The Coronavirus Hoax

[InfoWarrior82]

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?

I don't have access to Church HQ building. So, obviously, no one has this "document" if it even exists at all. Why do you want it? Isn't the fact that our church name proudly shines on their contract for all to see and the fact that we're in an open romantic relationship with Satan's Beast System (UN) enough for you?

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.

Many organizations run by men have had similar successes, if not greater. According to your logic, they could have only become so massive and successful because of the Lord. No, I believe that righteous missionaries do have the Holy Ghost with them. I believe when they bear their testimony of Christ and the Book of Mormon, the Holy Ghost speaks to those investigators. I believe this is the sole reason for ANY growth in the church. No help from pencil pushers and analysts scouring over excel spreadsheets and PowerPoint presentations.

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.

Why do you keep making me out to have some super dark ulterior motives as if I were to put on a cloak, grow a long beard, and head up to Salt Lake to preach outside of Temple Square? I'm just a random dude on the internet. I am in no way, shape, or form, trying to compare myself to ancient prophets lol. All I have said, and will continue to say (because it doesn't seem like you quite get it) is that I have not said 1/1000th of harshness to our modern Presidents of the church as Ancient prophets have already said about them. You want to hear fire and brimstone? Go back and read their prophecies regarding our church leaders today.

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”?

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking here. Are you doubting their authenticity?

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.

Nope. You are re-arranging words and leaving out words to change what the Lord clearly said.

Here is what the Lord said in all plainness:

"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."

"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."

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.

A couple problems here. The first, implies that you admit that it is possible for prophets to reject the Lord's commandments on how things are supposed to be done. Secondly, why wouldn't President Snow and his apostles just release it to the world posthumously?

At the end of the day, the commandment from the Lord on how revelation is to be handled by the prophet and apostles was NOT followed in the instance of the formation of Manifesto #1.

Sorry, it says nothing about Woodruff or G. Q. Cannon knowing it was a Satanist club.

My thoughts on this was coming from the point of view that Wilford Woodruff didn't know and was an ignoramus on the matter. I thought I had been very clear on that, but I guess not.

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.

Explaining a bit about the symbolism and purpose behind the reason why satanists used "Groves" to commit their secret rituals:

http://www.learnthebible.org/groves.html

The Word Grove
In order to fully grasp the depth of the meaning of these words, I recommend a careful study (2 Tim 2:15) of their use in the scripture. As a preview to that study, the word “grove,” in the King James Bible is used 15 times (out of the 17 total times that it occurs) in connection to the exact kind of idolatry being promoted by New Age pagans. “Groves,” on the other hand, is used 24 times in the blessed old Book, and every time it is connected to the worship of the same false gods that the Wicca and Druid worshippers are recommending to our children.

Although these words, as used in the word of God, are resistant to simplistic definitions, I will attempt a very general definition of the word “groves.” I believe that “groves” in the true word of God are places where pagan altars and images are displayed, and heathen religious rituals are performed. It is quite clear that many times these places are located outdoors in (or near) a “grove” of trees (see Jer 17:1-2). Have you ever wondered why the Environmentalists (New Age worshippers by another name) get upset when someone “cuts down” some trees (Jud 6:25-32)? Have you ever seen a statue of Mary displayed under a tree or near some bushes?

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.

Like I said, I have not condemned them. I am only trying to figure out why it is that the ancient prophets have condemned them. I am researching their corrupt fruit and finding quite a bit of it. And this is only the beginning of it. If you continue to watch for it, it will be up to your eyeballs to a point where even you will not be able to deny it. We all have our own "Ah-ha!" moment when it comes to realizing truth. Maybe my threshold is much lower than yours because of my questioning nature? I don't know.

[Lizzy60]

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.

“without broader confrontation”
What about my comment, as well as others with the same viewpoint, saying we choose not to be vaccinated at this time, being PURGED from our Stake FB page. What about my Stake President mandating 100% compliance with masks at church, which is not required by any local mandate? What about the LDS members posting that non-vaxxers are dangerous and will cause the deaths of those who are vaxxed, and they hope we die? What about the accusations and taunts of “apostate” and “you don’t follow the prophet” from vaxxed members? I could go on, as could many others on this forum, with personal accounts, not just internet stories.

[Gadianton Slayer]

I made the mistake of reading some comments on one of Biden’s FB posts about getting the injection and wearing masks... society is doomed.

B73E4308-DB1E-446F-B255-B3E66AAB4128.gif (132.66 KiB) Viewed 721 times

[Lizzy60]

I made the mistake of reading some comments on one of Biden’s FB posts about getting the injection and wearing masks... society is doomed.
B73E4308-DB1E-446F-B255-B3E66AAB4128.gif

I made the mistake of reading comments on Nelson’s Facebook page about getting the injection.....the church is doomed.

[imagine a facepalm gif here]

[Gadianton Slayer]

I made the mistake of reading some comments on one of Biden’s FB posts about getting the injection and wearing masks... society is doomed.
B73E4308-DB1E-446F-B255-B3E66AAB4128.gif

I made the mistake of reading comments on Nelson’s Facebook page about getting the injection.....the church is doomed.

[imagine a facepalm gif here]

3C5B0DD5-7A33-4425-A962-6BE7AB026126.gif (336.95 KiB) Viewed 698 times

[tribrac]

Utah Governor Cox wants taxpayers to pay for giveaways to fund Covid Vaccination incentives.

He added that there is no amount of money that would be too much to spend in order to get an extra 5% to 10% more Utahns vaccinated, though he didn't mention a specific amount and said a proposal is only in the beginning stages.

https://www.ksl.com/article/50165938/a- ... s-the-idea

This creates an interesting moral dilemma since 50 North Temple has been very vocal against lotteries and games of chance, saying they prey upon the poor. But if the entrance fee is not a buck, but your health will they stand against state-sponsored lotteries? If you win, do you pay tithing on your "increase"?

If he asks, I'm telling Cox that I am already immune according to the NIH's own published research...

The immune systems of more than 95% of people who recovered from COVID-19 had durable memories of the virus up to eight months after infection.
The results provide hope that people receiving SARS-CoV-2 vaccines will develop similar lasting immune memories after vaccination.

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-res ... y-covid-19


BTW there are 40-players on a MLB roster. All MLB players are "vaccinated". 7 New York Yankees just got Covid. Assuming all 40 were equally exposed ( an unlikely scenario), that gives a 7/40 chance (about 17%) the RNA modifiers will not protect against the virus.

[TheDuke]

Info you are wrong. You say you are an internet nobody but I see you are Klaus Schwab! Avatar always creeps me out...... Sorry. but a little humor.

BTW I followed the links and still don't see any evidence of dark activities in Woodruff, you must provide a bit more where you're getting the details. I'm LDS never had even one alcoholic drink, but I've been in many, many bars on business trips in my life. Likely some notable places in foreign countries (never indecent types, if I accidentally ended up at one of them, I stayed all night in the car waiting for my compadres). Would you then say that I'm a Satanist? I even voted for the Mitten once, and Ross Perot to let Hillary get into the White House. Am I then Satanist? Just showing that I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with your statements, but I don't see the evidence. Either you must have more or have revelation or are looking for something that I'm not seeing........ Just saying.

[Vision]

With the news today from the CDC lifting the mask mandate for those that have been vaccinated we just got one step closer to the vaccine passport/mark of the beast. It's coming sooner than we think.

[Gadianton Slayer]

With the news today from the CDC lifting the mask mandate for those that have been vaccinated we just got one step closer to the vaccine passport/mark of the beast. It's coming sooner than we think.

Agreed. This year is going to be very revealing...

[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.

OK. The document probably doesn’t exist. Interesting fact, if so; which would imply that an actual signed contract is just a metaphor.

Granted, SLC hosting a UN conference, the Church donating to UNICEF vaccine programs, leaders of the Church touting the 17 or so principles of Agenda 2030, etc., are disturbing indeed, but is not proof of a signed contract.

