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

[jreuben]

Extremely well stated @stormcloak. Thank you for taking such time to enumerate these points. You should consider writing books.

@Reluctant Watchman I too had your same feelings and problem with this up until about two, maybe three, years ago. I am grateful to the Lord for mercy and allowing us to grow in our understanding of truth.

[stormcloak]

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

You are free to believe whatever you wish, and I won't condemn you for it. My point was that it was Joseph who taught that "the first man" is "Ahman" whom he called "the first God" (God the Father). See the Council of Fifty minutes above which I quoted.

[Niemand]

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.

I suspect that purge may not be down to us. The church will encounter an enemy bigger and nastier than us. I think many members will remove themselves as a result in one direction and another. This Covid business is bad enough, but I wonder how severe things have to be for it to happen.

[jreuben]

@niemand I am referring to a non-violent purge when I speak of this. But yes, you are right, bigger things are coming, but I wonder about the dynamics of such with the apostasy the way it has run and with regards to the church snuggling up so closely with the luciferians and having so many within the body and leadership. We have so much work to do to help usher in the Millennium and most folks don't realize that that work is far beyond the scope of simple churchy stuff.

[Niemand]

@niemand I am referring to a non-violent purge when I speak of this. But yes, you are right, bigger things are coming, but I wonder about the dynamics of such with the apostasy the way it has run and with regards to the church snuggling up so closely with the luciferians and having so many within the body and leadership. We have so much work to do to help usher in the Millennium and most folks don't realize that that work is far beyond the scope of simple churchy stuff.

They think they can shake the hand of a scorpion. We know how that ends.

There is a question about how many genuine, i.e. conscious, luciferians we have in our ranks. There are some who are fellow travellers, who may not know it, but we do have the full blown ones from what I hear as well. They don't tend to advertise their presence, but that said I can think of one odd experience - I was home teaching a couple a few years ago and one of them flashed me the Devil sign during the lessson - you know the horned hand thing heavy metal fans often do. It could have been accidental and I actually like the couple in question and I pray for them, but it has stuck with me and I still wonder... it was a strange thing to do, put it that way!

[anonymous91]

I'm curious where the breaking point is for most current TBMs. We obviously have a few on here who were unphased by the mandates. And choose to ignore the damage caused, either due to ignorance or cognitive dissonance.

I'd be curious to know that too. What line is too far for these TBM?

From what I can tell, many TBM's keep moving that line infinitely. If this is the case, then the saying "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" would be most appropriate.

Maybe we ought to create a separate thread with a poll of what line people refuse to accept. At the very least, it would be enlightening. I may do this later this week, send me any ideas you have for the poll.

[Artaxerxes]

I'm curious where the breaking point is for most current TBMs. We obviously have a few on here who were unphased by the mandates. And choose to ignore the damage caused, either due to ignorance or cognitive dissonance.

I'd be curious to know that too. What line is too far for these TBM?

From what I can tell, many TBM's keep moving that line infinitely. If this is the case, then the saying "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" would be most appropriate.

Maybe we ought to create a separate thread with a poll of what line people refuse to accept. At the very least, it would be enlightening. I may do this later this week, send me any ideas you have for the poll.

I assume the line for most is the same: whenever God says it's no longer His church. It doesn't matter to me whether I like or don't like what the church does.

[anonymous91]

I'm curious where the breaking point is for most current TBMs. We obviously have a few on here who were unphased by the mandates. And choose to ignore the damage caused, either due to ignorance or cognitive dissonance.

I'd be curious to know that too. What line is too far for these TBM?

From what I can tell, many TBM's keep moving that line infinitely. If this is the case, then the saying "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" would be most appropriate.

Maybe we ought to create a separate thread with a poll of what line people refuse to accept. At the very least, it would be enlightening. I may do this later this week, send me any ideas you have for the poll.

I assume the line for most is the same: whenever God says it's no longer His church. It doesn't matter to me whether I like or don't like what the church does.

How would we even know that? or determine this? It's not like God is going to just come down and announce this to everyone unless I am missing something.

Would that come from a personal witness you receive? Would this come from a "prophet" or someone claiming to be a prophet?

