TBM - "when they realize the evil they defended ....

[larsenb]

Pretend Ref here…

Anyone who knows me may find this incredibly hard to believe, but I’ve had my fair share of squabbles. At some point it may be good to just acknowledge that:

We simply see things differently.
In some cases it may be “We are not compatible.”
No blaming ourselves or the other - we just are walking different mental paths.

Good point Thinker. Remember though, we were all like this when we were young. Black and white. Right or wrong. Up or down. Nothing in the middle. We use to love debating because we knew everything. We had to prove that we were right or else that meant that we were wrong. Age and life experiences helped us move beyond thinking in absolutes. We found that we did not have to defend every challenge that came back at us. We found it easier and more satisfying to just smile and walk away. These unrelenting debaters are most likely still young, or at least have not moved beyond that mental stage of life. They will eventually chill out. Until that time, I have found it useful to block people when they go on and on ad nausium so that my time isn't wasted. I then unblock them when I find that they finally stop.

Good posts. There is a psychological profile or 'disorder' called 'borderline personality', where a prime characteristic of the 'syndrome' is black-and-white thinking. Psychologists note that this tendency (exhibiting borderline personality traits) is strongly present in most mid to older adolescents. Those fortunate enough, outgrow the tendency to a large degree.

[Subcomandante]

@sub
But they would teach doctrine contrary to what He taught. They would blaspheme His name in the midst of His house.

How so?

[Reluctant Watchman]

@sub
But they would teach doctrine contrary to what He taught. They would blaspheme His name in the midst of His house.

How so?

1. The LDS church ignores or has changed many core doctrines taught in the Book of Mormon.

2. The modern LDS org changed AoF #4 as originally written by Joseph Smith. This essentially changed the definition of salvation to add temple ordinances. Christ was quite clear about what his doctrine was in 3 Nephi, and what happens to those people who change His doctrine.

3. As far as the "his house" portion, I believe the modern LDS org has portions of what Joseph began to teach the saints, but subsequent leaders (Brigham) changed it drastically, even introducing very poor doctrine and possibly even Luciferian aspects with blood oaths and adam/god doctrine. Not to mention that I simply cannot believe that the "covenants" entered into are done in full knowledge in the LDS org. You cannot make a covenant in ignorance (ie, point to the scriptures and tell someone the Law of Sacrifice is in there).

I have read the Nemenhah record, which also contains a version of the Endowment the Native Americans received. There are massive similarities, but there are also massive differences. The Nemenhah record teaches the 4 core ordinances in far more clarity than I've ever been taught in the LDS temple.

And as I've noted in other places, if SRA is occurring, then the apostasy noted in 2 Thess, and the devil sitting upon the throne of God, would be a perfect fit.

[jreuben]

So, if I understand you correctly, JReuben, the Church fell into apostasy due to the actions of WIlford Woodruff re polygamy and then the subsequent admission of Utah as a state in the United States six years later?

And you feel that NONE of the breakaway sects can be true either because you have not received a spiritual witness?

How would you advise those seekers of truth to move forward? That someone looks for the same class of theophanic vision that Joseph Smith had?

@ransomme thank you, you do understand. @atticus is just a lost cause at this point so I'm not going to reply to them any further. Xey're a blackhole and I don't have that level of energy or time to just pour into the void.

@subcomo the church fell into apostasy because of the law of common consent. President Woodruff, with plans to fix it, facilitated it. He simply ended up doing something he shouldn't have done (and did not actually want to do) and then the luciferians took advantage of that bad decision and attempt at duplicitous behavior (which had good intentions) to end his life and disallowed it to be rolled back - as intended.

We have been left in an awful state of apostasy of the church and with such full ignorance and massive mindshare that doesn't even begin to evaluate or accept this.... Indeed, the malignant tumor that is Utah doesn't do any good for this situation. Further, it fully appears, there are those who know of the apostasy and keep the perpetration of evil going for many and varied reasons. Many leaders in the church from around 1890 forward were really frustrated and confused. The fear grew and they continued to evolve and even chopped apart D&C in the early 1900s wherein we lost 1/2 of it as scripture due to their inability to receive revelation and thus making "soviets" (councils) to make decisions due to their ears being closed to the Lord. As time progressed and the luciferians/communists further entrenched (this is factual and provable too) I fear that there became far more of these evil types than we want to believe. Clearly the Pace Memo shines a small, but bright, light into one of these corners.

Utah really should have remained aloof from the USA when the choice was on the satanic altar of that time and stayed true to the Lord's commands and sought to fulfill all righteousness. It is sad that they (and again, I understand and am not sure I could have endured the constant threat of death and perpetual chase) could not keep trudging through the difficulty/trial unto even death if necessary.

Indeed, I have not received any spiritual witness and frankly I have not asked because I have seen bad fruits from the ones in question. There is one that I feel may actually be the closest, but his name is not mentioned here neither elsewhere on this forum in this context and I don't even think he himself feels that it is appropriate to pursue or claim such a role.

I am close friends with someone who believes very similar to me, but disagrees with the following so I'll present their thought as well first since it is well thought out:
Their thought is that "the Lord can't use old bottles to store new wine" and that the churches need to be reestablished. That means the preparatory church such as what the LDS church was supposed to become (but folks wanted it to be more like traditional churches with which they were accustomed and then ultimately it fell into outright full apostasy). The Church of The Firstborn may also need to be restored since I am not sure if there are any still practicing it with full truth and purity within their familial kingdoms as Brother Joseph established it and with the Council of Fifty.

I personally still think that the proper course for seekers of truth is probably to first purge all leadership from the current church - with the proper teaching of the people where and how the apostasy occurred and what we should and need to be doing now to rectify the situation and to undo the condemnation from the Lord. There is far too much corruption and every leader from the top to the very bottom MUST be removed. I really am not sure if this is in fact possible since there is so much corruption and far too many (nearly all) have learned to not rely on true personal revelation (both leaders and non leadership members alike). They simply think they can follow "worthy" leaders, which was expressly condemned by the Lord and Joseph - we must not follow people as is taught by the apostate leaders today since it is an evil and impure practice itself. This behavior is a full out manifestation of slothfulness - and unto "our" (collectively speaking) condemnation. There are even corrupted stake presidents appointing unrepentant thieves, liars and worse as bishops (yes, I have witnessed this first hand). So while I think a re-founding of the church is possible and I would prefer it (perhaps from my own fears and "sloth"), I have serious fear and doubt and thus perhaps ultimately I can see that my friend is right about the old bottles comparison......

If we go with the new church I am just not sure how to proceed in this regard since it would require someone who not only understands truth, but has also been, in some fashion, perhaps even theophanically, called.

Again, The Church of the Firstborn also is critical. The reason for failing to understand and use the temple properly is because 99.99999999999% of the preparatory church never understood the role of the temple as a bridge to the Church of The Firstborn - probably in part because education and implementation of such occurred around the great upheavals from the early persecution.

Anyway, there are some rough thoughts to answer your questions.

[Subcomandante]

@sub
But they would teach doctrine contrary to what He taught. They would blaspheme His name in the midst of His house.

How so?

1. The LDS church ignores or has changed many core doctrines taught in the Book of Mormon.

2. The modern LDS org changed AoF #4 as originally written by Joseph Smith. This essentially changed the definition of salvation to add temple ordinances. Christ was quite clear about what his doctrine was in 3 Nephi, and what happens to those people who change His doctrine.

3. As far as the "his house" portion, I believe the modern LDS org has portions of what Joseph began to teach the saints, but subsequent leaders (Brigham) changed it drastically, even introducing very poor doctrine and possibly even Luciferian aspects with blood oaths and adam/god doctrine. Not to mention that I simply cannot believe that the "covenants" entered into are done in full knowledge in the LDS org. You cannot make a covenant in ignorance (ie, point to the scriptures and tell someone the Law of Sacrifice is in there).

I have read the Nemenhah record, which also contains a version of the Endowment the Native Americans received. There are massive similarities, but there are also massive differences. The Nemenhah record teaches the 4 core ordinances in far more clarity than I've ever been taught in the LDS temple.

And as I've noted in other places, if SRA is occurring, then the apostasy noted in 2 Thess, and the devil sitting upon the throne of God, would be a perfect fit.

1. How so?

2. This is what the original and the current show:

Original: We believe that these ordinances are 1st, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; 2d, Repentance; 3d, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; 4th, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Now: We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the gospel are first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Is faith or repentance an ordinance? I don't see anything about temple work mentioned in the 4th article of faith.

3. There are no blood oaths in the temple and haven't been there since 1990. It is good that they are trying to restore the ordinances as Joseph had them. The principles of the Law of Sacrifice can be found in the Pearl of Great Price with Adam and later on with his son Abel. The Book of Mormon also mentions that any offering laid up to God when not done with real intent (with murmuring and grumbling) will be rejected by the Lord. Christ also told the Pharisees that straight up in Matthew 23. I would be very interested in reading up about this Nemenhah record...

4. That has not been proven. Innuendos and circumstantial evidence in themselves are not evidence that can be taken seriously.

[Luke]

Is faith or repentance an ordinance?

Yes. I don’t think Joseph was that ignorant that he didn’t know what “ordinance” meant.

Ordinance = something that has to be done.

The real change is in the fact that Joseph wrote that “these ordinances are” (i.e. they are the only ones that need doing), to “the first principles and ordinances” (i.e. there are more).

[jreuben]

By the way, I do disagree with @Reluctant Watchman and others who say what they do about Brother Brigham. There are some solid evidences contra various remarks. For example, Adam was in fact God the Father and there is abundant evidence of this both in the Bible + other cultures (as well as being taught by Brother Joseph). Hugh Nibley carefully supported and demonstrated this as well with ancient history. The ultimate world religion under Christ and The Father will incorporate this and clarify "ancestor worship" as simply a bastardization of true doctrine. Most simply aren't quite ready for the fullness of truth - even the sincere seekers such as @Reluctant etc.

I'm not going to debate this here as I see it simply and clearly as fact and don't have the time to educate on this topic presently. There is abundant evidence if one works to connect truth to truth in order to obtain a more full picture. It is a beautiful one I will say and one that brings tremendous insight.

[Subcomandante]

So, if I understand you correctly, JReuben, the Church fell into apostasy due to the actions of WIlford Woodruff re polygamy and then the subsequent admission of Utah as a state in the United States six years later?

And you feel that NONE of the breakaway sects can be true either because you have not received a spiritual witness?

How would you advise those seekers of truth to move forward? That someone looks for the same class of theophanic vision that Joseph Smith had?

@ransomme thank you, you do understand. @atticus is just a lost cause at this point so I'm not going to reply to them any further. Xey're a blackhole and I don't have that level of energy or time to just pour into the void.

@subcomo the church fell into apostasy because of the law of common consent. President Woodruff, with plans to fix it, facilitated it. He simply ended up doing something he shouldn't have done (and did not actually want to do) and then the luciferians took advantage of that bad decision and attempt at duplicitous behavior (which had good intentions) to end his life and disallowed it to be rolled back - as intended.

We have been left in an awful state of apostasy of the church and with such full ignorance and massive mindshare that doesn't even begin to evaluate or accept this.... Indeed, the malignant tumor that is Utah doesn't do any good for this situation. Further, it fully appears, there are those who know of the apostasy and keep the perpetration of evil going for many and varied reasons. Many leaders in the church from around 1890 forward were really frustrated and confused. The fear grew and they continued to evolve and even chopped apart D&C in the early 1900s wherein we lost 1/2 of it as scripture due to their inability to receive revelation and thus making "soviets" (councils) to make decisions due to their ears being closed to the Lord. As time progressed and the luciferians/communists further entrenched (this is factual and provable too) I fear that there became far more of these evil types than we want to believe. Clearly the Pace Memo shines a small, but bright, light into one of these corners.

Utah really should have remained aloof from the USA when the choice was on the satanic altar of that time and stayed true to the Lord's commands and sought to fulfill all righteousness. It is sad that they (and again, I understand and am not sure I could have endured the constant threat of death and perpetual chase) could not keep trudging through the difficulty/trial unto even death if necessary.

