires have been held up as ideals. Now they have reached the abominable status of men sacrificing their wives to other men; and by this means they have put themselves subject to the punishment provided for by the law of the land. The present state is one of abominable immorality. Some of the women, notably the wife of Moses Gudmundson, and the wife of Gerald Lowry, withdrew promptly from the colony rather than countenance to any degree these ungodly practices. I believe that the judgment of the High Council in these cases is just; and that others than those already tried are involved.

During the afternoon I had a long interview with one of the presidency of the Tintic Stake, and with others concerned in the investigation of West Tintic affairs.

Mar. 13, Sunday: Went by early train to Eureka, where I arrived in time to attend part of a council meeting then in progress, comprising the Presidency of the Stake, the High Council, and the Bishoprics. The brethren had a long array of questions to submit to me, and I believe my visit and the counsel I was able to give were beneficial.

Mar. 11, Fri.: [...] At 2 p.m. the High Council opened its session as a tribunal. Complaints had been made against seven persons connected with the West Tintic condition. Two sessions were held during the day, the latter ending about 11:40 p.m. I put up at the Bullion Beck hotel.

Mar. 14, Mon.: The High Council hearings were resumed at 9 a.m., and the first sitting lasted from that time until noon. The second session lasted from 1 to 6. Although the cases heard were in many respects similar as to general conditions, each case was tried separately with strict observance of the order laid down for the conduct of the High Council trials. I was present in an advisory capacity only and took only such active part as the circumstances seemed to require. I left the Stake Presidency to formulate their own decisions; and these were submitted to me but a few minutes before they were announced officially. The vote of the High Council to sustain the decision of the President was unanimous in each case. The results were these:

Gerald H. Lowry, who was disfellowshipped [sic] by action of the Council three weeks ago, was today excommunicated from the Church. He was not present, having gone to Idaho soon after the earlier action was taken against him. However, he acknowledged service of complaint and summons, by a letter which was read to the Council; and in this letter he expressly gave consent to the hearing of his case without his personal attendance; and in view of the conclusive testimony that he had been a party to the infamous “wife-sacrifice” practise [sic], and furthermore the proof furnished by letters from the Presidency of the Lost River Stake and from one of the Bishops in that stake, such letters having been addressed to the First Presidency, and complaining that Gerald Lowry had violated the conditions under which he was placed by disfellowshipment, and had been addressing the people in public to the injury of the Church, the extreme penalty, that of excommunication, was inevitable.

J. Leo Hafen, who, prior to the disorganization of the West Tintic branch three weeks ago, was president of that branch, was also excommunicated from the Church. There was no direct evidence that he had been an active participant in any “wife-sacrifice” atrocity; but his dereliction in failing to report the condition of affairs to the Stake Presidency, his refusal to give information to the Stake President when called upon, and his persistent refusal to comply with the usual and well established order and regulations of the Church, were deemed sufficient to warrant the penalty imposed upon him.

Ralph B. Weight, his wife Mrs. Minerva B. Weight, Thomas D. Nisbet, Levi G. Metcalf Jr., and his wife Mrs. Lucy Warren Metcalf, were disfellowshipped from the Church.

The experiences of yesterday and today have been to me most sorrowful. If there be any pleasing feature about the proceedings, by which our brethren and sisters have been disfellowshipped or excommunicated, it is to be found in the fact that each of the excused who was present came voluntarily forward and, though with tears, stated that the trials had been fair and impartial, and that the decisions were just. Three of those disfellowshiped [sic] expressed their gratitude at what they called the leniency of the Council in not visiting upon them the extreme penalty. […]

Mar. 15, Tues.: Left Eureka on the 7:41 a.m. train and stopped off at Springville. Among my fellow-passengers were four of those dealt with by the High Council in the recent trials, and I had a personal conversation with each. From statements made to me by J. Leo Hafen, and in fact by each of the others, it became clear to me that one of the corrupting conditions prevailing among them has been the conception that they ought to be guided individually by dreams, or inspiration so-called, consisting in individual impressions; and that their impressions are supreme notwithstanding they may be in conflict with the teachings of the Church and the regulations established therein...

http://www.withoutend.org/talmage-journ ... ntic-1921/

[log]

But when you say "from my youth," what does that mean?

