Women recieving the priesthood

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

There's a big difference between every word and every revelation.  There are many many revelations that have never even been considered for canonization despite the fact that they were both believed and acted upon.

Like the ban in 2015. It was called revelation and acted upon as a policy. It was never canonized and then disregarded 3 years later. Fortunately it wasn't officially in scripture only to require de-canonization a short time later. That goes back to one of my earlier statements on this thread about how most things in todays church are a matter of policy and rarely has anything to do with official doctrine or revelation beyond a cursory justification for the policy change.

[smac97]

53 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

I just feel like we're asking Christians to pretty pretty please accept us as Christians so we can join in under the "big tent" of Christianity.

I don't think so.  If we wanted that we would be abandoning our claims pertaining to restoration of prophetic and priesthood authority, open canon, temple work, missionary work, and all the other things that we do that are distinctive and unique to us, but which are also big doctrinal burrs under the saddles of our sectarian neighbors.

Quote

Maybe it's my personality, I dont care to much if people accept me.

We are called upon to be disciples of Christ.  If people think you are not a disciple of Christ, and if they think the missionaries are not sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and if they think we have nothing to do with Christ, then they are fundamentally misunderstanding who we are, what we believe and why.  

The most valuable thing we have to share wtih the world is the message of Jesus Christ.  This is, I think, why sectarian anti-Mormons are so keen on misrepresenting us about our beliefs.

Quote

Plus, if god said their creeds are an abomination and professors are corrupt, then that means we're the Christians not them.

We have made no effort to adopt "their creeds."  At all.  

But I reject the notion that we have a monopoly on belief in Christ.  That's just not so.  There are huge numbers of good and decent people who are not Latter-day Saints, but who are profoundly Christian.

Quote

How do you explain that to a Christian. I've tried, they dont see it that way, trust me. 

I reject the notion that they can deny our belief in Christ.

I likewise reject the notion that we can deny their belief in Christ.

Quote

    Never said we're going to give up on core doctrine but I do believe we will add to it. And it's going to be tough for some mormons to handle, that's my personal belief. 

You've suggested that we, in wanting to be known as believers in Christ ("Christians"), have - as you put - "ask{ed} Christians to pretty pretty please accept us as Christians so we can join in under the 'big tent' of Christianity."

I don't think we've done anything like that.  If we were interested in doing so, we would be abandoning the restored doctrines and claims that set us apart.  But we aren't doing that, and there is no indication that we are headed in that direction.

Quote

    As far as what I said about money and the fight that's coming,  I believe logistically, we will need a crap ton of money to fight the onslaught of attacks mormons and more broadly Christians will experience in the future.

What sort of "attacks?"  Are you speaking of lawsuits?  Or actual physical confrontations?

Quote

The mormon church with the brethren and its deep pockets is set up to move many pieces around on the board in the last days.

I don't know what you are referencing here.  What do you mean by "move many pieces around?"  Are you speaking of politicial/governmental "pieces?"  Military?  Economic?

I think the Church has a vital role to play "in the last days," but it will be in its ecclesiastical capacity.

Quote

Not many other Christian churches are set up to do that. As latter day Saints, in the end, we won't be sitting on the couch watching mayhem, will be fighting it on our feet. What's that mean, I dont know, but it will take lots of money, so be grateful that piece is taken care of.

"Fighting it on our feet?"  What do you mean here?  Actual combat?  Are you suggesting that the Church is going to use its financial resources to purchase and deploy weapons of war?

I'm really confused.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 27, 2021 by smac97

[cherryTreez]

25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

When the age for girls to go was 21 I did feel like there was some stigma that a girl only served a mission if she couldn't get married.  It seems like that isn't the case as much since the age is 19 now.

It was 21 when I would have gone. I got married at 21.  I kept praying about going on a mission. I never felt like I got an answer.  I kept waiting and praying  and then met my husband.

   I had people tell me It would be a waste if I went on a mission. My bishop  discouraged the idea of me going. He was very for my friend going. 

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Like the ban in 2015. It was called revelation and acted upon as a policy. It was never canonized and then disregarded 3 years later. Fortunately it wasn't officially in scripture only to require de-canonization a short time later. That goes back to one of my earlier statements on this thread about how most things in todays church are a matter of policy and rarely has anything to do with official doctrine or revelation beyond a cursory justification for the policy change.

Why can't policy, regardless of how long it's in place, be revelation?  

[JLHPROF]

Just now, bluebell said:

Why can't policy, regardless of how long it's in place, be revelation?  

It can be based on revelation but not a revelation unless a revelation accompanies it.  But we cannot study that for ourselves.  We can only take on faith that revelation was involved.

[mfbukowski]

23 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So every revelation from God also has man's fingerprints on it

So is that allegedly good or allegedly bad? 

Of course it has man's fingerprints.

1. God himself has an exalted human nature 

2. Prophets are not God, but except for The Christ they are the closest our definition of prophet allows for. How else ought they be selected?

[AtlanticMike]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think so.  If we wanted that we would be abandoning our claims pertaining to restoration of prophetic and priesthood authority, open canon, temple work, missionary work, and all the other things that we do that are distinctive and unique to us, but which are also big doctrinal burrs under the saddles of our sectarian neighbors.

We are called upon to be disciples of Christ.  If people think you are not a disciple of Christ, and if they think the missionaries are not sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and if they think we have nothing to do with Christ, then they are fundamentally misunderstanding who we are, what we believe and why.  

The most valuable thing we have to share wtih the world is the message of Jesus Christ.  This is, I think, why sectarian anti-Mormons are so keen on misrepresenting us about our beliefs.

We have made no effort to adopt "their creeds."  At all.  

But I reject the notion that we have a monopoly on belief in Christ.  That's just not so.  There are huge numbers of good and decent people who are not Latter-day Saints, but who are profoundly Christian.

I reject the notion that they can deny our belief in Christ.

I likewise reject the notion that we can reject their belief in Christ.

You've suggested that we, in wanting to be known as believers in Christ ("Christians"), have - as you put - "ask{ed} Christians to pretty pretty please accept us as Christians so we can join in under the 'big tent' of Christianity."

I don't think we've done anything like that.  If we were interested in doing so, we would be abandoning the restored doctrines and claims that set us apart.  But we aren't doing that, and there is no indication that we are headed in that direction.

What sort of "attacks?"  Are you speaking of lawsuits?  Or actual physical confrontations?

I don't know what you are referencing here.  What do you mean by "move many pieces around?"  Are you speaking of politicial/governmental "pieces?"  Military?  Economic?

I think the Church has a vital role to play "in the last days," but it will be in its ecclesiastical capacity.

"Fighting it on our feet?"  What do you mean here?  Actual combat?  Are you suggesting that the Church is going to use its financial resources to purchase and deploy weapons of war?

I'm really confused.

Thanks,

-Smac

No I'm not saying actual war as in weapons.  But back in the day mormons believed we were walking to Missouri with carts. I believe at some point we will be called upon to mobilize, not to kill people,  but to let our voices be heard. I dont know how that happens, but I do think we will be involved with many other denominations in this endeavor. 