Maybe this comes from the Bible itself, where it talks about knowing them by their fruits. If that's the case, God's position is already crystal clear to most of us. Although, that seems to be based on one's personal interpretation of the Bible.

Curious to know though. I'll start a new thread on this later this week though, it'll be interesting to know everyone's thoughts.

[Artaxerxes]

I'm curious where the breaking point is for most current TBMs. We obviously have a few on here who were unphased by the mandates. And choose to ignore the damage caused, either due to ignorance or cognitive dissonance.

I'd be curious to know that too. What line is too far for these TBM?

From what I can tell, many TBM's keep moving that line infinitely. If this is the case, then the saying "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" would be most appropriate.

Maybe we ought to create a separate thread with a poll of what line people refuse to accept. At the very least, it would be enlightening. I may do this later this week, send me any ideas you have for the poll.

I assume the line for most is the same: whenever God says it's no longer His church. It doesn't matter to me whether I like or don't like what the church does.

How would we even know that? or determine this? It's not like God is going to just come down and announce this to everyone unless I am missing something.

Would that come from a personal witness you receive? Would this come from a "prophet" or someone claiming to be a prophet?

Maybe this comes from the Bible itself, where it talks about knowing them by their fruits. If that's the case, God's position is already crystal clear to most of us. Although, that seems to be based on one's personal interpretation of the Bible.

Curious to know though. I'll start a new thread on this later this week though, it'll be interesting to know everyone's thoughts.

Same way He does for most things.

11 And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord. And, behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake:
12 And after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.

[Luke]

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.

How on earth does that imply an organisation?

[Subcomandante]

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.

How on earth does that imply an organisation?

Before the existence of a religious ecclesia, there was the Athenian ecclesia from which many different laws were set up for Athens and her colonies. Anyone who was a male of voting age could participate, however, they were all guided by the local leadership of Athens that had been picked by the assembly at large.

Same applied to the religious ecclesia. All who were numbered among the believers were invited to participate in the dealings of the ecclesia, however, they were guided by local leaders (episkopon - origin of the word Bishop, meaning overseers) and they answered to the Apostles.

Going back further we have the essence of the Congregation of Israel that was led by the priests that had been selected by God.

Either way you slice it, there must needs be an order.

[HereWeGo]

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.

This post turned on the light for me. My ex-wife was diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder. Psychiatrist said that she was functioning on an emotional level of a 15 year old. Dealing with her for 10 years was like watching the aggressive debating from the ones above. No wonder it drives me crazy with the twisting of words, gaslighting, etc. Its like I am reliving my marriage to her. She ended up falling in love with a 16 year old neighbor boy and spent time in prison for what she did with him. It was a good deal for me because our marriage was over. I did end up raising her youngest 2 teen kids which was fine with me.

[ransomme]

@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.

BoM teachings vs Church (some are way off, some are tweaked just enough): Polygamy is an abomination, the plainness of the doctrine of Christ, the true covenant path and turning of the hearts, how to gain a testimony, even how to repent, receiving the Holy Ghost, sealing power, BY's racist stuff, and just plain ignoring warnings.

As others have said faith and repentance are ordinances. I think perhaps many imagine ordinances to only be ones with outward signs like Baptism. I can see how they could misunderstand that. And has also been expressed by others, which has implications for other teachings.

There were still 100+ years of blood oaths. What? They just remove them one day and call it good? No repentance required?

[ransomme]

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

How so?

for starters:

D&C 112:24-26
24 Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord.
25 And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord;
26 First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord.

Isaiah 24:5-6
5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.
6 Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate: therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left.

"“God had often sealed up the Heavens because of covetousness in the church. Said the Lord would cut his work short in righteousness and except the church receive the fullness of the scriptures they would yet fall.” - JSP, Documents Vol 2: July 1831 –January 1833, p. 85. (then see 3 Nephi 21)

2 Peter 2
1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not."

D&C 124
28 For there is not a place found on earth that he may come to and restore again that which was lost unto you, or which he hath taken away, even the fulness of the priesthood.
40 And verily I say unto you, let this house be built unto my name, that I may reveal mine ordinances therein unto my people;
41 For I deign to reveal unto my church things which have been kept hid from before the foundation of the world, things that pertain to the dispensation of the fulness of times.
45 And if my people will hearken unto my voice, and unto the voice of my servants whom I have appointed to lead my people, behold, verily I say unto you, they shall not be moved out of their place.
46 But if they will not hearken to my voice, nor unto the voice of these men whom I have appointed, they shall not be blest, because they pollute mine holy grounds, and mine holy ordinances, and charters, and my holy words which I give unto them.