Indeed, I have not received any spiritual witness and frankly I have not asked because I have seen bad fruits from the ones in question. There is one that I feel may actually be the closest, but his name is not mentioned here neither elsewhere on this forum in this context and I don't even think he himself feels that it is appropriate to pursue or claim such a role.

I am close friends with someone who believes very similar to me, but disagrees with the following so I'll present their thought as well first since it is well thought out:
Their thought is that "the Lord can't use old bottles to store new wine" and that the churches need to be reestablished. That means the preparatory church such as what the LDS church was supposed to become (but folks wanted it to be more like traditional churches with which they were accustomed and then ultimately it fell into outright full apostasy). The Church of The Firstborn may also need to be restored since I am not sure if there are any still practicing it with full truth and purity within their familial kingdoms as Brother Joseph established it and with the Council of Fifty.

I personally still think that the proper course for seekers of truth is probably to first purge all leadership from the current church - with the proper teaching of the people where and how the apostasy occurred and what we should and need to be doing now to rectify the situation and to undo the condemnation from the Lord. There is far too much corruption and every leader from the top to the very bottom MUST be removed. I really am not sure if this is in fact possible since there is so much corruption and far too many (nearly all) have learned to not rely on true personal revelation (both leaders and non leadership members alike). They simply think they can follow "worthy" leaders, which was expressly condemned by the Lord and Joseph - we must not follow people as is taught by the apostate leaders today since it is an evil and impure practice itself. This behavior is a full out manifestation of slothfulness - and unto "our" (collectively speaking) condemnation. There are even corrupted stake presidents appointing unrepentant thieves, liars and worse as bishops (yes, I have witnessed this first hand). So while I think a re-founding of the church is possible and I would prefer it (perhaps from my own fears and "sloth"), I have serious fear and doubt and thus perhaps ultimately I can see that my friend is right about the old bottles comparison......

If we go with the new church I am just not sure how to proceed in this regard since it would require someone who not only understands truth, but has also been, in some fashion, perhaps even theophanically, called.

Again, The Church of the Firstborn also is critical. The reason for failing to understand and use the temple properly is because 99.99999999999% of the preparatory church never understood the role of the temple as a bridge to the Church of The Firstborn - probably in part because education and implementation of such occurred around the great upheavals from the early persecution.

Anyway, there are some rough thoughts to answer your questions.

Jreuben, thank you for answering.

Looking for the truth does not require "purging the leadership" of any religious organization, from top to bottom. It means going to God to find out and receive personal revelation about what you are to do. This is what Joseph Smith did. He liked some of the teachers but never could get around their answers as being square with what he knew from the Scriptures. There was no purging of Baptists, or Methodists, or Presbyterians, there was just a response from on high that ALL WERE IN ERROR.

You mentioned that you haven't asked yet, because everywhere you see bad fruit. Have you not considered that when Joseph saw that there was bad fruit in all the religious leaders, he still asked anyway, having faith that he would receive any type of answer? Had he been commanded to unite with the Baptists, or the Catholics, or the Muslims, he would have done so in one heartbeat.

I'm not saying that there WON'T be a purging. But that is going to be sorted out by the Lord, because vengeance is from Him. Those that are unrepentant, and in their wickedness accept leadership responsibilities in the Church, and persist in their wickedness, well the Scriptures print a very vivid picture about their fate if they cause others to sin. Millstones and such.

What you should do JReuben, is keep the faith. Not so much in an organization or in a man, as you say, but in Father and in Jesus. I dare you to ask Him what you need to do. Don't be scared about the response you get either. Especially if the response contradicts everything that you have known over time.

[jreuben]

I have kept the (true) faith, do keep the faith and I see the truth. Sadly there is an apostasy and it must be purged - one way or the other @subcomo.

[Reluctant Watchman]

@sub
But they would teach doctrine contrary to what He taught. They would blaspheme His name in the midst of His house.

How so?

1. The LDS church ignores or has changed many core doctrines taught in the Book of Mormon.

2. The modern LDS org changed AoF #4 as originally written by Joseph Smith. This essentially changed the definition of salvation to add temple ordinances. Christ was quite clear about what his doctrine was in 3 Nephi, and what happens to those people who change His doctrine.

3. As far as the "his house" portion, I believe the modern LDS org has portions of what Joseph began to teach the saints, but subsequent leaders (Brigham) changed it drastically, even introducing very poor doctrine and possibly even Luciferian aspects with blood oaths and adam/god doctrine. Not to mention that I simply cannot believe that the "covenants" entered into are done in full knowledge in the LDS org. You cannot make a covenant in ignorance (ie, point to the scriptures and tell someone the Law of Sacrifice is in there).

I have read the Nemenhah record, which also contains a version of the Endowment the Native Americans received. There are massive similarities, but there are also massive differences. The Nemenhah record teaches the 4 core ordinances in far more clarity than I've ever been taught in the LDS temple.

And as I've noted in other places, if SRA is occurring, then the apostasy noted in 2 Thess, and the devil sitting upon the throne of God, would be a perfect fit.

1. How so?

2. This is what the original and the current show:

Original: We believe that these ordinances are 1st, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; 2d, Repentance; 3d, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; 4th, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Now: We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the gospel are first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Is faith or repentance an ordinance? I don't see anything about temple work mentioned in the 4th article of faith.

3. There are no blood oaths in the temple and haven't been there since 1990. It is good that they are trying to restore the ordinances as Joseph had them. The principles of the Law of Sacrifice can be found in the Pearl of Great Price with Adam and later on with his son Abel. The Book of Mormon also mentions that any offering laid up to God when not done with real intent (with murmuring and grumbling) will be rejected by the Lord. Christ also told the Pharisees that straight up in Matthew 23. I would be very interested in reading up about this Nemenhah record...

4. That has not been proven. Innuendos and circumstantial evidence in themselves are not evidence that can be taken seriously.

1. Here's my essay on the doctrines taught in the BoM that the LDS org does not teach: https://www.reluctantwatchman.com/the-b ... lds-church

2. Here's my essay on AoF #4 and the implications of the change. And yes, faith and repentance do qualify and ordinances. https://www.reluctantwatchman.com/article-of-faith-4

3. The fact is there were blood oaths in the temple, adam/god doctrine was taught in the temple. Members cannot "speak ill of the Lord's anointed", which has massive ramifications when speaking up against corrupt doctrine. And the laws overall are not taught prior to the endowment, and very light doctrine is taught about them during the endowment. True covenants with God are not made in ignorance.

4. SRA, there is significant circumstantial evidence. I have a friend who has scars on her body and they correlate to recovered memories of SRA w/in the church from some of the highest leaders in the church. SRA is the perfect way to commit a crime by breaking a person mentally.

[Being There]

you trust in the arm of the flesh, and put your trust in men

You keep using this phrase. I don't think it means what you think it does.

Trusting in the arm of flesh isn't sustaining imperfect church leaders.

Here are is an example of trusting in the arm of flesh:

Rejecting revelations and teachings of the Lord's great prophet and seer Joseph Smith, in favor of the ideas of a learned Hebrew scholar and your own understanding.

actually,
I don't think it means what YOU think it does;
it's obvious - just look at so many of your comments, they're a perfect example
of trusting in the arm of the flesh.
You idolize and praise MEN - CORRUPT MEN - and put your trust in them and not in God.

And talk about rejecting revelations and teachings of your past prophets, in favor of
the delusional ideas of these MEN and their precepts - MEN you idolize - theses corrupt leaders
you put your trust in, and rely on your own understanding.

I really think you need to read this paper, and quotes by your past LDS prophets.
The things in red, because they apply to you, and the MEN you put your trust in.


Be Wary of Man and His Words
http://www.7witnesses.com/uploads/3/8/9 ... _words.pdf

"The Lord’s inspired servants do their best repeat God’s words as accurately as possible.
They also point to Him as the source of all light and truth.
Imperfect and corrupt men, seeking the praise of the world and filthy lucre,
raise themselves up as a light in replacement of God.
This paper addresses the false doctrine that men should be lifted up as our source of light."

I. Early Teachings in the LDS Church about Trusting Men

Consistent with the Lord’s words and scripture, early LDS church leaders taught members to avoid trusting in leaders, and said that to do so was to trust in “the arm of the flesh.”
Apostle George Q. Cannon stated,
“Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a Bishop, an apostle or a president; if you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support will be gone;
but if we lean on God, He will never fail us.
When men and women depend upon God alone and trust in him alone, their faith will not be
shaken if the highest in the Church should step aside” (George Q. Cannon, DW 43:322 [Mar 7, 1891]).

Apostle Charles Penrose, counselor to Pres. Brigham Young stated,
“Our testimony does not depend upon Joseph Smith;
it does not depend upon Brigham Young; it does not depend upon John Taylor, or upon the
council of the Twelve Apostles, which is now the presiding quorum in the Church.
I pin my faith to no man’s sleeve; I am a believer in the Scripture which says,
‘Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm’”
(Charles Penrose, August 17, 1879, Journal of Discourses 20:295)

[LDS Watchman]

you trust in the arm of the flesh, and put your trust in men

You keep using this phrase. I don't think it means what you think it does.

Trusting in the arm of flesh isn't sustaining imperfect church leaders.

Here are is an example of trusting in the arm of flesh:

Rejecting revelations and teachings of the Lord's great prophet and seer Joseph Smith, in favor of the ideas of a learned Hebrew scholar and your own understanding.

actually,
I don't think it means what YOU think it does;
it's obvious - just look at so many of your comments, they're a perfect example
of trusting in the arm of the flesh.
You idolize and praise MEN - CORRUPT MEN - and put your trust in them and not in God.

And talk about rejecting revelations and teachings of your past prophets, in favor of
the delusional ideas of these MEN and their precepts - MEN you idolize - theses corrupt leaders
you put your trust in, and rely on your own understanding.

I really think you need to read this paper, and quotes by your past LDS prophets.
The things in red, because they apply to you, and the MEN you put your trust in.


Be Wary of Man and His Words
http://www.7witnesses.com/uploads/3/8/9 ... _words.pdf

"The Lord’s inspired servants do their best repeat God’s words as accurately as possible.
They also point to Him as the source of all light and truth.
Imperfect and corrupt men, seeking the praise of the world and filthy lucre,
raise themselves up as a light in replacement of God.
This paper addresses the false doctrine that men should be lifted up as our source of light."

I. Early Teachings in the LDS Church about Trusting Men

Consistent with the Lord’s words and scripture, early LDS church leaders taught members to avoid trusting in leaders, and said that to do so was to trust in “the arm of the flesh.”
Apostle George Q. Cannon stated,
“Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a Bishop, an apostle or a president; if you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support will be gone;
but if we lean on God, He will never fail us.
When men and women depend upon God alone and trust in him alone, their faith will not be
shaken if the highest in the Church should step aside” (George Q. Cannon, DW 43:322 [Mar 7, 1891]).

Apostle Charles Penrose, counselor to Pres. Brigham Young stated,
“Our testimony does not depend upon Joseph Smith;
it does not depend upon Brigham Young; it does not depend upon John Taylor, or upon the
council of the Twelve Apostles, which is now the presiding quorum in the Church.
I pin my faith to no man’s sleeve; I am a believer in the Scripture which says,
‘Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm’”
(Charles Penrose, August 17, 1879, Journal of Discourses 20:295)

Lol

You're going to try and justify your rejection of the scriptures and teachings of Joseph Smith in favor of your own interpretations and those of your beloved teacher Avraham Gileadi by using..

Wait for it...

...cherry picked quotes from the very men whose teachings you insist can't be trusted.

You can't make this stuff up.

[Luke]

you trust in the arm of the flesh, and put your trust in men

You keep using this phrase. I don't think it means what you think it does.

Trusting in the arm of flesh isn't sustaining imperfect church leaders.

