Make not gods of your prophets

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 15319
Location: “if thine eye offend thee, pluck him out.”
Contact:

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

Just ponder this for a minute. What better way for the Lord to introduce more light and clarity to this world, and yet keep it from a prideful people such as the LDS church. I can guarantee that many posters on the forum will only be kept from the truth due to their pride, arrogance, and slothfulness.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by Luke »

What I find most surprising is that not long ago, you, Reluctant Watchman, were preaching against polygamy on the basis that it (according to you) contradicted the Book of Mormon, and that anything coming into contradiction with the Book of Mormon is false.

Now you are quoting what I would personally regard as Mormon fan-fiction in preference to the Book of Mormon, when it is blatantly contradictory.

In our future polygamy related discussions I will now defer to this point whenever you submit that Plural Marriage is contrary to the Book of Mormon. (It’s not.)

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by Luke »

Reluctant Watchman wrote: October 29th, 2022, 5:10 pm Luke.... where did you go with your original endowment historical docs? You sounded so resolute in your conviction of having access to these.
I didn’t see your messages about this. I will get back to you with some resources.

Matthias posted a letter from HCK to PPP in this thread which is one such source.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by Luke »

innocentoldguy wrote: October 29th, 2022, 1:39 am
Shawn Henry wrote: October 28th, 2022, 11:50 pm
innocentoldguy wrote: October 28th, 2022, 11:26 pm the church's website.
Exactly, the church's website, which is the aforementioned apologetic spin. I already stated that apologists claim it was to avoid confusion with other churches with that same name and I listed why that doesn't make any sense. By the way, saying the saints voted on it is a little misleading. Sidney conducted the meeting and put it forward and those in attendance sustained it. Anyway, here are my two points again:

1. There's no way prophets would be the ones to yield the name of Christ, especially ones familiar with 3 Nephi.
2. The timing make no sense. They had already been using that name in Kirtland four 4 years. Why would they wait to become the biggest congregation in Kirtland only to then change it. Besides, why would anyone think there is any confusion, the saints were quite distinguishable from everyone else.

Do you really think they would build a temple to the Lord and not put his name on it if they had a choice?

Hope that clears things up for you (hope I don't sound condescending like you do when you say it)
<sigh> It wasn't Joseph Smith who did it. It was Oliver Cowdery, some unnamed elders, and the members themselves. Joseph Smith received revelation to correct their mistake. It really isn't that hard to understand. I also find it funny that you'd come to a site about the church and then whinge about someone citing the church on church history.

What does timing have to do with anything. Can't people make mistakes whenever they feel like it? I mean look at all the mistaken information you're spreading around, mingled with logical fallacies, presentism, and thinking errors.
Yet Joseph Smith asked the Lord to “put thy name back on the Church”. See D&C 109.

Why would he ask that unless the Lord took it away in the first place?

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 15319
Location: “if thine eye offend thee, pluck him out.”
Contact:

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

Luke wrote: October 30th, 2022, 6:47 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: October 29th, 2022, 5:10 pm Luke.... where did you go with your original endowment historical docs? You sounded so resolute in your conviction of having access to these.
I didn’t see your messages about this. I will get back to you with some resources.

Matthias posted a letter from HCK to PPP in this thread which is one such source.
Unless you have anything different than the other endowment thread, then I’m not sure how much I’ll dive into it. All that thread did was cite church leaders after Joseph. Although, those were kind of interesting, even though they were from disaffected members.

LDS Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7390
Contact:

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by LDS Watchman »

Reluctant Watchman wrote: October 30th, 2022, 7:25 pm
Luke wrote: October 30th, 2022, 6:47 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: October 29th, 2022, 5:10 pm Luke.... where did you go with your original endowment historical docs? You sounded so resolute in your conviction of having access to these.
I didn’t see your messages about this. I will get back to you with some resources.

Matthias posted a letter from HCK to PPP in this thread which is one such source.
Unless you have anything different than the other endowment thread, then I’m not sure how much I’ll dive into it. All that thread did was cite church leaders after Joseph. Although, those were kind of interesting, even though they were from disaffected members.
The letter was from 1842, while Joseph was alive, from a man who had received the endowment directly from Joseph Smith inviting another man to come and receive it from Joseph.

