"visions Of Glory" - Nonsense? Or Legit?

[manofthecloth]

There are too many doctrinal problems with the book to list in one post. I'll give a sample as I get time. (I'm indebted to a knowledgeable friend for pointing these out; the following list thus reflects his analysis.)

 

S.Lloyd: I will add here that only the president of the Church is authorized to declare new doctrine.

 

M.O.Cloth: Which is well enough, because Spencer did not declare any new doctrine.

[manofthecloth]

There are too many doctrinal problems with the book to list in one post. I'll give a sample as I get time. (I'm indebted to a knowledgeable friend for pointing these out; the following list thus reflects his analysis.)

 

S.Lloyd: There is no scriptural or prophetic precedent for God allowing evil spirits to take on the form of a dead prophet or of someone's spouse for the purpose of deceiving others.

 

M.O.Cloth: I'm sorry I don't remember this episode. Can you clarify the passage in the book? Can anyone remember?

[manofthecloth]

There are too many doctrinal problems with the book to list in one post. I'll give a sample as I get time. (I'm indebted to a knowledgeable friend for pointing these out; the following list thus reflects his analysis.)

 

S.Lloyd: The notion of deceased family members having as their "first responsibility as departed spirits" to guide their living posterity takes the concept of guardian angels to the extreme.

(See Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 1:54.)

 

M.O.Cloth: I guess you could call a first responsibility to one’s kin extreme, but the conclusion is not logical when you think about families. I don’t have the reference you cited for Joseph Fielding Smith, but his father (who is bDouglas’ great uncle) was quoted by his son-in-law, “When messengers are sent to minister to the inhabitants of this earth, they are not strangers, but from among our kindred, friends, and fellow-beings and fellow-servants….Our fathers and mothers, brothers, sisters and friends who have passed away from this earth, having been faithful, and worthy to enjoy these rights and privileges, may have a mission given them to visit their relatives and friends upon the earth again, bringing from the divine Presence messages of love, of warning, or reproof and instruction, to those whom they had learned to love in the flesh.” (Gospel Doctrine, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1970, pages 435–36.)

 

“The common belief, however, that every person born into the world has a guardian angel assigned to be with that person constantly, is not supported by available evidence. … An angel may be a guardian angel though he come only as assigned to give us special help. In fact, the constant presence of the Holy Spirit would seem to make such a constant, angelic companionship unnecessary.  So, until further knowledge is obtained, we may say that angels may be sent to guard us according to our need; but we cannot say with certainty that there is a special guardian angel, to be with every person constantly.” (The Improvement Era, April 1944, page 225.)

 

In 1944 the writer didn't know about Spencer's vision. Knowledge is not the same as doctrine. Knowledge is only new to us because it always existed long before we ever come to it. If your heart can accept Spencer’s visions for yourself, you may receive knowledge through the Holy Ghost. Knowledge requires no intermediary man between us individually and God.

[manofthecloth]

There are too many doctrinal problems with the book to list in one post. I'll give a sample as I get time. (I'm indebted to a knowledgeable friend for pointing these out; the following list thus reflects his analysis.)

 

S.Lloyd: One of the visions recounted in the book is of a terrible earthquake resulting in the leadership of the Church being stricken, including the death of two members of the First Presidency and several members of the Twelve. This contradicts the order in which revelation comes from God (see JST Amos 3:7).

 

M.O.T.Cloth: A dream (or vision) is just that; an image of what might be. I’ve personally had dreams which have come to pass and others that have not. When you say “This contradicts the order in which revelation comes from God (see Amos 3:7).” I would simply ask in this case, “what revelation?” Spencer’s vision is not scripture and is not presented as revelation.

 

I do see, however, how upsetting this is. If the visions are true, we can be very hopeful because our First Presidency survives and it will be reorganized even with two of the three killed which is in harmony with restored doctrine. It is fundamentally not doctrinal to limit knowledge and revelation to our leaders, but we are getting nervous. Some of us want our leaders to have exclusive access to revelation and others of us want all the blessings and gifts from God we can obtain. Another thing to consider is the very real possibility for all communication between where we are then and the Brethren to be cut off. Will such a scenario make latter-day saints nervous and fearful. Readers of VofG may  know what to do to get themselves and neighbors to safety. They can comfort their member and non-member neighbors regarding what may be coming. If the scenes of foreign invasion are played out, readers will know how to deal with them before instructions from church headquarters finally come.

