"visions Of Glory" - Nonsense? Or Legit?

[manofthecloth]

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.

 

This is the way Korihor twisted and distorted words. Let's be honest. You and I know each other pretty well and we have shared much in this battlefield of life. I know your weaknesses and you know mine. No matter what I have thought about in private, my hopes remain firmly with the Church of our nativity and it's my church as much as it is yours. If our church is in a state of apostasy (mild or strong) it is the fault of both leader and member alike including you and including me. We will ride out the events to come, but for me Spencer's visions are a great way to solve puzzles and think.

Edited July 6, 2014 by manofthecloth

[manofthecloth]

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.

 

Bugs Bunny was famous for getting Yosemite Sam upset, and I am famous for getting you upset. Brother Gileadi is a thoughtful author (mostly about Isaiah), but your conspiracy theory mind has conjured up his shadow behind my every post. Sorry cousin, but that line of thinking is authentically nutty 

Edited July 6, 2014 by manofthecloth

[manofthecloth]

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.

Then you have my sincere apology. Some day I hope we will agree.

[manofthecloth]

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?

 

Yes, if Spencer has made up his visions he will be punished like any liar. In his case, it will be more severe because he said he received it from God. However, if he was sincerely deceived by Lucifer, God will deal with him in context. The problem gets deeper because he would have also duped me and John Pontius and a whole bunch of others including my own past skeptical mother. But you must be consistent when evaluating this situation please. If he did receive his visions from God it is our opportunity to learn and if you intentionally refuse to understand it will become a condemnation to you. BTW...satirical calumny is a very bad way to change minds and win hearts (I don't refer to you jWhitlock). It is better to start again in your evaluation with an eye toward the hope it is real and the concept of the seed taught by Alma.

 

"Rather than preaching?" you say. What? When I did offer doctrinal evidence that he may be telling the truth, I got _____silence _________. No response. If it's the problem with the tribe under the ice, I answered that one way back with Brother Lloyd. If it was about Spencer receiving an assignment directly from the Lord, I didn't think you were serious. God rules in the heavens and can assign anyone to any assignment. Call it a field promotion if you like military imagery. No one outranks God and there are no man-imposed rules for Him. By the time Spencer receives his field commission, the gathering to Zion had long-since started. Christ had already been giving the orders to our leaders, to angels, resurrected beings and to translated beings. This order of things represents no change to present day operations. Please remember Spencer had been translated in the vision. That means he was Terrestrial in nature and he had a higher rank than even our Telestial level prophet. That's right. A translated being interacts directly with Christ himself even today. Some folks on this board think this idea is funny (how many times was Spencer mocked about an office in the temple next to our Lord), but they are playing with personal fire and damnation if the visions are true. Did I tell you I liked the book? One of the better details of the vision was the revelations about angels and translated beings. Joseph Smith barely told us anything about this stuff, but the book is a landslide of knowledge compared to what we have known about the subject to this point and none of what he told us contradicts scripture.

[manofthecloth]

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.

 

Apostasy is such a loaded word and we have thin skins when it comes to someone leveling the word at our Church; the church we grew up in and the church we plan to stay with no matter what happens. “I would say, since it’s not your church, Brother Brigham, I plan to stay right here in it,” is how bDouglas’ ancestor phrased his reply at Bishop’s training meeting when he was asked if his actions to follow would include apostasy. The year was 1856. The Ancient Church of Christ’s members wern’t any different than we are in taking offense at those who suggested problems. “Christian apologists had a ready answer to those shallow-minded critics who made merry over Christ's failure to convert the world and God's failure to protect his saints from persecution and death: God does not work that way, it was explained;...The apostasy described in the New Testament is not desertion of the cause, but perversion of it, a process by which "the righteous are removed, and none perceives it."  -- H. Nibley, When the Lights Went Out.

 

I like “the Nib” as some call him, because he is subtle and not offensive when he takes jabs at us. Note he is writing about the ancient Church of Christ, but he is using present tense for us to pay attention (I added the underlines for emphasis). “The apostolic fathers denounce with feeling the all too popular doctrine that God's church simply cannot fail. All past triumphs, tribulations, and promises, they insist, will count for nothing unless the people now repent and stand firm in a final test that lies just ahead; God's past blessings and covenants, far from being a guarantee of immunity (as many fondly believe) are the very opposite, for "the greater the knowledge we have received, the greater rather is the danger in which we lie." The case of the Jews, to say nothing of the fallen angels, should prove that we are never safe. God will surely allow his people to perish if they continue in the way they are going—he will hasten their dissolution: "Since I called and ye hearkened not . . . therefore I in my turn will laugh at your destruction. . . . For there will come a time when you will call upon me and I shall not hear you.” -- Ibid.

 

Entropy is the degree of disorder found in a system; any system. Entropy is always present. We cannot escape the laws of Nature’s God which includes a constant cycle of decay to more chaos to restoration (and back again). We all have wondered what will become of past teachings of our Chruch which have been removed from us because it creates an eschatological puzzle. The older we get the more we see has changed. Fortunately we have competent managers and great systems of Church governance to maintain as much truth as possible while remaining in the world, but things have changed. Our most famous capitulation to the world was polygamy, but there have been others including a removal of the understanding of fulness of the priesthood, the law of adoption, Adam God, plural mortal expiations, the old temple endowment, female priesthood authority, the nature of translation (i.e. the Three Nephites), prophecies of a latter-day apostasy, general talk around the ward about “the disaster,” visions, angels, speaking in strange angelic tongues including Adamic, the raising of the dead, and spontaneous healings to name a few.

