Sunday, August 29, 2021

When LDS Church Leaders Teach Contrary To God


 Previously: What If 'Follow The Prophet' Could Get You Killed?

Well, it's finally happened. The top leadership of the Church doesn't even pretend to receive revelations from the Lord anymore. They're now just making it up as they go. 

Remember when Joseph Smith would take his concerns before the Lord and receive answers through revelation? And remember how he would publish those revelations in God's own voice so the members could read, ponder, and pray over them to get a witness from the Holy Ghost as to whether those revelations had, in fact, come from the Lord?  Well, not anymore. That is so 19th century.  Why should Russell Nelson consult the Almighty when he's already completely in charge?  The general authorities today are done waiting on the Lord; they'll just go ahead and invent their own doctrines, thank you very much. That way they don't have to vet them.

Make no mistake: the recent Statement of the First Presidency on August 12th is now an official doctrine of the Church.  Yet what are we to make of it? That declaration is so far out of left field, so overflowing with falsehood,  so utterly ridiculous, that one would be forgiven for thinking it was a satirical piece planted by the Babylon Bee.

If you haven't seen that recent press release, it represents a veritable doubling down on the same false teachings the Church hierarchy has been promulgating for months now.  (You can find my analyses of their former freewheelin' inventions HERE and HERE).

But this latest one takes the cake.  Want to see how laughable that statement is? Here are a couple of highlights, but try not to laugh out loud if you're reading this on your phone in church:

"To provide personal protection from such severe infections, we urge individuals to be vaccinated. Available vaccines have proven to be both safe and effective."

How old are these guys, anyway? Do any of them even own a dictionary?  You would think that before they issued this silly decree they would have looked up the meaning of the words "safe" and "effective." 

And also the meaning of the word "proven."

Here's another howler: 

"We can win this war if everyone will follow the wise and thoughtful recommendations of medical experts and government leaders."

Now, I'm not much of a scriptorian, but I seem to recall pretty much every biblical prophet spending an inordinate amount of their time denouncing government leaders. And when they weren't doing that, they were calling the people to repentance because the people were too dumb to resist falling under the spell of those who would control them if given half a chance. 

 You remember, don't you? Remember this one? "Cursed is he who puts his trust in the arm of flesh"? It's practically the prime directive throughout all of scripture.  It seems that every Old Testament prophet -from Samuel, to Nathan, to John the Baptist- spent half his time denouncing government leaders to their faces, and the other half calling the people to repentance for repeatedly putting their faith in those frauds.  Show me a prophet in the Book of Mormon who wasn't ragging against those in power pretty much full time; you won't find one. Whatever it is you think the role of a prophet is, it is most certainly not to encourage God's people to "follow the wise and thoughtful recommendations of government leaders."

And yet here are the three top goombas in the Church hierarchy trying to convince you that you should do just that.  Notice anything missing from that pronouncement?  How about any hint that they are conveying a message from God? Maybe just a tiny mention?  Anything at all?

But wait a minute...isn't that the very role of a prophet-To convey a message from God to His people?  So if Russell Nelson's mouth is moving and he is not delivering a message from God verbatim, why are you even listening to him? Why are you giving any of these useless usurpers the time of day?

As for the "medical experts" Russell Nelson is advising you to follow,  I'll address them in a moment.  But first, please take a look at the two short videos below.  I chose these two above the the thousands of well-credentialed medical professionals whose counsel stands in stark opposition to the dangerous counsel of the First Presidency, and I did so for two reasons: 1, their pronouncements are short and to the point and 2, these cats don't don't pull any punches. In other words, they act and sound like we would expect prophets to act and sound.  Neither of these men are LDS (one is a Catholic Friar), but their warnings contain more solid prophecies than you'll get from those dissimulators in the boardroom at 50 East North Temple.

The first is titled "Nothing Can Stop What Is Coming."


This second video features anthropologist Alexis Bugnolo, and you'll note that, unlike Russell Ballard, Friar Bugnolo doesn't paint a rosy picture of the future for those who toe the line and follow government leaders.  



If what you just saw and heard is completely new to you, allow me to introduce you to the world outside the matrix.  Literally thousands of highly credentialed and respected medical professionals have been working tirelessly to expose the fraud currently being foisted on the world, and if you watched the presentation given by Dr Christiane Northrup on my previous blog post, you have seen only a basic introduction to the information that exists out there.  We have so many real experts blowing the whistle on the fraud that it's becoming difficult to keep up with the latest findings. Most Americans are not even aware of the countless number of virologists, immunologists, biochemists, pathologists and others tirelessly working to break through the propaganda mill and expose them to reality. When you look at the real science behind all this, it comes down to four realities:

1.  Those masks you see everyone wearing are almost completely ineffective in blocking the coronavirus.

2.  That doesn't really matter anyway because the coronavirus is, in essence, no more serious than the flu. Unless you are seriously sick with something else, or really fat, you're likely to recover quckly, just as you regularly recover from the common cold. Which, by the way, is a coronavirus.

3. The substance currently being touted as a "vaccine" is not a vaccine at all, but instead a deadly pathogen designed to alter your DNA and mess with your body's ability to defend itself.

4. The so-called Delta Variant that has suddenly appeared is the "Fool Me Twice" of the 21st century. If you're falling for this con a second time...well, that one's on you.


 Doctor, Doctor, Gimme The News
 "But hey, Rock," I hear some of you say, "President Nelson is an actual doctor.  If there was anything wrong with the Covid vaccine he would know about it."

That's the kind of empty logic we often hear from people who think doctors are enchanted beings who, once they receive their PhD, are magically imbued with an awareness of every advance in science and medicine ever discovered.  Russell Nelson was a heart surgeon who earned his doctorate 67 years ago. During those years when he was cutting people open, it isn't likely he read many papers outside his narrow field of study.  He never was a virologist, so between then and the day he left medicine for a career in religion, it's unlikely he has been keeping up with the mountains of research published on viral pathology. If he had, or better yet, had he bothered to consult with God before telling the Saints what they should be doing with their bodies, he might never have issued that stupid pronouncement.

Or maybe he still would have. We know there are some doctors out there who think they are gods.  This one is:
1. a doctor who doesn't follow the science, and
2. a prophet who doesn't talk to God.

Let me know why you think that makes him a reliable source in either category.

Maybe There's A Reason They Don't Get Revelations Anymore  
There hasn't been a true prophet in the Church since the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, but we still boast that we are a Church that operates on continuous revelation.  That may be true of the members of Christ's church, because the Lord can and does bestow revelations on us as individuals. But can you name one revelation received by any president of the Church other than Joseph Smith? There have been none.  I can give you several reasons why that is, but this one's the most obvious:

Among the many false traditions in the modern LDS Church, one of the most glaring is this odd idea that the Twelve Apostles are all "prophets, seers, and revelators" with authority to govern and manage the affairs of the church.  Yet nowhere do we see God having given them these gifts or this responsibility. Indeed, the reality is the Twelve are specifically prohibited from governing the church.  According to the charge the early apostles were given, they were not to have anything to do with managing, governing, or running the church. Except for brief periods, they weren't even supposed to be anywhere near church headquarters. These apostles had been given tremendous power, privilege, and authority, but that authority was limited to areas outside the Church's central headquarters:

"They are the Twelve Apostles, who are called to the office of Traveling high council, who are to preside over all the churches over the Saints among the Gentiles, where there is no presidency established, and they are to travel and preach among the Gentiles, until the Lord shall command them to go to the Jews." (Kirtland Council Minute Book, pg 86)

If you fancy yourself a church leader and you can't even restrain yourself from sticking your nose where it doesn't belong, is it any wonder the Lord isn't trusting you with his oracles?

So what are we supposed to do if we can't rely on Church leaders to receive revelations on our behalf?  How are we supposed to know the will of God?  Well, one of the smartest things I ever heard a Church president say was this wise counsel from Harold B. Lee.  Of course, that was before the leaders began to see themselves as qualified to give orders to the Saints rather than acting as their servants. It was a time when leaders of the Church could occasionally say something that was genuinely inspired:

"I say we need to teach our people to find their answers in the scriptures. If only each of us would be wise enough to say that we aren't able to answer any question unless we can find a doctrinal answer in the scriptures! And if we hear someone teaching something that is contrary to what is in the scriptures, each of us may know whether the things spoken are false -it is as simple as that. But the unfortunate thing is that so many of us are not reading the scriptures. We do not know what is in them, and therefore we speculate about the things that we ought to have found in the scriptures themselves. I think therein is one of our biggest dangers of today."
"The Lord has given us in the standard works the means by which we should measure truth and untruth. May we all heed His word: 'Thou shalt take the things which thou hast received, which have been given unto thee in my scriptures for a law, to be my law to govern my church.' " D&C 42:59 (First Presidency Message, Ensign, December 1972.)

Prescient words, indeed. Can you find anything in scripture that would support the First Presidency's decree of August 12th?  Of course not. That entire statement is contrary to scripture. As LDS doctor Scott Bradley indicates in the video below, every sentence, every phrase, every word of that decree could be easily refuted by the scriptures.


If you think Dr Brooks and Friar Bognolo's stark warnings were over the top, consider that Rochelle Walensky, the director of the Center for Disease Control, inadvertently confirmed their assertions at a White House briefing on Covid-19:

"Additionally, reports from our international colleagues, including Israel, suggest increased risk of severe disease amongst those vaccinated early. Given this body of evidence, we are concerned that the current strong protection against severe infection, hospitalization, and death could decrease in the months ahead, especially among those who are at higher risk or who were vaccinated earlier during the phases of our vaccination rollout.

