Wednesday, January 19, 2011

"The Best Conference Talk" Revisited

Recently I was invited to participate in a panel discussion for an episode of Mormon Expression podcasts.  If you're not familiar with this website, you'll want to check them out. Their website is chock full of wonderful audio files of interest to latter-day Saints on every imaginable facet of the Mormon experience.

Likewise, if you haven't discovered Mormon Stories Podcasts, you're really missing out on some amazing stuff. Where Mormon Expression consists primarily of panel discussions, Mormon Stories provides personal interviews with some of the most intriguing people to come through the Church in our day. These two sites provide a veritable "Mormon Library of Congress" of audio and video archives.

Both websites provide their content for free, though you're certainly encouraged to donate to each cause through Paypal, as both are labors of love of the individuals involved. If I was stuck on a desert island and had access to nothing but the libraries of each of these websites, it would be a paradise I could live out my life in.

Now You Can Hear My Golden Mellifluous Tones

A while back I wrote an entry here entitled The Best Conference Talk You Never Read,” and it's because of that piece that I was invited onto the latest panel to discuss the topic of that entry.

The subject of this broadcast was the fascinating and informative talk Elder Ronald Poelman delivered in general conference back in October of 1984. Besides me, the panel consisted of two very knowledgeable young men named Jesse and James, and the very capable moderator, Glenn Ostlund.

If you are unfamiliar with the subject, in October of 1984, Elder Poelman spoke on the importance of understanding the distinctions between the gospel and the Church, dispelling the confusion that had been creeping into the Church as a result of programs and policies that tended to conflate the two.

What made the incident all the more remarkable was that before the printed version made it into the Ensign the following month, it had been redacted, bowdlerized, and doctored until the pure truths contained in it had disappeared and the words now conveyed an opposite message.  Rather than make clear how the Church was merely the vehicle by which we receive the gospel of Christ, the message now strongly inferred that the institutional Church, for all intents and purposes, was the same as the gospel of Christ. What had earlier been a clear illustration of sublime truth had been transitioned into a polemic calling for institutional loyalty. 

Even worse than the changes in the text, Poelman was sneaked back into the tabernacle under cover of darkness and instructed to deliver the fake version from the podium.  A video recording of this was then doctored to give the impression that a full congregation was present, and inserted into the official conference record in place of the original.

As Jesse states on the Podcast, this talk was the high water mark, the turning point at which the corporate Church began heading into the direction of protecting its own power, of digging in against perceived enemies, while abandoning or downplaying its traditional teachings.

James observes that at the time this talk appeared, the institutional church seemed to be in a period of retrenchment, when the Brethren felt that members could not be trusted with their own free agency, but must be convinced of the the necessity for the leadership to supervise and guide them at every step in their lives.

This incident of changing a conference talk, inventing a counterfeit of it, and then attempting to pass off the fake as the original had an unfortunate effect when it was found out. It was becoming apparent to many that the aggrandizement of their own power was more important to certain Church leaders than a clear explanation of what the Church was, and what it was not. As Glenn Ostlund suggests, allowing the original talk to stand might have led the the membership to assume that the leaders did not have all the answers, and the leaders simply could not have that. So they deep sixed it.

For the first time in modern LDS history, some person or group of of persons in the hierarchy of the Church engaged in bald subterfuge right in front of our faces.  It was a disgrace.

And it was unnecessary.

This incident is key to understanding what is right about the modern LDS Church, and what seems to be going terribly wrong.  Joseph Smith stressed continually that the Church of Jesus Christ consisted of the members of the church. It was never intended to operate as a top-down organization.  The "body of Christ"  is not the proprietary claim of those who have positioned themselves as gatekeepers of that body, no matter what claims to authority they may invoke, and no matter how well intended their motives. Had they left Elder Poelman's talk alone, the leadership would have enabled the membership to better understand their place within the Church, and tens of thousands of those who have since thrown up their hands in frustration and left, might still be here within our ranks.

I invite you to read my exposition on the Poelman incident if you have not already done so.  And I hope you'll watch or read Poelman's talk in it's original form, because it is important.  It is, in my opinion, one of the most valuable presentations delivered from that pulpit in my lifetime.

In the meantime, enjoy this latest discussion about it, which you will find in episode104 of Mormon Expression Podcasts here.
At that site you will also find links to a video of the original talk, a side by side comparison of the text, and a link back to my own article about it here at Pure Mormonism. You can judge for yourself which version of the talk you feel was inspired of God.  Truth is usually pretty self-evident.

The Lord meant us to have this understanding.  It should never have been hidden from us. 

142 comments:

Dave P. said...

This is just the first of countless examples I've read about in the past week that causes the church to begin to fit the description of the third and "most great and abominable church" that Nephi saw during his vision. However, because the Lord is in charge, these secrets will no longer be hidden.

Steven Lester said...

I'm so glad you are back, Mr. Waterman, but I am confused. Should I leave the Church or stay in it? If it has gone to pieces and is going to be the"third and 'most great and abominable church' that Nephi saw during his vision" (which is how I view the Church today) what is the point of belonging to it, if nothing is ever to change in it? So far, the most true statement I've ever made was that the worst decision I ever made in my life was to join the Mormon Church. Your excellent articles which are based upon proved truth have only supported this. Right now, I hate the Church because It has lied to me from the beginning. Why should I stay?

Dave P. said...

Steven,

I can't speak for Rock, but my advice would actually be to stay. I can't stand it myself, but we're also in the middle of something big. The Lord has taken charge of the earth and what He's doing first is cleansing the church from within. Those members who repent of the abominations that have become church doctrine will be the ones to judge the impostors and Gadiantons who have entered the ranks of church leadership as spoken of in D&C section 64.

Joseph Smith did restore the church, but he and other members/leaders all exercised their agency to allow it to fall away from what it originally was, and it didn't last long. The church has been cursed since 1837 because Joseph Smith allowed himself to be influenced to print a second edition of the Book of Mormon that made changes to the fundamental "plain and precious truths" as found in the original 1830 edition. If you want to know more, and be prepared to learn some things that will shock any TBM into shutting it out completely, learn more at http://mormonstruth.org

Donnell Allan said...

Amen to what you said about Mormon Stories and Mormon Expression Podcast. I am sad because I have listened to pretty much every one of the archived recordings of each. They just can't keep them coming fast enough for me.

I hope Mormon Expression puts you on the panel again for future discussions. Your voice was a great addition.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Ah, Donnell, what a sweet thing to say.

And Steven,
As usual, Dave has done a better job of responding to your concerns than I ever could have.

Emily A. W. said...

I listened to the podcast the other night and I LOVED it. We are of the same mind and heart when it comes to that talk being profound and exactly what the gospel is about. I am so grateful you brought it all out and laid it on the table. It needed to be done so badly. You aced this one! Bravo and THANK YOU! I needed to hear all of that. All of it.

Inspire said...

Steven, you have touched on the dilemma of our age. There are many in my circle of friends who ask this very question, including myself. I am not to the point of deciding if I should leave the Church, but many I know are considering it or have already left.

While discussing this very subject last night with a good friend, a thought came to me. Whenever I make an observation of where the Church has seemingly put policy and procedure ahead of true doctrine, I should ask myself, "How is this keeping me from coming to the Savior?" In every case I can think of, the answer is, "It doesn't, unless I let it." In fact, I would say that it becomes a vehicle in which I can "practice" my faith, being given the opportunity to show forgiveness, charity and serving Him.

Not that I know anything, Steven, but I would recommend reading and pondering the first version of Poelman's talk, as I believe it provides the answer to your question. Also, I have found it useful to internalize what the true Doctrine of Christ is (repent, witness, come to Him). Once I realize the beautiful simplicity of the Plan, all of the other "fluff" is eliminated, and I believe we can become truly converted and pure in heart. In other words, we do things based upon our love of Christ and desire to serve our Father.

jeff said...

Rock, I'm currently listening to the podcast while I'm at work. One quick question that has come up due to what I'm listening to.

Perhaps you could write a post about the changes to the Doctrine and Covenants for those that are still unawares?



-Jeff

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Good idea, Jeff. But that would be a very loooong post.

Dave P. said...

jeff,

I caught a few when reading a reprint of the original Book of Commandments, but in regards to the D&C I'd say the most notorious changes are removing the Lectures on Faith and the addition of several sections that claim to have been received by Joseph Smith, but weren't added until several years after his death (meaning he could not be his own witness).

But what the church is really in trouble for is the changes made in the Book of Mormon, starting with the 1837 edition, that removed the restored plain and precious truths found in the 1830 edition and changed the identity of God.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

I'm interested in what you're learning about the identity of God, Dave. In his Mormon Stories Podcast, Paul Toscano makes mention that the Book of Mormon makes plain that Jesus is himself the Eternal Father. He says early Mormon teachings are clear and plentiful on that. Any insights?

Dave P. said...

Several, and some of the references I point out still exist in the current Book of Mormon. I don't actually have the book itself with me right now but I can name a few off the top of my head.

First and foremost is Nephi's vision of the birth of the Savior, he describes Mary as being "the mother of God." This reference is made several times and nearly every one in the 2nd edition on had "the Son of" inserted into it.

When Abinadi is teaching king Noah, he explains how God is both the Father and the Son. When Zeezrom is questioning Amulek, he asks if there is more than one God, and Amulek says no. Even the Lord Himself told the brother of Jared, "I am the Father and the Son."

But wait, you readers may ask, what about Joseph Smith's first vision wherein he saw two personages? That's simple, the current account was not written by Joseph. Out of the nine different accounts of the First Vision, only the first was hand-written by Joseph in his actual journal in 1832 wherein he wrote that he saw "the Lord," just one person.

"But why then have people seen Jesus on the right hand of God?" also a simple answer: The Father is the personification of God's spirit while the Son is the personification of his physical body. They are two different portions but of the same mind and the Fifth Lecture on Faith explains it in detail. "Doesn't that contradict Section 130:22 that says the Father has a body of flesh and bones?" Yes, but that way of thinking is out of order, because the Fifth Lecture doesn't contradict Section 130, Section 130 contradicts the Fifth Lecture! The Lectures of Faith were originally part of the Doctrine and Covenants as the "Doctrine" portion while the "Covenants" are the current Sections we know today. Section 130 was added later, very possibly after Joseph's death. Heber J. Grant removed the Lectures from the D&C without church approval, claiming it had never approved the inclusion of the Lectures in the first place; a bold-faced lie because the church would have had to accept the Lectures as canonized scripture for them to even be included in the first place.

What about the Bible verse that says "ye are gods?" A better translation would be, "ye are judges" or "ye are angels." As for things like eternal marriages and families or becoming actual gods ourselves, I no longer know. Joseph Smith BURNED his copy of what became Section 132 before he died and, given that that's the only place in the scriptures that talks about such things (that I know of in a clear fashion), the Law of Witnesses makes it void as well.

The original Book of Mormon makes it very clear: Jesus Christ IS Heavenly Father and there is but ONE God. One of the reasons people outside of the church think we're a cult is because we believe in "many Gods," including elevating the "prophet" to that pedestal. Gordon B. Hinckley even tried to claim that he was Jesus Christ in the Manti temple. Satan drew away a third part of the hosts of heaven, convincing them that they could become God by usurping His power and that influence is prevalent on the earth today with leaders who believe they are Gods. Who do we have to thank for altering those plain and precious truths in the Book of Mormon? A pair of 33rd-degree Masons (who worship satan at that level) who infiltrated the church by the names of Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball while another one named Willard Richards pulled the trigger on the shot that killed Hyrum Smith and later became church historian where he could conveniently change things around. -continued

Dave P. said...

It's true that Joseph Smith was a Mason for a while, but a lesser degree who had not taken blood oaths a'la secret combinations. Those secret oaths and combinations are still present in the church today, even in the temples. (For the record, baptisms for the dead are still legitimate, the endowment is the blood oath ceremony wherein one consecrates all he has to the church and not to God- idolatry.)

The church has been cursed since 1837 for altering the Book of Mormon and the curse only increased when the church adopted Masonic blood oath signs and tokens, and began to practice plural marriage which is an abomination to the Lord (and Jacob 2:30 is NOT an exception). The Lord called a man in 1960 ("one mighty and strong") to restore the original Book of Mormon and call the church leaders to repentance, giving them 40 years to do so, but they did not. On April 6, 2000, the Lord took charge- ending satan's 6,000 year reign on this earth- and the cleansing is well underway: the church is actually in debt, missionaries are being kicked out of countries, the Provo tabernacle was destroyed by fire, and the temples are starting to lose their tax-exempt status (already happening in London). Isaiah saw Salt Lake City as Babylon, Nephi called the current corporate church "the most great and abominable church," John the Revelator called the temple recommend the mark of the beast, and Parley P. Pratt prophesied is as becoming the most wicked city in the world

Things are definitely looking grim for the corporate church, but as a truth-seeker, this is an unbelievably exciting time. I had the opportunity to meet with the man who was called in 1960 and his wife just last night for dinner. We spoke for 3 1/2 hours and he gave me a firsthand account of his spiritual manifestations as a child and his 3-day coma wherein he spoke with angel Moroni and accepted his mission. One thing I took with me out of our discussion is that he still recognizes the fact that he is just a man who is nothing without the Lord. But when the Lord tells him to make his next move, expect the church to be shaken from the core, including the possible arrest of Thomas Monson, several apostles, and the potential lawsuit against every bishop in the church. The leadership is scared to death of him and has tried to kill him many times (including through someone he knew personally at BYU who became a CIA agent because he was willing to be blindly obedient), but thanks to the Spirit he's always stayed one step ahead. But, despite all he can do in his mission on this earth, he can only save himself. We're all here on this earth to repent, exercise our agency, and work out our own salvation. To look to others to save us and make the choices for us is satan's plan and always has been.

To all you readers who see this, it may be hard to believe but I can keep writing about all this until the cows come home and not convince you. Like with the Book of Mormon itself, the only way you can know is to study it for yourself and pray about it. I learned all this information and more from the http://mormonstruth.org website I mentioned before and have been reading the materials presented in it, the other websites linked from it, and the books/materials referenced in it- including the original Book of Mormon, Book of Commandments, books on church history by D. Michael Quinn, and the Nag Hammandi scriptures. My eyes have been opened.

By the way, Rock, if you would like me to write a full guest post on this, I believe I have enough info and references to piece one together.

Dave P. said...

Oh, and one more thing: We can never forget that the Book of Mormon was written and preserved to be another testament that Jesus Christ is God. Mormon's final words even include that "this" (the BoM) was written for the intent that we may believe "that" (the Bible). Nephi also prophesied that the pure/original Book of Mormon would "join together" with the Bible unto the confounding of false doctrines.

The Bible itself of course provides witnesses and testimony, "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a child and call his name Emmanuel, meaning God with us," etc. Most importantly from the Savior Himself on how He was the incarnate of the Father in the flesh to learn line-by-line and set the example for us. Because of the nature of God explained in the Fifth Lecture, the Son was able to live on this earth and still speak of and pray to the Father, his spirit in heaven. That's also how God was able to tell Nephi the son of Nephi that he would be born that night and the lives of the believers would be spared, despite the fact that his body was inside Mary's womb.

Words from the Savior include (paraphrased in some cases), "I and my Father are one," "No man can come unto the Father except through me," "If ye have seen me, ye have seen the Father," and "Other sheep I have... and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." The title given to Jesus Christ as "the Son of God" is an honorific to distinguish the Son as the flesh from the Father as the spirit. There are even times in the D&C where the Lord speaks alternating between the Father and Son in the same revelation. And we are the same way, our spirits remain in heaven while we receive a physical body on this earth to follow the Savior's example, and our souls/Light of Christ are what link us together and make it possible to communicate with our spirits through dreams and meditation (but we can lose our souls through agency and be cut off if we choose). A good analogy is to think of the three main parts of an egg: the physical body is the shell, the yolk is the spirit, and the white is the connection between the two and what protects the spirit as well. The same applies to the nature of God with the white being the Holy Ghost.

Again, I'm writing this without my references handy, but they can be found through some simple searches. The key point in starting is to read the original Book of Mormon. Despite some spelling and grammar errors, it's still the most correct/pure book on earth.

J. said...

Dave:

Can you provide some actual links to the following:

(a) Temple recommend being the mark of the beast
(b) London temple losing tax exempt status
(c) Isaiah seeing SLC as Babylon
(d) Nephi seeing the corporate LDS as "the most abominable..."

I've been to that website before, but like many sites, it's hard to find anything specific and I, for one, don't have time to troll around the site looking for the specifics.

Also, what info can you provide on the guy who claims to be the OMS (he wouldn't be the first) and how to read his story or his information or what he did in 1960.

Also, why would "every bishop" be subjected to a lawsuit?

J said...

PS: I did read the Zeezrom story the other day because of another discussion, and Amulek is quite frank on that topic. The comments here (http://www.wheatandtares.org/2011/01/09/what-if-god-was-one-of-us/) are worth reading.

From Alma 11:

38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?

39 And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very aEternal Father of heaven and of earth, and ball things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;

40 And he shall come into the aworld to bredeem his people; and he shall ctake upon him the transgressions of those who believe on his name; and these are they that shall have eternal life, and salvation cometh to none else.

Dave P. said...

J,

I agree that the site is a little difficult to follow and several points are repeated in several places, so I just read the whole thing. But here are some links that will help answer those questions. Of course one also needs to understand the prophesies behind these claims as well.

