The Book Sealed With Seven Seals

[Stargazer]

On 11/15/2021 at 9:42 PM, Amulek said:

And possibly violate the board rules against psychoanalyzing.  

Wait... what? There are board rules against psychoanalyzing?

Who knew?

 

 

[Stargazer]

On 11/16/2021 at 12:13 AM, Teancum said:

The definition under LDS terminology makes it a very ugly word.  It is a label like the scarlet letter.  It is used in such a way to scare active members away from the leave taker.  It has baggage in lDS vernacular and culture.

"Apostasy" is a perfectly valid word; it's supposed "ugliness" is very subjective. It comes from the Greek ἀποστασία [apostasía], meaning "a defection or revolt". If that doesn't perfectly describe @ProphetShiloh's self-reported activity or status, I don't know what does.

Some people prefer to say "passed away" instead of "died". Others might find yet another euphemism for the fact of ceasing to live.

So what is your preferred euphemism for "apostate"? What word would you prefer? 

[ProphetShiloh]

3 hours ago, Olmec Donald said:

Not according to the verse I quoted:

"if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant..." So this first marriage is under the "the new and everlasting covenant of marriage".

Then IF the second marriage has been "appointed unto her by the holy anointing", then obviously it ALSO falls under this same "new and everlasting covenant of marriage". 

And thus we see that both polyandry (multiple husbands) and polygyny (multiple wives) are allowed under the "new and everlasting covenant of marriage" when the criteria are met. 

Or to put it another way, "all are alike unto God", including "black and white, bond and free, male and female".  And in Section 38 the Lord says, "I am no respecter of persons."

My understanding is that the LDS Church permits a living woman to be sealed to her deceased husband(s) in addition to her living husband, and a deceased woman to be sealed to all of the men with whom she lived as husband and wife during their lifetimes.   How else would the Church have come to the conclusion that that's okay? 

 

You are reading things into what is written here that should no be inferred.  The word of God doesn't conflict itself so you have to mesh it together into the appropriate application.  Saying all are alike, male and female, by no means negates or cancels out other more detailed passages that ascribe unique roles and responsibilities that pertain to gender.  Yes, they are alike, but in what context and what respect?

The doctrine of the holy anointing being given to a woman should not be construed as a woman being able to be full on married in such a way that she has two husbands simultaneously.  The case I mentioned earlier is the case where a widow who is sealed to a man ends up being married to the kinsman redeemer husband, but she is merely a concubine in that arrangement.  There is no sealing in the eternities between a woman and the man with whom she is a concubine.

It has only been in recent years that the Church has caved to pressure to allow a woman to be sealed to more than one man in the sense of being sealed for time and for eternity.  In the cases I am familiar with the context within which this has been permitted is that she will have to choose between the two, but that she is being given the assurance that she will end up with one or the other, thus more fully securing her blessings.  This is a definite problem and underscores the fact that they are not actually getting true revelation to know what God's will is in the matter.  The same goes for temple ordinances being done without revelation being received that these ordinances are appropriate. 

I received a rather detailed revelation about what a mess this disorderliness in how the ordinances are being performed is causing.  The vine of revelation to the world is getting polluted by plugging in all of these deceased spirits regardless of their worthiness.  The spiritual channel of the Latter-day Saints is getting increasingly polluted with unworthy spirits.  Giving them all of these ordinances, regardless of their purity, has enabled vile spirits to gain the right to function as ministering spirits to Latter-day Saints.  Deception is growing and growing and few LDS seem to be catching on.

[ProphetShiloh]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

"Apostasy" is a perfectly valid word; it's supposed "ugliness" is very subjective. It comes from the Greek ἀποστασία [apostasía], meaning "a defection or revolt". If that doesn't perfectly describe @ProphetShiloh's self-reported activity or status, I don't know what does.

Some people prefer to say "passed away" instead of "died". Others might find yet another euphemism for the fact of ceasing to live.

So what is your preferred euphemism for "apostate"? What word would you prefer? 

This is where things get difficult and awkward.  Not pointing fingers in any direction here, just speaking of the principle of judgment in general...

Pointing out apostasy is certainly going to be perceived as apostate behavior by those who actually are in apostasy and don't like it being called out.

This is why Jesus taught that before one judges that they should first make sure their own eye is clear so that they can see properly to assist their brother in need of help.  You see, Jesus wasn't the least bit hesitant to call out the Jewish leadership of his day for their apostasy.  But, what was their response?  They deemed him a blasphemer and had him put to death.  It should be rather obvious that they made a huge mistake.