"In the context of these concerns, we are planning for Americans to receive booster shots, starting next month, to maximize vaccine-induced protection."

In case you can't easily wade through that word salad, what Wallensky is saying is that the vaccines are not working.  Worse yet, they are having the opposite result from what was expected.  Those who got the vaccines early have been coming down with the coronavirus at a much higher rate than those who have not been vaccinated.  You'll recall that the reason people were persuaded to take the needle in the first place was because they were promised it would prevent them from getting the virus. Now Wallensky is saying those very people represent the fastest growing group currently catching the virus.  So, she says, they're going to try giving all those people booster shots to see if that helps.  

(Spoiler Alert: it won't. The booster shots are further weakening the bodies of those who take them and eroding the body's natural ability to fight off disease.)

You'll notice that Wallensky mentioned reports coming in from Israel. Israel is one of the most highly vaccinated countries in the world, with the highest percentage of vaccinated per population.  But look at what is suddenly happening there. The Israelis are coming down with Covid at the rate of 9,200 infections per day, while their neighbors the Palestinians are getting far, far fewer. The Palestinians are not vaccinating, and when you look at the chart, you'll see cases in Palestine are flat and heading downward: 


Someone should tell the First Presidency about this, because the data shows -and this is being proven with multiple studies across the board- that they were dead wrong three weeks ago when they promised "we can win this war if everyone will follow the wise and thoughtful recommendations of medical experts and government leaders."

Allow me to state the obvious: The only time a member of the Church hierarchy should open his mouth is if he has received a direct revelation from the Lord. Due to these men's long record of consistent disobedience, that isn't likely to happen. So my advice to them is to just shut their traps and focus on what they are good at: taking the tithing they collect from the members and continuing to invest it in vaccine makers Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson.

                                                                         *****  
                                                         The Narrative Is Crumbling 



                                                                       

Additional Sources:

Agreement With Hell: Covenanting While Under The Influence Of Intoxicants

A fascinating exegisis of biblical and Book of Mormon prophecy tying together the failure of LDS Church leaders and a last days plague that looks a lot more like it resulted from Covid vaccinations than from any virus. 


Now You Can Get Your Covid Shot At Church!

One of the reasons I don't blog as often as I used to is because this guy always does it better and more thoroughly than I can. Concise information and devastating videos here. He has tackled this topic several times in previous months, including the explanation on why the worldwide Covid fast didn't work.  Consistently good take-downs of hypocrisy among Church leaders.


Health

This post from the blog "Seeking YHWH" is an exhaustive collection of Mormon teachings on health, containing pretty much everything Joseph Smith ever said on the subject along with every scripture imaginable.  There are also comparisons to the heretical teachings of modern general authorities like David Bednar who constantly teaches contrary to what God would have us do. An excellent source of scriptural teachings on health and a great resource.

Anonymous Bishop

When it comes to calling out hypocrisy in the Magisterium, nobody hits 'em harder and right between the eyes like the Anonymous Bishop.  In a piece titled "Insurrecction of the Just" he challenges them with all the right questions in a way that will want to make you stand up and cheer.

Jab Update: The Internet's No. 1 Comprehensive Compilation of True Covid-19 Facts

This has been called "The Covid-19 Motherload of Truth."  Here you'll find links to all the data, lots of studies, tons of videos, and more REAL SCIENCE than you're likely to uncover in a year on your own.  An impressive database that clearly required a lot of work to compile.


Brighteon.Com

This is another great source of videos and interviews that promote science over politics. Mike Adams "the Health Ranger" started this site because he was tired of Facebook banning his videos.  Facebook will not allow you share anything on his site and that's unfortunate because this site is overflowing with great information.  I try to check this daily for the latest bombshells.


Lew Rockwell

Lew Rockwell is the libertarian host of this site featuring 8 or 10 articles per day by authors who represent the best in independent thinking. This is where I go when I want information on any topic of the day because I know it will not be slanted toward either political party.  An indispensable source for critical thinkers who eschew the ruling class of either party.   I preloaded this link above so it will take you directly to a large number of articles about Covid Vaccines with an emphasis on science, data, and evidence. But the site itself features pieces on a wide variety of topics. 

No, The FDA Did Not Approve The Covid Vaccine  [Video]

Last week President Biden announced that the Pfizer Covid vaccine had received FDA approval, removing it from the Emergency Use Authorization Act to status of fully approved.  Well, not so fast there, Grampa. Anyone with half a brain knows that no medication is ever approved in six months, and sure enough, the Pfizer product that was supposedly "authorized" (conditionally, by the way) is not the jab you're thinking of.  You can't even get the new vaccine because for one thing, it doesn't exist. It's not on the market.  In fact, it hasn't even been manufactured yet.  Dr Robert Malone, the same guy who created the mRNA technology and is warning everyone not to take it, explains how the president and the media are either deceived themselves, or they're trying to pull a fast one on us:


So This Is What Passes For "Science" Nowadays  [Video]

I'm sure this will reassure those thinking about taking the jab. The CDC admits they don't have any data to show that a third vaccination will do any good, but by golly, they sure hope it does!  Dr Malone returns to explain how the more booster shots you inject into a person, the less that person's body will be able to fight off disease and the better the chance they'll expire before their time.




Elder Rasband Rebukes The Saints For Thinking They Don't Have To Obey Him.
Here's an interesting example of authority out of control. You'll notice there is no mention of following Christ or obeying a specific commandment of the Lord.  It's just some narcisstic old coprolite going on about how you have to do what we say because we're in authority over you.



Smarmy Stake President  

I'm throwing this one up here just for fun.  A friend sent me this video of some stake president with a video message about Covid for the members of his stake.  I don't know who this guy is, but he clearly studied at the Thomas S. Monson School of Public Speaking.  He must have spent hours in front of the mirror in order to capture just that right degree of condescending smarminess in his delivery Monson was famous for.

Get this guy a gig at the Dry Bar Comedy Club in Provo!



75 comments:

Jared Livesey said...

Jesus on healthcare:

I say to you, do not care about your life, such as what you shall eat, or what you shall drink, and also do not care about your body, such as what clothes you shall wear. Isn't life more than food, and your body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air: they do not plant wheat, and they do not cut it down when it is grown, and they do not gather it into storage bins, but your heavenly father feeds them. Aren't you much more valuable than they are? Which of you can make himself live longer just by caring about it? And why care about clothes? Think about how flowers grow in a field. They don't have jobs, and they don't make cloth. But I say to you that Solomon, at the time of all his honors, was not dressed as well as one of them. If God dresses the grass of the fields like that, which is here today, and tomorrow gets burned for fuel, will he not much more clothe you, oh you who barely trusts him? For this reason do not care, saying, "What shall we eat?" Or, "What shall we drink?" Or, "What are we going to wear?" These things are what the Gentiles seek for, and your heavenly father knows you need them. But you, seek you first for the kingdom of God and to be given his spirit, and whatever you need will be given to you. For this reason do not care about tomorrow, because tomorrow will take care of itself. Each day is enough for the problems that come with it.

Whoever loves / wants to save / tries to save / succeeds in saving their life shall lose their life, but whoever hates / loses their life in this world in obedience to me will receive it / keep it for eternal life. (Matthew 10:39, 16:25; Mark 8:35; Luke 9:24, 17:33; John 12:25.)

And you should not be afraid of those who kill the body and are unable to kill the soul. You should be afraid of the one who is able to destroy both the body and soul in hell. Aren't two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them falls to the ground without your father. Now, even the hairs of your head are all numbered - for this reason you should not be afraid. You are worth more than many sparrows. For this reason, everyone who agrees with me before men I will also agree with in front of my father who is in the heavens. Whoever refuses me in front of men, I will also refuse him before my father who is in the heavens.

matt lohrke said...

@Jared Livesey: Jesus says nothing about "healthcare." Matthew 10 is instruction given specifically to the 12 disciples:

"Jesus called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out impure spirits and to heal every disease and sickness. These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions..."

I find the appeals to Joseph Smith curious in this so-called "vaccine debate." JS lived a very different world than we live in now. To suggest we should rely on "herbs and mild food" (which was a very common medical remedy in the 1830s for all manner of illness -- nothing prophetic about it) when in a day and age of scientific advancement seems a bit nearsighted to me.

Jared Livesey said...

Hi Matt,

I am confused by your apparent contention concerning Matthew 10.

Do you suppose only the 12 should not [be / have been] afraid of those who kill the body and are unable to kill the soul?
Do you suppose only the 12 should [be / have been] afraid of the one who is able to destroy both the body and the soul in hell?
Do you suppose that if one sparrow cost one penny then the 12 were to do anything different?
Do you suppose that after the 12 went forth sparrows fall to the ground without our father?
Do you suppose that only the hairs of the 12 [were / are] numbered?
Do you suppose that only the 12 [were / are] worth more than many sparrows?
Do you suppose "everyone who agrees with me before men I will also agree with in front of my father who is in the heavens" only [applies / applied] to the 12?
Do you suppose "Whoever refuses me in front of men, I will also refuse him before my father who is in the heavens" only [applies / applied] to the 12?

If your answer to all of these questions is "no," then I do not understand in this context what your objection to my citation of Jesus's words in Matthew 10 consists of. If you answer yes to any, maybe we have more to discuss.

