The Coronavirus Hoax

[Chip]

FAITH IN THE UN

What's not to like? I suppose they meant that there are religions that have faith in the U.N., but it also reads like people should have faith in the U.N.

Come on Chip, have a little faith in Satan. That’s the cool thing to do these days.

I didn't write that correctly. In any case, the whole thing is a clusterbuck.

[larsenb]

President Nelson's best buddy wants to track all of us with microchips, and no one who has been defending him has any comment?

Personally, I find accusatory hyperbole off-putting.

I find covenanting and signing our church onto the will of Klaus Schwab and United Nations off-putting. You're not really upset with me, you're upset with President Nelson. . . . . .

It was the "best buddy" bit. This kind of insinuation if off-putting to me, and I'm sure to others. it has a decidedly 'snide' flavor to me.

And tribrak has a point. Their use of "Church of Latter Day Saints/LDS" in their list, is rather strange. Which for me, raises the question as to who from the Church signed onto their FAITH ADVISORY COUNCIL OF THE UN INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE ON RELIGION (2018-2019), and did RMN approve of it?

Would be interesting to see the original documents. Have you dug any of these up yet?

Yes, I'm disturbed by such goings on. But what the Church is doing in this and similar arenas, doesn't negate what I've said about this subject before, imo.

[InfoWarrior82]

President Nelson's best buddy wants to track all of us with microchips, and no one who has been defending him has any comment?

Personally, I find accusatory hyperbole off-putting.

I find covenanting and signing our church onto the will of Klaus Schwab and United Nations off-putting. You're not really upset with me, you're upset with President Nelson. . . . . .

It was the "best buddy" bit. This kind of insinuation if off-putting to me, and I'm sure to others. it has a decidedly 'snide' flavor to me.

And tribrak has a point. Their use of "Church of Latter Day Saints/LDS" in their list, is rather strange. Which for me, raises the question as to who from the Church signed onto their FAITH ADVISORY COUNCIL OF THE UN INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE ON RELIGION (2018-2019), and did RMN approve of it?

Would be interesting to see the original documents. Have you dug any of these up yet?

Yes, I'm disturbed by such goings on. But what the Church is doing in this and similar arenas, doesn't negate what I've said about this subject before, imo.

No more best buddy than the PedoPope. He had very lofty, and wonderful things to say about him. Do you not think President Nelson would say exactly the same thing to Mr. Schwabby Pants too? Of course he would. He wouldn't want to dishonor his covenant-giver would he?

Oh come now, lasrsenb. "Would RMN approve of literally signing onto the mandates of the UN?"

You can't be that deluded! Of course he approved it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You simply can't envision a possibility where the ancient prophets actually were talking about our modern prophets. The only thing I can say about that is "pray about it". It was tough for me to do. At first it felt like I was sinning just even thinking about asking such a thing from Heavenly Father.

[Chip]

...At first it felt like I was sinning just even thinking about asking such a thing from Heavenly Father.

Due to very effective programming, done with intent.

[larsenb]

. . . . . . No more best buddy than the PedoPope. He had very lofty, and wonderful things to say about him. Do you not think President Nelson would say exactly the same thing to Mr. Schwabby Pants too? Of course he would. He wouldn't want to dishonor his covenant-giver would he?

Oh come now, lasrsenb. "Would RMN approve of literally signing onto the mandates of the UN?"

You can't be that deluded! Of course he approved it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You simply can't envision a possibility where the ancient prophets actually were talking about our modern prophets. The only thing I can say about that is "pray about it". It was tough for me to do. At first it felt like I was sinning just even thinking about asking such a thing from Heavenly Father.

But then you let yourself lapse into a style that comes across as snide, insinuating and accusatory. All done under the cover of anonymity. Sorry, you aren't getting my attention when you do this.

It's the Lord's church. He did all the long preparatory work over multiple centuries to bring it on line. I'll let Him worry about how to inspire its leaders or not to inspire them; or to correct or not correct its course as He sees fit.

Of course you're aware of the finger pointing metaphor where the index finger does the pointing and the other three point back to yourself. I've learned in a few decades of life to avoid this kind of activity. Not always successful, but I've been bitten too many times by the karmic feedback from such activity.

[InfoWarrior82]

I find covenanting and signing our church onto the will of Klaus Schwab and United Nations off-putting. You're not really upset with me, you're upset with President Nelson. . . . . .

It was the "best buddy" bit. This kind of insinuation if off-putting to me, and I'm sure to others. it has a decidedly 'snide' flavor to me.

And tribrak has a point. Their use of "Church of Latter Day Saints/LDS" in their list, is rather strange. Which for me, raises the question as to who from the Church signed onto their FAITH ADVISORY COUNCIL OF THE UN INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE ON RELIGION (2018-2019), and did RMN approve of it?

Would be interesting to see the original documents. Have you dug any of these up yet?

Yes, I'm disturbed by such goings on. But what the Church is doing in this and similar arenas, doesn't negate what I've said about this subject before, imo.

No more best buddy than the PedoPope. He had very lofty, and wonderful things to say about him. Do you not think President Nelson would say exactly the same thing to Mr. Schwabby Pants too? Of course he would. He wouldn't want to dishonor his covenant-giver would he?

Oh come now, lasrsenb. "Would RMN approve of literally signing onto the mandates of the UN?"

You can't be that deluded! Of course he approved it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You simply can't envision a possibility where the ancient prophets actually were talking about our modern prophets. The only thing I can say about that is "pray about it". It was tough for me to do. At first it felt like I was sinning just even thinking about asking such a thing from Heavenly Father.

But then you let yourself lapse into a style that comes across as snide, insinuating and accusatory. All done under the cover of anonymity. Sorry, you aren't getting my attention.

It's the Lord's church. He did all the long preparatory work over multiple centuries to bring it on line. I'll let Him worry about how to inspire its leaders or not to inspire them; or to correct or not correct its course as He sees fit.

Of course you're aware of the pointing finger metaphor where the index finger does the pointing and the other three point back to yourself.

Don't shoot the messenger. I'll call out evil when I see it. And I do so knowing that I am not perfect.

I notice that in all your responses, you seem to avoid addressing the evidence, but accuse the one putting it out there as being "accusatory" and "snide" as if these things were worse than what the church is currently doing.

[David13]

. . . . . . No more best buddy than the PedoPope. He had very lofty, and wonderful things to say about him. Do you not think President Nelson would say exactly the same thing to Mr. Schwabby Pants too? Of course he would. He wouldn't want to dishonor his covenant-giver would he?

Oh come now, lasrsenb. "Would RMN approve of literally signing onto the mandates of the UN?"