This is exactly what you asked for, but since the contents of the letter don't fit with what you want to believe, it appears you are just going to ignore it and write if off. That's not something someone who cares about the truth does.

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 15319
Location: “if thine eye offend thee, pluck him out.”
Contact:

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

I have a friend who is the great, great, great, grandson to Porter Rockwell. He asked me an interesting question, "When are we going to live the Law of Consecration as a church?" He could clearly see that we are not. And he also had questions about what that law even looks like given what the current church teaches and what was taught in the early days.

The LDS church teaches almost nothing about the law of consecration. Sure, they make a whim of an attempt in the temple, but that's it. This record presents multiple accounts of how various eras/groups of people lived the law of consecration. There truly were no poor among them. This law in particular is explained in extreme detail. Nearly all aspects of the law are outlined. There is even an example when one of the church leaders felt that God told him that he would be the only mouthpiece to the people, and he set up a system where the church leaders would be cared for by the people. This system obviously failed. It divided the city and the poor and humble were eventually rejected for not giving to the priests and were cast out.

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 15319
Location: “if thine eye offend thee, pluck him out.”
Contact:

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

From my reading this evening. A very accurate depiction of what has happened the last 200 years in the church:

13) And this shall be a sign unto whom the Earth might yield up this record: In the latter days the Peacemaker will raise up His Church once again unto the people. Yea, through a Prophet He will begin to restore that which had lain seemingly dormant for many lives of men. And through His Church He will cause the Gifts of the Holy Ghost once again to pour out upon the earth to heal her.

14) But behold, before this little church shall have had but one generation in which to grow, and the believers begin to enjoy once again great blessings from Heaven, they shall reject even such things as the Peacemaker shall provide with His own mighty hand.

15) Yea, before one generation has passed, the Peacemaker shall declare the very most honored of God under His mighty condemnation, and this condemnation shall not be lifted to the sixth generation.

16) Yea, this condemnation shall stand in effect until the children of the restoration shall finally begin to turn their hearts away from the world and from Babylon.

17) And this shall be a sore vexation for them. For, they shall have the great gifts which the Peacemaker shall have given them before they turned from His paths, and they shall remember still the Gifts of the Holy Ghost which He did cause to be poured out upon their forefathers.

18) Yet behold, they shall have been led by shepherds whose concerns are for the getting of gain and of great wealth, and even their attempts to live the Law of Consecration shall be muddied and polluted by the principles of the world that their leading men shall introduce into their experiments.

19) Yea, and they shall fail utterly to live the law that contains and controls the abundance. In the end, yea, and by the time the Peacemaker shall wax in His impatience with them, they shall have cast aside the Law of Consecration almost entirely.

innocentoldguy
captain of 100
Posts: 265

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by innocentoldguy »

Luke wrote: October 30th, 2022, 6:49 pm
innocentoldguy wrote: October 29th, 2022, 1:39 am
Shawn Henry wrote: October 28th, 2022, 11:50 pm
innocentoldguy wrote: October 28th, 2022, 11:26 pm the church's website.
Exactly, the church's website, which is the aforementioned apologetic spin. I already stated that apologists claim it was to avoid confusion with other churches with that same name and I listed why that doesn't make any sense. By the way, saying the saints voted on it is a little misleading. Sidney conducted the meeting and put it forward and those in attendance sustained it. Anyway, here are my two points again:

1. There's no way prophets would be the ones to yield the name of Christ, especially ones familiar with 3 Nephi.
2. The timing make no sense. They had already been using that name in Kirtland four 4 years. Why would they wait to become the biggest congregation in Kirtland only to then change it. Besides, why would anyone think there is any confusion, the saints were quite distinguishable from everyone else.

Do you really think they would build a temple to the Lord and not put his name on it if they had a choice?

Hope that clears things up for you (hope I don't sound condescending like you do when you say it)
<sigh> It wasn't Joseph Smith who did it. It was Oliver Cowdery, some unnamed elders, and the members themselves. Joseph Smith received revelation to correct their mistake. It really isn't that hard to understand. I also find it funny that you'd come to a site about the church and then whinge about someone citing the church on church history.

What does timing have to do with anything. Can't people make mistakes whenever they feel like it? I mean look at all the mistaken information you're spreading around, mingled with logical fallacies, presentism, and thinking errors.
Yet Joseph Smith asked the Lord to “put thy name back on the Church”. See D&C 109.