     I'm not saying they're not Christian's, I'm just saying it's hard to walk into the tent of Christianity and introduce yourself while claiming they're apostates aaand that we are the only Christians who can practice the holy priesthood. That's a tough situation to overcome. 

     We are rejecting their beliefs in christ everytime a missionary knocks on their front door. You might not see it that way but alot of Christian's in my area find it disrespectful for someone to knock on a door unannounced, then offer a gospel that says, hey, your an abomination, come join us. Remember for every convert there's atleast 1000 people who actually shut the door on the missionaries. 

     Finally, if the money isn't for the last days, then what's it for? Because if it's just sitting there for no reason, there's alot of people struggling. And again I'm not talking military anything, as far as church money goes. I just think at some point will be called as LATTER DAY SAINTS to mobilize with other religions to protect the gospel. There's 100s of nonviolent options, I have no idea what it could be, all I know is you cant protect the gospel from a couch, so money will be very important. 

[AtlanticMike]

36 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I love the King Follett Discourse.  I consider it the greatest sermon since Christ on the mount.
But I still think you are expecting rewrites instead of new compositions.

I also love the king follett discourse. It took some big ones to stand up and give that talk. And I think at some point we will see another talk just like it, but probably more profound. 

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Quote

  23 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So every revelation from God also has man's fingerprints on it

So is that allegedly good or allegedly bad? 

Of course it has man's fingerprints.

1. God himself has an exalted human nature 

2. Prophets are not God, but except for The Christ they are the closest our definition of prophet allows for. How else ought they be selected?

Not every revelation has man's fingerprints.  There are those that are open to interpretation and those that are direct communication that don't rely on interpretation anymore than a face to face conversation.  (Even if face to face communication still can lead to misinterpretation.)

[rongo]

31 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Why can't policy, regardless of how long it's in place, be revelation?  

I think then-Elder Oaks' statement in 1988 makes your point. Hair-splitting between doctrine and policy, like we tend to do over the last several years. I think trying to split hairs as a means of fending off concerns or criticism causes other concerns and criticisms. 

“I don’t know that it’s possible to distinguish between policy and doctrine in a church that believes in continuing revelation and sustains its leader as a prophet.” Dallin H. Oaks, interview with the Times-News, June 9, 1988.

ETA: e.g., the current position that the priesthood ban was never doctrine in the Church, but rather, just a policy. The 1949 letter from the First Presidency declared it a doctrine, and I don't think it really works to simply say decades later "we disavow that, and it was never doctrine." It was in 1949, if at no other time. If doctrine is tossed to and fro with changing administrations, like executive order that do and undo, then that doesn't help anything except to try and put out fires in the moment. That's also concerning, that anything we are confident today is doctrine, could conceivably be disavowed later and be declared "not doctrine." 

Edited January 27, 2021 by rongo

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think then-Elder Oaks' statement in 1988 makes your point. Hair-splitting between doctrine and policy, like we tend to do over the last several years. I think trying to split hairs as a means of fending off concerns or criticism causes other concerns and criticisms. 

“I don’t know that it’s possible to distinguish between policy and doctrine in a church that believes in continuing revelation and sustains its leader as a prophet.” Dallin H. Oaks, interview with the Times-News, June 9, 1988.

I have to disagree with Elder Oaks on this one.
Even if a prophet is being led by revelation it's no indication that policies enacted came as a result.  I guarantee God lets them make administrative decisions without revelation in all things.
You have 15 wise experienced Apostles consulting on policies and making the best decisions they can.  Sometimes God intervenes, sometimes they do the best they can.

So yes, there's a distinction.

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think then-Elder Oaks' statement in 1988 makes your point. Hair-splitting between doctrine and policy, like we tend to do over the last several years. I think trying to split hairs as a means of fending off concerns or criticism causes other concerns and criticisms. 

“I don’t know that it’s possible to distinguish between policy and doctrine in a church that believes in continuing revelation and sustains its leader as a prophet.” Dallin H. Oaks, interview with the Times-News, June 9, 1988.

ETA: e.g., the current position that the priesthood ban was never doctrine in the Church, but rather, just a policy. The 1949 letter from the First Presidency declared it a doctrine, and I don't think it really works to simply say decades later "we disavow that, and it was never doctrine." It was in 1949, if at no other time. If doctrine is tossed to and fro with changing administrations, like executive order that do and undo, then that doesn't help anything except to try and put out fires in the moment. That's also concerning, that anything we are confident today is doctrine, could conceivably be disavowed later and be declared "not doctrine." 

Yeah, it's messy.  Life is like that. It was hugely messy back when JS was alive and I don't see any reason to assume it should be less messy with us. 

I don't understand the angst of the "some policies are just policies and some policies are doctrine and some policies are revelation" concept.  What does it really matter (sincere question)? 

Is it only a problem when we are trying to justify why we don't have to follow this policy or believe in this doctrine or agree with this revelation?  

If we remove that need/desire from the equation, does it really matter what is what or for how long it is taught? 

If it's God's will or God condones it, then let's do it, whether it's a policy, a revelation, a revelation that is a policy, doctrine, is in effect for 3 months, 30 years, 300 years, or any other variation of every other possibility.  If it's not of God or condoned by Him, then most of the time we can still do it anyway without any detrimental effects, and God will sort it out in time.   

The miniscule amount that wouldn't be covered by "most of the time" can be handled on a case by case basis by each of us.

[bluebell]

53 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It can be based on revelation but not a revelation unless a revelation accompanies it.  But we cannot study that for ourselves.  We can only take on faith that revelation was involved.

Yes, that's what I'm saying, why can't a policy have been received by revelation? 

And you are right, anyone who is uncomfortable with taking things on faith based on the evidences of their experiences with the Holy Ghost, and needing to be obedient to the counsel of imperfect men and women who are called of God, is going to be very uncomfortable in God's church until they can work that out.  For some, it will be a dealbreaker.  

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

The Lord does seem to allow us to muddle along without, or in our imperfect execution of, revealed doctrine and inspired policy. I think there are good reasons for both, and more good reason, for the purposes of seeking grace, to recognize the Lord's revelation than to ascertain its absence.

Yes, and with an emphasis on muddling and imperfection.  Free agency has both its advantages and disadvantages, but it is a law of the universe, so we will just have to live with it.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

No I'm not saying actual war as in weapons.  But back in the day mormons believed we were walking to Missouri with carts. I believe at some point we will be called upon to mobilize, not to kill people,  but to let our voices be heard. I dont know how that happens, but I do think we will be involved with many other denominations in this endeavor. 

I still don't understand.  What does "let our voices be heard" mean?  What is it that you think we will be spending money to do in the future that we are not doing now?

If you are referring to the idea that the Saints will, in the future, be "walking {back} to Missouri with carts," I don't think that's an accurate depiction of things.  See FAIR's comments here:

Quote

Question: Will Mormons "walk back to Jackson County" before the second coming of Christ?

No, this is a "faith promoting" myth

Graham W. Doxey in the April 1979 Ensign:

Myth #1: We’re going to walk to Missouri to prepare for the Second Coming. Scripture makes it clear that Missouri has a prophetic role to play in the Second Coming and it seems logical that some people will need to go there to assist in portions of that work. But the scriptures contain no references that spell out in detail how that assistance will be given.