Regarding: “Acccording to your logic . . .” Not my logic at all. Try again.

OK, it sounds as if the activities you identify that are done under the Church’s auspices and support might amount to more that 1%. How about the work done in the temples? From what you’ve said, it appears you discount this activity. Just trying to understand where you are coming from.

Do as you wish regarding your particular rhetoric regarding the Church. Risky business, in my view, believing as I do that correcting the Church is the business of and will be accomplished by the Being who established it.

Regarding the WW 1889 revelation, I’m simply asking what I asked, based on the template you provided for how our leaders should deal with their revelations: Are you aware that this process was or was not followed by WW and Taylor regarding their revelations (1880, 1886 and 1889)? I personally know nothing about this.

Regarding your: “Place not yourself . . . “ comment, this could imply that “the Saints [did] not hearken unto” the Lord’s voice, and the counsel of my servants” . . . . at least sufficiently to ward of the Supreme Court upholding the Edmunds Tucker Act in May 1990. This would place the onus on “Saints”, not necessarily the leaders.

I’ll confess, I don’t really understand the clause in your “Let my servants” comment, reading: “without any further pledges from the Priesthood”. What do you think it means? Does it negate my idea that as long “my servants who officiate as your counselors before the courts make their pleadings as they are moved upon by the Holy Spirit . . . . they will be justified” and as a result, the “Lord will “hold the courts”, etc., responsible for their acts towards the inhabitants of Zion”??

It’s possible for anyone to reject the Lord’s commandments. I never would set limits on what anyone may do.

But Woodruff, in Oct 1890 Gen. Conf., averred that ”The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice.” He then went onto describe what he had been shown. Do you think he was lying? This, along with alleged violations of the Edmunds Tucker Act after the Supreme Court decision of 19 May 1990, upholding it, is obviously what gave him the impetus to issue the Manifesto, which was accepted by both his counselors.

Did he ever record more exactly what the Lord had shown him by vision and revelation? I certainly have no idea. Is this the crux of your argument??

Regarding your ‘grove info’ and your take on it, too much speculation for my taste. The OT also talks about groves and high places. Bohemian Grove is certainly not a high place, but is very majestic location; exactly the type of place where members of a rich-man’s private club may want to go to relax and cavort at. Again, they didn’t start even purchasing the place until 1899

Your rhetoric, your choice. Hugh Nibley has written a very cogent piece on the subject, if you haven’t seen it. Me? I’ll side w/what Nibley says about it. I'll post it if you're interested, but think others have already done so.

[larsenb]

Info you are wrong. You say you are an internet nobody but I see you are Klaus Schwab! Avatar always creeps me out...... Sorry. but a little humor.

BTW I followed the links and still don't see any evidence of dark activities in Woodruff, you must provide a bit more where you're getting the details. I'm LDS never had even one alcoholic drink, but I've been in many, many bars on business trips in my life. Likely some notable places in foreign countries (never indecent types, if I accidentally ended up at one of them, I stayed all night in the car waiting for my compadres). Would you then say that I'm a Satanist? I even voted for the Mitten once, and Ross Perot to let Hillary get into the White House. Am I then Satanist? Just showing that I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with your statements, but I don't see the evidence. Either you must have more or have revelation or are looking for something that I'm not seeing........ Just saying.

Right. Normally one would pick an avatar that somehow represents something positive. The KS image is exceedingly creepy.

So far, having delved into the Woodruff controversy a bit, I don't see anything nefarious, underhanded, suspicious, or commandment- breaking about what he and those surrounding him did.

[InfoWarrior82]

OK. The document probably doesn’t exist. Interesting fact, if so; which would imply that an actual signed contract is just a metaphor.

Granted, SLC hosting a UN conference, the Church donating to UNICEF vaccine programs, leaders of the Church touting the 17 or so principles of Agenda 2030, etc., are disturbing indeed, but is not proof of a signed contract.

There is certainly a contract. Signed with ink or not. The name of our church shines proudly on their website and official documentation to be in agreement with their mandates. The fact that this doesn't mean anything to you is what is shocking to me.

Regarding: “Acccording to your logic . . .” Not my logic at all. Try again.

It most certainly is your logic. You said that the "success" of our church must have been the hand of the Lord.

OK, it sounds as if the activities you identify that are done under the Church’s auspices and support might amount to more that 1%. How about the work done in the temples? From what you’ve said, it appears you discount this activity. Just trying to understand where you are coming from.

Right, I don't even know if the Melchizedek Priesthood is even on the Earth anymore. Certainly none of the Q15 are worthy in my mind to have power in that priesthood anyway. (Amen to it via unrighteous dominion and blatantly disregarding commandments from the Lord along with their complete inability to receive any new revelations from Him).

Do as you wish regarding your particular rhetoric regarding the Church. Risky business, in my view, believing as I do that correcting the Church is the business of and will be accomplished by the Being who established it.

I think it's risky to not understand Isaiah and the many other ancient prophets who warn of these things. I also think it is risky to deny the Holy Ghost testifying of these truths.

Regarding the WW 1889 revelation, I’m simply asking what I asked, based on the template you provided for how our leaders should deal with their revelations: Are you aware that this process was or was not followed by WW and Taylor regarding their revelations (1880, 1886 and 1889)? I personally know nothing about this.

Keep in mind, that this is not MY template. It is the Lord's template on how revelation is to be dealt with among the Q15. I can only assume that the template was followed regarding all the revelations we have available to us simply because... they have been made available to us.

Regarding your: “Place not yourself . . . “ comment, this could imply that “the Saints [did] not hearken unto” the Lord’s voice, and the counsel of my servants” . . . . at least sufficiently to ward of the Supreme Court upholding the Edmunds Tucker Act in May 1990. This would place the onus on “Saints”, not necessarily the leaders.


I’ll confess, I don’t really understand the clause in your “Let my servants” comment, reading: “without any further pledges from the Priesthood”. What do you think it means? Does it negate my idea that as long “my servants who officiate as your counselors before the courts make their pleadings as they are moved upon by the Holy Spirit . . . . they will be justified” and as a result, the “Lord will “hold the courts”, etc., responsible for their acts towards the inhabitants of Zion”??

Once again, it's quite obvious you are either not reading it, or you are having comprehension issues.

The Lord is clearly speaking to Wilford Woodruff and the rest of the Q15 when he gave this commandment. Please read slowly this time:

"Thus saith the Lord to my servant Wilford. I, the Lord, have heard thy prayers and thy request, and will answer thee by the voice of my spirit.

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.

Let not my servants who are called to the Presidency of my Church deny my word or my law, which concerns the salvation of the children of men.

Let them pray for the Holy Spirit which shall be given them to guide them in their acts. 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.

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."

It’s possible for anyone to reject the Lord’s commandments. I never would set limits on what anyone may do.

Yep.

But Woodruff, in Oct 1890 Gen. Conf., averred that ”The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice.” He then went onto describe what he had been shown. Do you think he was lying? This, along with alleged violations of the Edmunds Tucker Act after the Supreme Court decision of 19 May 1990, upholding it, is obviously what gave him the impetus to issue the Manifesto, which was accepted by both his counselors.

I don't think it came from the Lord. It was a direct contradiction of what the Lord had already previously commanded in great clarity and boldness. Christ clearly gives a promise to them that he would preserve the church IF they would keep His commandment to NOT CONCEDE! A complete lack of faith in the Lord is what caused this manifesto. Keep in mind, Wilford Woodruff was the last president of the church to receive literal word for word revelation from the Lord. I don't believe this to be coincidence.

Did he ever record more exactly what the Lord had shown him by vision and revelation? I certainly have no idea. Is this the crux of your argument??

Like I said, the template was not followed for this manifesto. Never has it been followed since.

