"visions Of Glory" - Nonsense? Or Legit?

[The Nehor]

To theNehor, jWhitlock, bDouglas: Is D&C 112:24-26 speaking about us or not? Be clear and be specific. I want to know.

 

Oh, it is definitely talking about the Saints. More specifically those who profess to know the Lord but do not and blaspheme against the Lord. Basically like Spencer does by preaching lies and falsehoods while claiming a divine mandate. You know, those who practice priestcraft.

[juliann]

So the quotes that Juliann has posted aren't actually from the book?

 

 

I think it is time for a call for references.  All MOTC is doing is giving sermons and exhortations (and that is against board rules).  He has not produced any quotes or responded to any that have been produced.

 

CFR, MOTC. 

[juliann]

 

 

Spencer's visions stand on their own against those who dither away their preparation time before the Lord comes.

CFR.  Provide the vision and document your claims.  This is a debate board, not Sunday School.

[bdouglas]

Beloved Cousin: We agree on D&C 112:24-26. This is the beginning of understanding. In Spencer you find fault, but in you I see hope. Avraham Gileadi has posted his reply, but you can't get me to say truth originates from Avraham Gileadi. You can get me to say he knows Isaiah and Spencer doesn't contradict either source.

 

In me you see hope? That eventually I will come round to loving Spencer the way you do? I'm pretty sure that will never happen. But besides Spencer, there is one basic difference we share. We both agree that the D&C verse referenced above refers to apostasy in the church, but we differ in where this apostasy is located. I do not believe that high church leadership, specifically The Twelve and First Presidency, are in apostasy, and I do not believe this verse refers to high church leadership. I believe it refers "to those who have professed to know my name and do not know me"——which makes Spencer a prime candidate for this prophesied house cleaning (as Nehor as noted), when it occurs.

[bdouglas]

Avraham Gileadi has posted his reply, but you can't get me to say truth originates from Avraham Gileadi.

 

These kinds of statements leave me scratching my head. Your spin——or my spin or anybody's spin in this forum——can hardly be characterized as "the truth", the eternal unchanging truth. We are exploring ideas. Many of your ideas about current church leadership being in apostasy and other ideas you have expressed in this thread seem to have come from Avraham Gileadi. I'm simply asking if this is correct.

 

MOTC: You have a tendency to dodge questions by spouting scripture or by saying something like you have in the above quote: "You can't get me to say truth originates with Avraham Gileadi." What is this supposed to mean? What I see you saying here is, "Everything I have said on this thread is the truth——eternal, unchanging truth. I have borne my testimony of this. Those who are spiritually in tune and mature will recognize this. For you to suggest that this truth I have here spoken came from Avraham Gileadi is to suggest that somehow truth originates with him. It does not. I am simply stating eternal, unchanging truth, as revealed in  the book Visions Of Glory." 

 

Sorry, MOTC, but this is nutty.

Edited July 5, 2014 by bdouglas

[BookofMormonLuvr]

The "Mighty and Strong" section in the D&C is a favorite scripture for those seeking to "prove" that the church is in apostasy and that someone else has been raised up to correct things.

 

Of course, Joseph himself said that God holds Himself responsible for interpreting scriptures like this, and since God hasn't provided the interpretation, using it to prove that a favorite public figure has been raised up is just wrong. I wasn't familiar with Jonathan Cahn; rather than derail this thread, why don't you start another thread talking about him and why you think the church is in apostasy and that Mr. Cahn is the one to correct it.

 

As to "Spencer", he's what the thread is about, so don't be surprised that he is referred to in responses to you.

Oh my... you extrapolated all that from what I wrote?!?

I never claimed Jonathan Cahn was sent to correct the apostasy in the church... only that he was being used to raise a strong warning voice to the nation that the Restored Priesthood has thus far neglected to be. To clarify, he is the author of "The Harbinger".

[jwhitlock]

Instead of relying on others for your information about the book, do as you have suggested. Read the book with faith that it might have something in it for you and apply the lessons of Alma in growing the seed. Blind obedience to the idea it is wrong is equally mind boggling. So far only Juliann and I have read it.

 

Excuse me, but as I stated earlier on this thread, I have read the book. A number of people I know have also read the book, and we have discussed it in detail. My conclusions are based on my evaluation of the book, and not just on what others have said.