One of the quotations I hear frequently repeated is part of a sermon by Joseph F. Smith in 1882: “When God leads the people back to Jackson County, how will he do it? Let me picture to you how some of us may be gathered and led to Jackson County. I think I see two or three hundred thousand people wending their way across the great plain enduring the nameless hardships of the journey, herding and guarding their cattle by day and by night. … This is one way to look at it. It is certainly a practical view. Some might ask, what will become of the railroads? I fear that the sifting process would be insufficient were we to travel by railroads.” (Journal of Discourses, 24:156–57.)

This is a vivid mental picture, but people frequently remember the picture and forget he said “some of us” and “may be gathered.” We should also keep in mind that he said this is “one way to look at it,” remembering also the perspective of 1882. From our perspective in 1979, it seems even less likely that we would sell our automobiles and herd cattle along our freeway systems. But we simply have no scriptural information about who—if any general Church members—will be called to go back and the means that they might use. The prophets of our day have not found it timely or necessary to speak on the matter. ^[1]

Graham W. Doxey, "Missouri Myths," Ensign (April 1979)

And here (same link) :

Quote

Question: Will all Mormons return to Jackson county before the second coming?

No, this is a "faith promoting" myth

Graham W. Doxey in the April 1979 Ensign:

Myth #2: The entire Church will be gathered to Missouri. Here recent prophets have been quite specific. President Spencer W. Kimball said in October Conference, 1978: “We are building up the strength of Zion—her cords or stakes—throughout the world. Therefore, we counsel our people to remain in their native lands and gather out the elect of God and teach them the ways of the Lord. There temples are being built and the saints will be blessed wherever they live in all the world.” (Ensign, Nov. 1978, p. 76.)

During the time of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, it was essential for members of the Church to “gather to Zion” for their own spiritual and physical safety. But now that temples, welfare proJects, educational facilities, genealogical research libraries, and the blessings of a full church organization in stakes are available, this gathering is no longer required or wise. And although the Church purchased some Clay County land last December, it was solely for investment purposes—not for other Church use. At a general conference, President Harold B. Lee stressed the point made by Elder Bruce R. McConkie at the Mexico City Area Conference: “‘The place of gathering for the Mexican Saints is in Mexico; … and so it goes throughout the length and breadth of the whole earth. Japan is for the Japanese; Korea is for the Koreans; Australia is for the Australians; every nation is the gathering place for its own people.’” (Ensign, July 1973, p. 5.)

Of course, there will be special functions of the temple in Jackson County, but worldwide gatherings of the Saints to Missouri may not be necessary, or desired—after all, the mission of members is to always share the gospel with the nonmembers who surround them throughout the world, and this activity will undoubtedly continue after the Second Coming. Elder Harold B. Lee further cautioned the Saints in all lands to be guided by the current prophet, not by rumor or supposition, and “look forward to the instruction that shall come to them from the First Presidency of this Church as to where they shall be gathered and not be disturbed in their feelings until such instruction is given to them as it is revealed by the Lord to the proper authority” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1948, p. 55).

And here (same link) :

Quote

Question: Will there be immense destruction in Jackson County before the second coming of Christ?

This may have already taken place, or it is yet to occur

Graham W. Doxey in the April 1979 Ensign:

Myth #3: But won’t there be immense destructions in Missouri preceding the Second Coming, so extensive that “not a yellow dog will be left to wag his tail”? It’s true that destruction throughout the earth is one of the conditions prior to the Second Coming. Yet as far as destruction in Missouri is concerned there are two schools of thought among members.

One believes that it has already taken place. Elder B. H. Roberts published a reported prophecy of Joseph Smith to Alexander Doniphan, his lawyer in Missouri. According to Doniphan’s brother-in-law, writing the incident over seventy years after it occurred, Joseph Smith warned Doniphan that “‘God’s wrath hangs over Jackson County … and you will live to see the day when it will be visited by fire and sword. The fields and farms and houses will be destroyed, and only the chimneys will be left to mark the desolation.’

“General Doniphan said to me,” his brother-in-law continued, “that the devastation of Jackson county [during the Civil War] forcibly reminded him of this remarkable prediction.” Elder Roberts cites additional descriptions of Jackson County’s role during the Civil War as fulfillment of this prophecy. (See Comprehensive History of the Church, 1:538–59; italics added.)

The other school of thought on the so-called “yellow dog” prophecy is that some members feel it is yet to occur. However, a study of the supposed source of the prophecy is helpful. It seems to have originated in a conversation between Heber C. Kimball and Amanda H. Wilcox in Salt Lake City in May 1868. She reports him as saying, “The western boundries of the State of Missouri will be swept so clean of its inhabitants that, as President Young tells us, when we return to that place, ‘There will not be left so much as a yellow dog to wag his tail.’” (Prophetic Sayings of Heber C. Kimball to Sister Amanda H. Wilcox, n.p., n.d., p. 6.)

There seem to be a number of questions about the authenticity of this account since Heber C. Kimball was apparently in Provo, not Salt Lake, during the month of May. Also, no other record exists of Brigham Young making a similar statement. However, it is sufficiently similar to Joseph Smith’s statements, except for the “yellow dog,” that someone may have remembered the original substance but in the retelling allowed embellishment to creep in.

I believe the Church and its members will have extremely important things to do in the winding up scene.  For example, I believe this will happen:

Quote

Adam-Ondi-Ahman

Adam-ondi-Ahman, a settlement in Daviess County, Missouri, received its unusual name from the Prophet Joseph Smith in 1838 when Latter-day Saints were moving into the area. Members of the Church had been forced out of Jackson County, Missouri, in 1833 after three years of temporary asylum, and were subsequently asked to leave Clay County. When they appealed to the state legislature to make a new county "for Mormons," Caldwell and Daviess counties were organized. The Saints immediately moved into Caldwell County with Far West as the county seat, and soon also began settling in adjoining Daviess County. In May 1838 Joseph Smith led surveyors to a horseshoe bend of the Grand River, seventy miles north of present-day Kansas City, and proclaimed a new community, which he named Adam-ondi-Ahman because, said he, "it is the place where Adam shall come to visit his people, or the Ancient of Days shall sit, as spoken of by Daniel the Prophet" (HC 3:35; D&C 116). Orson Pratt interpreted the name to mean "Valley of God, where Adam dwelt" (JD 18:343).

The Prophet's revelations indicated several things about the area: (1) the Garden of Eden was located in Jackson County, Missouri, and after Adam was expelled from the garden, he went north to Adam-ondi-Ahman; (2) three years before Adam's death, he gathered the righteous of his posterity to Adam-ondi-Ahman and bestowed upon them his last blessing; (3) this site would be the location of a future meeting of the Lord with Adam and the Saints, as spoken of by the prophet Daniel (Dan. 7:9-14, 21-27;12:1-3).

