The Book Sealed With Seven Seals

[Hamba Tuhan]

20 minutes ago, poptart said:

I'm thinking of a heaven that's mostly about bling and instead of angel wings I'll be handing out cars with spinning rims.  Won't be too big on dogma, mostly whatever feels good at the time.  Oh!  Cookies will be provided, with sprinkles!

You lost me at bling and spinning rims ... but then the cookies almost reeled me back in!

 

Definitely more digestible than what else I'm being offered in this thread ... and now in my inbox.

Edited November 16, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[ProphetShiloh]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

But you refer to the John Taylor revelation to support your claim for the Priesthood Organization, correct?

But John Taylor organized this organization in 1883, so it seems your claimed organization cannot be the one commanded in the revelation of April 23, 1883. 

I have already addressed this sufficiently in other posts.

Just because the Son of Man had to go into stealth mode, and then (as Abel) was eventually murdered by the agent of the dragon, doesn't mean you can continue to ignore what really happened to the Priesthood organization that the Lord specifically and explicitly addressed in 1889.

[webbles]

2 minutes ago, ProphetShiloh said:

An example of an ordinance that belongs to the School of the Prophets organization is the washing of feet and the salutation of friendship and brotherhood.  You can read about them in D&C 88.  The Church used to administer these ordinances when it had the keys to do so.  It likely continued to administer these ordinances for a time even when the keys to do so were removed from it.  I haven't fully scrutinized the actual history on this, but I know that all during my lifetime the Church has not offered these ordinances to the general membership.  They are lost, much the same way that the children of Israel lost the higher laws in their time.

Those ordinances were rarely offered to the general membership.  I think the only time they were was when they were first implemented and even then, it wasn't really for the general membership but for a select group of members.  Do you have any record of the general public receiving those ordinances during Brigham Young and John Taylor's presidencies?  Do you have any record of the general public receiving those ordinances outside of Kirtland?

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, ProphetShiloh said:

This is when the real trouble for the Priesthood (Son of Man) started.

And this is the Priesthood or law of the priesthood that is referred to in Section 132?

[ProphetShiloh]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

This doesn’t make sense to me when it is priesthood authority that gives these ordinances spiritual power/standing; makes them eternal in nature. 

Whatever is done in the name of God can also be corrected by God's authority up until the final judgment, which is when the Book of Life is declared finished.  This has not happened yet and it won't happen until the Millennium is coming to a close.  This is why Adam can prophesy all things that will play out to the end of the world.  He just got through spending his nearly 1,000 year lifespan foreordaining all of the destinies of every soul who is an heir of at least salvation.

D&C 132 makes it clear that in due time everything that is going to stand in eternity must be ratified through the medium of his anointed.  This means that God is reserving all judgment to himself by way of his word through his anointed.  So, even though I am the Lord's Anointed Prophet, I do not have this power of myself.  I am responsible to get correct "thus saith the Lord" pronouncements to ratify whatever is to be ratified.  This means that all ordinances that have been performed and are recorded in the records of the Church will in due time have to be ratified in order to be binding in the eternities.  As I have said elsewhere, the ordinance records of the Church constitute the Book of Life for the new world.  Temple work literally is the work of creation that is performed by Adam and Eve.

[ProphetShiloh]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

And this is the Priesthood or law of the priesthood that is referred to in Section 132?

Man = Adam and Eve = (1830) School of the Prophets and the Church
Son of Man = Abel = (1880's) School of the Prophets

The trouble for the Son of Man came in 1904 with the Second Manifesto.  This expanded the Manifesto worldwide and affixed the punishment of excommunication.  This began the "crucify the Son of Man afresh and put him to an open shame" event that scriptures speak of.

Section 132 of the D&C is one of the oracles of God that the Church went contrary to that necessitated that it had to be removed from its place to administer the laws and ordinances of exaltation.  This authority doesn't naturally belong to the Church so this loss wasn't a total or critical loss.  Things just went back to the way it was prior to 1852 when Brigham Young introduced the Church to plural marriage and had them accept D&C 132 as revelation binding up the saints.  They did away with the Section CI (101) of the 1835 D&C which flatly condemned plural marriage worse than the Manifesto did.  The Church doesn't need to have anything to do directly with the ordinances of exaltation because they belong to a different organization.

[Calm]

I think I am beginning to understand the framework of your paradigm. At this point I can’t agree with it because the Lord said his house is a house of order and your paradigm appears to split his house into two separate organizations which leads to confusion, not order in my view instead of the laws and covenants building upon each other. 