After all, we seek healthcare - including vaccinations - because we care for our lives or our bodies; by seeking it we show that we love our lives, or we want to save our lives, or that we're trying to save our lives, which is a sufficient condition for losing our lives, Jesus says. Don't care for your life, don't care for your body, Jesus says. And those who deny him here in front of men shall be denied there in front of God, Jesus says, while those who agree with him here in front of men will be agreed with there in front of God.

This matters to those who believe Jesus is real and will reward them for obedience to him and want to live forever with him and God in the heavens.

jstcommentary said...

I think I read that "fool me twice" idea somewhere before.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Yeah, I saw it on a parked big-rig. I'm sure it's been spreading like a meme.

Dave P. said...

I'm constantly telling people, "Jesus said we'll know them by their fruits. These companies have had to pay billions in fines for fraud, misinformation, and shoddy products. Even with these COVID 'vaccines,' they are being anything but transparent. So why are you trusting them?!"

Jared Livesey said...

And when he got on the boat, his students followed him. And behold, a huge storm came up on the sea, so that the boat was covered by waves, but Jesus was sleeping. And his students came to him and woke him up, saying, "Lord, save us! We're dying!" And he says to them, "Why are you afraid, oh you with little trust in God?" [In Luke, it's "Where is your trust?"] Then, having gotten up, he commanded the wind and the sea, and they became very still. And the men were very surprised, saying, "What kind of man is this, whom even the wind and the sea obey?"

The point of this account is that Jesus didn't care whether he lived or died. He stilled the storm because his students asked him to. Jesus was not a fraud, but practiced what he preached, literally. If he lived, it was God's will, and had he died, it also would have been God's will, and he would have returned to his father in the heavens. He did not resist anything God saw fit to inflict upon him, for he trusted in God, and his hope was in the heavens.

From this we see why calling for the elders to pray over us whilst being nourished by herbs and mild food [and that not by the hand of an enemy] if we are ill is wise. By taking those measures, which, of course, do nothing to address what men tell us are the causes of disease or illness, we show our trust in God, and yield to his will, submitting to what he inflicts upon us.

In yielding to the things God sees fit to inflict upon us we follow the example of Christ which he set for us.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Jared, it's good to hear from you again. You too, Dave P. Seems you both have been absent from this forum a long time.

goodguy100 said...

"We know that protection from the diseases they cause can only be achieved by immunizing a very high percentage of the population" This was also stated in the August 12 church release. God has no power here? Faith has no power here? Priesthood has no power here? This statement is an abuse of authority. I know people who have been absolutely against the vaccine but have now received it simply because of the church's statement.

Dave P. said...

This whole thing has proven the point of how the natural man is the enemy to God. I'm in the minority of working to get into much better shape than possibly ever since having my gall bladder removed last March, just before the hysteria went into full overdrive.

The scriptures state that God has provided everything we need and said natural cures have been used for centuries all throughout the world. Then, come the early 20th century, the American Medical Association began the process of "cut, poison, burn" for "healing" processes. Over the past 100 and especially 30 years, people have gone from, "I have to work to take good care of myself, including contracting diseases that are harmless for the vast majority to grant lifetime immunity," to "I just have to take this drug and I'll be fine, regardless of the list of side effects as long as my arm."

It's the same play that's been going on for all of human history and is reaching a boiling point: People just want to take the easy way out. However, when they find out that they've been lied to and their golden calf can and will not save them, they instead blame the "non-believers" or, as they're called in the corporate church, the "non-members."

Who was it that proposed a system to "save" everyone through coercion and force? Certainly wasn't Christ.

Dave P. said...

As a follow-up to my previous comment, just remember that none of our "leaders" have advocated strengthening our God-given immune systems and eating the right foods to strengthen said immune systems. They have convinced the people that a mesh cloth that inhibits oxygen flow and turns into a facial petri dish is good enough until they can get "the vaccine." All in all, it's endless virtue signalling to give the illusion of actually doing something.

What did Christ say about those who "pray to be seen of men?" He was simply describing the virtue signalers of His day.

aredesuyo said...

While I agree with everything you're saying in this post, I'm going to have to call BS on that "Nothing Can Stop What Is Coming" video with the "PhD Oxford" guy. The things this guy says about the dangers of the shot are based on truth, but he takes everything way over the top. I've also listened to several long podcasts featuring Dr. Robert Malone, and I don't recall him ever saying not to take the shot "under any circumstances" (even though I never would take it). Maybe you know a source for that statement, but Malone has always seemed much more measured and careful in his speech than that. The overflowing scourge of BS that's taken over the world since early 2020 needs to be resisted, but I don't think untrue statements will be as helpful for that purpose.

Knight said...

Welp, looks like most of the youtube videos have been scrubbed at this point; here's backups I could find on tv.gab.com (if I've got them correct):

1st video: https://tv.gab.com/channel/opfreedom/view/dr-at-school-board-meeting-611e641bdf52a364056e65d5

2nd video: https://tv.gab.com/channel/cepstralspike/view/alexis-bugnolo-wandering-through-streets-of-60131c57eb5093d484b426bb

3rd video (Ron Paul Liberty Report): Couldn't find it just from that, and since I didn't get to see it I don't know what keywords to search.

4th video (The Narrative is Crumbling): No video picture to match, so I just guessed; here's a snippet with Dr. Robert Malone (part of a 2 or 3 hour discussion that's well worth the view): https://tv.gab.com/channel/rbravo/view/the-narrative-is-crumbling-611fc1a3973d60d066c354d0 and the full video: https://tv.gab.com/channel/trump_won_2020_twice/view/how-to-save-the-world-in-60c7ec977e61211ae13969bd

5th video (No, the FDA did not approve): https://tv.gab.com/channel/trunews/view/must-watch-dr-robert-malone-6125458b10af81d85b566254 Judging by the background image, I think this is it.

6th video (passes for "science"): Can't find it by picture or title alone, might need keywords from within the video.

Hope that helps! Thanks for getting all this in one place, Rock!

Michael said...

Good write-up Rock. No wonder why the Church kicked you out - dissent is not permitted.

I appreciate what you've written here.

Unknown said...

Amen!!!

Unknown said...

That is so incredibly sad!!! They may have just put "the prophet" as their false god & didn't realize what they did/were doing.

Unknown said...

Exactly!!!

Unknown said...

Amen!!!

Jared Livesey said...

Hi Rock,

The discussions haven't been to my taste for a long time. But, as they say, de gustibus non est disputandum.

Rhone said...

aredesuyo,

To quote Ellen Ripley, from the greatest movie of all time (Aliens (1986)): "I hope you're right. I really do."

My wife and I are skeptical, yet cautious, of the predictions that people will start dropping dead in six months-five years. I hope it doesn't happen. I truly do. Because if it happens then my parents are dead. Her parents are dead. All of my siblings are dead. Most of hers are dead. Most of my co-workers and ward members are dead. While I welcome a major paradigm shift in the world towards righteousness; having to watch almost everyone I know and love perish isn't an inviting thought.

If it doesn't happen, then great. If it does then there is nothing I can do to stop it. I'm content to wait and see.

I pray that God is merciful with all of us.

R. Metz said...

This post is presenting a rather grim picture. But, good brother, you have warned us enough for a long time, and thank you for that. I have read the 12 august message and I wonder who is the real apostate, they who made up this nonsense, or me, for opposing it.

aredesuyo said...

Rhone,

It's kind of funny that he says "six months to 3 to 5 years." What kind of weird, mushy timeline is that? And what, precisely, does it mean to "decrease your immune system by 35%"? This isn't the kind of language that an actual scientist uses.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Yes it is, Rhone. That's exactly the kind of language you'll fine in scientific projections. Did you expect precise numbers? The rate of illness and death will depend largely on many elements, so predictions must be extrapolated from existing data. For instance what will it be that kills the patient? Blood clots? Graphen Oxide? one or both combined with the patient's obesity or other comorbidities? Depending on which of many possibilites, one extrapolates outward, thus for some people death could occur within six months, for others it may take 3 to 5 years.

The point is we know these injections contain deadly poisons, but not enough time has yet gone by to predict more accuracy, since some people have died almost immediately while others are maimed. How long will they remain mamed before they die? Who knows?

The man behind weaponizing Graphene Oxide believes it can take anywhere from 3 to 10 years for a human subject to succumb to graphene oxide poisoning. Science is not exact, science is a process. That's why you hear that "science is never settled." The person who believes "the science is settled" on this or that matter is a fool. IPredicting death becomes more accurate with time as the data continues to come in, but there is general agreement among those who predict these outcomes that these things can and will kill you.

You ask about the meaning of "decrease the immune system by 35%. That refers to the immune system becoming 35 percent less effective at warding off illness than when in its normal state.

Rhone said...

I meant no disrespect. I was only restating the claim. I don't want to believe that this going to kill people but I feel, deep down, that he's correct. The future is certainly going to be interesting.

1 said...

Hi Rock, Thanks again for shedding truth on the lies from the brethren. Trusting in them has been the fools way for a long time. They are nothing but government sycophants and shills. Bunch of empty suits who will soon be presiding over nothing but their stock portfolio and the sheeple who can't think clearly and certainly aren't following the spirit or the Lord's counsel. I wrote a post on the "arm of flesh" last month:https://gregstocks.wordpress.com/

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Thanks for the response, Rhone.