You can't be that deluded! Of course he approved it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You simply can't envision a possibility where the ancient prophets actually were talking about our modern prophets. The only thing I can say about that is "pray about it". It was tough for me to do. At first it felt like I was sinning just even thinking about asking such a thing from Heavenly Father.

But then you let yourself lapse into a style that comes across as snide, insinuating and accusatory. All done under the cover of anonymity. Sorry, you aren't getting my attention.

It's the Lord's church. He did all the long preparatory work over multiple centuries to bring it on line. I'll let Him worry about how to inspire its leaders or not to inspire them; or to correct or not correct its course as He sees fit.

Of course you're aware of the finger pointing metaphor where the index finger does the pointing and the other three point back to yourself. I've learned in a few decades of life to avoid this kind of activity. Not always successful, but I've been bitten too many times by the karmic feedback from such activity.

Usually you and I agree on quite a few things.

But I don't see this as you do.

I just see him stating facts.

And then his view of it all is his opinion, yes, but, he is entitled to his opinion, isn't he.
dc

[larsenb]

It was the "best buddy" bit. This kind of insinuation if off-putting to me, and I'm sure to others. it has a decidedly 'snide' flavor to me.

And tribrak has a point. Their use of "Church of Latter Day Saints/LDS" in their list, is rather strange. Which for me, raises the question as to who from the Church signed onto their FAITH ADVISORY COUNCIL OF THE UN INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE ON RELIGION (2018-2019), and did RMN approve of it?

Would be interesting to see the original documents. Have you dug any of these up yet?

Yes, I'm disturbed by such goings on. But what the Church is doing in this and similar arenas, doesn't negate what I've said about this subject before, imo.

No more best buddy than the PedoPope. He had very lofty, and wonderful things to say about him. Do you not think President Nelson would say exactly the same thing to Mr. Schwabby Pants too? Of course he would. He wouldn't want to dishonor his covenant-giver would he?

Oh come now, lasrsenb. "Would RMN approve of literally signing onto the mandates of the UN?"

You can't be that deluded! Of course he approved it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You simply can't envision a possibility where the ancient prophets actually were talking about our modern prophets. The only thing I can say about that is "pray about it". It was tough for me to do. At first it felt like I was sinning just even thinking about asking such a thing from Heavenly Father.

But then you let yourself lapse into a style that comes across as snide, insinuating and accusatory. All done under the cover of anonymity. Sorry, you aren't getting my attention.

It's the Lord's church. He did all the long preparatory work over multiple centuries to bring it on line. I'll let Him worry about how to inspire its leaders or not to inspire them; or to correct or not correct its course as He sees fit.

Of course you're aware of the pointing finger metaphor where the index finger does the pointing and the other three point back to yourself.

Don't shoot the messenger. I'll call out evil when I see it. And I do so knowing that I am not perfect.

I notice that in all your responses, you seem to avoid addressing the evidence, but accuse the one putting it out there as being "accusatory" and "snide" as if these things were worse than what the church is currently doing.

I don't see you as the messenger in all this, one who has been directed to point out what you do . . . . especially under cover of anonymity. And I doubt you would use the tone you do directly to the faces of those you accuse.

Even doing what you are doing in this fashion, I think you would be well served to avoid being overtly accusatory or lapsing into snide innuendo. I personally and regarding my own behavior am concerned about the scriptural injunction: As you judge, so shall you be judged. I've been nailed by this too many times.

But do what you want. Probably nothing I say will change this.

And you apparently haven't read all my responses. I've repeatedly said that we are seeing disturbing actions from the Church and from some of the Brethren. I just don't see my place as jumping into the group of those hell-bent on accusing them publicly and anonymously.

[InfoWarrior82]

No more best buddy than the PedoPope. He had very lofty, and wonderful things to say about him. Do you not think President Nelson would say exactly the same thing to Mr. Schwabby Pants too? Of course he would. He wouldn't want to dishonor his covenant-giver would he?

Oh come now, lasrsenb. "Would RMN approve of literally signing onto the mandates of the UN?"

You can't be that deluded! Of course he approved it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You simply can't envision a possibility where the ancient prophets actually were talking about our modern prophets. The only thing I can say about that is "pray about it". It was tough for me to do. At first it felt like I was sinning just even thinking about asking such a thing from Heavenly Father.

But then you let yourself lapse into a style that comes across as snide, insinuating and accusatory. All done under the cover of anonymity. Sorry, you aren't getting my attention.

It's the Lord's church. He did all the long preparatory work over multiple centuries to bring it on line. I'll let Him worry about how to inspire its leaders or not to inspire them; or to correct or not correct its course as He sees fit.

Of course you're aware of the pointing finger metaphor where the index finger does the pointing and the other three point back to yourself.

Don't shoot the messenger. I'll call out evil when I see it. And I do so knowing that I am not perfect.

I notice that in all your responses, you seem to avoid addressing the evidence, but accuse the one putting it out there as being "accusatory" and "snide" as if these things were worse than what the church is currently doing.

I don't see you as the messenger in all this, one who has been directed to point out what you do . . . . especially under cover of anonymity. And I doubt you would use the tone you do directly to the faces of those you accuse.

Even doing what you are doing in this fashion, I think you would be well served to avoid being overtly accusatory or lapsing into snide innuendo. I personally and regarding my own behavior am concerned about the scriptural injunction: As you judge, so shall you be judged. I've been nailed by this too many times.

But do what you want. Probably nothing I say will change this.

And you apparently haven't read all my responses. I've repeatedly said that we are seeing disturbing actions from the Church and from some of the Brethren. I just don't see my place as jumping into the group of those hell-bent on accusing them publicly and anonymously.

How about less about me, and more about the evil actions of our church leaders? Can we try that instead for once? How about you explain to us how this can even be remotely of God?

[larsenb]

. . . . . . No more best buddy than the PedoPope. He had very lofty, and wonderful things to say about him. Do you not think President Nelson would say exactly the same thing to Mr. Schwabby Pants too? Of course he would. He wouldn't want to dishonor his covenant-giver would he?

Oh come now, lasrsenb. "Would RMN approve of literally signing onto the mandates of the UN?"

You can't be that deluded! Of course he approved it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You simply can't envision a possibility where the ancient prophets actually were talking about our modern prophets. The only thing I can say about that is "pray about it". It was tough for me to do. At first it felt like I was sinning just even thinking about asking such a thing from Heavenly Father.

But then you let yourself lapse into a style that comes across as snide, insinuating and accusatory. All done under the cover of anonymity. Sorry, you aren't getting my attention.

It's the Lord's church. He did all the long preparatory work over multiple centuries to bring it on line. I'll let Him worry about how to inspire its leaders or not to inspire them; or to correct or not correct its course as He sees fit.

