A question about discerning spirits, scripture, and authority

[inquirringmind]

This was originally an editorial in the times and seasons, but I believe the remnant movement canonized it and added it to the body of scripture they promised to guide their lives by when they entered the covenant in Boise.

(Notice the term "regular constituted authorities.")

[Teachings and Commandments 147:31, remnant restoration edition of scripture.]

Some will say, “try the spirits” by the word. “Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that confesses not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God.” 1 John 1:18. One of the Irvingites once quoted this passage whilst under the influence of a spirit, and then said, “I confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.” And yet these prophecies failed, their messiah did not come, and the great things spoken of by them have fallen to the ground. What is the matter here? Did not the Apostle speak the truth? Certainly he did — but he spoke to a people who were under the penalty of death the moment they embraced Christianity; and no one without a knowledge of the fact would confess it and expose themselves to death, and this was consequently given as a criterion to the church or churches to which John wrote. But the Devil on a certain occasion cried out, “I know you, who you are, the Holy One of God!” Here was a frank acknowledgment under other circumstances that “Jesus had come in the flesh.” On another occasion the Devil said, “Paul we know, and Jesus we know” — of course, “come in the flesh.” No man nor sect of men without the regular constituted authorities, the Priesthood, and discerning of spirits can tell true from false spirits.

http://scriptures.info/scriptures/tc/section/147.12#12

This would seem to lead to some interesting questions:

Does this mean that no one receiving personal revelation in Joseph's lifetime could know whether it was from God or some lying spirit without his guidance and assistance (or that of one of the twelve, or that of their local bishop)?

Would it mean that the guidance and assistance of the twelve was necessary to discern the source of personal revelation in the days, and weeks, and months, and years following Joseph's death?

And what would it mean when Denver started receiving and publishing his personal revelations?

Were there "regular constituted authorities" in the church then?

Would "No man nor sect of men" include Denver?

Could he have rightly discerned the source of his revelations without "the regular constituted authorities"?

And if he did, and the keys of the kingdom were taken from them and given to him (when he was excommunicated), is he now a regular constituted authority?

And can any man today discern the source of his personal revelations without him?

To those in the remnant:

What are "regular constituted authorities"?

Is this scripture?

Is it doctrine?

Did you covenant to guide your lives by it in Boise?

And are you doing so?

[inquirringmind]

This is also interesting.

[Teachings and Commandments 147:35, remnant movement restoration edition of the scriptures]

There have also been ministering angels in the church which were of Satan, appearing as an angel of light. A sister in the state of New York had a vision, who said it was told her that if she would go to a certain place in the woods, an angel would appear to her. She went at the appointed time, and saw a glorious personage descending, arrayed in white, with sandy colored hair. He commenced and told her to fear God, and said that her husband was called to do great things, but that he must not go more than one hundred miles from home or he would not return; whereas God had called him to go to the ends of the earth, and he has since been more than one thousand miles from home and is yet alive. Many true things were spoken by this personage, and many things that were false. How, it may be asked, was this known to be a bad angel? By the color of his hair, that is one of the signs that he can be known by, and by his contradicting a former revelation.

http://scriptures.info/scriptures/tc/section/147.12#12

I don't get the part about the hair, but if this story is true (and I think it is scripture for you if you're in the remnant movement) it would seem to indicate that a lying spirit could go along with Joseph being a prophet, and the book of Mormon being true, and still introduce falsehood (like this woman's husband being forbidden to travel more than a hundred miles, and being doomed to a premature death if he did.)

Again, if any of you are in the remnant movement (or friends of the remnant movement), would you share any thoughts you have (and please tell us if any answers to the questions in the OP come to mind.)

Thank you.

[inquirringmind]

P.S. Does anyone know why a blonde haired messenger would be evil?

[Finrock]

P.S. Does anyone know why a blonde haired messenger would be evil?

Maybe its not blonde hair, but that the hair ought to be white and no other color but white.

-Finrock

[XEmilyX]

You can tell the discerning of spirits even if You do not have the priesthood. If you have the discerning of spirits gift you can tell if something is good or bad. If it seems like it doesn't conflict with previous truth that's obvious, the obvious bad spirits would be things like the spirit telling you that the prophets aren't true or the church isn't true or things of that nature. If its not obvious it comes down to a few things. One is having that gift of discerning of spirits, not just discernment. We live in a dark and fallen world, our minds are actually a lot darker than we think even if we're doing everything good. That's why we need the spirit to ENLIGHTEN us, to bring to light what was once dark.

Then I would test them. Ask them what master they serve in the name of Christ. You can ask this as many times as you want, if something seems like a lie or they respond in gurgled voices and say "God". To demons the response of "God" is Satan. So keep asking.

Angels don't just hang around you to hang around you. They have missions and purpose and bring messages. They don't linger like demons seem to do.


Sometimes Satan plays on the scripture "by small and simple things are great things brought to pass" like for example if a spirit asked you to eat an apple. It's not that God won't deal with small matters, but it's very unlikely.
So this is where the discerning of spirits will come into play.

There are such things as evil beings with bodies. Sons of perdition for example. So even if someone comes to you saying they're Christ and let's you handle them, doesn't mean you should throw out any possibility of it being bad out the window. Usually you can tell by the FEELING.

But don't count on FEELINGS. Because evil can hide their evil feelings from being known. They will make you feel like they're good because they present with themselves with no evil dark feelings. Which is why people who have spiritual experiences can be deceived.

The best example I can think of for the gift of discerning of spirits is this. We live in night time, where you cannot see very far in front of you. and the way to tell and see things would be night vision goggles (discerning of SPIRITS). To recognize people from bushes from trees. People without the moon (christ) cant see anything. So it's worse when people arent associated with jesus and start having spiritual experiences with spirits.

Anything that tells you to leave the church, hurt yourself or others, anything negative, put yourself in danger. Is bad.

But usually Satan is very subtle. In the way that he masks his visitations.
Don't bow down to anything until you know it's good. Don't take any advice unless you're sure it's from God.

People who have experiences with spirits telling them the church is going the wrong way, is evil. After what I know and personal revelation I can not doubt any longer that the church is run by Jesus himself.

[inquirringmind]

P.S. Does anyone know why a blonde haired messenger would be evil?

Maybe its not blonde hair, but that the hair ought to be white and no other color but white.

-Finrock

Thank you Finrock.

What about "regular constituted authorities"?

Do you have any thoughts on what that means (or on the other questions here in the OP)?

This was originally an editorial in the times and seasons, but I believe the remnant movement canonized it and added it to the body of scripture they promised to guide their lives by when they entered the covenant in Boise.

(Notice the term "regular constituted authorities.")