 

Even bDouglas’ 1st cousin-in-law said, Visions serve the Lord’s purposes in preparing men for salvation. By them knowledge is revealed (2 Ne. 4:23), conversions are made (Alma 19: 16), the gospel message is spread abroad, the church organization is perfected (D. & C. 107:93), and righteousness is increased in the hearts of men. And visions are to increase and abound in the last days, for the Lord has promised to pour out his ‘spirit upon all flesh,’ so that ‘old men shall dream dreams,’ and ‘young men shall see visions.’ (Joel 2:28-32.)” (Mormon Doctrine [salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, Inc., 1958], pp. 745, 747.)

 

In the past 5 years, my mind has changed from avid supporter (biggest fanboy) of the Church, to depression (my Church has changed too much!) and back again to ardent supporter. Spencer’s vision, the book of Isaiah, thinkers like Avraham Gileadi and the White Horse prophecy have all contributed to my hope’s restoration. Ephraim will prevail because I believe God. bDouglas himself said D&C 112:24-26 indicates a coming restructuring of the Church of some kind. If you don’t like the word Apostasy use the word chaos, restructuring or entropy because it’s all the same thing.

Edited July 6, 2014 by manofthecloth

[Calm]

" Let's be honest"

Are you claiming someone is being dishonest? That being honest will be a change of pace?

[jwhitlock]

Yes, if Spencer has made up his visions he will be punished like any liar. In his case, it will be more severe because he said he received it from God. However, if he was sincerely deceived by Lucifer, God will deal with him in context. The problem gets deeper because he would have also duped me and John Pontius and a whole bunch of others including my own past skeptical mother. But you must be consistent when evaluating this situation please. If he did receive his visions from God it is our opportunity to learn and if you intentionally refuse to understand it will become a condemnation to you. BTW...satirical calumny is a very bad way to change minds and win hearts (I don't refer to you jWhitlock). It is better to start again in your evaluation with an eye toward the hope it is real and the concept of the seed taught by Alma.

 

"Rather than preaching?" you say. What? When I did offer doctrinal evidence that he may be telling the truth, I got _____silence _________. No response. If it's the problem with the tribe under the ice, I answered that one way back with Brother Lloyd. If it was about Spencer receiving an assignment directly from the Lord, I didn't think you were serious. God rules in the heavens and can assign anyone to any assignment. Call it a field promotion if you like military imagery. No one outranks God and there are no man-imposed rules for Him. By the time Spencer receives his field commission, the gathering to Zion had long-since started. Christ had already been giving the orders to our leaders, to angels, resurrected beings and to translated beings. This order of things represents no change to present day operations. Please remember Spencer had been translated in the vision. That means he was Terrestrial in nature and he had a higher rank than even our Telestial level prophet. That's right. A translated being interacts directly with Christ himself even today. Some folks on this board think this idea is funny (how many times was Spencer mocked about an office in the temple next to our Lord), but they are playing with personal fire and damnation if the visions are true. Did I tell you I liked the book? One of the better details of the vision was the revelations about angels and translated beings. Joseph Smith barely told us anything about this stuff, but the book is a landslide of knowledge compared to what we have known about the subject to this point and none of what he told us contradicts scripture.

 

As I indicated, I have already evaluated "Spencer's" vision and found it to be dubious. In my case, I thought the first part (the NDE) had some potential and actually felt pretty good about it. But when I got to his vision of the times to come, the good feeling left. The Lord used the book to reiterate to me the dangers of getting drawn in by something that just feels good, and thinking it was from the Spirit. The first half and last half provided enough contrast (feel good vs. darkness) in the area of "spiritual" feelings that I was able to determine that something was very wrong with the book.

 

Aside from the inconsistencies and contradictions with doctrine, I haven't been able to determine exactly what "Spencer's" and Pontius's motivations were in all this. But I do know that something is very doubtful about the book and that we have to be very careful in using it as any measuring stick for spirituality or sifting or anything.

 

After thinking about it more, the appeal in the first part of the book is a general thirst that most of us have in knowing what goes on after this life and in having an afterlife validated for us. We can subconsciously ignore the inconsistencies in the details of "Spencer's" NDE because we want the general concept of life after death to be true. So, many people get hooked by the book in the first part, because as a general concept, life after this life just feels good.

 

Pontius and "Spencer" should have stopped with the NDE. The vision part of the book is so dark and inconsistent that it has no real appeal. The people who I know that have read the book said it really started to fall apart for them when they got to that part. It causes the reader to go back and figure out what they were actually experiencing with the first part of the book. In my case, I understood that the general principle of life after death is one to feel inspired by. However, "Spencer's" NDE and vision are a demonstration of something that is so flawed as to be unreliable. It uses the yearning for news of the afterlife to try to set the stage for people to accept, by association, the "vision" that comes after it.

 

Again, something is very, very wrong with the book.

 

Otherwise, no you haven't explained the connection between the keys of the gathering and the Arctic incident adequately. I'd like to see you give it another shot, and also to respond more specifically to the other inconsistencies that have been outlined here. The problem is that you're quoting generalized scriptures as panaceas for dismissing all of those inconsistencies and contradictions without addressing them specifically. That obviously doesn't sit will with some of the people posting here, since they've seen it before - from enemies of the church.

 

Visions can be accepted, but only after they are thoroughly tested for accuracy and truth. We've done that with Joseph Smith, and have also done that with "Spencer" and Pontius. The problem is in the fact that too many of us are finding that VoG falls very, very short in the validity area. Rather than avoiding responding directly to those criticisms, you as a believer in "Spencer" need to address them directly and forthrightly.