Of course you're aware of the finger pointing metaphor where the index finger does the pointing and the other three point back to yourself. I've learned in a few decades of life to avoid this kind of activity. Not always successful, but I've been bitten too many times by the karmic feedback from such activity.

Usually you and I agree on quite a few things.

But I don't see this as you do.

I just see him stating facts.

And then his view of it all is his opinion, yes, but, he is entitled to his opinion, isn't he.
dc

I've never disputed his facts. Unfortunately he gets carried away w/accusatory innuendo and assumptions, which I find irritating. I'm mainly reacting to that aspect of what he presents. Far be it from me to think people aren't entitled to their opinions or their free speech.

[larsenb]

. . . . . How about less about me, and more about the evil actions of our church leaders? Can we try that instead for once? How about you explain to us how this can even be remotely of God?

You come across as obsessed with this and in my view are going overboard with it. Once again, with feeling: whatever our leaders are doing wrong, my take is that its the Lord's church, and I will leave it up to him to correct it. You seem to be taking the task on for yourself. Risky business, imo.

You also don't seem to concede that our leaders may get inspiration from the HG and even prophetic insight at times in how to conduct their ecclesiastical duties, as well as in certain interactions w/investigators and fellow members. I even gave you a clear example of one of these instances, which you chose to basically ignore.

[InfoWarrior82]

. . . . . How about less about me, and more about the evil actions of our church leaders? Can we try that instead for once? How about you explain to us how this can even be remotely of God?

You come across as obsessed with this and in my view are going overboard with it. Once again, with feeling: whatever our leaders are doing wrong, my take is that its the Lord's church, and I will leave it up to him to correct it. You seem to be taking the task on for yourself. Risky business, imo.

You also don't seem to concede that our leaders may get inspiration from the HG and even prophetic insight at times in how to conduct their ecclesiastical duties, as well as in certain interactions w/investigators and fellow members. I even gave you a clear example of one of these instances, which you chose to basically ignore.

I'm not sure what the proper response to watching our church covenant with the United Nations is... if you think me pointing out that fact from time to time, is "overboard", then I stand guilty as charged. I agree with you that the Lord will correct it. It's not going to be pretty, though. LOL, and no, I'm not "taking it on myself" with regard to correcting the church. What would that even look like??? lol. I'm just some anonymous nobody on the internet. There's no delusions of grandeur here, my friend.

However, I have pointed out on multiple occasions that leaders in the church can receive inspired personal revelations if their personal lives are in righteous harmony with God. For example, I believe JFS received an actual vision of Christ in the Spirit World ministering to those spirits during the three days His body laid in the tomb. I also believe that President Benson was inspired to warn against secret combinations. However, I do not know why he stopped. The keys of certain aspects of the priesthood may still be with these men -- with which they have been ordained, but without righteousness.... amen to the priesthood of that man. Lastly, in these times we find ourselves in, I do not believe God blesses the members of this church any more or any less than any other group of people on the Earth today.

[InfoWarrior82]

.

[larsenb]

. . . . I'm not sure what the proper response to watching our church covenant with the United Nations is... if you think me pointing out that fact from time to time, is "overboard", then I stand guilty as charged. I agree with you that the Lord will correct it. It's not going to be pretty, though. LOL, and no, I'm not "taking it on myself" with regard to correcting the church. What would that even look like??? lol. I'm just some anonymous nobody on the internet. There's no delusions of grandeur here, my friend.

However, I have pointed out on multiple occasions that leaders in the church can receive inspired personal revelations if their personal lives are in righteous harmony with God. For example, I believe JFS received an actual vision of Christ in the Spirit World ministering to those spirits during the three days His body laid in the tomb. I also believe that President Benson was inspired to warn against secret combinations. However, I do not know why he stopped. The keys of certain aspects of the priesthood may still be with these men -- with which they have been ordained, but without righteousness.... amen to the priesthood of that man. Lastly, in these times we find ourselves in, I do not believe God blesses the members of this church any more or any less than any other group of people on the Earth today.

But do you actually have a copy of the signed document you are alluding to, to include a clear signature of the one who signed it from the church? This would go a long way to backing up your contention. It simply isn't clear to me that this is something RMN pre-approved. "~Of course he did" falls short, imo.

And I responded to heliocentric on JFS alleged personal visitation from the Lord. He didn't. He saw a vision of the Lord appearing to those of the dead waiting to be redeemed.

My question to him was that if so many of the apostles coming after JS and his immediate brethren who had direct experiences of Jesus (usually in company w/JS) have not had nor broadcast personal visitations from the Lord, can they really be considered Apostles, in the Christian sense?

I've already given you specifics regarding ETBs cessation of public testimony. Of course you don't know the particulars that I haven't publicly expressed, so I don't blame you for not believing the story.

And I regard your saying: "The keys of certain aspects of the priesthood may still be with these men -- with which they have been ordained, but without righteousness", as a very risky assumption on your part, imsho.



.

[InfoWarrior82]

. . . . I'm not sure what the proper response to watching our church covenant with the United Nations is... if you think me pointing out that fact from time to time, is "overboard", then I stand guilty as charged. I agree with you that the Lord will correct it. It's not going to be pretty, though. LOL, and no, I'm not "taking it on myself" with regard to correcting the church. What would that even look like??? lol. I'm just some anonymous nobody on the internet. There's no delusions of grandeur here, my friend.

However, I have pointed out on multiple occasions that leaders in the church can receive inspired personal revelations if their personal lives are in righteous harmony with God. For example, I believe JFS received an actual vision of Christ in the Spirit World ministering to those spirits during the three days His body laid in the tomb. I also believe that President Benson was inspired to warn against secret combinations. However, I do not know why he stopped. The keys of certain aspects of the priesthood may still be with these men -- with which they have been ordained, but without righteousness.... amen to the priesthood of that man. Lastly, in these times we find ourselves in, I do not believe God blesses the members of this church any more or any less than any other group of people on the Earth today.

But do you actually have a copy of the signed document you are alluding to, to include a clear signature of the one who signed it from the church? This would go a long way to backing up your contention. It simply isn't clear to me that this is something RMN pre-approved. "~Of course he did" falls short, imo.

And I responded to heliocentric on JFS alleged personal visitation from the Lord. He didn't. He saw a vision of the Lord appearing to those of the dead waiting to be redeemed.

My question to him was that if so many of the apostles coming after JS and his immediate brethren who had direct experiences of Jesus (usually in company w/JS) have not had nor broadcast personal visitations from the Lord, can they really be considered Apostles, in the Christian sense?

I've already given you specifics regarding ETBs cessation of public testimony. Of course you don't know the particulars that I haven't publicly expressed, so I don't blame you for not believing the story.

And I regard your saying: "The keys of certain aspects of the priesthood may still be with these men -- with which they have been ordained, but without righteousness", as a very risky assumption on your part.