[Teachings and Commandments 147:31, remnant restoration edition of scripture.]

Some will say, “try the spirits” by the word. “Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that confesses not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God.” 1 John 1:18. One of the Irvingites once quoted this passage whilst under the influence of a spirit, and then said, “I confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.” And yet these prophecies failed, their messiah did not come, and the great things spoken of by them have fallen to the ground. What is the matter here? Did not the Apostle speak the truth? Certainly he did — but he spoke to a people who were under the penalty of death the moment they embraced Christianity; and no one without a knowledge of the fact would confess it and expose themselves to death, and this was consequently given as a criterion to the church or churches to which John wrote. But the Devil on a certain occasion cried out, “I know you, who you are, the Holy One of God!” Here was a frank acknowledgment under other circumstances that “Jesus had come in the flesh.” On another occasion the Devil said, “Paul we know, and Jesus we know” — of course, “come in the flesh.” No man nor sect of men without the regular constituted authorities, the Priesthood, and discerning of spirits can tell true from false spirits.

http://scriptures.info/scriptures/tc/section/147.12#12

This would seem to lead to some interesting questions:

Does this mean that no one receiving personal revelation in Joseph's lifetime could know whether it was from God or some lying spirit without his guidance and assistance (or that of one of the twelve, or that of their local bishop)?

Would it mean that the guidance and assistance of the twelve was necessary to discern the source of personal revelation in the days, and weeks, and months, and years following Joseph's death?

And what would it mean when Denver started receiving and publishing his personal revelations?

Were there "regular constituted authorities" in the church then?

Would "No man nor sect of men" include Denver?

Could he have rightly discerned the source of his revelations without "the regular constituted authorities"?

And if he did, and the keys of the kingdom were taken from them and given to him (when he was excommunicated), is he now a regular constituted authority?

And can any man today discern the source of his personal revelations without him?

To those in the remnant:

What are "regular constituted authorities"?

Is this scripture?

Is it doctrine?

Did you covenant to guide your lives by it in Boise?

And are you doing so?

[Finrock]

P.S. Does anyone know why a blonde haired messenger would be evil?

Maybe its not blonde hair, but that the hair ought to be white and no other color but white.

-Finrock

Thank you Finrock.

What about "regular constituted authorities"?

Do you have any thoughts on what that means (or on the other questions here in the OP)?

This was originally an editorial in the times and seasons, but I believe the remnant movement canonized it and added it to the body of scripture they promised to guide their lives by when they entered the covenant in Boise.

(Notice the term "regular constituted authorities.")

[Teachings and Commandments 147:31, remnant restoration edition of scripture.]

Some will say, “try the spirits” by the word. “Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that confesses not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God.” 1 John 1:18. One of the Irvingites once quoted this passage whilst under the influence of a spirit, and then said, “I confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.” And yet these prophecies failed, their messiah did not come, and the great things spoken of by them have fallen to the ground. What is the matter here? Did not the Apostle speak the truth? Certainly he did — but he spoke to a people who were under the penalty of death the moment they embraced Christianity; and no one without a knowledge of the fact would confess it and expose themselves to death, and this was consequently given as a criterion to the church or churches to which John wrote. But the Devil on a certain occasion cried out, “I know you, who you are, the Holy One of God!” Here was a frank acknowledgment under other circumstances that “Jesus had come in the flesh.” On another occasion the Devil said, “Paul we know, and Jesus we know” — of course, “come in the flesh.” No man nor sect of men without the regular constituted authorities, the Priesthood, and discerning of spirits can tell true from false spirits.

http://scriptures.info/scriptures/tc/section/147.12#12

This would seem to lead to some interesting questions:

Does this mean that no one receiving personal revelation in Joseph's lifetime could know whether it was from God or some lying spirit without his guidance and assistance (or that of one of the twelve, or that of their local bishop)?

Would it mean that the guidance and assistance of the twelve was necessary to discern the source of personal revelation in the days, and weeks, and months, and years following Joseph's death?

And what would it mean when Denver started receiving and publishing his personal revelations?

Were there "regular constituted authorities" in the church then?

Would "No man nor sect of men" include Denver?

Could he have rightly discerned the source of his revelations without "the regular constituted authorities"?

And if he did, and the keys of the kingdom were taken from them and given to him (when he was excommunicated), is he now a regular constituted authority?

And can any man today discern the source of his personal revelations without him?

To those in the remnant:

What are "regular constituted authorities"?

Is this scripture?

Is it doctrine?

Did you covenant to guide your lives by it in Boise?

And are you doing so?

No answers for the rest. Don't know what "regular constituted authorities" means. I don't even know if what I suggested is right. It's just an idea.

-Finrock

[inquirringmind]

P.S. Does anyone know why a blonde haired messenger would be evil?

Maybe its not blonde hair, but that the hair ought to be white and no other color but white.

-Finrock

Thank you Finrock.

What about "regular constituted authorities"?

Do you have any thoughts on what that means (or on the other questions here in the OP)?

This was originally an editorial in the times and seasons, but I believe the remnant movement canonized it and added it to the body of scripture they promised to guide their lives by when they entered the covenant in Boise.

(Notice the term "regular constituted authorities.")

[Teachings and Commandments 147:31, remnant restoration edition of scripture.]

Some will say, “try the spirits” by the word. “Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that confesses not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God.” 1 John 1:18. One of the Irvingites once quoted this passage whilst under the influence of a spirit, and then said, “I confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.” And yet these prophecies failed, their messiah did not come, and the great things spoken of by them have fallen to the ground. What is the matter here? Did not the Apostle speak the truth? Certainly he did — but he spoke to a people who were under the penalty of death the moment they embraced Christianity; and no one without a knowledge of the fact would confess it and expose themselves to death, and this was consequently given as a criterion to the church or churches to which John wrote. But the Devil on a certain occasion cried out, “I know you, who you are, the Holy One of God!” Here was a frank acknowledgment under other circumstances that “Jesus had come in the flesh.” On another occasion the Devil said, “Paul we know, and Jesus we know” — of course, “come in the flesh.” No man nor sect of men without the regular constituted authorities, the Priesthood, and discerning of spirits can tell true from false spirits.

http://scriptures.info/scriptures/tc/section/147.12#12

This would seem to lead to some interesting questions:

Does this mean that no one receiving personal revelation in Joseph's lifetime could know whether it was from God or some lying spirit without his guidance and assistance (or that of one of the twelve, or that of their local bishop)?

Would it mean that the guidance and assistance of the twelve was necessary to discern the source of personal revelation in the days, and weeks, and months, and years following Joseph's death?

And what would it mean when Denver started receiving and publishing his personal revelations?

Were there "regular constituted authorities" in the church then?