Good post you got there, 1. I haven't read Right Reason for awhile, thanks for the reminder.

Denver Snuffer said...

My brother in law and his wife have been ill for a couple of weeks. He went to the hospital to be tested and does not have Covid, but does have Covid antibodies. So that means he has had it sometime in the last two weeks. His wife has a 101 degree fever, but the hospital tests confirm that she does not have either Covid or Covid antibodies, and so they tell her that she has not been exposed to anyone with Covid in the last 6 months.
So, that leaves open the questions: How can that be reconciled? Do these tests work? How are we supposed to understand these contradictions?

OpenMind said...

I have one possible explanation based on personal experience Denver. I was the sickest I’ve ever been in late November 2019. It was all the exact symptoms listed for Covid 19 in the exact order. I have asthma and had to go to urgent care to get a steroid shot because I went through an entire inhaler in 1 week and still couldn’t breathe. But I recovered. Fast forward to about a month ago. I got sick and it felt like a slightly bad cold. Was very mild. But to return to work I had to be tested. Covid 19 positive. My reaction to being sick this time was orders of magnitude better than November 2019. It really feels like my body still knew very well how to fight it. I barely even had to use my inhaler this time and I always need it a lot whenever I get sick. So perhaps your brother in law has antibodies from a much earlier infection and his wife maybe didn’t retain them as long? I’m just thinking out loud. Where does the 2 weeks number for antibodies come from? Is it that the presence of actual antibodies is different than your body being able to develop them quickly?

But yea the scenario you described doesn’t make logical sense.

I just heard the government contractor mandate for vaccine. I just had Covid and it was very mild and I’m a very healthy person that rock climbs, plays soccer, etc. There is no logical or medical reason whatsoever for me to get the vaccine. Recent studies have shown natural immune response from actually getting covid is better protection than the vaccine. I’m not anti vaccine at all, but this makes no sense and I may need to put in a two weeks notice if I am forced to do it. Since I just had it, I have no idea what the vaccine this early would do to my asthma.

I’m the opposite of a conspiracy theorist, but even I can’t ignore the overwhelming evidence that this is very very strange.

R. Metz said...

Before this podscast closes I would like to draw your attention to an interesting interview on Youtube by Defending Utah with Dr. Scott Bradley about the statement released by the church leadership recently relating the covid vaccination.
It is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6UBfdwA59Q&t=4s

Denver Snuffer said...

The hospital did the explaining, so I don't know why they said "two weeks". I've always understood that antibodies remain a long, long time.
All this begs the question of how trustworthy any of the testing is, and whether there is an accurate identification of Covid (or Covid antibodies) underway.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

R. Metz, you had me questioning my own thoroughness for a minute there. I did indeed include the video from Defending Utah with Scott Bradley, but I'm sure it was easy to miss among all the outside sources. You can find it as the third video from the top, right after the ones featuring Sean Brooks and Friar Bognolo.

Thanks for the extra link, though. You never know who else might have missed it.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Denver, the testing is absolutely not trustworthy, and though the unreliability of the PCR tests have finally been acknowledged, to date there has been no attempt to correct the problem. The very reason we are conned into believing there was a pandemic is because almost everyone who takes the test gets a positive reading. This is because, as Dr Joseph Mercola explains "the incorrect use of PCR tests are set at a ridiculously high cycle count (CT), which falsely labels healthy people as 'COVID-19 cases.' In reality, the PCR test is not a proper diagnostic test, although it has been promoted as such."

Go here to read the complete anaysis of this fiasco:

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/03/joseph-mercola/the-insanity-of-the-pcr-testing-saga/


It's worth noting that Dr Kary Mullis, who Biochemist who invented the PCR test explained how the test could be misused to get any results unscrupulous people wanted. And he had nothing good to say about Tony Fauci, who refused to debate him.

“These guys like Fauci get up and start talking and he doesn’t know anything really about anything and I would say that to his face. Nothing. The man thinks you can take a blood sample and stick it in an electron microscope and if it’s got a virus in there, you’ll know it. He doesn’t understand electron microscopy and he doesn’t understand medicine and he should not be in a position like he’s in. Most of those guys up there on the top are just total administrative people and they don’t know anything about the body."

-Quoted from "PCR Test is Flimsy, Say Inventor and Courts."
https://fcpp.org/2021/02/27/pcr-test-is-flimsy-say-inventor-and-courts/

And by the way, OpenMind, it may be time to start giving serious consideration to the possibility of conspiracies, seeing as how the entire history of those who would control us consists of one conspiracy after another. See, for just one example, "The Mysterious Death Of Dr Fauci’s Most Notable Critic, Just Before COVID-19: Dr. Kary Mullis, The Inventor Of The PCR Technique"

https://lightonlight.education/the-mysterious-death-of-dr-faucis-most-notable-critic-just-before-covid-19-dr-kary-mullis-the-inventor-of-the-pcr-technique/



OpenMind said...

I will say, Rock, in my experience, it is true that the high up administrative people don’t have a clue about the specifics and realities of science/engineering professions as do the technical people working in the trenches (I’m a trench guy). So I can totally accept that fauci doesn’t actually know the knitty gritty about this stuff.

I think really there is only one conspiracy and it started at the beginning and has never stopped, and it involves anything and everything that prevents us from loving one another. The details of how that happens don’t matter. It doesn't matter whether the vaccine is actually safe or not. It only matters what it is doing to our hearts and dividing everyone. Only the end result of black hearts matters to the devil. The adversary is using the same tactics and doing the same things to both sides of all political arguments these days. There isn’t a “right” or “wrong” side to these meaningless political discussions. The only “wrong” side is hating each other over nothing.

While I am not vaccinated and don’t plan on it, I have no issues whatsoever with others getting it and certainly don’t find them moronic or stupid or sheep or even dangerous to me (as I’ve heard MANY people say). Logically it simply makes no actual sense why I personally would be required to get the vaccine, so it’s simply quite strange, but I’m not walking around my job paranoid and thinking that some of these people who don’t even know me personally have some sort of vendetta against me. That is literally the only end result I’ve seen of that spirit that convinces people everyone is out to get them (the heart of every conspiracy theory). And I’ve seen it in probably close to 100 people I personally know. I’ve never seen it produce actual love even one time.

Even if there is some nameless group of people who are always trying to get me, isn’t Christ the example? There were many named and specific people literally and openly out to get Him, and they did get Him because He let them. And He knew the hearts of all of them. And what did he do? He walked into it all with open arms, full of nothing but love for all of them. I just can’t see that spending time and energy on this stuff could ever lead to producing a heart like His.

So maybe my mind is closed to everything else but attempting to just trying to follow His example even though it seems to be basically impossible from my current state.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Open mind,
It hasn't been my experience that those who don't care to take the vaccine are angry at those who do; most of us don't care what others do to their bodies. The argument -at least from what my point of view- is that others can do whatever they want; just don't try to tell me I HAVE follow their example, especially when I have read the studies and followed the science and they have blindly jumped in on the advice of politicians and media personalities.

What I and others like me object to is ignorant people angrily insisting we do what they did because...well, because they did it. Now if I don't do the same, I am the villain. The anger seems to be coming only from that group.

We skeptics don't hate our fellow citizens; we just think they're incredibly gullible. I've always wondered what causes incurious people to be incurious. Here is an untested medication that within weeks has proven itself to be dangerous to thousands, and yet the gullible get angry at me because I'm reluctant to make myself a guinea pig same as them? Why?

If the "vaccine" does what a vaccine is supposed to do, then THEY ARE NOW IMMUNE from catching anything from me. Isn't that the whole idea? So why get angry at me for not foolishly jumping in with both feet and taking an untested drug? I may shake my head and think to myself that such people are silly and maybe even worthy of my pity, but I don't hate them. I feel very bad for them, because if the data we have seen so far is any indication, these poor saps will experience the consequences of their decisions soon enough.

It's not my fellow citizens who bother me; they can do what they want. They are not my enemy. My enemy is that portion of the ruling class that is hell-bent on placing me under their control. One has to ask again: if the vaccine is effective, then what threat am I to those who choose to take it? Obviously none whatsoever. Which begs the question: then why the frantic RUSH to get everyone to inject this provably harmful substance without further delay? We know it has caused dangerous clotting in the blood of those who have taken it, and the spike protein destroys the body's ability to fight off infection. So why the rush?

In 1976, after 500 cases of paralysis showed up and 25 deaths among those taking the swine flu vaccine, that program was immediately scrapped. Think of it: they killed the program after only 25 deaths! So why do they continue to push this one even as the number of deaths climbs into the tens of thousands?

I think you and I have a differing opinion as to what constitutes a conspiracy. If I understand you correctly, you feel it has something to do with regular people "who don’t even know me personally" having some sort of vendetta against you. "That is literally the only end result I’ve seen of that spirit that convinces people everyone is out to get them," you say.

It's not my experience that "everyone is out to get me." History and evidence show that it is never "everyone" but only SOME people -a class of people who think themselves superior to the rest of us and who wield an inordinate amount of power and influence. It is they who have demonstrated, throughout all history and on every continent, a quite obvious intent to control those they deem inferior.

I don't think what you described is "the heart of every conspiracy theory." I agree with what the Book of Mormon says about those who would conspire to control their fellow beings: it stems from a desire to get power and gain (Ether 8:22). The average person walking around at your job rarely exhibits such qualities. It's usually others who possess such pychopathic characteristics; those which you aptly describe as people you don't even know.