Preparatory knowledge is good.

[manofthecloth]

Continuing the list of doctrinal problems in the book:

 

• In the book there is an account of a future solemn assembly after several of the brethren have been killed in a great earthquake. Only one member of the First Presidency has survived, and he sits alone in their reserved seats. This is contrary to the established order in which, when the Church president dies, the First Presidency is dissolved and, at the subsequent solemn assembly, the Twelve take their places in order of seniority and no lone person sits in the chairs of the First Presidency.

 

M.O.T.Cloth: I am not disagreeing with you just to disagree because we aren't that far apart. I do, however, like escological puzzles and what ifs.  I approached the book as if it were true which makes all this more fun. If you were president of the church and both your counselors were killed (or just died of old age) there would be no automatic rotation from the Twelve until you call new counselors. You could call me as your counselor because I am a high priest; i.e. J. Reuben Clark and you could wait until the meeting is started to make your announcement.  Brigham Young waited. John Taylor waited about 1 year. A future prophet can wait if needed because we always will have a presiding high priest even if the prophet is killed.

 

It's all good.

[manofthecloth]

Continuing the list of doctrinal problems in the book:

• A great meeting held at Adam-Ondi-Ahman is described as being so small that no PA system was needed. This is contrary to prophecy that says the meeting will include the faithful from Adam’s day to the present, replicating the meeting described in D&C 107:53-57. Neal A. Maxwell taught: “The valley of Adam-Ondi-Ahman will ring again – this time with the sounds of dispensational reunion, as it glows with gathering [see Dan. 7:13-14; D&C 107:53-57; D&C 161:1]!” (Ensign Nov. 1986, p. 59)

 

S.Lloyd: A great meeting held at Adam-Ondi-Ahman is described as being so small that no PA system was needed. This is contrary to prophecy that says the meeting will include the faithful from Adam’s day to the present, replicating the meeting described in D&C 107:53-57. Neal A. Maxwell taught: “The valley of Adam-Ondi-Ahman will ring again – this time with the sounds of dispensational reunion, as it glows with gathering [see Dan. 7:13-14; D&C 107:53-57; D&C 161:1]!” (Ensign Nov. 1986, p. 59)

 

Three years previous to the death of Adam, he called Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, and Methuselah, who were all high priests, with the residue of his posterity who were righteous, into the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and there bestowed upon them his last blessing. And the Lord appeared unto them, and they rose up and blessed Adam, and called him Michael, the prince, the archangel. And the Lord administered comfort unto Adam, and said unto him: I have set thee to be at the head; a multitude of nations shall come of thee, and thou art a prince over them forever. And Adam stood up in the midst of the congregation; and, notwithstanding he was bowed down with age, being full of the Holy Ghost, predicted whatsoever should befall his posterity unto the latest generation. These things were all written in the book of Enoch, and are to be testified of in due time.  -- D&C 107:53-57

 

I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. -- Daniel 7:13-14

 

M.O.T.Cloth: I have always imagined things of the future because I love everything about the 7th Dispensation. I sympathize with your concerns because I want to be part of that meeting, but if Spencer is right I won’t be there. Why does there need to be a large gathering? My boyish hopes for the meeting came from descriptors of Adam-ondi-Ahman in Church meetings as one giant sacrament meeting where we’ll all be there to welcome Father Adam back to earth. Well, why is that notion necessarily true. It probably isn’t. Scripturally it could all happen with fewer chairs than we find in the Solemn Assembly Room of the Salt Lake Temple which could easily accommodate all priesthood key holders of all dispensations, but maybe not all those who ever held any key whatsoever. Joseph Smith alone could represent every last one of us in this 6th Dispensation which would keep things very small.

I don’t see a contradiction and Spencer may have seen something we all want to know. I am thankful for the idea he saw something good.