It means from when I was young. This phrase and its meaning is not original with me: http://www.lds.org/scriptures/search?la ... 385&y=-285" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How long have you been preaching what you preach here?

Depends on what exactly you're referring to.

And what do you think of this?

I think there are philosophies of men being applied throughout both sides of that account.

[inquirringmind]

But when you say "from my youth," what does that mean?

It means from when I was young. This phrase and its meaning is not original with me: http://www.lds.org/scriptures/search?la ... 385&y=-285" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I know you're not the first one to use the expression "from my youth."

I asked you what it means here, in the context of your observations regarding "modern Mormonism as it's taught and practiced."

How long have you been preaching what you preach here?

Depends on what exactly you're referring to.

The idea that you can't know anything without personal revelation; that personal revelation trumps scripture, and prophets, and the teachings of the church; and that most of the church is under condemnation for "trusting in the arm of the flesh."

Have you been making these observations since you were eight years old?

Since you were in your teens?

What does "from my youth" mean here?

And what do you think of this?

I think there are philosophies of men being applied throughout both sides of that account.

James Talmage said that those involved "were being led by an evil influence," and I don't think he was talking about "philosophies of men."

What do you mean when you say "I think there are philosophies of men being applied throughout both sides of that account"?

Can you give me some examples of the philosophies of men being applied on Talmage's side, and the philosophies of men being applied on the side of Gudmundson and his followers?

Thank you.

[log]

How long have you been preaching what you preach here?

Depends on what exactly you're referring to.

The idea that you can't know anything without personal revelation; that personal revelation trumps scripture, and prophets, and the teachings of the church; and that most of the church is under condemnation for "trusting in the arm of the flesh."

I have said that you can't know anything except by experience, which includes revelation, for about as long as I have said personal revelation trumps all - a long time. I don't have a specific year count. I will thank you for no longer putting "you can't know anything without personal revelation" in my mouth.

I don't think I have said any of the Church is under condemnation for "trusting in the arm of flesh." If you could provide a citation where I did say exactly that, in those words, I would appreciate it.

James Talmage said that those involved "were being led by an evil influence," and I don't think he was talking about "philosophies of men."

What do you mean when you say "I think there are philosophies of men being applied throughout both sides of that account"?

I meant what I said.

Can you give me some examples of the philosophies of men being applied on Talmage's side, and the philosophies of men being applied on the side of Gudmundson and his followers?

Thank you.

I would prefer not to. Thanks.

You see, you'll have to figure it out for yourself. My opinions don't count, and I am always baffled when someone asks me my opinion instead of asking of God until He answers.

[inquirringmind]

I don't think I have said any of the Church is under condemnation for "trusting in the arm of flesh."

You really don't think you've said (publicly or privately) that the Church is fallen, and most of the membership is under condemnation (for trusting in the arm of the flesh)?

[lemuel]

I don't think I have said any of the Church is under condemnation for "trusting in the arm of flesh."

You really don't think you've said (publicly or privately) that the Church is fallen, and most of the membership is under condemnation (for trusting in the arm of the flesh)?

I'd be willing to lay down cash that log hasn't said that here.

[inquirringmind]

I knew Log before he was on this forum (in fact, I think I'm the one who told him about this forum.)

[lemuel]

I knew log before it was cool to know log.

[log]

I don't think I have said any of the Church is under condemnation for "trusting in the arm of flesh."

You really don't think you've said (publicly or privately) that the Church is fallen, and most of the membership is under condemnation (for trusting in the arm of the flesh)?

I think I just got done saying this.

I don't think I have said any of the Church is under condemnation for "trusting in the arm of flesh." If you could provide a citation where I did say exactly that, in those words, I would appreciate it.