Regarding your ‘grove info’ and your take on it, too much speculation for my taste. The OT also talks about groves and high places. Bohemian Grove is certainly not a high place, but is very majestic location; exactly the type of place where members of a rich-man’s private club may want to go to relax and cavort at. Again, they didn’t start even purchasing the place until 1899

Your rhetoric, your choice. Hugh Nibley has written a very cogent piece on the subject, if you haven’t seen it. Me? I’ll side w/what Nibley says about it. I'll post it if you're interested, but think others have already done so.

Once again, I do not believe it to be coincidence that President Wilford lost his life at a well-known satanist outpost. I don't believe for one second that the Bohemian Club/Grove was established with pure intentions and then later became evil. Sorry.

[larsenb]

OK. The document probably doesn’t exist. Interesting fact, if so; which would imply that an actual signed contract is just a metaphor.

Granted, SLC hosting a UN conference, the Church donating to UNICEF vaccine programs, leaders of the Church touting the 17 or so principles of Agenda 2030, etc., are disturbing indeed, but is not proof of a signed contract.

There is certainly a contract. Signed with ink or not. The name of our church shines proudly on their website and official documentation to be in agreement with their mandates. The fact that this doesn't mean anything to you is what is shocking to me.

Regarding: “Acccording to your logic . . .” Not my logic at all. Try again.

It most certainly is your logic. You said that the "success" of our church must have been the hand of the Lord.

OK, it sounds as if the activities you identify that are done under the Church’s auspices and support might amount to more that 1%. How about the work done in the temples? From what you’ve said, it appears you discount this activity. Just trying to understand where you are coming from.

Right, I don't even know if the Melchizedek Priesthood is even on the Earth anymore. Certainly none of the Q15 are worthy in my mind to have power in that priesthood anyway. (Amen to it via unrighteous dominion and blatantly disregarding commandments from the Lord along with their complete inability to receive any new revelations from Him).

Do as you wish regarding your particular rhetoric regarding the Church. Risky business, in my view, believing as I do that correcting the Church is the business of and will be accomplished by the Being who established it.

I think it's risky to not understand Isaiah and the many other ancient prophets who warn of these things. I also think it is risky to deny the Holy Ghost testifying of these truths.

Regarding the WW 1889 revelation, I’m simply asking what I asked, based on the template you provided for how our leaders should deal with their revelations: Are you aware that this process was or was not followed by WW and Taylor regarding their revelations (1880, 1886 and 1889)? I personally know nothing about this.

Keep in mind, that this is not MY template. It is the Lord's template on how revelation is to be dealt with among the Q15. I can only assume that the template was followed regarding all the revelations we have available to us simply because... they have been made available to us.

Regarding your: “Place not yourself . . . “ comment, this could imply that “the Saints [did] not hearken unto” the Lord’s voice, and the counsel of my servants” . . . . at least sufficiently to ward of the Supreme Court upholding the Edmunds Tucker Act in May 1990. This would place the onus on “Saints”, not necessarily the leaders.


I’ll confess, I don’t really understand the clause in your “Let my servants” comment, reading: “without any further pledges from the Priesthood”. What do you think it means? Does it negate my idea that as long “my servants who officiate as your counselors before the courts make their pleadings as they are moved upon by the Holy Spirit . . . . they will be justified” and as a result, the “Lord will “hold the courts”, etc., responsible for their acts towards the inhabitants of Zion”??

Once again, it's quite obvious you are either not reading it, or you are having comprehension issues.

The Lord is clearly speaking to Wilford Woodruff and the rest of the Q15 when he gave this commandment. Please read slowly this time:

"Thus saith the Lord to my servant Wilford. I, the Lord, have heard thy prayers and thy request, and will answer thee by the voice of my spirit.

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.

Let not my servants who are called to the Presidency of my Church deny my word or my law, which concerns the salvation of the children of men.

Let them pray for the Holy Spirit which shall be given them to guide them in their acts. 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.

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."

It’s possible for anyone to reject the Lord’s commandments. I never would set limits on what anyone may do.

Yep.

But Woodruff, in Oct 1890 Gen. Conf., averred that ”The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice.” He then went onto describe what he had been shown. Do you think he was lying? This, along with alleged violations of the Edmunds Tucker Act after the Supreme Court decision of 19 May 1990, upholding it, is obviously what gave him the impetus to issue the Manifesto, which was accepted by both his counselors.

I don't think it came from the Lord. It was a direct contradiction of what the Lord had already previously commanded in great clarity and boldness. Christ clearly gives a promise to them that he would preserve the church IF they would keep His commandment to NOT CONCEDE! A complete lack of faith in the Lord is what caused this manifesto. Keep in mind, Wilford Woodruff was the last president of the church to receive literal word for word revelation from the Lord. I don't believe this to be coincidence.

Did he ever record more exactly what the Lord had shown him by vision and revelation? I certainly have no idea. Is this the crux of your argument??

Like I said, the template was not followed for this manifesto. Never has it been followed since.

Regarding your ‘grove info’ and your take on it, too much speculation for my taste. The OT also talks about groves and high places. Bohemian Grove is certainly not a high place, but is very majestic location; exactly the type of place where members of a rich-man’s private club may want to go to relax and cavort at. Again, they didn’t start even purchasing the place until 1899

Your rhetoric, your choice. Hugh Nibley has written a very cogent piece on the subject, if you haven’t seen it. Me? I’ll side w/what Nibley says about it. I'll post it if you're interested, but think others have already done so.

Once again, I do not believe it to be coincidence that President Wilford lost his life at a well-known satanist outpost. I don't believe for one second that the Bohemian Club/Grove was established with pure intentions and then later became evil. Sorry.

And why would you say “this doesn’t mean anything to” me, when I’ve repeatedly said that it is disturbing to see the church cozy up to UN and related mandates and organizations? If an actual contract doesn’t exist, it would still be very telling and interesting to learn who in church admin is driving these things and who they got their orders from, if they did. Lacking such information, I don’t care to speculate about any deeper implications for them.

Regarding your: “It most certainly is your logic. . . . “, Funny guy. You misinterpret what I say, then call it illogical based on your misinterpretation. I said nothing like: “they could have only become so massive and successful because of the Lord”. Please show where I said anything like that.

And your: “I don't even know if the Melchizedek Priesthood is even on the Earth anymore. Certainly none of the Q15 are worthy in my mind to have power in that priesthood anyway.” OK. You’ve developed a lot of doubt about the whole LDS enterprise; AND you pass severe judgement on the Q15 by your statements.. Lots of luck with that one.

And: “I can only assume that the template was followed regarding all the revelations we have available to us simply because... they have been made available to us.” You sidestepped my question. Can I assume you think the pertinent brethren followed this template for WW and Taylor’s 1880, 1886 and 1889 revelations?

Regarding: “it's quite obvious you are either not reading it, or you are having comprehension issues”. I confessed that I didn’t understand the phrase: “in the without any further pledges from the Priesthood” in the context of its enclosing passage, and I asked you for help in understanding what it meant, in this context. Once again, what do you think it means in this context.

Further, what’s your point about your red, underlined passages here? How about some explication? My “comprehension issues”, again.

Regarding: “I don’t think it [the Manifesto] came from the Lord”. Your opinion, to which you’re entitled. I’ve gone over the passages and revelations and don’t read them the way you do. And my guess is that many, many LDS and LDS scholars agree with me. No, I’m not arguing numbers. I’m just saying that these issues are in dispute.

The mandate was a direction to the Church based on WW’s earlier visions and revelations. It was not a revelation, per se, so didn’t have to follow this template. And it was put to the votes of the membership in the Fall 1890 Conference. Apparently, WW did not follow the template for his “visions and revelations” he mentioned in this Conference.. I suppose you can fault him there. Doesn’t mean he didn’t HAVE those revelations and visions showing what would happen if they bucked the SCOTUS decision reaffirming the legality of the Edmunds and Tucker Act of 1887, on 19 May 1890.