See also here:

Quote

The great meeting of the priesthood which was prophecied by Daniel to take place in the valley of Adam-Ondi-Ahman will be one of the most momentous occasions in the history of the earth. In this great convocation the leaders of all the dispensations of the gospel will report their stewardships to Father Adam. Adam will then report to the Savior, turning his stewardship of the earth over to the Master, who, according to the established order of the Priesthood, will begin to reign on the earth as King of kings and Lord of lords.

President Joseph Fielding Smith, in The Way to Perfection, p.290-291, described that councel in the following terms:

“This council in the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman is to be of the greatest importance to this world. At that time there will be a transfer of authority from the usurper and impostor, Lucifer, to the rightful King, Jesus Christ. Judgment will be set and all who have held keys will make their reports and deliver their stewardships, as they shall be required. Adam will direct this judgment, and then he will make his report, as the one holding the keys for this earth, to his Superior Officer, Jesus Christ. Our Lord will then assume the reins of government; directions will be given to the Priesthood; and He, whose right it is to rule, will be installed officially by the voice of the Priesthood there assembled. This grand council of Priesthood will be composed, not only of those who are faithful who now dwell on this earth, but also of the prophets and apostles of old, who have had directing authority. Others may also be there, but if so they will be there by appointment, for this is to be an official council called to attend to the most momentous matters concerning the destiny of this earth.”

We understand that this meeting will go unnoticed by the world. Even members of the Church who are not invited to attend may not be aware of it.

And here:

Quote

His first coming will be to his temple which is yet to be constructed in Jackson County, Missouri. Concerning this event, Joseph Smith prophecied,

“The coming of the Messiah among this people will be so natural, that only those who see Him will know that He has come, but He will come and give His laws unto Zion, and minister unto His people. This will not be His coming in the clouds of heaven to take vengeance on the wicked of the world. (Prophecy recorded by Edwin Rushton and Theodore Turley).

In describing this event, Charles W. Penrose said the following:

“…the Lord will make his appearance first; and that appearance will be unknown to the rest of mankind. He will come to the Temple prepared for him, and his faithful people will behold his face, hear his voice, and gaze upon his glory. From his own lips they will receive further instruction for the development and beautifying of Zion and for the extension and sure stability of his Kingdom.” (Millennial Star, Sept. 10, 1859).

The second appearance will be at Adam-ondi-Ahman, where the Savior will appear to take his rightful jurisdiction as the ruler of the earth. According to President Joseph Fielding Smith,

“Adam-ondi-Ahman …was in this valley where Adam called together the faithful of his posterity three years before his death and blessed them. (D&C 107:53.) It will be in this same valley where the Ancient of Days shall sit at the grand gathering of the worthies who have held keys of the dispensations, and where Adam will make his report, likewise all others who have been given keys, and our Savior shall be crowned King of kings and take his place as the rightful ruler of the earth.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Church History and Modern Revelation, Vol 3, p.118).

And here:

Quote

The city of New Jerusalem (or Zion (Article of Faith 10)) is but one city in the expanding land of Zion. Independence, Missouri, rather than being labeled Zion, is “the center place”, “the place for the city of Zion” (D&C 57:1-3). From there the Zion expands like a massive tent with “stakes” scattered around the world (see D&C 133:9 and Moroni 10:31). Note that one of these early stakes was the city of Kirtland, so we are dealing with the community and culture of Zion and not simply a single city. Each of these stakes are embassy cities of Zion where the citizens are subject to Zion law (D&C 68:26) and in return receive Zion protection and blessings (D&C 115:6). All this to say, that the principles to building up Zion are the same for the city of New Jerusalem and the stakes. As Elder McConkie says:

“A stake of Zion is a part of Zion. You cannot create a stake of Zion without creating a part of Zion. Zion is the pure in heart; we gain purity of heart by baptism and by obedience. A stake has geographical boundaries. To create a stake is like founding a City of Holiness. Every stake on earth is the gathering place for the lost sheep of Israel who live in its area” (Come, Let Israel Build Zion. Ensign April 1977).

As the Lord revealed more to the prophet Joseph about establishing the foundations of Zion, He explained that “the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints” (D&C 84:4). This principle of gathering serves two purposes, as explained by Elder McConkie.

“Two things are accomplished by the gathering of Israel: First, those who have thus chosen Christ as their Shepherd; those who have taken upon themselves his name in the waters of baptism; those who are seeking to enjoy his Spirit here and now and to be inheritors of eternal life hereafter—such people need to be gathered together to strengthen each other and to help one another perfect their lives.

 

“And second, those who are seeking the highest rewards in eternity need to be where they can receive the blessings of the house of the Lord, both for themselves and for their ancestors in Israel who died without a knowledge of the gospel, but who would have received it with all their heart had opportunity afforded” (Come, Let Israel Build Zion. Ensign April 1977).

While the early saints enjoyed physical proximity, they struggled to live other principles of gathering. For instance, the Kirtland temple was the 2nd temple announced (after Independence) and the Nauvoo temple was the 5th temple announced (after Far West and Adam-ondi-Ahman). This was rectified after the journey west when the saints were unmolested and able to build the necessary temple culture.

Today, we live in a period where the saints are encouraged to gather to their local Zion stakes and build a Zion culture there. This, then, brings us back to your question. When the time comes to build New Jerusalem, will it be the place of gathering, leaving periphery stakes abandoned, or will it be one of many places of gathering – and extension of the direction the Lord’s servants have given us today? I don’t know, and I suspect that it will remain unrevealed until we are called upon redeem Zion and build the city. 

I think we still have a lot to learn about what will happen, and how, and when.  I'm not sure how much of a role the Church's finances will play in any of this, though.  In times of tumult, the balance in a bank account doesn't do much.

5 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

     I'm not saying they're not Christian's, I'm just saying it's hard to walk into the tent of Christianity and introduce yourself while claiming they're apostates aaand that we are the only Christians who can practice the holy priesthood. That's a tough situation to overcome. 

Hence the effort to be neighborly.

5 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

     We are rejecting their beliefs in christ everytime a missionary knocks on their front door.

Well, no.  You are acting as if there is no overlap between their beliefs and ours.  I submit that most devout Christians would agree with us on many vital beliefs regarding Jesus Christ.  Many, but not all.  Hence this wise counsel from Pres. Hinckley:

Quote

Essence of Missionary Service

“Let me say that we appreciate the truth in all churches and the good which they do. We say to the people, in effect, you bring with you all the good that you have, and then let us see if we can add to it. That is the spirit of this work. That is the essence of our missionary service” (meeting, Nairobi, Kenya, 17 Feb. 1998).

Also, consider this comment by then-Elder Oaks (emphases added) :

Quote

All of the messages of this conference help us follow in the footsteps of our Savior, whose example and teachings define the path for every follower of Jesus Christ.

Like all other Christians, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints study the life of our Savior as reported in the New Testament books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I will review examples and teachings contained in these four books of the Holy Bible and invite each of us and all other Christians to consider how this restored Church and each of us qualify as followers of Christ.
...
Jesus taught that “men ought always to pray” (Luke 18:1). He also set that example, such as when He “continued all night in prayer to God” (Luke 6:12) before He called His Twelve Apostles. Like other Christians, we pray in all our worship services. We also pray for guidance, and we teach that we should have frequent personal prayers and daily kneeling prayers as a family. Like Jesus, we pray to our Father in Heaven, and we do so in the sacred name of Jesus Christ.