Why would he ask that unless the Lord took it away in the first place?
It doesn't say that. You misquoted it.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by Luke »

innocentoldguy wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 2:27 am
Luke wrote: October 30th, 2022, 6:49 pm
innocentoldguy wrote: October 29th, 2022, 1:39 am
Shawn Henry wrote: October 28th, 2022, 11:50 pm
Exactly, the church's website, which is the aforementioned apologetic spin. I already stated that apologists claim it was to avoid confusion with other churches with that same name and I listed why that doesn't make any sense. By the way, saying the saints voted on it is a little misleading. Sidney conducted the meeting and put it forward and those in attendance sustained it. Anyway, here are my two points again:

1. There's no way prophets would be the ones to yield the name of Christ, especially ones familiar with 3 Nephi.
2. The timing make no sense. They had already been using that name in Kirtland four 4 years. Why would they wait to become the biggest congregation in Kirtland only to then change it. Besides, why would anyone think there is any confusion, the saints were quite distinguishable from everyone else.

Do you really think they would build a temple to the Lord and not put his name on it if they had a choice?

Hope that clears things up for you (hope I don't sound condescending like you do when you say it)
<sigh> It wasn't Joseph Smith who did it. It was Oliver Cowdery, some unnamed elders, and the members themselves. Joseph Smith received revelation to correct their mistake. It really isn't that hard to understand. I also find it funny that you'd come to a site about the church and then whinge about someone citing the church on church history.

What does timing have to do with anything. Can't people make mistakes whenever they feel like it? I mean look at all the mistaken information you're spreading around, mingled with logical fallacies, presentism, and thinking errors.
Yet Joseph Smith asked the Lord to “put thy name back on the Church”. See D&C 109.

Why would he ask that unless the Lord took it away in the first place?
It doesn't say that. You misquoted it.
D&C 109
78 O hear, O hear, O hear us, O Lord! And answer these petitions, and accept the dedication of this house unto thee, the work of our hands, which we have built unto thy name;
79 And also this church, to put upon it thy name. And help us by the power of thy Spirit, that we may mingle our voices with those bright, shining seraphs around thy throne, with acclamations of praise, singing Hosanna to God and the Lamb!

Either that’s a plea to put His name on the Church, spoken in plain English, or I’m greatly mistaken.

innocentoldguy
captain of 100
Posts: 265

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by innocentoldguy »

Luke wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 5:11 am
innocentoldguy wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 2:27 am
Luke wrote: October 30th, 2022, 6:49 pm
innocentoldguy wrote: October 29th, 2022, 1:39 am

<sigh> It wasn't Joseph Smith who did it. It was Oliver Cowdery, some unnamed elders, and the members themselves. Joseph Smith received revelation to correct their mistake. It really isn't that hard to understand. I also find it funny that you'd come to a site about the church and then whinge about someone citing the church on church history.

What does timing have to do with anything. Can't people make mistakes whenever they feel like it? I mean look at all the mistaken information you're spreading around, mingled with logical fallacies, presentism, and thinking errors.
Yet Joseph Smith asked the Lord to “put thy name back on the Church”. See D&C 109.

Why would he ask that unless the Lord took it away in the first place?
It doesn't say that. You misquoted it.
D&C 109
78 O hear, O hear, O hear us, O Lord! And answer these petitions, and accept the dedication of this house unto thee, the work of our hands, which we have built unto thy name;
79 And also this church, to put upon it thy name. And help us by the power of thy Spirit, that we may mingle our voices with those bright, shining seraphs around thy throne, with acclamations of praise, singing Hosanna to God and the Lamb!

Either that’s a plea to put His name on the Church, spoken in plain English, or I’m greatly mistaken.
It's a request for the Lord's blessings to be upon the temple. Pretty simple, really.

Also, thank you for implying here that the Lord's name wasn't taken away, as you had previously stated.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by Luke »

innocentoldguy wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 3:33 pm
Luke wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 5:11 am
innocentoldguy wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 2:27 am
Luke wrote: October 30th, 2022, 6:49 pm

Yet Joseph Smith asked the Lord to “put thy name back on the Church”. See D&C 109.