[manofthecloth]

Continuing the list of doctrinal problems in the book (post #3):

 

o There is an account of an assignment to gather a large group of the lost 10 tribes of Israel who have been living in a huge cavern for thousands of years under the Arctic polar icecap (does anybody really take this stuff seriously?). The author speaks of going north of Canada and Alaska into the Arctic sea and finding rocky mountain peaks. As it happens, there are no mountains or land under the polar ice that far north, just frozen water as in Antarctica.  But the most significant problem here is the description of the 10 tribes returning en masse before the Second Coming of Christ. The scriptures clearly state that their return will not occur until after His coming (see the sequence in D&C 133:18-33 and Isaiah 35:10). The scriptures also state that the 10 tribes have been scattered upon all the face of the earth and will have to be gathered from the four corners of the earth and brought to a knowledge  of the gospel (see 1 Nephi 10:12; 22:3-5; 3 Nephi 20:12-13; Isaiah 11:12; 3 Nephi 22:24-29). They will not come from under the polar ice cap.

 

o The book tells of angels who had baptized and ordained some of the lost tribes. This is contrary to doctrine. Angels do not perform ordinances. Not even the three Nephites are so authorized. (See Acts 10:1-6; JS-H 1:70.)

 

More to come.

 

M.O.T.Cloth: Yes, I too would be concerned if Spencer saw all 10 lost tribes under the ice caps in caves, because we are one of the lost tribes and we're not in those caves. Thankfully he didn't say anything like that. Someone is deceiving you so you'll think the book is false. Yes, I took it seriously (to answer your question) because I don't have to be right about everything. Could God our Heavenly Father keep several thousands of people from 1 tribe in a cave lit by stones similar to the Brother of Jared's stones? Yes, of course God can do it. They could be there and they could have a prophet and all of it.

 

And they who are in the north countries shall come in remembrance before the Lord; and their prophets shall hear his voice, and shall no longer stay themselves; and they shall smite the rocks, and the ice shall flow down at their presence. And an highway shall be cast up in the midst of the great deep. Their enemies shall become a prey unto them, And in the barren deserts there shall come forth pools of living water; and the parched ground shall no longer be a thirsty land. And they shall bring forth their rich treasures unto the children of Ephraim, my servants. And the boundaries of the everlasting hills shall tremble at their presence. And there shall they fall down and be crowned with glory, even in Zion, by the hands of the servants of the Lord, even the children of Ephraim. And they shall be filled with songs of everlasting joy. Behold, this is the blessing of the everlasting God upon the tribes of Israel, and the richer blessing upon the head of Ephraim and his fellows. -- D&C 133:26-34

 

S.Lloyd: But the most significant problem here is the description of the 10 tribes returning en masse before the Second Coming of Christ. The scriptures clearly state that their return will not occur until after His coming (see the sequence in D&C 133:18-33 and Isaiah 35:10). The scriptures also state that the 10 tribes have been scattered upon all the face of the earth and will have to be gathered from the four corners of the earth and brought to a knowledge  of the gospel (see 1 Nephi 10:12; 22:3-5; 3 Nephi 20:12-13; Isaiah 11:12; 3 Nephi 22:24-29). They will not come from under the polar ice cap.

 

M.O.T.Cloth: You write as though you have read it, but once again the sequence of your friend's analysis is off. No, you are right. The en masse return of the 10 tribes with their prophets and records happen after the New Jerusalem has received our Messiah King. Some critics thing the book is teaching a false return of Messiah in the Conference Center which is somehow "the 2nd Coming." Not true. The Coming of Christ is accurate and correct sounding in the book. The journey of the polar ice caps people takes place over a long span of time and they travel like the children of Israel with their prophet.

 

Spencer's role as a translated being really gets the critics and their goat. I'm sorry, but I chuckle at the attitudes of nay-sayers about the same as they can't figure me out. I need no "common sense" if it robs me of the hope VoG offers.

 

S.Lloyd: The scriptures also state that the 10 tribes have been scattered upon all the face of the earth and will have to be gathered from the four corners of the earth and brought to a knowledge  of the gospel (see 1 Nephi 10:12; 22:3-5; 3 Nephi 20:12-13; Isaiah 11:12; 3 Nephi 22:24-29). They will not come from under the polar ice cap.

 

M.O.T.Cloth: The book is true to this. The gathering of Israel begins again in full earnest as a residue of the family of Adam is reclaimed in the biggest Marvelous Work and a Wonder that ever could be imagined. The Lord and His Angels reap down the earth etc if Isaiah is correct only a tithe of us on earth will stand at the end (or about 700 million people). There's nothing in the book to contradict this idea.