And this more recent (2018) statement from Pres. Oaks (emphasis added) :

Quote

I am grateful to speak to this audience on Easter Sunday. Today we join other Christians in celebrating the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. For members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the literal Resurrection of Jesus Christ is a pillar of our faith.

And this 1998 New Era article ("Are Mormons Christians") :

Quote

If you live in Utah, you may be surprised. If you live where Latter-day Saints are a minority, you’ve probably heard it before—perhaps many times. But there are sincere people out there who believe the Latter-day Saints aren’t Christians. In fact, the accusation that we are not Christians is probably the most commonly heard criticism of the LDS Church and its doctrines today.

Why would anyone say such a thing? Isn’t the name of our church The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Do we not worship Christ? Is not the Book of Mormon another testament of Jesus Christ? How could anyone seriously doubt that Latter-day Saints are Christians?
...
There are a number of arguments used supposedly to “prove” that we are not Christian. It is important to recognize that none of them have anything to do with whether or not Latter-day Saints believe in Jesus Christ. Rather, what they basically boil down to is this: Latter-day Saints are different from the other Christian churches. (We understand that these differences exist because traditional Christianity has wandered from the truth over the centuries, but other denominations see things otherwise.) 
...
If the term Christian is used, as it is in standard English, to mean someone who accepts Jesus Christ as the divine Son of God and the Savior of the world, then the charge that we aren’t Christians is false. However, if the word Christian is given an overly narrow definition, then it is merely a way of saying LDS Christians differ in some degree from other Christians. No one “owns” the term Christian or has the right to deny it to others who worship Jesus as the divine Son of God.
...
One of the problems with this canonical exclusion lies in the assumption that there is only one “traditional” Christian Bible. Over the centuries, there have been a number of different versions of the Bible, and many Christian churches and individuals have disagreed about which books should be included. Even today, the Bible used by Catholics contains a number of different books than the Bible used by Protestants. Yet Catholics and Protestants continue to call each other Christians—even though they have different canons of scripture.

And this Newsroom article:

Quote

Confusion sometimes arises over whether Latter-day Saints are Christians due to doctrinal differences from those beliefs that have typically defined many other Christian churches. For example, Latter-day Saints believe that God the Father loves, weeps and rejoices with a sympathetic heart (Moses 7:28-33). They believe that the Trinity (God the Father, Christ the Son and the Holy Ghost) are three distinct personages (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22). Latter-day Saints also believe that Christ established a church during His mortal ministry, but over time its line of priestly authority, as well as certain important teachings, were lost. For this reason, they believe God called a prophet, Joseph Smith, to reestablish Christ’s church of ancient times — hence the name, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (or, followers in these present times). This included reinstating living “apostles and prophets” (Ephesians 2:20). Their belief in an open canon and additional scripture — the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price — also set them apart from other Christians.

And this 2013 Newsroom article (emphasis added) :

Quote

Mormons Join Other Christians Around The World to Celebrate Easter

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints celebrates Easter with the rest of the Christian world this weekend, remembering the Atonement and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

And this:

Quote

The Church of the Latter Day Saints (1834–1838)

The restored Church of Christ was not the only body of Christian believers called by the name “the Church of Christ.” Some Congregational churches in New England called themselves by this name, and professing Christians sometimes referred to themselves collectively as the church of Christ. To help the Saints distinguish themselves from other Christians, elders at a conference at Kirtland, Ohio, voted on May 3, 1834, to change the name of the Church to “the Church of the Latter Day Saints.” Besides lending clarity, the new name also distanced the Church from the terms “Mormon” and “Mormonite” used by opponents of the Church.

And here:

Quote

Like other Christians, Latter-day Saints recognize that without the Savior’s atoning sacrifice and His victorious Resurrection, His birth in Bethlehem would not mean all that it does today.

And on and on.

We have never claimed to be the only Christians on the earth.  

5 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

You might not see it that way but alot of Christian's in my area find it disrespectful for someone to knock on a door unannounced, then offer a gospel that says, hey, your an abomination, come join us.

Oh, come on.  Our missionaries say nothing like this.

5 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

     Finally, if the money isn't for the last days, then what's it for?

I never said "the money isn't for the last days."  I'm saying it's not for weapons.  Or getting everyone to Missouri.

You brought the topic up, and I am not sure I understand what you are meaning by it.

5 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Because if it's just sitting there for no reason, there's alot of people struggling.

The Church isn't in the habit of doing important things "for no reason."  I encourage you to listen to this.  D. Michael Quinn has some interesting observations about the Church's finances.

5 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

And again I'm not talking military anything, as far as church money goes. I just think at some point will be called as LATTER DAY SAINTS to mobilize with other religions to protect the gospel.

"Protect" in what sense?  What is it that you are saying we will be called upon to do in the future that we are not doing now?

5 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

There's 100s of nonviolent options, I have no idea what it could be, all I know is you cant protect the gospel from a couch, so money will be very important. 

Money spent on . . . what?

Thanks,

-Smac

[AtlanticMike]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I still don't understand.  What does "let our voices be heard" mean?  What is it that you think we will be spending money to do in the future that we are not doing now?

If you are referring to the idea that the Saints will, in the future, be "walking {back} to Missouri with carts," I don't think that's an accurate depiction of things.  See FAIR's comments here:

And here (same link) :

And here (same link) :

I believe the Church and its members will have extremely important things to do in the winding up scene.  For example, I believe this will happen:

See also here:

And here:

And here:

I think we still have a lot to learn about what will happen, and how, and when.  I'm not sure how much of a role the Church's finances will play in any of this, though.  In times of tumult, the balance in a bank account doesn't do much.

Hence the effort to be neighborly.

Well, no.  You are acting as if there is no overlap between their beliefs and ours.  I submit that most devout Christians would agree with us on many vital beliefs regarding Jesus Christ.  Many, but not all.  Hence this wise counsel from Pres. Hinckley:

Also, consider this comment by then-Elder Oaks (emphases added) :

And this more recent (2018) statement from Pres. Oaks (emphasis added) :

And this 1998 New Era article ("Are Mormons Christians") :

And this Newsroom article:

And this 2013 Newsroom article (emphasis added) :

And this:

And here:

And on and on.

We have never claimed to be the only Christians on the earth.  

Oh, come on.  Our missionaries say nothing like this.

I never said "the money isn't for the last days."  I'm saying it's not for weapons.  Or getting everyone to Missouri.

You brought the topic up, and I am not sure I understand what you are meaning by it.

The Church isn't in the habit of doing important things "for no reason."  I encourage you to listen to this.  D. Michael Quinn has some interesting observations about the Church's finances.

"Protect" in what sense?  What is it that you are saying we will be called upon to do in the future that we are not doing now?

Money spent on . . . what?