Here are is an example of trusting in the arm of flesh:

Rejecting revelations and teachings of the Lord's great prophet and seer Joseph Smith, in favor of the ideas of a learned Hebrew scholar and your own understanding.

actually,
I don't think it means what YOU think it does;
it's obvious - just look at so many of your comments, they're a perfect example
of trusting in the arm of the flesh.
You idolize and praise MEN - CORRUPT MEN - and put your trust in them and not in God.

And talk about rejecting revelations and teachings of your past prophets, in favor of
the delusional ideas of these MEN and their precepts - MEN you idolize - theses corrupt leaders
you put your trust in, and rely on your own understanding.

I really think you need to read this paper, and quotes by your past LDS prophets.
The things in red, because they apply to you, and the MEN you put your trust in.


Be Wary of Man and His Words
http://www.7witnesses.com/uploads/3/8/9 ... _words.pdf

"The Lord’s inspired servants do their best repeat God’s words as accurately as possible.
They also point to Him as the source of all light and truth.
Imperfect and corrupt men, seeking the praise of the world and filthy lucre,
raise themselves up as a light in replacement of God.
This paper addresses the false doctrine that men should be lifted up as our source of light."

I. Early Teachings in the LDS Church about Trusting Men

Consistent with the Lord’s words and scripture, early LDS church leaders taught members to avoid trusting in leaders, and said that to do so was to trust in “the arm of the flesh.”
Apostle George Q. Cannon stated,
“Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a Bishop, an apostle or a president; if you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support will be gone;
but if we lean on God, He will never fail us.
When men and women depend upon God alone and trust in him alone, their faith will not be
shaken if the highest in the Church should step aside” (George Q. Cannon, DW 43:322 [Mar 7, 1891]).

Apostle Charles Penrose, counselor to Pres. Brigham Young stated,
“Our testimony does not depend upon Joseph Smith;
it does not depend upon Brigham Young; it does not depend upon John Taylor, or upon the
council of the Twelve Apostles, which is now the presiding quorum in the Church.
I pin my faith to no man’s sleeve; I am a believer in the Scripture which says,
‘Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm’”
(Charles Penrose, August 17, 1879, Journal of Discourses 20:295)

Lol

You're going to try and justify your rejection of the scriptures and teachings of Joseph Smith in favor of your own interpretations and those of your beloved teacher Avraham Gileadi by using..

Wait for it...

...cherry picked quotes from the very men whose teachings you insist can't be trusted.

You can't make this stuff up.

Classic way to just ignore what he’s saying.

Even if he doesn’t believe these men, you certainly do.

The point he made is completely accurate and valid, and confirmed by men who you (and I) uphold as men of God.

[Luke]

And you feel that NONE of the breakaway sects can be true either because you have not received a spiritual witness?

What does this even mean? What does it mean for a group to be “true”?

I don’t believe any of the groups are the “one true group/church/sect” because I believe the church IS the believers. Inasmuch as a group teaches truth and possesses authority (which I believe many do), God will work with them.

What I mean by this, Luke, is if the LDS Church is not the church of Jesus Christ on the earth today, complete with its organization, then who is? Or is there no one on the earth with that authority?

The question was directed towards JReuben.

I don’t believe there is such thing as “the church of Jesus Christ on the earth today, complete with its organisation”.

The church is the believers. Organisations are just organisations, composed of various believers.

Also, what do you mean when you refer to “that authority”?

[Gadianton Slayer]

…if the LDS Church is not the church of Jesus Christ on the earth today, complete with its organization, then who is?

Fascinating topic.

https://gadiantonslayer.blogspot.com/20 ... 3.html?m=1

[LDS Watchman]

You keep using this phrase. I don't think it means what you think it does.

Trusting in the arm of flesh isn't sustaining imperfect church leaders.

Here are is an example of trusting in the arm of flesh:

Rejecting revelations and teachings of the Lord's great prophet and seer Joseph Smith, in favor of the ideas of a learned Hebrew scholar and your own understanding.

actually,
I don't think it means what YOU think it does;
it's obvious - just look at so many of your comments, they're a perfect example
of trusting in the arm of the flesh.
You idolize and praise MEN - CORRUPT MEN - and put your trust in them and not in God.

And talk about rejecting revelations and teachings of your past prophets, in favor of
the delusional ideas of these MEN and their precepts - MEN you idolize - theses corrupt leaders
you put your trust in, and rely on your own understanding.

I really think you need to read this paper, and quotes by your past LDS prophets.
The things in red, because they apply to you, and the MEN you put your trust in.


Be Wary of Man and His Words
http://www.7witnesses.com/uploads/3/8/9 ... _words.pdf

"The Lord’s inspired servants do their best repeat God’s words as accurately as possible.
They also point to Him as the source of all light and truth.
Imperfect and corrupt men, seeking the praise of the world and filthy lucre,
raise themselves up as a light in replacement of God.
This paper addresses the false doctrine that men should be lifted up as our source of light."

I. Early Teachings in the LDS Church about Trusting Men

Consistent with the Lord’s words and scripture, early LDS church leaders taught members to avoid trusting in leaders, and said that to do so was to trust in “the arm of the flesh.”
Apostle George Q. Cannon stated,
“Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a Bishop, an apostle or a president; if you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support will be gone;
but if we lean on God, He will never fail us.
When men and women depend upon God alone and trust in him alone, their faith will not be
shaken if the highest in the Church should step aside” (George Q. Cannon, DW 43:322 [Mar 7, 1891]).

Apostle Charles Penrose, counselor to Pres. Brigham Young stated,
“Our testimony does not depend upon Joseph Smith;
it does not depend upon Brigham Young; it does not depend upon John Taylor, or upon the
council of the Twelve Apostles, which is now the presiding quorum in the Church.
I pin my faith to no man’s sleeve; I am a believer in the Scripture which says,
‘Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm’”
(Charles Penrose, August 17, 1879, Journal of Discourses 20:295)

Lol

You're going to try and justify your rejection of the scriptures and teachings of Joseph Smith in favor of your own interpretations and those of your beloved teacher Avraham Gileadi by using..

Wait for it...

...cherry picked quotes from the very men whose teachings you insist can't be trusted.

You can't make this stuff up.

Classic way to just ignore what he’s saying.

Even if he doesn’t believe these men, you certainly do.

The point he made is completely accurate and valid, and confirmed by men who you (and I) uphold as men of God.

I'm not ignoring what he's saying at all. Those two cherry picked quotes don't even mean what he thinks they do.

It's a very poor justification for him rejecting the scriptures and teachings of Joseph Smith in favor of his own ideas and those of Avraham Gileadi, all while accusing me of blindly trusting in the arm of flesh.

[stormcloak]

As far as the "his house" portion, I believe the modern LDS org has portions of what Joseph began to teach the saints, but subsequent leaders (Brigham) changed it drastically, even introducing very poor doctrine and possibly even Luciferian aspects with blood oaths and adam/god doctrine.

I was content to be a lurker on this thread, but decided to go ahead and throw in my 2¢ on this particular topic which I feel strongly about given some of the above comments about it. The Adam-God doctrine did not originate with Brigham Young. To call it "Luciferian" literally could not be farther from the truth. It exalts the position of both the Father and His Son. I don't want to start a flamewar over this with you, because I don't have the time or inclination to debate about something that I consider sacred and which I've received my own prayerful testimony of numerous times, but I simply wanted to put the following statements below for the consideration and enlightenment of all.

Consider the following statements from Joseph Smith:

The Priesthood was first given to Adam; he obtained the First Presidency, and held the keys of it from generation to generation. He obtained it in the Creation, before the world was formed, as in Genesis 1:26, 27, 28. He had dominion given him over every living creature. He is Michael the Archangel, spoken of in the Scriptures. Then to Noah, who is Gabriel: he stands next in authority to Adam in the Priesthood; he was called of God to this office, and was the father of all living in his day, and to him was given the dominion. These men held keys first on earth, and then in heaven.

Sidenote: Who is Gabriel? The one that announced Christ's birth to Mary. If Michael is higher than Gabriel, that would place him very high in the heavenly hierarchy.

Continuing:

The Priesthood is an everlasting principle, and existed with God from eternity, and will to eternity, without beginning of days or end of years. The keys have to be brought from heaven whenever the Gospel is sent. When they are revealed from heaven, it is by Adam's authority.

Daniel in his seventh chapter speaks of the Ancient of Days; he means the oldest man, our Father Adam, Michael, he will call his children together and hold a council with them to prepare them for the coming of the Son of Man. He (Adam) is the father of the human family, and presides over the spirits of all men, and all that have had the keys must stand before him in this grand council. This may take place before some of us leave this stage of action. The Son of Man stands before him, and there is given him glory and dominion. Adam delivers up his stewardship to Christ, that which was delivered to him as holding the keys of the universe, but retains his standing as head of the human family.

(TPJS p. 157, WJS p. 9, Joseph Smith Papers)

Joseph Smith also stated:

How have we come at the Priesthood in the last days? It came down, down, in regular succession. Peter, James, and John had it given to them and they gave it to others. Christ is the Great High Priest; Adam next.

(ibid.)

Notice the ASCENDING order.
Peter, James, John > Christ > Adam

Joseph Smith further stated:

Commencing with Adam, who was the first man, who is spoken of in Daniel as being the "Ancient of Days," or in other words, the first and oldest of all, the great, grand progenitor of whom it is said in another place he is Michael, because he was the first and father of all, not only by progeny, but the first to hold the spiritual blessings, to whom was made known the plan of ordinances for the salvation of his posterity unto the end, and to whom Christ was first revealed, and through whom Christ has been revealed from heaven, and will continue to be revealed from henceforth. Adam holds the keys of the dispensation of the fullness of times; i.e., the dispensation of all the times have been and will be revealed through him from the beginning to Christ, and from Christ to the end of the dispensations that are to be revealed. "Having made known unto us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He hath purposed in Himself; that in the dispensation of the fullness of times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in Him." (Ephesians 1:9-10.)

...

And again, God purposed in Himself that there should not be an eternal fullness until every dispensation should be fulfilled and gathered together in one, and that all things whatsoever, that should be gathered together in one in those dispensations unto the same fullness and eternal glory, should be in Christ Jesus; therefore He set the ordinances to be the same forever and ever, and set Adam to watch over them, to reveal them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them. "Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?" (Hebrews 1:14.)

These angels are under the direction of Michael or Adam, who acts under the direction of the Lord [i.e., Jehovah, His Father, or from Christ in the capacity of His Beloved Son whom He can trust in all things]. From the above quotation we learn that Paul perfectly understood the purposes of God in relation to His connection with man, and that glorious and perfect order which He established in Himself, whereby he sent forth power, revelations, and glory.

...

This, then, is the nature of the Priesthood; every man holding the Presidency of his dispensation, and one man holding the Presidency of them all, even Adam; and Adam receiving his Presidency and authority from the Lord [i.e., Jehovah], but cannot receive a fullness until Christ shall present the Kingdom to the Father, which shall be at the end of the last dispensation. [see also 1 Corinthians 15:24, D&C 76:107, and TPJS 157]

(TPJS pp. 167-169, WJS pp. 39-40, Joseph Smith Papers)

Joseph Smith additionally gave the following private instruction to the Council of Fifty on April 5, 1844 (just two months before he died):

The chairman [i.e. Joseph Smith] explained the meaning of the word "Ahman" which signifies the first man [i.e. Adam] or first God [of the Trinity, i.e. God the Father], and “Ahman Christ” signifies the first mans son [i.e. Adam's Son].

(source: "Council of Fifty, Minutes, March 1844–January 1846; Volume 1, 10 March 1844–1 March 1845," p. [84], The Joseph Smith Papers

Compare this with an older revelation received by Joseph Smith in 1832:

Question: What is the name of God in [the] pure Language[?]

Answer: Ahman.

Q: [What is] the meaning of the pure word A[h]man?

A: It is the being which made all things in all its parts.

Q: What is the name of the Son of God.

A: The Son Ahman.

Q: What is the Son Ahman.

A: It is the greatest of all the parts of Ahman which is [in] the Godhead [or] the first born [Son of Ahman].

Q: What is man?