(a) http://www.mormonstruth.org/cleansing.html
(b) http://www.mormonstruth.org/NDE.html - This also covers Steve Davis's story of his near-death experience. The London temple example is something I learned from word-of-mouth just last night and have been looking for information as a second witness.
(c) http://www.mormonstruth.org/Millennium.html
(d) http://www.mormonstruth.org/repent.html

A great help on searching a specific site is to add the site:webpage.com to a Google search and it will only search that domain.

If I remember correctly, the bishops are held accountable because they are agents of the corrupt leaders if they engage in blind obedience.

Thanks for that link, too. I'll read through it when I get the chance.

Chris said...

This makes me think of the Eastern concept of the ego. From what I understand Buddhists attempt to dis-identify from objects and concepts believing that whatever we really are, it cannot be adequately represented through words and ideas. Claiming that you are a Buddhist or Mormon does not really reveal anything about yourself at your spiritual core.

The desire to protect and lie for something as though it can't represent itself accurately is silly. It reveals egoic attachment. It is no longer about the real observation of the subject matter but rather our attachment to it. We have become self-identified with it. It is no longer a tool for us but it BECOMES us. When we lie or manipulate for the greater good we have gone too far and we are defeating the whole purpose.

Whatever reality is, whatever God is, and whatever the church is, can only truly be experienced personally and honestly. It doesn't need our meddling and manipulations. The church should not be a brand. The new PR campaign is attempting to rebrand the church. The church is what it is. If its true, it's still true with a complicated past that turns off lots of people (something God will certainly have to take into consideration). Attempting to sculpt perceptions of reality does not change it from what it is at its core.

Religion above all else should help us cultivate honesty within our investigation. It needs to offer something to every sincere truth-seeker, even the skeptical ones who will verify the facts we casually throw around. There is no purpose to protecting it.

calimom said...

Hi Rock! I really enjoyed your podcast too. (It was fun to hear your voice - Hope you do more!)

The more that the original Poelman conference talk gets written about, discussed, posted - the better. It is so important that the truths he talked about stay available to anyone who ever gets the "itch" to seek for a better understanding of their religion. It needs to be easily found - among other lost doctrines - because each generation seems to lose more and more "pure mormonism". ie: What I see being emphasized in Primary these days is really disheartening. Even today I was listening to the CD our primary distributed so all the primary kids could memorize songs for the Primary Program. There was a distinct message in many of the songs that I believe teaches prophet worship/idolotry. This theme goes hand in hand with Primary's heavy teachings about the church being the end-all-be-all - contrary to what I loved about Poelman's talk. I don't remember this theme being so much a part of primary 15 years ago.

Dave P - I've never read your views on Jesus being literally God the Father before. If the discussion continues here - I'll join in - but I don't have much time right now. Maybe a guest post here - or elsewhere even - might work better for a healthy debate of this particular subject???

Chris: What a BEAUTIFULLY written response! Couldn't agree more.

Steven Lester said...

Mr. Dave P. The Reorganized Church came out a while ago with a facsimile of the original B of M, with all of the a-bornings and in chapter form, which helps the narrative quite a bit. I still have mine. Is it a good copy of the 1830 version?

Although I have been religious my entire life since earliest memory I never had any kind of connection with the God that I worshipped, described to me by every preacher as this or that. In 1976, when I was 25, the missionaries told me two things that convinced me to join: that the LDS Church held the authority of God within the Priesthood and that within the Church I would find God Himself. Unfortunately, I never saw a single example of Priesthood actually at work (just a lot of words spoken emptily and without result) nor am I any closer to God than I was then. 34 years later I still do not have the Priesthood, haven't held a calling since 1985 although there were times that I attended faithfully for years after that time, nor have had any of the spiritual experiences that others like to "boost" about. So, what am I to conclude from that? That the Church lied to me at the beginning about its validity and/or I am just a spiritual dud who the Lord has nothing to do with because I just can't hack it socially, so no wonder He hasn't given me anything to do; indeed, why would He? This saddens me as I write it out. He may be made out of love, but He is completely invisible and little more than just a concept to me, like one of the pictures of Him (always white and with brown hair) that I can get out of any Ward library. It is true that I am very scared of Him as well. He is so big, and I am so small and completely insignificant in comparison. Perhaps He is being kind by remaining hidden. Perhaps, that is it.

Now you are telling us that the Lord actually has His hand on our Church and is about to cleanse the Temple of the money changers. This will be astounding news, indeed, if it happens within my lifetime. For now, I will believe it when I see it actually happen. The Brethren are too careful and too secretive. How can anything actually be used against them?

Spektator said...

Steven brought up the question regarding what one should do when this information has been accepted. Should I stay in the church or leave? I would suggest that the answer to this question is a personal one. It should be a matter of significant prayer and fasting. I have come to believe that there are individuals who will be of benefit within the church. I also believe that there are some who will leave the church and be ready to do the work of God as one outside the corporate structure.

I would also remind Steven that the definition of the church found in D&C 10:67-69 is very different from that which presented by the corporate church.

Anonymous said...

Alan, I first came upon your blog a little over a month ago. Since then, I have read the majority of your Blogs and found them very interesting in terms content, perspective and discussion. I appreciate and enjoy your blog and want to thank you for putting it out there.

I have begun looking at "The Church" much differently lately and this began with an effort to lock down, in my own mind, certain "Church" doctrines/policies. I thought an authoritative organization like the LDS Church would have firm statements with a clear source of authority and that there would be something to specify whether a teaching from that individual was revelation, opinion or policy. I have not found this to be the case.

I find myself confused about what "The Church" is, and what people (including myself) really mean when they write or say "The Church".

I also find that in many cases "The Church" itself (meaning the corporation?) seems to set doctrine. The ability to determine a source of authority (along with accountability?) are often absent.

As I have tried to investigate what separates revelation from opinion or inspiration, I have not found consistent definitions for these terms in “Church” material. The role of Prophets/Seers/Revelators also seems difficult to define. “The Church” definition seems to be that you should treat any words they speak as directly from God. I have serious doubts about the broadness of that definition.

In many ways I have tried to clear my mind of much of what I thought I knew, and focus on really understanding both alternative ways of thinking to "The Church" and what the pure doctrines of "The Gospel" are. This is not an easy task, but I feel this, along with other great online resources are an aid to my search.

~Clint~

Anonymous said...

Dave P. : I have found many of your comments very interesting, I tried to read on the “mormonstruth.org” site you mentioned, but found it very difficult to follow and painful to read. Maybe you should start your own website, because you are much more clear to understand.

I was wondering if it were possible for you to mention specifically the sections of the D&C which were added after Joseph Smiths death. I am aware of 132 in this regard, but wondered what others there are.

I am also interested in the ideas that you put forth on God the Father and Jesus being the same. I agree the Book of Mormon makes strong points towards this, and you seem to indicate even more strongly so in the 1830 version. Is this difference in the 1830 version primarily related to the 3 (or more) instances where the phrase “son of” is added? For example, “is the Eternal Father” changed to “is the son of the Eternal Father” and such, or is it more than that?

Recently, I read the King Follet discourse and found this to be contrary to the idea of God the Father and Jesus being the same person. I do not mean this as an argument, but wondered if you interpret this differently, and whether or not you find this sermon to be valid?

OK, one more question and then I will stop. I am unable to find anything related to your statement that “Willard Richards pulled the trigger on the shot that killed Hyrum Smith”. Do you have any source for this information?

I think I will take your advice to examine the nag hammadi, I have had only a small amount of exposure to the gnostic doctrines, but they do seem to resonate with me. Where would you suggest I begin, I have started looking at the gospel of Thomas.

Thanks for you candor in writing, and introducing me to new ideas, even if some of them seem a bit radical to me at first glance. I am glad to get out of my comfort zone.

~Clint~

zomarah said...

I don't mean to toot my own horn but in answer to Anonymous @7:58. I wrote an entry about revelation. There may be something of worth in there for you.

http://zomarah.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/silent-revelations/

I discuss mainly what constitutes revelation. You might leave with more questions than answers, but you might enjoy the post.

What you said about the church are my thoughts too. I've had to redefine what "the Church" is in my own mind.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

I'm more than happy to toot Zomarah's horn about his entry on revelation. It is not to be missed. I encourage EVERYONE to click on his link and go right over there. It's perfect.

Dave P. said...

I took a break from the blogosphere over the weekend, but I'll answer the questions directed at me over that time as best I can.

calimom, the idea definitely flies in the face of what I've been taught all my life, especially having stood up at the podium and spoken that I "knew" those things. But there's also the prophesy given in the Book of Mormon that it and the Bible would grow together to confound all manners of false doctrine and the BoM would be a second witness to the Bible. Why then has there been so much contention about the fact that the current BoM apparently contradicts the identity of God as presented in the Bible? The original BoM does not.

Steven Lester, the copy I have is a Herald Heritage Reprint by the Herald Publishing House in Independence, MO. I don't know if it's the same one that the RLDS issued or not, but the original narrative format flowed so much better for me than the current chapter/verse format.
As for your questions about God: there is no need to be scared of Him because God is love. The first steps towards coming to know Him are to first ask Him if He even exists. The prayer that the king of the Lamanites gives after being taught by Aaron is perfect in that he says, "Oh God, Aaron hath taught me that there is a God, and if there is a God, and if thou art God, wilt thou make thyself known unto me?" The Third Lecture on Faith also details what it means to have faith in God, with the first step being to know that He exists. He won't push you away, but will welcome you with open arms if you seek Him.
As for the corrupt leaders being "too careful" or "too secretive," they can NOT hide their sins. Isaiah prophesied that their sins would be "shouted from the rooftops" and that is beginning to be fulfilled with all of their secrets coming to light thanks to the internet! God's work is NOT about secrets and there will be no more secrets now that He's taken charge and satan's 6,000 year reign of secrets and lies is over.

-continued-

Dave P. said...

Clint,

I've been getting a lot of requests lately to start my own blog similar to this one, but feel that I've not yet obtained enough to write something based entirely on my own research.

Here's a list of the Sections added to the D&C after the 1844 edition: 2, 13, 77, 85, 87, 108-111, 113-118, 120-123, 125, 126, 129-132, and 136. This edition wasn't published until 1876. While Joseph wasn't able to witness for himself on these added sections, the key to knowing which ones are real are to see if they contradict previous revelation. For example:
126 - Brigham Young supposedly told to stop traveling to preach the gospel as an apostle when the apostles callings were to travel and preach unceasingly of the Savior.
130 - Verse 22 contradicts the 5th Lecture on Faith, which had been accepted as canonized scripture in the 1835 edition of the D&C.
132 - Contradicts the Lord's stance on marriage as one man and one wife, made explicit in an early edition of Section 101 that was removed later.

The primary changes to the identity of God were indeed made in the first 40 pages by inserting "the son of" in several parts of Nephi's vision. With over 3,000 changes made to the 1837 BoM, there are likely more but I didn't catch them in my reading. However, page 32 of the 1830 edition says it quite clearly:

"And the angel spake unto me: These last records which thou hast seen among the Gentiles [the Book of Mormon], shall establish the truth of the first, which is of the twelve apostles of the Lamb [the Bible], and shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them [BOTH!]: and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and Savior of the world; and that all men must come unto Him, or they cannot be saved... for there is one God and one Shepherd over all the earth."

The King Follet discourse is something I've recently learned has a shadow of doubt cast on it because the written version is different from what people recall hearing when Joseph Smith gave the original oral discourse. The following link goes into that in more detail as well as other points about Jesus being Heavenly Father: http://www.restored.org/lds/ldsall.htm

All I have on Willard Richards being the one to shoot Hyrum Smith is what Steve Davis told me that Moroni told him during his NDE. I'm currently looking for another witness to support that but there isn't much to go on since a full forensic investigation with today's methods has not been conducted (and probably cannot). But the fact that Willard Richards was a 33rd degree Mason who did not take a single bullet- he was the only one who ever claimed Joseph told him he would be protected- and then became church historian and a member of the First Presidency under Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball (also 33rd-degree Masons) is what casts doubt on his claims.

I have not started reading the Nag Hammandi scriptures myself yet, but I'll be focusing on them after I finish the Lectures on Faith. What I can definitely say is start where you feel you should and if it's the Gospel of Thomas, go for it. The primary things I'll be looking out for are how Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and how He also called women to be apostles as well. The reason why these records were nearly destroyed is because of the Savior's teachings that women are equal to men, but oppressing men did not want that to change.

I also received a copy of a magazine that summarizes the claims and evidences of the Nephite civilization existing primarily from Missouri to Lake Ontario. If I can, I'll scan the contents and post them somewhere.

Dave P. said...

J,

Here's more info on the London temple losing its tax-exempt status:

"The Church and its members have helped to define the statutory rights of religious groups through litigation of tax exemption laws in a number of U.S. and foreign jurisdictions. In England the Church's claim to a statutory property tax exemption for its London Temple was ultimately decided by the House of Lords, the highest court of appeal (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints V. Henning, 2 All E.R. 733 [1963]). The Lords denied the exemption because the temple, with its restrictive admission requirements, did not qualify under the statute as a place of "public worship." Henning has been frequently cited in British cases interpreting the property tax exemption statute. It was cited but not followed in the New Zealand Supreme Court decision of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Trust Board V. Waipa County Council (2 N.Z.L.R. 710 [1980]), in which the court, interpreting a New Zealand statute, granted a property tax exemption to the LDS temple in New Zealand. Property tax exemptions for Church property have also been litigated in a number of U.S. states, most commonly in relation to Church Welfare farms. Exemption for such property has been denied by courts in Arizona, Idaho, and Oregon, but upheld in South Carolina. In each case, the outcome has turned on the wording of the statute defining the tax exemption."

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Legal_and_Judicial_History_of_the_Church

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Nice research, Dave. Very informative stuff. Certainly food for thought.

J said...

Rock:

Not to detract from how the conversation is flowing, but I'd be interested in your thoughts on what I heard in ward conference yesterday. Two separate times, by two members of the Stake Conference, we were told that members of the Qof12 and First Presidency (examples of both current men, and past, were given) were both "sacred" and "holy" men. "Sacred" and "Holy" were the exact words used.

Is that true, or can it even be true, that men are "sacred" AND "holy"?

Alan Rock Waterman said...

I think they may be doubling up on the synonyms in hopes that one or the other will stick.

I'll need a little more evidence than I've seen lately. Perhaps a real revelation would help, rather than being constantly told we're blessed to have such men receiving revelation. (See Zomarah's latest entry on his blog.)

For man to merely have attained rank and office to Stand at the conference pulpit speaking slowly and piously in an attempt to appear sacred and holy isn't enough for me anymore. I need results.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

But you bring up a good question, J: can mere men even be considered Sacred and Holy? Certain ordinances are sacred, and some places are considered holy. But these are places and things. Joseph Smith was highly regarded during his lifetime by his fellow Saints, but I don't recall anyone using those terms to describe him, even after his death when the highest panegyrics were showered on his name.

He was extremely well well loved by his friends. But can you imagine him allowing himself to be called Sacred and Holy? He would have laughed at the idea.

Yet here we have people in the modern Church exalting the current leadership to near god-like status, and those demi-gods in no hurry to dispel the misconception. And we wonder why others consider us a cult.

JSDefender said...

Rock—

I enjoyed your post and found it most interesting. I’ve also enjoyed reading the comments about the changes in the 1837 Kirtland edition of the Book of Mormon from the Palmyra edition. I would like to weigh in on this issue to provide some information that may be of help.

In 1906, the General Conference of the RLDS Church commissioned a committee to compare the original manuscript with the 1837 Kirtland edition, the Palmyra edition, and other editions printed by the RLDS Church prior to 1906, in order to prepare an accurate edition. The result was the 1908 RLDS edition of the Book of Mormon. Below are excerpts from the preface of the 1908 edition as to what they found in their comparison:

“The sub-committee carefully compared the Original Manuscript with the Kirtland [edition]…. The Manuscript is legible; there was little difficulty in reading it. They also referred to the Palmyra edition in the examination of the text. The preface to the Kirtland edition contains the following paragraph:

“‘Individuals acquainted with book printing, are aware of the numerous typographical errors which always occur in manuscript editions. It is only necessary to say, that the whole has been carefully re-examined and compared with the original manuscripts, by Elder Joseph Smith, Jr., the translator of the Book of Mormon, assisted by the present printer, Brother O. Cowdery, who formerly wrote the greatest portion of the same, as dictated by Brother Smith.’

“The [RLDS] committee found … some matter in the Original Manuscript omitted in the Palmyra or the Kirtland edition, or in both those editions; such omissions evidently being overlooked in proofreading. Where differences occurred between the Manuscript and the Kirtland edition, the committee were governed by the subject-matter of the context. There were no material differences in the sense of the text of the Manuscript and of the Kirtland edition.”

The review of this committee seems to corroborate the statement in the preface of the 1837 Kirtland edition that it was corrected according to the original manuscript which supports the position that the Kirtland edition is a more correct version than the Palmyra edition.

Dave P. said...

The one major issue with that is this one question, "Did the Lord ever tell the church to print a second edition?" He did not. According to what the Three Witnesses heard in June, 1829, the Lord accepted the translation (original manuscript) as correct. However, the Lord says nothing about needing to make any changes to the printed version because, despite the mistakes, He still approved of that original version as it still contained all of the fulness of the gospel as well as the record of the fallen Jaredite/Nephite nations.

When a committee of learned men (that also included those who belonged to secret combinations) set out to "correct" the most correct book on the earth, they had the opportunity to make any alterations they wished. It should be noted that Parley P. Pratt paid for the printing of the second edition and his family was cursed for four generations because of it (what's also interesting is that Mitt Romney is a 4th-generation descendant of his).

