All is not well but I will stay anyway.

[JohnnyL]

It's implied. Unless your "I'll wait for God" means you won't sustain these men. If you don't sustain them, you won't be a very good global citizen. You will lose your temple blessings. To sustain means you obey them, that you bind yourself to them. At least that's what the LDS church teaches, you may disagree.

Implied? Serious?? I'm sad you don't know me yet. ;(

"Satanists could be running the Church." vs. "There are many hypocrites and liars who have denied the faith and spend much time denouncing the leaders of the Church." I'm quite sure of the second (I see it every day here on the board), but not the first.

Yes, I do hear/ see a few things off to me every once in a while, just like with most members--including myself. (Do you understand the reason we need the Spirit?) They already spoke on NOT getting involved in non-Church-related parts of our lives, but I guess most people either didn't hear it or didn't remember it (like all those claims in the thread like "NOTHING has been said about food storage for years.").

If God were to tell me Satanists were running the Church (which he wouldn't, there wouldn't be a majority, of that I have a testimony), and to not sustain them, do you think I would?

Why would anyone have to sustain Satanists to go to the temple?
Though I know many here who don't pay tithing or fast offerings or do so "in their own way", and/or don't believe that the 15 are PSR's, and/or don't believe in the temple/ priesthood keys/ priesthood/ etc., etc., yet still have not come clean with God or their Church leaders and/or are not willing to have a membership council and/or still attend the temple. Wolves in sheep's clothing, indeed.

I'm figuring (please don't misread "implying") that if I were to know, some of the 15 would know, too. Nevertheless, I would write a letter explaining things as I see them.

Sustaining a prophet when acting as a prophet, or sustaining a prophet when acting as a man?

I believe that part of sustaining means to impart knowledge in a direct and courteous way about possible conflicts, reasons, problems, etc. (which I have done).

How would anyone know the Church leaders were Satanists? The Holy Ghost?? Or the leaders' fruits that one sees and of course knows the intentions behind? Could you imagine such someone crossing to the spirit world and finding out they not only were they wrong, but would be judged with the same judgment, meted out according to their measurement?

The simple fact that you think God wouldn’t tell you something is, well, telling. You have what I call a fractional belief system. You believe what you want to believe, which only aligns with partial aspects of church doctrine. The church does not teach your definition of sustain. That’s my point. They teach that you obey them, that to sustain them is an oath-like indication that their calling as prophet is binding upon you. That’s a bunch of horse manure if I ever heard it. It completely contradicts Christ’s doctrine.

So in a way, I agree with you, we should be cafeteria mormons. But the church teaches that you should not be.

The SRA was an example, but in reality, there’s a lot to digest if you are willing to get over your cognitive dissonance. Which you admitted yourself that you have. “The Lord would never…”

BTW, you can write all the letters you want, it won’t amount to a hill of beans. The leaders only listen to members when it is to their advantage and their authority isn’t threatened.

I’m not saying that you should leave the church. That’s between you and God. What we’re talking about is a line in the sand. The church has created a system that rejects people who have sincere honest questions.

You are so grasping at straw, lol. I don't think you even understand what you are saying. The blind do not see, and the deaf do not hear. I guess I stirred up the spirit of Satan.

"...their calling as prophet is binding on you." Explain, please.

Once more, you are inferring, even though I am clear that I am not implying (refer back to the first sentence in this post). Please show where I said that "we should be cafeteria mormons".

""if you are willing to get over your cognitive dissonance. Which you admitted yourself that you have." I admitted cognitive dissonance?? Explain, please.

You wrote: "I’m not saying that you should leave the church."
I wrote: "Though I know many here who don't pay tithing or fast offerings or do so "in their own way", and/or don't believe that the 15 are PSR's, and/or don't believe in the temple/ priesthood keys/ priesthood/ etc., etc., yet still have not come clean with God or their Church leaders and/or are not willing to have a membership council and/or still attend the temple. Wolves in sheep's clothing, indeed."

BTW, I have written--more than once. Yes, some letters might not be heard/ "helpful"--but I can attest (and I seriously doubt you can, because you'd have to write and send one first) that some are.

[Shawn Henry]

Get tired all you want, it comes from the BofM "save two churches only" and "whomsover does not belong to the church of the Lamb, belongs to the great whore" . But I guess if you reject mormonism all together....

And therein lies the error. This church ain’t the church of the lamb. The church of the lamb are those who have received the baptism of the Holy Ghost, which is spread through all sects…

All have the freedom to look at things through their own dark glasses.

One's glass would be dark indeed if the meaning of "all" is misinterpreted.

"Yea, they have all gone out of the away; they have become corrupted."

Or the meaning of "every one".

..."and your churches, yea, even every one, have become polluted".

[Reluctant Watchman]

Implied? Serious?? I'm sad you don't know me yet. ;(

"Satanists could be running the Church." vs. "There are many hypocrites and liars who have denied the faith and spend much time denouncing the leaders of the Church." I'm quite sure of the second (I see it every day here on the board), but not the first.

Yes, I do hear/ see a few things off to me every once in a while, just like with most members--including myself. (Do you understand the reason we need the Spirit?) They already spoke on NOT getting involved in non-Church-related parts of our lives, but I guess most people either didn't hear it or didn't remember it (like all those claims in the thread like "NOTHING has been said about food storage for years.").

If God were to tell me Satanists were running the Church (which he wouldn't, there wouldn't be a majority, of that I have a testimony), and to not sustain them, do you think I would?