Connie Waterman said...

Many of us have noticed that the regular flu seems to have disappeared. Normally responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths every year, covid-19 seems to have cured it! A group of around 10 doctors sent 15,000 positive cov. tests to be studied at the big 7 Universities and EVERY single one of them came back as positive for influenza A or B. I would love to give the cite that I had, but like most things that show the truth these days...it was deleted. I am sure that someone else who is better than me at researching could find this study somewhere.

I almost died in January from something very bad. The only time I have ever been that sick was when I caught some terrible super bug in the hospital, after brain surgery in 2007! How can I trust that the test they gave me was even right? They recalled all the tests months later because of too many false positives!

Project Veritas has shown evidence over and over that hospital's aren't full and that many Mortician's in New York city were willing to admit that all the bodies they received died from diseases other than .....-19. (My Kindle is now not allowing me to even type the name...)

I overheard a loud woman at the grocery store begging a nurse friend to please come and apply at our hospital, because several nurses were made sick enough to not work anymore from the jab. One had died. I am not willing to be made even more ill than I already am.

No-one has to believe Rock or I about these things. Because of our illnesses we have had hours and hours to study this issue in depth. We choose not to add to our chronic illnesses. I would rather be shot than suffer what I have seen in the V.A.E.R.S report. ( Vaccine adverse event reporting system.) In April there were 161 pages of death and carnage from this shot alone. What must it be now? I also recommend thecovidblog.com. What I saw there as adverse effects can't be unseen. Why haven't they taken this jab off the market?! Why the push to get everyone in our world jabbed for a disease that has a 99.5% cure rate? These are the hard questions (and many more!) we must be willing to ask ourselves. We can not put our head in the sand. I love the Lord with all of my heart, but I must use the brain He gave me!

OpenMind said...

Many fair points here Rock. Maybe we do just have different definitions. And I totally agree that MANY people who have chosen to get vaccinated are angry with those who haven’t (which includes me) and you are right it doesn’t make sense. But I have seen EQUALLY those who opt out also angry at the other group. Either side not being angry for no reason is definitely the exception rather than the rule.

The “control” you described is literally through anger and jealousy. That IS the control. And boy is it working. Yes forcing people to inject something into their bodies, when I agree the evidence seems like it really isn’t necessary, is troubling. But the war is over our souls, not our bodies.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

I completely agree with you, OpenMind. "the war is over our souls, not our bodies."

MusicManMJB said...

Bless you for publishing this information and for finding and posting these videos. I have a a son who is about to lie down and take the jab to save his $50k job. I begged him to read your last post and watch the two videos. He promised he would; I think he sensed my solemn conviction. I hope he did. I will send him this post as well.

Bless you for your untiring efforts spread truth!

We met at Challis last week. It was great to meet you and your lovely wife. I did send you some texts with the information I promised to send you. I hope you got them.

Michael Bates

Alan Rock Waterman said...

I do indeed remember you, Michael. Unfortunately I have not received any texts from you. Please private message me on Facebook with your phone number and I will respond in kind.

I hope it's not too late to get your son to reconsider. The only thing the other side has going for it is bluff; the law is on our side on this. Here's a good place to start to convince anyone that employers won't dare push the vaccine once they see a pushback on even one employee. Believe me, when the stuff you send them gets forwarded to the legal department their lawyers will tell them it isn't worth it.

Again, the law is on YOUR side. Your employer can only succeed as far as you buy into the bluff.

The title of the post below mentions religious exemptions but stick with it and you'll learn how to push back on your employer for violation of rights and violation of your civil rights.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjIdJHVXoSY&t=414s

OpenMind said...

Can someone explain to me the basis for a “religious exemption”? I have just been informed by my employer that they will be implementing the mandate. I will have to get it or be fired, even though I have natural immunity. I have not heard any actual religious reasons against the actual vaccine, but rather just being forced to do it. If I were to try to go with religious exemption (which my employer did mention in initial message) I would need an example of an actual belief because lying is against my religion. So I can’t just blanket say I have a religious exemption without an actual belief or I would be lying. Thanks.

Jared Livesey said...

Hi OpenMind,

From what you wrote, it seems that you do not hold any religious beliefs that are in conflict with getting the "vaccine."

Why wouldn't you simply take the tiny prick to save your job?

Dave P. said...

OpenMind,

Do you believe in the New Testament? Then you simply declare that your body is a temple and that taking the (non)vaccine is violating it.

Or, there's another approach that doesn't require you to have to explain anything: "I am not a member of the church of the vaccine. If you are trying to mandate this based on the words of the federal government and refuse to even consider there are other ways of protecting oneself against the disease, then you are abetting the government in issuing a state-enforced religion on me."


Jared,

Is the job worth giving up your principles and even soul? Have you even been reading the recent posts on here and several blogs linked from here? That "tiny prick" is dangerous and those trying to satanically coerce and/or force others into taking it can not be trusted!

Unknown said...

Once again, you nailed it! It is word for word what I have felt and what has been confirmed to me through my research and hundreds of hours of videos, news, studies and REAL human testimonies of how jabs have affected them and their loved ones. I had one uncle die within 12 hours of getting the first Pfizer dose of a massive blot clot induced heart attack and one uncle die in under a few weeks when he went paralyzed from the waist down and got confused and disoriented and ultimately died of collapsed lungs. Both were older but not sick or hurting before the jabs! They stand up and say they are safe and effective on TV and urge (mandate at BYU Hawaii)everyone to get them, even pregnant women??? This is NOT FROM GOD.
Follow the money!!! They make billions! Thanks for standing up and helping people wake up!

Jared Livesey said...

Hi Dave P.,

Almost anything one does in this world carries some degree of risk. And most of us must of necessity do such things for the sake of our job, such as, for example, driving to work.

So what?

Knight said...

For OpenMind, here's a blog post with the more common reasons I've heard for seeking religious exceptions against the Kung Flu jab:

https://news.gab.com/2021/08/24/vax-mandate-religious-exemption-template-for-college-students/

It covers one of the main religious objections against the injection, namely the use of aborted fetal tissues in either the testing of or the manufacturing of these products. Further research can be found in the documents attached to this blog post: https://news.gab.com/2021/07/29/important-download-covid-vaccine-religious-exemption-documents-here/ While these ones were written for military-grade exemptions (literally), the research presented is still worthwhile.

And apparently, if they reject this (because it's not delivered directly from a 501c3 religious institution or something like that), you can file a formal complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Office: https://lc.org/exempt#denied

And if necessary, there are lots of jobs opening up that are promoting their lack of vaccine mandates, many of which are listed in this group: https://gab.com/groups/49159

Hope that helps!

Dave P. said...

Jared,

You're more likely to die in a car crash than from COVID. Taking the shot does who-knows-what to your body and cannot be undone vs. receiving natural immunity that- per Israeli and Oxford studies- is 13-27x more effective than the shot.

If this natural immunity is not recognized and people continue to peddle the shot, it is coercion, plain and simple. And, once again, not of God.

OpenMind said...

Almost every medicine we use, including ibuprofen, were developed using those tissues or tissue clones from that abortion in Europe somewhere in like the 1970’s or something. So that doesn’t check out…the vaccines don’t use actual aborted fetal tissue.

OpenMind said...

Because I have natural immunity. I just had Covid recently and it was incredibly mild. I also have asthma and the first time I got Covid in 2019 it jacked me up badly. Now that I’m recently over Covid, I do have legitimate concerns that the vaccine could adversely affect me pretty bad. There is no medical reason whatsoever for me to get the vaccine. I’m going to pursue medical exception with my doctor also, but I’m not that hopeful.

OpenMind said...

Dave, I’m not anti vaccine. But I’m also not anti science. I have natural immunity and no reason to take this vaccine. I don’t understand how my body being a temple has anything to do with a vaccine personally.

OpenMind said...

Yep that uses the “developed from fetal cell” argument. Nearly every modern medicine was developed that way. Unless a person refers to use any medication of any kind and would refuse treatment at a hospital even if they were dying, claiming a religious exemption on that basis is ignorance at best and dishonest at worst. It seems every person claiming to be Christian should value honesty above most other things.

OpenMind said...

That article uses that argument I meant to say. The vaccine template for college students

OpenMind said...

Dave I have seen that Israeli study. That is science and that makes sense. That is by far the main reason I’m having an issue being forced to take this vaccine. It would literally not have a single benefit for me or anyone else and does carry risks, however small.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

OpenMind,
I hope to knock out another blog post this weekend on just this topic of a religious exemption. The first thing you get to know is that you don't have to get any kind of approval from Church authorities. Your deeply held religion is YOURS alone.

Also, be aware that Biden's bluff is already collapsing as lawsuits are being filed by the hundreds. Whatever you do, don't quit or you lose. And of course don't get the vax.

That being said, here is where you'll find a sample letter:

https://vivabarneslaw.locals.com/post/987884/employer-letter-example-vaccine-mandate-objection?fbclid=IwAR3gBcDOmK3eiAE7XJr-6z2eRbd52zR9QnYEWzW_VaBADMeATSpBu0N3ws4

Attorney Robert Barnes is an attorney already preparing filings. Watch this conversation between him and Frei; it should give you hope. A good summary of what a religious exemption is and why no one can challenge you on your own beliefs. The law is well-settled on this question:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjIdJHVXoSY&t=416s

Here's a report from the Epoch Times from Monday reporting on a group of healthcare workers who won the right NOT to have to take a jab or lose their job. It's only the beginning:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/federal-judge-blocks-new-york-state-health-care-worker-vaccination-mandate_3997114.html?fbclid=IwAR0rAMk5-C0MRacozxDPJP8FsptOtgNwknq648tKfmKZUGdrrBjhkIbXSu4

Hang tight. Employers are in a tight corner here, you're not. They don't dare fire anyone for for exercising a right guaranteed by Title VII because they don't want to be sued.