The church and its branches can publish as many new editions that are "closer to the original manuscript" as they wish, but if the Lord hasn't authorized it, then it's only a complete waste of time and resources. While the original wasn't perfect, it was pure, and that's the one the Lord wants us to study.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Did the Kirtland edition keep, or did it discard, the Parts that showed Jesus and the eternal father to be one being?

Dave P. said...

I'd have to obtain an actual copy to verify it, but I believe that the Kirtland edition discarded that notion. That also brings up the question of what year was the 3rd edition printed?

On that note I found an article online talking about over 8400 changes made to the standard works in church history: http://www.challengemin.org/8400.html

Anonymous said...

David P-

It seems to me that before you commit yourself totally as a disciple of Steve Davis, you might want to do a little more research.

You might spread a little less false doctrine that way.

There are three places in the scriptures that say WHY Jesus is both the Father and the Son.

It is because, in additional to being directed by his Father's spirit, he is a personage of FLESH.

There are ZERO places in the scriptures that say that the Father is both the father and the Son.

Why?

Because the Father is a personage of spirit.

You will understand that if you keep reading the Lectures on Faith.

It is stated quite clearly two separate times in the Lectures on Faith that the Father is a personage of spirit and the Son is a personage of flesh.

The Lectures clearly state that there are TWO personages that are in the Godhead.

Everything taught in the Lectures on Faith is clearly verified by the testimony of brother Coltrin, who, while being taught the Lectures on Faith and attending the School of the Prophets, SAW THE FATHER AND THE SON, just like many of the other early leaders did.

According to brother Coltrin,

After the Father and the Son walked through the room and were seen by several of the early elders of the church, Joseph Smith said-

“Brethren, now you are prepared to be the apostles of Jesus Christ, for you have seen both the Father and the Son and know that they exist and that they are two separate personages."

Dave P. said...

Anonymous,

If I was a disciple of Steve Davis, I'd be blindly listening without any questions rather than, as I've mentioned, sought to confirm these things for myself and draw closer to God as a result.

And of course the Father and the Son have and can appear to people as two separate personages as Lehi and Stephen saw, but the key point made in the Fifth Lecture is that they are of one mind. Two different people cannot share the same mind.

Also when looking at the definition of "personage," its original definition is "body or image (statue, portrait) of a person." Meaning you could look at the actual person, a photo of that person, and a statue of that person and you'd be seeing three separate personages that all refer back to the same person of origin.

Steven Lester said...

How can God the Father be an exalted person of flesh and bone, which is why we come to Earth to get the same kind of body supposedly, and be a person of just Spirit at the same time? It has to be either/or, doesn't it? And this is the first time I've ever heard of The Father and the Son ever visiting the School of The Prophets! No event could have been of greater importance, I would think, so why is THAT news so forgotten about? And so, in the old days, you couldn't be an Apostle unless you had seen The Father and The Son, which is why Joseph said that "NOW you are apostles...", implying that they weren't before because they hadn't actually seen those two yet. So, does that mean that today, when some old guy dies while wearing the mantle of Apostleship and some younger guy gets promoted to the same rank, at some point The Father and The Son appears to him also, like automatically, in that round room that leads off of the Celestial Room (with the vase in the way) in the Salt Lake Temple, that nobody ever gets to enter (except the janitor) unless the Prophet invites him in? Is that what this story is implying?

JSDefender said...

Dave P. –

As I understand, the Palmyra edition of the Book of Mormon wasn’t printed until about March 1830. The Three Witnesses received their testimony, as you stated, in about June 1829. So when the Lord told them that the translation was correct, I believe He was referring to the manuscript because the book was not yet in print. To me what is pure is the original manuscript, not necessarily the original printing. If the original printing was in error according to the manuscript, then it should have been reprinted to correct the errors. By my way of thinking, the Lord wants us to read what He gave Joseph, not what a printer decided to print. As a believer in the Book of Mormon, I want to know that the edition I use is accurate according to the original manuscript. If not, I can’t be sure that what I’m reading is true.

Anonymous said...

"Two different people cannot share the same mind."

We are not speaking about human beings here, we are speaking about God the Father and his Son.

You cannot limit your understanding of the nature and character of God to what you deem to be the limitations of human beings.

Perhaps this is why the scriptures refer to the "mysteries of Godliness"

One of the points made in Lectures is that God the Father and God the Son CAN share the same mind and still be separate intelligent entities with differing personages. Are you going to reject those truths because two human beings cannot share the same mind?

Modern Mormonism teaches that the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit while the original gospel teaches that the Holy Ghost is not a personage of spirit but rather it is a spirit essence that permeates all existences and is the mind of God the Father and God the Son.

Let me remind you once again, there are three passages that explain WHY Christ is referred to as the Father and the Son.

There are ZERO passages stating that the father is the Father and the Son.

Instead of concluding that there is no "God the Father" besides Jesus Christ you might want to try to understand WHY Jesus is called both the Father and the Son.

Here are the three references in case you haven't studied them, you will notice that the point they are making is that the Son has FLESH and that is why he is the Son.

Mosiah 15
1 AND now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.
2 And because he dwelleth in FLESH he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—
3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the FLESH; thus becoming the Father and Son—
4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.
5 And thus the FLESH becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God,



3rd Nephi 1 14
Behold, I come unto my own, to fulfil all things which I have made known unto the children of men from the foundation of the world, and to do the will, both of the Father and of the Son—of the Father because of me, and of the Son because of my FLESH.



D&C 93 And that I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one—
4 The Father because he gave me of his fulness, and the Son because I was in the world and made FLESH my tabernacle, and dwelt among the sons of men.

If it was true that there is only one God that is called the Father and the Son then Lectures would have taught that.

And... only one personage would have walked through the room

And... Joseph would have said,

“Brethren, now you are prepared to be the apostles of Jesus Christ, for you have seen that he is the only true God and that there is no other God beside him "

Anonymous said...

Steven-

You said-

"How can God the Father be an exalted person of flesh and bone, which is why we come to Earth to get the same kind of body supposedly, and be a person of just Spirit at the same time?"

The original doctrines that were taught between 1829 and the end of 1834 are quite different from the bastardized doctrines taught in the church today.

If you will compare the King Follett Sermon to Lectures on Faith you will find two completely different and conflicting doctrines pertaining to God, the nature of God and Godhood.

Much of the "exaltation doctrine" taught in Nauvoo and in the church today is inconsistent with LoF and the revealed word of God.

Joseph Smith was told from the beginning that he would be known for Good and Evil.

This is because after the saints rejected the truth, they had be be turned over to darkness in compliance with eternal law and to fulfilled prophecy.

Virtually all of the great truths of the early LDS restoration have been taken from the modern saints but they will be restored in the near future.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Anonymous at 11:43,
I think it's unfair of you to accuse Dave P of being a "disciple" of anyone, particularly when Dave made it clear that Steve White rejects any claims of being a guru of any sort.

Unorthodox views are welcome here. Disagreements are also welcome, but they should be stated politely.

Dave is entitled to share his recent discoveries here without being rudely shut down. I can't comment on the controversy other than to say that the opinion that Jesus is he Eternal Father is held by quite a few devout Latter-day Saints, and I believe the question of whether this view is organic to the restoration merits a wider hearing and further investigation. It is far from settled in my mind.

I also don't believe that jumping all over a fellow truth seeker by declaring his opinion to be "false doctrine" is the most effective way to advance a dialogue. Just as I don't automatically accept Dave's presentation as doctrinal, neither do I blindly accept the scriptures you cite to refute it without seeing how the verses appear in the original manuscript. But I can think of a nice way to ask without suggesting you're on the road to apostasy.

Like Steven, I had never before heard that testimony of Brother Coltrin that you presented, and the first thing I wonder about is this: if others were present, why have they not added their voices to that testimony? Or have they, and I'm simply not aware of them?

At any rate, I will not accuse you of spreading false doctrine simply because you shared something that was new to me.

Marcy said...

Dave P: The first I read of the allegation that Willard was the one who shot Joseph, Hyrum, and John came from a different source that the one you cited. Thought you would find it interesting.

http://webspace.webring.com/people/np/potai/carthageconspiracy-99.htm

Dave P. said...

Steven,

It makes perfect sense for God to appear as the Son to people called AND chosen (pesky Section 121) because the role of an apostle is to be a special witness for Jesus Christ because they have seen him. But in the current church, the apostles are picked from general authorities who were initially called for their willingness to be blindly obedient, their family relations who were also GAs, and/or have a lot of money. The only exception that I'm aware of is Richard G. Scott.

The one who becomes "prophet" simply outlives the rest of the group of old men. But if you ask any of them if they've seen Jesus Christ face to face, you're more likely to get a dodge of, "That's too sacred to discuss," with broken eye contact rather than a straight answer. I plan to conduct an experiment to see if this is really the case if I meet one of the corporate apostles in-person.

A man named Doug Walker said it well in his book “Under the Mormon Tree.” He was scolded because of his disrespect to Howard W. Hunter who could not answer Doug that he had ever seen Christ. Doug was reprimanded for even asking this by someone there with; “Don’t you know who you are talking to?” and Doug replied, “Sure; an impostor!”

Fortunately, seeing Jesus face-to-face isn't a privilege reserved only for those called and chosen as apostles because, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." That very thing happened to Joseph Smith. The Lord will appear to whomever He chooses and will do so however He wishes. We need not try to create Him in our image, but we can know that He is the one and only God because He has said so.

I may refer to what people have said in the past, but can never speak for them on what they may say in the future. I can only speak for myself because I can only seek the truth for myself. Thankfully asking God for guidance on such things is an option open for all of us.

Dave P. said...

Marcy,
I missed your comment while I was writing my previous one. Thanks for that link as this is the kind of information I've been looking for!

Isaac said...

This is kind of a tough one. The Steven White thing isn't so tough for me though. History (as well as a significant percentage of street corners in major cities) is littered with visionaries who have been sent to give us the truth. I'll stay pretty skeptical about that one until I get a lot more information. I would also like to hear some stories about how The Church tried to kill him. They tried to kill me too, when they sent me to Africa and I got chased by a rhino.

As far as the missing/changed info being discussed, I don't know. It's a foreign feeling, understandably, to suddenly consider yourself back with the Catholics and the Trinity.

If all of this Master Mason stuff is true, it presents a huge problem. What happens to the priesthood line of authority? How can any temple ordinance, as Dave P suggested, be legitimate if all but a few years of the restored church have been run by apostates and phonies? Or even just well meaning placeholders? It negates everything that has been done since the death of Joseph Smith (not that negating the slick-hair-cut-and-suit jive would be bad, but there are other things too). That means that the priesthood would have to be re-restored before the second coming, right? Or not? Was anything restored permanently, or is the belief in the priesthood not being taken from the earth again just another brick in the wall to prevent exposing the long conspiracy? How far astray can the church go before history repeats itself in the form of another apostasy and removal of authority?

I don't disagree that there are some serious cultural and managerial problems present in the church and The Church, but what Dave P is suggesting is another level altogether.

Anonymous said...

Rock-

You said,

I think it's unfair of you to accuse Dave P of being a "disciple" of anyone, particularly when Dave made it clear that Steve White rejects any claims of being a guru of any sort."

I assume you meant Steve Davis.

This has nothing to do with whether Steve Davis claims to be a guru or not.

It has to do with whether Dave has embraced the teachings of Steve Davis.

In case you didn't pay attention to what Dave P had said in his numerous statements and claims, prior to his disclaimer in his 12:26 PM rebuttal, all of his comments implied that the beliefs and doctrines of Steve Davis from the dinner conversation and website are credible and factual.

Never did he say they were interesting speculations that he was trying to confirm.

Clearly, he was presenting himself to be a believer of the teachings presented by Steve Davis and he was teaching the things that Steve teaches and encouraging people to visit Steves website.

I don't see why he and you are so defensive about my suggestion that he is a disciple of Steve Davis.

Perhaps you misunderstand how I was using the word disciple and that is creating confusion.

I am simply saying that from what he had said, he appears to be a believer in what Steve Davis teaches.

What is wrong with that?

He is welcome to believe and teach what Steve teaches!

I have no problems with that as long as I have the right to passionately disagree and state an alternate view.


There are probably lots of people who believe everything you say Rock!

I that a crime?

Why are you running interference for Dave? He is a big boy. He can defend himself.

I think Dave has a right to believe what Steve teaches, I am simply challenging the views that Dave and Steve are promoting.

Do I have a right to do so on this blog without being accused of shutting someone down?

I am not trying to shut Dave Down. I am trying to explain why I believe his belief about God is not consistent with scripture and LoF.

I am trying to engage him further on what he is teaching.

I am giving him the opportunity to defend the doctrines he is presenting.

What is wrong with a little lively debate on these topics.

Why so thin skinned?

This seems a bit inconsistent to me Rock. The church and the brethren take a severe beating at your hands on this blog and yet if someone challenges the views of one of your favorite readers you charactorize them as "rude".

Why don't you back the hell off and let the discussion continue.

These are very important things that need to be discussed and debated and all sides need to be heard.

I am quite familiar with Steve Davis and his claims and I have a differing opinion of them than Dave does. Don't I have a right to voice an alternative view and to point out scriptures that may challenge his views?

Rock are you sincerely interested in allowing everyone to present their views and challenge other people's views in the hope of discovering the truth or are you just interested in controlling the doctrines that are presented here blog?

Why are you attacking me instead of the information I have presented?

It seems to me that you should attempt to show why I am wrong about the information I have provided from LoF and the scriptures and the account of Coltin etc., rather than brow beat me for disagreeing with Dave.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Anonymous,
I have no quarrel with your disagreements, and indeed, I do desire your input. My problem was what I perceived as your "I'm right, you're wrong" way of delivering your point of view. By all means, I want to hear all sides of this controversy, but I'd like to see those sides presented with respect.

Dave P is certainly capable of defending his own position, but had your attack been against someone with a thinner skin, we might never have heard from that person again.

I think it's clear that I have no interest in "controlling the doctrines" presented on this blog. The attempt by some in the Church to do precisely that is what I continually rail against. My objections are not directed against the argument you presented, but the way in which you presented it. (I very much appreciate, for example, the information regarding Brother Coltrin's vision, as well as your scriptural citations. I may not have adequately expressed that to you.)

I realize that the internet is scattered with arguments presented in a haughty tone, but I would like to see disagreements on this forum conducted with a little more civility.

Yes, I have been critical of the Brethren; I even titled my piece about Elder Costa's talk "Preaching False Doctrine Over the General Conference Pulpit." But I began by suggesting that we should cut Costas a little slack because he is a convert and likely not aware that a living Prophet had already rebutted the points he was making. When I pointed that out, it was with the intent to inform my readers of the untenability of blindly following Church authority;I don't think it was seen as an attempt on my part to shut down Elder Costas.

(On the other hand, there's McConkie; that arrogant cuss needed shutting down.)

By all means, your comments are most welcome here, so I apologize for giving you a contrary impression. The way we all learn from each other is through a healthy back-and-forth. Please continue.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Isaac, good to hear from you!

I think the Church leadership have really painted themselves into a corner with their firm emphasis on the line of authority. Because of that they can't easily dismiss the obvious errors of those who came before.

Brigham Young admitted publicly that he was not a prophet, but the Line of Authority doctrine has to insist he was, and therefore his words and actions are somehow infallible. That has presented numerous problems that are only now really coming home to roost, thanks largely to the access of information the internet provides.

If this is indeed the true church,I think a better way of looking at things is that God works unceasingly through the general membership, and is not limited to operating through the leadership. I see God's hand throughout the church, but we are taught today that nothing is valid that doesn't come through the proper channels. I reject that top-down control; if I accepted it, I would have to believe multiple conflicting teachings at once. Easier to hold fast to that which the spirit tells me is true, and let go of the rest.

Unfortunately, within a church that teaches a direct, unbroken line of authority, what is true and what is false becomes problematic, because we then have to believe that it's all true or it's all false.

Under Brigham Young's direction, Willard Richards doctored the official church history to bring Joseph Smith's teachings into conformity with Brigham Young's contrary doctrines. That would indicate to me that the line of authority might have been broken pretty early on. It doesn't, however, preclude God from continuing to work through the lives of the members. It only throws doubt on the legitimacy of those who would claim authority over the rest of us.

Isaac said...

Anonymous,
Although Rock and probably all of his readers welcome debate and new information, I don't think you actually have a "right" to any part of this blog. You are allowed, but that gives you no rights at all. You have the right to put anything you want on your own blog, but this one belongs to someone else. Just a little nitpick about property rights. Seems like everyone is losing sight of that, and since civilization is built on property rights, I give it some weight.

Rock,
I understand what you're saying, but what about keys? Peter, James, and John went to the Mount of Transfiguration to receive priesthood keys, and they passed those keys to others later on. If true priesthood authority were lost early, wouldn't the keys be lost? That puts temple ordinances in a bad situation. I don't think this is a case where the difference can be made up by good-hearted people trying to do the right thing, because there has to be a physical transfer of authority in order for physical ordinances to be legitimate.

On a side note, I enjoy violating "proper channels" whenever I can.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Well, Isaac, I don't really know, but it seems to me that the president still holds the keys, but either the past several ones haven't been exercising them, or they are blocked due to unworthiness via D&C 121. I don't have any problem with the ordinances being performed, but I do miss the gifts of the spirit such as revelation, translating, healing, etc.

Also, the priesthood operates outside of the official Church. It is an independent power that does not rely on corporate permission.

Just my thoughts. I could be wrong.

Dave P. said...