Why would anyone have to sustain Satanists to go to the temple?
Though I know many here who don't pay tithing or fast offerings or do so "in their own way", and/or don't believe that the 15 are PSR's, and/or don't believe in the temple/ priesthood keys/ priesthood/ etc., etc., yet still have not come clean with God or their Church leaders and/or are not willing to have a membership council and/or still attend the temple. Wolves in sheep's clothing, indeed.

I'm figuring (please don't misread "implying") that if I were to know, some of the 15 would know, too. Nevertheless, I would write a letter explaining things as I see them.

Sustaining a prophet when acting as a prophet, or sustaining a prophet when acting as a man?

I believe that part of sustaining means to impart knowledge in a direct and courteous way about possible conflicts, reasons, problems, etc. (which I have done).

How would anyone know the Church leaders were Satanists? The Holy Ghost?? Or the leaders' fruits that one sees and of course knows the intentions behind? Could you imagine such someone crossing to the spirit world and finding out they not only were they wrong, but would be judged with the same judgment, meted out according to their measurement?

The simple fact that you think God wouldn’t tell you something is, well, telling. You have what I call a fractional belief system. You believe what you want to believe, which only aligns with partial aspects of church doctrine. The church does not teach your definition of sustain. That’s my point. They teach that you obey them, that to sustain them is an oath-like indication that their calling as prophet is binding upon you. That’s a bunch of horse manure if I ever heard it. It completely contradicts Christ’s doctrine.

So in a way, I agree with you, we should be cafeteria mormons. But the church teaches that you should not be.

The SRA was an example, but in reality, there’s a lot to digest if you are willing to get over your cognitive dissonance. Which you admitted yourself that you have. “The Lord would never…”

BTW, you can write all the letters you want, it won’t amount to a hill of beans. The leaders only listen to members when it is to their advantage and their authority isn’t threatened.

I’m not saying that you should leave the church. That’s between you and God. What we’re talking about is a line in the sand. The church has created a system that rejects people who have sincere honest questions.

You are so grasping at straw, lol. I don't think you even understand what you are saying. The blind do not see, and the deaf do not hear. I guess I stirred up the spirit of Satan.

"...their calling as prophet is binding on you." Explain, please.

Once more, you are inferring, even though I am clear that I am not implying (refer back to the first sentence in this post). Please show where I said that "we should be cafeteria mormons".

""if you are willing to get over your cognitive dissonance. Which you admitted yourself that you have." I admitted cognitive dissonance?? Explain, please.

You wrote: "I’m not saying that you should leave the church."
I wrote: "Though I know many here who don't pay tithing or fast offerings or do so "in their own way", and/or don't believe that the 15 are PSR's, and/or don't believe in the temple/ priesthood keys/ priesthood/ etc., etc., yet still have not come clean with God or their Church leaders and/or are not willing to have a membership council and/or still attend the temple. Wolves in sheep's clothing, indeed."

BTW, I have written--more than once. Yes, some letters might not be heard/ "helpful"--but I can attest (and I seriously doubt you can, because you'd have to write and send one first) that some are.

Oh, I thought you knew the church doctrine about sustain. Silly me.

Russell Nelson has taught that to sustain them “is a personal commitment that we will do our utmost to uphold their prophetic priorities. Our sustaining is an oath-like indication that we recognize their calling as a prophet to be legitimate and binding upon us.”

And from your lesson manual, currently on LDS.org: “ Sustaining leaders involves more than just a raised hand—it means that we stand behind them, pray for them, accept assignments and callings from them, obey their counsel, and refrain from criticizing them.”

[JohnnyL]

The simple fact that you think God wouldn’t tell you something is, well, telling. You have what I call a fractional belief system. You believe what you want to believe, which only aligns with partial aspects of church doctrine. The church does not teach your definition of sustain. That’s my point. They teach that you obey them, that to sustain them is an oath-like indication that their calling as prophet is binding upon you. That’s a bunch of horse manure if I ever heard it. It completely contradicts Christ’s doctrine.

So in a way, I agree with you, we should be cafeteria mormons. But the church teaches that you should not be.

The SRA was an example, but in reality, there’s a lot to digest if you are willing to get over your cognitive dissonance. Which you admitted yourself that you have. “The Lord would never…”

BTW, you can write all the letters you want, it won’t amount to a hill of beans. The leaders only listen to members when it is to their advantage and their authority isn’t threatened.

I’m not saying that you should leave the church. That’s between you and God. What we’re talking about is a line in the sand. The church has created a system that rejects people who have sincere honest questions.

You are so grasping at straw, lol. I don't think you even understand what you are saying. The blind do not see, and the deaf do not hear. I guess I stirred up the spirit of Satan.

"...their calling as prophet is binding on you." Explain, please.

Once more, you are inferring, even though I am clear that I am not implying (refer back to the first sentence in this post). Please show where I said that "we should be cafeteria mormons".

""if you are willing to get over your cognitive dissonance. Which you admitted yourself that you have." I admitted cognitive dissonance?? Explain, please.

You wrote: "I’m not saying that you should leave the church."
I wrote: "Though I know many here who don't pay tithing or fast offerings or do so "in their own way", and/or don't believe that the 15 are PSR's, and/or don't believe in the temple/ priesthood keys/ priesthood/ etc., etc., yet still have not come clean with God or their Church leaders and/or are not willing to have a membership council and/or still attend the temple. Wolves in sheep's clothing, indeed."

BTW, I have written--more than once. Yes, some letters might not be heard/ "helpful"--but I can attest (and I seriously doubt you can, because you'd have to write and send one first) that some are.

Oh, I thought you knew the church doctrine about sustain. Silly me.