Thanks,

-Smac

Ok ok ok ok ok, you win🤣  there's no way I can respond to all that from a Samsung galaxy a10e, you totally overwhelmed me with this last post, so I'm just picking maybe 2. You asked "money spent on what?" Again I dont know!  But if this is the restored gospel and we are here as latter day Saints, then what does that mean in the latter days, is there no action involved in being latter day Saint in the latter days? I grew up listening to pres Benson telling us that we will be called upon in the latter days to protect the gospel, I dont know what that means, if I did I wouldn't be a roofer on the east coast, I would probably be sitting in the church office building. But whatever it means, it will involve money and also people with great organizational skills until christ returns. To take a guess, at one option, maybe instead of Missouri like they thought 60 years ago, maybe Saints and other Christians will be called to move to , I dont know, let's say Utah or possibly still Missouri. If something like that happens it will take billions of dollars. Houses, roads, sewer, water, hospitals, schools, and so and so on. Have you never considered what happens in the latter days. You almost make the church seem like a social club, and please dont take that wrong. All I mean is if we're actually latter day Saints, at some point, don't we have to act, whatever that may be?

    You said " we have never claimed to be the only Christians on the earth". True, but we do believe we're the only correct Christians on earth, that's why we dont accept baptisms from other Christian faiths. 

   Also, thank you taking the time to write all this out man. I've learned alot from your post. I just wanted you to know that. Now, I'm done for today,my wife is on here and she's going to put me in time out when I get home. Hopefully I get to keep my phone😁

 

[ksfisher]

17 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

I grew up listening to pres Benson telling us that we will be called upon in the latter days to protect the gospel, I dont know what that means, if I did I wouldn't be a roofer on the east coast, I would probably be sitting in the church office building. But whatever it means, it will involve money and also people with great organizational skills until christ returns. To take a guess, at one option, maybe instead of Missouri like they thought 60 years ago, maybe Saints and other Christians will be called to move to , I dont know, let's say Utah or possibly still Missouri. If something like that happens it will take billions of dollars.

Protecting the gospel could mean something as simple as living the gospel in your home, keeping the covenants you have made, and teaching your children to do the same.

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Ok ok ok ok ok, you win🤣  there's no way I can respond to all that from a Samsung galaxy a10e, you totally overwhelmed me with this last post, so I'm just picking maybe 2. You asked "money spent on what?" Again I dont know! 

Okay.  

15 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

But if this is the restored gospel and we are here as latter day Saints, then what does that mean in the latter days, is there no action involved in being latter day Saint in the latter days?

I really don't understand this.  According to the last statistical report provided by the Church in April 2020, the Church has:

• 3,437 stakes;
• 399 missions;
• 542 districts;
• 30,940 wards/branches;
• 16,565,036 members (with several hundred thousand added each year through "children of record" and convert baptisms) ;
• 67,021 full-time missionaries;
• 31,333 Church-service missionaries; and
• 167 operating temples.

The Church also has BYU, BYU-Idaho, BYU-Hawaii, and a very large seminaries/institutes program, and a few other educational endeavors outside the U.S.  

The Church also has huge welfare and food production programs.

And a huge humanitarian outreach program.

And a huge family history and geneology program.

And thousands of buildings.

And meanwhile, the members of the Church are spending considerable amounts of volunteer time in serving in the Church, and in communities and neighborhoods. 

The members are also attending religious services on Sundays, and in the temples. 

They are also spending time studying the Gospel, teaching it to their families, doing family history work, volunteering in humanitarian efforts, and otherwise working to strengthen ties with friends and families.

A common criticism I see is that the Church asks too much of its members.  So I'm sort of befuddled at your suggestion that "there no action involved in being latter day Saint in the latter days."

What is it that we are not doing that you think we should be doing?

15 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

I grew up listening to pres Benson telling us that we will be called upon in the latter days to protect the gospel, I dont know what that means, if I did I wouldn't be a roofer on the east coast, I would probably be sitting in the church office building. But whatever it means, it will involve money and also people with great organizational skills until christ returns. 

I can't recall Pres. Benson saying this ("protect the gospel").  However, I think it means sharing the Gospel, defending it (rhetorically) against its critics, and living it as best we can.

Meanwhile, as for the Church's use of its sacred funds, the money is not just sitting there for "no reason."

15 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

To take a guess, at one option, maybe instead of Missouri like they thought 60 years ago, maybe Saints and other Christians will be called to move to , I dont know, let's say Utah or possibly still Missouri.

I encourage you to take time to review my previous post.  The "we're all going to end up moving back to Missouri" thing is almost entirely a myth and rumor.

15 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

If something like that happens it will take billions of dollars. Houses, roads, sewer, water, hospitals, schools, and so and so on. Have you never considered what happens in the latter days.

I have.  I'm content to let the Brethren manage the finances of the Church.  What you are alluding to here seem way to speculative and fanciful.

15 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

You almost make the church seem like a social club, and please dont take that wrong. All I mean is if we're actually latter day Saints, at some point, don't we have to act, whatever that may be?

I really don't understand what you are saying here.  What is it that you think the Church (institutionally) and its members (individually and collectively) should be doing that we are not now doing?

15 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

    You said " we have never claimed to be the only Christians on the earth". True, but we do believe we're the only correct Christians on earth, that's why we dont accept baptisms from other Christian faiths. 

I don't know what "correct Christians" means here.

I believe in the Church's claims of priesthood authority, yes.  But I don't deny the robust Christianity that is in the hearts and lives of many millions of Catholics, Protestants, etc.

15 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

   Also, thank you taking the time to write all this out man. I've learned alot from your post. I just wanted you to know that. Now, I'm done for today,my wife is on here and she's going to put me in time out when I get home. Hopefully I get to keep my phone.

Okey doke.

Thanks,

-Smac

[AtlanticMike]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  

I really don't understand this.  According to the last statistical report provided by the Church in April 2020, the Church has:

• 3,437 stakes;
• 399 missions;
• 542 districts;
• 30,940 wards/branches;
• 16,565,036 members (with several hundred thousand added each year through "children of record" and convert baptisms) ;
• 67,021 full-time missionaries;
• 31,333 Church-service missionaries; and
• 167 operating temples.

The Church also has BYU, BYU-Idaho, BYU-Hawaii, and a very large seminaries/institutes program, and a few other educational endeavors outside the U.S.  

The Church also has huge welfare and food production programs.

And a huge humanitarian outreach program.

And a huge family history and geneology program.

And thousands of buildings.

And meanwhile, the members of the Church are spending considerable amounts of volunteer time in serving in the Church, and in communities and neighborhoods. 

The members are also attending religious services on Sundays, and in the temples. 

They are also spending time studying the Gospel, teaching it to their families, doing family history work, volunteering in humanitarian efforts, and otherwise working to strengthen ties with friends and families.

A common criticism I see is that the Church asks too much of its members.  So I'm sort of befuddled at your suggestion that "there no action involved in being latter day Saint in the latter days."

What is it that we are not doing that you think we should be doing?

I can't recall Pres. Benson saying this ("protect the gospel").  However, I think it means sharing the Gospel, defending it (rhetorically) against its critics, and living it as best we can.

Meanwhile, as for the Church's use of its sacred funds, the money is not just sitting there for "no reason."

I encourage you to take time to review my previous post.  The "we're all going to end up moving back to Missouri" thing is almost entirely a myth and rumor.