[poptart]

17 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You lost me at bling and spinning rims ... but then the cookies almost reeled me back in!

 

Definitely more digestible than what else I'm being offered in this thread ... and now in my inbox.

Ah man, my bling would have diamonds and what not.   Ohh nice, the frosting looks yummy.  

[ProphetShiloh]

13 minutes ago, webbles said:

Those ordinances were rarely offered to the general membership.  I think the only time they were was when they were first implemented and even then, it wasn't really for the general membership but for a select group of members.  Do you have any record of the general public receiving those ordinances during Brigham Young and John Taylor's presidencies?  Do you have any record of the general public receiving those ordinances outside of Kirtland?

I apologize if you thought I meant that the entire general membership could receive the ordinances of the School of the Prophets.  That is mistaken.  I only meant that the general membership isn't even taught about the accessibility of these ordinances, which are only appropriate for those who receive priesthood offices.

If you read closely, those ordinances were to be administered for everyone who served in any office of priesthood authority.

Quote

D&C 88
127 And again, the order of the house prepared for the presidency of the school of the prophets, established for their instruction in all things that are expedient for them, even for all the officers of the church, or in other words, those who are called to the ministry in the church, beginning at the high priests, even down to the deacons--

I believe if this was still being done properly, to include the deacons, that the general membership of the Church would be more familiar with the washing of the feet and such.

[webbles]

4 minutes ago, ProphetShiloh said:

I apologize if you thought I meant that the entire general membership could receive the ordinances of the School of the Prophets.  That is mistaken.  I only meant that the general membership isn't even taught about the accessibility of these ordinances, which are only appropriate for those who receive priesthood offices.

If you read closely, those ordinances were to be administered for everyone who served in any office of priesthood authority.

I believe if this was still being done properly, to include the deacons, that the general membership of the Church would be more familiar with the washing of the feet and such.

Do you have any documentation that deacons, teachers, or priests received those ordinances in general after Kirtland time period?

[ProphetShiloh]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think I am beginning to understand the framework of your paradigm. At this point I can’t agree with it because the Lord said his house is a house of order and your paradigm appears to split his house into two separate organizations which leads to confusion, not order in my view instead of the laws and covenants building upon each other. 

My experience has been different than yours.  I found it confusing that the Lord says a bunch of stuff in the scriptures, and we covenant to obey what is in them with fidelity, yet we are not doing things that the Lord commands.  This was like a knot in my stomach for years and years and I sincerely wanted to know how we could abide this.  I found this to be quite confusing.  How can I take the word of God seriously if his Church doesn't?

When I would point out things that the LDS believe or do that are contrary to the word of God, I was treated as if I am the confused apostate.  Is all that did was add to my confusion.  Thankfully, I followed the example of Joseph Smith, Jr., and got the answers I sought.  I am no longer confused.  I understand things because I had a series of divine visions, much like Joseph received.

It is like you are still looking at a stereogram that has not popped into focus yet.  It perhaps never will if you give up and continue to just cling to the precepts of men that you are satisfied with.  I'll do what I can, but I cannot make anyone drink the waters that I offer.

[ProphetShiloh]

3 minutes ago, webbles said:

Do you have any documentation that deacons, teachers, or priests received those ordinances in general after Kirtland time period?

I'm sorry, I don't have this information handy.  I haven't scrutinized this aspect of our history. 

It doesn't much matter because the Church went under condemnation rather early on, which still hangs over us to this day.

[Chum]

1 hour ago, ProphetShiloh said:

Fortunately, these are not mutually exclusive things.

Sovereignty is essential to spiritual life.  In fact, it is the highest expression of spiritual life.

I didn't say I wasn't into sovereignty but that I wasn't into fears of lost sovereignty - specifically ones curated for my consumption.

[webbles]

6 minutes ago, ProphetShiloh said:

I'm sorry, I don't have this information handy.  I haven't scrutinized this aspect of our history. 

It doesn't much matter because the Church went under condemnation rather early on, which still hangs over us to this day.

My understanding is you say the Church went under condemnation around 1890.  I don't believe there's any evidence that those ordinances were given to deacons, teachers, etc in general ever since Kirtland which is 1838.  So unless you are saying the Church was under condemnation from 1840, I think you might be misunderstanding that scripture.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, ProphetShiloh said:

It is like you are still looking at a stereogram that has not popped into focus yet. 