Russell Nelson has taught that to sustain them “is a personal commitment that we will do our utmost to uphold their prophetic priorities. Our sustaining is an oath-like indication that we recognize their calling as a prophet to be legitimate and binding upon us.”

And from your lesson manual, currently on LDS.org: “ Sustaining leaders involves more than just a raised hand—it means that we stand behind them, pray for them, accept assignments and callings from them, obey their counsel, and refrain from criticizing them.”

Hmm... All that, and... "sustain"??

Here, let's take a look at this quote: “is a personal commitment that we will do our utmost to uphold their prophetic priorities." You might believe that means tell us to get vaccines, but I don't believe telling me to get a "health shot" is one of his "prophetic priorities".

[Reluctant Watchman]

You are so grasping at straw, lol. I don't think you even understand what you are saying. The blind do not see, and the deaf do not hear. I guess I stirred up the spirit of Satan.

"...their calling as prophet is binding on you." Explain, please.

Once more, you are inferring, even though I am clear that I am not implying (refer back to the first sentence in this post). Please show where I said that "we should be cafeteria mormons".

""if you are willing to get over your cognitive dissonance. Which you admitted yourself that you have." I admitted cognitive dissonance?? Explain, please.

You wrote: "I’m not saying that you should leave the church."
I wrote: "Though I know many here who don't pay tithing or fast offerings or do so "in their own way", and/or don't believe that the 15 are PSR's, and/or don't believe in the temple/ priesthood keys/ priesthood/ etc., etc., yet still have not come clean with God or their Church leaders and/or are not willing to have a membership council and/or still attend the temple. Wolves in sheep's clothing, indeed."

BTW, I have written--more than once. Yes, some letters might not be heard/ "helpful"--but I can attest (and I seriously doubt you can, because you'd have to write and send one first) that some are.

Oh, I thought you knew the church doctrine about sustain. Silly me.

Russell Nelson has taught that to sustain them “is a personal commitment that we will do our utmost to uphold their prophetic priorities. Our sustaining is an oath-like indication that we recognize their calling as a prophet to be legitimate and binding upon us.”

And from your lesson manual, currently on LDS.org: “ Sustaining leaders involves more than just a raised hand—it means that we stand behind them, pray for them, accept assignments and callings from them, obey their counsel, and refrain from criticizing them.”

Hmm... All that, and... "sustain"??

Here, let's take a look at this quote: “is a personal commitment that we will do our utmost to uphold their prophetic priorities." You might believe that means tell us to get vaccines, but I don't believe telling me to get a "health shot" is one of his "prophetic priorities".

Oh, so being selective is how you’re gonna play this game.

Many leaders don’t see it the way you do. My former stake president called me to repentance over the dang shot. Twice in fact.

Regardless, you have to be a gymnast to justify the doctrine of the church, as you so aptly noted.

[JohnnyL]

Oh, I thought you knew the church doctrine about sustain. Silly me.

Russell Nelson has taught that to sustain them “is a personal commitment that we will do our utmost to uphold their prophetic priorities. Our sustaining is an oath-like indication that we recognize their calling as a prophet to be legitimate and binding upon us.”

And from your lesson manual, currently on LDS.org: “ Sustaining leaders involves more than just a raised hand—it means that we stand behind them, pray for them, accept assignments and callings from them, obey their counsel, and refrain from criticizing them.”

Hmm... All that, and... "sustain"??

Here, let's take a look at this quote: “is a personal commitment that we will do our utmost to uphold their prophetic priorities." You might believe that means tell us to get vaccines, but I don't believe telling me to get a "health shot" is one of his "prophetic priorities".

Oh, so being selective is how you’re gonna play this game.

Many leaders don’t see it the way you do. My former stake president called me to repentance over the dang shot. Twice in fact.

Regardless, you have to be a gymnast to justify the doctrine of the church, as you so aptly noted.

I was using your defining quote, lol.

I would say your SP didn't have the Spirit. I didn't know it was a commandment to get the shot--though it would not have been easy to tell. And they didn't come around to clearing that up until they somehow figured out that it was destroying the Spirit in the Church.

I "so aptly noted"? Where?

[randyps]

Holy smokes, you’re joking. Satanists could be running the church and you’d “sustain” them… wow!! I mean, you would have to do that you so can enjoy your temple, the very place where that SRA could be happening. *mind blown*

You pay your taxes, obey traffic signals, celebrate national holidays etc.. you sustain the satanists running our country so that you can enjoy your home. One finger pointing means three pointing right back at you.

Wow, you guys will do anything a person says.

So u are saying you are breaking laws of your country by not obeying it or avoiding it, wow, u got not morals and contribute nothing to your community..i know u dont contribute anything good here just negativity and hate, evil is the most used word in ur vocabulary.

[Reluctant Watchman]

You pay your taxes, obey traffic signals, celebrate national holidays etc.. you sustain the satanists running our country so that you can enjoy your home. One finger pointing means three pointing right back at you.

Wow, you guys will do anything a person says.

So u are saying you are breaking laws of your country by not obeying it or avoiding it, wow, u got not morals and contribute nothing to your community..i know u dont contribute anything good here just negativity and hate, evil is the most used word in ur vocabulary.

For you, obedience has been drilled into you head. I could go on in great detail about your response, but what good would that do either of us. I mean, after all, you just seem to think that all I do is spew evil and hateful things.