I have.  I'm content to let the Brethren manage the finances of the Church.  What you are alluding to here seem way to speculative and fanciful.

I really don't understand what you are saying here.  What is it that you think the Church (institutionally) and its members (individually and collectively) should be doing that we are not now doing?

I don't know what "correct Christians" means here.

I believe in the Church's claims of priesthood authority, yes.  But I don't deny the robust Christianity that is in the hearts and lives of many millions of Catholics, Protestants, etc.

Okey doke.

Thanks,

-Smac

Oh well, I'll go in time out tomorrow, I have to respond😁. First, I have a question, please dont respond if you dont want to. Are you an attorney? You write like an attorney. That's a compliment by the way.

      First, I'm not talking about our daily lives as latter day Saints. You started out with listing church holdings and what we do as members, so what! All churches do the same. The seventh day Adventist started out roughly the same time period and they have 4 million more members worldwide, they also have buildings and hospitals, billions of dollars, not that bid of a deal. What I'm talking about is the latter days, months or maybe a year before the 2nd coming. At some point there will come a time when we will have to take some kind of physical action, I dont know what it will be. The Jews had to physically move, so did the early Saints, multiple times. Sitting behind a computer or on a couch will not be enough to usher in the latter days. If you think it is, then we're just another religion, or possibly a big expensive social club. 

    You say Missouri is almost entirely myth or rumor. Your down playing what millions upon millions of mormons believed for most of Mormonisms existence,  people like my mom and dad. As a kid I remember thinking at some point I will be walking to Missouri. This was a major part of the mormon experience, to write it off as a myth I dont understand. What else do you want to consider myth? How about zelph, is that a myth? When I looked at the hill cumorah as a teenager and wondered how many people died on that hill, should I consider that a myth? Maybe its actually in south America, who knows, right?

   Correct Christians-  what I mean is when christ died, soon after, the gospel was taken from the earth. We believe that the true gospel of jesus christ had to be restored obviously. I also believe a robust Christianity exist in many religions. I also believe we can learn alot from other religions. But Brigham young did say that  "Brother Taylor has just said that the religions of the day were hatched in hell.The eggs were laid in hell, hatched on its borders, and then kicked on to the earth". Can you tell me what that quote means please?

   You say my belief that there might be a huge event that might cause the brethren to have to spend a lot of money because of the turmoil before the second coming, really?!?! You called it fanciful, really? You seem to be writing off a lot of older mormon beliefs. Can you tell me what the second coming will look like? Is it going to be peaceful?

[teddyaware]

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Wait. What? Are you saying it's dangerous to run the church by common consent as instructed in canonized scripture? If so, it would seem to make sense that the brethren change that and canonize the change. Otherwise people are left to decide for themselves what is legit commandment and what isn't, and then make up rationalizations for their POV.

Explain to me why God would want to instruct his church "under the radar"? Is it to avoid mean people saying mean things? Come on, man.

Regarding the bold. Honestly, I think that was the primary message of the First Vision account. Man can communicate with God directly and doesn't need a middle man, yet the church has established a hierarchy of middle men and is trying to play it both ways.

If God wants the truth known I don't think he'd be afraid of what people may say. Was he afraid of men in generations past? There was a lot of iniquity in antiquity, no?

 

I will now demonstrate how today’s prophet’s are disseminating revelation to the Church, but doing so “under the radar” so that members who have “ears to hear” may learn and understand what the Lord is saying to the Church without generating great controversy.

In the April 2020 General Conference President Russell testified...

We live in the day that “our forefathers have awaited with anxious expectation.” We have front-row seats to witness live what the prophet Nephi saw only in vision, that “the power of the Lamb of God” would descend upon the covenant people of the Lord, who were scattered upon all the face of the earth; and they were armed with righteousness and with the power of God in great glory.

In preceding excerpt from his conference address, Hear Him (yes that’s right — hear HIM!), President Russell quotes the prophet Nephi who learned in his great apocalyptic vision that at a certain point in time in the latter-days the power of the Lamb of God would descend upon the members of the Church in great power and glory. Most significantly, President Russell told his listeners that THEY are going to be the generation who would see the literal fulfillment of what Nephi saw only in vision, for they will see the fulfillment with their own eyes. Here is the verse as it appears in the Book of Mormon:

14 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld the power of the Lamb of God, that it descended upon the saints of the church of the Lamb, and upon the covenant people of the Lord, who were scattered upon all the face of the earth; and they were armed with righteousness and with the power of God in great glory. (1 Nephi 14:14)

But here’s the thing: for those members with the Spirit of revelation who are familiar with Nephi’s vision (I’m one of them), they realize that the verse immediately prior to verse 14 says...

13 And it came to pass that I beheld that the great mother of abominations did gather together multitudes upon the face of all the earth, among all the nations of the Gentiles, to fight against the Lamb of God. (1 Nephi 14:13) 

Those with ears to hear (unlike those who insist on being spoon fed) immediately realized that if President Nelson is testifying that we are going to be eye witnesses to the literal fulfillment of the events in verse 14, that means we are also going to be eye witnesses to the literal fulfillment of the dreadful prophecy found in verse 13 which states that the nations of the entire world are going to unite in the common cause of the destruction of the restored Church of Jesus Christ.

By flying under the radar, as it were, President Nelson was able to inform the members of Church with the Spirit of revelation to prepare themselves and their families for the long prophesied day of persecution and tribulation that would descend upon the saints to test their faith, courage and resolve before the day when those who successfully endure the persecution in righteousness will be endowed with power of the Lamb of God in great glory. .

So there you have it. But be warned, this is the only time I’m going to allow you to see what I see. You’re on your own from here on out.

Edited January 28, 2021 by teddyaware

[Rain]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

I will now demonstrate how today’s prophet’s are disseminating revelation to the Church, but doing so “under the radar” so that members who have “ears to hear” may learn and understand what the Lord is saying to the Church without generating great controversy.

In the April 2020 General Conference President Russell testified...

We live in the day that “our forefathers have awaited with anxious expectation.” We have front-row seats to witness live what the prophet Nephi saw only in vision, that “the power of the Lamb of God” would descend upon the covenant people of the Lord, who were scattered upon all the face of the earth; and they were armed with righteousness and with the power of God in great glory.

In preceding excerpt from his conference address, Hear Him (yes that’s right — hear HIM!), President Russell quotes the prophet Nephi who learned in his great apocalyptic vision that at a certain point in time in the latter-days the power of the Lamb of God would descend upon the members of the Church in great power and glory. Most significantly, President Russell told his listeners that THEY are going to be the generation who would see the literal fulfillment of what Nephi saw only in vision, for they will see the fulfillment with their own eyes. Here is the verse as it appears in the Book of Mormon:

14 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld the power of the Lamb of God, that it descended upon the saints of the church of the Lamb, and upon the covenant people of the Lord, who were scattered upon all the face of the earth; and they were armed with righteousness and with the power of God in great glory. (1 Nephi 14:14)

But here’s the thing: for those members with the Spirit of revelation who are familiar with Nephi’s vision (I’m one of them), they realize that the verse immediately prior to verse 14 says...