More detail coming up by this Sunday. Remember this is a bluff on the part of the Biden administration. If your employer tells you that you have to get the jab or lose your job, they're bluffing too. DO NOT QUIT, or you lose standing.

OpenMind said...

Looking forward to your post Rock. I totally understand I don’t have a church and my beliefs are mine alone, but I just can’t find anything in the scriptures regarding why this would be against my religion (other than the being forced part). But even then no one is holding me down. I could always quit. They haven’t released details yet Rock of the timeline for how long I have to figure it out but I think I’m going to have a fair bit of time so I’m not going to do anything in haste. And I’ll look at those links, thanks.

Rhone said...

For me it's a simple as this: The people promoting this are Satanic in nature. They are the most untrustworthy people I have ever seen and I firmly believe they are acting in his service. Therefore, how can I claim to serve God if I acquiesce to their wishes?

Jared Livesey said...

Here is how you can serve God.

"You have heard that it has been said to the people in old times, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you that you shall not resist evil people, and if anyone hits you on your right cheek, show him your other cheek so he can hit you there too. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, allow him to take your coat, too. And if anyone forces you to go a mile, go with him for two miles. Give to everyone who asks you, and do not turn down anyone who wants to borrow from you."

OpenMind said...

Interesting scripture in this context Jared, thanks for sharing.

PNW_DPer said...

"...we can win this war if everyone will follow the wise and thoughtful recommendations of medical experts and government leaders" is correct if you take it literally, that is the recommendations of experts and leaders that are actually wise and thoughtful. That would include medical experts such as Joseph Mercola, Charles Hoffe, Paul Marik, Pierre Kory, Joe Varon and many of their associates, and government leaders such as Ron DeSantis, Alexander Lukashenko, and the late John Magufull, Pierre Nkuruziza, and Jovenel Moise (whom unexpectedly died when they started making actual wise and thoughtful recommendations).

OpenMind said...

I am now persuaded that this scripture is directly relevant in this context Jared. Thanks for pointing to the Lord.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

OpenMind,
I wouldn't be so quick to acquiesce to Jared Livesey's interpretation of Matthew Five.

The sermon on the mount represented a revolutionary way of behaving toward one another, and particularly toward one's oppressors. Whereas Old Testament law represented swift and unbending justice against affronts to one's person, Jesus was showing the people an alternate way. He wanted to stress kindness toward one's enemies, for in that kindness, some of those who would offend you might be persuaded to see you in a diffferent light.

For example: In Judea in Jesus' day the Romans imposed a rule to the effect that any Roman soldier had the right to demand a civilian carry the soldier's water for one mile. So a Judean would comply because he had to, but he would carry the soldier's burden for one mile exactly not one step more.

Jesus suggested that if asked to carry the soldier's burden, you carry it TWO miles instead of just the one. That gesture would invariably have an effect on the soldier, who came to realize he was in the presence of someone who was willing to do more than required. Would it touch that soldier's heart? Maybe so, maybe not. But that act of kindness would be remembered.

Jesus' admonition to not resist evil can be confusing if one does not understand how that word "evil" as translated into English was not always the same word in Greek. I'm aware of at least three Greek words that all have very different meanings, but were all translated as "Evil" by the King James Translators. I don't know which translation Jared is using here, but it differs slightly from the King James (which is not itself a reliable translation, either).

In various places in the New Testament, translators have used the word "evil" to stand in for the Greek "rhema" (a negative utterance), or for "Kakos" (a person's character being intrinsically worthless), or for "sapros" (rotten, bad, corrupt, atrociously wicked). In the extant case, the translation derives from the Greek word "poneros," which means "hurtful."

In those days, a backhanded slap was the method by which slaves were corrected, and free Jews found that extremely insulting when treated that way by the Romans because the Romans used this hurtful gesture to imply the Jew was an inferior being. A modern interpretation of verse 39 might read "don't get all butthurt if a Roman slaps you. Don't retaliate in anger, because that won't get you anywhere but arrested or killed." As one bible scholar put it:

"When Jesus tells fellow Jews to expose the left cheek, he is calling for “peaceful subversion.” He does not want them to retaliate in anger nor to shrink in some false sense of meekness. He wants to force the Roman soldiers to treat them like equals. He wants the Jews to stand up and demand respect. He wants to make each attacker stop and think about how they are mistreating another human being. It is the same motivation behind his command to “go an extra mile” after a soldier forced you to carry water for the first mile. It is intended to activate the soldier’s conscience."

If we are to believe Jesus wanted us to not resist people who are, by their very nature, atrociously wicked, we would have to throw out the entire Book of Mormon, because most of it testifies to the imporance of resisting evil. We would have to ignore all the actions of Abinadi, Captain Moroni, Mormon, and even Nephi himself.

You are, of course, free to do whatever you want, OpenMind, but I hope you don't have a family dependent on your support. Our scriptures are full of examples requiring people to defend themselves and their families, and since you know the so-called "vaccine" has the potential to be harmful and in many cases deadly (70 deaths per day according to the latest VAERS statistics), you would be acting contrary to scripture if you acquiesed to wickedness when you should be resisting.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Rhone and PNW_DPer,

Both your comments were spot-on, I wish I had said what you two said.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

A couple of asides to my comment above directed at "OpenMind,"

Joseph Smith himself recognized that the King James Version was not a translation, although read from it during his sermons because that was the popular version of the bible among Americans in his day. But he said he preferred the German bible:

"I have an old edition of the New Testament in the Latin, Hebrew, German and Greek languages. I have been reading the German, and find it to be the most [nearly] correct translation, and to correspond nearest to the revelations which God has given to me for the last fourteen years." (History of the Church 6:307)

It is generally understood that Joseph was referring to the 1534 translation by Martin Luther.

Also, I would like to say that I have known Jared Livesy personally for a number of years and find him to be a very kind and warm-hearted man. I count him as a friend. That having been said, he and I have had a number of differences pertaining to scriptural interpretation. Those differences have not affected my admiration for him as a person; he has a great big heart. But I believe he often takes a literal interpretation of scripture as it appears in English without taking into account context or original meaning. Or how a particular verse might be mitigated by an analysis of the whole of the word of God. He sees things as either black or white, hence his question to another commenter above: "Why wouldn't you simply take the tiny prick to save your job?"

I can think of several reasons, not the least of which is that it is not merely a "tiny prick."

That shot contains deadly poisons with the capacity to maim and kill, and to date there appears to be no way to reverse the damage. I would imagine a critical thinker might want to avoid taking that risk just to keep his job, especially when in reality there is no actual threat of anyone having to choose between their job and the jab. (See my upcoming blog post which I hope to have written by tomorrow.) The "vaccine" has not, as Russell Nelson falsely asserts, been proven "safe and effective." Not by a long shot. But as I say, Jared and I see things through different lenses, and I wish him all the best in the choices he makes.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

One more postscript regarding Matthew 5:39.

I don't read German, so I don't have a copy of the Martin Luther translation. But often, when I want a more clear interpretation of scripture translated from the original Hebrew, Chaldean, and Greek, I refer to my copy of Ferrar Fenton's translation. This incredible work was published in 1903 and represented Fenton's entire lifetime painstakingly translating the words so they most closely resemble the original meaning.

Where the KJV reads "resist not evil," the Fenton translation makes more sense and is more accurate: "Do not contend with the wicked."

Jared Livesey said...

Hi Rock,

If the possibility of translation problems in the Bible is an issue, we can always turn to the Book of Mormon, which was translated by the gift and power of God.

3 Nephi 12:38-39, The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text

And behold, it is written:
An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth;
But I say unto you that ye shall not resist evil,
but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek,
turn to him the other also.
And if any man will sue thee at the law and take away thy coat,
let him have thy cloak also.
And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile,
go with him twain.
Give to him that asketh thee,
and from him that would borrow of thee turn thou not away.

We may also turn to the JST.

JST Matthew 5:21-22
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments
and shall teach men so to do
he shall in no wise be saved in the kingdom of heaven
but whosoever shall do and teach these commandments of the law until it be fulfilled
the same shall be called great and shall be saved in the kingdom of heaven.
For I say unto you except your righteousness shall exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees
ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus's complaint against the religious writers and the Pharisees was that they were hypocrites, which is translated from a Greek word that has, as its primary meaning, interpreters. They did not believe God's words, and they did not execute them as they are written and as the law commanded, but instead taught people to lay God's commandments as they are written aside, thus leading them to destruction.