Regarding the Bohemian Grove, again, your opinion. But highly speculative for someone such as myself, especially in view of WW’s (and G Q Cannon’s) past lives and incredible and faithful accomplishments. Guilt by proximity or a one-time association, is very, very poor evidence for anything, imsho. Now it would be interesting to learn more about the octogenarian that invited WW to the dinner, and exactly the nature of his apparent friendship with WW.

[larsenb]

If you are still interested in the conversion story of Louie Mirken, here are links where I've posted info on this, to include his backstory with my father:

Backstory: viewtopic.php?p=1140149#p1140149

Conversion story showing revelation from the Brethren: viewtopic.php?p=1139897#p1139897

[EmmaLee]

This was well laid out - worth the read -

Full article with links here - https://www.deconstructingconventional. ... id-vaccine

18 Reasons I Won't Be Getting a Covid Vaccine
Updated: Apr 19

A few friends have asked my thoughts on the covid jab(s) so I thought it was time to write an article on the topic.

All my friends had not heard most of the details I shared, so I figured you might appreciate hearing some of what I told them.

Knowing how contentious this issue is, part of me would rather just write about something else, but I feel like the discussion/news is so one-sided that I should speak up.

As I always strive to do, I promise to do my best to be level-headed and non-hysterical.

I'm not here to pick a fight with anyone, just to walk you through some of what I've read, my lingering questions, and explain why I can't make sense of these covid vaccines.

I don't know everything, but so far no one has been able to answer the objections below.

So here are the reasons I'm opting out of the covid vaccine.

#1: VACCINE MAKERS ARE IMMUNE FROM LIABILITY

The only industry in the world that bears no liability for injuries or deaths resulting from their products, are vaccine makers.

First established in 1986 with the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, and reinforced by the PREP Act, vaccine makers cannot be sued, even if they are shown to be negligent.

The covid-vaccine makers are allowed to create a one-size-fits-all product, with no testing on sub-populations (i.e. people with specific health conditions), and yet they are unwilling to accept any responsibility for any adverse events or deaths their products cause.

If a company is not willing to stand behind their product as safe, especially one they rushed to market and skipped animal trials on, I am not willing to take a chance on their product.

No liability. No trust.

Here's why...

#2: THE CHECKERED PAST OF THE VACCINE COMPANIES

The four major companies who are making these covid vaccines are/have either:

Never brought a vaccine to market before covid (Moderna and Johnson & Johnson).

Are serial felons (Pfizer, and Astra Zeneca).

Are both (Johnson & Johnson).

Moderna had been trying to "Modernize our RNA" (thus the company name)--for years, but had never successfully brought ANY product to market--how nice for them to get a major cash infusion from the government to keep trying.

In fact, all major vaccine makers (save Moderna) have paid out tens of billions of dollars in damages for other products they brought to market when they knew those products would cause injuries and death--see Vioxx, Bextra, Celebrex, Thalidomide, and opioids as a few examples.

If drug companies willfully choose to put harmful products in the market, when they can be sued, why would we trust any product where they have NO liability?

In case it hasn't sunk in, let me reiterate...3 of the 4 covid vaccine makers have been sued for products they brought to market even though they knew injuries and deaths would result.

Johnson & Johnson has lost major lawsuits in 1995, 1996, 2001, 2010, 2011, 2016, 2019 (For what it's worth, J&J's vaccine also contains tissues from aborted fetal cells, perhaps a topic for another discussion)

Pfizer has the distinction of the biggest criminal payout in history. They have lost so many lawsuits it's hard to count. You can check out their rap sheet here. Maybe that's why they are demanding that countries where they don't have liability protection put up collateral to cover vaccine-injury lawsuits.

Astra Zeneca has similarly lost so many lawsuits it's hard to count. Here's one. Here's another...you get the point. And in case you missed it, the company had their covid vaccine suspended in at least 18 countries over concerns of blood clots, and they completely botched their meeting with the FDA with numbers from their study that didn't match.

Oh, and apparently J&J (whose vaccine is approved for "Emergency Use" in the US) and Astrazenca (whose vaccine is not approved for "Emergency Use" in the US), had a little mix up in their ingredients...in 15 million doses. Oops.

Let me reiterate this point:

Given the free pass from liability, and the checkered past of these companies, why would we assume that all their vaccines are safe and made completely above board?

Where else in life would we trust someone with that kind of reputation?

To me that makes as much sense as expecting a remorseless, abusive, unfaithful lover to become a different person because a judge said deep down they are a good person.

No. I don't trust them.

No liability. No trust.

Here's another reason why I don't trust them.

#3: THE UGLY HISTORY OF ATTEMPTS TO MAKE CORONAVIRUS VACCINES

There have been many attempts to make viral vaccines in the past that ended in utter failure, which is why we did not have a coronavirus vaccine in 2020.

In the 1960's, scientists attempted to make an RSV (Respiratory Syncytial Virus) vaccine for infants.

In that study, they skipped animal trials because they weren't necessary back then.

In the end, the vaccinated infants got much sicker than the unvaccinated infants when exposed to the virus in nature, with 80% of the vaccinated infants requiring hospitalization, and two of them died.

After 2000, scientists made many attempts to create coronavirus vaccines.

For the past 20 years, all ended in failure because the animals in the clinical trials got very sick and many died, just like the children in the 1960's.

You can read a summary of this history/science here.

Or if you want to read the individual studies you can check out these links:

In 2004 attempted vaccine produced hepatitis in ferrets

In 2005 mice and civets became sick and more susceptible to coronaviruses after being vaccinated

In 2012 the ferrets became sick and died. And in this study mice and ferrets developed lung disease.

In 2016 this study also produce lung disease in mice.

The typical pattern in the studies mentioned above is that the children and the animals produced beautiful antibody responses after being vaccinated.

The manufacturers thought they hit the jackpot.

The problem came when the children and animals were exposed to the wild version of the virus.

When that happened, an unexplained phenomenon called Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) also known as Vaccine Enhanced Disease (VED) occurred where the immune system produced a "cytokine storm" (i.e. overwhelmingly attacked the body), and the children/animals died.

Here's the lingering issue...

The vaccine makers have no data to suggest their rushed vaccines have overcome that problem.

In other words, never before has any attempt to make a coronavirus vaccine been successful, nor has the gene-therapy technology that is mRNA "vaccines" been safely brought to market, but hey, since they had billions of dollars in government funding, I'm sure they figured that out.

Except they don't know if they have...

#4: THE "DATA GAPS" SUBMITTED TO THE FDA BY THE VACCINE MAKERS

When vaccine makers submitted their papers to the FDA for the Emergency Use Authorization (Note: An EUA is not the same as a full FDA approval), among the many "Data Gaps" they reported was that they have nothing in their trials to suggest they overcame that pesky problem of Vaccine Enhanced Disease.

They simply don't know--i.e. they have no idea if the vaccines they've made will also produce the same cytokine storm (and deaths) as previous attempts at such products.

As Joseph Mercola points out...

"Previous attempts to develop an mRNA-based drug using lipid nanoparticles failed and had to be abandoned because when the dose was too low, the drug had no effect, and when dosed too high, the drug became too toxic. An obvious question is: What has changed that now makes this technology safe enough for mass use?"

If that's not alarming enough, here are other gaps in the data--i.e. there is no data to suggest safety or efficacy regarding:

Anyone younger than age 18 or older than age 55

Pregnant or lactating mothers

Auto-immune conditions

Immunocompromised individuals

No data on transmission of covid

No data on preventing mortality from covid

No data on duration of protection from covid

Hard to believe right?

In case you think I'm making this up, or want to see the actual documents sent to the FDA by Pfizer and Moderna for their Emergency Use Authorization, you can check out this, or this respectively. The data gaps can be found starting with page 46 and 48 respectively.

For now let's turn our eyes to the raw data the vaccine makers used to submit for emergency use authorization.

#5: NO ACCESS TO THE RAW DATA FROM THE TRIALS

Would you like to see the raw data that produced the "90% and 95% effective" claims touted in the news?

Me too...

But they won't let us see that data.

