Make not gods of your prophets

[LDS Watchman]

But since JST Mark 9 doesn't meet your very marrow definition of a scripture, this is really moot point for you in the first place.

That is correct, the Lord commanded that it not go forth until it could be printed into one volume with the BoM, the work was never finished, it did not meet the Law of Witnesses, but yes, I still allow personal revelation to confirm its truth to me and no, it is not binding upon the whole church, not until that work resumes under those who started it and it is finished during the marvelous work and a wonder that is about to break forth.

I agree that with the exception of the Book of Moses in the PoGp, the JST is not binding upon the saints. It's a very useful study aid, but not something we can use as these sole source for establishing a doctrine as RW is doing.

The term "binding on the Saints" is utterly irrelevant.

Truth is simply truth whether it's canonised, binding, written, unwritten, unspoken, or whatever. These man-made methods of dividing truth are utterly irrelevant.

I don't really care about whether a teaching has been canonized or not. I'm actually a big fan of the JST.

But it's a fact that it was never finished and published, so what we have is not the finished product. We don't know what additional changes Joseph would have made had he lived. Nor do we know to what extent what he did revise was a work in progree. So I don't consider the JST to be pure truth. If a teaching is found exclusively in the JST, I think it's wise to look for a second or third witness.

[LDS Watchman]

Your opinion doesn't equal truth.

And every time you are asked to provide any proof to support this claim, you are always unable to do so.

Anyone can look at the teachings of the leaders of the church from BY to the present and see that the vast majority of what they teach is good.

And on top of that pretty much everything you hate about the brethren can be traced straight back to Joseph Smith. But you will never call him evil. You will always give him a free pass or down play what he said and did.

And you know what I'm saying is true.

Negatory captain.

What I said is 100% true.

You can scream and shout that the brethren from BY onward are all pure evil and the definition wolves in sheep clothing until the cows come home, but this doesn't prove a darn thing. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And you have never been able to provide any proof at all. Never.

Instead you just keep on blasting them with no proof while letting Joseph off the hook for the same things, "worse" things even.

Totally warped and crazy. It's like the twighlight zone.

oh please. You completely distort things that I say. That’s why I don’t engage with you often times. You loved to put words in people’s mouths.

I haven't distorted anything, nor have I put any words in your mouth. You just don't like that I keep pointing the elephant on the room, which is the complete double standard that you hold Joseph Smith to compared to BY onward.

You keep denying that you do this, but it's true and you know it is.

And if you want to know what distorting what someone says looks like, here's an example of an accusation you made against me, which is completely false and which you refused to provide a single example for:

"Your "evidence" often overlooks a lot of history and scripture."

[Reluctant Watchman]

Negatory captain.

What I said is 100% true.

You can scream and shout that the brethren from BY onward are all pure evil and the definition wolves in sheep clothing until the cows come home, but this doesn't prove a darn thing. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And you have never been able to provide any proof at all. Never.

Instead you just keep on blasting them with no proof while letting Joseph off the hook for the same things, "worse" things even.

Totally warped and crazy. It's like the twighlight zone.

oh please. You completely distort things that I say. That’s why I don’t engage with you often times. You loved to put words in people’s mouths.

I haven't distorted anything, nor have I put any words in your mouth. You just don't like that I keep pointing the elephant on the room, which is the complete double standard that you hold Joseph Smith to compared to BY onward.

You keep denying that you do this, but it's true and you know it is.

And if you want to know what distorting what someone says looks like, here's an example of an accusation you made against me, which is completely false and which you refused to provide a single example for:

"Your "evidence" often overlooks a lot of history and scripture."

Ok, we can disagree.

[LDS Watchman]

What I said is 100% true.

You can scream and shout that the brethren from BY onward are all pure evil and the definition wolves in sheep clothing until the cows come home, but this doesn't prove a darn thing. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And you have never been able to provide any proof at all. Never.

Instead you just keep on blasting them with no proof while letting Joseph off the hook for the same things, "worse" things even.

Totally warped and crazy. It's like the twighlight zone.

oh please. You completely distort things that I say. That’s why I don’t engage with you often times. You loved to put words in people’s mouths.

I haven't distorted anything, nor have I put any words in your mouth. You just don't like that I keep pointing the elephant on the room, which is the complete double standard that you hold Joseph Smith to compared to BY onward.

You keep denying that you do this, but it's true and you know it is.

