LDS Freedom Forum

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 29th, 2023, 7:03 am I’m beginning to wonder if you have actually read section 124.

I am beginning to wonder if you care for the truth.

Telavian wrote: ↑September 29th, 2023, 7:05 am

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 29th, 2023, 7:03 am I’m beginning to wonder if you have actually read section 124.

I am beginning to wonder if you care for the truth.

That’s a question that you really ought to be asking yourself as your story keeps changing and the narrative you are pushing completely contradicts the word of the Lord.

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 29th, 2023, 7:07 am

Telavian wrote: ↑September 29th, 2023, 7:05 am

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 29th, 2023, 7:03 am I’m beginning to wonder if you have actually read section 124.

I am beginning to wonder if you care for the truth.

That’s a question that you really ought to be asking yourself as your story keeps changing and the narrative you are pushing completely contradicts the word of the Lord.

I love how you are accusing me of changing the story even though you are the one doing so.

God said they needed to build the Nauvoo temple, but you just changed that to a baptismal font.
I showed how the Missouri members committed atrocities, but you changed it to "defending themselves".
I showed clear examples of violence and you changed them to "bitter enemies" of the church.
I showed how God said do this or you will be rejected and cast out and you changed the casting out as a blessing.

Can you show one example of me changing my position? I just showed 4 examples of you changing yours.

Telavian wrote: ↑September 29th, 2023, 7:14 am

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 29th, 2023, 7:07 am

Telavian wrote: ↑September 29th, 2023, 7:05 am

I am beginning to wonder if you care for the truth.

That’s a question that you really ought to be asking yourself as your story keeps changing and the narrative you are pushing completely contradicts the word of the Lord.

I love how you are accusing me of changing the story even though you are the one doing so.

God said they needed to build the Nauvoo temple, but you just changed that to a baptismal font.
I showed how the Missouri members committed atrocities, but you changed it to "defending themselves".
I showed clear examples of violence and you changed them to "bitter enemies" of the church.
I showed how God said do this or you will be rejected and cast out and you changed the casting out as a blessing.

Can you show one example of me changing my position? I just showed 4 examples of you changing yours.

None of these things are examples of me changing my story.

As for you, first you claim that the church was rejected in 1834 when the name of the church was changed to the Church of the Latter Day Saints. Then you reject section 115 on the grounds that it was received in 1838 when members of the church defended themselves against mob violence and some took things too far. Next you claim that the church you already claimed was rejected is rejected again for not building the Nauvoo temple.

The very verses you quoted in section 124 to support this refer to the requirement to build the temple with the baptismal font. And other verses in the section make it even more clear. You also haven’t addressed God referring to the saints as his church multiple times in that section which proves your claim that the church was rejected before Nauvoo false. And you ignore what the Lord said in the section about why the saints were driven from Missouri, which completely contradicts your narrative. And then there also the historical fact that the church did build the Nauvoo temple with the baptismal font as commanded by God.

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 29th, 2023, 7:29 am None of these things are examples of me changing my story.

As for you, first you claim that the church was rejected in 1834 when the name of the church was changed to the Church of the Latter Day Saints. Then you reject section 115 on the grounds that it was received in 1838 when members of the church defended themselves against mob violence and some took things to far. Next you claim that the church you already claimed was completely rejected is rejected again for not building the Nauvoo temple.

The very verses you quoted in section 124 to support this refer to the requirement to build the temple with the baptismal font. And other verses in the section make it even more clear. You also haven’t addressed God referring to the saints as his church multiple times in that section which proves your claim that the church was rejected before Nauvoo false. And you ignore what the Lord said in the section about why the saints were driven from Nauvoo, which completely contradicts your narrative. And then there also the historical fact that the church did build the Nauvoo temple with the baptismal font as commanded by God.

I could be wrong. Please show me one historical document that indicates the Nauvoo temple was completed.
If God asks you to clean your room, is it okay to only clean the corner?