.

I don't think you even read what I posted from the United Nations document. In it, you will read what the terms & conditions are. Our name appears on their membership list. If the Lord does not approve of our name appearing on that list, His prophet would demand that it be removed and we would make a statement to the world saying we are absolutely playing no part in all of this. What's more, OUR CHURCH IS PROUD TO BE PART OF THIS! We brag every single chance we get to pat ourselves on the back about working arm-in-arm with the Satanic Beast System that is the United Nations. You're looking at prima facie evidence, but refuse to see it for what it is.

As to the rest of your post, all I can say in response is, I have come to no other reason why they no longer receive the literal words of the Lord other than the fact that the Lord leaves them to the arm of the flesh since that's what they love. And it's obvious that's what they love because their fruits prove this.


I'd rather not re-hash this with saying the same things with different words. If you'd like to re-read my timeless position on all of this, I have copied and pasted our older conversation below:

I could spend the time trying to make a case for post-Pres. Woodruff Presidents and even those preceding him, following one or more of your criteria, but the effort seems rather futile. From what you say, you seem to be of the mind that “the drunkards of Ephraim” have been taking strong drink continually from Brigham Young onward.

Not entirely. I believe that BY had the gift of prophecy since he was able to receive what is known as D&C 136 given to him at Winter Quarters. (And re-read my last post about "Strong Drink". You might find out that Isaiah is not actually referring to alcohol).

Next is John Taylor. What do we have from him & the Lord? Well, we have the 1886 Revelation, right? The one that the fundamentalist movement offshoot of our church claims came to Pres. Taylor commanding the re-instatement of plural marriage. Which is interesting, because this is why Brigham Young accepted and picked up the practice... or was already just continuing to practice it from earlier.

And lastly, (unless you can prove otherwise) this brings us to President Wilford Woodruff. Interesting story with this guy! Definitely received revelation from the Lord on at least two occasions. Even more interesting, is the fact that the first one he received was from the Lord was while he was an Apostle under President Taylor in 1880. (As seen here -------> https://historyofmormonism.com/2010/03/ ... evelation/) Now THIS one is an interesting one which deserves its own thread!

And the latter revelation received by Pres Woodruff, given in 1889 (As seen here -------> https://zomarah.wordpress.com/2010/10/0 ... evelation/) This one is short and sweet, and basically commands him to NOT concede to any more government demands of the saints.... whhhiichh he kiiinda did with "Official Declaration 1" (As seen here ----------->https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... 1?lang=eng) when he explained that he had a feeling in his bosom and that it was from the Lord to concede to the government. Note: That there is no word-for-word revelation recorded for this "Manifesto". Interesting. Interesting indeed, because what I'm about to let you in on, is something that may explain the real reason why President Woodruff did not write down anything for it, much less actually receive it from the Lord. What you're about to read is such a tragic tale of twists and turns of fate and brushes with an unseen evil and darkness that will make the hairs on your neck stand on end! Beware! It starts off on a dark and stormy night in 1889 after Brother Woodruff had informed his wife that he wanted to leave on a wonderous expedition to San Francisco California for a little "vacation". You know, flex his prophet leggies. After all, it gets quite bland being in Utah year after year looking at the same old mountains day after day. He knew just the place to go! Booked a little stay at a nice little comfy inn, or should I say...... house of terror!!!!!!!!! Yes, larsenb, the name of the proprietor of the institution inscribed in the side of the brick and mortar was none other than..... Dun dun DUUNNNN! "The Bohemian Club". *sounds of gasps falls over the audience* In case you would like to learn more about the bohemian club, click this https://bfy.tw/Qprr ... just FYI. No biggie. Oh, and did I mention that the Bohemian Club is just the main HQ for... their other location, located at.. the Bohemian Grove. You know, the place where a bunch of elites go to do a (mock?) sacrifice of a baby boy so they can be protected FROM God for their sins in life.... you know... that... club?

So there we have Wilford Woodruff being chummy-chummy with ACTUAL SATANISTS hanging out. Having a grand old time together. No big deal. Nothing to see here! I mean, they all voted President Woodruff the "smartest man in the room" at the end of the night! Yess... yes..... little did Willy know, was that they were planning a little parting gift for his travels back to Salt Lake. Turns out, later that night after leaving the jovial party of stroking egos, he felt a sudden sharp pain in his abdomen. And.. passed away during that night. Turns out.... he wasn't really that smart after all. Ti's a shame, really. If... if you think about it.

*JOHNATHAN FRAKES FROM STAR TREK THE NEXT GENERATION APPEARS ON SCREEN*




Interesting tale huh? Well, what do you think? Did we make it up?

IT. HAPPENED. (As seen here in Wilford Woodruff's obituary ------------>https://archive.is/Hliig)

Yeah, I don't think the Lord was particularly pleased with Brother Woodruff when he decided that he wasn't going to put faith in the Lord and follow His commandments when given in his 1889 revelation (as linked above). He sold out and caved to the globalist gadianton robbers. Took loans from them and the church became indebted to them for a long long time ever since. You can read up on that on the history of the church website if you'd like. I think he just made up some crap and slapped together Official Declaration 1. Or maybe it wasn't even him!?!?! It wasn't even "accepted by the church" and put into place until a year after his death in 1890.

Who knows man. Who knows why it is that President Woodruff was the final president of the church to receive the literal words of the Lord Almighty Himself by the means of ink and paper. The significance of which, is exemplified in Pres Woodruff's 1880 revelation linked above. I heard somewhere that The Lord just decided to go on vacation to Hawaii? Word is, is that He's still there to this day sipping on virgin Mai Tais.

Alright, who's next? *Looks around for some more* WAIT! I found something! What's this??? Elder Robert D. Hales was a member of the Skull & Bones fraternity while in college at the University of Utah?!?!?!? (As seen here -----> https://archive.is/aWbyk)


MOVING ON...............

I’ve made no case that many of the statements from Isaiah do not apply to the leadership.

Okay then. Wasn't saying you were, just letting it out there that I believe they were...

The story about Pres. Benson’s mouth being stopped by the Lord pertained to the period during his Presidency, and specifically why he stopped personally presenting at Conference after his last delivery, Fall Conference of 1988, his I Testify talk, which included stark testimony about secret combinations and a single secret combination gaining power in our country and most countries of the world. The information I heard was 2nd hand from someone who heard it from ET Benson’s close relative, and in an early 1990s time-frame.

So if the Lord commanded him to shut up about the gadiantons when he became prophet, why'd he let out one last jab at them right there at the end? Perhaps he knew he wasn't going to last very long and was under pressure from the globalists not to speak out, but just couldn't resist going down in a blaze of glory?