[ransomme]

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.

How on earth does that imply an organisation?

Before the existence of a religious ecclesia, there was the Athenian ecclesia from which many different laws were set up for Athens and her colonies. Anyone who was a male of voting age could participate, however, they were all guided by the local leadership of Athens that had been picked by the assembly at large.

Same applied to the religious ecclesia. All who were numbered among the believers were invited to participate in the dealings of the ecclesia, however, they were guided by local leaders (episkopon - origin of the word Bishop, meaning overseers) and they answered to the Apostles.

Going back further we have the essence of the Congregation of Israel that was led by the priests that had been selected by God.

Either way you slice it, there must needs be an order.

Well this could easily be seen in the vein of "20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." (Matthew 18)

In reality, it only requires coordination, not an organization/Inc.

[Niemand]

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.

How on earth does that imply an organisation?

As I understand it "ecclesia" was also used for ancient Greek assemblies, like the democratic one which ruled the Athenian city state. I suppose you could call that an organisation, but certainly nothing like the SLC organisation. People could be selected/removed from the Athenian Assembly through voting, were not in for life, and did not pretend to have a united front on all issues. They also did not claim to be selected by the gods, and could even be put into foreign exile ("ostracised").

https://www.etymonline.com/word/ecclesiastic

late 15c., from French ecclésiastique and directly from Medieval Latin ecclesiasticus, from Greek ekklesiastikos "of the (ancient Athenian) assembly," in late Greek, "of the church," from ekklesiastes "speaker in an assembly or church, preacher," from ekkalein "to call out," from ek "out" (see ex-) + kalein "to call" (from PIE root *kele- (2) "to shout"). As a noun, "one holding an office in the Christian ministry," 1650s (the earlier noun was ecclesiast, late 14c.); the Latin word also was used as a noun in Late Latin.

Looks like it means those who are called out of the world, although assembly would be another meaning. I think it can also mean a gathering, either a gathering of people out of the world or within it.

The name of the book Ecclesiastes:

c. 1300, name given to one of the Old Testament books, traditionally ascribed to Solomon, from Greek ekklesiastes (see ecclesiastic), to render Hebrew qoheleth "one who addresses an assembly," from qahal "assembly."

[Niemand]

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.

How on earth does that imply an organisation?

Before the existence of a religious ecclesia, there was the Athenian ecclesia from which many different laws were set up for Athens and her colonies. Anyone who was a male of voting age could participate, however, they were all guided by the local leadership of Athens that had been picked by the assembly at large.

Same applied to the religious ecclesia. All who were numbered among the believers were invited to participate in the dealings of the ecclesia, however, they were guided by local leaders (episkopon - origin of the word Bishop, meaning overseers) and they answered to the Apostles.

Going back further we have the essence of the Congregation of Israel that was led by the priests that had been selected by God.

Either way you slice it, there must needs be an order.

Slaves, resident foreigners and women couldn't vote in Athens. There were large numbers of all of these in ancient Athens. It certainly wasn't a universal suffrage. I think there was an assumption you had to be able to read too. But from what I know it was a lot more democratic than what any country has nowadays.

[Benjamin_LK]

And I honestly think it is ridiculous that the leaders of the Church would try to kill Him whose name is plastered amongst all the chapels and temples the world over.

Well, that’s assuming he was present the way he was 2000 years ago. Now? He’s already been resurrected and glorified so if he does, he will come and won’t be touchable and will be feared.

[Benjamin_LK]

On this Easter Sunday I can't help think about the time of Jesus and make comparisons between the federal government and Rome, the Jewish leadership and the current LDS leadership. Jerusalem and SLC. If Christ were to come today as he did in the meridian of time, I have know doubt the current leadership would have crucified him just as the Jews and Romans did.