LDS.org, "Though portions of the temple were unfinished, the entire temple was dedicated on May 1, 1846."
Wiki, "Most of the Latter Day Saints left Nauvoo, beginning in February 1846, but a small crew remained to finish the temple's first floor, so that it could be formally dedicated. Once the first floor was finished with pulpits and benches, the building was finally dedicated in private services on April 30, 1846, and in public services on 1 May."

Telavian wrote: ↑September 29th, 2023, 7:45 am

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 29th, 2023, 7:29 am None of these things are examples of me changing my story.

As for you, first you claim that the church was rejected in 1834 when the name of the church was changed to the Church of the Latter Day Saints. Then you reject section 115 on the grounds that it was received in 1838 when members of the church defended themselves against mob violence and some took things to far. Next you claim that the church you already claimed was completely rejected is rejected again for not building the Nauvoo temple.

The very verses you quoted in section 124 to support this refer to the requirement to build the temple with the baptismal font. And other verses in the section make it even more clear. You also haven’t addressed God referring to the saints as his church multiple times in that section which proves your claim that the church was rejected before Nauvoo false. And you ignore what the Lord said in the section about why the saints were driven from Nauvoo, which completely contradicts your narrative. And then there also the historical fact that the church did build the Nauvoo temple with the baptismal font as commanded by God.

I could be wrong. Please show me one historical document that indicates the Nauvoo temple was completed.
If God asks you to clean your room, is it okay to only clean the corner?

LDS.org, "Though portions of the temple were unfinished, the entire temple was dedicated on May 1, 1846."
Wiki, "Most of the Latter Day Saints left Nauvoo, beginning in February 1846, but a small crew remained to finish the temple's first floor, so that it could be formally dedicated. Once the first floor was finished with pulpits and benches, the building was finally dedicated in private services on April 30, 1846, and in public services on 1 May."

Address the other points I made and then we can discuss whether the requirement to build the temple with the baptismal font also meant that the interior had to been completely finished the way the saints had originally planned it they would be rejected.

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 29th, 2023, 7:55 am Address the other points I made and then we can discuss whether the requirement to build the temple with the baptismal font also meant that the interior had to been completely finished the way the saints had originally planned it they would be rejected.

This is the same tactic you pulled in our other discussion.

What other points?

Telavian wrote: ↑September 29th, 2023, 7:59 am
What other points?

You serious? You need me to copy and paste my second to last comment?

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 29th, 2023, 8:24 am You serious? You need me to copy and paste my second to last comment?

Yes please. I am not as smart as you.

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑September 29th, 2023, 7:03 am

SJR3t2 wrote: ↑September 29th, 2023, 1:16 am D&C 121 AMEN to the priesthood of the man that takes to hid his sins. LDS / Brighamite leaders have been doing this for a very long time.

JS Last dream is a prophecy of a very bleak state of the restoration. https://seekingyhwh.org/2023/07/12/jose ... ast-dream/

Thanks for sharing.

Joseph had two dreams in close succession right before they were murdered, and a third not long before that. I believe we can learn a great deal from all of them: https://www.reluctantwatchman.com/josephs-last-dreams

I agree about the dreams. I just have put a lot more thought into the barn one than the others.

Telavian wrote: ↑September 29th, 2023, 9:24 am

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 29th, 2023, 8:24 am You serious? You need me to copy and paste my second to last comment?

Yes please. I am not as smart as you.

I don’t know why you keep feeling the need to be so snarky. You know you’re avoiding my counterpoints and moving the goal posts. But here there are one more time:

"First you claim that the church was rejected in 1834 when the name of the church was changed to the Church of the Latter Day Saints. Then you reject section 115 on the grounds that it was received in 1838 when members of the church defended themselves against mob violence and some took things too far. Next you claim that the church you already claimed was rejected is rejected again for not building the Nauvoo temple.