Isaac,

This goes back to the revelation that Parley P. Pratt received while on his way back to Nauvoo after Joseph Smith's death wherein he was told that Joseph Smith still held the keys of the dispensation. Quoting from his autobiography, beginning with page 333:

“As I walked along over the plains of Illinois, lonely and solitary, I reflected as follows: I am now drawing near to the beloved city; in a day or two I shall be there. How shall I meet the sorrowing widows and orphans? How shall I meet the aged and widowed mother of these two martyrs? How shall I meet an entire community bowed down with grief and sorrow unutterable? What shall I say? Or how to console and advise twenty-five thousand people who will throng about me in tears, and in the absence of my President and the older members of the now presiding council, will ask counsel at my hands? Shall I tell them to fly to the wilderness and deserts? Or, shall I tell them to stay at home and take care of themselves, and continue to build the Temple? With these reflections and inquiries, I walked onward, weighed down as it were unto death. When I could endure it no longer, I cried out aloud, saying: O Lord! In the name of Jesus Christ I pray Thee, show me what these things mean, and what I shall say to Thy people? On a sudden the Spirit of God came upon me, and filled my heart with joy and gladness indescribable; and while the spirit of revelation glowed in my bosom with as visible a warmth and gladness as if it were fire. The Spirit said unto me: “Lift up your head and rejoice; for behold! It is well with my servants Joseph and Hyrum. My servant Joseph still holds the keys of my kingdom in this dispensation, and he shall stand in due time on the earth, in the flesh, and fulfill that to which he is appointed. Go and say unto my people in Nauvoo, that they shall continue to pursue their daily duties and take care of themselves, and make no movement in Church government to reorganize or alter anything until the return of the remainder of the Quorum of the Twelve. But exhort them that they continue to build the House of the Lord which I have commanded them to build in Nauvoo.

"This information caused my bosom to burn with joy and gladness, and I was comforted above measure; all my sorrow seemed in a moment to be lifted as a burden from my back. The change was so sudden I hardly dared to believe my senses; I, therefore, prayed the Lord to repeat to me the same things the second time; if, indeed, I might be sure of their truth, and might really tell the Saints to stay in Nauvoo, and continue to build the Temple. As I prayed thus, the same spirit burned in my bosom, and the Spirit of the Lord repeated to me the same message again."

From that point on, the Quorom of the Twelve was supposed to lead the church's spiritual affairs as a group because Joseph had authorized them to exercise the keys collectively while the presiding bishop handled the temporal affairs. This happened for a while, until Brigham Young recreated the First Presidency without the keys, making him the first of the ten kings without a kingdom in Revelation 17 and Daniel 7.

Tom said...

Isaac:

On a side note, property rights aren't all they're made up to be. While you claim they represent the basic building blocks of civilization, I would proffer that they represent the basic building blocks of greed, avarice and lust. The idea that property rights are rooted in civilization is an idea that generally emanates from a capitalistic viewpoint, especially when viewing capitalism as God's designed plan of commerce. I say, emphatically, 'Bah.'

Additionally, one of the great assumptions of our day is that "civilization", generally defined, is good, righteous and divinely inspired. However, is that a correct assumption?

"But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin." - D&C 49:16

As to the rest, I'd return to this argument from some time ago on another site: http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2010/09/3-nephi-20-27-28.html

In there, the story of the Nauvoo temple building was discussed and how the temple partially burned down after a prayer that it be accepted. D&C 124 speaks of the Saints being rejected at that point. Perhaps it might be worth some further exploration here.

andrew said...

this link explains very well how priesthood authority/keys can pass (or in more proper terms, be activated) from one to another, even under circumstances such as joseph's death. the law of common consent was in force in the early church and the members did decide to follow young as the succeeding president, thus validating his authority. the link will go directly to that section but i'd recommend a full reading of that post, and it's preceding one

Steven Lester said...

A lot of people consented to follow Hitler to their doom, thusly validating his authority using the same argument. I heard tell that Joseph Smith's stated preference was for his son to take over once he became of age, an arrangement that Young agreed to, at least until the kid actually grew up when Young then declared him to be too carnal to take over Young's job by then, and the declaration stuck. Too bad. Hitler and Young make a great pair. One can only imagine the conversation they must have had in Paradise after both had died. I'm sure that Young would have admired the big guns that Hitler had access to, all the better to blast Conner out of his fort after he planted his own which were all aimed at Young's house. (I hope it was Conner. You know...Fort Douglas.)

andrew said...

by invoking godwin's law you are taking the losing side of a debate, whether there are even sides or not. would you like another turn?

andrew said...

by the way, as awful as it sounds, your first sentence i am not really in disagreement with. people often willingly cast their vote for their own destruction. however, in the link provided an example is made using alma the elder, which in my opinion, had just a tad tact. hitler? brigham young? please

andrew said...

*tad more tact

Dave P. said...

Why the Law of Common Consent? Because we have our agency, but if we consent to disobey God's laws, then we have no promise.

Ron Madson said...

Rock,

I do not want to threadjack nor comment on the thread of discussion here but I simply want to find out how I can privately e-mail you a paper I prepared regarding DC 98 that I remember you requesting a copy sometime ago--but I do not remember where. Do you have my e-mail when I send this comment? If so, e-mail me so that I can send it to you. thanks

Isaac von Mises said...

OK Tom, but I disagree with you more emphatically than you disagree with me. In fact, I'm totally emphasizing it in person right now, although you can't tell over the Internet. But I think in order to have a proper discussion about this some terms need to be defined concerning property, capitalism, corporatism, greed, and the like. But this is obviously not the place. So there you have it.

Steven Lester said...

Well, I hope to meet both Hitler and Young myself, and shake their hands, and ask them a whole bunch of questions, if I can get through the crowd that I know will be surrounding them. Then, we will know the complete truth about both. Andrew, you need to really work on that sense of humor of yours. I know that it must exist somewhere.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Ron, my email is rockwaterman@gmail.com. I would very much like to read that, thanks.

andrew said...

i simply think it cheapens the argument when making any comparison to hitler/3rd reich/ss to, well, anyone or anything else

as far as my sense of humor...well i think if you really drilled down, you can find a little bit of hitler in all of us, even in a humble soup kitchen

Anonymous said...

I was wondering if there is a post edit video of the 84 conference talk anywhere? A link?
Thanks

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Glenn said he will make a link available at the Mormon Expression site. I'll put a bug in his ear.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Andrew,
A little bit of Hitler in all of us? Surely you jest!

P.S. Heil Rock Waterman!

Pure truth said...

Great comments here, except for the rude remarks by Anonymous. Rock, thanks for telling him to be more respectful. Anyone may comment on my posts with the exception of Anonymous as he seems to exude such a negative attitude. However, I might not respond to anyone, however, as my time is limited (in college). I've really enjoyed reading your blogs here, they Rock! ; )

Just a few thoughts:

If you look at all of the scriptures dealing with the Cleansing of the Lord's House "with much restoration unto the house" needed then a clearer picture comes into view (D&C 64:38-40, 124:45-48, 112:23-26, 1 Nephi 13, 2 Nephi 3:24, D&C 85:7, 2 Nephi 28, D&C 42:9, Mormon 8, etc.).

This includes the last dream of Joseph Smith. Spoiler: The dirty shambles of the barn represents the church today with the leaders wanting to kill Joseph Smith because they don't want to give up their power and authority. The evil men become distracted, however, as they fight among themselves which allows Joseph Smith time to escape.

"Much restoration" seems to indicate that the House needs a cleansing of prideful leaders e.g. "Prophets, Apostles...even Bishops and their counselors shall be removed", but not a complete overhaul (D&C 64:38-40).

John the Baptist appeared and restored the Gospel (separate from the church), however, Peter, James, and John's appearance remains controversial due to research of historical records by the RLDS.
Simple baptism in the example of Jesus Christ removes the elitism that makes our church reek.

I refuse to worship any man or "trust in the arm of flesh" especially when the Spirit conveyed the true message of the Ensign magazine story with the picture of Gordon B Hinckley, T.S.Monson, and Faust up on the Rameupton tower. Did you notice that? Or when Gordon B. Hinckley stated, "All is Well in Zion" (see Nephi 2:28), but then it was edited out of the Ensign much like Poehlman's talk. Obviously, either Hinckley or his speech writers did not know the scriptures as he infamously fulfilled scriptures that day and the Spirit confirmed it to me. I had many friends that heard him state those warning words as well. I've watched, sought truth, had many spiritual experiences, and my eyes finally opened.

When you speak the truth you don't speak ill of anyone, much like the truthful child pointing out the lack of the Emporer's clothes. Thanks for telling the truth here. No one can freely ask questions in Sunday School anymore. Needless to say control is not of God and that's what the church leaders demand.

I appreciate the research by D. Michael Quinn including the fact that women and blacks held the priesthood during the early pure years of the church. His pamphlet on this subject caused his excommunication so regardless of his state of mind at this time, I also appreciate his award-winning historical research and courage to tell the truth.

The original Book of Mormon approach to expose and clean up the corruption with the "plain and precious truth" restored simply makes sense. Thanks Dave P. for your comments on that.

The latest tidbit that I've heard concerns a Stake President talking to a friend of mine. He asked D.E., "If Jesus Christ and Gordon B. Hinckley were standing in front of you, who would you obey?" D.E. stated, "Jesus Christ, of course!" The Stake President then became angry and roared, "Are you kidding! Don't you know that Gordon B. Hinckley is next in line to become God!" This pride comes from the belief in many Gods as there is only one God (Jesus Christ, yea the Eternal Father) as Amulek was told very clearly by an Angel (Alma 11:23-40).

This true story with the SP happened some years ago. This incident reveals the pride and arrogance of the leaders of this church which confirms Joseph Smith's last dream prior to his murder.

Dave P. said...

We also can't forget the attitude of elitism not only spreading among the general church membership, but also openly encouraged. How wise is it to completely inflate a teenager's ego by repeatedly telling them, "You are the chosen generation and the best-of-the-best. Nothing can stop you." Last I read, many are called but few are chosen.

Of course that example just pertains to the youth, the real clincher is this story that got circulated around quite a bit during my college years in that those who would die and go to the spirit world would talk to the others there and they would say, "I lived in the time of Adam," "I lived in the time of Nephi," etc. Finally, another would say, "I lived in the time of Gordon B. Hinckley," and a silent hush would fall over everyone else, who would then bow down to the one who said that. Last I checked, the Israelites and Nephites never had good results from getting puffed up in pride like that.

God chooses the pure in heart who follow Him, no matter their history or position. After all, King Noah and his high priests were the "infallible" religious leaders of their day as the people said they could do no wrong, then came Abinadi who said that the situation with King Noah would be a type and a shadow of today's situation. Let's see... an infallible "king" with 12 high priests whom the Lord needs to call to repentance via someone from outside of the "official" channels... I'm not naming any names, but consider the situation as it exists today. Thankfully there's also a potential Alma in the group.

Steven Lester said...

I love reading what you write Mr. P, but I find myself still doubting the ability of anybody, no matter how persuasive he or she might be, to change things within the Church in any big way, by themselves. I think that the hold over the members and the institution itself is just too pervasive. It would require an actual visitation of one of the heavenly bigwigs (Jesus doesn't necessarily have to show up; Joseph Smith would do just fine). Accomplished publicly, like during a General Conference (can you imagine the scene? Monson is talking when a glow appears next to the pulpit. It slowly coalesces into the white-robed form of J.S. He motions for a now silent Monson to move aside and then talks for five minutes on television, although security immediately challenges his right to be up there, since he isn't wearing a tie, but they fail by being struck motionless) is about the only way this could be done. Of course, the Lord holds all of our lives in His hand, and He could just kill every Apostle except the youngest if He wanted to, and just appear to him, but He won't because He just doesn't operate like that, I guess. (Although that's how I'd do it if I were the busy God like He must be. More efficient, you see.)

In short, Mr. P, I must respectfully say that I will believe it only when I see it actually happen. I would welcome a legitimate Alma to show up to save the day. He'd better get moving, though.

andrew said...

no one can change the church by themselves because, well, they find out these little gems and how history truly isn't what they (the brethren) have said it to be, and they either end up leaving or become so outspoken they have disciplinary action come up against them, so there's no chance to bond together and become agents of change. the minds of the general membership naturally weed out any 'free thinkers'; just another [convenient] system of control imo.

pure truth i thought 'evidence' of women holding the priesthood didn't really have any basis of fact, or at least what are considered 'priesthood' ordinances today weren't really restricted to holders of it back then. healings among sisters, and setting each other apart for callings were just part of the general responsibility for relief society/sisters

btw steven i apologize for my semi-knee-jerk reaction to your post. i'm just glad it didn't derail the comments here. i don't know rock's readership well enough i suppose. bff?

Steven Lester said...

Things are perfectly cool, Andrew. I don't know if you are a devotee to YouTube, but there used to be a series of takeoffs on Hitler in the bunker at the end of the war wherein everybody speaks German but there are subtitles to help out. Hitler just finds out that there aren't any more troops to send against the Allies that are fighting in Berlin and goes into a tirade that is right on until he calms down and collapses into a chair a beaten man.

Well, since most of the people in America don't speak German various wags have changed the subtitles to subjects like Apple taking away the Newton or of (here) the U of Washington demise (with a record of 0 and 12) when we got beaten by the University in Pullman who had an equally rotten record. It is hilarious to see all of them. There were about ten of them or so.

At one time everybody feared Hitler tremendously, but now that he is just an object of derision he no longer has any power over us. When we can laugh at Brigham Young as just some kind of bigoted weird uncle, then he won't have any more power over us. Hopefully, we will laugh at Monson and Packer as weird old ducks totally out of touch with reality someday, at which time they will have no power over us in the least.

Certain uptight people, however, last year complained that the Hitler videos were evil or something, and so YouTube took them down. Sad. The guy died in 1945, fully 65 years ago. When are we going to let him go?

Pure Truth said...

Andrew,

Check out the writings by D. Michael Quinn regarding Women who held the full priesthood during the early, early years of the church at the same time that the Blacks (Elijah Abel, etc.) held the priesthood. Do the research.

Elitism against Women and Blacks did not exist during these early years prior to the infiltration of masonry, induction of polygamy due to "carnal desires" (D&C 3:1-11) and before the church became condemned by God (D&C 124:48) for its "follies and abominations".

Equality is a key to the purity of God's will demonstrated and faithfully practiced, sadly lacking as seen in the historical/religious suppression of women during the reign of Lucifer's influence on this earth.

The Blacks had their priesthood restored due to political pressure as in the Government's threat to confiscate church-owned property which magically produced the Blacks getting the priesthood. These same financial sanctions to the church by the government caused the artificial production of the Manifesto (actually written by Woodruff's secretary and others as confessed during a court hearing).

Financial difficulties caused artificial production of "The law of tithing" by Lorenzo Snow. Tithing is a lesser law which enabled the wealthy, prideful status of the church today. Prophetically the church leaders today fulfill the prophecies regarding the poor being ignored while they build another "great and spacious building" as seen with a three billion dollar shopping mall and more masonic temples complete with the required blood oaths. All oaths..."comes of evil." Check out the New Testament and Christ's teachings on swearing oaths...its never been of God, the same as the religious suppression of women.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Pure Truth,
I own Michael Quinn's books, and I've read his pieces in Dialogue, but I'm unfamiliar with the pamphlet you mention. Is it a reprint from one of his books? What is the title?

Pure Truth said...

Hi Rock!
Here is a link where you can click on the title: "Mormon Women Have Had the Priesthood Since 1843" by D. Michael Quinn and read it in its entirity: http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/women/chapter17.htm

I have provided the first paragraph of his pamphlet below. His historical research which established the equality of women caused Quinn to became a target of the "Mormon Mafia" as I call the prophetically LDS leaders/liars of today.

I met with D. Michael Quinn near the LAX airport at a restaurant and had a great conversation with him in 2001. I go to great lengths to get 2nd and 3rd witnesses to what I'm told spiritually. Great formula for all truth seekers which Christ taught us to do.

As you will see when you click on the link I gave you, its included in the book called Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism

Edited by
Maxine Hanks

I've had a lot of profound spiritual experiences and this book provides some truths, however, "mother in heaven" which Hanks glorifies is not mentioned in the scriptures for a very important reason. And there is a reason why Masons worship "the supreme mother" rather than God (Morals and Dogma by Carol Quigley provides this information, I believe). I'm adamant that there is only One God. I gave you that link due to Quinn's piece, but I also know that praying to the "mother" as suggested in this book edited by Hanks is not a good idea even though equality of women as priesthood leaders in the church is of God...

***
Mormon Women Have Had the Priesthood Since 1843
D. Michael Quinn
[365] For 150 years Mormon women have performed sacred ordinances in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Every person who has received the LDS temple endowment knows that women perform for other women the “initiatory ordinances” of washing and anointing.1 Fewer know that LDS women also performed ordinances of healing from the 1840s until the 1940s.2 Yet every Mormon knows that men who perform temple ordinances and healing ordinances must have the Melchizedek priesthood. Women are no exception.3
Two weeks after he organized the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo, Illinois, Joseph Smith announced his intention to confer priesthood on women. He told them on 30 March 1842 that “the Society should move according to the ancient Priesthood” and that he was “going to make of this Society a kingdom of priests as in Enoch's day—as in Paul's day.”4 In printing the original minutes of the prophet's talk after his death, the official History of the Church omitted Joseph's first use of the word “Society” and changed the second “Society” to “Church.” Those two alterations changed the entire meaning of his statement.5 More recently an LDS general authority removed even these diminished statements from a display in the LDS Museum of Church History and Art which commemorated the sesquicentennial of the Relief Society.6



Posted by Pure Truth to Pure Mormonism at January 30, 2011 8:53 PM

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Oh, okay, Pure Truth, I have Maxine Hanks' book; I was thrown off by the mention that Quinn's piece was a pamphlet. Maybe it was at one time? Or probably excerpted in Dialogue.