Would "No man nor sect of men" include Denver?

Could he have rightly discerned the source of his revelations without "the regular constituted authorities"?

And if he did, and the keys of the kingdom were taken from them and given to him (when he was excommunicated), is he now a regular constituted authority?

And can any man today discern the source of his personal revelations without him?

To those in the remnant:

What are "regular constituted authorities"?

Is this scripture?

Is it doctrine?

Did you covenant to guide your lives by it in Boise?

And are you doing so?

No answers for the rest. Don't know what "regular constituted authorities" means. I don't even know if what I suggested is right. It's just an idea.

-Finrock

Thank you.

[inquirringmind]

Anyone else?

[jdt]

This was originally an editorial in the times and seasons, but I believe the remnant movement canonized it and added it to the body of scripture they promised to guide their lives by when they entered the covenant in Boise.

(Notice the term "regular constituted authorities.")

[Teachings and Commandments 147:31, remnant restoration edition of scripture.]

Some will say, “try the spirits” by the word. “Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that confesses not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God.” 1 John 1:18. One of the Irvingites once quoted this passage whilst under the influence of a spirit, and then said, “I confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.” And yet these prophecies failed, their messiah did not come, and the great things spoken of by them have fallen to the ground. What is the matter here? Did not the Apostle speak the truth? Certainly he did — but he spoke to a people who were under the penalty of death the moment they embraced Christianity; and no one without a knowledge of the fact would confess it and expose themselves to death, and this was consequently given as a criterion to the church or churches to which John wrote. But the Devil on a certain occasion cried out, “I know you, who you are, the Holy One of God!” Here was a frank acknowledgment under other circumstances that “Jesus had come in the flesh.” On another occasion the Devil said, “Paul we know, and Jesus we know” — of course, “come in the flesh.” No man nor sect of men without the regular constituted authorities, the Priesthood, and discerning of spirits can tell true from false spirits.

http://scriptures.info/scriptures/tc/section/147.12#12

This would seem to lead to some interesting questions:

Does this mean that no one receiving personal revelation in Joseph's lifetime could know whether it was from God or some lying spirit without his guidance and assistance (or that of one of the twelve, or that of their local bishop)?

Would it mean that the guidance and assistance of the twelve was necessary to discern the source of personal revelation in the days, and weeks, and months, and years following Joseph's death?

And what would it mean when Denver started receiving and publishing his personal revelations?

Were there "regular constituted authorities" in the church then?

Would "No man nor sect of men" include Denver?

Could he have rightly discerned the source of his revelations without "the regular constituted authorities"?

And if he did, and the keys of the kingdom were taken from them and given to him (when he was excommunicated), is he now a regular constituted authority?

And can any man today discern the source of his personal revelations without him?

To those in the remnant:

What are "regular constituted authorities"?

Is this scripture?

Is it doctrine?

Did you covenant to guide your lives by it in Boise?

And are you doing so?

Rather than answer each question individually, I thought I would give a stream of consciousness that may help answer the question about how I (can't speak for others) let the scriptures guide my life.

So starting out I can tell there is a question you are not asking directly, but are really wondering. Do keys or a church office constitute "regular constituted authority"?
No. For several reasons:
- such a definition would condemn Joseph himself during the first vision and Moroni/Nephi's nighttime visit.
- it would condemn any prophet who opens a dispensation
- the overarching purpose of the Gospel is to eventually to make everyone equal with God. To have all the best gifts. If this were true, instead of trying to lift everyone up, it holds many people down.

So what is it then. Well this is not a common phrase. What did the words mean to Joseph?
http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/regular
http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dicti ... onstituted
http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/authority

Likely the key word in the phrase is authority. So let's look at the individual definitions and see what matches up:

1. Legal power, or a right to command or to act; as the authority of a prince over subjects, and of parents over children. Power; rule; sway.

While many LDS might say this matches it exactly with Priesthood, this is the exact opposite of what is permitted by D&C 121 (T&C 139) and everything that I said above. So it is not this.

2. The power derived from opinion, respect or esteem; influence of character or office; credit; as the authority of age or example, which is submitted to or respected, in some measure, as a law, or rule of action. That which is claimed in justification or support of opinions and measures.

This one makes some sense. If you were a Mormon at the time, you were so because you believed Joseph's message, whether it be the First Vision, the Book of Mormon, the restoration of Priesthood, etc. Note that all of these have associated heavenly or angelic ministers. So it makes sense that at the time, Joseph is the subject matter expert, including identifying unholy spirits (the devil in the first vision). This does not grant Joseph some sort of exclusive right, but it does make him the "go-to" person. There is nothing precluding someone else to have similar experiences and having an equal "authority" on the matter. This is uplifting in that people are aided in their growth by a helping hand, rather than made dependent upon someone else who maintains a position above them.
Now this does not quite solve the issue though, because if it is just a living person, it still condemns Joseph and other dispensation openers, who don't have a living go-to person (and the whole thing is about how to judge non-earthly persons, so we can't trust them). The written or perhaps oral testimonies of others could serve as a guide as well. It is not quite as useful, as with a written account you are limited to what they wrote, whereas with a living person you can tell your experience and get feedback, have a conversation. But it is still helpful none the less. So it makes sense that the scriptures could be an authority as well.

3. Testimony; witness; or the person who testifies; as, the Gospels or the evangelists are our authorities for the miracles of Christ.

And here is a direct definition that clearly includes scriptures.

So then I ask if there are any scriptural examples of this phenomenon (and how frequent they are, the more often they occur the more reliable).
This is actually a tough one. There are many examples of angels and devils appearing to people, but not many details on how people evaluated the messenger in the moment. For example, Joseph (Jesus step dad) met the angel who told him to go to Egypt and from our vantage he went and did it and everything turned out great. But how did he know? We don't have any account of him offering to shake the hand or saw white instead of blond hair. We have the account Korihor, who said the devil appeared as an angel of light but said pleasing things to the carnal mind. So we have the message, but what if it is not something that can be evaluated on its carnality (like go to Egypt). And that is part of what makes this a difficult subject, we have the handshake test, but I literally know of no example of it being used, whether scriptural, from Joseph or of anyone else using it for that matter. Then we have the bit about blond hair, but no explanation as to why or what to expect from a good messenger. At least the handshake test included a rationale and a passing criteria.

On the anecdotal side, I thought of folks today who write books about starting a business to become a millionaire or whatever, but are obviously not millionaires themselves, and think to myself "Bill Gates I know, Warren Buffett I know, but who are you?" It is good to have a mentor that is successful.
(Wait did I just turn a devil's quote into my own and make it seem legit?)