13 And it came to pass that I beheld that the great mother of abominations did gather together multitudes upon the face of all the earth, among all the nations of the Gentiles, to fight against the Lamb of God. (1 Nephi 14:13) 

Those with ears to hear (unlike those who insist on being spoon fed) immediately realized that if President Nelson is testifying that we are going to be eye witnesses to the literal fulfillment of the events in verse 14, that means we are also going to be eye witnesses to the literal fulfillment of the dreadful prophecy found in verse 13 which states that the nations of the entire world are going to unite in the common cause of the destruction of the restored Church of Jesus Christ.

By flying under the radar, as it were, President Nelson was able to inform the members of Church with the Spirit of revelation to prepare themselves and their families for the long prophesied day of persecution and tribulation that would descend upon the saints to test their faith, courage and resolve before the day when those who successfully endure the persecution in righteousness will be endowed with power of the Lamb of God in great glory. .

So there you have it. But be warned, this is the only time I’m going to allow you to see what I see. You’re on your own from here on out.

It's funny about the scriptures etc that you talk about.  I used to have a far different view than I do now. Then I met the founders of a refugee organization and have found all this refugee stuff fits those scriptures as well.

But I'm thinking "I missed the refugees as part of the last days. What else am I missing?"

I suspect that there is far more to it than what a lot of us have invisioned and in a much different way.  

[AtlanticMike]

On 1/26/2021 at 3:09 PM, Ahab said:

Try this.  First, get yourself ordained to the office of a bishop.  You'll likely need some men to help you with that.  Then, when you are a bishop, become a female.  Ask some doctors, or God, to help you with that.

THEN we'll see how long you will remain a bishop.

Your an interesting fellow, and I still love ya buddy! Again, my opinion is in the next 30 years women will receive the priesthood, they will hold priesthood offices and give priesthood blessings. A year ago women were allowed to become official witnesses at baptisms, they play a more prominent role in the temple. It's already started my man. It's going to be baby steps at first, but at some point, there will be women with priesthood authority. There's a good chance current church history or current written scripture will not play a role in the final decision to give women priesthood Authority. I think it will come through new scripture personally, not contradicting current scripture but clarifying or just plain adding to what we know now. That's the ultimate benefit of an open canon, not making little policy changes here and there. Personally I'm exited for what's instore for the future.

        I've been studying the priesthood ban for blacks the past 2 weeks and I see many similarities with some women wanting the priesthood. The screenshot I've provided is the opinion of one latter day Saint from the 1960s. He wrote The secretary of the interior, Stuart Udall, a mormon, who apparently was pressuring the brethren to revisit the stance they had on blacks and the priesthood. Today you can read an essay on the churches official website that disavows all the beliefs members and leaders had about blacks being cursed with a black skin because of their actions in heaven. I believe doctrine is open to change, or be added to.

   I love the women in my life. I dont know how any of this priesthood stuff will happen in the future. Personally, just my opinion, I think they have a unique priesthood a branch of ours, something we haven't been introduced to yet. They are potential Goddesses, right? 

 

 

 

Edited January 28, 2021 by AtlanticMike

[HappyJackWagon]

11 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I will now demonstrate how today’s prophet’s are disseminating revelation to the Church, but doing so “under the radar” so that members who have “ears to hear” may learn and understand what the Lord is saying to the Church without generating great controversy.

In the April 2020 General Conference President Russell testified...

We live in the day that “our forefathers have awaited with anxious expectation.” We have front-row seats to witness live what the prophet Nephi saw only in vision, that “the power of the Lamb of God” would descend upon the covenant people of the Lord, who were scattered upon all the face of the earth; and they were armed with righteousness and with the power of God in great glory.

In preceding excerpt from his conference address, Hear Him (yes that’s right — hear HIM!), President Russell quotes the prophet Nephi who learned in his great apocalyptic vision that at a certain point in time in the latter-days the power of the Lamb of God would descend upon the members of the Church in great power and glory. Most significantly, President Russell told his listeners that THEY are going to be the generation who would see the literal fulfillment of what Nephi saw only in vision, for they will see the fulfillment with their own eyes. Here is the verse as it appears in the Book of Mormon:

14 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld the power of the Lamb of God, that it descended upon the saints of the church of the Lamb, and upon the covenant people of the Lord, who were scattered upon all the face of the earth; and they were armed with righteousness and with the power of God in great glory. (1 Nephi 14:14)

But here’s the thing: for those members with the Spirit of revelation who are familiar with Nephi’s vision (I’m one of them), they realize that the verse immediately prior to verse 14 says...

13 And it came to pass that I beheld that the great mother of abominations did gather together multitudes upon the face of all the earth, among all the nations of the Gentiles, to fight against the Lamb of God. (1 Nephi 14:13) 

Those with ears to hear (unlike those who insist on being spoon fed) immediately realized that if President Nelson is testifying that we are going to be eye witnesses to the literal fulfillment of the events in verse 14, that means we are also going to be eye witnesses to the literal fulfillment of the dreadful prophecy found in verse 13 which states that the nations of the entire world are going to unite in the common cause of the destruction of the restored Church of Jesus Christ.

By flying under the radar, as it were, President Nelson was able to inform the members of Church with the Spirit of revelation to prepare themselves and their families for the long prophesied day of persecution and tribulation that would descend upon the saints to test their faith, courage and resolve before the day when those who successfully endure the persecution in righteousness will be endowed with power of the Lamb of God in great glory. .

So there you have it. But be warned, this is the only time I’m going to allow you to see what I see. You’re on your own from here on out.

I will now explain why I don't consider President Nelson sharing that in the last conference, a revelation.

From the day Jesus died his followers were looking forward to his return in glory. They expected to be the generation that would be a part of it. When the Church was named, "Latter-day Saints" seemed to refer to the people of that generation who would be alive at the time of Christ's return. I don't think they considered the Latter days to actually cake place 200 or so years later.

Also, the quote you shared is nothing new. Not even remotely. My patriarchal blessing is filled with similar language. I was always told as a youth that my generation would be the generation that ushers in the second coming. It could still happen I suppose, but my father's generation was told the same thing. So was my grandfather's.  So listening to that as some kind of dog whistle that the Second Coming is right around the corner really doesn't mean much to me. You may say that I don't have ears to hear, but I did for many decades. Every generation seems to think they are the special and elect generation that will usher in the 2nd coming but it hasn't happened yet, which makes Pres. Nelson's words simply a repeat of past teachings that have yet to be realized. Time will tell if Nelson is right. But let's be honest, the brethren don't really have a great track record in anticipating the 2nd coming. Besides, doesn't the scripture say that "no man will know" the time of His coming?

[The Nehor]

On 1/26/2021 at 9:56 AM, AtlanticMike said:

I take the instructions of the apostle far more seriously than I do their rationalizations for them. The former are almost always good, the latter may be well-intentioned but they tend to be much more hit and miss as to accuracy.

[AtlanticMike]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I take the instructions of the apostle far more seriously than I do their rationalizations for them. The former are almost always good, the latter may be well-intentioned but they tend to be much more hit and miss as to accuracy.

True that