Regarding Morals and Dogma, are you confusing Carol Quigley with Albert Pike? Pike was the author of that book, while Quigley is best known for "Tragedy and Hope" and "The Anglo-American Establishment."

BTW, I have one of those rare first editions of "Tragedy and Hope," are you jealous?

Well, I'm jealous that you had an audience with Michael Quinn. I met him at a Christmas party at Paul Toscano's house years ago, but in those days I was oblivious to who he was. (Paul's brother Tony is my best friend, so I was always at all Toscano family gatherings in the old days.)

Pure Truth said...

This page must have needed to be re-refreshed as I now see your response~sorry for the duplication of information that I just sent~maybe it just takes awhile to show up.

Yes, it was a pamphlet initially. And yes, I meant Albert Pike who was the TOP Mason for the British here in America. Its been some years, but one of those books (Morals and Dogma or Tragedy and Hope) discloses the worship by the Masons of a "supreme mother" rather than God. This would be the same entity as "mother earth" worshipped by the lamanites while NOT in tune with God!

No, I'm not really jealous as any old edition will do for me~its the content that matters. I'm not much for status and I only name drop for confirmation to others for the sake of truth. Personally, I'm not impressed with material stuff or elite positions...I know you aren't either because you write from your heart while legitimately seek truth.

I've shaken the hand of three "Prophets" and received spiritual knowledge that none of them were of God. That was during my waking up era so those experiences gave me much to poonder. Then I had to ask, "Why are we a condemned church?" That question to God helped to open up the floodgates.

I've also met with Paul Toscana, an illegal alien who was a money-runner for a mortgage company to buy off Judges to look the other way and he was an interpreter for Hinckley, and many, many others in my journey for truth. Gotta go, but I'll let you know who else I've talked with while seeking truth.

Michael said...

Alan,

Slightly off topic, but do you know what happened to this blog (which I believe you have listed on your blogroll):

http://truthmarche.wordpress.com/

For the brief period in which I was able to view that blog, the poster had provided some valuable insights into the finances of the LDS Church.

Best wishes.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Pure Truth,
All responses to this blog end up in my mailbox simultaneously, and for some unknown reason now and then one of them doesn't post here on the blog. In cases like that, I simply cut and paste the post from there to here. That's what happened to yours; I got it, but it didn't show up here, so I put it here for you.

Thankfully, Paul Toscano and Paul Toscana are not the same being. Toscano, a brilliant LDS theologian, was unfairly excommunicated for imploring the Brethren to rule with kindness rather than flaunt their authority. It was later learned that Boyd Packer was behind the excommunication because he felt Toscano hadn't shown the proper deference.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Michael, I don't know why Truth Hurts is blocked. I've emailed the owner of the site and received nothing. I can't get into it either. I agree with you that is was one of the best sources of information and opinion available.

Pure Truth said...

Rock,
Sorry, I was in a hurry when I posted that last comment. It should have read: "I met Paul Toscano." Period (~and he is a brilliant LDS theologian who was unfairly excommunicated). He is a good person and he knows the true identity of Jesus Christ as God the Eternal Father. That is what we discussed.

Then a new sentence should have mentioned that I also met another individual who was an illegal alien who interpreted for Hinckley. This person (can't remember his name) told myself and another witness how he as a "mortgage runner" would drop off envelopes of money to Judges (from properties put in their name and then sold) so that they would look the other way with commands from LDS leaders and/or drugs being flighted into Federally-protected Indian Reservations and distributed by crooked cops... That is what he told us and I don't have any other earthly confirmation whether his words were true or not.

However, I look at LDS church leader Judge Ray Harding, Jr. (convicted of being a drug addict, wife abuser, and poacher) as a good example of the corruption of Judges in Utah just as the Book of Mormon warns.

I can also name many corrupt lawyers, which the Book of Mormon also warns us such as Dick Nemelka (disbarred now for "continual unethical practices"), Craig Schneider (died of pancreatic cancer), Tom Wood (now in jail, a seemingly VERY NICE guy, who told me "If you continue to do what Jesus did, you will get what Jesus got" as a warning passed on from the brethren), including those who work for Kirton & McConkie...

A CIA agent told myself and witnesses how the Judges and Lawyers of Utah obey the dictates of the LDS leaders. It falls in line with the Masonic LDS Temple consecration of blood oath loyalty.
Needless to say I've met a lot of very good and very bad people as the spirit directs. I have an interesting life.

Sorry about the improper sentence on Paul Toscano ~ had to get to a meeting and did not edit it before posting. I'll be more careful as I don't ever want to discredit a good person standing up for truth. I do tell the truth about the corruption, however.

Isaac said...

While I don't doubt that many—if not a majority—of lawyers and/or judges in Utah (or anywhere else) are corrupt, it doesn't automatically equate to the highest levels of church leadership being drug runners. Of the many I have, one of the main reasons I have for believing this is that the largest drug cartel—the one the Bush and Clinton gangs are part of—would never allow such direct competition. I'm sure you have more detailed stories regarding the matter though.

Steven Lester said...

Well, Isaac, perhaps you don't know about the Danites. This was/is a group of LDS men who form a cadre of assassins who are under Priesthood control at the highest levels, who enforce the blood oaths that the higher-ups take to enter into the higher-up land. Their validity is based upon the concept of blood atonement. This is stated quite forcibly in "The Mormon Menace" which is the manuscript which John D. Lee finished quite soon before he was killed while sitting on his own coffin, as a scapegoat for the Mountain Meadows Massacre. He was a Danite himself, and the adopted son of Brigham Young, who betrayed him at the end. You can find this manuscript in the iBook free section. I did and found it to be highly enlightening.

The Danites are quite capable of protecting the territory of the Church's drug empire, I'm sure. Don't you just love where this discussion is taking us?

Pure Truth said...

Danites/Blood Atonement/Masonic Blood Oath

This was reported by Apostle J. M. Grant on September 21, 1856 in a church sermon. He called for personal blood atonement and rebuked wives for complaining about polygamy:

“I would ask how many covenant breakers there are in this city and in this kingdom. I believe that there are a great many and if they are covenant breakers we need a place designated, where we can shed their blood... And we have women here who like anything but the celestial law of God; and if they could break asunder the cable of the Church of Christ, there is scarcely a mother in Israel but would do it this day. And they talk it to their husbands, to their daughters, and to their neighbors, and say they have not seen a week's happiness since they became acquainted with that law [plural marriage], or since their husbands took a second wife. ...Journal of Discourses, vol.4, pp.49-51).[6]

After this talk Brigham Young spoke and reiterated everything Grant had said and then threatened the women to either stop complaining or else leave which in those days meant possible starvation as Brigham Young did not provide support to his ten wives that divorced him. In fact, Ann Eliza Young had to sue him where BY lied, of course, and she didn't get a fair hearing. But he did spend two days in jail!

Today, its all about public relations and IMAGE as the members are clueless about what goes on behind the scene.

Pure Truth said...

A good example involves Alan Barnes, son-in-law to G.B. Hinckley, who confessed to the FBI how he wrote the checks out for the Salt Lake Olympic Committee bribery scandal ("Silent Witness" news article, SLTribune). Five weeks later he just happened to die conveniently from a "heart attack".

John Preston Creer, interestingly enough, stated to us that he witnessed Barnes demise upon entry to a hospital. This follows the "Blood Atonement" pattern of making sure the "hit" is successful. And Creer had to prove himself for having been disloyal to the brethren when he talked and told the truth...

Lawyer John Preston Creer, fellow Danite to Barnes, took the brunt of the Utah Power and Light scandal. Creer was disbarred and made the scapegoat for Hinckley. Creer's law firm's malpractice insurance paid the price. Creer confessed publically at his disbarment hearing to being a front for Hinckley and having bribed UP&L (Utah Public Commission~all LDS) $60,000 to increase their rates with the church as the largest stockholder. Hinckley resigned from the UP&L board the next year...

The whistle blower on this was David Blackwell, former Utah Student body President of Amphi High School, Tucson AZ, convert and attorney. Blackwell's career tanked and he was destroyed, You "can't buy, sell or trade" unless you have the "mark of the beast."

Blackwell had to move out of state because Gordon B. Hinckley was on the board of UPL and approved the price increase.

To complete the circle of intrigue and to tell the truth which enables the prophetic Cleansing of the Lord's House, Alan Barnes of Barnes Banking earns an anonymous mention in the book "PaperDolls: Healing from Sexual Abuse in Mormon Neighborhoods" by suthors~psuedonames~April Daniels & Carol Scott.

This book is an expose of "sex rings" in two prominent neighborhoods in the Wasatch Front in Utah. This book is written by two women whose grandchildren and children were abused in elite Mormon neighborhood "sex rings." The women went to the police, but "they were not impressed" with the children's testimony(p. 107).

I just happen to have a great conversation with a friend to one of the abused as a second witness. The story is true, IMO, as it confirmed what I knew spiritually.

Additional confirmation of what goes on behind-the-LDS-"perfection" public relations-scene unbeknownst to the sheep can be found in "Tranceformation of America, p. 118-119 ~ I met with the authors of this book on two occasions)

In "PaperDolls", the head of one of the "sex rings" involved "the apostle's daughter and son-in-law"(involved in banking e.g. Barnes Banking) as the ring leaders (p. 107).

"Cynthia and Claire watched as the apostle's son-in-law strangled a baby kitten...We can do this to Claire, they told Cynthia. We'll bury her right here by the kitty if you ever tell" (p. 108).

Thus, we come full circle of the Satanic Masonic blood oath required in all LDS Temples even "assumed" today that if we tell the secrets we will "suffer our lives to be taken." This required oath's beginning stemmed from Satan's teaching Cain as revealed in Moses 5:29 and warned of in the BoM with "secret combinations."

We do NOT speak ill of the Lord's annointed when we tell the TRUTH! And this is just one example of why the LDS church is condemned by God (D&C 124:48) and need to be cleansed (D&C 64:38-40, D&C 112:23-26)
Yes, I love where this discussion has taken us~to insights of the core corruption!

Pure Truth said...

Isaac,
Do you not recall the photos of Hinckley (and also Monson) greeting Bush Jr. and on another occasion Cheney with the "sure sign of the nail" handshake? This open Masonic handshake made quite an uproar when displayed in the papers and videos. Here is one working link with Hinckley and Cheney: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1ucll_cheney-hinckley-hand-shake_shortfilms

Thanks to an elite, wealthy top Mason/Mormon father-in-law who told the truth before he was murdered (Blood Atonement...) and life-long SPIRITUAL insights with a confirming NDE, I know when and why the church agreed to become the One World Order religion... (Ask and ye shall find)...

Thanks to ancient records like the Dead Sea Scrolls which revealed the "Millennial church did Baptism for the Dead", the LDS Church (only church to do baptism for the dead) accepted the assignment in 1960 by the One World Order elitists and we then heard from the pulpit "every member a missionary."

But this was the anti-Christ's method of world peace through perfection and control, even mind control.

Surrounded by LDS cohorts, LDS Judge Jay Bybee signed the memo to legalize torture used in mind control seen in waterboarding at Gitmo complete with dog collars and sexual abuse.

"There are some striking similarities between Schlegelberger, the self-pitying instrument of Hitler's will, and Judge Jay S. Bybee of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, who played a key role in devising the Bush junta's torture policies. Both of them came from conservative religious backgrounds; both believed in unqualified obedience to established authority" as found at http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13573.

Manchurian candidate Romney (Romneys and Mormon Prophet mentioned in "Tranceformation of America")didn't make President nor hopefully will Huntsman, Ambassador to the "pagan" Chinese (as Joseph Smith warned) as God is now in charge.

The truth is being "shouted from the rooftops" in fulfillment of Isaiah via the not-politically-controlled internet.

I intended this to be short, but dang it, I know too much!

Pure Truth said...

The Mortgage runner (not a drug runner) who translated for Hinckley and who bought off Judges in Utah (to do the will of the elite LDS leaders, drugs or whatever makes them money)was a Bishop in Chile before coming into Utah illegally.

Why did the church side with the Utah Compact agreement which violates Federal law? Greed e.g. cheap labor. Its all about control which can be seen with the editing of Poehlman's talk.

I'll try not to post further for awhile as I apologize for the space that I've taken, but not for the truth that I've told. Thanks for your patience.

Steven Lester said...

How very interesting. One day in 1984, I, a full tithe-payer, and living in Salt Lake City, called up the Ivory Tower and asked how my money was being spent and requested to be sent some sort of accounting, if one was available. The operator immediately connected me to security. The guy I spoke with, within the conversation itself, declared himself to be a Stake President and he told me that I should be ashamed to have even asked the question. I was quite naive back then and felt no fear out of my innocence, but still got nowhere with the guy, who asked me all about where my ward was located and where I worked and on and on, and I just blathered the truth to him without any concern for my future. He could tell that I was just somebody who had no calling and no placement within the hierarchy, but who was just asking all of the wrong questions in ignorance. I still got nowhere, though.

I worked for Kaman Bearing as a delivery driver, and had for four years. I had just gotten a raise for my efforts. They seemed to be happy with what I had done for them. The very next day I was called in and told that my services were no longer needed. Goodbye forever. Wow! The phone call was the reason. It was the only thing that I had done out of the ordinary, how could it not be?

Happily, I then was led to return to California, where two weeks later my grandmother died and I was the only one in my family who had a car, as we were very poor at the time. Had I not been there, it would have been very hard for my mother to have taken of the arrangements. I knew that the Lord had had something to do with the timing of all of this and I thanked Him for it. Perhaps He had more to do with the situation and my own personal protection than I knew or could have conceived of at the time. Wow!

Isaac said...

I don't have time right now to write a lot, but what is passing for evidence here is not exactly rock solid, not to mention the massive amounts guilt by association, which is no proof of guilt at all. I mean, I'm related to some real nerdy people, but I'm super cool, so family relations can't prove anything, for good or bad. Anyway, this is getting way out in left field, plus just because these cookies are on my computer I might be tailed by assassins tomorrow. Luckily I have 16 in the clip and one in the hole.

AnthonyJBennett said...

I apologize for any anger in my upcoming statements, but this much inaccuracy in a place as dedicated to truth (I consider it formative to my own LDS faith) as this cannot be allowed to stand. Therefore, corrections:

1. Brigham Young and Heber Kimball were not 33rd degree Freemasons. The 33rd, or Sovereign Grand Inspector General, is an honorific given by an Active Member or Honorary Member of a Supreme Council of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry. At the time of Young and Kimball's Masonic careers, a)the Scottish Rite did not exist in Illinois, Missouri or Ohio and was still making baby steps in New York, the only places they would have come into contact with it, and b)did not give Honorary 33rds, meaning the only brethren eligible for the 33rd were in the leadership of a Supreme Council, while Young and Kimball were not even Scottish Rite Masons.

2. 33rd degree Freemasons do not "worship Satan". Your likely source for this is the Taxil hoax, which has been recanted and denounced for over a century.

3. Morals and Dogma does not speak for all of Masonry or all of the Scottish Rite, only the Southern Masonic Jurisdiction (of which no early Saint was a member); even then, it's not a book of Masonic "doctrine" but a study in comparative religion as related to the Scottish Rite; it does not comment on any "Masonic god" (none exists). Also, its own preface reads:

"Every one is entirely free to reject and dissent from whatsoever herein may seem to him to be untrue or unsound. It is only required of him that he shall weigh what is taught, and give it fair hearing and unprejudiced judgment."

Translation: NO ONE IS REQUIRED TO BELIEVE A DAMN WORD OF IT.

4) If you care to term them that, then the Prophet most certainly did take "blood oaths". A full demonstration of the first 3 degrees is available through Duncan's Ritual and Masonic Monitor, available at the Internet Sacred Texts Archive and dated to 1860; if that's not contemporary enough, William Morgan's "Illustrations of Masonry" is dated to upstate New York in the late 1820s, around the time most of the pre-Nauvoo Saint-Masons entered the fraternity.

I expect to spend a lot of time arguing on the Internet, being a Mormon, a Mason, and a person with a bit of a temper. But to have to defend the fraternity from vicious lies from my brethren in the covenant--and on Pure Mormonism of all places...the words "I expected better" come to mind.

(For the record, I'm not blaming you, Rock).

zomarah said...

Here I'll try this again. A few posts ago you were asking about the truthmarche blog.

http://www.wheatandtares.org/2011/01/07/did-you-ever-think-they-just-don’t-want-to/#comments

Read comments 87 and 102.

Basically his wife thinks he is deceived by the Devil and in order to preserve his marriage he has to follow some strict guidelines.

My original comment was longer but apparently it didn't post.

Steven Lester said...

Mr. Bennett, is it possible to present new material without all of the superior attitude? Just the facts please. We don't need your ego besides. Nobody cares whether you "expected better" or not. You are not God.

Plus, you are a spoilsport. We were just enjoying talking about the massive greed and evilness of Brigham Young, until you showed up. Now, we can't. Darn you!

Oh, wait...Brigham is still evil, isn't he? He wasn't a devil-worshipping 33rd-degree Mason but he was still a bigot, a murderer, a lover-of-many-wives-all-at-the-same-time-and-abandoner-of-many, as was John D. Lee self-admittedly, and a man who had no reluctance to using the Church's finances to enrich his own. (In fact, after his death it took 20 years to unravel what belonged to the heirs and what belonged to the Church. Nobody knows for sure even today.