3 Nephi 14:21-27, 15:1,10.
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord Lord,
shall enter into the kingdom of heaven,
but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Many will say to me in that day:
Lord Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name
and in thy name have cast out devils
and in thy name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them:
I never knew you.
Depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Therefore whoso heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them,
I will liken him unto a wise man which built his house upon a rock.
And the rain descended and the floods came,
and the winds blew and beat upon that house.
And it fell not, for it was founded upon a rock.
And every one that heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them not
shall be likened unto a foolish man which built his house upon the sand.
And the rain descended and the floods came,
and the winds blew and beat upon that house.
And it fell, and great was the fall of it.
=====
And now it came to pass that when Jesus had ended these sayings,
he cast his eyes round about on the multitude and saith unto them:
Behold, ye have heard the things
which I have taught before I ascended to my Father.
Therefore whoso remembereth these sayings of mine and doeth them,
him will I raise up at the last day.
...
Behold, I have given unto you the commandments.
Therefore keep my commandments;
and this is the law and the prophets,
for they truly testified of me.

JST John 14:10 The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself[,] but the Father that dwelleth in me[.]

Put Jesus's words, at face value, to the test.

JST John 7:16-17
Jesus answered them and said,
My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine,
whether it be of God or whether I speak of myself.

Jared Livesey said...

In this, “interpret” means substituting one statement or phrase in a given language for another in the same language where the original and the replacement differ in meaning.

    1)    We accept a statement as true if, and only if, we believe it.
    2)    We believe a statement if, and only if, we believe it literally.
    3)    If we do not believe a statement then we reject it outright or by interpreting it.

Methods of textual interpretation purporting to produce the author's intended meaning either result in statements to be taken literally, or else the results must themselves be interpreted.

In a FAQ Joseph Smith wrote concerning The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he addressed the issue of the proper interpretation of scripture.
 
Question 1st. Do you believe the bible?
Answer. If we do, we are the only people under heaven that does. For there are none of the religious sects of the day that do.
 
Question 2nd. Wherein do you differ from other sects?
Answer. Because we believe the bible, and all other sects profess to believe their interpretations of the bible, and their creeds.
 
Question 3rd. Will every body be damned but Mormons?
Answer. Yes, and a great portion of them, unless they repent and work righteousness.[1]
 
Elsewhere, again speaking of the scriptures, Joseph said: "What is the rule of Interpretation? Just no interpretation at all; Understand it, precisely as it reads."[2]  We may call this Joseph's "Rule of Interpretation."

While additional statements from Joseph to this effect may be adduced, we can see from these that he taught the correct method of interpreting scripture is to take the text at literal face value, which is what is today called "literalism" or "naive literalism."  Literalism, in Joseph's language, is "no interpretation at all."  Literalism is how a small child approaches speech: he takes what you say as what you mean according to the language he knows at face value.  When you give him the verbal token "cat," the literalist understands "cat."

The purpose of Joseph's "Rule of Interpretation" is not to produce the "best" interpretation, understood as the clearest possible contemporary expression of the original author's intent; communicating his intended meaning is the original author's problem to solve in his writing.  The literalist simply accepts the text at face value as it is given to him as the intended meaning, howsoever he as the reader may understand the language.  Literalism may therefore produce as many interpretations of a text as there are readers.

The purpose of Joseph's "Rule of Interpretation" is to help people to believe the word of God as they have received it so that they may pass the first test of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

For the very first thing God desires out of us is merely to believe on his word.[3]  Believing on God's word is to believe his words at literal face value just as you have received them, for that is what it means to believe something, and put your trust in them - just as a small child uncritically understands and believes and trusts his father's words.

"Whoso repenteth and cometh to me as a little child, him shall I receive, for of such is the kingdom of God."
  
1 ("Elders’ Journal, July 1838," p. 42, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed February 15, 2020, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/elders-journal-july-1838/10)
2 ("History, 1838–1856, volume D-1 [1 August 1842–1 July 1843]," p. 1459, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed February 15, 2020, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-d-1-1-august-1842-1-july-1843/102)
3 (Alma 32:22)

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Jared, I hardly know what to say.

I provided you with three different words that were in the original Greek New Testament before it was ever translated into English. I showed you those words had vastly different meanings in the original tongue and yet the translators had the word "evil" stand in for each of those different words. And still you insist we should take the interpretation literally as it appears in English and not even consider for a moment that the English translation might be in in question.

In your view, when Jesus referred to someone causing another pain or does something hurtful toward them, that means the very same as if the person referred to is irredeemably wicked. Never mind that Joseph himself (as well as many bible scholars for the past TWO centuries) considered the King James translation to be among the worst available, in your view it is absolutely dependable spot-on.

You cite the same passage in the Book of Mormon as evidence that we can surely depend on THAT translation, yet you forget that the Book of Mormon was not printed by Joseph Smith, but by one John Gilbert, the typesetter hired by J.B. Grandin to set the actual type. Gilbert admitted to taking liberties with the manuscript. He said it came to him without any breaks or punctuation, so he had to decide himself what went where. He also admitted that when the manuscript given to him in Oliver Cowdery's scratchy handwriting devolved into long passages of familiar scripture, he simply set his personal copy of the KJV on the rack in front of him and copied the section word for word from the bible rather than from Joseph's manuscript.

That's why obvious errors that scholars now know to be found in a particular biblical passage of Isaiah reappear in the Book of Mormon as-is. Because it was copied straight from the bible instead of being the fresh reading the Lord intended us to have. Anti-Mormons have had a field day with that one, since the Book of Mormon should not have repeated obvious errors we find in the bible.

It does not surprise me that a wonky used of the word "evil" made it into the book of Mormon, since Gilbert would have copied the whole Sermon on the Mount word-for-word as it appears in the KJV because he found that easier than trying to decipher Cowdery's illegible pen scratches before setting those words to type. It's hard to blame him. John Gilbert had no idea that the familiar biblical passages were SUPPOSED to be "more correct" in the book he was setting type for. He just assumed those passages had been cribbed from the bible, so he took the easier way and copied them straight off the page.

I told the story of how the Book of Mormon was set to type, and why even editions from the same 1830 edition contain different errors from copy to copy in this post here:

http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2017/04/why-our-scriptures-need-overhaul.html

Sometimes we just have to employ some common sense to our scripture reading, Jared. When we see a passage of scripture where Jesus seems to be saying we should not resist evil, and we know that conflicts with EVERYTHING he has ever taught, I think it's rational to wonder if something isn't wrong with the translation. If the bible we have today was the Ferrar Fenton Bible, or the Geneva Bible, or the German Bible, and that passage made more sense, we might be justified in taking THAT literally, because it would not be confusing. Taking the King James Translation literally seems to me a good way for a person to head down a dangerous path.

Your advice to OpenMind is essentially that since Jesus said to resist not evil, he should passively allow evil people to poison and kill him if that is their desire. All of scripture cries out against such an untenable interpretation.

Jared Livesey said...

Rock,

If you will reread the comment to which you are responding, you'll find your attempt at rebuttal is precluded because I cited The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text, and the JST, thus there can be no legitimate scholarly claim of translation issues, since 3 Nephi was typeset from the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon according to Skousen (http://criticaltext.byustudies.byu.edu/john-gilberts-1892-account-1830-printing-book-mormon-0), and therefore not the KJV perforce. You have not offered any punctuation-based objection to Jesus's words as they have been cited, therefore we need not consider the punctuation.

And if you'll reread the thread, you'll notice that I offered no advice to OpenMind. I repeated Jesus's words in direct answer to Rhone's question.

Salvation is contingent upon executing Jesus's words as they are written. This passage of the Book of Mormon does not come from a text mirrored in the KJV, and if you don't like the punctuation, you can try punctuating it yourself.

1 Nephi 13:40-41, The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text
And the angel spake unto me, saying:
These last record which thou hast seen among the Gentiles [the BoM]
shall establish the truth of the first,
which is of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, [the NT]
and shall make known the plain and precious things
which have been taken away from them
and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people
that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world
and that all men must come unto him or they cannot be saved.
And they must come according to the words
which shall be established by the mouth of the Lamb.
And the words of the Lamb shall be made known in the records of thy seed
as well as in the records of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
Wherefore they both shall be established in one,
for there is one God and one Shepherd over all the earth.

Jesus did not teach resistance or opposition to the evil people. He taught the opposite, and consistently so. He did not teach in accordance with "common sense," for if "common sense" were true, we'd not need Jesus to teach us - all we'd need to do is follow the masses. His teachings were opposed to "common sense," which is why the people were shocked at the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 7:28-29) - they hadn't yet had enough time to build up an opposing interpretive tradition to sanitize it and explain it away as sentimental hyperbolic bullshit as we have done. Now, with us, the aphorism is shown to be true: familiarity breeds contempt.

The words of a God who cannot lie, and a translation given by the gift and power of that same God, ought not be rhetorically handwaved away as though they were nothing.

For if Jesus is Lord, and has all power in heaven and on earth, as he said, then we can yield to evil people when they compel us unjustly, for he said to yield, even as he himself yielded to evil people unto death. We can refuse to be vaxxed and give up our jobs as a result if it comes to that, because he said not to care for our lives nor our bodies, and that we will not enter into heaven if we try to preserve our mortal lives. After all, if we truly do believe he is God and that he cannot lie, then we believe his words shall be fulfilled and we will therefore do what he said exactly how he said it.

OpenMind said...

Rock,

I personally know probably over 200 people who have had the vaccine. 0 of them have had any issues with it. I understand and agree there have been issues and deaths, but it is just as unlikely as a healthy person having a serious issue with Covid. I also understand it is fairly early on with this vaccine. We will see what happens, but I do not believe everyone that got the vaccine is going to start dropping dead. You are really getting pretty heavy with the hyperbole saying these people are trying to poison and kill me. I thought I was supposed to be the hyperbolic one ;)…

All that being said, I actually really appreciate you taking the time to respond to me in a sincere and meaningful way. I felt some genuine love in your response and even though we disagree on some things (I think we agree on way more than we disagree on personally), you still took the time. So thank you for that. I do think deeply about the points you are making.