 

S.Lloyd: The book tells of angels who had baptized and ordained some of the lost tribes. This is contrary to doctrine. Angels do not perform ordinances. Not even the three Nephites are so authorized. (See Acts 10:1-6; JS-H 1:70.)

 

There was a certain man in Cæsarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway. He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius. And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God. And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter: He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side: he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do. -- Acts 10:1-6

He said this Aaronic Priesthood had not the power of laying on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, but that this should be conferred on us hereafter; and he commanded us to go and be baptized, and gave us directions that I should baptize Oliver Cowdery, and that afterwards he should baptize me. -- JSH 1:70

 

M.O.T.Cloth: I think your friend isn't thinking clearly. Angels come in lots of forms including men and women not yet born, ancestors who have passed away, resurrected beings and translated beings. Does he think Christ, as a resurrected being, could not baptize me? Does he think because the three Nephites were commanded to stop ministering to the fallen Nephites that it will always be so? It just doesn't make any sense. Angels don't lose their priesthood authority.

 

It's all good.

[manofthecloth]

The reader can judge how scriptural it is...or representative of hospital practice.  He has just finished telling women that their baby's survival is at risk if there are "dark emotions" during pregnancy, which he repeats later. Swarthy Jews, and dark skinned Tahitians representing hell are distasteful.  But blaming women for their baby's death is reprehensible.

 

 

He claims that while doing surgery on his mom, a nurse does one check for a heart beat on him, and then wraps him in newspaper and put him in a sink!  I find it hard to believe that there was a supply of newspapers in a surgical room or that a nurse is concerned about dirty towels.

 

The angel nurses then save him.  Not only does no one notice two complete strangers in an operating room, they don't notice when two nurses walk off the surgical team and go to a dead baby in the sink.

 

 

 The doctor has not even seen the baby but is going to announce time of death.  Note also that this hospital is understaffed.  Yet it isn't noticed when two strange nurses appear out of nowhere.

 

 

Spencer, according to the book, would have been born in 1950. Primary Children's Hospital was in a large house until 1952. http://intermountainhealthcare.org/hospitals/primarychildrens/about/history/Pages/home.aspx  It was a place to convalesce and did not open up acute care until 1961.  The polio epidemic was in full swing at his birth so an "old" iron lung doesn't ring true, especially because it would have to be an iron lung designed for an infant.  Dee Hospital was just getting them in.  "With the polio epidemic of 1951 taking lives and crippling others, Mr. Knapp added a polio ward especially equipped with an iron lung and recruited nurses willing to work in this area." http://intermountainhealthcare.org/hospitals/mckaydee/about/history/Pages/change.aspx

 

This is only one example of the questionable information throughout the book.

 

Juliann: I can see you really want this book to be a fraud, but I have hope for the opposite so we're kind of alike in a weird way. I see you don't like women to be oppressed and I think Spencer would agree with you. You think any mention of skin color is bad. OK..but I'll bet Spencer would have had that edited out had he been aware of or thought about such things. I don't think he intended to be offensive. You insist he was born at Primary Childrens in 1950, but that's not what he said and it all checks out anyway. Primary Children's was the place his nearly dead infant body was taken to convalesce afterward and to recover which is consistent with your report. He could have been born at any hospital of the Intermountain area at the time. 

 

It's all good.

[manofthecloth]

That is the danger with any false doctrine, that it will deceive the saints as it encroaches into authorized venues such as Church meetings and classes, which ought to be havens of doctrinal purity.

 

This is where we could get into a long discussion about things because I agree the saints are in danger, but not for the same reasons. We have gotten to a point now where we don't think anymore. Our once vibrant and alive church has changed to an organization that no longer welcomes discussion. Something has changed to cause fear in our hearts and apathy to take hold. Look around the Relief Society Room and the chapel. Many are doing something other than participating. A little false doctrine would get people talking and defending their faith. It would be a good thing to hear the Bishop correct our false notions; for your neighbor to learn to love the person who has erred and to teach. Now we niggle over the punctuation of our reheated essentials and keep an eye on one another to force the discussion back to approved correlated materials. Church is not a loving place of enrichment because we can't talk to our church friends about anything of substance.