[Being There]

Just so we are clear. The judgment begins on the family/house of God.... not "just" the LDS Church. 1 Peter 4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

No, not very clear.
And while that may be true - what this scripture1 Peter 4:17 is saying -
and includes all those - (including those in the LDS church) who are of the family/house of God -
which this scripture from the D&C, verse 25 seems to be saying also -
but adds "and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord"
25 And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord;
but then in verse 26, "and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house" (temple)
could only be directed at those that the Lord is speaking to - to the LDS church -
to those that "have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house"
26 First among those among you, saith the Lord,
who have professed to know my name and have not known me,
and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord.
(which could include false doctrines and precepts of men)

So now, because of this verse right after - verse 26 - we even have to question
if "house", in verse 25, if the Lord is referring to both -
the family/house of God - including the LDS church,
or just the LDS church - because of the next verse - verse 26,
"house" meaning the LDS temple.
"blasphemed against me in the midst of my house" -
which could not mean "the family/house of God"

*(please read all verses - and take particular notice of the word "house" and what or who it's referring to)

"And upon my house shall it begin"
D&C 112:24-26
24 Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord.

25 And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord;

26 First among those among you, saith the Lord,
who have professed to know my name and have not known me,
and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord.


27 Therefore, see to it that ye trouble not yourselves concerning the affairs of my church in this place, saith the Lord.
28 But purify your hearts before me; and then go ye into all the world, and preach my gospel unto every creature who has not received it;

[John Tavner]

Just so we are clear. The judgment begins on the family/house of God.... not "just" the LDS Church. 1 Peter 4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

No, not very clear.
And while that may be true - what this scripture1 Peter 4:17 is saying -
and includes all those - (including those in the LDS church) who are of the family/house of God -
which this scripture from the D&C, verse 25 seems to be saying also -
but adds "and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord"
25 And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord;
but then in verse 26, "and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house" (temple)
could only be directed at those that the Lord is speaking to - to the LDS church -
to those that "have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house"
26 First among those among you, saith the Lord,
who have professed to know my name and have not known me,
and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord.
(which could include false doctrines and precepts of men)

So now, because of this verse right after - verse 26 - we even have to question
if "house", in verse 25, if the Lord is referring to both -
the family/house of God - including the LDS church,
or just the LDS church - because of the next verse - verse 26,
"house" meaning the LDS temple.
"blasphemed against me in the midst of my house" -
which could not mean "the family/house of God"

*(please read all verses - and take particular notice of the word "house" and what or who it's referring to)

"And upon my house shall it begin"
D&C 112:24-26
24 Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord.

25 And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord;

26 First among those among you, saith the Lord,
who have professed to know my name and have not known me,
and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord.


27 Therefore, see to it that ye trouble not yourselves concerning the affairs of my church in this place, saith the Lord.
28 But purify your hearts before me; and then go ye into all the world, and preach my gospel unto every creature who has not received it;

Common misconception amongst mormons because we view things in an old testament light and didn't get the memo on things in the past were types for the future. YOU are the holy Temple of God. 1 Cor 3:16

[Silver Pie]

Just so we are clear. The judgment begins on the family/house of God.... not "just" the LDS Church. 1 Peter 4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

Thank you. I am tired of the Mormon narcissism view of prophecy. We are just one of the many struggling religions out there.

Get tired all you want, it comes from the BofM "save two churches only" and "whomsover does not belong to the church of the Lamb, belongs to the great whore" . But I guess if you reject mormonism all together....

There are only two churches, true. But it isn't the LDS Church vs all others. It is the church of the Lamb of God and the church of the devil. If you (speaking in general terms) aren't part of his church you, by default, belong to the church of the devil.

Membership in the LDS Church does not mean a person is in the church of the Lamb of God. Not being in the LDS Church does not mean a person is in the church of the devil.

The church of the Lamb of God =/= the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[Being There]

Just so we are clear. The judgment begins on the family/house of God.... not "just" the LDS Church. 1 Peter 4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

No, not very clear.
And while that may be true - what this scripture1 Peter 4:17 is saying -
and includes all those - (including those in the LDS church) who are of the family/house of God -
which this scripture from the D&C, verse 25 seems to be saying also -
but adds "and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord"
25 And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord;
but then in verse 26, "and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house" (temple)
could only be directed at those that the Lord is speaking to - to the LDS church -
to those that "have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house"
26 First among those among you, saith the Lord,
who have professed to know my name and have not known me,
and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord.
(which could include false doctrines and precepts of men)

So now, because of this verse right after - verse 26 - we even have to question
if "house", in verse 25, if the Lord is referring to both -
the family/house of God - including the LDS church,
or just the LDS church - because of the next verse - verse 26,
"house" meaning the LDS temple.
"blasphemed against me in the midst of my house" -
which could not mean "the family/house of God"

*(please read all verses - and take particular notice of the word "house" and what or who it's referring to)

"And upon my house shall it begin"
D&C 112:24-26
24 Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord.

25 And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord;

26 First among those among you, saith the Lord,
who have professed to know my name and have not known me,
and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord.


27 Therefore, see to it that ye trouble not yourselves concerning the affairs of my church in this place, saith the Lord.
28 But purify your hearts before me; and then go ye into all the world, and preach my gospel unto every creature who has not received it;

Common misconception amongst mormons because we view things in an old testament light. YOU are the holy Temple of God. 1 Cor 3:16

thought you might say something like that.
but sorry, obviously it's not what these scriptures are saying or referring to.
"in the midst of my house"

D&C 112:24-26
24 Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord.

25 And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord;

26 First among those among you, saith the Lord,
who have professed to know my name and have not known me,
and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord.

[Silver Pie]

Membership in the LDS Church does not mean a person is in the church of the Lamb of God. Not being in the LDS Church does not mean a person is in the church of the devil.