As pointed out in the BMJ, something about the Pfizer and Moderna efficacy claims smells really funny.

There were “3,410 total cases of suspected, but unconfirmed covid-19 in the overall study population, 1,594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1,816 in the placebo group.”

Wait...what?

Did they fail to do science in their scientific study by not verifying a major variable?

Could they not test those "suspected but unconfirmed" cases to find out if they had covid?

Apparently not.

Why not test all 3,410 participants for the sake of accuracy?

Can we only guess they didn't test because it would mess up their "90-95% effective" claims?

Where's the FDA?

Would it not be prudent for the FDA, to expect (demand) that the vaccine makers test people who have "covid-like symptoms," and release their raw data so outside, third-parties could examine how the manufacturers justified the numbers?

I mean it's only every citizen of the world we're trying to get to take these experimental products...

Why did the FDA not require that? Isn't that the entire purpose of the FDA anyway?

Good question.

Foxes guarding the hen house?

Seems like it.

No liability. No trust.

#6: NO LONG-TERM SAFETY TESTING

Obviously, with products that have only been on the market a few months, we have no long-term safety data.

In other words, we have no idea what this product will do in the body months or years from now--for ANY population.

Given all the risks above (risks that ALL pharmaceutical products have), would it not be prudent to wait to see if the worst-case scenarios have indeed been avoided?

Would it not make sense to want to fill those pesky "data gaps" before we try to give this to every man, woman, and child on the planet?

Well...that would make sense, but to have that data, they need to test it on people, which leads me to my next point...

#7: NO INFORMED CONSENT

What most who are taking the vaccine don't know is that because these products are still in clinical trials, anyone who gets the shot is now part of the clinical trial.

They are part of the experiment.

Those (like me) who do not take it, are part of the control group.

Time will tell how this experiment works out.

But, you may be asking, if the vaccines are causing harm, wouldn't we be seeing that all over the news?

Surely the FDA would step in and pause the distribution?

Well, if the adverse events reporting system was working, maybe things would be different.

#8: UNDER-REPORTING OF ADVERSE REACTIONS AND DEATH

According to a study done by Harvard (at the commission of our own government), less than 1% of all adverse reactions to vaccines are actually submitted to the National Vaccine Adverse Events Reports System (VAERS) - read page 6 at the link above.

While the problems with VAERS have not been fixed (as you can read about in this letter to the CDC), at the time of this writing VAERS reports over 2,200 deaths from the current covid vaccines, as well as close to 60,000 adverse reactions.

"VAERS data released today showed 50,861 reports of adverse events following COVID vaccines, including 2,249 deaths and 7,726 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020 and March 26, 2021."

And those numbers don't include (what is currently) 578 cases of Bell's Palsy.

If those numbers are still only 1% of the total adverse reactions (or .8 to 2% of what this study published recently in the JAMA found), you can do the math, but that equates to somewhere around 110,000 to 220,000 deaths from the vaccines to date, and a ridiculous number of adverse reactions.

Bet you didn't see that on the news.

That death number would currently still be lower than the 424,000 deaths from medical errors that happen every year (which you probably also don't hear about), but we are not even six months into the rollout of these vaccines yet.

If you want a deeper dive into the problems with the VAERS reporting system, you can check this out, or check this out.

But then there's my next point, which could be argued makes these covid vaccines seem pointless...

#9: THE VACCINES DO NOT STOP TRANSMISSION OR INFECTION

Wait, what?

Aren't these vaccines supposed to be what we've been waiting for to "go back to normal"?

Nope.

Why do you think we're getting all these conflicting messages about needing to practice social distancing and wear masks AFTER we get a vaccine?

The reason is because these vaccines were never designed to stop transmission OR infection.

If you don't believe me, I refer you again to the papers submitted to the FDA I linked to above.

The primary endpoint (what the vaccines are meant to accomplish) is to lower your symptoms.

Sounds like just about every other drug on the market right?

That's it...lowering your symptoms is the big payoff we've been waiting for.

Does that seem completely pointless to anyone but me?

It can't stop us from spreading the virus.

It can't stop the virus from infecting us once we have it.

To get the vaccine is to accept all the risk of these experimental products and the best it might do is lower symptoms?

Heck, there are plenty of other things I can do to lower my symptoms that don't involve taking what appears to be a really risky product.

Now for the next logical question:

If we're worried about asymptomatic spreaders, would the vaccine not make it more likely that we are creating asymptomatic spread?

If it indeed reduces symptoms, anyone who gets it might not even know they are sick and thus they are more likely to spread the virus, right?

For what it's worth, I've heard many people say the side effects of the vaccine (especially the second dose) are worse than catching covid.

I can't make sense of that either.

Take the risk.

Get no protection.

Suffer through the vaccine side-effects.

Keep wearing your mask and social distancing...

And continue to be able to spread the virus.

What?

It gets worse.

#10: PEOPLE ARE CATCHING COVID AFTER BEING FULLY VACCINATED

Talk about a bummer.

You get vaccinated and you still catch covid.

It's happening in Washington State

It's happening in New York

It's happening in Michigan

It's happening in Hawaii

It's happening in several other states too.

It happened to 80% of 35 nuns who got the vaccine in Kentucky. Two of them died by the way.

In reality, this phenomenon is probably happening everywhere, but those are the ones making the news now.

Given the reasons above (and what's below), maybe this doesn't surprise you, but bummer if you thought the vaccine was a shield to keep you safe.

It's not.

That was never the point.

If 66% of healthcare workers in L.A. are going to delay or skip the vaccine...maybe they aren't wowed by the rushed science either.

Maybe they are watching the shady way deaths and cases are being reported...

#11: THE OVERALL DEATH RATE FROM COVID

According to the CDC's own numbers, covid has a 99.74% survival rate.

Why would I take a risk on a product, that doesn't stop infection or transmission, to help me overcome a cold that has a .26% chance of killing me--actually in my age range is has about a .1% chance of killing me (and .01% chance of killing my kids), but let's not split hairs here.

With a bar (death rate) that low, we will be in lockdown every year...i.e. forever.

But wait, what about the 500,000 plus deaths, that's alarming right?

I'm glad you asked.

#12: THE BLOATED COVID DEATH NUMBERS

Something smells really funny about this one.

Never before in the history of death certificates has our own government changed how deaths are reported.

Why now, are we reporting everyone who dies with covid in their body, as having died of covid, rather than the co-morbidities that actually took their life?

Until covid, all coronaviruses (common colds) were never listed as the primary cause of death when someone died of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, auto-immune conditions, or any other major co-morbidity.

The disease was listed as the cause of death, and a confounding factor like flu or pneumonia was listed on a separate line.

To bloat the number even more, both the W.H.O. and the C.D.C. changed their guidelines such that those who are suspected or probable (but were never confirmed) of having died of covid, are also included in the death numbers.

Seriously?

If we are going to do that then should we not go back and change the numbers of all past cold and flu seasons so we can compare apples to apples when it comes to death rates?

According to the CDCs own numbers, (scroll down to the section "Comorbidities and other conditions") only 6% of the deaths being attributed to covid are instances where covid seems to be the only issue at hand.

In other words, reduce the death numbers you see on the news by 94% and you have what is likely the real numbers of deaths from just covid.

Even if the former CDC director is correct and covid-19 was a lab-enhanced virus (see Reason #14 below), a .26% death rate is still in line with the viral death rate that circles the planet ever year.

Then there's this Fauci guy.

I'd really love to trust him, but besides the fact that he hasn't treated one covid patient...you should probably know...

#13: FAUCI AND SIX OTHERS AT NIAID OWN PATENTS IN THE MODERNA VACCINE

Thanks to the Bayh-Dole Act, government workers are allowed to file patents on any research they do using tax payer funding.

Tony Fauci owns over 1,000 patents (see this video for more details), including patents being used on the Moderna vaccine...which he approved government funding for.

In fact, the NIH (which NIAID is part of) claims joint ownership of Moderna's vaccine.