A: This signifies Sons Ahman, the human family [or] the children of men, [who constitute] the greatest [of all the] parts of Ahman['s] Sons [excepting] the Son Ahman.

(source: Unpublished Revelations of the Prophets and Presidents of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Vol. 1, by Fred C. Collier; also see: "Sample of Pure Language, between circa 4 and circa 20 March 1832," p. 144, The Joseph Smith Papers

This dovetails perfectly with what Benjamin F. Johnson recollected in later years in a letter to George F. Gibbs regarding the teachings of Joseph Smith in the Council of Fifty:

The Prophet's teaching of "Love" was not to work upon the sympathies and sensibilities of the people, but by his great example in self sacrifice and in showing us that while all the world was against us, our only hope was in our union, and that union was only possible as the fruit of our love for each other. And in teaching us the "Fatherhood of God and Brotherhood of Man," we could begin to see why we should "love God supremely, and our brother as ourselves." He taught us that God was the great head of human procreation--[that He] was really and truly the Father of both our Spirits and our Bodies--that we were but parts of a great whole, mutually and equally dependent upon each other according to conditions. And in our love of God, we show as do the members of our bodies naturally, a greater love and protection for our head. But this reasoning could not be fully understood by all, and as I have said before, in the infancy of the Church our minds and views were more narrow and we were more petulant, resentful and perhaps more vindictive than now.

(Benjamin F. Johnson to George F. Gibbs, April 1903, Church Archives)

Also, just who is the Ancient of Days supposed to be? It's only mentioned in the Bible in Daniel chapter 7. Surely it must have meant something before Joseph Smith adopted the term. Catholics, Protestants, and Jews have all written the following about Him quite openly, both before and after Joseph Smith's lifetime:

• The Catholic Encyclopedia says that the Ancient of Days is "a name given to God by the Prophet Daniel," and then explains that, "It is from these descriptions of the Almighty that Christian art derived its general manner of representing the first person of the Holy Trinity." (The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1907 edition, Vol. 1, p. 463)
• Adam Clarke (whose Biblical Commentary was used by Joseph Smith during the creation of the JST) wrote:
  

  The Ancient of days - God Almighty; and this is the only place in the sacred writings where God the Father is represented in a human form.
  
  (Clarke's commentary on Daniel 7:9)

• Eerdman's Commentary of the Bible states, that "the Ancient of Days is the description given by Daniel, who pictures God on His throne of judgment, judging the great world empires." He also explains that this title "alternates with the title 'Most High' (verses 18, 22, 25, 27)." (Eerdman's Commentary of the Bible, p. 480)
• The Anchor Bible states that "ancient Israel had long envisaged Yahweh as the divine judge enthroned in the assembly of his angels" and then speaking directly of the Ancient of Days it goes on to say that even though "God" is not "explicitly mentioned by name," yet "every reader would at once recognize as God 'the Ancient One' who presides at this celestial tribunal." In continuing it says that "the term 'the Ancient One' as used of God, though not found in older biblical literature is partly based on the [...] popular notion of God as an old man." (The Anchor Bible, Vol. 23, pp. 217-218)
• The Jewish Encyclopedia claims that the "Ancient of Days" is "A poetical epithet for God," and then states that the author of Daniel uses this title to describe "the venerable character of the being whose name the author hesitates to mention." (The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 1, pp. 571–572)
• Encyclopedia Judaica likewise identifies the Ancient of Days as "God Himself," stating it is obvious from the text of Daniel 7 alone. (Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 2, p. 940)
• Zondervan's Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, observes that, "This expression occurs only in Daniel 7:9, 13, 22. 'Ancient' renders an adjective [...] Hence the adjective, connected with the emphatic absolute plural of 'day,' means advanced (with regard to) the days, that is, very aged." It goes on to affirm that, "It is an elegant Semitic expression to designate an old man." And then adds that, "Although the passage does not directly say so, the numerous commentators unite to take it at once to be a euphemistic term for God." (The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 1, p. 156)
• Herbert Lockyer, in his Book "All the Divine Names and Titles in the Bible" wrote that: "The Hebrew word used here (i.e. Dan 7:9, 13, 22) for Ancient means advanced, that is, in age; hence old, aged, and used in connection with God it is not meant to suggest the existence of God from eternity. What was uppermost in Daniel's mind was the venerable appearance of old age. Thus, literally, the phrase 'Ancient of Days' implies 'a very aged man'--The attribute of age pressing the majestic figure of the Judge. 'God [...] abideth of old' (Psalms 55:l9)." Since Lockyer has difficulty conceiving of God in human form, he continues by quoting from another scholar who states that: "What Daniel sees is not the eternal God Himself, but an aged man, in whose dignified and impressive form God reveals Himself." (All the Divine Names and Titles in the Bible, p. 74)

Beyond all this, there are numerous Biblical passages which affirm the Adam-God Doctrine as a reality in ancient Israelite and early Christian thought. What follows is not an exhaustive compilation of such references, for then this post would grow to the size of a book, but I will point out a few select passages to illustrate my point.

Throughout the New Testament, Christ repeatedly calls Himself the "Son of Man." The Cambridge Bible Dictionary states the following:

"The Son of Man is a title of our Lord, found in the Gospels about 80 times, used by Him in speaking of Himself, but never used by anyone else in speaking of him (Cambridge Bible Dictionary, 'Son of Man')."

What could be the meaning of this? In the Hebrew, the word for "Adam" is "man". There are not two words for "Adam" and "man" in the Hebrew, but they are the same word, "man".

The Bible Dictionary states the following:

"ADAM, man, the name given to the first man in the early narrative of Genesis. By comparing the A. V., R. V. and R. V. marg., it will be seen there is some difficulty in deciding how far it is used as a proper name, e. g. in Gen. 2:19, 20, 21; 3:8; but it is certainly a proper name in 5:1-5."

So then when Jesus refers to himself as "The Son of Man" some 80 places in the New Testament, He is declaring in words as plainly as His language could speak it, that he was in fact the Son of Adam. But Jesus was not the only person who taught this doctrine.

Sidenote: This is not a new idea either, or something that has not been thought of before. See Wikipedia on Son of Man and also Son of Man (Christianity); and also an important comment from this BYU study:

The figure of the ancient of days (יומים עתיק) and the later-appearing human being (אנש כבר) [... footnote:] This Aramaic phrase denotes the same meaning as the Hebrew equivalent ben adam אדם בן (found scattered throughout the OT, especially in the book of Ezekiel in reference to the prophet himself).

Thus it meant the same thing in Aramaic as in Hebrew.

But to continue: Paul also taught this doctrine in addition to Christ. On one occasion Paul taught that Christ was the "brightness of his (God the Father's) glory, and the express image of his person" (Heb. 1:3)

On another occasion, Paul referred to Adam as "The figure of him (Christ) who was to come" (Rom 5:14). Again in Ephesians Paul says, "For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, OF WHOM [or after whom] the whole family in heaven and Earth is named" (Ephesians 3:14-15).

What did Paul mean by this? What is the human race called? We are referred to as "Man" or "Mankind", which in the Hebrew is to say, "Adam-kind." So all the human race is named after Adam, and Paul says that the "whole family (of man) in heaven and earth is named after the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ"--which is to say "Man", or "Mankind" or "Adam-kind", or as it states in Genesis 5, just "Adam":

This is the book of the generations of Adam, in the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; MALE and FEMALE created he them; and blessed them, and CALLED THEIR NAME ADAM, in the day when they were created.

(Gen. 5:1-2)

Without a doubt in the passage in Ephesians 3, Paul is teaching just as Christ did, that Jesus was the Son of Adam.

Anyone who claims that this doctrine is "Luciferian" in nature, is either misguided or willfully blind. This doctrine does nothing but place Christ and His Father upon their proper exalted status. Whether you love or hate Brigham Young, you cannot escape the fact that the Bible is totally pregnant with this doctrine, in both the Old and New Testaments, but only for those with "eyes to see, and ears to hear."

And regarding Brigham Young, is it not telling that Christ said:

No man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.

(Luke 10:22)

(edited for formatting)

[Being There]

I don't agree with much of what when on during Covid. I think many people panicked and blew things out of proportion.

But, I don't think this is justification to overthrow all governments of the world.

But do you trust your government?

My trust is in God, and not worldy institutions.

right.

you say - your trust is in God, and not worldly institutions,
and yet you trust in the arm of the flesh, and put your trust in men - men who are corrupt,
and who do not put their trust in God, (godsend)
nor serve Him or follow Him, but serve and follow world leaders, and their institutions and laws.
And instead of being men of God, and asking us to follow God, and serve Him,
they are men of the world, and ask us to be also,
and join them, in being Good Global Citizens, and follow world leaders,
and serve THEM, as they do.

Of course - you will deny this, but, there is no way to justify, and excuses you could make up
to cover up the fact, that their is proof that the church is sooooo involved in Babylon -
and it's "worldly institutions" - these evil organizations - investing and drowning in it's money $100B,
that there's really no way to cover this up; yet, only someone like you, will never admit it.

Avraham Gileadi ?
And what does Avraham Gileadi have to do with this at all ? NOTHING !
I NEVER QUOTED HIM OR MENTIONED HIM AT ALL.
Just shows you just how low you stoop - because you really don't know what else to say.

you really are ridiculous Atticus.
Now I know why so many here (like myself) don't even waste their time anymore replying to you.
(I'll try not to make that mistake again)

[Subcomandante]

How so?

1. The LDS church ignores or has changed many core doctrines taught in the Book of Mormon.

2. The modern LDS org changed AoF #4 as originally written by Joseph Smith. This essentially changed the definition of salvation to add temple ordinances. Christ was quite clear about what his doctrine was in 3 Nephi, and what happens to those people who change His doctrine.

3. As far as the "his house" portion, I believe the modern LDS org has portions of what Joseph began to teach the saints, but subsequent leaders (Brigham) changed it drastically, even introducing very poor doctrine and possibly even Luciferian aspects with blood oaths and adam/god doctrine. Not to mention that I simply cannot believe that the "covenants" entered into are done in full knowledge in the LDS org. You cannot make a covenant in ignorance (ie, point to the scriptures and tell someone the Law of Sacrifice is in there).

I have read the Nemenhah record, which also contains a version of the Endowment the Native Americans received. There are massive similarities, but there are also massive differences. The Nemenhah record teaches the 4 core ordinances in far more clarity than I've ever been taught in the LDS temple.

And as I've noted in other places, if SRA is occurring, then the apostasy noted in 2 Thess, and the devil sitting upon the throne of God, would be a perfect fit.

1. How so?

2. This is what the original and the current show:

Original: We believe that these ordinances are 1st, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; 2d, Repentance; 3d, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; 4th, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Now: We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the gospel are first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Is faith or repentance an ordinance? I don't see anything about temple work mentioned in the 4th article of faith.

3. There are no blood oaths in the temple and haven't been there since 1990. It is good that they are trying to restore the ordinances as Joseph had them. The principles of the Law of Sacrifice can be found in the Pearl of Great Price with Adam and later on with his son Abel. The Book of Mormon also mentions that any offering laid up to God when not done with real intent (with murmuring and grumbling) will be rejected by the Lord. Christ also told the Pharisees that straight up in Matthew 23. I would be very interested in reading up about this Nemenhah record...

4. That has not been proven. Innuendos and circumstantial evidence in themselves are not evidence that can be taken seriously.

1. Here's my essay on the doctrines taught in the BoM that the LDS org does not teach: https://www.reluctantwatchman.com/the-b ... lds-church

2. Here's my essay on AoF #4 and the implications of the change. And yes, faith and repentance do qualify and ordinances. https://www.reluctantwatchman.com/article-of-faith-4

3. The fact is there were blood oaths in the temple, adam/god doctrine was taught in the temple. Members cannot "speak ill of the Lord's anointed", which has massive ramifications when speaking up against corrupt doctrine. And the laws overall are not taught prior to the endowment, and very light doctrine is taught about them during the endowment. True covenants with God are not made in ignorance.

