LDS Freedom Forum

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 28th, 2022, 1:24 pm 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.

The above is all you need. It was done, it factually happened. Joseph took out Christ's name. How can you possibly dance around that fact?

Now, if you want to amend your argument by saying that yes, Joseph did it, but it doesn't mean a downgrade or it just administrative, that's fine. Several apologists have tried that approach. Some even try saying that there were just too many churches by that name and so they were trying to avoid confusion. That argument also falls flat because they did this after being in Kirtland for four years and why would Christ's own church be the one to change, it doesn't make sense.

Shawn Henry wrote: ↑October 28th, 2022, 1:35 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 28th, 2022, 1:09 pm 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.

If you post scriptures about witnesses, make sure they relate to the topic at hand. Not about witnesses in court, or any of that. We're talking about validating the word of God.

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 28th, 2022, 1:09 pm 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.

It is a good friend that tells you about the booger hanging from your nose. A bad friend says nothing.

D&C 6:28 And now, behold, I give unto you, and also unto my servant Joseph, the keys of this gift, which shall bring to light this ministry; and in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.
D&C 128:3 that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
2 Nephi 11:3 Wherefore, by the words of three, God hath said, I will establish my word. Nevertheless, God sendeth more witnesses, and he proveth all his words.
2 Corinthians 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.
Matthew 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
John 8:17-18 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

I look forward to you incorporating these scriptures into your spiritual paradigm.

Shawn Henry wrote: ↑October 28th, 2022, 2:19 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 28th, 2022, 1:09 pm 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.

It is a good friend that tells you about the booger hanging from your nose. A bad friend says nothing.

D&C 6:28 And now, behold, I give unto you, and also unto my servant Joseph, the keys of this gift, which shall bring to light this ministry; and in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.
D&C 128:3 that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
2 Nephi 11:3 Wherefore, by the words of three, God hath said, I will establish my word. Nevertheless, God sendeth more witnesses, and he proveth all his words.
2 Corinthians 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.
Matthew 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
John 8:17-18 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

I look forward to you incorporating these scriptures into your spiritual paradigm.

You must not have read my comment about 2 Cor. 13. Paul was the only person making all three of those witnesses.

I should also add, John 8 has no reference to mortal witnesses.

I also don't see how any of this applies to understanding the truth of the Nemenhah Record. According to your logic, I could just as readily say that this record is one more additional witness of truth.

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 28th, 2022, 2:23 pm You must not have read my comment about 2 Cor. 13. Paul was the only person making all three of those witnesses.

I should also add, John 8 has no reference to mortal witnesses.

I also don't see how any of this applies to understanding the truth of the Nemenhah Record. According to your logic, I could just as readily say that this record is one more additional witness of truth.

Do you see how you are grasping at straws here. Sure, Paul is the same witness, but he still testified of the principle. Sure, God the Father was not a mortal when he testified of the son, but mortals in mortality nonetheless heard his voice from the heavens. I've never said this is the standard for measuring the truth of the Nemenhah record, I've said this is the standard that always comes with the word of God. This is the standard for scripture. Math books are true, tax law books are true, so what. There's a lot of truth in CS Lewis's writings, but that doesn't make them scripture.

Also, why are now resorting back to referring to the record as a whole when we just had that back and forth where you maintained that individual principles therein were true and not the record as a whole? (Rhetorical question)

No, you could not use my logic to say that the Nemenhah record is a witness, my logic says every word itself has to have multiple witnesses.

I completely support your claim that some of the principles therein are true and profitable for learning. I am completely against any claim that the record in its entirety is true.

What is really sad here is the fact that I show you the well-established principle of the Law of the Witnesses, a principle you somehow missed every time you read the scriptures (hopefully not because you were reading other records), including a few that are Christ's own words and you still blow it off without any acknowledgement as if you not mentioning it will hide the fact that we have been talking about it this whole time.

Once again, I will ask you directly: What is your understanding of the Savior's teaching that every word is established in the mouth of two or three witnesses?

Shawn Henry wrote: ↑October 28th, 2022, 3:01 pm Do you see how you are grasping at straws here. Sure, Paul is the same witness, but he still testified of the principle. Sure, God the Father was not a mortal when he testified of the son, but mortals in mortality nonetheless heard his voice from the heavens. I've never said this is the standard for measuring the truth of the Nemenhah record, I've said this is the standard that always comes with the word of God. This is the standard for scripture. Math books are true, tax law books are true, so what. There's a lot of truth in CS Lewis's writings, but that doesn't make them scripture.