Does anyone else see this as a MAJOR conflict of interest, or criminal even?

I say criminal because there's also this pesky problem that makes me even more distrustful of Fauci, NIAD, and the NIH in general.

#14: FAUCI IS ON THE HOT SEAT FOR ILLEGAL GAIN-OF-FUNCTION RESEARCH

What is "Gain-of-Function" research?

It's where scientists attempt to make viruses gain functions--i.e. make them more transmissible and deadlier.

Sounds at least a touch unethical, right?

How could that possibly be helpful?

Our government agreed, and banned the practice.

So what did the Fauci-led NIAID do?

They pivoted and outsourced the gain-of-function research (in coronaviruses no less) to China--to the tune of a $600K grant.

You can see more details, including the important timeline of these events in this fantastically well-researched documentary.

Mr. Fauci, you have some explaining to do...and I hope the cameras are recording when you have to defend your actions.

For now, let's turn our attention back to the virus...

#15: THE VIRUS CONTINUES TO MUTATE

Not only does the virus (like all viruses) continue to mutate, but according to world-renowned vaccine developer Geert Vanden Bossche (who you'll meet below if you don't know him) it's mutating about every 10 hours.

How in the world are we going to keep creating vaccines to keep up with that level of mutation?

We're not.

Might that also explain why fully vaccinated people are continuing to catch covid?

Why, given that natural immunity has never ultimately failed humanity, do we suddenly not trust it?

Why, if I ask questions like the above, or post links like what you find above, will my thoughts be deleted from all major social media platforms?

That brings me to the next troubling problem I have with these vaccines.

#16: CENSORSHIP...AND THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF SCIENTIFIC DEBATE

I can't help but get snarky here, so humor me.

How did you enjoy all those nationally and globally-televised, robust debates put on by public health officials, and broadcast simultaneously on every major news station?

Wasn't it great hearing from the best minds in medicine, virology, epidemiology, economics, and vaccinology from all over the world as they vigorously and respectfully debated things like:

Lockdowns

Mask wearing

Social-distancing

Vaccine efficacy and safety trials

How to screen for susceptibility to vaccine injury

Therapeutics, (i.e. non-vaccine treatment options)

Wasn't it great seeing public health officials (who never treated anyone with covid) have their "science" questioned?

Wasn't it great seeing the FDA panel publicly grill the vaccine makers in prime time as they stood in the hot-seat of tough questions about products of which they have no liability?

Oh, wait...you didn't see those debates?

No, you didn't...because they never happened.

What happened instead was heavy-handed censorship of all but one narrative.

Ironically, Mark Zuckerberg can question vaccine safety, but I can't?

Hypocrite?

When did the first amendment become a suggestion?

It's the FIRST amendment Mark--the one our founders thought was most important.

With so much at stake, why are we fed only one narrative...shouldn't many perspectives be heard and professionally debated?

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO SCIENCE?

What has happened to the scientific method of always challenging our assumptions?

What happened to lively debate in this country, or at least in Western society?

Why did anyone who disagrees with the WHO, or the CDC get censored so heavily?

Is the science of public health a religion now, or is science supposed to be about debate?

If someone says "the science is settled" that's how I know I'm dealing with someone who is closed minded.

By definition science (especially biological science) is never settled.

If it was, it would be dogma, not science.

But, if there is evidence masks, lockdowns, vaccines, etc. don't work (masks for example), I want to hear that evidence too.

If highly-credentialed scientists have different opinions, I want to know what they think.

I want a chance to hear their arguments and make up my own mind.

I don't think I'm the smartest person in the world, but I think I can think.

Maybe I'm weird, but if someone is censored, then I REALLY want to hear what they think.

Don't you?

To all my friends who don't have a problem with censorship, will you have the same opinion when what you think is censored?

Is censorship not the technique of dictators, tyrants, and greedy, power-hungry people?

Is it not a sign that those who are doing the censoring know it's the only way they can win?

What if a man who spent his entire life developing vaccines was willing to put his entire reputation on the line and call on all global leaders to immediately stop the covid vaccines because of problems with the science?

What if he pleaded for an open-scientific debate on a global stage?

Would you want to hear what he has to say?

Would you want to see the debate he's asking for?

#17: THE WORLD'S LEADING VACCINOLOGIST IS SOUNDING THE ALARM...

Here is what may be the biggest reason this covid vaccine doesn't make sense to me.

When someone who is very pro-vaccine, who has spent his entire professional career overseeing the development of vaccines, is shouting from the mountaintops that we have a major problem, I think the man should be heard.

In case you missed it, and in case you care to watch it, here is Geert Vanden Bossche, explaining:

Why the covid vaccine may be putting so much pressure on the virus that we are accelerating it's ability to mutate and become more deadly.

Why the covid vaccines may be creating vaccine-resistant viruses (similar to anti-biotic resistant bacteria).

Why, because of previous problems with Antibody Dependent Enhancement, we may be looking at a mass casualty event in the next few months/years.

If you want to see/read about a second, and longer, interview with Vanden Bossche, where he was asked some tough questions, you can check this out.

If half of what he says comes true, these vaccines could be the worst invention of all time.

If you don't like his science, take it up with him.

I'm just the messenger.

But I can also speak to covid personally.

#18: I ALREADY HAD COVID

I didn't enjoy it.

It was a nasty cold for two days:

Unrelenting butt/low-back aches

Very low energy.

Low-grade fever.

It was weird not being able to smell anything for a couple days.

A week later, coffee still tasted a little "off."

But I survived.

Now it appears (as it always has) that I have beautiful, natural, life-long immunity...

...not something likely to wear off in a few months if I get the vaccine.

In my body, and my household, covid is over.

In fact, now that I've had it, there is evidence the covid vaccine might actually be more dangerous for me.

That is not a risk I'm willing to take.

[InfoWarrior82]

And why would you say “this doesn’t mean anything to” me, when I’ve repeatedly said that it is disturbing to see the church cozy up to UN and related mandates and organizations? If an actual contract doesn’t exist, it would still be very telling and interesting to learn who in church admin is driving these things and who they got their orders from, if they did. Lacking such information, I don’t care to speculate about any deeper implications for them.

You seem to be requiring evidence of ink and paper and signatures of members of Satan's church and members of The corporation of the COJCOLDS in order for an agreement to actually exist. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see it myself if there is one. But regardless, we have entered into a covenant to abide by their mandates. This is not arguable. It's a fact and it shows because we have already explained to the world that we are following their mandates.

Regarding your: “It most certainly is your logic. . . . “, Funny guy. You misinterpret what I say, then call it illogical based on your misinterpretation. I said nothing like: “they could have only become so massive and successful because of the Lord”. Please show where I said anything like that.

Fair enough. If that was not what you were trying to say, then I apologize.

And your: “I don't even know if the Melchizedek Priesthood is even on the Earth anymore. Certainly none of the Q15 are worthy in my mind to have power in that priesthood anyway.” OK. You’ve developed a lot of doubt about the whole LDS enterprise; AND you pass severe judgement on the Q15 by your statements.. Lots of luck with that one.

I'm just connecting the dots between the words of Isaiah (and many other prophets of God in scripture) and the actions of today's prophets. I've got to say, it is starting to make perfect sense why Isaiah and others said what they said. Most importantly, I can't deny the Holy Ghost testifying this to be true.

And: “I can only assume that the template was followed regarding all the revelations we have available to us simply because... they have been made available to us.” You sidestepped my question. Can I assume you think the pertinent brethren followed this template for WW and Taylor’s 1880, 1886 and 1889 revelations?

Yes, I believe each of those revelations were given to the world by them following the template that the Lord gave to them.

Regarding: “it's quite obvious you are either not reading it, or you are having comprehension issues”. I confessed that I didn’t understand the phrase: “in the without any further pledges from the Priesthood” in the context of its enclosing passage, and I asked you for help in understanding what it meant, in this context. Once again, what do you think it means in this context.