So given all that I would mentally rate my own conclusions at about a 3 out of 10, in other words highly subject to change upon receipt of new information. But it is what I have to go off for now.

And in closing, in this viewpoint (best I have for now) Denver does not have to rely upon someone else (just like Joseph did not). Nor is it particularly apparent who this person could have been. It is rare for an LDS general authority to discuss a single visitation, much less describe several (enough to be a subject matter expert) in detail like Joseph or Paul . Note that this does not mean that they don't have them, just that it is unclear who is experienced enough to go to for help in understanding an encounter. So it makes sense that he would have to rely upon the scriptures and words of Joseph for reference.

[inquirringmind]

The overarching purpose of the gospel is to make everyone equal to God?

I thought it was to honor, and exult, and glorify God.

And I thought He'd always be higher than everyone else.

Isn't this part of the new canon?

But now is Christ risen from the dead and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ, the firstfruits; afterward, they that are Christ’s at his coming; afterward comes the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father, when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power, for he must reign until he has put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy, death, shall be destroyed. For he says, when it is manifest that he has put all things under his feet, and that all things are put under, He is excepted of the Father, who did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto Him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

http://scriptures.info/scriptures/nt/1corinthians/1

Doesn't it say that in the end, the Son will deliver a subdued creation to the Father, that God may be all in all?

It doesn't say "that God may be just one of the boys," does it?

[Durzan]

The overarching purpose of the gospel is to make everyone equal to God?

I thought it was to honor, and exult, and glorify God.

And I thought He'd always be higher than everyone else.

Isn't this part of the new canon?

But now is Christ risen from the dead and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ, the firstfruits; afterward, they that are Christ’s at his coming; afterward comes the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father, when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power, for he must reign until he has put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy, death, shall be destroyed. For he says, when it is manifest that he has put all things under his feet, and that all things are put under, He is excepted of the Father, who did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto Him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

http://scriptures.info/scriptures/nt/1corinthians/1

Doesn't it say that in the end, the Son will be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all?

Or does it say "that God may be just one of the boys"?

Umm... first off, what is the full context of the scripture you are quoting? Citing scripture without taking in account the historical and literary context of the passage being quoted from is a good way to let any dude interpret the passage in a manner that will suit their purposes. Of course, when reading a small passage such as that with the holy spirit, the actual context of the message becomes less relevant in favor of the personal context that the Spirit was trying to teach you. However, knowing the full context adds additional insight and enhances your understanding of God and the Scriptures, as you can compare what the Spirit is trying to teach you with what the author of the passage was trying to say originally, and gain additional knowledge and wisdom from said interaction.

He that Hath ears, let him hear and I will reveal this mystery unto you. God's Work and Glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of Man (Moses 1:39, Pearl of Great Price), thus God Himself declared that His personal Honor and Glory stems from wanting to raise us to be like Him. So the ultimate purpose of the gospel is BOTH to glorify God and exalt all those who are willing to do what is necessary to become like God. However, such exaltation is a process, not an all at once kind of thing. Through the application of Christ's sacrifice, we change in character first, step by step, little by little, becoming like God in mind and character. Then in time, we become like Him in both power and form as well.

God is our Father. On earth, are we ever truly equal to our parents? Nope. Our parents will always be significantly older than us, and with that age comes additional knowledge and experience. Its the same with us and Heavenly Father. No matter how far we progress, God will always be ahead of us in knowledge, wisdom, and power. If we become like Heavenly Father completely, then naturally this would mean that we would have the ability to create our own Universes, and father our own Spirit Children. However, because we are still God's Children even though we now have become Heavenly Parents ourselves, we still owe Him respect and difference. By creating our own Eternal Kingdoms, we are indirectly adding to our Father's own glory and dominion, even if technically the Kingdoms we create are our own to govern.

As for Him subduing all things, Christ has already started that. Because of the Atonement, we are eternally in debt to Him, and by extension Heavenly Father as well. Christ will purge all wickedness from the Earth when He comes again as well, which is also what that scripture is likely referring to. Only once all evil on earth has been quelled can we be at peace and become truly and completely One with our Father in Heaven, and with Jesus Christ, and with the Holy Ghost. Delivering the Earth unto the Father literally means just that: presenting His work to God in person, who will declare it good and Finished.

Thus, there is ultimately no contradiction, although you have to examine it closely to see and understand.

[Jonesy]

(Notice the term "regular constituted authorities.")

[Teachings and Commandments 147:31, remnant restoration edition of scripture.]

Some will say, “try the spirits” by the word. “Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that confesses not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God.” 1 John 1:18. One of the Irvingites once quoted this passage whilst under the influence of a spirit, and then said, “I confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.” And yet these prophecies failed, their messiah did not come, and the great things spoken of by them have fallen to the ground. What is the matter here? Did not the Apostle speak the truth? Certainly he did — but he spoke to a people who were under the penalty of death the moment they embraced Christianity; and no one without a knowledge of the fact would confess it and expose themselves to death, and this was consequently given as a criterion to the church or churches to which John wrote. But the Devil on a certain occasion cried out, “I know you, who you are, the Holy One of God!” Here was a frank acknowledgment under other circumstances that “Jesus had come in the flesh.” On another occasion the Devil said, “Paul we know, and Jesus we know” — of course, “come in the flesh.” No man nor sect of men without the regular constituted authorities, the Priesthood, and discerning of spirits can tell true from false spirits.

I’m no member of the “remnant” group, but I have some thoughts.

32 And in case that any decision of these quorums is made in unrighteousness, it may be brought before a general assembly of the several quorums, which constitute the spiritual authorities of the church; otherwise there can be no appeal from their decision.

33 The Twelve are a Traveling Presiding High Council, to officiate in the name of the Lord, under the direction of the Presidency of the Church, agreeable to the institution of heaven; to build up the church, and regulate all the affairs of the same in all nations, first unto the Gentiles and secondly unto the Jews.(D&C 107)

The quorums were constituted by revelation through Joseph Smith in our accepted set of scriptures. Correct me if I’m wrong, but to my knowledge, the remnant group does not follow this pattern. Does he claim to be this end time servant?

7 For I have given him the keys of the mysteries, and the revelations which are sealed, until I shall appoint unto them another in his stead.

In my opinion, there should probably be a decision made. Are they going to live by the commandments received by Joseph Smith, or is he going to claim to be this second seer? If he’s not the second seer, how is his remnant movement possibly authorized of God? I don’t understand how he can claim to have wrested the keys from the church, yet not be appointed as this second seer. I thought maybe this would be a simultaneous occurrence.

[jdt]

The overarching purpose of the gospel is to make everyone equal to God?

I thought it was to honor, and exult, and glorify God.

And I thought He'd always be higher than everyone else.