I have cited Joseph Smith to the effect that those who depend upon the prophet are darkened in their minds; I have cited Brigham Young to much the same effect in the OP; I have cited Jeremiah to the effect that those who trust in men are cursed; I have cited Nephi to the effect that those who trust in the arm of flesh are cursed; I have cited D&C 84 to the effect that the Church is under condemnation for hypocrisy concerning the Book of Mormon; I have cited Ezra Taft Benson to the effect that the condemnation of D&C 84 is still applicable to us today; but I do not recall making the precise statement you are apparently putting in my mouth.

If, therefore, I have not said what you are attributing to me, I would greatly appreciate it if you would please cease from attributing it to me.

[Epistemology]

I have cited Joseph Smith to the effect that those who depend upon the prophet are darkened in their minds; I have cited Brigham Young to much the same effect in the OP; I have cited Jeremiah to the effect that those who trust in men are cursed; I have cited Nephi to the effect that those who trust in the arm of flesh are cursed; but I do not recall making the precise statement you are apparently putting in my mouth.

Serious question

JS, BY, Jeremiah, Nephi... aren't those men? Yet you trust in their words?

[log]

Why not address the ideas, and cease trying to make it about me?

[Epistemology]

Why not address the ideas, and cease trying to make it about me?

I am

Others (not just you) make the same claims, which you are entitled to your opinions of course.

The idea is:

If we are to trust no man but someone uses mens words to gain understanding or to back up a claim, etc it seems confusing.

that's what this thread is about

whats the difference in following the words of Nephi and Alma and John and Jeremiah

versus

the words of JS, Lorenzo Snow, Gordon Hinckley, Neal Maxwell, James Talmage?

[log]

whats the difference in following the words of Nephi and Alma and John and Jeremiah

versus

the words of JS, Lorenzo Snow, Gordon Hinckley, Neal Maxwell, James Talmage?

Without revelation, there is no difference.

[Epistemology]

whats the difference in following the words of Nephi and Alma and John and Jeremiah

versus

the words of JS, Lorenzo Snow, Gordon Hinckley, Neal Maxwell, James Talmage?

Without revelation, there is no difference.

Not sure what you mean by this statement

[log]

whats the difference in following the words of Nephi and Alma and John and Jeremiah

versus

the words of JS, Lorenzo Snow, Gordon Hinckley, Neal Maxwell, James Talmage?

Without revelation, there is no difference.

Not sure what you mean by this statement

James 1:5
5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

[Epistemology]

Sooo...you really don't have an answer to the logical contradiction I pointed out so you distract the conversation by quoting scriptures to be cryptic so ill ask you more questions so you can divert the conversation focus.

[log]

Sooo...you really don't have an answer to the logical contradiction I pointed out so you distract the conversation by quoting scriptures to be cryptic so ill ask you more questions so you can divert the conversation focus.

There is no logical contradiction. I answered you and you said you did not understand; I directed you to ask of God, but instead you are here appearing to say "gotcha!" for some inexplicable reason - inexplicable, that is, assuming your questions are sincere. If insincere, an explanation readily suggests itself.

2 Nephi 18:20
20 To the law and to the testimony; and if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Jeremiah 5:26
26 For among my people are found wicked men: they lay wait, as he that setteth snares; they set a trap, they catch men.

2 Nephi 27
31 For assuredly as the Lord liveth they shall see that the terrible one is brought to naught, and the scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut off;

32 And they that make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of naught.

[Epistemology]

I was asking you to explain your post dude, nothing more.

see, now we are conversing about the distraction.

its cool bro if you don't have an answer for why the logical contradiction, just say so.

the truth is, we do trust in the words of man, like Nephi and Alma and John because

Doctrine and Covenants 1:38

38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

[log]

I was asking you to explain your post dude, nothing more.

I explained it: Without revelation it doesn't matter who you follow.

its cool bro if you don't have an answer for why the logical contradiction, just say so.