4. SRA, there is significant circumstantial evidence. I have a friend who has scars on her body and they correlate to recovered memories of SRA w/in the church from some of the highest leaders in the church. SRA is the perfect way to commit a crime by breaking a person mentally.

If one were to look at the 1828 Webster's dictionary, it becomes very clear that the GENERAL IDEAS of faith and repentance can't in any legitimate means be defined as ordinances. They can be defined as principles, however. A religious ordinance takes at least two people: The person or people giving the ordinance and the person receiving the ordinance. Specific ordinances likewise require witnesses that sign off on the act. We don't see that with "faith" or "repentance".

Responding to your essay:

Part 1: The Church does not teach to follow the prophet as an exclusionary device but more like follow the prophet because He follows Christ. You follow both. Not one at the expense of the other.

Part 2: What was to become the saving ordinances was not yet finalized when the Wentworth letter was made. This was 1842. Nauvoo's temple was still under construction at the time.

Part 3: Everyone, poor or rich, has been asked to sacrifice their part to building up the Kingdom of God. Jesus appreciated the widow's mite more than many that donated weeks or months' loads of salary because she had given to Jesus everything.

Part 4: The Church does this part quite a bit in the local arena as well as global. It also looks to the future with anticipation because unlike many people on this board, it is quite obvious that the Lord requires a good effort from everyone. Zion's not going to come down like Tinker Bell pixie dust. It will require our consecrated efforts to bring that to pass. The 150 billion dollars is still a proverbial drop in the bucket compared to what Zion will cost in time, effort, and money.

Part 5: There is ample evidence that Joseph Smith did practice polygamy and was sealed to various women. That is a matter of public record. The Book of Mormon did not completely condemn polygamy, but did give one reason why polygamy would be permitted: To raise up seed to the Lord. This is a matter of fact in multiple dispensations. Once the amount of seed has gotten up to a critical mass, then polygamy would no longer be needed, and that's essentially what happened with the modern day Church.

Part 6: You act as if this was the only way. The rest of the post under 6 reads like something I would find out of "The Mormon Worker." No one can be forced into riches. But they can be taught how to work and find marketable skills in order not to be poor any longer. The Church through its self reliance education does its best to fulfill that scripture that there will be no more poor among us. Instead of lamenting and complaining, they take action.

7. That's not like the testimony meetings that I see in my ward, or in several other wards that I have seen. Now, given, where I do see an example like that marked in blue, I see that more often up and down the 15 corridor north of Vegas and south of the Montana border. Outside that, pretty much every testimony meeting I have seen is that which you describe in red.

8. The Church is in NO position to condemn and attack the secret combinations; it is nowhere near strong enough to stand on its own with the world combined against them. Any foolhardy attempt to copy a Captain Moroni style of attack would be met with stiff resistance and humiliating defeat. The best we can hope for today is a Gidgiddoni situation, not making everything public for all to hear, but quietly telling the members what they need to do for the rainy days ahead. And simply, NOT TO PARTICIPATE personally with the secret combos. That will starve them out, little by little. But this will require us uniting with people of other faiths who think similarly about what is going on, which is what the Church is doing here, smartly, intelligently, not rashly.

9. Most pharmaceutical drugs come from herbs. People have known that herbs have distinct medicinal properties, so you have people experienced in organic chemistry that find out how come two very different herbs have similar medicinal properties, and they isolate the chemicals from those herbs to form the pharmaceutical drugs we have today.
Vaccines? Not too much different. Some wise doctor figured out that if you were to give the body a weakened form of a bacteria or a virus, the immune system would be in a much better position to combat it, so that if the real form of the virus or bacteria attacked, the immune system would recognize the threat and stamp it out before it could get a person sick.

Keep in mind that Joseph Smith was very traumatized with the medicine that he received; going through a painful surgery as a young boy and watching his brother get sick and die from a type of medicine that contained mercury, a very poisonous chemical to ingest. Brigham Young, closely acquainted with Joseph Smith, undoubtedly had this in mind when he counseled the Saints these same things, but upon seeing the medical profession becoming full of "gentiles," he wisely sent elders east to learn of medicine and to bring these things back to Utah. Did Brigham fall? No. He learned, and he swallowed his pride.

10. The temples, though beautiful to look on, I could hardly describe as ornate, when comparing to other buildings that I have seen that are quite important in other faiths. Ever seen the national mosques under Islam? Let's not even go to Makkah or Madinah, let's go to Abu Dhabi (picture attached). There's not a single building owned by the Church that even comes to a hundredth of the ornateness or beauty of the Abu Dhabi mosque. Have you seen the cathedrals described as "National Cathedrals" in the different countries of the world under Catholicism or Orthodoxy? Or even those buildings described as local cathedrals. There is a ton more gold inside of the Basilica of Ocotlan in my local city of Tlaxcala, than there is in the Mexico City Temple. And the Basilica of Ocotlan isn't even the most important church in the city of Tlaxcala, population 100k! You do exaggerate much in that part. Perhaps because you are not well-traveled.

11. Different situation, that exhibited in the Book of Mormon versus now. The Book of Mormon you only see two countries. Now we have two hundred, each one with differing definitions on things like rights and freedoms.

12. I'll give you that one, albeit the Book of Mormon referenced the Lamanites who in this dispensation were NEVER prohibited from holding the priesthood. The Africans however were under a different set of restrictions that were employed from the Old Testament of the Bible.

13. Blood Atonement was taught by Brigham, however not taught afterwards, and is condemned by today's Church.

14. Not everyone can handle wine. Not everyone can handle bread either. The Church makes adjustments for both. It would be very interesting to try to impose the wine requirement on those that live in the Muslim countries in the Middle East where wine or any alcohol for that matter is strictly forbidden Good thing the Lord saw that coming.

15. Local meetings continue to be conducted under the Spirit. The General Authorities give their general conference messages under the conduct of the Spirit, preparing anywhere from a few hours to a full six months for their talks.

16. No one denies the gift of prophesy but it must be had in the sphere of influence of the person that is prophesying. No one outside of the FP and Q12 can prophesy to the entire Church and make it binding on the Church to follow. You could have someone from outside the hierarchy come, with the hierarchy's blessing (think Samuel the Lamanite in this case, or Balaam's case in the Old Testament when he refused to curse Israel), but it must come with their blessing. Occasionally you will get an Abinadi moment where someone from outside of the hierarchy comes, but that must be because all the hierarchy has been corrupted, selected by wicked men. We have no evidence of that in the Church today that any one of the 15 (much less all of them) are as the priests of King Noah.

17. This is now done for administrative purposes. But it's not the 12, 14, or 16 year old's fault that they haven't received these types of manifestations. You could have someone the age of a baby receive the manifestation. It all depends on how the work is done at home.

18. The Gospel will be taken from the Gentiles for their consistent insolence and their inability to obey the Gospel because it contradicts their political or social views. Maybe ten years ago, I would have guessed that those called Progmos would be the guys to do it (fall away). But there are many rock-solid members that are falling away too over many trivialities and a lack of proper understanding. If you go down to Latin America, or read the accounts of the Church in Spanish, virtually everyone is following the counsel of the leaders of the Church, with very few dissentions. North of the border, that is a very different story. You just had a Latino and an Asian get called as Apostles, and more and more people from different groups are being called to be General Authorities. The Church is starting to be handed over towards those of Israel as the Americans and Europeans start dwindling in unbelief, just as the scriptures foretold!

19. The Kingdom of God is on the earth today, though not in its fullness. That will come in the Millennium on the Earth.

20. If what you say is true, how come the leaders are constantly calling the members to repentance? How come the members willfully rebel against the Lord when an apostle reminds people about the Plan of Salvation?

To answer your final questions:

The Gentiles are those that came over from the European nations, both members and non-members. Their lot is cast in a bad way unless they repent.

You are not rejected from a chapel for being poor. You will be rejected if you don't follow local health protocols like the wearing of a mask or in countries where they require it, a vaccination certificate. That's not on the Church, however, but on the governments enforcing those regulations.

[Subcomandante]

And you feel that NONE of the breakaway sects can be true either because you have not received a spiritual witness?

What does this even mean? What does it mean for a group to be “true”?

I don’t believe any of the groups are the “one true group/church/sect” because I believe the church IS the believers. Inasmuch as a group teaches truth and possesses authority (which I believe many do), God will work with them.

What I mean by this, Luke, is if the LDS Church is not the church of Jesus Christ on the earth today, complete with its organization, then who is? Or is there no one on the earth with that authority?

The question was directed towards JReuben.

I don’t believe there is such thing as “the church of Jesus Christ on the earth today, complete with its organisation”.

The church is the believers. Organisations are just organisations, composed of various believers.

Also, what do you mean when you refer to “that authority”?

The very word for Church in Greek and Assembly or Congregation in Hebrew (which is translated as "Church" in the Book of Mormon) implies organization.

[Reluctant Watchman]

As far as the "his house" portion, I believe the modern LDS org has portions of what Joseph began to teach the saints, but subsequent leaders (Brigham) changed it drastically, even introducing very poor doctrine and possibly even Luciferian aspects with blood oaths and adam/god doctrine.

I was content to be a lurker on this thread, but decided to go ahead and throw in my 2¢ on this particular topic which I feel strongly about given some of the above comments about it. The Adam-God doctrine did not originate with Brigham Young. To call it "Luciferian" literally could not be farther from the truth. It exalts the position of both the Father and His Son. I don't want to start a flamewar over this with you, because I don't have the time or inclination to debate about something that I consider sacred and which I've received my own prayerful testimony of numerous times, but I simply wanted to put the following statements below for the consideration and enlightenment of all.

Consider the following statements from Joseph Smith:

The Priesthood was first given to Adam; he obtained the First Presidency, and held the keys of it from generation to generation. He obtained it in the Creation, before the world was formed, as in Genesis 1:26, 27, 28. He had dominion given him over every living creature. He is Michael the Archangel, spoken of in the Scriptures. Then to Noah, who is Gabriel: he stands next in authority to Adam in the Priesthood; he was called of God to this office, and was the father of all living in his day, and to him was given the dominion. These men held keys first on earth, and then in heaven.

Sidenote: Who is Gabriel? The one that announced Christ's birth to Mary. If Michael is higher than Gabriel, that would place him very high in the heavenly hierarchy.

Continuing:

The Priesthood is an everlasting principle, and existed with God from eternity, and will to eternity, without beginning of days or end of years. The keys have to be brought from heaven whenever the Gospel is sent. When they are revealed from heaven, it is by Adam's authority.

Daniel in his seventh chapter speaks of the Ancient of Days; he means the oldest man, our Father Adam, Michael, he will call his children together and hold a council with them to prepare them for the coming of the Son of Man. He (Adam) is the father of the human family, and presides over the spirits of all men, and all that have had the keys must stand before him in this grand council. This may take place before some of us leave this stage of action. The Son of Man stands before him, and there is given him glory and dominion. Adam delivers up his stewardship to Christ, that which was delivered to him as holding the keys of the universe, but retains his standing as head of the human family.

(TPJS p. 157, WJS p. 9, Joseph Smith Papers)

Joseph Smith also stated:

How have we come at the Priesthood in the last days? It came down, down, in regular succession. Peter, James, and John had it given to them and they gave it to others. Christ is the Great High Priest; Adam next.

(ibid.)

Notice the ASCENDING order.
Peter, James, John > Christ > Adam

Joseph Smith also stated:

Commencing with Adam, who was the first man, who is spoken of in Daniel as being the "Ancient of Days," or in other words, the first and oldest of all, the great, grand progenitor of whom it is said in another place he is Michael, because he was the first and father of all, not only by progeny, but the first to hold the spiritual blessings, to whom was made known the plan of ordinances for the salvation of his posterity unto the end, and to whom Christ was first revealed, and through whom Christ has been revealed from heaven, and will continue to be revealed from henceforth. Adam holds the keys of the dispensation of the fullness of times; i.e., the dispensation of all the times have been and will be revealed through him from the beginning to Christ, and from Christ to the end of the dispensations that are to be revealed. "Having made known unto us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He hath purposed in Himself; that in the dispensation of the fullness of times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in Him." (Ephesians 1:9-10.)