 

Doctrinal purity? Impossible. Why? Because we can't define what doctrine is beyond a few core concepts and once doctrinal purity is enforced it's adios to knowledge expansion. If we can't be saved in ignorance we had better get things moving again soon to expand our minds. 

 

If Spencer saw what he says he saw, I am encouraged and hopeful. God reins and he loves us. All of us.

[manofthecloth]

Continuing the list of doctrinal problems in the book (post #4):

 

o The book indicates the 144,000 referred to in Revelation 7 include both men and women, high priests and high priestesses. This contradicts what was revealed to Joseph Smith in D&C 77:11.

 

I'm really looking forward to witnessing the 144,000 aren't you? I'm not sure I remember the details of it but let's say you are right about men and women. If 144,000 high priests are men, do they have wives? Can an angel seal a man and a woman to go to the nations of the earth to bring the elect to zion? Yes. Joseph taught us women have the authority of the priesthood when they are endowed, but he gave no indication they are to be or ever will be "ordained" to the appendages of the priesthood. On the other hand, if assigned a woman can exercise her priesthood authority in the temple etc. A woman does not need to be married to be endowed which means she has authority with or without a man, but not without assignment. BUT...to receive a fulness of the priesthood both she and he must receive it together under the proper authority of the one on earth to grant it. In the early days of the church some elect women were known as high priestesses and I can't see why that title could not come back if the Lord so orders it. I doubt Eve and Sarah worry much about their authority because they understand it. Eliza R. Snow Smith urged women to remain faithful and to endure because their true identities would be revealed.  

[juliann]

Juliann: I can see you really want this book to be a fraud, but I have hope for the opposite so we're kind of alike in a weird way. I see you don't like women to be oppressed and I think Spencer would agree with you. You think any mention of skin color is bad. OK..but I'll bet Spencer would have had that edited out had he been aware of or thought about such things. I don't think he intended to be offensive. You insist he was born at Primary Childrens in 1950, but that's not what he said and it all checks out anyway. Primary Children's was the place his nearly dead infant body was taken to convalesce afterward and to recover which is consistent with your report. He could have been born at any hospital of the Intermountain area at the time. 

 

It's all good.

 

I am beginning to see a pattern.  When something in the book is awkward or unbelievable you move the goal posts. What does directly addressing the multiple flaws in this book have to do with wanting it to be a fraud?   Rather than addressing the problems quote by quote, you are attempting to redirect to a lack of belief.  You then deflect a direct answer by claiming I insist he was born at Primary Hospital.  But this is the quote I used:

 

He glanced at the clock on the wall, preparing to announce the time of death of the infant. When he looked in, he ordered the same nurses who had revived me to get me out of that sink and warm me up. They turned and whisked me away to the understaffed and poorly functioning nursery. I was immediately transferred to Primary Childrens Hospital where I struggled to stay alive for weeks. I was placed in an old iron lung until I started breathing on my own. p 10

 

You are not addressing the point and I'll say it again.  In 1950 Primary Children's Hospital was not an acute care facility, it was a place for children to convalescence.  It was in a house, not the hospital facility we think of today.  I provided a link.  You have ignored it.  Here is another link of a PCH ten years before his birth, they did not move into a new facility until two years after his birth.   http://www.keepapitchinin.org/2014/07/01/primary-childrens-hospital-ward-1940/  And for reasons I mentioned, the iron lung story is unbelievable, particularly since infants would require an iron lung designed for infants, not "an old iron lung." 

 

So again, what does this have to do with end times?  You only want to talk about a portion of his book and what you want to believe, not what is actually in the book.  If some of his visions are this inaccurate, why should we trust him on the others?  Because you are not talking about actual excerpts and only arguing over theology, I suspect you realize that it is actual quotes that are the most convincing as to the unreliability of his account.

 

And again, you completely sidestep the racism, sexism, nationalism, and devaluation of family by saying it would have been edited out if Spencer saw it .

 

"...all of it is as told to me by Spencer, who takes responsibility for its content." p xix

 

 

Look at the lengths you have to go to make this book work. Even to the point where the most ploddingly literal tale ever told has to be explained away by claiming it is not literal ....or mere metaphor.