The very verses you quoted in section 124 to support this refer to the requirement to build the temple with the baptismal font. And other verses in the section make it even more clear. You also haven’t addressed God referring to the saints as his church multiple times in that section which proves your claim that the church was rejected before Nauvoo false. And you ignore what the Lord said in the section about why the saints were driven from Missouri, which completely contradicts your narrative. And then there also the historical fact that the church did build the Nauvoo temple with the baptismal font as commanded by God.”

If you want to address these points, then we can move on to the issue of whether or not the Lord required that the interior of the Nauvoo temple be completely finished the way the Saints had originally intended or else they would be rejected.

Totally true. I am snarky sometimes and should be more respectful.
I did however address each one of them individually before, but can do it again.

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 29th, 2023, 11:39 am "First you claim that the church was rejected in 1834 when the name of the church was changed to the Church of the Latter Day Saints. Then you reject section 115 on the grounds that it was received in 1838 when members of the church defended themselves against mob violence and some took things too far. Next you claim that the church you already claimed was rejected is rejected again for not building the Nauvoo temple.

Is it not possible to be rejected more than once? The Israelites were rejected by God, however Moses offered himself as an intermidiary for them. However in the Bible they were rejected numerous times. In our time they were rejected multiple times also. They were rejected for failing to live the higher law, then God said in 1837, "something new must be done for the salvation of His Church". This was the start of the foreign missions to graft a new branch into the tree (Jacob 5). Nauvoo was another chance and they decided to build a Masonic lodge instead of the temple.

I don't see the confusion here.

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 29th, 2023, 11:39 am The very verses you quoted in section 124 to support this refer to the requirement to build the temple with the baptismal font. And other verses in the section make it even more clear. You also haven’t addressed God referring to the saints as his church multiple times in that section which proves your claim that the church was rejected before Nauvoo false. And you ignore what the Lord said in the section about why the saints were driven from Missouri, which completely contradicts your narrative. And then there also the historical fact that the church did build the Nauvoo temple with the baptismal font as commanded by God.”

This sounds similar to the first point. However not sure what you are meaning here. 124 is pretty clear though:
"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."

They were moved so what does that mean?

You may be referring to D&C 124:49 which is a common rebuttal. However, do you really think that applies? Did they go with all their might if they were building a masonic lodge instead? Did their enemies stop them when they controlled the town and militia? If God gave them a repreive then where is the revelation and why continue to build the temple at all?

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 29th, 2023, 11:39 am If you want to address these points, then we can move on to the issue of whether or not the Lord required that the interior of the Nauvoo temple be completely finished the way the Saints had originally intended or else they would be rejected.

I did. Far more than the "interior" was left unfinished.

Telavian wrote: ↑September 29th, 2023, 12:16 pm Totally true. I am snarky sometimes and should be more respectful.
I did however address each one of them individually before, but can do it again.

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 29th, 2023, 11:39 am "First you claim that the church was rejected in 1834 when the name of the church was changed to the Church of the Latter Day Saints. Then you reject section 115 on the grounds that it was received in 1838 when members of the church defended themselves against mob violence and some took things too far. Next you claim that the church you already claimed was rejected is rejected again for not building the Nauvoo temple.

Is it not possible to be rejected more than once? The Israelites were rejected by God, however Moses offered himself as an intermidiary for them. However in the Bible they were rejected numerous times. In our time they were rejected multiple times also. They were rejected for failing to live the higher law, then God said in 1837, "something new must be done for the salvation of His Church". This was the start of the foreign missions to graft a new branch into the tree (Jacob 5). Nauvoo was another chance and they decided to build a Masonic lodge instead of the temple.

I don't see the confusion here.

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 29th, 2023, 11:39 am The very verses you quoted in section 124 to support this refer to the requirement to build the temple with the baptismal font. And other verses in the section make it even more clear. You also haven’t addressed God referring to the saints as his church multiple times in that section which proves your claim that the church was rejected before Nauvoo false. And you ignore what the Lord said in the section about why the saints were driven from Missouri, which completely contradicts your narrative. And then there also the historical fact that the church did build the Nauvoo temple with the baptismal font as commanded by God.”