If it were not so, then Lori Vallow and Chad Daybell, both apparent murderers and both seemingly vile and without consciences, would be members of the church of the Lamb just because they were members in a legally organized entity called a Church (corporate Church) that was made a legal entity by a real prophet of God. No such beings are members of the church of the Lamb of God - and you can't get into it by claiming membership in any religion that has existed, does now exist, or will exist because that church (the church of the Lamb of God) is not of man nor of men.

[John Tavner]

No, not very clear.
And while that may be true - what this scripture1 Peter 4:17 is saying -
and includes all those - (including those in the LDS church) who are of the family/house of God -
which this scripture from the D&C, verse 25 seems to be saying also -
but adds "and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord"
25 And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord;
but then in verse 26, "and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house" (temple)
could only be directed at those that the Lord is speaking to - to the LDS church -
to those that "have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house"
26 First among those among you, saith the Lord,
who have professed to know my name and have not known me,
and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord.
(which could include false doctrines and precepts of men)

So now, because of this verse right after - verse 26 - we even have to question
if "house", in verse 25, if the Lord is referring to both -
the family/house of God - including the LDS church,
or just the LDS church - because of the next verse - verse 26,
"house" meaning the LDS temple.
"blasphemed against me in the midst of my house" -
which could not mean "the family/house of God"

*(please read all verses - and take particular notice of the word "house" and what or who it's referring to)

"And upon my house shall it begin"
D&C 112:24-26
24 Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord.

25 And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord;

26 First among those among you, saith the Lord,
who have professed to know my name and have not known me,
and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord.


27 Therefore, see to it that ye trouble not yourselves concerning the affairs of my church in this place, saith the Lord.
28 But purify your hearts before me; and then go ye into all the world, and preach my gospel unto every creature who has not received it;

Common misconception amongst mormons because we view things in an old testament light. YOU are the holy Temple of God. 1 Cor 3:16

thought you might say something like that.
but sorry, obviously it's not what these scriptures are saying or referring to.
"in the midst of my house"

D&C 112:24-26
24 Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord.

25 And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord;

26 First among those among you, saith the Lord,
who have professed to know my name and have not known me,
and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord.

Sure.. Quote D&C... which often has been twisted and turned and btchered and sometimes isn't even revelation.

But yes, it is saying that. How often do we blaspheme the Lord's name because we say we are His, but don't live that way? How many times have we proclaimed Christ but acted like the devil? How often do we profess to know HIm, but live our life as if he is an afterthought? Upon my house( those who claim to be of my houshold) it shall begin. You saying it doen'st mean that doesn't change the fact that it fits all of Scripture. Did you know blasphemy also means condemn or blame? How often do we blame God for things that He hasn't done. We blaspheme continually claiming to be His and not acting like it and we are in the "midst" of His house. 1828 amidst: From the midst from the middle, or from among.

[Being There]

Common misconception amongst mormons because we view things in an old testament light. YOU are the holy Temple of God. 1 Cor 3:16

thought you might say something like that.
but sorry, obviously it's not what these scriptures are saying or referring to.
"in the midst of my house"

D&C 112:24-26
24 Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord.

25 And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord;

26 First among those among you, saith the Lord,
who have professed to know my name and have not known me,
and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord.

Sure.. Quote D&C... which often has been twisted and turned and btchered and sometimes isn't even revelation.

But yes, it is saying that. How often do we blaspheme the Lord's name because we say we are His, but don't live that way? How many times have we proclaimed Christ but acted like the devil? How often do we profess to know HIm, but live our life as if he is an afterthought? Upon my house( those who claim to be of my houshold) it shall begin. You saying it doen'st mean that doesn't change the fact that it fits all of Scripture. Did you know blasphemy also means condemn or blame? How often do we blame God for things that He hasn't done. We blaspheme continually claiming to be His and not acting like it and we are in the "midst" of His house. 1828 amidst: From the midst from the middle, or from among.

Quote D&C...

Well - that WAS - what the scripture in the OP was from - the D&C -
and what we were talking about - and what these verses were saying and what they really mean.

I know the truth can be hard to admit to yourself when you are wrong about something.
So you can try to weasel out of it by saying what you are saying - but it won't change what these scriptures are saying -
because they're not saying what you are.

[John Tavner]

thought you might say something like that.
but sorry, obviously it's not what these scriptures are saying or referring to.
"in the midst of my house"

D&C 112:24-26
24 Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord.

25 And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord;

26 First among those among you, saith the Lord,
who have professed to know my name and have not known me,
and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord.

Sure.. Quote D&C... which often has been twisted and turned and btchered and sometimes isn't even revelation.

But yes, it is saying that. How often do we blaspheme the Lord's name because we say we are His, but don't live that way? How many times have we proclaimed Christ but acted like the devil? How often do we profess to know HIm, but live our life as if he is an afterthought? Upon my house( those who claim to be of my houshold) it shall begin. You saying it doen'st mean that doesn't change the fact that it fits all of Scripture. Did you know blasphemy also means condemn or blame? How often do we blame God for things that He hasn't done. We blaspheme continually claiming to be His and not acting like it and we are in the "midst" of His house. 1828 amidst: From the midst from the middle, or from among.

Quote D&C...

Well - that WAS - what the scripture in the OP was from - the D&C -
and what we were talking about - and what these verses were saying and what they really mean.

I know the truth can be hard to admit to yourself when you are wrong about something.
So you can try to weasel out of it by saying what you are saying - but it won't change what these scriptures are saying -
because they're not saying what you are.