 

 

Spencer's role as a translated being really gets the critics and their goat. I'm sorry, but I chuckle at the attitudes of nay-sayers about the same as they can't figure me out. I need no "common sense" if it robs me of the hope VoG offers.

 

One of the greatest puzzles for those who see the false information pouring out of this book is what its allure could possibly be.  I think you have answered that, it speaks to a lack of hope. What does he supply that Christ, our teachings, leaders, personal revelation, and scriptures do not?

Edited July 2, 2014 by juliann

[juliann]

This is where we could get into a long discussion about things because I agree the saints are in danger, but not for the same reasons. We have gotten to a point now where we don't think anymore. Our once vibrant and alive church has changed to an organization that no longer welcomes discussion. Something has changed to cause fear in our hearts and apathy to take hold. Look around the Relief Society Room and the chapel. Many are doing something other than participating. A little false doctrine would get people talking and defending their faith. It would be a good thing to hear the Bishop correct our false notions; for your neighbor to learn to love the person who has erred and to teach. Now we niggle over the punctuation of our reheated essentials and keep an eye on one another to force the discussion back to approved correlated materials. Church is not a loving place of enrichment because we can't talk to our church friends about anything of substance.

 

Doctrinal purity? Impossible. Why? Because we can't define what doctrine is beyond a few core concepts and once doctrinal purity is enforced it's adios to knowledge expansion. If we can't be saved in ignorance we had better get things moving again soon to expand our minds. 

 

If Spencer saw what he says he saw, I am encouraged and hopeful. God reins and he loves us. All of us.

So the fruit of Spencer's words is....

 

You do not think unless you believe Spencer

 Spencer is vibrant and alive but the church isn't

The church is filled with fear and apathy

A little false doctrine is a good thing

The church is ignorant, Spencer expands our minds

The church is unloving and unenriching

Spencer inspires hope and encouragment

 

The sad thing is, I do have to wonder if this was Spencer's intent all along.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

He is not a prophet and his vision don't mean anything to me. They did not come through the proper channels. That is enough for me to dismiss what he says.

[manofthecloth]

I am beginning to see a pattern.  When something in the book is awkward or unbelievable you move the goal posts. What does directly addressing the multiple flaws in this book have to do with wanting it to be a fraud?   Rather than addressing the problems quote by quote, you are attempting to redirect to a lack of belief.  You then deflect a direct answer by claiming I insist he was born at Primary Hospital.  But this is the quote I used:

 

You are not addressing the point and I'll say it again.  In 1950 Primary Children's Hospital was not an acute care facility, it was a place for children to convalescence.  It was in a house, not the hospital facility we think of today.  I provided a link.  You have ignored it.  Here is another link of a PCH ten years before his birth, they did not move into a new facility until two years after his birth.   http://www.keepapitchinin.org/2014/07/01/primary-childrens-hospital-ward-1940/  And for reasons I mentioned, the iron lung story is unbelievable, particularly since infants would require an iron lung designed for infants, not "an old iron lung." 

 

So again, what does this have to do with end times?  You only want to talk about a portion of his book and what you want to believe, not what is actually in the book.  If some of his visions are this inaccurate, why should we trust him on the others?  Because you are not talking about actual excerpts and only arguing over theology, I suspect you realize that it is actual quotes that are the most convincing as to the unreliability of his account.

 

Juliann: Drinker Infant Respirators were used extensively by 1950 for asphyxiated newborn infants to breathe.  See http://journals.lww.com/ajnonline/Citation/1932/05000/The_Drinker_Infant_Respirator_.4.aspx. The units fit into small spaces and the 40 bed Primary Childrens Hospital of 1950 would have been the place to care for infants in Utah. Your article of 1940 is interesting, but not accurate for 1950. By 1950 the Respirator was in extensive.

 

I only talk about the portions of the book which I can remember and which trouble you. End time eschatology is central to the book and the details, to me, are background noise. The book teaches principals of what might be much more than what has been. I would say to anyone having problems with it to treat it like fiction. My cousin bDouglas says fiction will teach us truth in a way only it can.

Edited July 2, 2014 by manofthecloth

[manofthecloth]

 

Edited July 2, 2014 by manofthecloth

[Calm]

. I can’t see what makes this so belly-laughable and impossible.]