You side stepped my question about whether you have been directed to be so condemnatory of the Brethren. I think this kind of approach is a mistake, and may come back to bite you, and think you can get across your critique in a much less accusatory/condemnatory way.

No, not directed by anybody. Just me being me. If you think I'm wrong, that's fine. Like I said earlier, I know you are paying attention and very aware of what's going on in the world and understand the evils of globalism and the United Nations, and Klaus Schwab, yadda yadda... I know eventually you will see the church get to a point where the prophet will cross the line. Maybe it won't be president Nelson, but maybe the next? Or the next? Or the next? You seem young? Are you young? (That was a joke, I know you're a boomer).

Do you see yourself as similar to Abinidi coming up against King Noah, and being directed by higher powers? But neither Abinidi nor Samuel the Lamanite made their accusations anonymously.

lolololol nope. Just a regular dude who doesn't talk to God, Jesus, or Moroni, or whoever it would be that God will eventually send as one mighty and strong. I'm not going to write letters, picket outside of Temple Square. That's not my cup of herbal tea.

Are you going to publish this? lol Are you secretly a reporter for Salt Lake Tribune???????? oh no.

Finally, I think you’re just sidestepping my questions about Louie Mirken. It doesn't fit your narrative. It’s actually a fascinating story and is an excellent example of one of the Brethren exercising prophetic/revelatory power, and in fairly recent times. Heck, if I can read it AND transcribe it, with my aging and rheumy eyes, surely your relatively young eyes can do the same. Give it a shot, if you will. I'm curious how you might process it.

Wait, no.. I was being serious. Are you saying that you have already transcribed it to computer text? Fork it over!

[Baysimove]

.

Ok? I don't know him... and 4that's scary. Seriously, who is he?

[Lizzy60]

.

Ok? I don't know him... and 4that's scary. Seriously, who is he?

He is the head of the World Economic Forum. WEC is the acronym.

[InfoWarrior82]

.

[larsenb]

. . . . Not entirely. I believe that BY had the gift of prophecy since he was able to receive what is known as D&C 136 given to him at Winter Quarters. (And re-read my last post about "Strong Drink". You might find out that Isaiah is not actually referring to alcohol).

Next is John Taylor. What do we have from him & the Lord? Well, we have the 1886 Revelation, right? The one that the fundamentalist movement offshoot of our church claims came to Pres. Taylor commanding the re-instatement of plural marriage. Which is interesting, because this is why Brigham Young accepted and picked up the practice... or was already just continuing to practice it from earlier.

And lastly, (unless you can prove otherwise) this brings us to President Wilford Woodruff. Interesting story with this guy! Definitely received revelation from the Lord on at least two occasions. Even more interesting, is the fact that the first one he received was from the Lord was while he was an Apostle under President Taylor in 1880. (As seen here -------> https://historyofmormonism.com/2010/03/ ... evelation/) Now THIS one is an interesting one which deserves its own thread!

And the latter revelation received by Pres Woodruff, given in 1889 (As seen here -------> https://zomarah.wordpress.com/2010/10/0 ... evelation/) This one is short and sweet, and basically commands him to NOT concede to any more government demands of the saints.... whhhiichh he kiiinda did with "Official Declaration 1" (As seen here ----------->https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... 1?lang=eng) when he explained that he had a feeling in his bosom and that it was from the Lord to concede to the government. Note: That there is no word-for-word revelation recorded for this "Manifesto". Interesting. Interesting indeed, because what I'm about to let you in on, is something that may explain the real reason why President Woodruff did not write down anything for it, much less actually receive it from the Lord. What you're about to read is such a tragic tale of twists and turns of fate and brushes with an unseen evil and darkness that will make the hairs on your neck stand on end! Beware! It starts off on a dark and stormy night in 1889 after Brother Woodruff had informed his wife that he wanted to leave on a wonderous expedition to San Francisco California for a little "vacation". You know, flex his prophet leggies. After all, it gets quite bland being in Utah year after year looking at the same old mountains day after day. He knew just the place to go! Booked a little stay at a nice little comfy inn, or should I say...... house of terror!!!!!!!!! Yes, larsenb, the name of the proprietor of the institution inscribed in the side of the brick and mortar was none other than..... Dun dun DUUNNNN! "The Bohemian Club". *sounds of gasps falls over the audience* In case you would like to learn more about the bohemian club, click this https://bfy.tw/Qprr ... just FYI. No biggie. Oh, and did I mention that the Bohemian Club is just the main HQ for... their other location, located at.. the Bohemian Grove. You know, the place where a bunch of elites go to do a (mock?) sacrifice of a baby boy so they can be protected FROM God for their sins in life.... you know... that... club?

So there we have Wilford Woodruff being chummy-chummy with ACTUAL SATANISTS hanging out. Having a grand old time together. No big deal. Nothing to see here! I mean, they all voted President Woodruff the "smartest man in the room" at the end of the night! Yess... yes..... little did Willy know, was that they were planning a little parting gift for his travels back to Salt Lake. Turns out, later that night after leaving the jovial party of stroking egos, he felt a sudden sharp pain in his abdomen. And.. passed away during that night. Turns out.... he wasn't really that smart after all. Ti's a shame, really. If... if you think about it.

Interesting tale huh? Well, what do you think? Did we make it up?

IT. HAPPENED. (As seen here in Wilford Woodruff's obituary ------------>https://archive.is/Hliig)

Yeah, I don't think the Lord was particularly pleased with Brother Woodruff when he decided that he wasn't going to put faith in the Lord and follow His commandments when given in his 1889 revelation (as linked above). He sold out and caved to the globalist gadianton robbers. Took loans from them and the church became indebted to them for a long long time ever since. You can read up on that on the history of the church website if you'd like. I think he just made up some crap and slapped together Official Declaration 1. Or maybe it wasn't even him!?!?! It wasn't even "accepted by the church" and put into place until a year after his death in 1890.

Who knows man. Who knows why it is that President Woodruff was the final president of the church to receive the literal words of the Lord Almighty Himself by the means of ink and paper. The significance of which, is exemplified in Pres Woodruff's 1880 revelation linked above. I heard somewhere that The Lord just decided to go on vacation to Hawaii? Word is, is that He's still there to this day sipping on virgin Mai Tais.

Alright, who's next? *Looks around for some more* WAIT! I found something! What's this??? Elder Robert D. Hales was a member of the Skull & Bones fraternity while in college at the University of Utah?!?!?!? (As seen here -----> https://archive.is/aWbyk) . . . ..

Again, I’m interested in the document someone from the Church signed showing their signature(s?) And according to the list that was posted, they got the name quite wrong. This seems like an odd oversight.