Also, why are now resorting back to referring to the record as a whole when we just had that back and forth where you maintained that individual principles therein were true and not the record as a whole? (Rhetorical question)

No, you could not use my logic to say that the Nemenhah record is a witness, my logic says every word itself has to have multiple witnesses.

I completely support your claim that some of the principles therein are true and profitable for learning. I am completely against any claim that the record in its entirety is true.

What is really sad here is the fact that I show you the well-established principle of the Law of the Witnesses, a principle you somehow missed every time you read the scriptures (hopefully not because you were reading other records), including a few that are Christ's own words and you still blow it off without any acknowledgement as if you not mentioning it will hide the fact that we have been talking about it this whole time.

Once again, I will ask you directly: What is your understanding of the Savior's teaching that every word is established in the mouth of two or three witnesses?

I'm just referring to anyone who wants to read the book to find truth in it. I've repeatedly stated that I never ask to know if a volume of scripture is true.

I agree with you on the principle of the law of witnesses. Paul, was one witness, just as Samuel, in this record is a witness. The Holy Ghost, above all, would be another witness. I think we are splitting hairs here. You just kept referring to the 3 and 8 witnesses and it seemed like you wanted this same pattern for all other volumes of scripture.

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 28th, 2022, 3:07 pm Paul, was one witness, just as Samuel, in this record is a witness.

Two more points here and I don't really think it is splitting hairs, but rather simply good points to be aware of.

First, those two individuals as well as others, were witnesses at their time, but not to later generations because the chain of custody or statute of limitations, or whatever the language would be, no longer exists. This is why the witnesses are given at the establishment, at the beginning, when the word first comes forth. Paul was a witness then, he is not a witness now, nor can be. Same as Samuel. The only witnesses, with God giving them that witness, meaning an actual calling to be a witness, for the New Testament are the BoM witnesses because the BoM testifies of the Bible. Joseph and Sidney are partial witnesses, though they never finished the New Translation. The witnesses to the Bible will be reestablished once the New Translation is completed. Yes, I know we have the HG to affirm these things and I affirm that is our primary, yet personal, witness.

Secondly, the language of "in the mouth of" is a reference to mortal testimony and would naturally not be language referring to the HG. Yes, we can hear his voice, but the language implies people who open their mouths. So, the HG is in addition to the physical witnesses.

By the way, I don't think it fair for you to say that I seem to want this pattern to continue when it is the Lord repeatedly emphasizing that 'every word' has this pattern.

Shawn Henry wrote: ↑October 28th, 2022, 1:44 pm

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 28th, 2022, 1:24 pm 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.

The above is all you need. It was done, it factually happened. Joseph took out Christ's name. How can you possibly dance around that fact?

Now, if you want to amend your argument by saying that yes, Joseph did it, but it doesn't mean a downgrade or it just administrative, that's fine. Several apologists have tried that approach. Some even try saying that there were just too many churches by that name and so they were trying to avoid confusion. That argument also falls flat because they did this after being in Kirtland for four years and why would Christ's own church be the one to change, it doesn't make sense.

No one is disputing that the name was changed.

What's being disputed is that Christ commanded that his name be removed from the church because the church was being downgraded. There's zero evidence to support this claim. And D&C 115 has the Lord naming his one true church a combination of the two former names, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

So your claim completely falls apart.

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 28th, 2022, 3:07 pm I've repeatedly stated that I never ask to know if a volume of scripture is true.

So you no longer believe in Moroni 10:3-5?

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 28th, 2022, 5:23 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 28th, 2022, 3:07 pm I've repeatedly stated that I never ask to know if a volume of scripture is true.

So you no longer believe in Moroni 10:3-5?

I ask to know if each doctrine, precept, and parable is true. I think Alma would agree, so would Moroni. (Alma 32)

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 28th, 2022, 5:36 pm

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 28th, 2022, 5:23 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 28th, 2022, 3:07 pm I've repeatedly stated that I never ask to know if a volume of scripture is true.

So you no longer believe in Moroni 10:3-5?

I ask to know if each doctrine, precept, and parable is true. I think Alma would agree, so would Moroni. (Alma 32)

So no, then?

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 28th, 2022, 5:41 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 28th, 2022, 5:36 pm

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 28th, 2022, 5:23 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 28th, 2022, 3:07 pm I've repeatedly stated that I never ask to know if a volume of scripture is true.

So you no longer believe in Moroni 10:3-5?

I ask to know if each doctrine, precept, and parable is true. I think Alma would agree, so would Moroni. (Alma 32)

So no, then?

Do you belive Alma 32?