So you think there were hospitals back in the 50s that kept newspapers on hand to wrap stillborn babies in and didn't have any better places besides the sink set aside to place them?

[Calm]

S.Lloyd: The notion of deceased family members having as their "first responsibility as departed spirits" to guide their living posterity takes the concept of guardian angels to the extreme.

(See Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 1:54.)

 

M.O.Cloth: I guess you could call a first responsibility to one’s kin extreme, but the conclusion is not logical when you think about families. I don’t have the reference you cited for Joseph Fielding Smith, but his father (who is bDouglas’ great uncle) was quoted by his son-in-law, “When messengers are sent to minister to the inhabitants of this earth, they are not strangers, but from among our kindred, friends, and fellow-beings and fellow-servants….Our fathers and mothers, brothers, sisters and friends who have passed away from this earth, having been faithful, and worthy to enjoy these rights and privileges, may have a mission given them to visit their relatives and friends upon the earth again, bringing from the divine Presence messages of love, of warning, or reproof and instruction, to those whom they had learned to love in the flesh.” (Gospel Doctrine, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1970, pages 435–36.)

 

“The common belief, however, that every person born into the world has a guardian angel assigned to be with that person constantly, is not supported by available evidence. … An angel may be a guardian angel though he come only as assigned to give us special help. In fact, the constant presence of the Holy Spirit would seem to make such a constant, angelic companionship unnecessary.  So, until further knowledge is obtained, we may say that angels may be sent to guard us according to our need; but we cannot say with certainty that there is a special guardian angel, to be with every person constantly.” (The Improvement Era, April 1944, page 225.)

 

In 1944 the writer didn't know about Spencer's vision. Knowledge is not the same as doctrine. Knowledge is only new to us because it always existed long before we ever come to it. If your heart can accept Spencer’s visions for yourself, you may receive knowledge through the Holy Ghost. Knowledge requires no intermediary man between us individually and God.

Where in all of that is the notion it is their first responsibility and those who don't have relatives have to wait.

[Calm]

"And again, you completely sidestep the racism, sexism, nationalism, and devaluation of family by saying it would have been edited out if Spencer saw it ."

Doesn't Spencer have the resource of angels and good spirits telling him what to do? Seems strange to have these in the book if so, as would they he would have been warned.

[ERayR]

Doesn't Spencer have the resource of angels and good spirits telling him what to do? Seems strange to have these in the book if so, as would they he would have been warned.

 

I think the book is fiction too but I do have to nit pic this rational.  This is the same argument used by critics of the Church concerning Church leaders.  I don't like it or accept it as a valid argument in either case.  This book has enough in it to discredit it without using that argument.

 

Just a thought.

[juliann]

I think the book is fiction too but I do have to nit pic this rational.  This is the same argument used by critics of the Church concerning Church leaders.  I don't like it or accept it as a valid argument in either case.  This book has enough in it to discredit it without using that argument.

 

Just a thought.

 

Church leaders are not claiming anything like Spencer gifts to himself.  This is not about the Spirit leading us....and even leaders have said it doesn't all the time, we do have to learn to make decisions on our own.  This is about a claim that every room we are in is crowded with good and evil spirits fighting to put thoughts in our head.  This is about guardian angels taking us on trips.  Mind you, this is not a one time thing for special Spencer.  He is so surrounded with goodness he doesn't even require a wife.  If I didn't know where my children were, I think the first thing I would ask an angel would be to help me.  Never occurs to Spencer, but then, there can't be more than 2 sentences in there about his 5 children and their families.

 

We may have a vision or two here and there...but no leader has ever told a tale like Spencer's.  Lately, they have been emphasizing that they get revelation just like we do.  The time to be talking about hugging Jesus would have been during the revelation to lift the priesthood ban.  But all that was talked about was a very strong feeling they mutually experienced.  And there were witnesses. 

 

I have come to the conclusion that this book can't be reviewed in the standard way because his followers do not hold him to his actual words.  What he actually  said needs to be seen.  I can make a list of his racist comments.  His disregard for women and children comments. His self-aggrandizing comments.  His wacky medical issue comments (like he needs to have his "sinus cavity" removed....and this from a guy who claims to have responded to emergency calls in the hospital.)

 

Every time this comes up, I add more to my database.   