Isn't this part of the new canon?

But now is Christ risen from the dead and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ, the firstfruits; afterward, they that are Christ’s at his coming; afterward comes the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father, when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power, for he must reign until he has put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy, death, shall be destroyed. For he says, when it is manifest that he has put all things under his feet, and that all things are put under, He is excepted of the Father, who did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto Him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

http://scriptures.info/scriptures/nt/1corinthians/1

Doesn't it say that in the end, the Son will deliver a subdued creation to the Father, that God may be all in all?

It doesn't say "that God may be just one of the boys," does it?

I concur with Durzan's explanation.

[jdt]

I’m no member of the “remnant” group, but I have some thoughts.

32 And in case that any decision of these quorums is made in unrighteousness, it may be brought before a general assembly of the several quorums, which constitute the spiritual authorities of the church; otherwise there can be no appeal from their decision.

33 The Twelve are a Traveling Presiding High Council, to officiate in the name of the Lord, under the direction of the Presidency of the Church, agreeable to the institution of heaven; to build up the church, and regulate all the affairs of the same in all nations, first unto the Gentiles and secondly unto the Jews.(D&C 107)

The quorums were constituted by revelation through Joseph Smith in our accepted set of scriptures. Correct me if I’m wrong, but to my knowledge, the remnant group does not follow this pattern. Does he claim to be this end time servant?

7 For I have given him the keys of the mysteries, and the revelations which are sealed, until I shall appoint unto them another in his stead.

In my opinion, there should probably be a decision made. Are they going to live by the commandments received by Joseph Smith, or is he going to claim to be this second seer? If he’s not the second seer, how is his remnant movement possibly authorized of God? I don’t understand how he can claim to have wrested the keys from the church, yet not be appointed as this second seer. I thought maybe this would be a simultaneous occurrence.

To me you have to ask yourself what is eternal (always must be) and what is temporarily commanded (must be done but only within a set period of time) and what is just the practice of the day (a pattern followed but not commanded).
For instance, animal sacrifice was temporarily commanded. Even though you can find God commanding its practice in scripture, we are not obligated to do it now. Joseph Smith seemed to like parliamentary procedures (I move to XYZ, seconded by so and so, voted upon, and so forth) and he often set things up to follow that process. Does that mean we need to be doing that today? I don't think so.
So then we ask this same question about church organization. Is it eternal? Is it required to have a Quorum of Twelve Apostles, for example? I know of no account of any dispensation prior to the New Testament era with one. Was the Church in Joseph's day illegitimate until 1835 (when that Quorum was first organized)? What about other offices? The Book of Mormon organizations have no reference to Bishop or Deacon. Were the saints in Zarahemla a ruined tatter under the Seer Mosiah until he permitted Alma to continue the organization of Priests and Teachers he developed in the wilderness? If anything, the organization in scripture seems to change a lot throughout history. So it is obviously not eternal.
Then the question moves to whether it was merely just a practice (in which case, there is no problem as we are free to select a different practice) or it was temporarily commanded, and if so does the command still hold?
I will let each come to their own conclusion. But it is not a trivial question, as the LDS organization changed a lot under Joseph after the original organization in 1830, and there are a couple of changes since 1845 like removal of the presiding patriarch and altering the way the Quorum's of Seventy work.

[Rand]

You can tell the discerning of spirits ....

Thanks for your thoughts Emily. Interesting.

[TrueIntent]

I haven't read all the posts so please excuse me if I repeat. There is a pattern found in scripture that is contained in the ordinances. Angels have no authority over us, nor does anyone else, so whether or not you listen to a messenger is all up to you...hopefully you have prepared yourself to receive true messengers (temple ceremony)...because true messengers won't appear to you if you aren't "worthy", or sufficiently repentant in other words. We are supposed to follow the "word" or the "way" as described in scripture by the new testament apostles. It is a pattern of repentance....even the endowment is a pattern of repentance (the scriptures and joseph smith taught that it was "all one baptism")...this is true. WE ARE NOT HOLY....we become without spot by repenting. We also can not please God without faith. So our witnesses must be received by faith (not knowing beforehand but acting with hope). And of course, God intervenes with spiritual witnesses to keep us on the path (like he did laman and lemuel) as long as we do not continue to willfully rebel...He wants to save us.

The book of ACTS....study this paired with early church history. As well as how the prophets in the Book of mormon preached (and of course old testament patterns, ordinances, rituals). Baptism was the followed by the reception of the Holy spirit....then there are descriptriptions of a pentecostal experience in Acts (called being endued with power, this is the same as our endowment, where we are to be endowed with power). Basically, a true witness, prophet, apostle, leader etc....will have received witnesses of the spirit that fit the pattern of "christ's word" because He was the word in the flesh. To know a true witness you would have to know Christ. Btw, lots of people dress with robes of authority (like satan does in his black robes), but only true witnesses/messengers have "glory" (see story of satan appearing to moses in old testament). You can dresses a turd up and it still is a turd.

As the early church in the new testament is being established, there is fighting amongst the apostles about doctrine (this happened in our early church history as well).....Here's the deal, The apostle Paul taught that his spiritual witnesses (Christ instructing him through spirit) were equal to the other disciples who knew Jesus before his crucifixion......if Paul is equal in apostleshipl (and sometimes referred to as greater because he was least amongst the apostles) based on his witnesses of Christ teaching him through the spirit (revelation)......then we need to also be willing to accept other Christians as equal in baptism outside of mormonism who have received spiritual witnesses equal to the an ordinance. because an ordinances is just a pattern. (this is what joseph smith teaches about the spirit of elijah, and power of).....Its the merging of the two....this is why the church apostatized, they wouldn't merge. They were haughty because of the "works of their hands".....are we willing to receive gentile christian brothers and sisters who have witnesses of the spirit as our equals (or even greater), and are we willing to "wash" again in mormonism to receive the witnesses of the spirit if we have not received them.

The jews practiced circumcision, but paul says that baptism of fire was circumcisnion of the heart. The gentiles were baptized (even though they had not "washed" in all the rituals like the jews,.,...the baptism of John was symbolic and meant to teach jews that even though they had ordinances, they still needed to be "washed".....this was offensive to jews who had ritually washed their whole lives. Some guy, dressed like elijah, comes around telling them they have to be washed again because they never received the spirit. Jesus Christ had no need of Johns baptism, because HE received the spirit and witnesses of it of who He was without it, but he did it to "fulfill all righteousness".

Anyway, my point is.....learn the scriptures, repent, and follow the spirit. You won't be able to discern with eyes or ears in the physical sense who is a "messenger" from God, unless you know who Christ is. . It will be a spiritual understanding based on how well you know Christ. My personal experience is that I began understanding things like "grace" when i received a witness of them. Its walking in faith. Its a path....only the spirit can teach it. But I bear witness of it. Its true.