...

And again, God purposed in Himself that there should not be an eternal fullness until every dispensation should be fulfilled and gathered together in one, and that all things whatsoever, that should be gathered together in one in those dispensations unto the same fullness and eternal glory, should be in Christ Jesus; therefore He set the ordinances to be the same forever and ever, and set Adam to watch over them, to reveal them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them. "Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?" (Hebrews 1:14.)

These angels are under the direction of Michael or Adam, who acts under the direction of the Lord [i.e., Jehovah, His Father, or from Christ in the capacity of His Beloved Son whom He can trust in all things]. From the above quotation we learn that Paul perfectly understood the purposes of God in relation to His connection with man, and that glorious and perfect order which He established in Himself, whereby he sent forth power, revelations, and glory.

...

This, then, is the nature of the Priesthood; every man holding the Presidency of his dispensation, and one man holding the Presidency of them all, even Adam; and Adam receiving his Presidency and authority from the Lord [i.e., Jehovah], but cannot receive a fullness until Christ shall present the Kingdom to the Father, which shall be at the end of the last dispensation. [see also 1 Corinthians 15:24, D&C 76:107, and TPJS 157]

(TPJS pp. 167-169, WJS pp. 39-40, Joseph Smith Papers)

Joseph Smith also gave the following private instruction to the Council of Fifty on April 5, 1844 (just two months before he died):

The chairman [i.e. Joseph Smith] explained the meaning of the word "Ahman" which signifies the first man [i.e. Adam] or first God [of the Trinity, i.e. God the Father], and “Ahman Christ” signifies the first mans son [i.e. Adam's Son].

(source: "Council of Fifty, Minutes, March 1844–January 1846; Volume 1, 10 March 1844–1 March 1845," p. [84], The Joseph Smith Papers

Compare this with an older revelation received by Joseph Smith in 1832:

Question: What is the name of God in [the] pure Language[?]

Answer: Ahman.

Q: [What is] the meaning of the pure word A[h]man?

A: It is the being which made all things in all its parts.

Q: What is the name of the Son of God.

A: The Son Ahman.

Q: What is the Son Ahman.

A: It is the greatest of all the parts of Ahman which is [in] the Godhead [or] the first born [Son of Ahman].

Q: What is man?

A: This signifies Sons Ahman, the human family [or] the children of men, [who constitute] the greatest [of all the] parts of Ahman['s] Sons [excepting] the Son Ahman.

(source: Unpublished Revelations of the Prophets and Presidents of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Vol. 1, by Fred C. Collier; also see: "Sample of Pure Language, between circa 4 and circa 20 March 1832," p. 144, The Joseph Smith Papers

This dovetails perfectly with what Benjamin F. Johnson recollected in later years in a letter to George F. Gibbs regarding the teachings of Joseph Smith in the Council of Fifty:

The Prophet's teaching of "Love" was not to work upon the sympathies and sensibilities of the people, but by his great example in self sacrifice and in showing us that while all the world was against us, our only hope was in our union, and that union was only possible as the fruit of our love for each other. And in teaching us the "Fatherhood of God and Brotherhood of Man," we could begin to see why we should "love God supremely, and our brother as ourselves." He taught us that God was the great head of human procreation--[that He] was really and truly the Father of both our Spirits and our Bodies--that we were but parts of a great whole, mutually and equally dependent upon each other according to conditions. And in our love of God, we show as do the members of our bodies naturally, a greater love and protection for our head. But this reasoning could not be fully understood by all, and as I have said before, in the infancy of the Church our minds and views were more narrow and we were more petulant, resentful and perhaps more vindictive than now.

(Benjamin F. Johnson to George F. Gibbs, April 1903, Church Archives)

Also, just who is the Ancient of Days supposed to be? It's only mentioned in the Bible in Daniel chapter 7. Surely it must have meant something before Joseph Smith adopted the term. Catholics, Protestants, and Jews have all written the following about Him quite openly, both before and after Joseph Smith's lifetime:

The Catholic Encyclopedia says that the Ancient of Days is "a name given to God by the Prophet Daniel," and then explains that, "It is from these descriptions of the Almighty that Christian art derived its general manner of representing the first person of the Holy Trinity." (The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1907 edition, Vol. 1, p. 463)

Adam Clarke (whose Biblical Commentary was used by Joseph Smith during the creation of the JST) wrote:

The Ancient of days - God Almighty; and this is the only place in the sacred writings where God the Father is represented in a human form.

(Clarke's commentary on Daniel 7:9)

Eerdman's Commentary of the Bible states, that "the Ancient of Days is the description given by Daniel, who pictures God on His throne of judgment, judging the great world empires." He also explains that this title "alternates with the title 'Most High' (verses 18, 22, 25, 27)." (Eerdman's Commentary of the Bible, p. 480)

The Anchor Bible states that "ancient Israel had long envisaged Yahweh as the divine judge enthroned in the assembly of his angels" and then speaking directly of the Ancient of Days it goes on to say that even though "God" is not "explicitly mentioned by name," yet "every reader would at once recognize as God 'the Ancient One' who presides at this celestial tribunal." In continuing it says that "the term 'the Ancient One' as used of God, though not found in older biblical literature is partly based on the [...] popular notion of God as an old man." (The Anchor Bible, Vol. 23, pp. 217-218)

The Jewish Encyclopedia claims that the "Ancient of Days" is "A poetical epithet for God," and then states that the author of Daniel uses this title to describe "the venerable character of the being whose name the author hesitates to mention." (The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 1, pp. 571–572)

Encyclopedia Judaica likewise identifies the Ancient of Days as "God Himself," stating it is obvious from the text of Daniel 7 alone. (Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 2, p. 940)

Zondervan's Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, observes that, "This expression occurs only in Daniel 7:9, 13, 22. 'Ancient' renders an adjective [...] Hence the adjective, connected with the emphatic absolute plural of 'day,' means advanced (with regard to) the days, that is, very aged." It goes on to affirm that, "It is an elegant Semitic expression to designate an old man." And then adds that, "Although the passage does not directly say so, the numerous commentators unite to take it at once to be a euphemistic term for God." (The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 1, p. 156)

Herbert Lockyer, in his Book "All the Divine Names and Titles in the Bible" wrote that: "The Hebrew word used here (i.e. Dan 7:9, 13, 22) for Ancient means advanced, that is, in age; hence old, aged, and used in connection with God it is not meant to suggest the existence of God from eternity. What was uppermost in Daniel's mind was the venerable appearance of old age. Thus, literally, the phrase 'Ancient of Days' implies 'a very aged man'--The attribute of age pressing the majestic figure of the Judge. 'God [...] abideth of old' (Psalms 55:l9)." Since Lockyer has difficulty conceiving of God in human form, he continues by quoting from another scholar who states that: "What Daniel sees is not the eternal God Himself, but an aged man, in whose dignified and impressive form God reveals Himself." (All the Divine Names and Titles in the Bible, p. 74)

Beyond all this, there are numerous Biblical passages which affirm the Adam-God Doctrine as a reality in ancient Israelite and early Christian thought. What follows is not an exhaustive compilation of such references, for then this post would grow to the size of a book, but I will point out a few select passages to illustrate my point.

Throughout the New Testament, Christ repeatedly calls Himself the "Son of Man." The Cambridge Bible Dictionary states the following:

"The Son of Man is a title of our Lord, found in the Gospels about 80 times, used by Him in speaking of Himself, but never used by anyone else in speaking of him (Cambridge Bible Dictionary, 'Son of Man')."

What could be the meaning of this? In the Hebrew, the word for "Adam" is "man". There are not two words for "Adam" and "man" in the Hebrew, but they are the same word, "man".

The Bible Dictionary states the Following:

"ADAM, man, the name given to the first man in the early narrative of Genesis. By comparing the A. V., R. V. and R. V. marg., it will be seen there is some difficulty in deciding how far it is used as a proper name, e. g. in Gen. 2:19, 20, 21; 3:8; but it is certainly a proper name in 5:1-5."

So then when Jesus refers to himself as "The Son of Man" some 80 places in the New Testament, He is declaring in words as plainly as His language could speak it, that he was in fact the Son of Adam. But Jesus was not the only person who taught this doctrine.

This is not a new idea either, or something that has not been thought of before. See Wikipedia on Son of Man and also Son of Man (Christianity); and also an important comment from this BYU study:

The figure of the ancient of days (יומים עתיק) and the later-appearing human being (אנש כבר) [... footnote:] This Aramaic phrase denotes the same meaning as the Hebrew equivalent ben adam אדם בן (found scattered throughout the OT, especially in the book of Ezekiel in reference to the prophet himself).

Thus it meant the same thing in Aramaic as in Hebrew.

Paul also taught it. On one occasion Paul taught that Christ was the "brightness of his (God the Father's) glory, and the express image of his person" (Heb. 1:3)

On another occasion, Paul referred to Adam as "The figure of him (Christ) who was to come" (Rom 5:14). Again in Ephesians Paul says, "For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, OF WHOM [or after whom] the whole family in heaven and Earth is named" (Ephesians 3:14-15).

What did Paul mean by this? What is the human race called? We are referred to as "Man" or "Mankind", which in the Hebrew is to say, "Adam-kind." So all the human race is named after Adam, and Paul says that the "whole family (of man) in heaven and earth is named after the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ"--which is to say "Man", or "Mankind" or "Adam-kind", or as it states in Genesis 5, just "Adam":

This is the book of the generations of Adam, in the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; MALE and FEMALE created he them; and blessed them, and CALLED THEIR NAME ADAM, in the day when they were created.

(Gen. 5:1-2)

Without a doubt in the passage in Ephesians 3, Paul is teaching just as Christ did, that Jesus was the Son of Adam.

Anyone who claims that this doctrine is "Luciferian" in nature, is either misguided or willfully blind. This doctrine does nothing but place Christ and His Father upon their proper exalted status. Whether you love or hate Brigham Young, you cannot escape the fact that the Bible is totally pregnant with this doctrine, in both the Old and New Testaments, but only for those with "eyes to see, and ears to hear."

And regarding Brigham Young, is it not telling that Christ said:

No man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.

(Luke 10:22)

Noted. But I still don't believe Adam, the first man, was God the Father. This is what (to my knowledge) Brigham taught.

[Reluctant Watchman]

1. The LDS church ignores or has changed many core doctrines taught in the Book of Mormon.

2. The modern LDS org changed AoF #4 as originally written by Joseph Smith. This essentially changed the definition of salvation to add temple ordinances. Christ was quite clear about what his doctrine was in 3 Nephi, and what happens to those people who change His doctrine.

3. As far as the "his house" portion, I believe the modern LDS org has portions of what Joseph began to teach the saints, but subsequent leaders (Brigham) changed it drastically, even introducing very poor doctrine and possibly even Luciferian aspects with blood oaths and adam/god doctrine. Not to mention that I simply cannot believe that the "covenants" entered into are done in full knowledge in the LDS org. You cannot make a covenant in ignorance (ie, point to the scriptures and tell someone the Law of Sacrifice is in there).

I have read the Nemenhah record, which also contains a version of the Endowment the Native Americans received. There are massive similarities, but there are also massive differences. The Nemenhah record teaches the 4 core ordinances in far more clarity than I've ever been taught in the LDS temple.

And as I've noted in other places, if SRA is occurring, then the apostasy noted in 2 Thess, and the devil sitting upon the throne of God, would be a perfect fit.

1. How so?

2. This is what the original and the current show:

Original: We believe that these ordinances are 1st, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; 2d, Repentance; 3d, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; 4th, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Now: We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the gospel are first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Is faith or repentance an ordinance? I don't see anything about temple work mentioned in the 4th article of faith.

3. There are no blood oaths in the temple and haven't been there since 1990. It is good that they are trying to restore the ordinances as Joseph had them. The principles of the Law of Sacrifice can be found in the Pearl of Great Price with Adam and later on with his son Abel. The Book of Mormon also mentions that any offering laid up to God when not done with real intent (with murmuring and grumbling) will be rejected by the Lord. Christ also told the Pharisees that straight up in Matthew 23. I would be very interested in reading up about this Nemenhah record...