 

Oh...and let me make it real clear why this is so disturbing to me that I would go to this much trouble.  We have a follower or two in our ward.  After she gave testimony of the book in F&T meeting and refused to read a book review I offered,  I broke down and read it. Only then did I become aware of where she was getting her guardian angel nonsense and insistence the HG will guide us on every decision.  Okay, not a totally big deal.  Until she gave Spencer's teaching to the RS teacher, tearfully expressing her pain over her kids never being able to learn from her parents who died in accident.  She told her that our guardian angels were family and they were always around, so her kids would be able to talk to them in the living room while they played and wouldn't miss out on anything.  Then added, if you we are righteous enough.

 

Yet more fruit of Spencer's teachings.

Edited July 2, 2014 by juliann

[manofthecloth]

Look at the lengths you have to go to make this book work. Even to the point where the most ploddingly literal tale ever told has to be explained away by claiming it is not literal ....or mere metaphor.

 

One of the greatest puzzles for those who see the false information pouring out of this book is what its allure could possibly be.  I think you have answered that, it speaks to a lack of hope. What does he supply that Christ, our teachings, leaders, personal revelation, and scriptures do not?

 

At some point all believers of any eschatological puzzle must take a leap of faith. You can't prove Moses' story, and it is in true scripture. Spencer's was a vision which he shared with you in his courage but you are not under the same obligation to believe him as you are with Moses. The only false information I see pouring out is from this MDDB forum. We have twisted Spencer's words then mocked him for their mockings. This is how mocking and satire works. It is unfair and it is why mockers are liars and deceivers.  Korihor was the master satirist by first twisting the words of the believers.  He said, "Ye say that this people is a guilty and a fallen people, because of the transgression of a parent. Behold, I say that a child is not guilty because of its parents." (Alma 30:25) That is not what believers said then nor is it said now, but Korihor said they said it so he was followed and adjolated. This is the problem with echo chamber cultures who can't open their mind to new things.

[juliann]

motc, are the quotes I am using false?  You continue to refuse to respond to the quotes and turn this into personal attacks and name calling.  I can only conclude you do not have a response when Spencer's exact words are being discussed.

 

As for Moses, he has been replaced.  Pontius assures us that hearing Spencer....

 

" . . .was like listening to John the Beloved or Moses describe events the world has pondered for all time..."

 

 

That will be another list, all of the prophets and scriptural characters Spencer has compared himself to or elevated himself to the status of.  (And yes, he is responsible for the content of the book, as stated in the book.)

[Calm]

I think the book is fiction too but I do have to nit pic this rational.  This is the same argument used by critics of the Church concerning Church leaders.  I don't like it or accept it as a valid argument in either case.  This book has enough in it to discredit it without using that argument.

 

Just a thought.

Unless Spencer makes the claim for himself he has constant input from such. Church leaders don't make that claim (that the HG sits on their shoulder telling them what to do).

I may be wrong, I will have to look for what I read that makes me think he is making that claim...that his steps are guided, etc.

[Calm]

Spencer's was a vision which he shared with you in his courage.

I will believe in his courage when he attaches his real name to it.

At this point he can avoid any suffering just by avoiding any forums that talk about him since no one can actually confront him.

[The Nehor]

At some point all believers of any eschatological puzzle must take a leap of faith. You can't prove Moses' story, and it is in true scripture. Spencer's was a vision which he shared with you in his courage but you are not under the same obligation to believe him as you are with Moses. The only false information I see pouring out is from this MDDB forum. We have twisted Spencer's words then mocked him for their mockings. This is how mocking and satire works. It is unfair and it is why mockers are liars and deceivers.  Korihor was the master satirist by first twisting the words of the believers.  He said, "Ye say that this people is a guilty and a fallen people, because of the transgression of a parent. Behold, I say that a child is not guilty because of its parents." (Alma 30:25) That is not what believers said then nor is it said now, but Korihor said they said it so he was followed and adjolated. This is the problem with echo chamber cultures who can't open their mind to new things.

Spencer's crap is not new. Things like it appear in many dispensations. Read some of the apostate works from the time right after Christ or some of the Jewish legends and pseudo scripture. The style is uncannily familiar. All are sensational but insipid and are self-gratifying. They make noises about virtue but the characters show none (mostly because the writer does not understand it).