Why would he ask that unless the Lord took it away in the first place?
It doesn't say that. You misquoted it.
D&C 109
78 O hear, O hear, O hear us, O Lord! And answer these petitions, and accept the dedication of this house unto thee, the work of our hands, which we have built unto thy name;
79 And also this church, to put upon it thy name. And help us by the power of thy Spirit, that we may mingle our voices with those bright, shining seraphs around thy throne, with acclamations of praise, singing Hosanna to God and the Lamb!

Either that’s a plea to put His name on the Church, spoken in plain English, or I’m greatly mistaken.
It's a request for the Lord's blessings to be upon the temple. Pretty simple, really.

Also, thank you for implying here that the Lord's name wasn't taken away, as you had previously stated.
If you want to believe that, then you have the privilege of doing so.

It clearly had been taken away.

Church of Christ -> Church of the Latter-day Saints.

That is most certainly the Lord’s name
being taken away.

Not sure how I implied such a thing.

User avatar
JLHPROF
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1087

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by JLHPROF »

Luke wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 4:22 pm If you want to believe that, then you have the privilege of doing so.

It clearly had been taken away.

Church of Christ -> Church of the Latter-day Saints.

That is most certainly the Lord’s name
being taken away.

Not sure how I implied such a thing.
I think you're reading more significance into the name changes (and there were many before 1838) than actually existed.

innocentoldguy
captain of 100
Posts: 265

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by innocentoldguy »

Luke wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 4:22 pm
innocentoldguy wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 3:33 pm
Luke wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 5:11 am
innocentoldguy wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 2:27 am

It doesn't say that. You misquoted it.
D&C 109
78 O hear, O hear, O hear us, O Lord! And answer these petitions, and accept the dedication of this house unto thee, the work of our hands, which we have built unto thy name;
79 And also this church, to put upon it thy name. And help us by the power of thy Spirit, that we may mingle our voices with those bright, shining seraphs around thy throne, with acclamations of praise, singing Hosanna to God and the Lamb!

Either that’s a plea to put His name on the Church, spoken in plain English, or I’m greatly mistaken.
It's a request for the Lord's blessings to be upon the temple. Pretty simple, really.

Also, thank you for implying here that the Lord's name wasn't taken away, as you had previously stated.
If you want to believe that, then you have the privilege of doing so.

It clearly had been taken away.

Church of Christ -> Church of the Latter-day Saints.

That is most certainly the Lord’s name
being taken away.

Not sure how I implied such a thing.
You retracted your inaccurate quote. And no, the name was never taken away. The only citation you had to back up your claim was a quote that you perverted.

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 15319
Location: “if thine eye offend thee, pluck him out.”
Contact:

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

It’s doesn’t matter one way or the other what they call themselves. They have changed God’s words. They have made themselves lesser gods. The Lord won’t sustain a “church” just because they put His name on it.

innocentoldguy
captain of 100
Posts: 265

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by innocentoldguy »

Reluctant Watchman wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 8:36 pm It’s doesn’t matter one way or the other what they call themselves. They have changed God’s words. They have made themselves lesser gods. The Lord won’t sustain a “church” just because they put His name on it.
So, how is it sitting in the judgement seat and ordering the Lord around?

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 15319
Location: “if thine eye offend thee, pluck him out.”
Contact:

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

innocentoldguy wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 8:42 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 8:36 pm It’s doesn’t matter one way or the other what they call themselves. They have changed God’s words. They have made themselves lesser gods. The Lord won’t sustain a “church” just because they put His name on it.
So, how is it sitting in the judgement seat and ordering the Lord around?
Will the Lord sustain a corrupt organization? No. Men may say they speak for the Lord, that doesn’t mean they actually do.

Just take the topic expressed in the OP. Why can your church leaders teach such a succinct set of precepts?

innocentoldguy
captain of 100
Posts: 265

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by innocentoldguy »

Reluctant Watchman wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 8:52 pm
innocentoldguy wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 8:42 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 8:36 pm It’s doesn’t matter one way or the other what they call themselves. They have changed God’s words. They have made themselves lesser gods. The Lord won’t sustain a “church” just because they put His name on it.
So, how is it sitting in the judgement seat and ordering the Lord around?
Will the Lord sustain a corrupt organization? No. Men may say they speak for the Lord, that doesn’t mean they actually do.