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 27th, 2022, 4:46 pm

innocentoldguy wrote: ↑October 27th, 2022, 4:41 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 27th, 2022, 4:33 pm

innocentoldguy wrote: ↑October 27th, 2022, 4:23 pm

And you take the same perspectives as every other naysayer. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I wish I were wrong. I wish the LDS temple experience didn't include such things. Most members have no idea of the changes that have happened in the temple. Do you know what the signs of the blood penalties were/are?

Yes, I do and I will not discuss them with you on a public forum for obvious reasons.

If they were done away with, then what's the big deal? I'm talking about the blood signs that Brigham implemented, and were removed in the early 1900s. The language was removed, but various hand positions still remain to this day.

Perhaps because I keep my word when I give it?

innocentoldguy wrote: ↑October 28th, 2022, 6:01 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 27th, 2022, 4:46 pm

innocentoldguy wrote: ↑October 27th, 2022, 4:41 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 27th, 2022, 4:33 pm
I wish I were wrong. I wish the LDS temple experience didn't include such things. Most members have no idea of the changes that have happened in the temple. Do you know what the signs of the blood penalties were/are?

Yes, I do and I will not discuss them with you on a public forum for obvious reasons.

If they were done away with, then what's the big deal? I'm talking about the blood signs that Brigham implemented, and were removed in the early 1900s. The language was removed, but various hand positions still remain to this day.

Perhaps because I keep my word when I give it?

I know we could go rounds and rounds on the temple endowment. There is certainly some truth there. But there is quite a bit I cannot agree with. A covenant cannot be made in ignorance. I certainly had no idea what I was doing the first time I went through. I find it so ironic they use the phrase "philosophies of men, mingled w/ scripture" when they should apply it to various aspects of the endowment.

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 28th, 2022, 6:05 pm

innocentoldguy wrote: ↑October 28th, 2022, 6:01 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 27th, 2022, 4:46 pm

innocentoldguy wrote: ↑October 27th, 2022, 4:41 pm

Yes, I do and I will not discuss them with you on a public forum for obvious reasons.

If they were done away with, then what's the big deal? I'm talking about the blood signs that Brigham implemented, and were removed in the early 1900s. The language was removed, but various hand positions still remain to this day.

Perhaps because I keep my word when I give it?

I know we could go rounds and rounds on the temple endowment.

No, we can't, because I won't talk with you about it. Any issues you have in that regard are things you'll have to work out on your own.

innocentoldguy wrote: ↑October 28th, 2022, 6:09 pm No, we can't, because I won't talk with you about it. Any issues you have in that regard are things you'll have to work out on your own.

So, from what I gather, you think you've actually covenanted to not talk about any of the core laws and covenants you made? You can't talk about the law of the gospel/obedience, sacrifice, chastity, or consecration?

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 28th, 2022, 5:16 pm No one is disputing that the name was changed.

What's being disputed is that Christ commanded that his name be removed from the church because the church was being downgraded. There's zero evidence to support this claim. And D&C 115 has the Lord naming his one true church a combination of the two former names, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

So your claim completely falls apart.

The damage is still the same, the saints no longer belonged to Christ's church, whether Christ did it or the highly improbable scenario that Joseph did it on his own.

Any other premise would have to result in Joseph being one incompetent prophet, especially after the BoM's warning about a church without Christ's name in it.

Look again at the verse which you think settles the matter:

"For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

Several points:

1. There is no endorsement from the Lord here, he does not say he is calling it that. He says it shall be called, meaning, it could just as easily be him prophesying that the saints would call it this and there is actual evidence for this; this term was being used before the 1838 revelation so how did the saints get it? It seems that they were uncomfortable with the omission and took it upon themselves to start inserting the name. Unless you want to maintain that JS got a revelation of the name prior to 115, but that revelation was never recorded or talked about.
2. The fact that the Savior didn't restore to them the name, Church of Christ, supports point 1. If the name Church of Christ was given by revelation, we would then need to state why the Lord wouldn't continue that name.
3. The biggest and most supporting piece of evidence is the fact that the Lord told the saints in Nauvoo what they had to do to have the fulness restored "again" unto them. If they didn't lose the fulness for rejecting Zion, then when and why?
4. The expulsion from Kirtland supports the downgrade hypothesis.
5. The revelations not flowing as frequently support the downgrade.
6. The cessation of the New Translations and it not coming forth support the downgrade.
7. Translating papyri from a traveling snake oil salesman is definitely a downgrade.
8. The Seer and the Spokesman no longer working in unity support a downgrade.
9. The formation of the Danites and the saints driving out their own in Far West and devilish Salt Sermon support the downgrade.
10. The violation of the Law of Witnesses support a downgrade, the new "Joseph said" era of receiving doctrine.
11. No revelation added to the D&C for near 200 years support a downgrade.
12. Miracles no longer in the church support a downgrade.
13. Elder Bednar saying have enough faith to not be healed.....well, that's actually evidence of apostacy and blaspheme and idiocy.