But now we know that he wasn't a Sovereign Grand Inspector General. Thank you for letting us know.

Anonymous said...

Come on Zo:

I am alive, but the Truth Hurts blog is migrating elsewhere (in process). I tried calling Rock on this, but he won't return my calls. It seems he's too "pure" to return my calls. ;)

I'll send someone a note when it's fully migrated and available for viewing (sort of like a funeral, "available for viewing"). It is "dead" so to speak (meaning I won't add anything more to it - not because I'm deceived, but because it's ran its course).

Anyway, I keep meaning to post this but keep forgetting. Someone mentioned Tom Wood being one of the questionable LDS attorneys, now in prison for some unspeakable crime or this that or the other.

In actuality, it would appear he's there because many years back he received a vision or something telling him to get out of D.C. (if I remember the details right). He left, then was told (or convinced himself through study) to stop paying into the IRS taxation scheme. He stopped paying and they had been hunting him down for years. Then, recently, he supposed tipped of the state Attorney General (AZ if I remember right) about an ill-advised investment scheme someone was running and in the process they (the state) hammered him for some trumped up charge. Technically, they wanted him for tax evasion charges, but got him on another charge of some sort.

I was on an email list with him, and I thoroughly enjoyed his well researched opinions and thoughtful analysis.

I'll post his answer to why the charges in a following post.

Anonymous said...

Here is an exact transcript of the email Tom Woods sent out, take it for what its worth:

"Jerry White is the older man -- age 66 -- retired IRS criminal investigator who testified at my trial ... called by the IRS. He as NOT there for the sentencing last week ... he retired to Idaho a couple years ago, and told me after the trial he did not want to see what would be done to me.

The fellow you mention is "Mr. Roberts" -- with a slight mustache and glasses? He is a "forensic accountant" who digs through financial records trying to make up a case against you ... note that I said "make up a case." ;- )

I met with him several times a couple years ago -- went through the true story of all my financial records -- just like I did back in 2004 with the Utah AG who also gave the same financial documents and explanation to the IRS ...

His job was to make the numbers look like I owed $11k each year for three years -- which is the magic number (over 10,000) to require prison time on the misdemeanor count. IOW, he and his cohorts were under orders to make sure I did prison time ... upwards of a year ... unless the judge gave me probation ...

Bottom line -- the IRS did not come after me for 25 years because they knew the sincerity of my religious convictions that I told them about over 20 years ago -- back when we lived in "the center place of Zion" as described in the D&C -- where I held all that I have "in trust" for the church ... which is what the D&C describes ... if you really want to read it "like a trust lawyer." ;- )

Back in 1993 I also told Jerry Wight this same "story of my life" - and how I view the Lord's command taught in the temple - and in the D&C ... and he knew that I have been "standing on this holy ground" since 1985 ... Tax crimes require "criminal intent" -- the intent to break the law -- rather than standing on holy ground, protected by the First Amendment in the free exercise of your religion ...

I wrote an affidavit for the IRS years ago -- and submitted it for many years -- explaining that as a matter of moral conscience I believe Rev 13 describes Soc Sec as the mark of the beast -- and I did not want to volunteer ... nor did I want to mark my children with this number of the beast ... and that I was called to this mission years ago on April 6, 1978 -- and even before that -- before I was born, because this is my mission written in the Holy Script ...

I also told the IRS that I was on a self-sustaining mission -- described in the D&C, and have been since 1985 ... like the sons of Mosiah who gave up their careers and went on a 14 year mission among the Lamanities ... my mission has been to live by the law of consecration -- and defend others who are doing the same in the free exercise of our religious covenants, taught in the temple -- as a high priest in the Melchizedek priesthood -- one of 144,000 such high priests (D&C 77:9-11) holding all things in common trust for the church -- under the United Order of Enoch -- as it is described in the D&C ... which Congress is forbidden to tax ..."

TruthSeeker said...

Dave P.,(& others!)I am humbled, honored and grateful to know you. I had COMPLETELY left the "church". I still have my name on the records- for some reason I have felt to not take that step...now I know why. I have come full circle in an amazing 25+ year journey of slowly, but surely knowing that I did not belong in the church as it stands today.

Ironically, I had an experience when I asked if Joseph Smith was a Prophet, that was so profound- as to never be forgotten or denied. No such witness has EVER occurred for me, when I have humbly asked about the prophets and the church since. I believe that the Mormon church as it stands today, this breaks my heart to say, is literally one of the GREAT conspiracies of "our" time.

That I could be sitting here at 4:30 AM, weeping at the truth of your words, is nothing short of a miracle. As a truth seeker, my journey has truly just now begun.

Thank you,with all of my heart. May you, your wife and family be blessed for your research AND search for the truth. I am praying for all of those who seek for the REAL truth- GOD'S TRUTH; to be humble and open minded enough to SEE and BE open minded enough to ask and listen to the truth and feel this in our hearts. To not be afraid to ask the hard questions. To not fall back on what is "easy"- our safe "fixed beliefs".

To...STAND!

Pure Truth said...

TruthSeeker,
Thanks for answering my prayers. I've been very busy, but mostly did not feel impressed to post until tonight. My simple heart request asked that my pure words, even if imperfect, would touch someone's heart. I'm thanking you because Dave P. and I resonate with the same beliefs e.g. regarding the present-day commencement of the prophetic "Cleansing of the Lord's House." Use the original Book of Mormon as the template and only follow God!

This cleansing began as a whirlwind in 1999 when the "whirlwind" hit downtown SLC & damaged the "great and spacious building"/New Assembly Hall & window to the Christus at the Visitor's Center in fulfillment of D&C 112! The Spirit directed me to "pay attention" and this scripture came mind...

It is not so ironic that you received the witness regarding Joseph Smith even though he did many bad things due to his following "his own will (not Gods)and carnal desires" (D&C 3:1-11). He did fall just as King David did who also had a pure heart, but became carnally minded via Bathsheba, concubines, wives, and murder of Uriah). Solomon also fell via carnality and idol worship, (so why does anyone think its great that Masonry stems from Solomon's Temple???)

However, despite his carnal/ego weaknesses which led his heart astray, Joseph REPENTED at least in part (polygamy and Masonry) according to church history as researched by D. Michael Quinn (Origins of Power, p. 655-656). Unfortunately, Joseph still yielded to the enticings of men and Emma and did not flee to the Rocky Mountains to complete his repentance and the cleansing of the church at that time. Hence, the need for "much restoration" at this time.

Now back to your spiritual confirmation regarding Joseph Smith...Do you remember the repeated vision which Parley P. Pratt had as recording in chapter 42 of his autobiography? I've typed out the heart of this authentic vision verified for me via spiritual witness, plus it makes sense to your witness:

"The Spirit said unto me: Lift up your head and rejoice; for behold! It is well with my servants, Joseph and Hyrum. My servant Joseph still holds the keys of my kingdom in this dispensation, and he shall stand in due time on the earth, in the flesh, and fulfill that to which he is appointed (July 1, 1844) in Illinois after Joseph had been Masonically murdered. (Spiritual hint: read Alma 40 with spiritual eyes to more fully understand this)

Yes, due to free agency and God's knowing our hearts, Joseph Smith had seven good years (April 6, 1830 to April 6, 1837) and then seven bad years (April 6, 1837 to April 6, 1844)as a type and shadow of Joseph of Egypt's interpretation of the King's dream...

Pure Truth said...

Steven Lester (and many others!),
Thanks for your wonderful posts!

Pure Truth said...

Anonymous, I never said or even meant to infer that former RLDS member to LDS member, Tom Wood was in prison for some "unspeakable" crime. (Missouri attorney with no license to practice in Utah but worked through other attorneys in Utah since he lived on Butler Hill, SLC, Utah). I just didn't mention the charges and I also put in capital letters how Tom is very NICE! He really is, but he believes the LDS leaders are perfect and are of God and he will do whatever they tell him to do.

He was a key witness and did perjure himself in a court case in Missouri (involving land theft Tom knew about) just after his son’s fiancé’s mother, Carolyn Tuft, 43 (mother of Kirsten Hinckley, divorced wife to Steve Hinckley-- tarnished the Hinckley name with divorce) was shot twice, but survived and sister/daughter, Kirsten Hinckley, 15, was killed at the Trolley Square “Massacre” by a mind-controlled Muslim scape-goat (Feb. 12, 2007, at 6:44 PM MST, Sulejman Talović ).

Thus, Tom perjured himself at a court hearing scheduled just days after this shooting (nothing happens by accident especially these lone, “crazed” shootings). Tom’s son was engaged to Carolyn’s oldest daughter. Carolyn Tuft lived in Tom’s ward & neighborhood. This was a warning to Tom to fully comply with the LDS leaders. He was scared and did perjure himself in court as a key witness even though he had declared on the phone that he would tell the truth (truth always scares the Gadiatons). However, this did not stop the truth moving forward which is why he was set up to be persecuted for his work against corrupt IRS laws.

Tom Wood (“Shinhah” former assistant to the Attorney General of Hawaii) told me that he was in communication with the Prophet/Apostles about what we teach e.g. God’s truths against the brethren & need for them to repent such as alteration of BoM, abomination of polygamy, secret combinations of Masonry, church leaders documented, justified criminal theft of rich member’s assets through Zions Bank, Barrick Gold, etc, mysterious deaths of dissenters, etc.).

Tom did declare to me as he walked me to his door after a good visit (I really do like Tom): "If you continue to do what Jesus Christ did, you will get what Jesus got"... This was the message the LDS leaders had him relay to me as a threat to my life as well as others. I have No fear as I’ve been literally saved by the Spirit many, many times and it spooks the leaders!

Every time they sabotage my cars, I get it verified by an auto dealer and I have a police report filed. There are no more secrets during the Millennium and documentation exposes the corruption.

Tom conveyed this slightly weird message from the brethren who do not like to be told to repent! Rather, we are suppose to stand when Boyd K. Packard comes into the room and we are to "obey Gordon B. Hinckley rather than Jesus Christ, since Gordon B. is next in line to be God" (true quote from Stake President to a friend--D.E.).

I also know some of the behind-the-scene staged scenario of the Elizabeth Smart abduction. SLOC bribery corruption, and, of course, 911 both directed by the “great and abominable” church for attention, public image, and ONE world order rather than to believe in ONE God…

The Cleansing of the Lord's House is Happening Through exposure of the truth and as the LDS sheep wake up!

TruthSeeker said...

Pure Truth,
What can I say- but WOW?! The things you write about are damning. I surely felt the Pure Truth in what you say!

I hardly know what to say, except thank-you!If I gave you the courage to write all of this...I am humbled, honored and extremely grateful that you poured out your knowledge to those of us, who KNOW that this church of "today" is pure EVIL!!! (I know a few things too!)I pray that God will continue to bless you in your righteous cause!

Please write more here. Now that the "flood gates" are open, I hope that you will write more!

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry for my condescension. Being called a Satanist based on information you know to be a lie brings out some pretty negative emotions, but that's not an excuse.

Still, the point wasn't (only) that Brigham Young wasn't an SGIG (and for the record, I agree that his prophetic career leaves much to be desired, and that the biggest obstacle the Church has to overcome is still the remnants of his bigotry). It was that the source of most of this comment section's information:

-completely misrepresents Masonic history (hint: no one actually believes it derives from King Solomon's Temple)

-can't tell up from down on Masonic organizational structure (confuses the York Rite with the Scottish Rite, among MANY others)

-claims that I have taken a "blood oath" to value Masonic membership over the Gospel (in reality, any and all Masonic oaths are explicitly ruled invalid where they conflict with civil, moral or religious duties or privileges)

-assigns memberships to people who didn't have them (nearly none of the Joseph Smith generation Saint-Masons had joined the Royal Arch/York Rite)

-misrepresents the Masonic career of Joseph Smith (the minutes of Nauvoo Lodge show him attending 30 meetings, well past the "six months" the site claims was his involvement in Freemasonry)

-publishes impossible conspiracy theory as truth (Albert Pike at the Mountain Meadows Massacre? Really?)

And that's just for starters. I'm not in disagreement that the institution currently called the LDS Church is headed in the wrong direction, but I won't stand idly by while I, directly or by association, get blamed for it based on things that just aren't true.

--Anthony Bennett (just added the wife to the Google account; don't see any need to drag her into this, so I'll comment as "Anonymous" hereafter)

P.S. It's been alleged here that the Scriptures proscribe the taking of oaths. To that end, I'll leave this here:

http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/texts/oath_taking.html

Stake Pres. said...

As a stake President I understand the need to tweak talks that are not in line with the current teachings of the church. I would think this happens all the time.

Pure Truth said...

Bennet, I won't argue with you if you can not be taught. I will tell the truth, however.

Jesus taught us to never swear ANY Oath. I take it you have never read the scriptures that do NOT allege, but state very clearly the evil of oath taking: Not by heaven or by earth or by your head or your neck as all oaths come from evil.

As a pure-hearted truth seeker, I must tweak your justification for your Masonic membership. Interesting, that you have a freemasonry link to help you in this evil (as God stated) justification. How much clearer does the teachings of God have to get for you to understand?

Every Mason takes an oath. Every LDS person takes an oath in the temple (to the church & not to God). This began w/ B. Young & the Nauvoo Temple. Brigham Young excommunicated William Smith because William argued with BY that this was NOT what Joseph had taught.

Prior to 1990, the penalty for telling the silly Masonic secrets (hand shake, same apron as Lucifer, men in Pillberry Dough Boy costumes, & women in veils like Muslims), included slitting the throat, cutting out the heart and intestines. The PENALTIES of death e.g. blood oath are still implied today to keep the SECRETS or else "suffer your life to be taken" Yes, this does qualifies as a blood oath as much of Lucifer as blood atonement which mocks the Atonement of Christ.

To the "Stake Pres." do you really believe that God cares about your status or position or a secret handshake or name? He knows us by our pure heart! You should read D&C 64: 38-40 and see how it applies to those in positions of this prophesied condemned church as Ezra T. Benson warned us in his famous PRIDE talk & D&C 124:48.

Richard G. Scott warned: "Everyone needs to repent no matter their AGE or POSITION." Howard W. Hunter, before his mysteriously short-lived reign, tried to repent & broke his blood oath. He exposed to a few how serious the blood oaths are to those in high positions & how the oaths in the temple justify actions that are not of God.

I speak the truth & I have had many spiritual experiences with many witnessed by others so no one can refute my words unless they are not truth seekers and/or pure-hearted. Granted, I need a book for all the confirming veracities.

I also understand the insecurities of men who take pride in their membership & positions. It’s so nice to be a part of a group or to be numbered among those within the "great & spacious building" depicted by Lehi/Nephi's dream.

If you recall, they did just as you are doing to those few who found the truth & held to the "rod" of plain & precious truth ~ they mocked them! The Book of Mormon is a warning to the SAINTS. "We are a condemend church" as ETBenson stated for having altered the Book of Mormon, having gotten into Masonry and Polygamy (abominations in the eyes of God Jacob 2 & 3), taken the priesthood away from women which Joseph Smith gave in the early pure years of the church. Yes, the sheep (including you & all oath-swearing leaders) have much repentance to do. I say this all with love for your Spirits to wake you up .

Revelation comes to ANYONE, they only have to ask with a pure heart. God is NO respecter of person, position, or status. There is not a group membership required by God. (There is a divine reason for Repentance & Baptism, as Christ taught, of course). What is required is the one-on-one relationship with God which I have with witnesses.

Sacred things are not secret as during the Millennium there are "NO MORE SECRETS" as prophesied in the Book of Mormon.

Everyone can seek truth& to assist the "Cleansing of the Lord's House". D&C 64:38 is fulfilled by the members taking responsibility against "false prophets, apostles, & even Bishops & their counselors who will be replaced..."

Pure Truth said...

TruthSeeker!

What a delight for you to have spiritual eyes. Thank you with all my heart.

Truth is coming forth, as Isaiah prophesied, as it is "shouted from the rooftops" e.g. the divinely inspired--not controlled by men--INTERNET. God is about truth and full disclosure so why doesn't the church disclose their financial dealings... lol

You may find out more at our divinely-inspired websites dedicated to God. Thousands are hitting these sites every day especially in Utah & are waking up! It is very fun.
www.mormonstruth.org
www.bridgingtruth.com
www.stopzion.com
www.citiesofpeace.com
www.originalbookofmormonrestored.com

We teach truths & do not require anything as the truths of God are free. You save yourself. Big responsibility. Hence, most people want someone to intercede for them much as what happened with Moses and the children of Israel. God wanted everyone to Come Unto Him, but the people were spiritually lazy and hid behind Moses. We can learn from history, can we not?

In fact, during a profound NDE that I've mentioned, the knowledge of the Cities of Peace & much of what I've written was given, (including a mission to restore the "plain and precious truths"~1 Nephi 13~ with the original Book of Mormon which exposes the corruption) because a person ASKED! Simple formula~ "Ask and ye shall find."

I've been blessed by God with spiritual experiences witnessed by family and friends since I was four and then I met "a man" (read Isaiah as Christ in America told us to read this book) who experienced this profound NDE & was told about me, his "True Love" among many other important things.

The Book of Mormon was written for the Saints complete with prophesies for the Cleansing of the Lord's House today.

Here are examples beyond the dreams of Lehi/Nephi (which pertained to the LDS Church today):

Remember the "type and shadow of things to come" mentioned three times in the Book of Mosiah? This referred to a President of the Church e.g. the wicked King Noah (recall who his father was) & his 12 high priests who interpreted the dreams for the people much like the saying of "when the Prophet has spoken the thinking has been done." And "A Prophet will NEVER lead you astray." This propaganda is contrary to the many scriptural warnings by God against "false Prophets who lead MY PEOPLE astray". This is especially referring to the church leaders of today!