"Gotcha!" @-) @-) @-) @-) @-) @-) @-) @-) @-) @-) @-) @-) @-)

[Epistemology]

I was asking you to explain your post dude, nothing more.

I explained it: Without revelation it doesn't matter who you follow.

its cool bro if you don't have an answer for why the logical contradiction, just say so.

"Gotcha!" Again.

I asked if you would explain what

Without revelation it doesn't matter who you follow.

means

which you have not. you instead told me to ask God.

just say you don't know if you don't or you don't have an answer for the contradiction

see, we are talking about the distraction again (red herring)

[log]

I was asking you to explain your post dude, nothing more.

I explained it: Without revelation it doesn't matter who you follow.

its cool bro if you don't have an answer for why the logical contradiction, just say so.

"Gotcha!" Again.

I asked if you would explain what

Without revelation it doesn't matter who you follow.

means

which you have not. you instead told me to ask God.

just say you don't know if you don't or you don't have an answer for the contradiction

see, we are talking about the distraction again (red herring)

Wow. I will do you this one last favor, then go back to ignoring your posts.

without

WITHOUT, prep.

1. Not with; as without success.
2. In a state of destitution or absence from.
There is no living with thee nor without thee.
3. In a state of destitution or absence from.
There is no living with thee nor without thee.
4. Beyond; not within.
Eternity, before the world and after, is without our reach.
5. Supposing the negation or omission of.
Without the separation of the two monarchies, the most advantageous terms from the French must end in our destruction.
6. Independent of; not by the use of. Men like to live without labor.
Wise men will do it without a law.
7. On the outside of; as without the gate; without doors.
8. With exemption from. That event cannot happen without great damage to our interests.
9. Unless; except.
Without, when it precedes a sentence or member of a sentence, has been called a conjunction. This is a mistake. You will not enjoy health, without you use much exercise. In this sentence, without is a preposition still, but followed by a member of a sentence, instead of a single noun. It has no property of a connective or conjunction, and does not fall within the definition. You will not enjoy health, this fact following being removed, or not taking place; you use exercise. This use of without, is nearly superseded by unless and except, among good writers and speakers; but is common in popular discourse or parlance.
WITHOUT, adv.

1. Not on the inside; not within.
These were from without the growing miseries.
2. Out of doors.
3. Externally; not in the mind.
Without were fightings, within were fears. 2 Corinthians 7.

revelation

REVELA'TION, n. [L. revelatus, revelo. See Reveal.]

1. The act of disclosing or discovering to others what was before unknown to them; appropriately, the disclosure or communication of truth to men by God himself, or by his authorized agents, the prophets and apostles.
How that by revelation he made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in few words. Eph. 3. 2Cor. 12.
2. That which is revealed; appropriately, the sacred truths which God has communicated to man for his instruction and direction. The revelations of God are contained in the Old and New Testament.
3. The Apocalypse; the last book of the sacred canon, containing the prophecies of St. John.

it

IT, pron. [L. id.]

1. A substitute or pronoun of the neuter gender, sometimes called demonstrative, and standing for any thing except males and females, "Keep thy heart with all diligence,for out of it are the issues of life." Prov. 9. Here it is the substitute for heart.
2. It is much used as the nominative case or word to verbs called impersonal; as it rains; it snows. In this case,there is no determinate thing to which it can be referred.
In other cases, it may be referred to matter, affair, or some other word. Is it come to this?
3. Very often, it is used to introduce a sentence, preceding a verb as a nominative, but referring to a clause or distinct member of the sentence. "It is well ascertained, that the figure of the earth is an oblate spheroid." What is well ascertained?
The answer will show: the figure of the earth is an oblate spheroid; it [that] is well ascertained. Here it represents the clause of the sentence,"the figure of the earth," &c. If the order of the sentence is inverted, the use of it is superseded. The figure of the earth is an oblate spheroid; that is well ascertained.