Sorry, I was on a roll there, lol.

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 28th, 2022, 5:47 pm

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 28th, 2022, 5:41 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 28th, 2022, 5:36 pm

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 28th, 2022, 5:23 pm

So you no longer believe in Moroni 10:3-5?

I ask to know if each doctrine, precept, and parable is true. I think Alma would agree, so would Moroni. (Alma 32)

So no, then?

Do you belive Alma 32?

Yes, absolutely.

But I don't believe that you understand what Alma was teaching correctly.

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 28th, 2022, 6:16 pm
But I don't believe that you understand what Alma was teaching correctly.

Ditto.

Shawn Henry wrote: ↑October 28th, 2022, 6:13 pm

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 28th, 2022, 5:16 pm No one is disputing that the name was changed.

What's being disputed is that Christ commanded that his name be removed from the church because the church was being downgraded. There's zero evidence to support this claim. And D&C 115 has the Lord naming his one true church a combination of the two former names, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

So your claim completely falls apart.

The damage is still the same, the saints no longer belonged to Christ's church, whether Christ did it or the highly improbable scenario that Joseph did it on his own.

Any other premise would have to result in Joseph being one incompetent prophet, especially after the BoM's warning about a church without Christ's name in it.

Look again at the verse which you think settles the matter:

"For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

Several points:

1. There is no endorsement from the Lord here, he does not say he is calling it that. He says it shall be called, meaning, it could just as easily be him prophesying that the saints would call it this and there is actual evidence for this; this term was being used before the 1838 revelation so how did the saints get it? It seems that they were uncomfortable with the omission and took it upon themselves to start inserting the name. Unless you want to maintain that JS got a revelation of the name prior to 115, but that revelation was never recorded or talked about.

In both verses 3 and 4 the Lord is clearly expressing his will regarding what his church should be called in the last days. Both verses correspond with the Lord's commentary on the matter in the Book of Mormon as well. Also, "shall" means "has a duty to" or "is required to." It is a command. It doesn't mean "could be" or "will be" in any of the contexts the Lord uses it (for example, see the Ten Commandments).

Since the rest of your commentary relied on your false premise in item one, I'll stop here.

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 28th, 2022, 6:22 pm

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 28th, 2022, 6:16 pm
But I don't believe that you understand what Alma was teaching correctly.

Ditto.

Your understanding doesn't even require actually experimenting on the word by planting the seed of faith and nurturing it to see if it grows. My understanding squares with the rest of scripture and the teachings of Joseph Smith, while your's doesn't.

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 28th, 2022, 6:43 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 28th, 2022, 6:22 pm

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 28th, 2022, 6:16 pm
But I don't believe that you understand what Alma was teaching correctly.

Ditto.

Your understanding doesn't even require actually experimenting on the word by planting the seed of faith and nurturing it to see if it grows. My understanding squares with the rest of scripture and the teachings of Joseph Smith, while your's doesn't.

What an asinine comment to make.

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 28th, 2022, 6:46 pm

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 28th, 2022, 6:43 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑October 28th, 2022, 6:22 pm

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 28th, 2022, 6:16 pm
But I don't believe that you understand what Alma was teaching correctly.

Ditto.

Your understanding doesn't even require actually experimenting on the word by planting the seed of faith and nurturing it to see if it grows. My understanding squares with the rest of scripture and the teachings of Joseph Smith, while your's doesn't.

What an asinine comment to make.

I'm sorry that you find the truth to be asinine.

LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 28th, 2022, 7:15 pm I'm sorry that you find the truth to be asinine.

Start at about 1:55. I've learned a good lesson from him. Basically, this is it for you and me on the forum. This back and forth really is toxic. I wish you well. And when I say "God bless", I really do mean it.

innocentoldguy wrote: ↑October 28th, 2022, 6:38 pm Also, "shall" means "has a duty to" or "is required to."

Supposing we agree on this, you still have an adequately insufficient explanation.

1. Why the deviation from the original name? Was the Lord unsure of himself?

2. If this is the lord first mentioning the name, why do we have saints using this name prior to the revelation? Where did they get it?

It is therefore apparent that because the saints had already taken it upon themselves to call themselves by this name that the Lord was simply honoring their agency.

Way to avoid the elephant in the room, by the way. Care to elaborate as to why Joseph after translating 3 Nephi would even dare to take the Lord's name out of the church?