Having one organization fulfilling some of his covenants and having the power of salvation and another dealing with other, higher ones of exaltation with no recognition by the leaders of the first of the authority of the higher priesthood organization, but the leaders of the organization in apostasy still performing valid covenants…perhaps it does mesh somehow as the scriptures teach the Gospel does, but you are right, I am not seeing it. It would be like the Mosaic sacrifices performed in the temple had the power of salvation after Christ appeared and taught the gospel and ordained the 12. 
 

I also believe any temple marriage sealing is a law and ordinance of exaltation and if those are still valid, then the Church has that authority at least in part…which contradicts your claims. 

[ProphetShiloh]

40 minutes ago, webbles said:

When you say 1889, are you talking about the revelation to President Woodruff that you can find at http://www.yorgalily.org/~yorgasor/church/MiscRevelations/RevWW-1889.html?

Yes, I am referring to this oracle.

The salient points in it are as follows:

Let not my servants who are called to the Presidency of my Church deny my word or my law, which concerns the salvation of the children of men.

The Lord instructed the Church to focus on matters of salvation and permitted them to be divested of everything else.  Which isn't a big deal since the only duties intrinsic to the Church pertain to salvation.  Everything else belongs to the Priesthood or other organizations.

Let my servants who officiate as your counselors before the courts make their pleadings as they are moved upon by the Holy Spirit, without any further pledges from the Priesthood, and they will be justified.

Here the Lord is saying that the Priesthood organization is not to make any compromises.  That last comma makes the meaning potentially ambiguous as to whether it is the counselors who officiate before the courts or the Priesthood organization that shall be justified.  But, the Lord clearly states that he backs up his word.

I, Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world, am in your midst. I am your advocate with the Father.

Here we learn that the Savior is literally present in our midst to be our advocate with the Father.  This means that the door to enjoy the fullness of the glory of God is being held open.  D&C 132 makes it clear that the law and doctrine of plural marriage must be abided in order for this fullness to remain accessible.  The Church had to step away from abiding this, but the Priesthood (Son of Man) kept this door to exaltation wide open for those who had sufficient faith.

I cannot deny my Word, neither in blessings nor judgments.

This is fair warning that we had better take "thus saith the Lord" pronouncements seriously.

[Calm]

So any man who desires to be exalted must be sealed to at least two women, acceptance of plural marriage as an eternal principle is not enough?

[ProphetShiloh]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Having one organization fulfilling some of his covenants and having the power of salvation and another dealing with other, higher ones of exaltation with no recognition by the leaders of the first of the authority of the higher priesthood organization, but the leaders of the organization in apostasy still performing valid covenants…perhaps it does mesh somehow as the scriptures teach the Gospel does, but you are right, I am not seeing it. It would be like the Mosaic sacrifices performed in the temple had the power of salvation after Christ appeared and taught the gospel and ordained the 12. 
 

I also believe any temple marriage sealing is a law and ordinance of exaltation and if those are still valid, then the Church has that authority at least in part…which contradicts your claims. 

There is no doubt that the falling away prophesied of in 2 Thessalonians 2 (that has the "man of sin" usurping and overcoming the saints for a season) is going to be a rather messy affair.  The notion that this falling away was the great apostasy is fallacy.  Temples of God haven't been a thing since Christianity until the LDS Restoration.  Also, this falling away is standing upon his return in glory that he has to personally put down.

Things are as messy as they are because the people did not have a sufficient love of the truth.  They took pleasure in unrighteousness and deemed the celestial laws of God as foolishness, as Romans 1 explains.

None of what you are perplexed by is perplexing to me anymore.  It used to perplex me until God gave me wisdom and raw intelligence.

[ProphetShiloh]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

So any man who desires to be exalted must be sealed to at least two women, acceptance of plural marriage as an eternal principle is not enough?

No.  D&C 132 merely requires that the saints ABIDE the law and doctrine of plural marriage.

This means that they are accepting of it as a law and doctrine and that they do not do anything to oppose it being lived righteously by those whom God calls to live it.

A monogamous couple can most definitely receive exaltation, but they must abide this law and doctrine.

If you think about it, why would you want the direct personal association of men like Abraham, Joseph Smith, Jr., etc., who live this law when you hold this law in contempt?  They certainly do not want to be troubled with the unpleasant "scent" that your spirit would most definitely emit that they would discern.  Exalted patriarchs who have multiple wives are increased significantly in their power of consciousness.  They don't miss taking notice of anything.