When I look at the reality of what Jesus Christ did by His own example, He Himself did not resist actual evil literally killing Him. I have made many different personal decisions in many different situations throughout my life and when I look back in retrospect at all of it, taking the words Jared has quoted as literally as possible has ALWAYS, 100% of the time, led to marvelous revelations and light and better understanding of just who our Savior is. When I have proceeded with little justifications and my own little excuses for why the example and words of Jesus Christ shouldn’t be taken literally, I have always taken some greater loss it seems. This has always been the case in my personal experience.

Applied to this vaccine quandary I am now facing, I totally agree I shouldn’t be given ultimatums to keep my job or get a vaccine, especially when I have natural immunity. I’m trying to figure out which decision is fear based and which is love based and it seems like it’s becoming pretty clear which is which.

Jared Livesey said...

Also, the following is found in Vogel's Early Mormon Documents: Vol 2, p. 519.

In an 1877 interview, Gilbert apparently said something to this effect: "Maj. Gilbert, perceiving that large portions [of the BoM text] were stolen verbatim from the [KJV] Bible, used to have a copy of that book [the KJV Bible] on his case to aid him in deciphering the manuscript and putting in the proper punctuation marks."

This sentence is the one and only mention of this matter in all of the Gilbert material in EMD, Vol 2. I am unaware of any other source on this subject, and if there are no forthcoming citations saying something subtantively different, I leave it to the audience to contrast this with allegations that Gilbert admitted to making wholesale substitutions of the KJV Bible for portions of the manuscript he was charged with printing.

The argument being made seems to be something like this:

1. The KJV Bible does not accurately transmit the words of God.
2. The Book of Mormon where it resembles the KJV does so because the KJV was inserted at those parts, therefore
3. The Book of Mormon where it resembles the KJV does not accurately transmit the words of God.
4. Therefore "common sense" may be substituted for the teachings and commandments of Jesus that are found in both the KJV and the BoM without danger.

1 Nephi 13:40-41 falsifies #1, Gilbert's sole known statement of the matter fails to support #2, thus #3 is emminently contestible, and 4 is also falsified by 1 Nephi 13:40-41.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Jared, the first thing I did last night upon reading your comment was pull down my copy of Royal Skousen's Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text. Since 78% of the original manuscript was completely destroyed, Skousen and his team of student researchers painstakingly put together those portions of the manuscript that were salvageable enough to read. The rest of the book was finished with filler from existing later copies. Perhaps by "the earliest text" you are referring to something other than Joseph's original pages as written down by Cowdery and Emma?

I have found nothing in Skousen's volume that would indicate the water-damaged words in 3 Nephi 12 survived and were published in their original form. Perhaps you could direct me to a page number?

I still maintain that the Lord's words in Matthew 5 are properly translated as "contend not with the wicked" not "ye shall not resist evil," But to each his own; I know you well enough not to have expected to change your mind. I only pointed it out because I felt your interpretation failed to take into account the nuances of language.

Knight said...

OpenMind, that comment about fetal cell research playing a role in almost all medicine is the first I've heard of that, so thank you very much! I'll have to look into that for myself, so I'm grateful for more to study.

As for the other points and other comments, it seems like a common thread between the comment writers, is the belief that God is the ultimate authority. Therefore, it makes sense that we should maybe take what we study to God, and ask Him what we're supposed to do.

If God tells you not to take the vaccine, then like Rock posted in his latest entry, there's your religious exemption. That's all that's needed: "God told me not to." Simple and lacking detail, sure, but at the end of the day, that's all a religious exemption is.

But on the other hand, if God tells you to take the vaccine, then go and take it. No skin off my nose, no break to my bones, if you take a vaccine. (There are stories of the dangers the vaccinated pose to the unvaccinated, but I'll have to trust that God will guide me through that.)

It's the discussion between the two groups, saying "God told me this, therefore you should do this too," that seems to be the bottleneck. This all brought to mind a lot of sayings that seemed to apply, or at least they helped me make sense of all this:

"We should use the scriptures to inform our inner life. It is meant for internal use only. External application is likely to cause burning." (August 10, 2010, "2 Nephi 29: 4-5)

"Even strong disagreements should not provoke anger nor to invoke my name in vain as if I had part in your every dispute. Pray together in humility and together meekly present your dispute to me, and if you are contrite before me I will tell you my part." (Answer to Prayer for Covenant, pg. 8.)

"He can let you know what you need to know from your study and inquiry into the truth. And no man can stop that! Because this is a matter between you and God. It has always been a matter between you and God. There is no friar with a brown frock that you need to bend the knee to in order to please God." (FYIM 1, Be of Good Cheer.)

"There are people who have, when they learn of an issue, have gone to God in prayer and gotten an answer. And I'm going to assume that people are trustworthy enough and sincere enough that when they say they’ve prayed, and they’ve got an answer from God, that they actually have. And then someone else repeats exactly the same thing on the same issue, trying to come to a resolution, and they hear from God, and they know what the answer from God is for them. So, one person has an answer, and it's different than the answer given to another person. That happens. And we should not deny the possibility that God actually spoke to both of them and that both of them have an authentic truth. . . . (continued)

Knight said...

(cont'd) "What if the answer that God gives to one person, based upon their knowledge, their experience, their background, their life, their education, the people they know, the things they've been through, is a true and correct answer that it's important for them to grasp? And what if, because of a completely separate life and experience and education, another person has tuned into an important issue, and God has told him, 'Yes, this is important, too' in order for both people to come together in a discussion and have a full and fair and complete understanding, before they reach a conclusion? An answer from God does not necessarily mean it is THE conclusion and that all the thinking has been done, and God did it, and so you can shuffle off the responsibility to decide on to God’s shoulders. And you can stand back—both of you—and put your hands on your hips and say, 'It's God's fault. I mean, He screwed this whole thing up. He made this mess. God's the author of confusion.'

What if God isn't ever the author of confusion? What if God is the author of enlightened discourse and the author of information exchange, discussion, and search for agreement? What if God is the author of exactly the same scriptures that appear to contradict one another in different settings, at different times, in order to illustrate the necessity for your reasoning through and lively engagement in coming to the correct conclusion? And what if at one point in your life you ought to go left, and at another point you ought to go right, and yet a still third point in your life you blend together, and you go straight? What if it's all there in order to illustrate the necessity of you, as a free and engaged agent in your own right, should take with you this bundle of information and to reason with someone that sees it, but sees it differently, in order for the two of you to finally see beyond the narrow horizon that you live with, and engage in the fact that God’s ways are higher, and He sees the entirety of the circuit of the earth? Not just the little horizon in which we reside, confined as it is by mountains on the west and mountains on the east and a mountain on the south, and you go far enough, one on the north, too—what if God is taking in the whole, and He would very much like (now that He's given different answers to different people) each one of those people to engage in a discussion?" (Podcast 34, "Dances with Wolves.")

The discussion here has been good, and I've learned a lot I otherwise wouldn't have seen. I hope this serves as a reminder to stop just short of judging those who decide on a different route. It's such an easy trap to fall into, at least from my experience, that one can land face first into it and not realize for a while.

Or, maybe I'm imagining such judgment where it's not happening at all. If so, I'm sorry for interjecting comments that don't apply. I'll just keep reading along, maybe chime in later if I have something else to add to the discussion.

Jared Livesey said...

Rock,

Source for my claim was included in the comment. If you're asking me to quote it, here it is:

"Fragments of the original manuscript show that the original (dictated) manuscript rather than the copied printer’s manuscript was used to set the 1830 edition from Helaman 13 through Mormon 9." 3 Nephi is in its entirety within the referenced material.

I needn't account for possible alternative translations of the Greek New Testament when citing The Book of Mormon. Incidentally, the printer's manuscript of The Book of Mormon, copied from the original manuscript, rendering appeals to Gilbert irrelevant, renders it thus:

& behold it is written
An eye for an eye & a tooth for a tooth
but I say unto you that ye shall not resist evil
but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek
turn to him the other also
& if any man will sue thee at the law & take away thy coat
let him have thy cloak also
& whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile
go with him twain
give to him that asketh thee
& from him that would borrow of thee turn thou not away

See the printer's manuscript here: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/printers-manuscript-of-the-book-of-mormon-circa-august-1829-circa-january-1830/388

Jared Livesey said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jared Livesey said...

I have located a second citation to Gilbert using a Bible to clarify the Book of Mormon text in EMD vol 3, p. 144: "In the absence of Cowdery the proof-readers often resorted to the orthodox Bible to verify some foggy passage."

This is consistent with the prior cited statement - and it doesn't say Gilbert was inserting KJV text into the 1830 BoM wholesale, but occasionally referencing it when he had difficulty reading the text or wanted a better idea of how to punctuate it.

But again, even if we speculated that Gilbert had inserted passages from the KJV wholesale into the BoM, we have recourse to the printer's manuscript and, soon, the original manuscript, to verify it. And if the manuscripts substantially agree with the 1830 edition, is this not evidence in favor of the accuracy of the KJV?

There is such a thing as "good enough." As it is said, the perfect is not the enemy of the good - and the 1830 edition as it stands was sufficient to condemn the Church - because they wouldn't do what Jesus said to do therein.