 

The number of inconsistencies in the book, along with things that contradict both doctrine and what we know about the Second Coming, call this book into question. My faith has been that God teaches me when I read things, and part of that teaching is to be able to detect things that are not what they claim to be. This book is one of them.

[jwhitlock]

 

I agree with you but I can't believe how everyone has unloaded on "Spencer" in this thread.  I had my doubts about the book when I read it last year, but I saw a lot of truths in it as well.  I'm not TBM but my father and siblings are.  They don't believe that the mainstream LDS church will ever be in apostasy nor do they ever admit any errors in it, and they totally believed, felt good, and bore testimony of the book.  It just seems to me that you could levy many of these same criticisms at the scriptures and the prophets who actually went out on a limb to put out "revelations."  Hence we have a church leadership that is hesitant to say anything at all right now, and our Sunday School classes have been painfully boring for several decades.  I think we could afford to be a little more respectful of the "weakness of peoples words" in describing their spiritual experiences and perhaps we'd be a little more enlightened and uplifted even if we find some parts that don't quite add up.  What happened to the catch all, "The natural man can't understand the things of God," or "only when speaking as a prophet," that we use to excuse otherwise inspired writings that we don't agree with.  

 

 

"Spencer" is a bit of an enigma. Because of the demand for anonymity, it's hard to say what he's really like. However, we do have what he approved to be written by John Pontius. The problem is that there are so many contradictions and inconsistencies in the book that you have to question where "Spencer" and Pontius were really coming from. Pontius is no longer around to answer questions, "Spencer" is refusing to go public with anything, and John Pontius's widow is not providing any evidence, and has removed the only audio interview available with "Spencer", so really there's a huge vacuum that we're being told has to be filled by some kind of unquestioning "faith".

 

I don't think comparisons of "Spencer" as a prophet with other historical prophets are valid. There's outright obfuscation around VoG and an unwillingness to engage in any of the questionable aspects of the book. There are too many red flags that are being raised and no answers are being given other than to blindly accept what "Spencer" is telling us. And if we're too spiritually immature (according to "Spencer's" followers) to understand the book, then we don't really have any right to question or criticize it.

 

On the other hand, there is a wealth of evidence and openness surrounding the restored gospel, despite efforts of critics to paint it otherwise. If you want to study the gospel in depth, with perspectives and evidence from both sides, you can do it.

 

With VoG, there isn't any sense of openness about the book. It's all shrouded, and they want to keep it that way. That is rather disturbing to me.

[jwhitlock]

 

To theNehor, jWhitlock, bDouglas: Is D&C 112:24-26 speaking about us or not? Be clear and be specific. I want to know.

 

That section is speaking of those who have professed to know the name of God and have not known it and have blasphemed.

 

Why can't that apply to "Spencer", who has set himself up outside of the authority structure of the church, and his followers who put "Spencer's" vision above the words of the prophets and apostles and call those who don't believe in VoG "spiritually immature"?

 

Rather than preaching, are you actually going to address the specific criticisms of the book? That's what I don't see "Spencer's" followers doing, and I'd actually like to see that as part of the discussion. Can you do that?

[jwhitlock]

Oh my... you extrapolated all that from what I wrote?!?

I never claimed Jonathan Cahn was sent to correct the apostasy in the church... only that he was being used to raise a strong warning voice to the nation that the Restored Priesthood has thus far neglected to be. To clarify, he is the author of "The Harbinger".

 

So, the warning voice of the priesthood - including the First Presidency and the Twelve, who are called as witnesses of Christ to the world - has been silent. I think not.

 

To say that Cahn, a person outside of the restored priesthood authority structure, would be the voice of warning as you claim makes no sense. Evidently you're claiming that all priesthood authority is in apostasy and someone else needs to be "raised up" to take its place, and that person is Cahn.

 

I'll leave you to that particular belief, which is false. "Spencer" follower thought process evidently flows along the same lines.

[jwhitlock]

manofthecloth - 

 

I'd like to see you respond to the problem in the book where "Spencer" is gathering the lost tribes from the Arctic when he doesn't hold the keys of the gathering. In the book, he is told that he ("Spencer") would be the one doing the gathering. Since the keys of the gathering have been given to the president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, how do you reconcile this particular contradiction with doctrine?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

So, the warning voice of the priesthood - including the First Presidency and the Twelve, who are called as witnesses of Christ to the world - has been silent. I think not.