4. That has not been proven. Innuendos and circumstantial evidence in themselves are not evidence that can be taken seriously.

1. Here's my essay on the doctrines taught in the BoM that the LDS org does not teach: https://www.reluctantwatchman.com/the-b ... lds-church

2. Here's my essay on AoF #4 and the implications of the change. And yes, faith and repentance do qualify and ordinances. https://www.reluctantwatchman.com/article-of-faith-4

3. The fact is there were blood oaths in the temple, adam/god doctrine was taught in the temple. Members cannot "speak ill of the Lord's anointed", which has massive ramifications when speaking up against corrupt doctrine. And the laws overall are not taught prior to the endowment, and very light doctrine is taught about them during the endowment. True covenants with God are not made in ignorance.

4. SRA, there is significant circumstantial evidence. I have a friend who has scars on her body and they correlate to recovered memories of SRA w/in the church from some of the highest leaders in the church. SRA is the perfect way to commit a crime by breaking a person mentally.

If one were to look at the 1828 Webster's dictionary, it becomes very clear that the GENERAL IDEAS of faith and repentance can't in any legitimate means be defined as ordinances. They can be defined as principles, however. A religious ordinance takes at least two people: The person or people giving the ordinance and the person receiving the ordinance. Specific ordinances likewise require witnesses that sign off on the act. We don't see that with "faith" or "repentance".

Responding to your essay:

Part 1: The Church does not teach to follow the prophet as an exclusionary device but more like follow the prophet because He follows Christ. You follow both. Not one at the expense of the other.

Part 2: What was to become the saving ordinances was not yet finalized when the Wentworth letter was made. This was 1842. Nauvoo's temple was still under construction at the time.

Part 3: Everyone, poor or rich, has been asked to sacrifice their part to building up the Kingdom of God. Jesus appreciated the widow's mite more than many that donated weeks or months' loads of salary because she had given to Jesus everything.

Part 4: The Church does this part quite a bit in the local arena as well as global. It also looks to the future with anticipation because unlike many people on this board, it is quite obvious that the Lord requires a good effort from everyone. Zion's not going to come down like Tinker Bell pixie dust. It will require our consecrated efforts to bring that to pass. The 150 billion dollars is still a proverbial drop in the bucket compared to what Zion will cost in time, effort, and money.

Part 5: There is ample evidence that Joseph Smith did practice polygamy and was sealed to various women. That is a matter of public record. The Book of Mormon did not completely condemn polygamy, but did give one reason why polygamy would be permitted: To raise up seed to the Lord. This is a matter of fact in multiple dispensations. Once the amount of seed has gotten up to a critical mass, then polygamy would no longer be needed, and that's essentially what happened with the modern day Church.

Part 6: You act as if this was the only way. The rest of the post under 6 reads like something I would find out of "The Mormon Worker." No one can be forced into riches. But they can be taught how to work and find marketable skills in order not to be poor any longer. The Church through its self reliance education does its best to fulfill that scripture that there will be no more poor among us. Instead of lamenting and complaining, they take action.

7. That's not like the testimony meetings that I see in my ward, or in several other wards that I have seen. Now, given, where I do see an example like that marked in blue, I see that more often up and down the 15 corridor north of Vegas and south of the Montana border. Outside that, pretty much every testimony meeting I have seen is that which you describe in red.

8. The Church is in NO position to condemn and attack the secret combinations; it is nowhere near strong enough to stand on its own with the world combined against them. Any foolhardy attempt to copy a Captain Moroni style of attack would be met with stiff resistance and humiliating defeat. The best we can hope for today is a Gidgiddoni situation, not making everything public for all to hear, but quietly telling the members what they need to do for the rainy days ahead. And simply, NOT TO PARTICIPATE personally with the secret combos. That will starve them out, little by little. But this will require us uniting with people of other faiths who think similarly about what is going on, which is what the Church is doing here, smartly, intelligently, not rashly.

9. Most pharmaceutical drugs come from herbs. People have known that herbs have distinct medicinal properties, so you have people experienced in organic chemistry that find out how come two very different herbs have similar medicinal properties, and they isolate the chemicals from those herbs to form the pharmaceutical drugs we have today.
Vaccines? Not too much different. Some wise doctor figured out that if you were to give the body a weakened form of a bacteria or a virus, the immune system would be in a much better position to combat it, so that if the real form of the virus or bacteria attacked, the immune system would recognize the threat and stamp it out before it could get a person sick.

Keep in mind that Joseph Smith was very traumatized with the medicine that he received; going through a painful surgery as a young boy and watching his brother get sick and die from a type of medicine that contained mercury, a very poisonous chemical to ingest. Brigham Young, closely acquainted with Joseph Smith, undoubtedly had this in mind when he counseled the Saints these same things, but upon seeing the medical profession becoming full of "gentiles," he wisely sent elders east to learn of medicine and to bring these things back to Utah. Did Brigham fall? No. He learned, and he swallowed his pride.

10. The temples, though beautiful to look on, I could hardly describe as ornate, when comparing to other buildings that I have seen that are quite important in other faiths. Ever seen the national mosques under Islam? Let's not even go to Makkah or Madinah, let's go to Abu Dhabi (picture attached). There's not a single building owned by the Church that even comes to a hundredth of the ornateness or beauty of the Abu Dhabi mosque. Have you seen the cathedrals described as "National Cathedrals" in the different countries of the world under Catholicism or Orthodoxy? Or even those buildings described as local cathedrals. There is a ton more gold inside of the Basilica of Ocotlan in my local city of Tlaxcala, than there is in the Mexico City Temple. And the Basilica of Ocotlan isn't even the most important church in the city of Tlaxcala, population 100k! You do exaggerate much in that part. Perhaps because you are not well-traveled.

11. Different situation, that exhibited in the Book of Mormon versus now. The Book of Mormon you only see two countries. Now we have two hundred, each one with differing definitions on things like rights and freedoms.

12. I'll give you that one, albeit the Book of Mormon referenced the Lamanites who in this dispensation were NEVER prohibited from holding the priesthood. The Africans however were under a different set of restrictions that were employed from the Old Testament of the Bible.

13. Blood Atonement was taught by Brigham, however not taught afterwards, and is condemned by today's Church.

14. Not everyone can handle wine. Not everyone can handle bread either. The Church makes adjustments for both. It would be very interesting to try to impose the wine requirement on those that live in the Muslim countries in the Middle East where wine or any alcohol for that matter is strictly forbidden Good thing the Lord saw that coming.

15. Local meetings continue to be conducted under the Spirit. The General Authorities give their general conference messages under the conduct of the Spirit, preparing anywhere from a few hours to a full six months for their talks.

16. No one denies the gift of prophesy but it must be had in the sphere of influence of the person that is prophesying. No one outside of the FP and Q12 can prophesy to the entire Church and make it binding on the Church to follow. You could have someone from outside the hierarchy come, with the hierarchy's blessing (think Samuel the Lamanite in this case, or Balaam's case in the Old Testament when he refused to curse Israel), but it must come with their blessing. Occasionally you will get an Abinadi moment where someone from outside of the hierarchy comes, but that must be because all the hierarchy has been corrupted, selected by wicked men. We have no evidence of that in the Church today that any one of the 15 (much less all of them) are as the priests of King Noah.

17. This is now done for administrative purposes. But it's not the 12, 14, or 16 year old's fault that they haven't received these types of manifestations. You could have someone the age of a baby receive the manifestation. It all depends on how the work is done at home.

18. The Gospel will be taken from the Gentiles for their consistent insolence and their inability to obey the Gospel because it contradicts their political or social views. Maybe ten years ago, I would have guessed that those called Progmos would be the guys to do it (fall away). But there are many rock-solid members that are falling away too over many trivialities and a lack of proper understanding. If you go down to Latin America, or read the accounts of the Church in Spanish, virtually everyone is following the counsel of the leaders of the Church, with very few dissentions. North of the border, that is a very different story. You just had a Latino and an Asian get called as Apostles, and more and more people from different groups are being called to be General Authorities. The Church is starting to be handed over towards those of Israel as the Americans and Europeans start dwindling in unbelief, just as the scriptures foretold!

19. The Kingdom of God is on the earth today, though not in its fullness. That will come in the Millennium on the Earth.

20. If what you say is true, how come the leaders are constantly calling the members to repentance? How come the members willfully rebel against the Lord when an apostle reminds people about the Plan of Salvation?

To answer your final questions:

The Gentiles are those that came over from the European nations, both members and non-members. Their lot is cast in a bad way unless they repent.

You are not rejected from a chapel for being poor. You will be rejected if you don't follow local health protocols like the wearing of a mask or in countries where they require it, a vaccination certificate. That's not on the Church, however, but on the governments enforcing those regulations.

I see we have greatly differing opinions. Good luck with those beliefs.

I do appreciate you taking the time to read and respond.

I could likewise add my own insights on each point, but most of these have been covered extensively on the forum.

[LDS Watchman]

As far as the "his house" portion, I believe the modern LDS org has portions of what Joseph began to teach the saints, but subsequent leaders (Brigham) changed it drastically, even introducing very poor doctrine and possibly even Luciferian aspects with blood oaths and adam/god doctrine.

I was content to be a lurker on this thread, but decided to go ahead and throw in my 2¢ on this particular topic which I feel strongly about given some of the above comments about it. The Adam-God doctrine did not originate with Brigham Young. To call it "Luciferian" literally could not be farther from the truth. It exalts the position of both the Father and His Son. I don't want to start a flamewar over this with you, because I don't have the time or inclination to debate about something that I consider sacred and which I've received my own prayerful testimony of numerous times, but I simply wanted to put the following statements below for the consideration and enlightenment of all.

Consider the following statements from Joseph Smith:

The Priesthood was first given to Adam; he obtained the First Presidency, and held the keys of it from generation to generation. He obtained it in the Creation, before the world was formed, as in Genesis 1:26, 27, 28. He had dominion given him over every living creature. He is Michael the Archangel, spoken of in the Scriptures. Then to Noah, who is Gabriel: he stands next in authority to Adam in the Priesthood; he was called of God to this office, and was the father of all living in his day, and to him was given the dominion. These men held keys first on earth, and then in heaven.

Sidenote: Who is Gabriel? The one that announced Christ's birth to Mary. If Michael is higher than Gabriel, that would place him very high in the heavenly hierarchy.

Continuing:

The Priesthood is an everlasting principle, and existed with God from eternity, and will to eternity, without beginning of days or end of years. The keys have to be brought from heaven whenever the Gospel is sent. When they are revealed from heaven, it is by Adam's authority.

Daniel in his seventh chapter speaks of the Ancient of Days; he means the oldest man, our Father Adam, Michael, he will call his children together and hold a council with them to prepare them for the coming of the Son of Man. He (Adam) is the father of the human family, and presides over the spirits of all men, and all that have had the keys must stand before him in this grand council. This may take place before some of us leave this stage of action. The Son of Man stands before him, and there is given him glory and dominion. Adam delivers up his stewardship to Christ, that which was delivered to him as holding the keys of the universe, but retains his standing as head of the human family.

(TPJS p. 157, WJS p. 9, Joseph Smith Papers)

Joseph Smith also stated:

How have we come at the Priesthood in the last days? It came down, down, in regular succession. Peter, James, and John had it given to them and they gave it to others. Christ is the Great High Priest; Adam next.

(ibid.)

Notice the ASCENDING order.
Peter, James, John > Christ > Adam

Joseph Smith also stated:

Commencing with Adam, who was the first man, who is spoken of in Daniel as being the "Ancient of Days," or in other words, the first and oldest of all, the great, grand progenitor of whom it is said in another place he is Michael, because he was the first and father of all, not only by progeny, but the first to hold the spiritual blessings, to whom was made known the plan of ordinances for the salvation of his posterity unto the end, and to whom Christ was first revealed, and through whom Christ has been revealed from heaven, and will continue to be revealed from henceforth. Adam holds the keys of the dispensation of the fullness of times; i.e., the dispensation of all the times have been and will be revealed through him from the beginning to Christ, and from Christ to the end of the dispensations that are to be revealed. "Having made known unto us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He hath purposed in Himself; that in the dispensation of the fullness of times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in Him." (Ephesians 1:9-10.)