You imagine that Jesus would have criticized the church, and the church would ... kill him for it? You know there are people who criticize the church now. Is the church sending out the danites after the CES letter guy, or Snuffer, or anyone else?

I could see the government and church leaders wanting to do anything to make Jesus in this day and age stop speaking or making sure people didn’t hear him. Even back in the day, they first tried to make him stop, and after realizing that he wasn’t going to just be silent, then they resorted to kill him. It would be around the same, first try and humiliate him, or make him stop talking, and if that didn’t seem to work, then resort to try taking away his life.

Again, there are lots of church critics today, and lots of faith healers. Is the church trying to kill them?

There’s no point in trying when the government would not take your side in doing so.

[Thinker]

I'm curious where the breaking point is for most current TBMs...

When they feel pain from it.

Sadly, their hearts are cold towards others who are already suffering.

The natural destination for the "I'm following the prophet" mentality is that should they be injured or die from a future booster shot that it will be a token of honor because they died following the prophet. Meanwhile, i think that pride will help them overlook the claims of "safe and effective".
It seems like people may be digging in to their positions.

I have already had at least two experiences that have shown me the determination of the faithful to follow the prophet regardless of any facts presented.

I know what you mean.
I have had such mixed emotions - right now, my heart aches for them & I feel like I just barely dodged a bullet since not too long ago, I was like them. I never dreamed that those adhering to church leaders would be so apostate from God. I always assumed apostates were those sinners who dared not go to church or who dared question anything. They still see it that way, but deep down, their higher Spirit (1st estate) knows better.

[Thinker]

...When the global network of things is unraveled how will we know who to follow or who truly cares?

Good question!

[Thinker]

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.

So you probably blocked me for a while!

I don’t mind debates - you know, “wrestling god” …they may help readers more than each other. Occasionally I read (don’t post) on another forum that is almost nothing but debates. It helps me consider more. But I tend to scan over & discredit ad hominem attacks.

Ideally, we all are constantly debating within ourselves… & if not we make un-thought-out choices like getting in line for experiments under medical coercion pressure.

[EvanLM]

This might be a new low for you.

Not as low as the heads Moroni chopped because of an unwillingness to defend freedom.

wait, did I read this wrong . . .Moroni supported the prophet and those who lost their heads did NOT . . . so you're saying that those who are opposing our prophets should have . . . . .well . . . ugh . . um

[EvanLM]

I don’t recall Moroni chopping off people's heads for being true believers in Christ's church and sustaining the leaders if His church.

But I do recall some really wicked people in the scriptures and the annuals of history who have done this. You really don't want to be supporting those guys.

No problem here, Mr. DuckRabbit!

You're insinuating that true believing members of Christ's church should have their heads chopped off.

If you don't see how truly messed up that is, I don't know what to tell you.

I said those who don’t stand for freedom, which is what Moroni said… you’re the one connecting the dots there my humorless friend.

And no, your leaders do not support freedom. They urged their members to follow the wicked government and enforced mandates of their own beyond the local regulations.

Your justifications mean nothing to me, what those men have done is atrocious and vile. My friend’s father is dead because he trusted his church leaders and took the jab, and thousands of others have had their lives ruined as well.

https://www.reluctantwatchman.com/vaccine-reactions

In Pfizer’s recently released documents there are 9 pages of adverse reactions. There is no hiding the evil that was forced upon people over the last 2 years.

So much for their bullshìt about a “safe and effective” “literal godsend”.

you're twisting scriptures . . . please read the chapters reagrding the story of Moroni . . . . he followed a prophet . . the king men opposed that like some on this thread do

[EvanLM]

of course, if you can pick another scripture where men did NOT follow the prophets with good results then, . . . well . . . then . . .how bout alma the older who was a priest . . a priest who abandoned his church and got new revelation and priesthood power . . . tell me about that . . .

or Limhi who put the nephites into bondage cuz he made a deal with the Lamanite king . . . just expound on those . . . and relate these stories to us today and I'd be more likely to agree once you have made your point . . .

however, I will not make your point for you . . . cuz I do support this church of Christ today and what he has decided will be now . . .knowing that soon it will change so drastically that even you may reject the servant, too . . .