 

To say that Cahn, a person outside of the restored priesthood authority structure, would be the voice of warning as you claim makes no sense. Evidently you're claiming that all priesthood authority is in apostasy and someone else needs to be "raised up" to take its place, and that person is Cahn.

 

I'll leave you to that particular belief, which is false. "Spencer" follower thought process evidently flows along the same lines.

You have put words in my mouth in every single repsonse you have made to me. It makes me wonder concerning what you have written about other things I don't know much about.

[jwhitlock]

You have put words in my mouth in every single repsonse you have made to me. It makes me wonder concerning what you have written about other things I don't know much about.

 

Please be specific where I have done that. Perhaps you can start with where you stated that the church was in apostasy.

 

Edit: And also please respond with what your real thoughts are in each case.

Edited July 5, 2014 by jwhitlock

[mormonnewb]

This thread seems to have turned the board upside down. It seems that many people who believe firmly in JS' prophetic visions are sure that this Spencer guy is a fraud and/or kook. In doing so, they are bringing up factual inaccuracies and scriptural inconsistencies in much the same way as people who have attacked JS over the years. What makes one so willing to believe that The Lord would give visions to a young farm boy in upstate NY and not Spencer? Is the difference a testimony from the Holy Spirit?

But what about the people who do receive a testimony of Spencer's truth? Or better yet, what about those of who receive a testimony of Mohammed, Krishna, L Ron Hubbard, etc.? What gives us such confidence that our testimonies are any more valid than theirs?

Isn't it possible that all of our "testimonies" are the result of our desire for them to be true? Those that are on Team Spence seem to WANT the Heavens to be open to more radical revelation from God. And those on Team Nutcase seem to be saying, "We had our last wilderness prophet in JS. From now on, HF is going to color inside the lines by working through those in priesthood authority." Now, I fall into Team Nutcase because I'm a natural skeptic. However, it seems that the "true Scotsman/Mormon" position would be to at least allow for the possibility of HF working through Spencer, just as He did through JS.

[juliann]

Mn, let's compare to JS then. 

 

Did JS hide behind a ghostwriter and phony name for fear of being persecuted? 

 

Did his ghostwriter make a huge profit by relating JS's visions? (And I don't believe for a minute Spencer isn't getting something from this.)

 

Did he do nothing but relate visions that he wafffles on and calls "metaphors?" 

 

Did JS repeatedly claim that he couldn't remember critical details of a vision?

 

Did JS ever claim to be able to enter a person's body and know their history, future and every thought and feeling? 

 

Did JS ever claim that God sent him paying clients because of the above "gift?"

[mormonnewb]

Mn, let's compare to JS then. 

*Do you not see ANY similarities in the criticisms?

 

Did JS hide behind a ghostwriter and phony name for fear of being persecuted? 

*JS had scribes. Also, in a weird way, it can be argued that JS was the ghostwriter for the BofM.

 

Did his ghostwriter make a huge profit by relating JS's visions? (And I don't believe for a minute Spencer isn't getting something from this.)

*JS didn't have a "day job" in Kirtland and Nauvoo, did he? Weren't his living expenses paid for by the Church?

 

Did he do nothing but relate visions that he wafffles on and calls "metaphors?" 

*No, JS did much more, but give Spencer time. Nauvoo was not built in a day.

 

Did JS repeatedly claim that he couldn't remember critical details of a vision?

*JS seems to have remembered critical details of the First Vision in at least four DIFFERENT ways.

 

Did JS ever claim to be able to enter a person's body and know their history, future and every thought and feeling? 

*No, JS never claimed knowing anyone's history as a reason for entering ... NEVER MIND.

Did JS ever claim that God sent him paying clients because of the above "gift"?

*Not directly, no. But JS had a much more reliable income stream.

NOTE: I'm not claiming that JS was a fraud. I'm simply suggesting that, to a third-party observer, JS would seem just as strange as Spencer. What allows you to not be bothered by the holes on JS' story and yet, find Spencer TOTALLY without merit?

[mbh26]

Do the Brethren disclose how much they make on their book deals?  

 

Did JS ever claim to be able to enter a person's body and know their history, future and every thought and feeling? 