And you concede that the Lord may “leave them to the arm of the flesh”. Which could very well be true. But do you think this is the case in everything they do? And your assertion that they love the arm of the flesh . .. . “because their fruits prove this”, strongly implies you think they aren’t doing any of the Lord’s will or any good at all. You do realize the accusatory and condemnatory flavor of these assertions?

Fascinating about WW’s 1880 revelation. I had never heard of or read this. I assume it was not voted on and left out of the D&C because he was not the President at the time. And Taylor’s 1886 revelation. This seems to echo Woodruff’s 1880 revelation in most particulars. And where the Lord says in this revelation that he “will hold the courts, with the officers of government and the nation responsible for their acts towards the inhabitants of Zion”, this implies to me that this country will still be held responsible for their essentially forcing Woodruff to come up with the Manifesto, with all the suffering and disruption that implied. Woodruff says that “The Lord showed me by vision and revelation” what would happen if they went against the 1890 Supreme Court decision upholding the 1887 Edmunds Tucker Act.

Maybe the word-for-word exposition of Woodruff’s “vision and revelation” regarding his Manifesto experience will be revealed some day. Right now, it appears to be a stumbling block in the expectations of certain people.

And your whole hyperbolic goings-on about Woodruff and the Bohemian Club are at least amusing. For anybody interested, here are the quotes from the info you supplied on this subject:

1. “At a dinner given in his honor at the rooms of the Bohemian Club the other night, of which no man under 80 was permitted to partake and where George Bromley, Dr. Behr and other octogenarians of local note were assembled, “
And:
2. “With the speaker [Geoerge Q. Cannon?] he attended a banquet given by the Bohemian Club of San Francisco to one of its members. At it he was asked to speak and did so. This was on Saturday, the 27th inst”

From this, it appears that Woodruff knew someone who belonged to the Bohemian Club, who was incidentally 80+ years old and was invited to a dinner there, consisting of the same age group. This is another one of those guilt-by-association accusations. Sorry, but it proves nothing. At that time, the Bohemian Club may not have evolved into what we’ve seen in recent years or decades. Interestingly enough, I lived within half a block of the club for about a year-and-a-half, up on Nob Hill on Taylor St., and coming home from work (when I finally got work), I would drive by it every day. I’ve also walked by it myriad times walking down to China Town.

You get into some interesting speculation. Be my guest in believing it all.

[InfoWarrior82]

Again, I’m interested in the document someone from the Church signed showing their signature(s?) And according to the list that was posted, they got the name quite wrong. This seems like an odd oversight.

Why do you need signatures when it's already all there, laid out in front of you? I literally can't think of anything more blatant and in your face than this document. Combined with the fact that we have been OPENLY in a romantic relationship with the United Nations (Satanic Beast System) and the new orders being followed ever since we made this covenant.

You keep straining at the way they listed the name of our church on the document as if it makes this whole thing fraudulent or something. Need I remind you that this is DIRECTLY FROM THE UNITED NATIONS WEBSITE! Well yeah, why in the heckin heck would satan's church allow the name of Jesus Christ to be written anywhere near their official, legal, documentation? I'm sure Satan's church knows full well what the actual name of Christ's church is. They are obviously trying to be Politically Correct as to not mention the name of other deities to be more "inclusive" and so modified the name of our church a teeny bit. I don't know if this was the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints' decision, or The Church of Satan's, or a compromise between the two.

And you concede that the Lord may “leave them to the arm of the flesh”. Which could very well be true. But do you think this is the case in everything they do? And your assertion that they love the arm of the flesh . .. . “because their fruits prove this”, strongly implies you think they aren’t doing any of the Lord’s will or any good at all. You do realize the accusatory and condemnatory flavor of these assertions?

I think it's the case for 99% of what the church does.

Joining with Satan's church and covenanting to obey their commandments is corrupt fruit. A good tree (prophet) cannot bring forth corrupt fruit. Period. Full stop. And yes, I completely understand the "accusatory and condemnatory flavor" of what I am clearly saying. And just for the record, I have not said anything more harsh than Isaiah, Jeremiah, Moroni, Nehpi, etc have said about our current prophets and apostles.

Fascinating about WW’s 1880 revelation. I had never heard of or read this. I assume it was not voted on and left out of the D&C because he was not the President at the time.

You haven't read it or your comprehension of it is lacking. The Lord clearly commands that if any of the 15 receive a revelation from Him, they are to 1. Write it down. 2. Bring it before the body of the Q15 to have common consent. 3. FOR IT TO BE GIVEN TO THE WORLD. It says nothing about needing to come only from the prophet in order for the world to see it.

And Taylor’s 1886 revelation. This seems to echo Woodruff’s 1880 revelation in most particulars. And where the Lord says in this revelation that he “will hold the courts, with the officers of government and the nation responsible for their acts towards the inhabitants of Zion”, this implies to me that this country will still be held responsible for their essentially forcing Woodruff to come up with the Manifesto, with all the suffering and disruption that implied. Woodruff says that “The Lord showed me by vision and revelation” what would happen if they went against the 1890 Supreme Court decision upholding the 1887 Edmunds Tucker Act.

Maybe the word-for-word exposition of Woodruff’s “vision and revelation” regarding his Manifesto experience will be revealed some day. Right now, it appears to be a stumbling block in the expectations of certain people.

Nah, the Lord clearly commanded that the church was to not concede.

"Place not yourselves in jeopardy to your enemies by promise. Your enemies seek your destruction and the destruction of my people. If the Saints will hearken unto my voice, and the counsel of my servants, the wicked shall not prevail."

And a second time:

"Let my servants who officiate as your counselors before the courts make their pleadings as they are moved upon by the Holy Spirit, without any further pledges from the Priesthood, and they will be justified. I, the Lord, will hold the courts, with the officers of government and the nation responsible for their acts towards the inhabitants of Zion."

"Thus saith the Lord unto my servants the Presidency of My Church, who hold the Keys of the Kingdom of God on the earth. I the Lord hold the destiny of the courts in your midst, and the destiny of this nation, and all other nations of the earth, in mine own hands, and all that I have revealed and promised and decreed concerning the generation in which you live shall come to pass, and no power shall stay my hand."

The Lord gave a condition that if we would keep his commandment by NOT conceding to government coercion, THEN He would resolve it.