And if you want to know what distorting what someone says looks like, here's an example of an accusation you made against me, which is completely false and which you refused to provide a single example for:

"Your "evidence" often overlooks a lot of history and scripture."

Ok, we can disagree.

You can disagree all you want to. But what I keep saying about your double standards and your lack of proof to support your claims is still true.

The elephant in the room is there. Ignoring it, downplaying it, and even denying it doesn't change that.

Joseph Smith says or does something you don't like. "Well he wasn't perfect, no big deal."

BY to RMN says or does something you don't like "see evil servants of Satan!!!"

[Reluctant Watchman]

oh please. You completely distort things that I say. That’s why I don’t engage with you often times. You loved to put words in people’s mouths.

I haven't distorted anything, nor have I put any words in your mouth. You just don't like that I keep pointing the elephant on the room, which is the complete double standard that you hold Joseph Smith to compared to BY onward.

You keep denying that you do this, but it's true and you know it is.

And if you want to know what distorting what someone says looks like, here's an example of an accusation you made against me, which is completely false and which you refused to provide a single example for:

"Your "evidence" often overlooks a lot of history and scripture."

Ok, we can disagree.

You can disagree all you want to. But what I keep saying about your double standards and your lack of proof to support your claims is still true.

The elephant in the room is there. Ignoring it, downplaying it, and even denying it doesn't change that.

Joseph Smith says or does something you don't like. "Well he wasn't perfect, no big deal."

By to RMN says or does something you don't like "see evil servants of Satan!!!"

Dude, what Joseph seemingly did doesn’t hold a candle to what RMN has done.

[LDS Watchman]

I haven't distorted anything, nor have I put any words in your mouth. You just don't like that I keep pointing the elephant on the room, which is the complete double standard that you hold Joseph Smith to compared to BY onward.

You keep denying that you do this, but it's true and you know it is.

And if you want to know what distorting what someone says looks like, here's an example of an accusation you made against me, which is completely false and which you refused to provide a single example for:

"Your "evidence" often overlooks a lot of history and scripture."

Ok, we can disagree.

You can disagree all you want to. But what I keep saying about your double standards and your lack of proof to support your claims is still true.

The elephant in the room is there. Ignoring it, downplaying it, and even denying it doesn't change that.

Joseph Smith says or does something you don't like. "Well he wasn't perfect, no big deal."

By to RMN says or does something you don't like "see evil servants of Satan!!!"

Dude, what Joseph seemingly did doesn’t hold a candle to what RMN has done.

Why is that?

[Reluctant Watchman]

I will invite anyone on the forum to read the Nemenhah record if you want to know if it contains any truth. Bashing on something without ever actually reading it is just strange IMO.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Ok, we can disagree.

You can disagree all you want to. But what I keep saying about your double standards and your lack of proof to support your claims is still true.

The elephant in the room is there. Ignoring it, downplaying it, and even denying it doesn't change that.

Joseph Smith says or does something you don't like. "Well he wasn't perfect, no big deal."

By to RMN says or does something you don't like "see evil servants of Satan!!!"

Dude, what Joseph seemingly did doesn’t hold a candle to what RMN has done.

Why is that?

Sorry, I’m done talking with you.

[LDS Watchman]

I will invite anyone on the forum to read the Nemenhah record if you want to know if it contains any truth. Bashing on something without ever actually reading it is just strange IMO.

I've read some of it. Reads just like other false revelations or records I have looked at in the past.

[LDS Watchman]

You can disagree all you want to. But what I keep saying about your double standards and your lack of proof to support your claims is still true.

The elephant in the room is there. Ignoring it, downplaying it, and even denying it doesn't change that.

Joseph Smith says or does something you don't like. "Well he wasn't perfect, no big deal."

By to RMN says or does something you don't like "see evil servants of Satan!!!"

Dude, what Joseph seemingly did doesn’t hold a candle to what RMN has done.

Why is that?

Sorry, I’m done talking with you.

If you want to bow out, that's cool. But on the way out, here are some facts to chew on about Joseph Smith.

1) He was the originator of "racism" in the church

2) He was the originator of polygamy in the church

3) He was the originator of the endowment, complete with the "masonic" elements

4) He was the originator of the one man to receive revelation for the church doctrine

5) He was the originator of the doctrine that the church should accept everything he said as the word of God

6) He received revelations telling people to gather to Zion and redeem it and even to march down to Zion to redeem it with power and military force. All of this failed and a lot of members who listened to him were maimed or died.