You don't have to agree with me, this isn't me "admitting" something is wrong- nor am I slightly convinced you are correct- when I sincerely don't believe your interpretation is incorrect.. IT is me disagreeing with your interpretation, it is me disagreeing with the scripture in general, and it is me disagreeing with that interpretation of hte scripture. The same could be said for what I said to you. I will respond the same way you spoke to me "the truth can be hard to admit to yourself when you are wrong about something. So you can try and weasel out of it by saying what you are saying, but it won't chagne what these scriptures are saying, because they are not saying what you are."

The difference is that I rarely look at things from per-conceived Mormon notions. I understand WHY you think you do, I used to think the same exact thing, I even preached it the same same as you do. half of the stuff people say here, I used to believe, and preach. But I let go of Mormon pre-conceved notions about 3 years ago and so I no longer see things tinted by that lense. When I find it doesn't fit the pattern of scripture, I disregard it because having searched half of D&C, half of D&C has been changed and manipulated. Physical temples aren't important right now- it is us, who are the Holy Temple of God, and "amidst" (among) us (those of His House) are many who blaspheme His name.

Another example of why House doesn't mean what we think it means is in Acts 7 : But it was Solomon who built the house for Him. 48However, the Most High does not dwell in houses made by human hands. As the prophet says: 49‘Heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool. What kind of house will you build for Me, says the Lord, or where will My place of repose be? 49‘Heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool. What kind of house will you build for Me, says the Lord, or where will My place of repose be? 50Has not My hand made all these things?’ 51You stiff-necked people with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit, just as your fathers did.

[JohnnyL]

Not only is it possible, it’s exactly what happened.

Joseph Smith and others said that the Fullness of the Priesthood and the Kingdom had been established, never to be taken away again — but the LDS Church isn’t perpetuating those things. God sought another people.

“. . . if Zion will not purify herself, so as to be approved of in all things, in His sight, He will seek another people; for His work will go on until Israel is gathered, and they who will not hear His voice, must expect to feel His wrath.” — Joseph Smith (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith <14 January 1833> page 18)

“We receive the Priesthood and power and authority. If we make a bad use of that Priesthood, do you not see that the day will come when God will reckon with us, and he will take it from us and give it to those who will make better use of it.” — Heber C. Kimball (Journal of Discourses <13 December 1857> page 125)
 
“But the day will come when the Lord will choose a people out of this people, upon whom he will bestow his choicest blessings.” — Heber C. Kimball (Journal of Discourses vol. 11 <6 October 1865) page 145)

I see all those quotes in a very different understanding. You are seeing outside; I see inside.

"If." and "...if", not "When."

///
"IF... He will seek another people..."

"[IF] we make a bad use of that Priesthood, do you not see that the day will come when God will reckon with us, and he will take it from us and give it to those who will make better use of it."

And yet, maybe he has started. Look at Church members all over the world who have much harder lives, harder times living the gospel, with fewer resources, and often do better at it, with more joy. People who aren't hypocrites with the gospel or the priesthood, but are humble, repent, and seek to do God's will.

///
“But the day will come when the Lord will choose a people out of this people, upon whom he will bestow his choicest blessings.”

People who aren't hypocrites with the gospel or the priesthood, but are humble, repent, and seek to do God's will.

DaC 131 comes to mind.

Ok, here’s a few definitive “when” statements:

“Let this Church which is called the kingdom of God on the earth; we will sommons the first presidency, the twelve, the high counsel, the Bishoprick, and all the elders of Israel, suppose we summons them to appear here, and here declare that it is right to mingle our seed, with the black race of Cain, that they shall come in with with us and be partakers with us of all the blessings God has given to us. On that very day, and hour we should do so, the priesthood is taken from this Church and kingdom and God leaves us to our fate. The moment we consent to mingle with the seed of Cain the Church must go to destruction, — we should receive the curse which has been placed upon the seed of Cain, and never more be numbered with the children of Adam who are heirs to the priesthood until that curse be removed.” — Brigham Young (Complete Discourses of Brigham Young vol. 1 <5 February 1852> page 470)

“Plural marriage will end when the Church had gone to the Devil or the Priesthood taken from this people — then God would give it to another people.” — Heber C. Kimball (Heber C. Kimball sermon, 1 February 1849, in D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power page 747)

“Some quietly listen to those who speak against the Lord’s servants, against his anointed, against the plurality of wives, and against almost every principle that God has revealed. Such persons have half-a-dozen devils with them all the time. You might as well deny ‘Mormonism,’ and turn away from it, as to oppose the plurality of wives. Let the Presidency of this Church, and the Twelve Apostles, and all the authorities unite and say with one voice that they will oppose that doctrine, and the whole of them would be damned. What are you opposing it for? It is a principle that God has revealed for the salvation of the human family. He revealed it to Joseph the Prophet in this our dispensation; and that which he revealed he designs to have carried out by his people.” — Heber C. Kimball (Journal of Discourses vol. 5 <12 October 1856> pages 203-204)

“The folly of entertaining for one moment the proposition to abandon polygamy is so apparent to a true Latter-day Saint that it is hardly worth mention. It was not Joseph Smith nor Brigham Young; neither was it John Taylor that gave the revelation on Celestial Marriage: it was God himself, and he has said ‘My word shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.’ The entire Church and all of its Priesthood, with the Presidency at the head might motion and vote against this principle until doomsday with just one effect, (namely,) to vote themselves away from the fellowship of the Holy Ghost from the possession of their Priesthood, and to find themselves very speedily outside the Church and Kingdom of God; while he would raise up others that would honor and observe his law.” (Editorial, Deseret News vol. 34 no. 11 <1 April 1885> page 164)