In my case I find it interesting that people take little time and make little effort to pause and do what Jesus recommended.  Instead of pausing long enough to hear out the grievances laid against them, they just assume that because I am drawing attention to needful controversies against the standing leadership that I am an apostate.  First of all, officers of the Church from the top to the bottom are not immune from scrutiny and having controversy laid against them.  We are asked if we sustain or oppose.  It is possible to take the position of opposition and be completely within righteousness.  It is apostasy that someone who opposes is immediately accused of being apostate.

[webbles]

33 minutes ago, ProphetShiloh said:

It has only been in recent years that the Church has caved to pressure to allow a woman to be sealed to more than one man in the sense of being sealed for time and for eternity.  In the cases I am familiar with the context within which this has been permitted is that she will have to choose between the two, but that she is being given the assurance that she will end up with one or the other, thus more fully securing her blessings.  This is a definite problem and underscores the fact that they are not actually getting true revelation to know what God's will is in the matter.  The same goes for temple ordinances being done without revelation being received that these ordinances are appropriate. 

It actually hasn't been in recent years that the Church has allowed a woman to be sealed to more than one man.  I have an ancestor who had two husbands in life.  She was sealed to her first husband in 1857 by Brigham Young.  She died in 1872, her first (or main) husband died in 1874, and her second husband died in 1879.  In 1893, she was sealed by proxy to her second husband in the Manti Temple.

[webbles]

Just now, webbles said:

It actually hasn't been in recent years that the Church has allowed a woman to be sealed to more than one man.  I have an ancestor who had two husbands in life.  She was sealed to her first husband in 1857 by Brigham Young.  She died in 1872, her first (or main) husband died in 1874, and her second husband died in 1879.  In 1893, she was sealed by proxy to her second husband in the Manti Temple.

Oh, and just to make it even more confusing, she and her first husband were sealed in 1857.  Brigham Young then divorced them civilly (but he explicitly did not undo their sealing).  He then married her to her second husband.  She had two children with him.  Brigham Young then divorced her from her second husband (again civilly since they weren't sealed) and remarried her to her first husband.  She stayed with him for the remainder of his life.

In case you want to look into this situation, her name is Mary Ann Darrow, her first husband is Edmund Richardson, and her second husband is Frederick Walter Cox, Sr.  Cox had 5 other wives (4 of them before his marriage to Mary Ann Darrow and 1 after the marriage).

[Olmec Donald]

1 hour ago, ProphetShiloh said:

You are reading things into what is written here that should no be inferred.  The word of God doesn't conflict itself so you have to mesh it together into the appropriate application.  Saying all are alike, male and female, by no means negates or cancels out other more detailed passages that ascribe unique roles and responsibilities that pertain to gender.  Yes, they are alike, but in what context and what respect?

We both agree that God is good, God is fair, and God is no respecter of persons, don't we?

Men and women are alike in that both should be treated fairly, not the one being favored over the other.  Not the man gets to enjoy the companionship and love of all (or at least many) of the women he loves, and while woman does not get to reciprocally enjoy the companionship and love of all (or many) of the men she loves.  There is nothing "alike" in that.  And if you think a woman has less capacity to love multiple people with all her heart, you need to have a conversation with a mother.  

So if we don't want the word of God to conflict with itself, then the correct reconciliation of D&C 132:41 with those other scriptures is that women are not going to be cheated in comparison with men.

1 hour ago, ProphetShiloh said:

The doctrine of the holy anointing being given to a woman should not be construed as a woman being able to be full on married in such a way that she has two husbands simultaneously.  The case I mentioned earlier is the case where a widow who is sealed to a man ends up being married to the kinsman redeemer husband, but she is merely a concubine in that arrangement.

There is nothing in the passage I quoted to even hint that the woman is a widow.   Here it is again:

"If a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery..."

Repeating just in case anyone didn't read my preceding posts:  The implication here is that IF that second intimate relationship had "been appointed unto her by the holy anointing", THEN it would not be adultery.  It would be a marriage.  The "new and everlasting covenant of marriage" is not about relationships that are anything less than a full-on marriage.  It is not a woman becoming "merely a concubine".