...

And again, God purposed in Himself that there should not be an eternal fullness until every dispensation should be fulfilled and gathered together in one, and that all things whatsoever, that should be gathered together in one in those dispensations unto the same fullness and eternal glory, should be in Christ Jesus; therefore He set the ordinances to be the same forever and ever, and set Adam to watch over them, to reveal them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them. "Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?" (Hebrews 1:14.)

These angels are under the direction of Michael or Adam, who acts under the direction of the Lord [i.e., Jehovah, His Father, or from Christ in the capacity of His Beloved Son whom He can trust in all things]. From the above quotation we learn that Paul perfectly understood the purposes of God in relation to His connection with man, and that glorious and perfect order which He established in Himself, whereby he sent forth power, revelations, and glory.

...

This, then, is the nature of the Priesthood; every man holding the Presidency of his dispensation, and one man holding the Presidency of them all, even Adam; and Adam receiving his Presidency and authority from the Lord [i.e., Jehovah], but cannot receive a fullness until Christ shall present the Kingdom to the Father, which shall be at the end of the last dispensation. [see also 1 Corinthians 15:24, D&C 76:107, and TPJS 157]

(TPJS pp. 167-169, WJS pp. 39-40, Joseph Smith Papers)

Joseph Smith also gave the following private instruction to the Council of Fifty on April 5, 1844 (just two months before he died):

The chairman [i.e. Joseph Smith] explained the meaning of the word "Ahman" which signifies the first man [i.e. Adam] or first God [of the Trinity, i.e. God the Father], and “Ahman Christ” signifies the first mans son [i.e. Adam's Son].

(source: "Council of Fifty, Minutes, March 1844–January 1846; Volume 1, 10 March 1844–1 March 1845," p. [84], The Joseph Smith Papers

Compare this with an older revelation received by Joseph Smith in 1832:

Question: What is the name of God in [the] pure Language[?]

Answer: Ahman.

Q: [What is] the meaning of the pure word A[h]man?

A: It is the being which made all things in all its parts.

Q: What is the name of the Son of God.

A: The Son Ahman.

Q: What is the Son Ahman.

A: It is the greatest of all the parts of Ahman which is [in] the Godhead [or] the first born [Son of Ahman].

Q: What is man?

A: This signifies Sons Ahman, the human family [or] the children of men, [who constitute] the greatest [of all the] parts of Ahman['s] Sons [excepting] the Son Ahman.

(source: Unpublished Revelations of the Prophets and Presidents of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Vol. 1, by Fred C. Collier; also see: "Sample of Pure Language, between circa 4 and circa 20 March 1832," p. 144, The Joseph Smith Papers

This dovetails perfectly with what Benjamin F. Johnson recollected in later years in a letter to George F. Gibbs regarding the teachings of Joseph Smith in the Council of Fifty:

The Prophet's teaching of "Love" was not to work upon the sympathies and sensibilities of the people, but by his great example in self sacrifice and in showing us that while all the world was against us, our only hope was in our union, and that union was only possible as the fruit of our love for each other. And in teaching us the "Fatherhood of God and Brotherhood of Man," we could begin to see why we should "love God supremely, and our brother as ourselves." He taught us that God was the great head of human procreation--[that He] was really and truly the Father of both our Spirits and our Bodies--that we were but parts of a great whole, mutually and equally dependent upon each other according to conditions. And in our love of God, we show as do the members of our bodies naturally, a greater love and protection for our head. But this reasoning could not be fully understood by all, and as I have said before, in the infancy of the Church our minds and views were more narrow and we were more petulant, resentful and perhaps more vindictive than now.

(Benjamin F. Johnson to George F. Gibbs, April 1903, Church Archives)

Also, just who is the Ancient of Days supposed to be? It's only mentioned in the Bible in Daniel chapter 7. Surely it must have meant something before Joseph Smith adopted the term. Catholics, Protestants, and Jews have all written the following about Him quite openly, both before and after Joseph Smith's lifetime:

The Catholic Encyclopedia says that the Ancient of Days is "a name given to God by the Prophet Daniel," and then explains that, "It is from these descriptions of the Almighty that Christian art derived its general manner of representing the first person of the Holy Trinity." (The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1907 edition, Vol. 1, p. 463)

Adam Clarke (whose Biblical Commentary was used by Joseph Smith during the creation of the JST) wrote:

The Ancient of days - God Almighty; and this is the only place in the sacred writings where God the Father is represented in a human form.

(Clarke's commentary on Daniel 7:9)

Eerdman's Commentary of the Bible states, that "the Ancient of Days is the description given by Daniel, who pictures God on His throne of judgment, judging the great world empires." He also explains that this title "alternates with the title 'Most High' (verses 18, 22, 25, 27)." (Eerdman's Commentary of the Bible, p. 480)

The Anchor Bible states that "ancient Israel had long envisaged Yahweh as the divine judge enthroned in the assembly of his angels" and then speaking directly of the Ancient of Days it goes on to say that even though "God" is not "explicitly mentioned by name," yet "every reader would at once recognize as God 'the Ancient One' who presides at this celestial tribunal." In continuing it says that "the term 'the Ancient One' as used of God, though not found in older biblical literature is partly based on the [...] popular notion of God as an old man." (The Anchor Bible, Vol. 23, pp. 217-218)

The Jewish Encyclopedia claims that the "Ancient of Days" is "A poetical epithet for God," and then states that the author of Daniel uses this title to describe "the venerable character of the being whose name the author hesitates to mention." (The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 1, pp. 571–572)

Encyclopedia Judaica likewise identifies the Ancient of Days as "God Himself," stating it is obvious from the text of Daniel 7 alone. (Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 2, p. 940)

Zondervan's Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, observes that, "This expression occurs only in Daniel 7:9, 13, 22. 'Ancient' renders an adjective [...] Hence the adjective, connected with the emphatic absolute plural of 'day,' means advanced (with regard to) the days, that is, very aged." It goes on to affirm that, "It is an elegant Semitic expression to designate an old man." And then adds that, "Although the passage does not directly say so, the numerous commentators unite to take it at once to be a euphemistic term for God." (The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 1, p. 156)

Herbert Lockyer, in his Book "All the Divine Names and Titles in the Bible" wrote that: "The Hebrew word used here (i.e. Dan 7:9, 13, 22) for Ancient means advanced, that is, in age; hence old, aged, and used in connection with God it is not meant to suggest the existence of God from eternity. What was uppermost in Daniel's mind was the venerable appearance of old age. Thus, literally, the phrase 'Ancient of Days' implies 'a very aged man'--The attribute of age pressing the majestic figure of the Judge. 'God [...] abideth of old' (Psalms 55:l9)." Since Lockyer has difficulty conceiving of God in human form, he continues by quoting from another scholar who states that: "What Daniel sees is not the eternal God Himself, but an aged man, in whose dignified and impressive form God reveals Himself." (All the Divine Names and Titles in the Bible, p. 74)

Beyond all this, there are numerous Biblical passages which affirm the Adam-God Doctrine as a reality in ancient Israelite and early Christian thought. What follows is not an exhaustive compilation of such references, for then this post would grow to the size of a book, but I will point out a few select passages to illustrate my point.

Throughout the New Testament, Christ repeatedly calls Himself the "Son of Man." The Cambridge Bible Dictionary states the following:

"The Son of Man is a title of our Lord, found in the Gospels about 80 times, used by Him in speaking of Himself, but never used by anyone else in speaking of him (Cambridge Bible Dictionary, 'Son of Man')."

What could be the meaning of this? In the Hebrew, the word for "Adam" is "man". There are not two words for "Adam" and "man" in the Hebrew, but they are the same word, "man".

The Bible Dictionary states the Following:

"ADAM, man, the name given to the first man in the early narrative of Genesis. By comparing the A. V., R. V. and R. V. marg., it will be seen there is some difficulty in deciding how far it is used as a proper name, e. g. in Gen. 2:19, 20, 21; 3:8; but it is certainly a proper name in 5:1-5."

So then when Jesus refers to himself as "The Son of Man" some 80 places in the New Testament, He is declaring in words as plainly as His language could speak it, that he was in fact the Son of Adam. But Jesus was not the only person who taught this doctrine.

This is not a new idea either, or something that has not been thought of before. See Wikipedia on Son of Man and also Son of Man (Christianity); and also an important comment from this BYU study:

The figure of the ancient of days (יומים עתיק) and the later-appearing human being (אנש כבר) [... footnote:] This Aramaic phrase denotes the same meaning as the Hebrew equivalent ben adam אדם בן (found scattered throughout the OT, especially in the book of Ezekiel in reference to the prophet himself).

Thus it meant the same thing in Aramaic as in Hebrew.

Paul also taught it. On one occasion Paul taught that Christ was the "brightness of his (God the Father's) glory, and the express image of his person" (Heb. 1:3)

On another occasion, Paul referred to Adam as "The figure of him (Christ) who was to come" (Rom 5:14). Again in Ephesians Paul says, "For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, OF WHOM [or after whom] the whole family in heaven and Earth is named" (Ephesians 3:14-15).

What did Paul mean by this? What is the human race called? We are referred to as "Man" or "Mankind", which in the Hebrew is to say, "Adam-kind." So all the human race is named after Adam, and Paul says that the "whole family (of man) in heaven and earth is named after the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ"--which is to say "Man", or "Mankind" or "Adam-kind", or as it states in Genesis 5, just "Adam":

This is the book of the generations of Adam, in the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; MALE and FEMALE created he them; and blessed them, and CALLED THEIR NAME ADAM, in the day when they were created.

(Gen. 5:1-2)

Without a doubt in the passage in Ephesians 3, Paul is teaching just as Christ did, that Jesus was the Son of Adam.

Anyone who claims that this doctrine is "Luciferian" in nature, is either misguided or willfully blind. This doctrine does nothing but place Christ and His Father upon their proper exalted status. Whether you love or hate Brigham Young, you cannot escape the fact that the Bible is totally pregnant with this doctrine, in both the Old and New Testaments, but only for those with "eyes to see, and ears to hear."

And regarding Brigham Young, is it not telling that Christ said:

No man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.

(Luke 10:22)

Great post! Thank you!

I'm convinced Adam-God is true doctrine and these are some great additional witnesses.

I will be adding this to my Adam-God notes.

[Reluctant Watchman]

@Sub... Actually, I'll see if I have time later this week to give some thoughts on your response. Stay tuned.

[LDS Watchman]

But do you trust your government?

My trust is in God, and not worldy institutions.

right.

you say - your trust is in God, and not worldly institutions,
and yet you trust in the arm of the flesh, and put your trust in men - men who are corrupt,
and who do not put their trust in God, (godsend)
nor serve Him or follow Him, but serve and follow world leaders, and their institutions and laws.
And instead of being men of God, and asking us to follow God, and serve Him,
they are men of the world, and ask us to be also,
and join them, in being Good Global Citizens, and follow world leaders,
and serve THEM, as they do.

Of course - you will deny this, but, there is no way to justify, and excuses you could make up
to cover up the fact, that their is proof that the church is sooooo involved in Babylon -
and it's "worldly institutions" - these evil organizations - investing and drowning in it's money $100B,
that there's really no way to cover this up; yet, only someone like you, will never admit it.

Avraham Gileadi ?
And what does Avraham Gileadi have to do with this at all ? NOTHING !
I NEVER QUOTED HIM OR MENTIONED HIM AT ALL.
Just shows you just how low you stoop - because you really don't know what else to say.

you really are ridiculous Atticus.
Now I know why so many here (like myself) don't even waste their time anymore replying to you.
(I'll try not to make that mistake again)

You have quoted from Gileadi a lot, but it was under a former account.