This sounds similar to the first point. However not sure what you are meaning here. 124 is pretty clear though:
"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."

They were moved so what does that mean?

You may be referring to D&C 124:49 which is a common rebuttal. However, do you really think that applies? Did they go with all their might if they were building a masonic lodge instead? Did their enemies stop them when they controlled the town and militia? If God gave them a repreive then where is the revelation and why continue to build the temple at all?

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 29th, 2023, 11:39 am If you want to address these points, then we can move on to the issue of whether or not the Lord required that the interior of the Nauvoo temple be completely finished the way the Saints had originally intended or else they would be rejected.

I did. Far more than the "interior" was left unfinished.

You’re getting closer to addressing my points, but we’re still not there yet.

Here, let’s break it down.

1) You claimed that Christ rejected the church in 1834, when the name of the church was changed to the Church of the Latter Day Saints.

First problem. There was no revelation from God instructing the name change or stating that the church was no longer his. Instead he kept on referring to it as his church.

Second problem. You reject the Lord referring to his church as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because this revelation wasn’t added to the D&C until 1876 and it was received in 1838 during the Missouri war when then Saints defended themselves against mob violence and some took things too far.

However, Joseph Smith referred to the Saints as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day saints following this revelation, so he obviously considered it valid. And you accept section 124, which came even later. So you are picking and choosing which revelations to accept solely on what you believe supports your narrative.

You haven’t addressed this.

2) It gets even worse for your claim that the church was rejected in 1834 and never reinstated when the Lord referred to the saints as his church in section 124.

So the Lord calls the saints his church and names his church The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, but you claim that he had rejected it and it was no longer his church.

Your claim has been proven false. And you haven’t addressed this.

3) You claimed that the Saints committed major atrocities which is why they were kicked out of Missouri and why they couldn’t have possibly still been the Lord’s church. Yet the Lord explains exactly why they were driven from Missouri in section 124 and it’s not at all what you claim.

You haven’t addressed this.

4) You claimed that the warning in section 124 that the saints could be rejected had nothing to do with the ordinance of baptisms for the dead and building a temple with a font to perform this ordinance. Yet this is precisely what section 124 says. You even quoted where it says this.

You haven’t addressed this either.

5) You claim that they church could have been rejected more than once like the Israelites of old.

Yet, you haven’t provided any evidence that the Israelites were rejected multiple times and you don’t believe that the church was accepted again by section 115. So how could a church that was rejected be referred to as the Lord’s church and then rejected again, if it was never his church again?

That’s illogical.

6) You claim that the temple was never built because the interior wasn’t finished all of the way before it was dedicated and used to administer the endowment to the saints. Yet you have not shown that the Lord expected that the interior be completely finished to consider the temple built.

You also have not shown that "not being moved out of their place” referred to not having to physically move again instead of not being rejected as the Lord’s church and spiritual moved out of their place.

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 29th, 2023, 10:58 pm You’re getting closer to addressing my points, but we’re still not there yet.

Thank you so much. This conversation is as pointless as the last one where you ignored everything I wrote and then said I was ignoring you.
You are picking insanely specific nuances and then claim I am not addressing those so you won't address anything I write.

I am done with this and you frankly. Nothing I will ever write to you will ever be enough.

Telavian wrote: ↑September 29th, 2023, 11:14 pm

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 29th, 2023, 10:58 pm You’re getting closer to addressing my points, but we’re still not there yet.

Thank you so much. This conversation is as pointless as the last one where you ignored everything I wrote and then said I was ignoring you.
You are picking insanely specific nuances and then claim I am not addressing those so you won't address anything I write.

I am done with this and you frankly. Nothing I will ever write to you will ever be enough.