It, like that, is often a substitute for a sentence or clause of a sentence.
4. It often begins a sentence, when a personal pronoun, or the name of a person, or a masculine noun follows. It is I: be not afraid. It was Judas who betrayed Christ. When a question is asked, it follows the verb; as, who was it that betrayed Christ?
5. It is used also for the state of a person or affair.
How is it with our general?
6. It is used after intransitive verbs very indefinitely and sometimes ludicrously, but rarely in an elevated style.
If Abraham brought all with him, it is not probable he meant to walk it back for his pleasure.
The Lacedemonians, at the straits of Thermopylae, when their arms failed them, fought it out with nails and teeth.
Whether the charmer sinner it, or saint it.

does

DOES, the third person of the verb do, indicative mode, present tense, contracted from doeth.

not

NOT, adv. [See Naught.]

1. A word that expreses negation, denial or refusal; as, he will no go; will you remain? I will not. In the first member of a sentence, it may be followed by nor or neither; as not for a price nor reward; I was not in sfety, neither had I rest.
2. With the substantive verb in the following phrase, it denies being, or denotes extinction of existence.
Thine eyes are open upon me, and I am not. Job 7.

matter

MAT'TER, n. [L. materia; Heb. to measure; L. metior.]

1. Substance excreted from living animal bodies; that which is thrown our of discharged in a tumor,boil or abscess; pus; purulent substance collected in an abscess, the effect of suppuration more or less perfect; as digested matter; sanious matter.
2. Body; substance extended; that which is visible or tangible; as earth, wood, stone, air, vapor, water.
3. In a more general and philosophic sense, the substance of which all bodies are composed; the substratum of sensible qualities, though the parts composing the substratum may not be visible or tangible.
Matter is usually divided by philosophical writers into four kinds or classes; solid, liquid; aeriform, and imponderable. Solid substances are those whose parts firmly cohere and resist impression, as wood or stone; liquids have free motion among their parts, and easily yield to impression, as water and wine. Aeriform substances are elastic fluids, called vapors and gases, as air and oxygen gas. The imponderable substances are destitute of weight, as light, caloric, electricity, and magnetism.
4. Subject; thing treated; that about which we write or speak; that which employs thought or excites emotion; as, this is matter of praise, of gratitude, or of astonishment.
Son of God, Savior of men, thy name
Shall be the copious matter of my song.
5. The very thing supposed or intended.
He grants the deluge to have come so very near the matter, that few escaped.
6. Affair; business; event; thing; course of things. Matters have succeeded well thus far; observe how matters stand; thus the matter rests at present; thus the matter ended.
To help the matter,the alchimists call in many vanities from astrology.
Some young female seems to have carried matters so far, that she is ripe for asking advice.
7. Cause of any event, as of any disturbance, of a disease, or of a difficulty. When a moving machine stops suddenly, we ask, what is the matter? When a person is ill, we ask, what is the matter? When a tumult or quarrel takes place, we ask, what is the matter?
8. Subject of complaint; suit; demand.
If the matter should be tried by duel between two champions--
Every great matter they shall bring to thee, but every small matter they shall judge-- Ex.18.
9. Import; consequence; importance; moment.
A prophet some, and some a poet cry,
No matter which, so neither of them lie.
10. Space of time; a portion of distance.

I have thoughts to tarry a small matter.
Away he goes, a matter of seven miles--
[In these last senses,the use of matter is now vulgar.]

Upon the matter, considering the whole; taking all things into view. This phrase is now obsolete; but in lieu of it, we sometimes use, upon the whole matter.

Waller, with Sir William Balfour, exceeded in horse, but were, upon the whole matter, equal in foot.
Matter of record, that which is recorded, or which may be proved by record.

MAT'TER, v.i. To be of importance; to import; used with it, this, that, or what. This matters not; that matters not; chiefly used in negative phrases; as, what matters it?