What will happen to the acceptance of the church by the world when the leaders are removed & polygamy, masonry, altering the Book of Mormon is repented for & the priesthood to women restored? Or what about when Solomon's Treasure is brought forth...? Already there are thousands of authenicated artifacts, carbon-dated by the Smithsonian which parallels the BoM timeframe which have been found in the central parts of the U.S.A.
(see www.originalbookofmormonrestored.com)

Ancient scriptures show that "A Bishop" (for the Gnostics who lived the closest to the time of Christ) was a married couple; man & wife with NO counselors. And the 24 Elders mentioned in Revelations will be 12 women & 12 men to preside during the Millennium. With no more neopotism in the leadership! Rather these individuals will be authentically called by God according to their pure hearts and actual WITNESS of Christ! You knew that the false Prophets and Apostles of today are nearly all related? lol

Pure Truth said...

TruthSeeker: Tag your it!

I'd enjoy very much reading what you know as I found your posting very confirming regarding the loss of your job after asking a simple question regarding "how your tithing is spent"!

This was an example of the parable/prophesy by Daniel (see my website www.mormonstruth.org and the two pages of the Daniel's Prophecy--correct interpretation). Daniel prophesied how you would not be able to "buy, sell, or trade" without the mark of the beast! Well, what do you think the Masonic LDS Temple recommend is? It is a sure sign that you have taken a satanic blood oath consecrating "all your time, talents, and all that ye do possess" to the church (and not even to God who does NOT need or want your MONEY~ the law of Tithing is a lesser law and will not be done during the Millennium in the Cities of Peace where the truth of God is free based upon the teachings of the original Book of Mormon that Jesus IS God the Eternal Father!).

Anyway, I really enjoyed reading your post and would like to know more....lol!

TruthSeeker said...

I LOVE our game of TAG!!! I have much to say including my own 5,(7 if you count the times I simply left my body!) I will write more- but as I am inclined to keep my NDE'S sacred and close to my heart, if you wish to write me- I will accept your e-mail address- sent to Rock's e-mail address and because of my lack of typing skills due to my illness, I much prefer to speak on the phone!

I will speak to anyone regarding my life- but I am writing a book in keeping with the purpose that I was shown! ( Especially after the stake president's "lovely" testimony above. ;-})

. Rock knows where to find me. Here's to the start of my "ministry" for God!

Pure Truth said...

TruthSeeker,

I'm not configured for Outlook and Rock's email link goes through Outlook. I am quite sure that I've seen Rock's email posted with an invite to contact him. If you know what his email is and if he doesn't mind you giving it to me, then could you please post it? Thank you. Meanwhile, I'll keep looking for his email address...I would very much like to chat with you as well. Sorry to hear about your illness.

The church employs internet "Strengthening the Members Committee" members to negate truth anyway they can so blogs and websites frequently get visits by them to keep Truth Seekers in line without success. So note the "authority" of the Stake Pres! Lol The stern authority presentation is part of their game to keep us obedient!

Pure Truth said...

Last comment regarding Masonry for Bennet: The intent is purity and not perfection, if Joseph Smith was a Mason for longer than six months what does that matter? However, please keep in mind that history and records are easily altered by those in power as evidenced by Willard Richard's reign as church historian to glorify and cover the tracks for Brigham Young "who wore the mantle of Joseph"~ LIE!. Willard Richards was BY's cousin and also a top Mason. Stop quibbling over perfection, don't judge my words for exactness, but rather seek purity. This is why Christ spoke in Parables rather than straight forward due to the hypocritical, judgmental leaders of the church in His day. I really have had no promptings to spend my time researching Masonry in depth. Masonic organizations do charity works to justify the ruthless means employed by the corrupt leaders at the top with ignorant members in the "lower" levels, same as in the church, who think the organization is great. Bottom line, the Masonic rituals do not honor the teachings of God, but its a great way to go for economic boost and power...$$$ Lots of dark secrets whereas God is about light and truth. Do you see the difference? The Gadiatons loved their Brotherhood also. Have you seen the Movie "Skulls"? Do you understand why Hinckley and Monson gave the Masonic LDS Temple handshakes to the Bushes and Cheney? (And why adulterous Clinton toured the SLC Temple?) It is the secret combination handshake of the Gadiaton Robbers.

If you want to know more about Cheney, a fellow Mason, a good documentary on his company Haliburton is entitled "Iraq For Sale: The War Profiteers." I wrote a review on it. Al Martin writes a compelling book on how the Bushes, fellow Masons, obtained their wealth. Research, Research, Research. Please research anything that I write about in full detail and then ask God. I keep writing more than my limit here so do your part to seek truth!

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Pure Truth,
You can reach me at Rockwaterman@gmail.com and I'll put you in touch with Truthseeker, who I know personally.

Just a note: there is another person who posts in this forum occasionally who also uses the name Truthseeker, and I'm told they are not the same person. But I can put you in touch with the one you want.

Clint L. said...

Stake Pres:
I think the major point of this talk was that many "current teachings of The Church" are cultural and not the same as eternal gospel principals. And the talk wasn't tweaked, it was turned inside out. If it was that far out of harmony with the gospel, shouldn't it be addressed authoritatively by an actual person rather than just being changed on the sly hoping no-one would notice? But I guess my main question to you would be, do YOU feel the original talk was outside of gospel teachings?

Pure Truth:
There seem to be many references in Book of Mormon that are positively related to oath taking:
1 Nephi 4:33,35,37
Mosiah 6:3; 19:25; 20:14-15
Now the verse you quote may supersede these, but I think your argument that the scriptures are completely opposed to oath taking is somewhat arbitrary.

That being said I don't deny feeling uncomfortable about oaths made in the temple, but at the same time I don't see your linked sites giving any helpful advise to people on this sort of thing. I mainly just see them condemning us (calling the collective members of the church sons and daughters of perdition) and giving extremely convoluted solutions like, objecting to concentrating to "The Church" and then getting special written permission from the first presidency to consecrate to God instead of the church. (If there is a copy of that letter online I would interested in a link to it).
I guess the scriptures weren't kidding when they said Straight and Narrow the way, and few there be that find it.

Steven Lester said...

I look forward to reading Truthseeker's book when it is presented for our eyes to read. It sounds like that person has a great deal to offer us.

As I was reading the above entries a thought crossed my mind while I was folding up my wash just a few minutes ago. It was this: what does our step-sister Church, once called the Reorganites, believe and is it closer, these days, to what we know is truth? I don't know at the moment. We've always been taught to look down our noses at them as having no validity, but perhaps they have more than we think. I am not going to join them any time soon, but I am curious enough to investigate what they believe and how they implement it. All I know right now is that Rigdon has something to do with their beginning, their literal line of Joseph Smith relatives recently died out and they've gone to appointing their leaders in some fashion, they own outright the area where the New Zion is supposed to be built, and they only own one active temple in Independence MO which from the outside looks like some sort of twisted witch's hat. I hope they have a website to peruse. I'm going to look for it right now.

zomarah said...

Steven Lester

You've hit upon a key point as to why I consider myself a Unificationist Latter Day Saint. I believe that all of the Sects that broke away after the Succession crisis took with them important parts of the restored church.

When the one mighty and strong comes to set in order God's house it will not only be the L-DS church he fixs. I believe all of the sects (L-DS, Community of Christ, Strangites, Temple Lot, etc) will have to be reunited.

I belief the scripture that says it will begin upon the Lord's house refers to the Temple for the Presidency in Zion not the SLC temple. Becuase while members of the church call the SLC temple the Lord's house, there is no revelation specifically calling it so. The temple that is most central(or should be) to the restored church is the Presidency's temple in Zion.

The Reorganized church now called the Community of Christ ordained someone not a descendant of Joseph Smith to be their leader. But there were still descendants left. A fairly large group broke away and form the Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I think, their leader is a descendant of Joseph Smith.

It's interesting to look at the succession crisis and the breakup of the church. You can see all the pieces to the puzzle, but at the time nobody wanted to put the puzzle back together.

Pure Truth said...

Keep it simple! The advise on my website is repentance & don't throw the baby out w/ the bathwater.

One person did get permission to go through the LDS temple without taking the Satanic oath & consecration to the church, due to his NDE & dedication of his life to God & not man. His escort was Howard W. Hunter when he went through prior to his LDS mission (he had to go through the ropes, so to speak, to give the leaders all the rope to hang themselves). We don't recommend this same action for anyone else. (Go by the Spirit for best counsel, if you are in tune & if you aren't why aren't you?... An oath takes away free agency to act) This man had status among the elite due to their knowledge/fear of his NDE his family connection (father secretly one of the highest Masons in the church who told the truth before "he suffered his life to be taken", but anyone else would get immediately excommunicated, I'm sure.

The blindly obedient members of the LDS church who do not seek truth and believe in the "many Gods" teaching of the last fabricated vision of Joseph Smith are under condemnation by God. (Only the first version of the First Vision where Joseph saw "the Lord", only one personage, is correct). The members have denied the Holy Ghost which is the Spirit of God. Hence, God, during a profound NDE declared that all the blindly-obedient TBM LDS members who today reside in the "great & spacious building" are "sons and daughters of perdition" & need to repent according to God!

If Jesus taught us to never take an oath that does supersede what even pure prophets of the Book of Mormon have written. Not all prophets have the same level of knowledge as evidenced by Jesus Christ telling us to read Isaiah specifically. Isaiah did not have a veil and spoke to us for this day in parables. Amulek was told by an Angel that Jesus IS God the Eternal Father. Abinadi gave his life to teach this same fact of the true identity of Christ. (So how important is it that there is only ONE God?) Alma the younger spent three days in heaven. Every individual has to ask for further light. The wicked King Noah was also the President/"Prophet" of the church so this is a great example to never trust in the arm of flesh and to be wary of the prophets who lead "my people astray" as God warned.

The solution is sincere repentance by all members & rebaptism after the cleansing just as Jesus Christ rebaptised everyone in America that survived the world destruction of his Crucifixtion (formation of the Rocky Mountains & Niagra Falls at that time). They had to be retaught & start anew. What they received was so incredible that they could not write it & they had peace for 200 yrs.

Pure Truth said...

RLDS have priesthood for women with women apostles, this IS of God and puts this church way ahead in that respect even though it was done politically due to Wallace Smith (now retired) who did not have any sons. Good example for our church, however.
(I won't go into detail on Grant McMurry although I could.)
The focus of God is on the LDS (majority vote carried the KEYS)despite the LDS corruption.

We should have always had just 12 apostles (men and women) according to the example Jesus gave with Mary Magdalene as an apostle (small detail omitted with men's version & suppression of women recorded as "history). Watch the DaVinci Code & research this tidbit for yourself.
Joseph Smith was called by God to be an apostle ONLY & never a "prophet" or KING! He called himself due to need to control.
We are in contact with all branches of the LDS as they will all be brought together as you say. They know us well.

Pure Truth said...

God does not care about blood lineage at all. Jesus set up the "law of adoption" at the Cross with Mary his Mother & "the Beloved Disciple" e.g. Mary Magdalene (all the men apostles were in hiding and were NOT at the Cross). You can see the four generation curse upon the founding lines.

The "revelation" regarding Independence, MO was given during a time that Joseph received inspiration from Lucifer. Lucifer had influence in the "The Garden of Eden", remember? This is not a sacred place according to God. The false revelations of MO are much like the "Angel with a sword forced the practice of polygamy" bogus revelation. Anyone that understands free agency as the foundation of this earth will refute the evident control as not of God.

Utah was the home of the Gadianton Robbers according to God given during a NDE. Check out our website www.originalbookofmormonrestored.com for info on authenticated artifacts that confirm the (carbon-dated) timeline & location of the Nephites/Jaredites/Mulekites as central U.S.A ~ not Central America. Great Lakes/Mississipi River (River Sidon)...Ohio, Illinois, New York, only ONE hill of Cumorah!

It is the LDS church with the confirming, prophetic "whirlwind" of 1999 in downtown SLC where the cleansing has begun for those with eyes to see. The posters here who recognize the evil of the leaders of today have an excellent beginning from which to act.

Anonymous said...

I look all over your site, note more than a few innacuracies, and submit an account of them here. You take one look at the address of my link, attack the messenger relentlessly, and refuse to even consider the information contained within. I doubt you even read it, given that it deals specifically with the same question you asked. Who, again, is "unwilling to be taught"?

To further rebut that abominable idea, I'll post some simple questions, the answers to most of which will all be available through public information should your suppositions be grounded in fact. Others will ask specifically for your commentary, making it even easier for you to teach me. I'll try to keep my comments to a minimum. Here we go:

-OATHS: If taking an oath is absolutely, no-way-out forbidden, why did Jesus not object to being placed under oath by Pilate, and why does God place Himself under several oaths throughout the Old Testament? (Sources for this information are provided in the link above, the one you shot the messenger on.)

-WILLARD RICHARDS: You've claimed that Willard Richards was a "top" Mason. He never served as a Grand Officer or even a lodge officer, save one night as pro tem Secretary for John Cook Bennett's Masonic trial. He had no membership in any appendant bodies (which wouldn't give him any Blue Lodge authority anyway, but that's another argument). In what way is he a "top Mason" in any way that Joseph Smith, who actually held a lodge office, isn't?

-ECONOMIC POWER IN FREEMASONRY: If Freemasonry's value is in its service as a catalyst for wealth and power, why does every petition, in every jurisdiction, specifically require the candidate to affirm that's NOT why he's joining the Craft?

-CHENEY/BUSH: If they're Freemasons, their records should be available through their Grand Lodge. I'd like the dates of their initiation, passing and raising, as well as their lodge name and number.

Finally, I'll add a comment of my own: if you're looking for "purity" and not "exactness," that's understandable and noble, but it doesn't mean you're allowed to say things that aren't true. And these aren't quibbles; you can't say "Joseph Smith's murder was a York Rite conspiracy" when no one involved was a York Rite Mason, or "top Masons murdered Joseph Smith" when Joseph Smith was as close to the "top" as any of them. Retract this portion of your theory or be prepared to have innacuracies pointed out; saying "you're supposed to accept the answer, not ask me to show my work" is awfully dishonest for someone who goes by "Pure Truth".

--Anthony Bennett

Steven Lester said...

Hello, Friends.

I have just spent three hours looking through the entire website of the Community of Christ. I stand all amazed. Every, I mean every, definition of what pure mormonism is about, resides in that Church. Remember, they also have the Priesthood that is every bit as authentic as what is in the main body based in Salt Lake. If ever there existed an example of the true Church on the earth today, it is based in Independence, and not in Utah. And Pure Truth, show me anyplace where it says that the Independence location for Zion was given to Joseph by Lucifer, and I'll believe you, at least after I research it for myself and then pray about it, but I'm not just going to listen to you or any man, no matter how strident he wishes to declare it. SHOW ME SOME PROOF, DUDE!

I believe I will attend one of their congregational meetings next Sunday. They use grape juice during their Sacrament, and everybody is invited to partake, as long as the Sacrament means to the person a rededication to Christ. You don't have to be a member, but you should be a devotee to the Lord. You don't have to wear a tie either. And did you know that their are three of the twelve apostles who live right here in the Puget Sound area, doing missionary work, folks, just as they are supposed to do.

If they will love me and accept me, even though I am gay and will never marry and am socially slow, I believe that I have found my home, a home that Salt Lake never was, for more than half my life! A breath of fresh air, LDS style.

Anonymous said...

I always have liked the Community of Christ; a lot of their interpretations, and specifically their Trinitarianism, are the same as mine. I'd never heard the term Unificationist Mormon, but I feel like it fits me, though I've decided to stay in the mainstream LDS Church.

--Anthony Bennett

Pure Truth said...

Anonymous, Again you are incredibly angry aren't you? And I am incredibly busy, but very happy to be doing the Lord's work (Wonderful events have happened much more important than your efforts to validate FreeMasonry of ANY branch).

The Masons are a secret organization, they have taken a blood oath. Their record keeping and disclosure is suspect. These SECRETS defy the simple teachings of Christ. Joseph Smith did become a Mason which was an extreme "abomination and folly" (D&C 124), but did repent of his error in judgment per Parley P. Pratt's vision, a NDE, and D. Michael Quinn's research as he instructed the Seventies to remove their garments. Only Willard Richards wore garments at the time of Joseph's death (I found this just now with a quick search).

Joseph Smith practiced Masonry during the BAD years when he was influenced by Lucifer per NDE and "by their fruits ye shall know them"

Here is an excerpt that I found with source provided:

The historical record points to many circumstantial evidences that Smith's violation of his Masonic trusts were ONE of the many factors that led to his assassination. (violation of the darn blood oath gets people killed everytime).

Pure Truth said...

CONTINUED for Anonymous who wants to extol the virtues of Masonry.

This is excerpted from Lance S. Owen's classic White Paper, "Joseph Smith: America's Hermetic Prophet"

"In 1842, two years before his death, Joseph had embraced Masonry. But long before his own initiation as a Mason in Nauvoo, he had traveled in company with Masons--a society which included, among other prominent disciples, Brigham Young. His earliest connection with the Craft probably came with his brother (and close life-long companion) Hyrum's initiation as a Mason around 1826, just shortly before Joseph began work on the Book of Mormon.6

Sometime before 1826, Joseph may even have had contact with the historically important Masonic figure, Capt. William Morgan. Morgan published the first American authored exposé of Masonic rites at Batavia, New York in 1826; his disappearance (and assumed murder) just before the book's printing was widely judged an act of Masonic vengeance and sparked a national wave of fierce anti-Masonic activity. Given their close geographic proximity--they lived about twelve miles apart--it is quite possible Morgan and Smith met; one nineteenth century Masonic historian even suggested that Smith influenced Morgan.