[ProphetShiloh]

19 minutes ago, webbles said:

My understanding is you say the Church went under condemnation around 1890.  I don't believe there's any evidence that those ordinances were given to deacons, teachers, etc in general ever since Kirtland which is 1838.  So unless you are saying the Church was under condemnation from 1840, I think you might be misunderstanding that scripture.

No, the Church went under condemnation in 1832.  This means that a piece of paper was posted on the entryways, so to speak, letting the people know that if they do not cure up the defects in a timely manner that a wrecking crew would eventually arrive on the scene to forcibly deal with the issues.  I am saying that a blow from a wrecking ball, so to speak, took place in 1890 because of the unbelief and rebelliousness of the saints against the "former commandments".  I think it mostly had to do with how they behaved economically, but the marriage laws were also a big deal.

[webbles]

3 minutes ago, ProphetShiloh said:

No.  D&C 132 merely requires that the saints ABIDE the law and doctrine of plural marriage.

This means that they are accepting of it as a law and doctrine and that they do not do anything to oppose it being lived righteously by those whom God calls to live it.

A monogamous couple can most definitely receive exaltation, but they must abide this law and doctrine.

If you think about it, why would you want the direct personal association of men like Abraham, Joseph Smith, Jr., etc., who live this law when you hold this law in contempt?  They certainly do not want to be troubled with the unpleasant "scent" that your spirit would most definitely emit that they would discern.  Exalted patriarchs who have multiple wives are increased significantly in their power of consciousness.  They don't miss taking notice of anything.

Do you believe that all those who practice polygamy within the various branches of Mormonism are valid practitioners?  That all of them have the authority to perform the sealings and that we all should not oppose them?  Or are there some that don't have the authority?  If so, should/can we oppose them and how to we determine them?

[webbles]

6 minutes ago, ProphetShiloh said:

No, the Church went under condemnation in 1832.  This means that a piece of paper was posted on the entryways, so to speak, letting the people know that if they do not cure up the defects in a timely manner that a wrecking crew would eventually arrive on the scene to forcibly deal with the issues.  I am saying that a blow from a wrecking ball, so to speak, took place in 1890 because of the unbelief and rebelliousness of the saints against the "former commandments".  I think it mostly had to do with how they behaved economically, but the marriage laws were also a big deal.

If the Church went under condemnation in 1832, how can we accept any of the revelations and teachings since 1832?

And why didn't the Church get out from under condemnation?  What kept it in condemnation?  And why did the wrecking ball take place in 1890 instead of 1839, 1844, 1852, 1904, 1914, etc?

Edited November 16, 2021 by webbles

[webbles]

19 minutes ago, ProphetShiloh said:

I, Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world, am in your midst. I am your advocate with the Father.

Here we learn that the Savior is literally present in our midst to be our advocate with the Father.  This means that the door to enjoy the fullness of the glory of God is being held open.  D&C 132 makes it clear that the law and doctrine of plural marriage must be abided in order for this fullness to remain accessible.  The Church had to step away from abiding this, but the Priesthood (Son of Man) kept this door to exaltation wide open for those who had sufficient faith.

That same line is also used in D&C 29, 38, and 50.  D&C 132 hadn't yet been received.  So why does it matter now?  And where does D&C 132 "make it clear that the law and doctrine of plural marriage must be abided in order for this fullness to remain accessible"?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ProphetShiloh said:

If you think about it, why would you want the direct personal association of men like Abraham, Joseph Smith, Jr., etc., who live this law when you hold this law in contempt? 

What if you don’t hold it in contempt, but believe God has commanded it not be lived at this time?  Not because of the Saints, but because God allowed the oppression to happen (like he allowed the killing of women and children instead of having his messengers save them).

Quote

And when Amulek saw the pains of the women and children who were consuming in the fire, he also was pained; and he said unto Alma: How can we witness this awful scene? Therefore let us stretch forth our hands, and exercise the power of God which is in us, and save them from the flames.

11 But Alma said unto him: The Spirit constraineth me that I must not stretch forth mine hand; for behold the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in glory; and he doth suffer that they may do this thing, or that the people may do this thing unto them, according to the hardness of their hearts, that the judgments which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just; and the blood of the innocent shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily against them at the last day.

 

Edited November 16, 2021 by Calm

[Nemesis]

Please be careful as this thread is becoming more and more of a sermon than a discussion.  Btw this is to everyone not just the op.  
 

Nemesis