7) He used his influence as a prophet to get people to invest in the Kirtland safety society, only for it to fail and many people lost their money

8) He made changes to revelations he had previously published as the word of God in the D&C.

9) He made changes to the BoM.

10) He unequivocally taught that the church and kingdom of God had been restored for the last time in the 1830s and that it wouldn't fail again. He also taught that the church and kingdom for God in the last days is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[Reluctant Watchman]

For me, however, the jury is still out on this record. I’ve read quite a bit (my parents often send me long passages and I read them intently).

Jumping back to this… where are your parents at after reading this record? I mean, there’s a lot that talks about the current state of things w/in the church. I find it hard for anyone to read this record and then sit quietly in the pews at church without having questions.

[cab]

For me, however, the jury is still out on this record. I’ve read quite a bit (my parents often send me long passages and I read them intently).

Jumping back to this… where are your parents at after reading this record? I mean, there’s a lot that talks about the current state of things w/in the church. I find it hard for anyone to read this record and then sit quietly in the pews at church without having questions.

They’re where I’m at. Maybe a bit like you and your boy…
And I’m forever grateful. It’d be a lonely road without them…

[Shawn Henry]

These man-made methods of dividing truth are utterly irrelevant.

The Law of Witnesses is quite relevant. How many times has the Lord himself stated it? Quite a lot. You make void the word of God by discounting this law.

[Shawn Henry]

If Joseph taught a "principle" contrary to scripture, I would disavow it, until he produces a revelation in accordance with scripture.

He did, but you're still decrying it.

Your point was that if Joseph taught something contrary to Scripture, you would disavow it, unless he produced a revelation in accordance with Scripture, thereby implying that something may appear (to one) contrary to Scripture, but a revelation clearly setting forth such a principle in accordance with Scripture would set any confusion straight.

This is precisely what Joseph Smith's revelation on Plural Marriage is. You think the Principle of Plural Marriage contradicts Scripture, yet it doesn't.

That's another point I would make. Joseph never would claim as revelation something that contradicts scripture. That's kinda why I said "in accordance with scripture". There is no confusion in Jacob 2 to set straight. It doesn't get plainer to understand than as it is written.

I will never understand how you say it doesn't contradict scripture, it's an abomination in the BoM and a crime in the D&C.

[Shawn Henry]

You said that these men were spiritual witnesses. That is not correct. They had a spiritual witness, yes. But that is all we have is their testimony of what they saw. That’s the distinction I’m making here…

I’ll repeat what I said before, I don’t think a record needs a series of witnesses to validate the doctrine. We need the Holy Ghost. Moroni was correct.

Then why the hell would the Savior waste his breath saying every word will be established in the mouth of two or three witnesses?

Instead of maintaining that Moroni was correct and Jesus was not, why don't you state how they are both correct?

By the way, I don't see the distinction you claim. You're saying that they had a spiritual witness, but they are not spiritual witnesses. That doesn't make sense. Are you trying to say that their spiritual witness is not your spiritual witness, because I would agree with that. Our witness is indeed the HG, but that doesn't change the fact that God provides witnesses who have these spiritual experiences which qualify them as witnesses.

[Luke]

You said that these men were spiritual witnesses. That is not correct. They had a spiritual witness, yes. But that is all we have is their testimony of what they saw. That’s the distinction I’m making here…

I’ll repeat what I said before, I don’t think a record needs a series of witnesses to validate the doctrine. We need the Holy Ghost. Moroni was correct.

Then why the hell would the Savior waste his breath saying every word will be established in the mouth of two or three witnesses?

Instead of maintaining that Moroni was correct and Jesus was not, why don't you state how they are both correct?

By the way, I don't see the distinction you claim. You're saying that they had a spiritual witness, but they are not spiritual witnesses. That doesn't make sense. Are you trying to say that their spiritual witness is not your spiritual witness, because I would agree with that. Our witness is indeed the HG, but that doesn't change the fact that God provides witnesses who have these spiritual experiences which qualify them as witnesses.

Who were the two or three witnesses to the 1835 D&C?

[Shawn Henry]

here are some facts to chew on about Joseph Smith.

All things that happened when Joseph was a prophet for a church that had Christ's name removed from it, the Church of the Latter Day Saints.

As prophet of the Church of Christ, from its inception to its downgrade in May of 1834, he is spotless.

Seems there are consequences for failing to build Zion.

[Shawn Henry]

Who were the two or three witnesses to the 1835 D&C?