Further, what’s your point about your red, underlined passages here? How about some explication? My “comprehension issues”, again.

I thought you were tying to say that the commandment from the Lord was to the general membership and not the church leaders and the church leaders were exempt from keeping that commandment. Maybe I misunderstood you.

Regarding: “I don’t think it [the Manifesto] came from the Lord”. Your opinion, to which you’re entitled. I’ve gone over the passages and revelations and don’t read them the way you do. And my guess is that many, many LDS and LDS scholars agree with me. No, I’m not arguing numbers. I’m just saying that these issues are in dispute.

I'm very well aware that many LDS scholars agree with you that the supposed revelation to WW that became Manifesto #1 came from the Lord. I simply don't believe it was because: 1. The Lord boldly and clearly commanded the opposite prior in writing. 2. The "revelation" was given outside the template the Lord had previously illustrated on how revelations were to be given to the church.

The mandate was a direction to the Church based on WW’s earlier visions and revelations. It was not a revelation, per se, so didn’t have to follow this template. And it was put to the votes of the membership in the Fall 1890 Conference. Apparently, WW did not follow the template for his “visions and revelations” he mentioned in this Conference.. I suppose you can fault him there. Doesn’t mean he didn’t HAVE those revelations and visions showing what would happen if they bucked the SCOTUS decision reaffirming the legality of the Edmunds and Tucker Act of 1887, on 19 May 1890.

Honestly, I don't care how dire the situation was at the time. A commandment is a commandment. If the Lord were to give another commandment that is the exact opposite of the previous, I expect that the revelation be received in like manner as the first.

Regarding the Bohemian Grove, again, your opinion. But highly speculative for someone such as myself, especially in view of WW’s (and G Q Cannon’s) past lives and incredible and faithful accomplishments. Guilt by proximity or a one-time association, is very, very poor evidence for anything, imsho. Now it would be interesting to learn more about the octogenarian that invited WW to the dinner, and exactly the nature of his apparent friendship with WW.

Yes, I believe WW and G Q Cannon had lots of accomplishments. I believe they were, for the most part, favored in the eyes of the Lord. (Thus WW receiving literal revelations from Him.)

Wasn't it WW that said the Lord would "remove" any errant prophets of God? Welp, that's exactly what I believe happened at the Bohemian Club in S.F., ironically. Therefore, the church has been running on the arm of the flesh ever since then. No more word for word revelations given to the presidents of the church via the template the Lord has shown us how it is to be received.

[tribrac]

Now 8 Yankee players have Covid. 40-member team, all fully vaccinated* and 1 in 5 got the virus anyway.

Still, the march towards coerced vaccinations* continues. Today Trader Joe's announced unvaccinated people must continue to wear masks in their stores, while vaccinated people may take them off.

* Vaccination is a misnomer since vaccines started when people were infected by cowpox (Vaca is cow in Latin, hence vac-cine) to protect against the deadly smallpox virus. It injects the safer version of the virus to protect against the deadlier virus. The current Covid injections do not contain safer versions of Covid, they are designed to alter your genes. I am not aware of a generally accepted word for rNa mutators, or substances created from aborted fetuses, so I am stuck using the word "vaccine".

[InfoWarrior82]

Here's the Fauci grants & payments:

[InfoWarrior82]

.

[markharr]

Governor Cox wants to have a one million dollar drawing. All you have to do to enter is get vaccinated

There is no amount of money that is too much to help us get an extra 5% or 10% of people vaccinated,” Cox said

There is nothing more important than getting our vaccine numbers up,” Cox said. “This is the miracle we prayed for. This is what we hoped for. This is the thing. This is it. This is how we get out of this pandemic forever. This is the thing that gets us back to normal.” - Governor Cox

https://kutv.com/news/local/1-million-d ... cash-prize

I don't know if it needs to be said again, but we are never going back to normal even if you get this vaccination. It is not liberty and freedom if you only get it in exchange for complying with petty tyrants like Cox.

[larsenb]

And why would you say “this doesn’t mean anything to” me, when I’ve repeatedly said that it is disturbing to see the church cozy up to UN and related mandates and organizations? If an actual contract doesn’t exist, it would still be very telling and interesting to learn who in church admin is driving these things and who they got their orders from, if they did. Lacking such information, I don’t care to speculate about any deeper implications for them.

You seem to be requiring evidence of ink and paper and signatures of members of Satan's church and members of The corporation of the COJCOLDS in order for an agreement to actually exist. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see it myself if there is one. But regardless, we have entered into a covenant to abide by their mandates. This is not arguable. It's a fact and it shows because we have already explained to the world that we are following their mandates.

Regarding your: “It most certainly is your logic. . . . “, Funny guy. You misinterpret what I say, then call it illogical based on your misinterpretation. I said nothing like: “they could have only become so massive and successful because of the Lord”. Please show where I said anything like that.

Fair enough. If that was not what you were trying to say, then I apologize.

And your: “I don't even know if the Melchizedek Priesthood is even on the Earth anymore. Certainly none of the Q15 are worthy in my mind to have power in that priesthood anyway.” OK. You’ve developed a lot of doubt about the whole LDS enterprise; AND you pass severe judgement on the Q15 by your statements.. Lots of luck with that one.

I'm just connecting the dots between the words of Isaiah (and many other prophets of God in scripture) and the actions of today's prophets. I've got to say, it is starting to make perfect sense why Isaiah and others said what they said. Most importantly, I can't deny the Holy Ghost testifying this to be true.

And: “I can only assume that the template was followed regarding all the revelations we have available to us simply because... they have been made available to us.” You sidestepped my question. Can I assume you think the pertinent brethren followed this template for WW and Taylor’s 1880, 1886 and 1889 revelations?

Yes, I believe each of those revelations were given to the world by them following the template that the Lord gave to them.

Regarding: “it's quite obvious you are either not reading it, or you are having comprehension issues”. I confessed that I didn’t understand the phrase: “in the without any further pledges from the Priesthood” in the context of its enclosing passage, and I asked you for help in understanding what it meant, in this context. Once again, what do you think it means in this context.

Further, what’s your point about your red, underlined passages here? How about some explication? My “comprehension issues”, again.

I thought you were tying to say that the commandment from the Lord was to the general membership and not the church leaders and the church leaders were exempt from keeping that commandment. Maybe I misunderstood you.

Regarding: “I don’t think it [the Manifesto] came from the Lord”. Your opinion, to which you’re entitled. I’ve gone over the passages and revelations and don’t read them the way you do. And my guess is that many, many LDS and LDS scholars agree with me. No, I’m not arguing numbers. I’m just saying that these issues are in dispute.

I'm very well aware that many LDS scholars agree with you that the supposed revelation to WW that became Manifesto #1 came from the Lord. I simply don't believe it was because: 1. The Lord boldly and clearly commanded the opposite prior in writing. 2. The "revelation" was given outside the template the Lord had previously illustrated on how revelations were to be given to the church.

The mandate was a direction to the Church based on WW’s earlier visions and revelations. It was not a revelation, per se, so didn’t have to follow this template. And it was put to the votes of the membership in the Fall 1890 Conference. Apparently, WW did not follow the template for his “visions and revelations” he mentioned in this Conference.. I suppose you can fault him there. Doesn’t mean he didn’t HAVE those revelations and visions showing what would happen if they bucked the SCOTUS decision reaffirming the legality of the Edmunds and Tucker Act of 1887, on 19 May 1890.

Honestly, I don't care how dire the situation was at the time. A commandment is a commandment. If the Lord were to give another commandment that is the exact opposite of the previous, I expect that the revelation be received in like manner as the first.

Regarding the Bohemian Grove, again, your opinion. But highly speculative for someone such as myself, especially in view of WW’s (and G Q Cannon’s) past lives and incredible and faithful accomplishments. Guilt by proximity or a one-time association, is very, very poor evidence for anything, imsho. Now it would be interesting to learn more about the octogenarian that invited WW to the dinner, and exactly the nature of his apparent friendship with WW.