If the Lord changed His mind and said "Gee, okay... wow... the U.S. government sure isn't backing off are they? Haha, ok ok ok ok ok just go ahead and cave in. I still got ya, fam!" ..........Then where's the revelation on that? None from the Lord. All we have are President Woodruff's words: “After Praying to the Lord & feeling inspired by his spirit I have issued … [a] Proclamation.” (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... e?lang=eng)

And your whole hyperbolic goings-on about Woodruff and the Bohemian Club are at least amusing. For anybody interested, here are the quotes from the info you supplied on this subject:

1. “At a dinner given in his honor at the rooms of the Bohemian Club the other night, of which no man under 80 was permitted to partake and where George Bromley, Dr. Behr and other octogenarians of local note were assembled, “
And:
2. “With the speaker [Geoerge Q. Cannon?] he attended a banquet given by the Bohemian Club of San Francisco to one of its members. At it he was asked to speak and did so. This was on Saturday, the 27th inst”

From this, it appears that Woodruff knew someone who belonged to the Bohemian Club, who was incidentally 80+ years old and was invited to a dinner there, consisting of the same age group. This is another one of those guilt-by-association accusations. Sorry, but it proves nothing.

Please read it again. "he attended a banquet given by the Bohemian Club of San Francisco to one of its members." Let's break it down, shall we? "He attended a banquet.." Okay. A banquet. Got it. "...given by the Bohemian Club of San Francisio..." Okay.. so this banquet was hosted by the Satanists of the Bohemian Club. Got it. "...to one of its members." Okay, so this means this banquet was hosted by the Bohemian Club, in honor of one of its fellow Satanist members. Got it.

It says exactly what I said it said.

At that time, the Bohemian Club may not have evolved into what we’ve seen in recent years or decades. Interestingly enough, I lived within half a block of the club for about a year-and-a-half, up on Nob Hill on Taylor St., and coming home from work (when I finally got work), I would drive by it every day. I’ve also walked by it myriad times walking down to China Town.

The Bohemian Grove always did what they did. From its inception. It's motto since the beginning is "Weaving Spiders Come Not Here.” Have you seen pictures/video from inside the Bohemian Grove?

You get into some interesting speculation. Be my guest in believing it all.

Just trying to make sense why many of the old testament and book of Mormon prophets would be criticizing our latter day church leaders. It's not difficult to see why if you would just pay attention to current events and how our church responds to them.

[tribrac]

Free Lottery Entry for getting your Vaccine.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2021/05/1 ... ws-videos/

Fauci says you can now go outdoors without a mask...if you are vacinated
https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/cor ... 1a515c899d

7 Vaccinated New York Yankees get sick with Covid
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/13/sport/ya ... index.html

[InfoWarrior82]

This man needs to be thrown in prison yesterday.

[tribrac]

I'm sure that the Great Senator Mitt, sees no evidence of tax dollars funding Wuhan.

But maybe he does. Let's just wait to see what he says after KSL, Des News, SLTrib, KUTV asks Mitt about it.

[larsenb]

Again, I’m interested in the document someone from the Church signed showing their signature(s?) And according to the list that was posted, they got the name quite wrong. This seems like an odd oversight.

Why do you need signatures when it's already all there, laid out in front of you? I literally can't think of anything more blatant and in your face than this document. Combined with the fact that we have been OPENLY in a romantic relationship with the United Nations (Satanic Beast System) and the new orders being followed ever since we made this covenant.

You keep straining at the way they listed the name of our church on the document as if it makes this whole thing fraudulent or something. Need I remind you that this is DIRECTLY FROM THE UNITED NATIONS WEBSITE! Well yeah, why in the heckin heck would satan's church allow the name of Jesus Christ to be written anywhere near their official, legal, documentation? I'm sure Satan's church knows full well what the actual name of Christ's church is. They are obviously trying to be Politically Correct as to not mention the name of other deities to be more "inclusive" and so modified the name of our church a teeny bit. I don't know if this was the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints' decision, or The Church of Satan's, or a compromise between the two.

And you concede that the Lord may “leave them to the arm of the flesh”. Which could very well be true. But do you think this is the case in everything they do? And your assertion that they love the arm of the flesh . .. . “because their fruits prove this”, strongly implies you think they aren’t doing any of the Lord’s will or any good at all. You do realize the accusatory and condemnatory flavor of these assertions?

I think it's the case for 99% of what the church does.

Joining with Satan's church and covenanting to obey their commandments is corrupt fruit. A good tree (prophet) cannot bring forth corrupt fruit. Period. Full stop. And yes, I completely understand the "accusatory and condemnatory flavor" of what I am clearly saying. And just for the record, I have not said anything more harsh than Isaiah, Jeremiah, Moroni, Nehpi, etc have said about our current prophets and apostles.

Fascinating about WW’s 1880 revelation. I had never heard of or read this. I assume it was not voted on and left out of the D&C because he was not the President at the time.

You haven't read it or your comprehension of it is lacking. The Lord clearly commands that if any of the 15 receive a revelation from Him, they are to 1. Write it down. 2. Bring it before the body of the Q15 to have common consent. 3. FOR IT TO BE GIVEN TO THE WORLD. It says nothing about needing to come only from the prophet in order for the world to see it.

And Taylor’s 1886 revelation. This seems to echo Woodruff’s 1880 revelation in most particulars. And where the Lord says in this revelation that he “will hold the courts, with the officers of government and the nation responsible for their acts towards the inhabitants of Zion”, this implies to me that this country will still be held responsible for their essentially forcing Woodruff to come up with the Manifesto, with all the suffering and disruption that implied. Woodruff says that “The Lord showed me by vision and revelation” what would happen if they went against the 1890 Supreme Court decision upholding the 1887 Edmunds Tucker Act.

Maybe the word-for-word exposition of Woodruff’s “vision and revelation” regarding his Manifesto experience will be revealed some day. Right now, it appears to be a stumbling block in the expectations of certain people.

Nah, the Lord clearly commanded that the church was to not concede.

"Place not yourselves in jeopardy to your enemies by promise. Your enemies seek your destruction and the destruction of my people. If the Saints will hearken unto my voice, and the counsel of my servants, the wicked shall not prevail."

And a second time:

"Let my servants who officiate as your counselors before the courts make their pleadings as they are moved upon by the Holy Spirit, without any further pledges from the Priesthood, and they will be justified. I, the Lord, will hold the courts, with the officers of government and the nation responsible for their acts towards the inhabitants of Zion."

"Thus saith the Lord unto my servants the Presidency of My Church, who hold the Keys of the Kingdom of God on the earth. I the Lord hold the destiny of the courts in your midst, and the destiny of this nation, and all other nations of the earth, in mine own hands, and all that I have revealed and promised and decreed concerning the generation in which you live shall come to pass, and no power shall stay my hand."

The Lord gave a condition that if we would keep his commandment by NOT conceding to government coercion, THEN He would resolve it.