Joseph, Sidney, and Frederick were all equal in holding the keys and Oliver as Second Elder was arguably a PSR as well. The First Presidency had stewardship over the oracles. Whether they claim any divine witness is unknown, but their callings alone give them that responsibility.

The Lord also appointed 6 men as stewards over the publication of the D&C. There are 6 Elders mentioned two or three times by the Lord in the revelations, just not their names, but they may be the same as the Literary Firm.


United Firm and Literary Firm

In addition to these church officers, other governing organizations were formed during the period of this volume. As plans went forward in November 1831 to publish JS’s revelations, six men—JS, Sidney Rigdon, Oliver Cowdery, John Whitmer, William W. Phelps, and Martin Harris—were appointed “stewards” over those revelations, meaning that they would oversee their publication “& the concerns thereof.” Any profits resulting from such publication were to be used for the needs of those men and their families; the surplus was to be placed in the church’s storehouse.17 In March 1832, a revelation directed JS and others to further organize the church’s “Literary and Merchantile establishments,”18 and in April 1832 JS proceeded to do so, creating what was called the United Firm. This firm consisted of nine men, all of whom had some form of stewardship, or responsibility, for temporal aspects of the church: Partridge and Whitney, the two bishops; Gilbert, the agent and operator of the storehouse in Zion; and the six “stewards over the revelations.” Joining all of these “several Stewartships” into one firm allowed each of its members “to have equal claims on the properties for the benefit of managing the concerns” of their stewardship.19 The United Firm essentially had three corporate components: the stewards over the revelations, which became known thereafter as the Literary Firm; Gilbert, Whitney & Co., the mercantile branch of the firm in Missouri; and N. K. Whitney & Co., the mercantile branch in Kirtland. The United Firm supervised these various components of the church with the goal of producing an abundance of “tallents” that they would then “cast into the Lords Storehouse to become the common property of the whole Churc[h].”20 The United Firm and Literary Firm members are listed here in the order in which they appear in the revelations organizing those respective groups.21

United Firm

Edward Partridge
Newel K. Whitney
Sidney Gilbert
Sidney Rigdon
Joseph Smith Jr.
John Whitmer
Oliver Cowdery
William W. Phelps
Martin Harris

Literary Firm

Joseph Smith Jr.
Martin Harris
Oliver Cowdery
John Whitmer
Sidney Rigdon
William W. Phelps

[Reluctant Watchman]

You said that these men were spiritual witnesses. That is not correct. They had a spiritual witness, yes. But that is all we have is their testimony of what they saw. That’s the distinction I’m making here…

I’ll repeat what I said before, I don’t think a record needs a series of witnesses to validate the doctrine. We need the Holy Ghost. Moroni was correct.

Then why the hell would the Savior waste his breath saying every word will be established in the mouth of two or three witnesses?

Instead of maintaining that Moroni was correct and Jesus was not, why don't you state how they are both correct?

By the way, I don't see the distinction you claim. You're saying that they had a spiritual witness, but they are not spiritual witnesses. That doesn't make sense. Are you trying to say that their spiritual witness is not your spiritual witness, because I would agree with that. Our witness is indeed the HG, but that doesn't change the fact that God provides witnesses who have these spiritual experiences which qualify them as witnesses.

Hell? A very interesting word you repeatedly choose to use.

I think you need to spend some time with 2 Corinthians 13 for a bit of context. Particularly the first sentence in verse one and verses two and three:

1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three awitnesses shall every word be established.
2 I told you before, and foretell you, as if I were present, the second time; and being absent now I write to them which heretofore have sinned, and to all other, that, if I come again, I will not spare:
3 Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me, which to you-ward is not weak, but is mighty in you.

Who is the sole witness here? Paul.

As far as spiritual witnesses. The 3 and 8 each had a spiritual witness, yes. But they of themselves can only give a testimony of the witness they received. And that angel... guess by what power he spoke with?

I find it interesting that you degrade or lessen the witness of the Holy Ghost:

3 Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ. Wherefore, I said unto you, feast upon the words of Christ; for behold, the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do.

The Holy Ghost and the words of Christ are inseparable.

[LDS Watchman]

here are some facts to chew on about Joseph Smith.

All things that happened when Joseph was a prophet for a church that had Christ's name removed from it, the Church of the Latter Day Saints.

As prophet of the Church of Christ, from its inception to its downgrade in May of 1834, he is spotless.

Seems there are consequences for failing to build Zion.