Also, as fellow mormon who has received ordinances, and also as a mormon who has received witnesses of the spirit. I hope that we will be willing to accept "gentile/adoption" witnesses of those outside of our faith who claim to be saved by Christ because they have received these fruits. There is a reason our church teaches that we must receive personal revelation--it declares to the individual that they are saved. and so, it is offensive to those who have received these witnesses when we declare that THEY are not saved and must be baptized by ordinance to be so. The reality is, the ordinances are patterns to confirm these witnesses.....We as LDS should be delivering these patterns to them as a second witness that they are part of the fold. We are all the Body of Christ.

[Jonesy]

I’m no member of the “remnant” group, but I have some thoughts.

32 And in case that any decision of these quorums is made in unrighteousness, it may be brought before a general assembly of the several quorums, which constitute the spiritual authorities of the church; otherwise there can be no appeal from their decision.

33 The Twelve are a Traveling Presiding High Council, to officiate in the name of the Lord, under the direction of the Presidency of the Church, agreeable to the institution of heaven; to build up the church, and regulate all the affairs of the same in all nations, first unto the Gentiles and secondly unto the Jews.(D&C 107)

The quorums were constituted by revelation through Joseph Smith in our accepted set of scriptures. Correct me if I’m wrong, but to my knowledge, the remnant group does not follow this pattern. Does he claim to be this end time servant?

7 For I have given him the keys of the mysteries, and the revelations which are sealed, until I shall appoint unto them another in his stead.

In my opinion, there should probably be a decision made. Are they going to live by the commandments received by Joseph Smith, or is he going to claim to be this second seer? If he’s not the second seer, how is his remnant movement possibly authorized of God? I don’t understand how he can claim to have wrested the keys from the church, yet not be appointed as this second seer. I thought maybe this would be a simultaneous occurrence.

To me you have to ask yourself what is eternal (always must be) and what is temporarily commanded (must be done but only within a set period of time) and what is just the practice of the day (a pattern followed but not commanded).
For instance, animal sacrifice was temporarily commanded. Even though you can find God commanding its practice in scripture, we are not obligated to do it now. Joseph Smith seemed to like parliamentary procedures (I move to XYZ, seconded by so and so, voted upon, and so forth) and he often set things up to follow that process. Does that mean we need to be doing that today? I don't think so.
So then we ask this same question about church organization. Is it eternal? Is it required to have a Quorum of Twelve Apostles, for example? I know of no account of any dispensation prior to the New Testament era with one. Was the Church in Joseph's day illegitimate until 1835 (when that Quorum was first organized)? What about other offices? The Book of Mormon organizations have no reference to Bishop or Deacon. Were the saints in Zarahemla a ruined tatter under the Seer Mosiah until he permitted Alma to continue the organization of Priests and Teachers he developed in the wilderness? If anything, the organization in scripture seems to change a lot throughout history. So it is obviously not eternal.
Then the question moves to whether it was merely just a practice (in which case, there is no problem as we are free to select a different practice) or it was temporarily commanded, and if so does the command still hold?
I will let each come to their own conclusion. But it is not a trivial question, as the LDS organization changed a lot under Joseph after the original organization in 1830, and there are a couple of changes since 1845 like removal of the presiding patriarch and altering the way the Quorum's of Seventy work.

Yeah, that’s definitely part of my point. But the current key holders (the Fifteen) are within their authority to make policy changes. I think it was understood that the church would get out of order, because it’s prophesied that it will be put back in order.

7 And it shall come to pass that I, the Lord God, will send one mighty and strong, holding the scepter of power in his hand, clothed with light for a covering, whose mouth shall utter words, eternal words; while his bowels shall be a fountain of truth, to set in order the house of God, and to arrange by lot the inheritances of the saints whose names are found, and the names of their fathers, and of their children, enrolled in the book of the law of God;(D&C 85)

But the Doctrine and Covenants is most especially for the administration of the gospel currently. That’s what the book is for. So, if there is an end time servant, I think he will most certainly pick up where Joseph left off.

But again to my second point about the end time servant. If Snuffer, or anyone, claims to have wrested the keys, yet doesn’t claim to be that servant above...that’s a problem. It doesn’t make sense. So, until then,

8 While that man, who was called of God and appointed, that putteth forth his hand to steady the ark of God, shall fall by the shaft of death, like as a tree that is smitten by the vivid shaft of lightning.
9 And all they who are not found written in the book of remembrance shall find none inheritance in that day, but they shall be cut asunder, and their portion shall be appointed them among unbelievers, where are wailing and gnashing of teeth.(D&C 85)

Curses to those who break away from the church.

[jdt]

Yeah, that’s definitely part of my point. But the current key holders (the Fifteen) are within their authority to make policy changes. I think it was understood that the church would get out of order, because it’s prophesied that it will be put back in order.

Why did it get out of order in the first place? Are you suggesting that the prophesied one will come in and say, "Well, we did XYZ 200 years ago and it led to this out-of-orderness that we have today, so let's try XYZ again!" It's fine if you disagree, but in mind it makes a whole lot more sense to instead to learn from the past, both good and bad, and not necessarily do an exact repeat. Obviously anything eternal must be repeated, but organization does not fall in that category.

7 And it shall come to pass that I, the Lord God, will send one mighty and strong, holding the scepter of power in his hand, clothed with light for a covering, whose mouth shall utter words, eternal words; while his bowels shall be a fountain of truth, to set in order the house of God, and to arrange by lot the inheritances of the saints whose names are found, and the names of their fathers, and of their children, enrolled in the book of the law of God;(D&C 85)

But the Doctrine and Covenants is most especially for the administration of the gospel currently. That’s what the book is for. So, if there is an end time servant, I think he will most certainly pick up where Joseph left off.

In what ways will he pick up where Joseph left off? In continuing a New Testament modeled church? My opinion, it is in creating a people who can help establish Zion. That is the pinnacle, that is the goal. In my observation, the biggest blaspheme to modern Christians is to claim anything other than the Bible as the word of God. In that same vein, modern Latter-Day Saints hold the biggest blaspheme is to suggest someone other than the top 15 hold priesthood keys and by extension a different hierarchy model is acceptable. Once you let go of that, a whole new world opens up. Is the only way to create a Zion people to have the Bishop collect and disperse fast offerings? I look and say how powerful it is that our fellowships have to come together and discuss and struggle with how to disperse the money. It is sometimes painful and ugly in ways that you would never see if a single person held all the decision making authority and met behind closed doors, but there is a beauty and unity that can come from it, that you don't see in the LDS model. And this extends to many other areas. I am not saying that one is better than the other. I am saying that having the option to try different models opens people up to different experiences that lead to real growth. And the growth is what matters!