“What would be necessary to bring about the result nearest the hearts of the opponents of ‘Mormonism,’ more properly termed the Gospel of the Son of God? Simply to renounce, abrogate or apostatize from the new and everlasting covenant of marriage in its fullness. Were the Church to do that as an entirety God would reject the Saints as a body. The authority of the Priesthood would be withdrawn, with its gifts and powers, and there would be no more heavenly recognition of the ministrations among the people. The heavens would permanently withdraw themselves, and the Lord would raise up another people of greater valor and stability, for his work must, according to His unalterable decrees, go forward, for the time of the second coming of the Savior is near, even at the doors. Therefore the Saints have no alternative but to stand by the truth and sustain what the heavens have established and propose to perpetuate. This they will do, come life or death, freedom or imprisonment, and there is, so far as we can observe, no use to attempt to disguise this fact.” — Charles W. Penrose (“The Only Consistent Course”, Deseret Evening News <23 April 1885> page 1)

I was thinking they really would be. I can understand how they can be interpreted in your way, and how that interpretation would lead to problems with the current Church.

[JohnnyL]

Is it possible that the keys have already been wrested and the gospel focus has already been shifted from the LDS to others? What would that even look like?

Nope.

Just saying. Get some revelation vs. extrapolating scriptures. Some feel good about the church some feel bad. Just feelings.

...Not exaltation, oh maybe salvation, even terrestrial if it is a church of Christ. Telestial religions, SURE they are everywhere. and they do good and make people happy. but like in D&C 76:98 et al, you get only telestial. But that is success for most everyone on this earth. I'm not putting down anyone that obtains a glory of god and is happy with it. But don't point fingers at those that want more.

Yes!!

[JohnnyL]

I guess some members think they'll be saved, by staying in the ship,
and would rather just sink with old ship Zion
than face the truth and just turn to Jesus to be saved.

Ah, the good old either/or dilemma...

Not.

[TheDuke]

Had to tell me to accept BY.

If he had to tell you to accept BY, it was a false spirit.

Scares me as it does seem you are the one to know false spirits.

A statement like this of yours is not of god's spirit that is for sure. For several reasons. #1 I only said that the Lord told me about one statement/teaching of BY, not BY himself, so you've taken upon you to twist all that I said. #2 you claim my knowledge is by a false spirit when you have none of your own, only your opinion and frankly, very poorly or weak interpretations of the lower aspects of the gospel

I don't care to chat with you at this time Shawn. You have demonstrated a very poor desire to actually communicate openly. It betrays your weakness in understanding, which is ok, we are all learning but being closed minded and negative like this comment from you, which serves NO USEFUL PURPOSE means you're not able to comprehend the true things of god at this time, other than telestial principles. I hope you'll mature and be ready to talk openly in the future, until then enjoy you own truths. (perhaps mingled with scripture)

[TheDuke]

Honestly I don't know why we make it so complicated. I feel like the scriptures are pretty plain: 1 John 3: 9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

John, this is a perfect example of oversimplification, pure and simple. It is utterly BS as interpreted. It says if you're born again (like you feel you are) then you cannot sin. No one is perfect but Jesus, so if you're saying no one ever is born again ok. Peter was born again, confessed Jesus then denied him 3 times! He SINNED! He repented and was forgiven. but that is not what you're saying here.

Some mumbo about being born again but living in the telestial world and nothing you do again is ever a sin!

Poppycock. Sorry. the scripture is true but it means you can overcome sin and in the next life you will be perfect. There is no one perfect (sinless) in this life except Jesus and there are many (well lots but few according to Jesus, relatively) that have been born again, yet they sin.... Read Peter about C&E, even then even the elect can sin, but will need to pay the price to be perfect, but they will become such.

It is complex. If you think you can make it that simple, then it isn't others that are deceived IMO. Happy you're born again BTW, happy for you. but if you're claiming to be sinless as in not committing sin since being reborn, vs. being sinless for "repenting to damned fast" per Golden Kimball. Then you are deceived.

You're missing the forest for the trees. And Keep condemning your self.

Peter was not born again until AFTER he Denied Jesus. No where was he shown to have been born again beforehand- he didn't even get the Holy Ghot until after the resurrection. Udnerstanding the sequence of biblical stories will help with understanding.

What would happen, Duke, if you read the entire context of hte the letter rather than just taking that one verse and trying to wreck it? When was the last time you read that entire letter from John? My point wasn't even about sin, it was about who is the family of God.

But to your point. John is saying who ever is born of God doesn't seek to commit sin. Please read the verses in context rather than shooting from the hip- another word for that translation si whoever seeks to construct sin, or to create sin or practice sin.. it is the same word used in verse 9.

Finally you condemn yourself by thinking you are always going to have to sin. Paul and Peter, and JOhn all say if you walk in the Spriit, there is no sin in you. So walk in the Spriit. Jesus said to Walk as He walked. Nephi (if you believe him) said God won't give a commandment unless there is a way to fulfill that commandment. So rather than express unbelief, I would suggest crying out to God for mercy so you can believe and stop living in a lower condition than God desires you to live- this isn't a judgment of you, but it is an invitation to live higher. Otherwise you are living below what Jesus paid for- don't do that.. to yourself or others.

Wow, you have your interpretation. For, example show where Peter had to deny Jesus to be be "born again". That is doctrine pulled out of the air. I have read the entire thing and understand it quite well. You have a right to your interpretation, but it just isn't very accurate IMO. but if it gives you satisfaction stay with it. But don't condemn others that see much more of the forest. and even surrounding terrain.