I remember being taught as a youth that the brethren could look into your eyes when they shook your hand and know all about you, your level of worthiness, etc.  Eyes are the window to the soul kind of thing.  That seemed plenty creepy to me.    

 

I don't see where Spencer was claiming to receive revelation for the Church either.  That was his reason for going anonymous.  I think he figured, if it helps your testimony and you see truth it, take it and do what you can with it.  But he wasn't threatening the authority or positions of the brethren.  On the contrary he seemed to be an ardent supporter.  

Edited July 5, 2014 by mbh26

[bdouglas]

mormonnewb:

 

Have you even read VofG? Or even part of it?

Edited July 5, 2014 by bdouglas

[mormonnewb]

mormonnewb:

 

Have you even read VofG? Or even part of it?

Never even heard of it before this thread.

[juliann]

NOTE: I'm not claiming that JS was a fraud. I'm simply suggesting that, to a third-party observer, JS would seem just as strange as Spencer. What allows you to not be bothered by the holes on JS' story and yet, find Spencer TOTALLY without merit?

 

 

Perhaps because JS had witnesses and a host of other reasons?  Spencer's story is the hole.  JS put things around the holes to give you footing.  You haven't read his tale, have you?

 

What you need to do is compare the elements of Spencer's tales to what JS produced rather than challenging the reverse.  There is an interesting phenom going on in here where the disagreements with Spencer are being put up for all to see....but no one is discussing the excerpts at all. If you think Spencer, based on one really silly book,  is as credible as JS, please demonstrate it.

 

I also have noticed an interesting tendency of those who tend to be more critical of Mormonism (I'm not saying that to imply they should be automatically dismissed.)  Those who are the hardest on "TBMs" have gotten themselves into a position where they must justify their own stance by giving equal credence to those who are more fundamentalistic and rigid than the TBMs they rail against.  One can't defend any border when trying to create new ones, thus everyone trying to create new borders, regardless of the merit of that border, or the inconsistency with their own views, must be given equal standing.

Edited July 5, 2014 by juliann

[bdouglas]

Never even heard of it before this thread.

 

You should probably read it, or at least a good part of it, before commenting on it, don't you think?

[mormonnewb]

You should probably read it, or at least a good part of it, before commenting on it, don't you think?

Since when that become recommended practice on this board? It would seriously truncate our NT discussions.

Also, I did not comment on the book itself but simply reactions to it. I simply pointed out that many of the criticisms of this guy are similar to those made against JS. Do I really need to read the book to be able to recognize that?

[Calm]

False prophets confuse because they appear to be similar to the real thing.

[bdouglas]

Since when that become recommended practice on this board? It would seriously truncate our NT discussions.

Also, I did not comment on the book itself but simply reactions to it. I simply pointed out that many of the criticisms of this guy are similar to those made against JS. Do I really need to read the book to be able to recognize that?

 

You could also compare Kahil Gibran to Jesus. There are surface similarities. If you've never read Kahil Gibran and you know a little about Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, you could say Jesus and Kahil Gibran are very much alike. But really they aren't. One is "pop", and the other is the real deal.

 

VofG is pop Mormonism. To compare the book, or Spencer, to Joseph Smith is absurd.

Edited July 5, 2014 by bdouglas

[mormonnewb]

You could also compare Kahil Gibran to Jesus. There are surface similarities. If you've never read Kahil Gibran and you know a little about Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, you could say Jesus and Kahil Gibran are very much alike. But really they aren't. One is "pop", and the other is the real deal.

 

VofG is pop Mormonism. To compare the book, or Spencer, to Joseph Smith is absurd——as absurd as comparing Kahil Gibran to Jesus.

Let's be clear. I'm firmly on your team -- Team Nutcase. And while I haven't read the book, I didn't have to read L Ron Hubbard or the Hale Bopp Comet guy to know that I should bring my own bottled water to the cult cookout. My question is simply HOW do the rest of my teammates know truth from lies?

It can't be on the basis of historical verification because we believe in the BoM with very little historical confirmation (and even a LITTLE historical information to the contrary). Likewise, we can't rely on scriptural confirmation for many of JS' later revelations as a few even conflicted with the BoM (polygamy comes most readily to mind). So what is it that gives YOU confidence that JS was speaking truth and that this other guy is lying/mistaken?