Where's the revelation from God removing his name and downgrading the church and removing his name from it?

Watcher's blog doesn't count.

[Shawn Henry]

Hell? A very interesting word you repeatedly choose to use.

I think you need to spend some time with 2 Corinthians 13 for a bit of context. Particularly the first sentence in verse one and verses two and three:

1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.
2 I told you before, and foretell you, as if I were present, the second time; and being absent now I write to them which heretofore have sinned, and to all other, that, if I come again, I will not spare:
3 Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me, which to you-ward is not weak, but is mighty in you.

Who is the sole witness here? Paul.

As far as spiritual witnesses. The 3 and 8 each had a spiritual witness, yes. But they of themselves can only give a testimony of the witness they received. And that angel... guess by what power he spoke with?

I find it interesting that you degrade or lessen the witness of the Holy Ghost:

3 Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ. Wherefore, I said unto you, feast upon the words of Christ; for behold, the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do.

The Holy Ghost and the words of Christ are inseparable.

We all know what the HG does, you recapping it, doesn't really contribute much. Yes, it confirms all truth, yes, it is everywhere, yes, it is our foundation for knowing everything, yes, it can confirm any record to us, we all know that already.

The point is, the Savior has repeatedly emphasized that his word will be accompanied by 2 or 3 witnesses and you have no way of including that into your paradigm.

By the way, there really isn't anything interesting about the word hell.

[Shawn Henry]

Where's the revelation from God removing his name and downgrading the church and removing his name from it?

Watcher's blog doesn't count.

There's no record of a revelation, it was done in a small meeting of members where JS presided and Sidney conducted. It's in the history of the church, I've read it myself, so nice try trying to disparage Watcher.

This is well documented, you're not going to have much success attempting one of your apologetic spins here. The Kirtland Temple plaque reads: built by The Church of the Latter Day Saints. The 1835 D&C title page reads: published by The Church of the Latter Day Saints.

[Reluctant Watchman]

We all know what the HG does, you recapping it, doesn't really contribute much. Yes, it confirms all truth, yes, it is everywhere, yes, it is our foundation for knowing everything, yes, it can confirm any record to us, we all know that already.

The point is, the Savior has repeatedly emphasized that his word will be accompanied by 2 or 3 witnesses and you have no way of including that into your paradigm.

By the way, there really isn't anything interesting about the word hell.

Your tone kind of sounds demeaning. You downplayed/mitigated a witness of the HG in a previous post, and then lecture me for supporting the importance of it. Go figure.

And I can't let you off on this one. You made a helluva fuss about this witness thing, and then you roll it off like water on a duck's back when the scripture you've been drumming on proves to not be what you said it is. Show me where Christ teaches the need for 2 or 3 witnesses. Show me. I can find verses that state where 2 or 3 are gathered, but not your claim about Christ supporting the need for additional witnesses to verify His words.

[LDS Watchman]

Where's the revelation from God removing his name and downgrading the church and removing his name from it?

Watcher's blog doesn't count.

There's no record of a revelation, it was done in a small meeting of members where JS presided and Sidney conducted. It's in the history of the church, I've read it myself, so nice try trying to disparage Watcher.

This is well documented, you're not going to have much success attempting one of your apologetic spins here. The Kirtland Temple plaque reads: built by The Church of the Latter Day Saints. The 1835 D&C title page reads: published by The Church of the Latter Day Saints.

I'm not disparaging Watcher. I have a lot of respect for the guy. My point is that you clearly got this idea from him.

As you just admitted, there's no record of God having done what you and Watcher claim. No revelation. Just the minutes of one meeting and a sign outside the temple and the title page of the 1835 D&C with a new name.

Using your own standard for truth, your claim completely false apart.

[Shawn Henry]

And I can't let you off on this one. You made a helluva fuss about this witness thing, and then you roll it off like water on a duck's back when the scripture you've been drumming on proves to not be what you said it is. Show me where Christ teaches the need for 2 or 3 witnesses. Show me. I can find verses that state where 2 or 3 are gathered, but not your claim about Christ supporting the need for additional witnesses to verify His words.

I'm not downplaying it, I simply stated correctly that there is a continuum of feeling the spirit from barely perceptible impressions to undeniable heavenly manifestations. You should know yourself how poor our track record is of correctly identifying the HG, just look at how many have had the HG confirm polygamy to them.

You must skip over all the scriptures that talk about witnesses. Give me a minute and I'll post them.