Just take the topic expressed in the OP. Why can your church leaders teach such a succinct set of precepts?
Then why do you keep doing it?

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 15319
Location: “if thine eye offend thee, pluck him out.”
Contact:

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

innocentoldguy wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 9:39 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 8:52 pm
innocentoldguy wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 8:42 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 8:36 pm It’s doesn’t matter one way or the other what they call themselves. They have changed God’s words. They have made themselves lesser gods. The Lord won’t sustain a “church” just because they put His name on it.
So, how is it sitting in the judgement seat and ordering the Lord around?
Will the Lord sustain a corrupt organization? No. Men may say they speak for the Lord, that doesn’t mean they actually do.

Just take the topic expressed in the OP. Why can your church leaders teach such a succinct set of precepts?
Then why do you keep doing it?
Guilty as charged if you consider quoting and citing scripture. The church leaders do teach contrary doctrines to the scriptures.

Say what?
captain of 100
Posts: 256

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by Say what? »

https://youtu.be/0tpvgGTFAiM

Great Britain has made their God public.
Last edited by Say what? on November 4th, 2022, 8:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

innocentoldguy
captain of 100
Posts: 265

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by innocentoldguy »

Reluctant Watchman wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 9:55 pm
innocentoldguy wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 9:39 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 8:52 pm
innocentoldguy wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 8:42 pm

So, how is it sitting in the judgement seat and ordering the Lord around?
Will the Lord sustain a corrupt organization? No. Men may say they speak for the Lord, that doesn’t mean they actually do.

Just take the topic expressed in the OP. Why can your church leaders teach such a succinct set of precepts?
Then why do you keep doing it?
Guilty as charged if you consider quoting and citing scripture. The church leaders do teach contrary doctrines to the scriptures.
I think a more accurate statement is that church leaders teach things contrary to your understanding of the scriptures.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4514

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by Shawn Henry »

innocentoldguy wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 3:33 pm It's a request for the Lord's blessings to be upon the temple. Pretty simple, really.
He is petitioning the Lord to put his name back on the church, so yes, that is pretty simple. Try reading it one more time.

"And also this church, to put upon it thy name"

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4514

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by Shawn Henry »

JLHPROF wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 8:15 pm I think you're reading more significance into the name changes (and there were many before 1838) than actually existed.
It's fairly plain English and should end the debate as to who removed Christ's name. He clearly did. You obviously don't petition the Lord to put his name back on the church if it wasn't the Lord who removed it in the first place.

User avatar
BeNotDeceived
Agent38
Posts: 8960
Location: Tralfamadore
Contact:

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by BeNotDeceived »

innocentoldguy wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 8:42 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 8:36 pm It’s doesn’t matter one way or the other what they call themselves. They have changed God’s words. They have made themselves lesser gods. The Lord won’t sustain a “church” just because they put His name on it.
So, how is it sitting in the judgement seat and ordering the Lord around?
See march8miracle.org for an eye opening experience. :lol:

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 15319
Location: “if thine eye offend thee, pluck him out.”
Contact:

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

innocentoldguy wrote: November 4th, 2022, 1:42 am
Reluctant Watchman wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 9:55 pm
innocentoldguy wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 9:39 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 8:52 pm
Will the Lord sustain a corrupt organization? No. Men may say they speak for the Lord, that doesn’t mean they actually do.

Just take the topic expressed in the OP. Why can your church leaders teach such a succinct set of precepts?
Then why do you keep doing it?
Guilty as charged if you consider quoting and citing scripture. The church leaders do teach contrary doctrines to the scriptures.
I think a more accurate statement is that church leaders teach things contrary to your understanding of the scriptures.
Haha. Sure. So when Christ says “you’ll be cursed if you trust in the arm of flesh” (2 Nephi 28:31-paraphrasing btw) and again “ let every man stand or fall, by himself, and not for another; or not trusting another”, and then Nelson says there are 15 men you can place your “complete trust” in…. I obviously got that wrong. Christ was actually saying that to only bad guys, not these good guys, who “can never lead us astray.” You know, these lesser gods.
Last edited by Reluctant Watchman on November 4th, 2022, 6:49 am, edited 2 times in total.

Post Reply