[John Tavner]

John, this is a perfect example of oversimplification, pure and simple. It is utterly BS as interpreted. It says if you're born again (like you feel you are) then you cannot sin. No one is perfect but Jesus, so if you're saying no one ever is born again ok. Peter was born again, confessed Jesus then denied him 3 times! He SINNED! He repented and was forgiven. but that is not what you're saying here.

Some mumbo about being born again but living in the telestial world and nothing you do again is ever a sin!

Poppycock. Sorry. the scripture is true but it means you can overcome sin and in the next life you will be perfect. There is no one perfect (sinless) in this life except Jesus and there are many (well lots but few according to Jesus, relatively) that have been born again, yet they sin.... Read Peter about C&E, even then even the elect can sin, but will need to pay the price to be perfect, but they will become such.

It is complex. If you think you can make it that simple, then it isn't others that are deceived IMO. Happy you're born again BTW, happy for you. but if you're claiming to be sinless as in not committing sin since being reborn, vs. being sinless for "repenting to damned fast" per Golden Kimball. Then you are deceived.

You're missing the forest for the trees. And Keep condemning your self.

Peter was not born again until AFTER he Denied Jesus. No where was he shown to have been born again beforehand- he didn't even get the Holy Ghot until after the resurrection. Udnerstanding the sequence of biblical stories will help with understanding.

What would happen, Duke, if you read the entire context of hte the letter rather than just taking that one verse and trying to wreck it? When was the last time you read that entire letter from John? My point wasn't even about sin, it was about who is the family of God.

But to your point. John is saying who ever is born of God doesn't seek to commit sin. Please read the verses in context rather than shooting from the hip- another word for that translation si whoever seeks to construct sin, or to create sin or practice sin.. it is the same word used in verse 9.

Finally you condemn yourself by thinking you are always going to have to sin. Paul and Peter, and JOhn all say if you walk in the Spriit, there is no sin in you. So walk in the Spriit. Jesus said to Walk as He walked. Nephi (if you believe him) said God won't give a commandment unless there is a way to fulfill that commandment. So rather than express unbelief, I would suggest crying out to God for mercy so you can believe and stop living in a lower condition than God desires you to live- this isn't a judgment of you, but it is an invitation to live higher. Otherwise you are living below what Jesus paid for- don't do that.. to yourself or others.

Wow, you have your interpretation. For, example show where Peter had to deny Jesus to be be "born again". That is doctrine pulled out of the air. I have read the entire thing and understand it quite well. You have a right to your interpretation, but it just isn't very accurate IMO. but if it gives you satisfaction stay with it. But don't condemn others that see much more of the forest. and even surrounding terrain.

No it isn't- what does being born again mean, Duke?

[Shawn Henry]

#1 I only said that the Lord told me about one statement/teaching of BY, not BY himself, so you've taken upon you to twist all that I said.

I didn't at all twist it. That's why I quoted you. You said, " Had to tell me to accept BY."

You didn't write "one statement". You wrote, "to accept BY".

[TheDuke]

You're missing the forest for the trees. And Keep condemning your self.

Peter was not born again until AFTER he Denied Jesus. No where was he shown to have been born again beforehand- he didn't even get the Holy Ghot until after the resurrection. Udnerstanding the sequence of biblical stories will help with understanding.

What would happen, Duke, if you read the entire context of hte the letter rather than just taking that one verse and trying to wreck it? When was the last time you read that entire letter from John? My point wasn't even about sin, it was about who is the family of God.

But to your point. John is saying who ever is born of God doesn't seek to commit sin. Please read the verses in context rather than shooting from the hip- another word for that translation si whoever seeks to construct sin, or to create sin or practice sin.. it is the same word used in verse 9.

Finally you condemn yourself by thinking you are always going to have to sin. Paul and Peter, and JOhn all say if you walk in the Spriit, there is no sin in you. So walk in the Spriit. Jesus said to Walk as He walked. Nephi (if you believe him) said God won't give a commandment unless there is a way to fulfill that commandment. So rather than express unbelief, I would suggest crying out to God for mercy so you can believe and stop living in a lower condition than God desires you to live- this isn't a judgment of you, but it is an invitation to live higher. Otherwise you are living below what Jesus paid for- don't do that.. to yourself or others.

Wow, you have your interpretation. For, example show where Peter had to deny Jesus to be be "born again". That is doctrine pulled out of the air. I have read the entire thing and understand it quite well. You have a right to your interpretation, but it just isn't very accurate IMO. but if it gives you satisfaction stay with it. But don't condemn others that see much more of the forest. and even surrounding terrain.

No it isn't- what does being born again mean, Duke?

Guess I was wrong saying that I accepted you'd been born again then. I've been and I know what it is and what it isn't. You seem to define it very strangely. Here in this case Peter already had been told that by Jesus days before his death. So, you're timing and assessments are not based on the full story. Hard to chase this down' when you keep jumping ships. "blessed art thou Simon ........" Anyway have a happy day.

[Shawn Henry]

A statement like this of yours is not of god's spirit that is for sure.

My "useful purpose" was simply to provide you with honest feedback. I know you didn't ask for my opinion and I apologize for any offense you perceived, but I believe true friends tell each other the truth. I know I am nobody and my opinion isn't worth much of anything, but I'm honest in giving it nonetheless.

I think you're an awesome guy and I'm glad you're having these spiritual experiences, but even you know intellectually that there is a learning curve and we ourselves have seen person after person make mistakes in that learning process. I don't pretend that I will get a free pass myself. When I start having these experiences, I will expect the same learning curve and I hope my friends are brutally honest with me in their feedback.