But again to my second point about the end time servant. If Snuffer, or anyone, claims to have wrested the keys, yet doesn’t claim to be that servant above...that’s a problem. It doesn’t make sense. So, until then,

8 While that man, who was called of God and appointed, that putteth forth his hand to steady the ark of God, shall fall by the shaft of death, like as a tree that is smitten by the vivid shaft of lightning.
9 And all they who are not found written in the book of remembrance shall find none inheritance in that day, but they shall be cut asunder, and their portion shall be appointed them among unbelievers, where are wailing and gnashing of teeth.(D&C 85)

Curses to those who break away from the church.

I don't know. Demanding he claim a title or declare him false sounds an awful lot like:
Luke 22:66-67:

And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council, saying, 67 Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe

Or John 10:24-25:

Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. 25Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.

It is my experience that charlatans universally emphasis titles over work/message. Work is hard, claiming titles is easy.

[TrueIntent]

Yeah, that’s definitely part of my point. But the current key holders (the Fifteen) are within their authority to make policy changes. I think it was understood that the church would get out of order, because it’s prophesied that it will be put back in order.

Why did it get out of order in the first place? Are you suggesting that the prophesied one will come in and say, "Well, we did XYZ 200 years ago and it led to this out-of-orderness that we have today, so let's try XYZ again!" It's fine if you disagree, but in mind it makes a whole lot more sense to instead to learn from the past, both good and bad, and not necessarily do an exact repeat. Obviously anything eternal must be repeated, but organization does not fall in that category.

7 And it shall come to pass that I, the Lord God, will send one mighty and strong, holding the scepter of power in his hand, clothed with light for a covering, whose mouth shall utter words, eternal words; while his bowels shall be a fountain of truth, to set in order the house of God, and to arrange by lot the inheritances of the saints whose names are found, and the names of their fathers, and of their children, enrolled in the book of the law of God;(D&C 85)

But the Doctrine and Covenants is most especially for the administration of the gospel currently. That’s what the book is for. So, if there is an end time servant, I think he will most certainly pick up where Joseph left off.

In what ways will he pick up where Joseph left off? In continuing a New Testament modeled church? My opinion, it is in creating a people who can help establish Zion. That is the pinnacle, that is the goal. In my observation, the biggest blaspheme to modern Christians is to claim anything other than the Bible as the word of God. In that same vein, modern Latter-Day Saints hold the biggest blaspheme is to suggest someone other than the top 15 hold priesthood keys and by extension a different hierarchy model is acceptable. Once you let go of that, a whole new world opens up. Is the only way to create a Zion people to have the Bishop collect and disperse fast offerings? I look and say how powerful it is that our fellowships have to come together and discuss and struggle with how to disperse the money. It is sometimes painful and ugly in ways that you would never see if a single person held all the decision making authority and met behind closed doors, but there is a beauty and unity that can come from it, that you don't see in the LDS model. And this extends to many other areas. I am not saying that one is better than the other. I am saying that having the option to try different models opens people up to different experiences that lead to real growth. And the growth is what matters!

But again to my second point about the end time servant. If Snuffer, or anyone, claims to have wrested the keys, yet doesn’t claim to be that servant above...that’s a problem. It doesn’t make sense. So, until then,

8 While that man, who was called of God and appointed, that putteth forth his hand to steady the ark of God, shall fall by the shaft of death, like as a tree that is smitten by the vivid shaft of lightning.
9 And all they who are not found written in the book of remembrance shall find none inheritance in that day, but they shall be cut asunder, and their portion shall be appointed them among unbelievers, where are wailing and gnashing of teeth.(D&C 85)

Curses to those who break away from the church.

I don't know. Demanding he claim a title or declare him false sounds an awful lot like:
Luke 22:66-67:

And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council, saying, 67 Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe

Or John 10:24-25:

Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. 25Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.

It is my experience that charlatans universally emphasis titles over work/message. Work is hard, claiming titles is easy.

Yeah, I want to add to your thoughts. We teach a lot of things like, paying a cash tithe open the windows of heaven. But heres a question I want to ask, What church was joseph smith a member of (that he was paying tithes to) when the windows of heaven opened and he had the first vision? None. So what "tithe" opens the windows of heaven, or better yet? What does the tithe point to?

I agree with the poster. Titles are just titles...people can claim them all day long. Keys are knowledge, and joseph smith taught that it was knowledge we are after. If it takes a position in a church to hold a "key" of knowledge, then we are all screwed.

By the way....12 apostles is a title. There were often more than 12 apostles at the same time in the new testament. Apostle means to "lift up".....and 12 is a symbol. Our church is organized after a true pattern. Power is separate than pattern.

Knowledge is what we should be after.

[Jonesy]

Yeah, that’s definitely part of my point. But the current key holders (the Fifteen) are within their authority to make policy changes. I think it was understood that the church would get out of order, because it’s prophesied that it will be put back in order.

Why did it get out of order in the first place? Are you suggesting that the prophesied one will come in and say, "Well, we did XYZ 200 years ago and it led to this out-of-orderness that we have today, so let's try XYZ again!" It's fine if you disagree, but in mind it makes a whole lot more sense to instead to learn from the past, both good and bad, and not necessarily do an exact repeat. Obviously anything eternal must be repeated, but organization does not fall in that category.

7 And it shall come to pass that I, the Lord God, will send one mighty and strong, holding the scepter of power in his hand, clothed with light for a covering, whose mouth shall utter words, eternal words; while his bowels shall be a fountain of truth, to set in order the house of God, and to arrange by lot the inheritances of the saints whose names are found, and the names of their fathers, and of their children, enrolled in the book of the law of God;(D&C 85)

But the Doctrine and Covenants is most especially for the administration of the gospel currently. That’s what the book is for. So, if there is an end time servant, I think he will most certainly pick up where Joseph left off.

In what ways will he pick up where Joseph left off? In continuing a New Testament modeled church? My opinion, it is in creating a people who can help establish Zion. That is the pinnacle, that is the goal. In my observation, the biggest blaspheme to modern Christians is to claim anything other than the Bible as the word of God. In that same vein, modern Latter-Day Saints hold the biggest blaspheme is to suggest someone other than the top 15 hold priesthood keys and by extension a different hierarchy model is acceptable. Once you let go of that, a whole new world opens up. Is the only way to create a Zion people to have the Bishop collect and disperse fast offerings? I look and say how powerful it is that our fellowships have to come together and discuss and struggle with how to disperse the money. It is sometimes painful and ugly in ways that you would never see if a single person held all the decision making authority and met behind closed doors, but there is a beauty and unity that can come from it, that you don't see in the LDS model. And this extends to many other areas. I am not saying that one is better than the other. I am saying that having the option to try different models opens people up to different experiences that lead to real growth. And the growth is what matters!