Yes, I believe WW and G Q Cannon had lots of accomplishments. I believe they were, for the most part, favored in the eyes of the Lord. (Thus WW receiving literal revelations from Him.)

Wasn't it WW that said the Lord would "remove" any errant prophets of God? Welp, that's exactly what I believe happened at the Bohemian Club in S.F., ironically. Therefore, the church has been running on the arm of the flesh ever since then. No more word for word revelations given to the presidents of the church via the template the Lord has shown us how it is to be received.

I’m not “requiring anything”. Once again, you misread me. There's a really good definition of how to tell if you are communicating w/someone. The template is, if the person you are trying to communicate with can repeat back to you to your satisfaction what you are trying to communicate to him/her.

“Fair enough . . .” Apologies accepted.

“I’m just connecting the dots . . . “ Well, aren’t you concerned that what you are broadcasting and how you are doing it, may help destroy the faith of some of your hearers? I personally want nothing to do w/this kind of potential. And what would you say to someone who tells you the Holy Ghost witnessed to them that RMN, etc., were prophets of God?

“Yes, I believe each of those revelations . . . “ So, do you believe that WW was lying about his visions and revelations he talked about receiving in the Fall 1890 Gen. Conference? If not, my guess is you believe he didn’t follow the proper template regarding those visions and revelations. Corrrect?

Regarding “I thought you were tying to say that the commandment from the Lord . . . “ Not sure where you got that. But you may be confusing my comment that if the Lord allowed the Edmunds Tucker amendment to pass and SCOTUS to uphold it, maybe it was because the “Saints did not hearken unto my voice, and the counsel of my servants”, in a sufficient manner. I said this very clearly. But mere speculation.

I’m still looking for clarification of the clause: “in the without any further pledges from the Priesthood”. I honestly don’t know what that means.

“I’m very well aware . . . “ I clarified what I said in following commentary. I don’t believe the Manifesto came directly from the Lord; i.e., it was not direct revelation. But I believe it expressed the Lord’s will and was in keeping with WW’s previous ‘visions and revelations’, which did come from the Lord.

Regarding your: “Honestly, I don’t care . . . “ comment, you entirely evaded, and apparently misread, my argument. I don’t know why.

Regarding: “Wasn’t it WW that said . . . “ Interesting hypothesis, but in my estimation, it doesn’t wash. I’ve read up on the scene w/WW, and he’d had kidney problems weeks previous to this, and his illness came on fairly sudden and it was a good 4-5 days after his breakfast at the Bohemian Club. And where you say: “the church as been running on the arm of the flesh ever since”, this is extreme black-and-white speculation imsho. Here’s a really interesting piece on the Bohemian Grove, by a guy who, except for lack of a video tape, scooped AJ by 11 years: https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/power/ ... e_spy.html

[markharr]

Gov Cox told Biden that he is going to use your church leaders to get you vaccinated...

“We’ve moved from what I call the ‘vaccine-ecstatic’ and the ‘vaccine-excited’ phase and we’re now in the ‘vaccine-busy’ or the ‘vaccine-curious phase,’” Cox said. “These aren’t people that refuse to get it, they just haven’t gotten around to it yet.”

To overcome vaccine hesitancy, Cox said Utah designed a public information campaign “that not only answers questions and resolves concerns, but it helps people to understand that getting the vaccine is the way to get back to the things that we all love that we all want to do. You know, weddings and family reunions, Utah Jazz games ... churches, hugging grandparents, quinceañeras, all of those things that we care about.”

Perhaps most importantly, Cox said, “through our research, it’s become clear that people trust their family doctors, their local community leaders and church leaders, their family, friends and neighbors a lot more than they trust government on this issue.”

“So we’ve been working directly with those different voices to empower them, and give them a platform to encourage vaccinations,” Cox said.

https://www.deseret.com/utah/2021/5/11/ ... ne-rollout

So.... Cox doesn't want to understand why people don't trust government and fix that. He wants to get people that you do trust to compel you to get the vaccination so he can destroy that trust as well.

It's also important to note that our fraud president couldn't praise Cox enough which speaks volumes about where Utah's governor's allegiance lies.

[ATB]

Gov Cox told Biden that he is going to use your church leaders to get you vaccinated...

“We’ve moved from what I call the ‘vaccine-ecstatic’ and the ‘vaccine-excited’ phase and we’re now in the ‘vaccine-busy’ or the ‘vaccine-curious phase,’” Cox said. “These aren’t people that refuse to get it, they just haven’t gotten around to it yet.”

To overcome vaccine hesitancy, Cox said Utah designed a public information campaign “that not only answers questions and resolves concerns, but it helps people to understand that getting the vaccine is the way to get back to the things that we all love that we all want to do. You know, weddings and family reunions, Utah Jazz games ... churches, hugging grandparents, quinceañeras, all of those things that we care about.”

Perhaps most importantly, Cox said, “through our research, it’s become clear that people trust their family doctors, their local community leaders and church leaders, their family, friends and neighbors a lot more than they trust government on this issue.”

“So we’ve been working directly with those different voices to empower them, and give them a platform to encourage vaccinations,” Cox said.

https://www.deseret.com/utah/2021/5/11/ ... ne-rollout

So.... Cox doesn't want to understand why people don't trust government and fix that. He wants to get people that you do trust to compel you to get the vaccination so he can destroy that trust as well.

It's also important to note that our fraud president couldn't praise Cox enough which speaks volumes about where Utah's governor's allegiance lies.

Thanks. Cox and others like him, end up to be the biggest anti-vaxers around. Yes, let’s manipulate people using people they trust to make them more untrusting of govt, religion, medical establishment, friends, and family. It’s none of any of their damn business. There will be consequences for this type of behavior… the pendulum will swing fast/hard the other way.

[Cruiserdude]

Gov Cox told Biden that he is going to use your church leaders to get you vaccinated...

“We’ve moved from what I call the ‘vaccine-ecstatic’ and the ‘vaccine-excited’ phase and we’re now in the ‘vaccine-busy’ or the ‘vaccine-curious phase,’” Cox said. “These aren’t people that refuse to get it, they just haven’t gotten around to it yet.”

To overcome vaccine hesitancy, Cox said Utah designed a public information campaign “that not only answers questions and resolves concerns, but it helps people to understand that getting the vaccine is the way to get back to the things that we all love that we all want to do. You know, weddings and family reunions, Utah Jazz games ... churches, hugging grandparents, quinceañeras, all of those things that we care about.”

Perhaps most importantly, Cox said, “through our research, it’s become clear that people trust their family doctors, their local community leaders and church leaders, their family, friends and neighbors a lot more than they trust government on this issue.”

“So we’ve been working directly with those different voices to empower them, and give them a platform to encourage vaccinations,” Cox said.

https://www.deseret.com/utah/2021/5/11/ ... ne-rollout

So.... Cox doesn't want to understand why people don't trust government and fix that. He wants to get people that you do trust to compel you to get the vaccination so he can destroy that trust as well.

It's also important to note that our fraud president couldn't praise Cox enough which speaks volumes about where Utah's governor's allegiance lies.

Yikes.
Any and all with any type of secular/worldly power seek unrighteous dominion with it. They can't help it. They can't see it either. They're blinded by the rush from having worldly power.
Bednar also said that the leaders of churches are an important help in getting the sheep to believe and follow Babylon's overlords' guidelines for us sheep.
Leadership from all aspects of our lives are going to be pressuring us towards certain directions, we must listen solely to the spirit and must hold that connection to heaven as our most prized and cherished 'treasure' in today's deceptive world. Deceit and lies coming at us from EVERY ANGLE. This life is the test.

Doubt not, only believe.
We know who's side we're on and His side's victory has already been declared in the heavens.

[Silver Pie]

So, do you think it's true that Gavin is going to be kicked out?

The video below is comedian JP Sears acting as Gavin's employment specialist, advertising what Gavin can and will do for you.