Interestingly, in 1834 the widow of William Morgan, Lucinda, converted to Mormonism along with her second husband, George Washington Harris. Harris was also a Mason and former associate of William Morgan. Joseph Smith became closely acquainted with George and Lucinda around 1836, and sometime thereafter he entered into an intimate relationship with Lucinda. Eventually Lucinda became one of his ritually wed "spiritual wives"--a relationship which fully evolved despite her still being married to Harris.

The Prophet's intercourse with Masonry after 1841 became extremely complex. In June of 1841, efforts to establish a Masonic Lodge at Nauvoo began, and a few months later a dispensation for the Lodge was granted. On March 15, 1842 the lodge was installed, and that evening Joseph Smith was initiated. The next day he was passed and raised to the sublime degree of Master Mason. Two days later Smith organize a "Female Relief Society", perhaps intending it to be a Masonic auxiliary, or the beginning of an "adoptive", androgynous new Mormon Masonry. Eventually ever officer of the Female Relief Society also became a spiritual wife and consort of Joseph's, with his first wife Emma acting as president of the Society (a situation understandably complicated by the fact that Emma did not completely understand Joseph's relationship with the other women).

And this is excerpted from Jerald and Sandra Tanner's book, "Mormonism—Shadow or Reality?" p. 485:

"Although Joseph Smith found himself in trouble with the Masons, he gave the Masonic signal of distress just before he was murdered. In his book concerning Masonry, William Morgan gives this information concerning what a Mason is supposed to do "in case of distress": "The sign is given by raising both hands and arms to the elbows, perpendicularly, one on each side of the head, the elbows forming a square. The words accompanying this sign, in case of distress, are, 'O LORD, MY GOD! is there no help for the widow's son?' " (Freemasonry Exposed, p. 76)

John D. Lee claimed that Joseph Smith used the exact words that a Mason is supposed to use in case of distress: "Joseph left the door, sprang through the window, and cried out, 'OH, LORD, MY GOD, IS THERE NO HELP FOR THE WIDOW'S SON!'" (Confessions of John D. Lee, reprint of 1880 ed., p. 153)

Pure Truth said...

Continued: Joseph Smith partially repented
from Masonry & polygamy, but should have fled to the Rocky Mountains to complete the clean up needed. This is why "much restoration" is needed today for the Cleansing of the Lord's House as prophesied...

Other accounts seem to show that Joseph Smith used the first four words of the distress cry. According to the History of the Church, Joseph Smith "fell outward into the hands of his murderers, exclaiming. 'O LORD, MY GOD!' " (History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 618) Less than a month after Joseph and Hyrum Smith were murdered, the following appeared in the Mormon publication, Times and Seasons:
"...with uplifted hands they gave such SIGNS OF DISTRESS as would have commanded the interposition and benevolence of Savages or Pagans. They were both MASONS in good standing. Ye brethren of 'the mystic tie' what think ye! Where is our good MASTER Joseph and Hyrum? Is there a pagan, heathen, or savage nation on the globe that would not be moved on this great occasion, as the trees of the forest are moved by a mighty wind? Joseph's last exclamation was 'O LORD MY GOD!' " (Times and Seasons, Vol. 5, p. 585) The Mormon writer E. Cecil McGavin admitted that Joseph Smith gave the Masonic signal of distress: "When the enemy surrounded the jail, rushed up the stairway, and killed Hyrum Smith, Joseph stood at the open window, his martyr-cry being these words, 'O Lord My God!' This was NOT the beginning of a prayer, because Joseph Smith did not pray in that manner. This brave, young man who knew that death was near, started to repeat THE DISTRESS SIGNAL OF THE MASONS, expecting thereby to gain the protection its members are pledged to give a brother in distress. "In 1878, Zina D. Huntington Young said of this theme, 'I am the daughter of a Master Mason; I am the widow of the Master Mason who, when leaping from the window of Carthage jail, pierced with bullets, MADE THE MASONIC SIGN OF DISTRESS, but those signs were not heeded except by the God of Heaven.' " (Mormonism and Masonry, by E. Cecil McGavin, page 17)

On page 16 of the same book, Mr. McGavin quotes the following from the Life of Heber C. Kimball, p. 26: " 'Joseph, leaping the fatal window, GAVE THE MASONIC SIGNAL OF DISTRESS.' " On page 11 of Kimball’s autobiography, Heber swears by angels that he has always remained true to his Masonic oaths…(paraphrased)
http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/josephsmithsdeath.htm#Masonic%20Cry

Anonymous said...

For the record, I have yet to extol the virtues of Masonry. If asked, I'd be happy to, but for now I haven't said a word except to correct your own multiple inaccuracies and congratulate Steven on finding a spiritual home.

It's telling that you refuse to answer my questions. You'd think someone who had God personally tell him the history and future of the LDS movement could call on Him to clarify the contradictions.

Also, your source choice is interesting. Tell me how Joseph Smith repented of Masonry in 1841 (D&C 124) if he didn't become a Mason until 1842? Also, if Joseph Smith felt Masonry was of Satan, why was he willing to exploit its greatest secret to get himself out of trouble? Either you're wrong about the murder of Joseph Smith or think he's one of the worst men to walk the earth. (I believe that brings it up to seven unambiguous questions for you to answer, though I don't expect it).

Finally, as to your speculation: yes, I am angry. You're invoking God's name to spew hatred and don't really seem to care whether you're telling the truth. That doesn't sit right with me.

--Anthony Bennett

Stake Pres. said...

Clint in response to your question I do not see much of a difference in the two talks and don't see why any announcement should have been made back when it was edited. While I am open to discussions on these sorts of topics, as a stake president I don't see them as faith promoting or particularly useful.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Clint, I think Stake Pres is pulling your leg.

Click on his name, and you'll see his blog is all satire. It's a gag site. For instance, he posts the testimony he just gave in church, and it's full of the typical platitudes you'll find coming from any unthinking member. Who gives a testimony in church and then posts it? Had he written it in advance? Not much of a spontaneous expression of faith then, is it?

What gave him away giveaway is his pretense that he can't see any difference between the two Poelman talks, even though he knows they're posted side by side for ready analysis. He's playing dumb. He's imitating a blind TBM.

Stake Pres, it's satire, but it isn't very good satire, because to be effective satire should involve at least a little exaggeration; otherwise you're just copying reality.

For another example of such finely shaded shenanigans, check out the online patriarch, Brother Joseph Fielding Johnson, here:

http://www.patriarchalblessing.net/index.php/blessing/read

Pure Truth said...

I feel only vaguely sorry for anyone that judges Steve unrighteously, as you have. He has dedicated his life to God and everything has come true so far. He said many things to witnesses years before they happened. And today incredible things are happening which is why I'm so busy! Very fun! It is interesting to observe HOW things transpire as it is all based on FREE AGENCY. In the future, maybe, if I'm prompted I'll take time to refine things to your satisfaction. But maybe, God allows mistakes to hang the perfectionists, Pharisees, and Sadduccess?

Your fury seems to also misaligned your comprehension as Joseph Smith did NOT repent in 1841 and I never said he did nor does the quickly-found & perused cut & paste I provided you with say that, that I can see. I don't believe you comprehended what was written above.

To Wit: "In June of 1841, efforts to establish a Masonic Lodge at Nauvoo began, and a few months later a dispensation for the Lodge was granted. On March 15, 1842 the lodge was installed, and that evening Joseph Smith was initiated."

D&C 124 does not state anything about repentance (if that is what you were referring to) as there was no repentance during that time period. Hence, the church is STILL under condemnation for its "follies and abominations".

And I'm not spewing out hatred, I'm just telling the truth in purity not perfection as you require in anger, with demands, and absolute control. Get a grip with your anger/justification as with you filled with that spirit of "seeking truth" you will never see the evil of Masonry and the present day LDS Masonic Temple rituals.

Frankly, I don't listen intently to someone operating at your level, so no, I have not read carefully your words of anger. I do my best and never proclaim to be perfect. God is not about perfection! I liken the dark brotherhood of Masonry to the Gadiatons/secret combinations and/or witchcraft. Why do you naively belive a secret organization would have truthful & open ledgers accounting for all members?

Joseph Smith was pure-hearted as was King David...Both made huge mistakes so I'm not judging Joseph, just stating the facts that he was human, got into polygamy and masonry, etc. and had things that he did that hurt the purity of the church. Had he gone to the Rockies as the Spirit directed him to, then he would have more fully repented.

Its for God to judge, not me or you, while we do have the RESPONSIBILITY to expose the corruption of the leaders (see Howard W. Hunter's talk October 1994 which he gave saying this exactly, which is almost identical to counsel sent to him from Steve, which we have a copy of)

It is obvious that you have NO CLUE how God operates. There is mostly always free agency with myriads of possible futures dependent upon every thought and action of every person,intelligence, and spirit involved. So your demand to have precise revelation does not come from a spiritual connection on your part. Why do you think Jesus said He would come as a Thief in the Night? The time was dependent upon free agency and actions would be required much like a Thief due to the corruption of the church today.

Steve was shown the "Lord's Mountain of Gold" during his NDE. 18 yrs later he found and then purchased this goldmine from his father. He was shown me and told his dad, architech, and many others that I would be a double Gemini, the younger of a twin, have a pure heart, and a relationship with God. He was given a time frame of six months to commence to find me. He met me on the first day at an Intuitive Living Seminar that I taught... We met based on free agency. What if I had not followed the spiritual prompting to teach on that exact day? Etc...

Another example: God did not care that there were typos and grammar problems with the original Book of Mormon. Oh, but you do...

Clint L. said...

Thanks Rock, that clarification saved me some potential confusion. The patriarchal blessing link is pretty good.

Pure Truth, in your advice for me you say, “Go by the Spirit for best counsel, if you are in tune & if you aren't why aren't you?”
I admit that I am not sufficiently in tune with the spirit to know the answer to all of my questions. As to why I am not, I am sure the answer is sin. However, I don't really think of sin so much as a list of things not to do, I think of it more in context of the Alma 22 statement “I will give away all of my sins to know him”. I acknowledge that sin separates me (all of us?) from God and hope I will someday overcome that separation. In the mean time, I am just a guy trying to figure it all out.

Steven Lester, I also noticed how different the “Community of Christ” seems in approach than LDS sites. I read their latest addition to their D&C, section 164 and noticed that in many ways it was a polar opposite to the absolutism in “the proclamation to the family” and that documents effect on events like Prop 8. If you do choose to attend them I would be interested to know your impression of their organization.

Zomarah, I really like the term “Unificationist Latter Day Saint” and must admit that is a concept that has never even occurred to me before, but it if food for thought. Also, thanks for the link to the article on revelation, it was helpful.

Pure Truth said...

Clint L. thank you for "trying to figure it all out". What a great path to be on.

I wonder if its not the thought that separates us from God even beyond sin which is the outcome usually (which begins with thought).

Expecting perfection separates us from God as much as sin as this leads to self-judgment, rumination, depression, frustration, etc. (Utah has the highest rate of depression/use of anti-depressants in the nation, U.S. Census 2003 to present)

That's why purity and perfection are polar opposites. Think of the sins of Saul and Alma the Younger and yet God knew their hearts/souls. King David was loved by God, yet sinned, but was forgiven, due to his heart yearnings as you have mentioned. The same can be said about Joseph Smith who, according to Parley P. Pratt's two angelic messages, "did hold the keys for the dispensation." The heart yearning to know God, negates our past sins as in "go and sin no more." Did God judge the woman as we judge ourselves? No. So, keep searching (2 more more witnesses) and remember the purity of a happy child who does not hold onto past actions in remorse or even think about it (nonjudgmental/purity).

Everyone has different spiritual gifts with no elitism among those on the path. You seem like a great guy!

Anonymous said...

Speaking of Alterations/Revisions & the BoMormon...
In the 1st Ed., the WITNESS STMNT of the 8 says that JS was THE AUTHOR of the Book Of Mormon!

(Did they all have 'agreed' on the change in l8tr eds. to 'translator'?)

THIS ISN'T THE TITLE PAGE abt which it is said that copyright laws Required that JS claim authorship.

(I suggest on another thread:) The DISTRACTIONS . DETAILS of Mormonism have Taken Over/Surpassed loyalty-obersation to Christ-Like living...

whitehusky said...

//Even the Lord Himself told the brother of Jared, "I am the Father and the Son."//

Today in the church people refuse to acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Jehovah, the Father of Israel. Most references in scripture to the Father pertain more to the Lord himself rather than to another member of the Godhead. But if you point this out to most Mormons, they will refuse to see it. Yet we are reminded that Christ is Jehovah in the temple. And we wouldn't be reminded there if it wasn't important.

As for the members of the Godhead, we are certain that there are at least three: The Lord, his Dad, and the Holy Spirit. This, however, is no reason to throw Jesus Christ off his throne and insert another member of the Godhead there, or to insist that we direct our prayers to another member of the Godhead, but not to the Lord himself.

This week (yet again) while sitting in Primary I had to listen to the adults teach the children that Heavenly Father is the one who is in charge. They left the Lord out of it entirely. I'm tired of this. The scriptures refer to the Lord. While it is often acceptable to include Heavenly Father when speaking about scriptural topics, it is not acceptable to exclude the Lord. The scriptures testify of Christ, not of someone else.

The lesson this week was actually about prayer, so when I taught my class I made sure I brought up the fact that we can pray to Jesus. Ironically, the entire lesson mentioned praying to Heavenly Father but one of the examples provided was someone talking about praying to the Lord. Do these people get that Jesus Christ is the Lord? Any basic Christian gets that, and yet Mormons want to be ignorant of it?

I have come to the conclusion that the church is largely apostate. For what else can be said when Jesus Christ is being replaced by another member of the Godhead?

Alan Rock Waterman said...

I couldn't agree with you more, Husky. Most Mormons would assert that they know Jesus, but how can they have any kind of a relationship with someone they never talk to?

Jesus is God.

whitehusky said...

Exactly, Alan! If you never pray to the Lord, then what business do you have saying you know him?

"Rejoice, O my heart, and cry unto the Lord, and say: O Lord, I will praise thee forever; yea, my soul will rejoice in thee, my God, and the rock of my salvation." [2 Nephi 4:30]

doyle_megan said...

I'd like to see a Conference talk that covered the fact that Jehovah is the Almighty, without Beginning and without End. Therefore, Jesus Christ, as Jehovah, cannot be a "spirit child" who became God. If I see one more Mormon post online a stupid theory about Jesus being an underling and call it doctrine, I think I'm going to have to tell them they've just denied the witness of the Holy Spirit and the word of God.

3 Nephi 9:18 - I am the light and the life of the world.
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.

andrew said...

it's only human to attempt to quantify the unquantifiable. if people want to run in circles trying to put a flow chart or order of events to the divine, i guess they are only wasting their own time. i just have to keep reminding myself that it doesn't matter how he came to be, but only that he is

whitehusky said...

Actually, the Lord is without beginning and without end. Mormons ought not to be ignorant of this fact. I know the JWs do somersaults trying to avoid it, but the truth is that Jesus Christ is our Everlasting God, even the Father of Heaven and Earth, the Alpha and Omega, our Almighty God. His power and status are eternal. He never *became* God. He is God. That's why he's the Great I AM (not the great I became through some strange Darwinian process).

Anonymous said...

A few months ago I would have completely agreed with you. Then I came across this quote in Church History, in which Joseph Smith said "Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, NOR JESUS ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet...When they can get rid of me, the devil will also go." (History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 408, 409 - caps added)

With all I've read, hear, and learned growing up about him, living the "truth" all my life - this crushed me! A true prophet of God would NEVER talk like that!

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Well, I dunno. If I recall the context, it was in the midst of a fiery speech where he was fed up with the persecutions. I'm willing to cut him some slack in letting his rhetoric run away from him. He still couldn't hold a candle to Rigdon in the hyperbole department.

Running down a list of accomplishments like that may seem boastful, but he isn't claiming to have done it without the divine. And he still didn't refer to himself as holy, and I don't think he would have stood by and allowed such an honorific bestowed upon him like these guys put up with today without correcting anyone.

But who knows? It's just my opinion, but I tend to think that if Joseph heard someone refer to him as "holy" he would correct him and remind him that God himself was constantly calling him on the carpet for his failures.

Silvershoes said...

It all goes up to Jesuit bankin of Rome. Kuhn Loeb nazi bank financed the Book of Mormon. Masonry is Vatican from with high crimes at the top, just like Mormonism. Same store: Banks aka usury, only different brands. Freemasonry is also murderous cult. Research captain Morgan affair and Joseph Smith together.

Silvershoes said...

The church is a huge business. They are allied to Jesuit Masonic bankin and usury, RICO as well. Put on your big boy pants guys... Deep down you like the perks. Research captain Morgan affair with Joseph Smith and take a look at who financed the Book of Mormon, Kun Loeb I understand is Vatican (Nazi) banking.

Silvershoes said...

Kuhn Loeb

Silvershoes said...

Stay because Nazi-Jews want your money for their Zion.

Silvershoes said...

Steve Davis is a psychopath and agent for The Crown, the Rothschild crown.

Silvershoes said...

Wake up, it's all a huge con. Jesus teachings are obvious. He said an institution is NOT the way... Duh... Then leaders pile numerous men over each member of their hive... It is anti-Jesus if you do the math. Literally mocking him in his name.