It matters not how they are called, so we know who they are.
1. To maturate; to form pus; to collect, as matter in an abscess.
Each slight sore mattereth. [Little used.]
[We now use maturate.]
MAT'TER, v.t. To regard. [Not used.]

who

WHO, pron. relative. pron. hoo. [L. Who is undoubtedly a contracted word in English as in Latin. See What and Wight.]

1. Who is a pronoun relative, always referring to persons. It forms whose in the genitive or possessive case, answering to the L. Cujus, and whom in the objective or accusative case. Who, whose and whom, are in both numbers. Thus we say, the man or woman who was with us; the men or women who were with us; the men or women whom we saw.
2. Which of many. Are you satisfied who did the mischief?
3. It is much used in asking questions; as, who am I? Who art thou? Who is this? Who are these? In this case, the purpose is to obtain the name or designation of the person or character.
4. It has sometimes a disjunctive sense.
There thou tellst of kings, and who aspire; who fall, who rise, who triumph, who do moan.
5. Whose is of all genders. Whose book is this?
This question whose solution I require--
As who should say, elliptically for as one who should say.

you

YOU, pron. Yu. [You has been considered as in the plural only, and is so treated in the Saxon grammar. But from the Belgic dialect, it appears to be in the singular as well as the plural, and our universal popular usage, in applying it to a single person with a verb in the singular number, is correct. Yourself is in the singular number.]

1. The pronoun of the second person, in the nominative or objective case. In familiar language, it is applied to an individual, as thou is in the solemn style. In the plural, it is used in the solemn style in the objective case.
In vain you tell your parting lover, you wish fair winds may waft him over.
He that despiseth you, despiseth me. Luke 10.
2. You is used, like on in French, for any one. This at a distance looks like a rock; but as you approach it, you see a little cabin.

follow

FOL'LOW, v.t.

1. To go after or behind; to walk, ride or move behind, but in the same direction. Soldiers will usually follow a brave officer.
2. To pursue; to chase; as an enemy, or as game.
3. To accompany; to attend in a journey.
And Rebekah arose, and her damsels, and they rode on the camels, and followed the man. Gen. 24.
4. To accompany; to be of the same company; to attend, for any purpose. Luke 5.
5. To succeed in order of time; to come after; as a storm is followed by a calm.
Signs following signs lead on the mighty year.
6. To be consequential; to result from, as effect from a cause. Intemperance is often followed by disease or poverty, or by both.
7. To result from, as an inference or deduction. It follows from these facts that the accused is guilty.
8. To pursue with the eye; to keep the eyes fixed on a moving body. He followed or his eyes followed the ship, till it was beyond sight.
He followed with his eyes the fleeting shade.
9. To imitate; to copy; as, to follow a pattern or model; to follow fashion.
10. To embrace; to adopt and maintain; to have or entertain like opinions; to think or believe like another; as, to follow the opinions and tenets of a philsophic sect; to follow Plato.
11. To obey; to observe; to practice; to act in conformity to. It is our duty to follow the commands of Christ. Good soldiers follow the orders of their general; good servants follow the directions of their master.
12. To pursue as an object of desire; to endeavor to obtain.
Follow peace with all men. Heb. 12.
13. To use; to practice; to make the chief business; as, to follow the trade of a carpenter; to follow the profession of law.
14. To adhere to; to side with.
The house of Judah followed David. 2Sam. 2.
15. To adhere to; to honor; to worship; to serve.
If the Lord be God, follow him. 1Kings 18.
16. To be led or guided by.
Wo to the foolish prophets, who follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing. Ezek. 13.
17. To move on in the same course or direction; to be guided by; as, to follow a track or course.
FOL'LOW, v.i.

1. To come after another.
The famine - shall follow close after you. Jer. 42.
2. To attend; to accompany.
3. To be posterior in time; as following ages.
4. To be consequential, as effect to cause. From such measures, great mischiefs must follow.
5. To result, as an inference. The facts may be admitted, but the inference drawn from them does not follow.
To follow on, to continue pursuit or endeavor; to persevere.
Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the Lord.
Hosea 6.