I’ve addressed everything you wrote. These aren’t "insanely specific nuances," they’re significant issues with your claims. If you are truly interested in the truth, instead of defending the narrative you’ve settled on at all costs, you would address these issues instead of ignoring them.

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 30th, 2023, 7:08 am I’ve addressed everything you wrote. These aren’t "insanely specific nuances," they’re significant issues with your claims. If you are truly interested in the truth, instead of defending the narrative you’ve settled on at all costs, you would address these issues instead of ignoring them.

Claiming the Israelites were not rejected multiple times is where I draw the line on the absurdity of this conversation. It is like speaking to a wall.
Do you even read the scriptures? It seems you proof-text them exceptionally well though.

Telavian wrote: ↑September 30th, 2023, 8:07 am

Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: ↑September 30th, 2023, 7:08 am I’ve addressed everything you wrote. These aren’t "insanely specific nuances," they’re significant issues with your claims. If you are truly interested in the truth, instead of defending the narrative you’ve settled on at all costs, you would address these issues instead of ignoring them.

Claiming the Israelites were not rejected multiple times is where I draw the line on the absurdity of this conversation. It is like speaking to a wall.
Do you even read the scriptures? It seems you proof-text them exceptionally well though.

You seem very angry and hurt right now. And I’m sorry for that. If you decide you actually want to address the issues I raised with your claims instead of attacking me, I’ll be happy to continue the conversation. Until then, I’m out.

Finally!

Now back to our regularly scheduled thread.

Can anybody believe that the church leaders are not “the church”?

Atrasado wrote: ↑September 28th, 2023, 4:57 pm The Church was meant to be true, but it's had some problems. Why? I would think it's three things. Infiltration by cabalists (tares). Problems with the members' worldliness. Problems with the leaders.

When did it start? A long time ago, I think.

What do about it? Wait on the Lord. Call on his holy name. Do the best that we know how.

The Lord doesn’t want us to passively wait on Him. We must organize, Zion must be built.

Blue Marble wrote: ↑September 30th, 2023, 8:50 am

Atrasado wrote: ↑September 28th, 2023, 4:57 pm The Church was meant to be true, but it's had some problems. Why? I would think it's three things. Infiltration by cabalists (tares). Problems with the members' worldliness. Problems with the leaders.

When did it start? A long time ago, I think.

What do about it? Wait on the Lord. Call on his holy name. Do the best that we know how.

The Lord doesn’t want us to passively wait on Him. We must organize, Zion must be built.

And how do you suggest we do that? W/in the construct of the LDS org? Outside of the org?

I do believe many people are “organizing”, just not beholden to supposed keys and authority.

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑September 30th, 2023, 9:14 am

Blue Marble wrote: ↑September 30th, 2023, 8:50 am

Atrasado wrote: ↑September 28th, 2023, 4:57 pm The Church was meant to be true, but it's had some problems. Why? I would think it's three things. Infiltration by cabalists (tares). Problems with the members' worldliness. Problems with the leaders.

When did it start? A long time ago, I think.

What do about it? Wait on the Lord. Call on his holy name. Do the best that we know how.

The Lord doesn’t want us to passively wait on Him. We must organize, Zion must be built.

And how do you suggest we do that? W/in the construct of the LDS org? Outside of the org?

I do believe many people are “organizing”, just not beholden to supposed keys and authority.

In the church, out of the church, everywhere.

Church leadership has abandoned AoF 10, far as I can tell, but the mission is as important as ever.

Blue Marble wrote: ↑September 30th, 2023, 9:20 am

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑September 30th, 2023, 9:14 am

Blue Marble wrote: ↑September 30th, 2023, 8:50 am

The Lord doesn’t want us to passively wait on Him. We must organize, Zion must be built.

And how do you suggest we do that? W/in the construct of the LDS org? Outside of the org?

I do believe many people are “organizing”, just not beholden to supposed keys and authority.

In the church, out of the church, everywhere.