But again to my second point about the end time servant. If Snuffer, or anyone, claims to have wrested the keys, yet doesn’t claim to be that servant above...that’s a problem. It doesn’t make sense. So, until then,

8 While that man, who was called of God and appointed, that putteth forth his hand to steady the ark of God, shall fall by the shaft of death, like as a tree that is smitten by the vivid shaft of lightning.
9 And all they who are not found written in the book of remembrance shall find none inheritance in that day, but they shall be cut asunder, and their portion shall be appointed them among unbelievers, where are wailing and gnashing of teeth.(D&C 85)

Curses to those who break away from the church.

I don't know. Demanding he claim a title or declare him false sounds an awful lot like:
Luke 22:66-67:

And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council, saying, 67 Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe

Or John 10:24-25:

Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. 25Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.

It is my experience that charlatans universally emphasis titles over work/message. Work is hard, claiming titles is easy.

I see a theme here. Again, back to the Doctrine and Covenants. That is what he will have us conform to. That is our instruction. I suspect he will change all policies that don’t currently conform to the D&C, and make that the rule. I think he will continue from there. For example:
-The law of consecration, in its fullness
-The United Order
-Plural marriage
-The gathering and building of Zion
Etc.

Yes, it is blasphemous for someone not holding keys to make changes in the Lord’s church. There would have to be conformity to God’s revealed commandments. Joseph Smith had canonized God’s written word. That is our instruction. And yet, the second seer will conform to what has already been revealed and will yet continue with the restoration of all things.

Well, Snuffer doesn’t claim he’s the second seer. His followers don’t either....so, what’s the point? There is a complete lack of power manifested in his following. The most sure thing to this day has been failed after failed break off groups of the church. When the second seer shows up, he’ll do it with the keys, and with power. It won’t be hard for the second seer because God’s power will be in full force.

[jdt]

I see a theme here. Again, back to the Doctrine and Covenants. That is what he will have us conform to. That is our instruction. I suspect he will change all policies that don’t currently conform to the D&C, and make that the rule. I think he will continue from there. For example:
-The law of consecration, in its fullness
-The United Order
-Plural marriage
-The gathering and building of Zion
Etc.

Yes, it is blasphemous for someone not holding keys to make changes in the Lord’s church. There would have to be conformity to God’s revealed commandments. Joseph Smith had canonized God’s written word. That is our instruction. And yet, the second seer will conform to what has already been revealed and will yet continue with the restoration of all things.

Well, Snuffer doesn’t claim he’s the second seer. His followers don’t either....so, what’s the point? There is a complete lack of power manifested in his following. The most sure thing to this day has been failed after failed break off groups of the church. When the second seer shows up, he’ll do it with the keys, and with power. It won’t be hard for the second seer because God’s power will be in full force.

Fair enough. My heart calls me in a different direction, but I can see the rationale behind what you believe, and it is a reasonable argument.

A couple of minor points:
- I will note that your list did not include any organizational changes, would you include the reinstatement of Presiding Patriarch and the Kingdom of God (aka Council of Fifty) in your list?
- I would claim that the members of the church were the ones to canonize the God's word, rather than Joseph. I can find the meeting minutes where this was done if interested.
- What will the power of the second seer look like? Many ancient Jews assumed (or wanted perhaps) that the Messiah was going to show forth great military power and kick out the Roman overlords (much more akin to David). In hindsight we can see the power that he held (and it was obviously not military), but it was difficult to foresee (even his own apostles did not really understand what all was going on until after the fact). All that to say, history seems to indicate that people are not very good at understanding prophecy and being able to recognize it as it is unfolding, but rather need the benefit of hindsight to see it. Make sure your confidence in your own ability is well-grounded.

[Jonesy]

Fair enough. My heart calls me in a different direction, but I can see the rationale behind what you believe, and it is a reasonable argument.

A couple of minor points:
- I will note that your list did not include any organizational changes, would you include the reinstatement of Presiding Patriarch and the Kingdom of God (aka Council of Fifty) in your list?
- I would claim that the members of the church were the ones to canonize the God's word, rather than Joseph. I can find the meeting minutes where this was done if interested.
- What will the power of the second seer look like? Many ancient Jews assumed (or wanted perhaps) that the Messiah was going to show forth great military power and kick out the Roman overlords (much more akin to David). In hindsight we can see the power that he held (and it was obviously not military), but it was difficult to foresee (even his own apostles did not really understand what all was going on until after the fact). All that to say, history seems to indicate that people are not very good at understanding prophecy and being able to recognize it as it is unfolding, but rather need the benefit of hindsight to see it. Make sure your confidence in your own ability is well-grounded.

Well, note also that that list conforms to the D&C. I think anything that Joseph revealed is game. So, I can see the council of fifty coming back. Joseph Smith did emphasize its role later on before the millennium and at a time when secular governments fail.

And, yes, I would agree about the canonization. What I mean to say is that Joseph Smith was the man to receive such things:

2 But, behold, verily, verily, I say unto thee, no one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., for he receiveth them even as Moses.(D&C 28)

The second seer will work in the same manner.

I think you have it right that we probably haven’t interpreted prophecy very well. In fact, I think very little prophecy has come to pass. But this is what is going to happen first before any of the end time prophecy happens:

11 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.(Matt. 17)

The second seer must show up first. Then we will see literal fulfillment of things come to pass. And this Elias, as we see in scripture, is very powerful:

10 And then cometh the day when the arm of the Lord shall be revealed in power in convincing the nations, the heathen nations, the house of Joseph, of the gospel of their salvation.
11 For it shall come to pass in that day, that every man shall hear the fulness of the gospel in his own tongue, and in his own language, through those who are ordained unto this power, by the administration of the Comforter, shed forth upon them for the revelation of Jesus Christ.(D&C 90)

Has this been fulfilled yet? Some may say yes, but this has not been literally fulfilled. Only a shadow fulfillment. The arm of the Lord is this second seer. He will be a miracle worker.

I appreciate your caution. I was almost baptized into Snuffer’s movement myself. I was so certain that was it! Then I was put in a position to really assess where I was going. It took a very hard reflection. It sucks admitting you were deceived. It really humbles you, and I feel like, in a sense, I’m starting again with the fundamentals. It’s important to get those right first.

If you’re interested in learning more about this second seer, you can start here. There are like 8 other posts where he’s written about the second seer. I found it very useful. He also writes some good stuff about the importance of keys in the church.