If the Lord changed His mind and said "Gee, okay... wow... the U.S. government sure isn't backing off are they? Haha, ok ok ok ok ok just go ahead and cave in. I still got ya, fam!" ..........Then where's the revelation on that? None from the Lord. All we have are President Woodruff's words: “After Praying to the Lord & feeling inspired by his spirit I have issued … [a] Proclamation.” (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... e?lang=eng)

And your whole hyperbolic goings-on about Woodruff and the Bohemian Club are at least amusing. For anybody interested, here are the quotes from the info you supplied on this subject:

1. “At a dinner given in his honor at the rooms of the Bohemian Club the other night, of which no man under 80 was permitted to partake and where George Bromley, Dr. Behr and other octogenarians of local note were assembled, “
And:
2. “With the speaker [Geoerge Q. Cannon?] he attended a banquet given by the Bohemian Club of San Francisco to one of its members. At it he was asked to speak and did so. This was on Saturday, the 27th inst”

From this, it appears that Woodruff knew someone who belonged to the Bohemian Club, who was incidentally 80+ years old and was invited to a dinner there, consisting of the same age group. This is another one of those guilt-by-association accusations. Sorry, but it proves nothing.

Please read it again. "he attended a banquet given by the Bohemian Club of San Francisco to one of its members." Let's break it down, shall we? "He attended a banquet.." Okay. A banquet. Got it. "...given by the Bohemian Club of San Francisio..." Okay.. so this banquet was hosted by the Satanists of the Bohemian Club. Got it. "...to one of its members." Okay, so this means this banquet was hosted by the Bohemian Club, in honor of one of its fellow Satanist members. Got it.

It says exactly what I said it said.

At that time, the Bohemian Club may not have evolved into what we’ve seen in recent years or decades. Interestingly enough, I lived within half a block of the club for about a year-and-a-half, up on Nob Hill on Taylor St., and coming home from work (when I finally got work), I would drive by it every day. I’ve also walked by it myriad times walking down to China Town.

The Bohemian Grove always did what they did. From its inception. It's motto since the beginning is "Weaving Spiders Come Not Here.” Have you seen pictures/video from inside the Bohemian Grove?

You get into some interesting speculation. Be my guest in believing it all.

Just trying to make sense why many of the old testament and book of Mormon prophets would be criticizing our latter day church leaders. It's not difficult to see why if you would just pay attention to current events and how our church responds to them.

I’ve already said why. I want to see who did the signing and I want to see how they were tagged (name of organization) in the document they signed. Can’t see any church rep signing anything for a group tagged w/the wrong name. Can you? Do you have this info?

Your “99% “, etc., essentially shows you give the church barely above zip credit for doing good in the world or for the Lord, strongly implying you place little value on their efforts to: spread the Gospel and the Book of Mormon, administer the ordinances, both sacrament and temple, etc., keep the organization of the Church running, etc., etc. And regarding your comment about Isaiah, Jeremiah, Moroni, Nephi, etc., the big, big difference between what they did and what you’re doing, is they were under the direction of the Lord. You aren’t, by your own earlier admission. Nor were they hiding under the cloak of anonymity. Quite the contrary.

Regarding WW’s 1880 revelation, what exactly is the history of it, as well as the history of Taylor’s 1886 revelation? Was there an actual process where these were not given “common consent”?

With your first quote (i.e., “Place not . . . ), I’m reading this to say, if the LDS counselors plead before the courts “as they are moved upon by the Holy Spirit” the Lord will hold the government and its officers responsible for their acts against the saints. You seem to be reading a lot more into this. Your choice.

With your second quote (i.e., “Thus . . . ) comes across as a somewhat oblique reiteration of your first quote. And perhaps the reason they lost the Lord’s support, as you claim, is because WW and Taylor didn’t follow the correct procedure for dealing w/revelations, to include the one where WW said: “The Lord showed me by vision and revelation” what would happen if they went against the 1890 Supreme Court decision upholding the 1887 Edmunds Tucker Act. Of course, this happened AFTER the Supreme Court upheld the Edmunds Tucker Act in 1990, so doesn’t seem to apply.

Sorry, it says nothing about Woodruff or G. Q. Cannon knowing it was a Satanist club. The whole subject has garnered a LOT of speculation over the years, highly accelerated by AJs video. For a more balanced view, give this a read: https://gawker.com/my-summer-job-at-the ... 1763551409 . And the “Weaving Spiders” quote is from Shakespeare, and for the Grovers, undoubtedly means to check your worldly deals and concerns at the door. They didn’t even start purchasing the grove terrain until about 1899, but did meet at other locations.

My personal take is that it’s a risky game to enter into accusatory condemnations of the Brethren and the Church, a Church I think is still under the watchful eye of the Lord. Doesn’t mean you can’t express concerns for what they are doing and even identify what you think is being done that is detrimental.

[Ciams]

Those that want to fault the church and the brethren are fully justified - if you haven't read about and understood the Savior's ministry. There are some who want the church to be like Isaiah of old, scolding those in power. But then I'm sure the Jews of the Savior's time felt the same. Why is he not tearing down the Roman/Sanhedrin collaborations? Why would he ever say to render anything under to Caesar. Why would he submit himself to Roman law and judgement, when he is the ultimate law giver.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a closer parallel to the Savior's ministry than Isaiah's. Obviously, principles apply and can be leaned from both, and clearly it's different than both of those two examples as well. But those who fault the church for picking and choosing its battles fail to grasp the Savior did the same. Yes, the church could just stand in silence or refuse to cooperate with various organizations that have been infiltrated by Satan. But I believe, as the saying goes, that evil cuts through the heart of every human being. We hope, and I trust, that generally speaking the degree of evil is more purged from the hearts so many church leaders who have consecrated so much of their lives. But surely none of them are perfect. But knowing that reality, that the world is corrupt, and filled with evil, does the church openly fight against individuals by calling them out, or helping direct their efforts towards that which is good and trusting in the Lord that he will open their eyes in other areas where the church is also correct and true.

This does not mean I fully agree with every aspect of what's happened during this pandemic from the church's perspective. So much of it comes down to a judgement call. From my position, I might respond differently, but I have learned a lot when I've thought about how the church has responded, and how these responses might actually still be in line with the reality that so much of this is directed by a conspiracy. If you have cracked the enemies code, do you immediately reveal yourself? Or do you let them continue ripen in inequity, while preaching Christlike discipleship and repentance to those who will listen and trust in the arm of His deliverance? I'm sad for those who have followed the masses into vaccination, but if you are criticizing the church on this issue, you ought to consider a little repentance. The church position, and the faith and trust that so many vaccinated members have placed, have also made a space for many of us, self included, to resist vaccination without broader confrontation. I can assure you, the social, political, and economic situation would be drastically different right now in Utah and for members the world over, if the church from the start of the pandemic had counseled against masks and vaccines.

Let's remember, this is a fallen world, and sometimes like Adam and Eve, we're confronted with choices that suggest there is no other way. Except we always have the redeemer, even as we fall.