Church leadership has abandoned AoF 10, far as I can tell, but the mission is as important as ever.

I honestly don’t know if it can be done within the church, given the direction they are headed. You cannot voice a dissenting vote, without being kicked out of the boat. Literally.

But yes, I do believe that there is great strength and power in gathering with good honest people who love the Lord.

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑September 30th, 2023, 9:23 am I honestly don’t know if it can be done within the church, given the direction they are headed. You cannot voice a dissenting vote, without being kicked out of the boat. Literally.

But yes, I do believe that there is great strength and power in gathering with good honest people who love the Lord.

It is like any other political movement. At first there are a few staunch "crazies", however after a while and enough people join in then it becomes obvious that a change needs to happen.

Blue Marble wrote: ↑September 30th, 2023, 8:50 am

Atrasado wrote: ↑September 28th, 2023, 4:57 pm The Church was meant to be true, but it's had some problems. Why? I would think it's three things. Infiltration by cabalists (tares). Problems with the members' worldliness. Problems with the leaders.

When did it start? A long time ago, I think.

What do about it? Wait on the Lord. Call on his holy name. Do the best that we know how.

The Lord doesn’t want us to passively wait on Him. We must organize, Zion must be built.

Well, we can't be passive, but we must have his direction through his servant. I don't see his servant on the scene, at least not yet as prophesied in D&C 85 and Isaiah. So, I do the best I can and wait on him.

Waiting on the Lord takes patience, persistence, and a willingness to do whatever the Lord tells us to do. I would hold off on organizing, because if the Lord isn't the one organizing us then it won't do us any good. [Edit] At least I would hold off on any formal organizing.

Blue Marble wrote: ↑September 30th, 2023, 8:50 am

Atrasado wrote: ↑September 28th, 2023, 4:57 pm The Church was meant to be true, but it's had some problems. Why? I would think it's three things. Infiltration by cabalists (tares). Problems with the members' worldliness. Problems with the leaders.

When did it start? A long time ago, I think.

What do about it? Wait on the Lord. Call on his holy name. Do the best that we know how.

The Lord doesn’t want us to passively wait on Him. We must organize, Zion must be built.

I struggle with the balance between what we are to do and what God does for us.

Over and over the Lord gives freely, "consider the lilies of the field" "manna from heaven" "grace" "His yoke is easy and his burden is light.". But then in application I hear so many say how hard we must work and sacrifice.

There have definitely been times when I have pushed and pushed only to have the Lord kindly show me that it was -all- Him.

I do believe we are to act instead of being acted upon. But sometimes the work is in what we don't do, but endure. That is the trial. We endured in not taking the shot. We endured in not changing our faith with the LDS church, but continuing in the teaching of Christ.

When my husband lost his job last year I got a job. The Lord told me to quit, I couldn't believe that was right. So he made me sick with an illness that left me, after over week of not being able to leave bed, to be able to be around my house and care for my kids, but not drive or look at a screen as needed for my work. I had to quit. For 9 months the Lord miraculously paid our bills (not the church or gov welfare) just money deposited in our accounts as needed. He also hade stop paying tithing as the LDS church says about 5 years ago.

Each of these has been a do less, not do more, and let God unfold his plan.

I have wanted for some time to build Zion. In the end, it was the Lord who miraculously found us some like minded people. And the harder I pushed, the more the Lord told me to rest.

Even recently I was trying to correct health problems and lose weight and the Lord to me to stop. And just live and he would fix it. Once I stopped trying, most of the health effects left and my weight has leveled off. Not exactly where I want to be, but the Spirit whispers their is purpose. So I trust Him.

Does the Lord want us to passively wait on him? Does the Lord want us to organize? Does the Lord want us to build Zion?

We each have to ask Him that for ourselves, but right now, the Lord is telling me to be still and know that He is God. To see the majesty of the Lord's power unfold.

I can respect that other may get a different answer.