34 minutes ago, webbles said:

It actually hasn't been [only] in recent years that the Church has allowed a woman to be sealed to more than one man.  I have an ancestor who had two husbands in life.  She was sealed to her first husband in 1857 by Brigham Young.  She died in 1872, her first (or main) husband died in 1874, and her second husband died in 1879.  In 1893, she was sealed by proxy to her second husband in the Manti Temple.

27 minutes ago, webbles said:

Oh, and just to make it even more confusing, she and her first husband were sealed in 1857.  Brigham Young then divorced them civilly (but he explicitly did not undo their sealing).  He then married her to her second husband.  She had two children with him.  Brigham Young then divorced her from her second husband (again civilly since they weren't sealed) and remarried her to her first husband.  She stayed with him for the remainder of his life.

In case you want to look into this situation, her name is Mary Ann Darrow, her first husband is Edmund Richardson, and her second husband is Frederick Walter Cox, Sr.  Cox had 5 other wives (4 of them before his marriage to Mary Ann Darrow and 1 after the marriage).

Thank you for posting this, webbles!

So IF the Lord is "no respecter of persons", THEN Mary Ann Darrow did not get special treatment that no other woman can expect. 

In my opinion.

Edited November 17, 2021 by Olmec Donald

[Stargazer]

21 minutes ago, ProphetShiloh said:

This is where things get difficult and awkward.  Not pointing fingers in any direction here, just speaking of the principle of judgment in general...

Pointing out apostasy is certainly going to be perceived as apostate behavior by those who actually are in apostasy and don't like it being called out.

This is why Jesus taught that before one judges that they should first make sure their own eye is clear so that they can see properly to assist their brother in need of help.  You see, Jesus wasn't the least bit hesitant to call out the Jewish leadership of his day for their apostasy.  But, what was their response?  They deemed him a blasphemer and had him put to death.  It should be rather obvious that they made a huge mistake.

In my case I find it interesting that people take little time and make little effort to pause and do what Jesus recommended.  Instead of pausing long enough to hear out the grievances laid against them, they just assume that because I am drawing attention to needful controversies against the standing leadership that I am an apostate.  First of all, officers of the Church from the top to the bottom are not immune from scrutiny and having controversy laid against them.  We are asked if we sustain or oppose.  It is possible to take the position of opposition and be completely within righteousness.  It is apostasy that someone who opposes is immediately accused of being apostate.

Of course. What apostate is not going to call those whom he or she has rebelled against apostates? Otherwise he or she would not be an apostate. But just calling someone an apostate doesn't make them apostate. Christ was right when he accused the Jewish leadership of apostasy, because they were in apostasy. You, on the other hand, are wrong.

I am a convert, baptized at age 14 with my father's permission. I have been active in this church from then until now in my 71st year. I have observed many things pass by and have experienced many expressions of the spirit, including personal revelation both as leader and follower, that have led me to a stalwart conviction that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Christ's authorized church on earth, clothed in the authority of Jesus Christ, and blessed with prophets, seers, and revelators at the helm. What the authorized servants of the church seal on earth is sealed in heaven, and I testify from myself that Russell M. Nelson is the Lord's anointed prophet on the earth at this time. That is my conviction and it is very firm. You, on the other hand, are no prophet, now or future. 

I apologize for any offense I may cause you by calling you an apostate; so I'll say it just once and let that be.

Best regards.

[longview]

7 hours ago, ProphetShiloh said:

Please tell me how many other people have shared the means to open up and read the book sealed with seven seals in the same manner as I have.

Revelation chapter 5 explains who it is that can open the book with seven seals.  You are NOT it.

[Navidad]

45 minutes ago, webbles said:

Oh, and just to make it even more confusing, she and her first husband were sealed in 1857.  Brigham Young then divorced them civilly (but he explicitly did not undo their sealing).  He then married her to her second husband.  She had two children with him.  Brigham Young then divorced her from her second husband (again civilly since they weren't sealed) and remarried her to her first husband.  She stayed with him for the remainder of his life.

In case you want to look into this situation, her name is Mary Ann Darrow, her first husband is Edmund Richardson, and her second husband is Frederick Walter Cox, Sr.  Cox had 5 other wives (4 of them before his marriage to Mary Ann Darrow and 1 after the marriage).

Edmund Richardson, the lawyer/doctor from Colonia Diaz here in Mexico? He was quite a prominent person here. He was one of the first colonists to become fluent in Spanish and the first to graduate from UNAM in Mexico City!

 

[webbles]

17 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Edmund Richardson, the lawyer/doctor from Colonia Diaz here in Mexico? He was quite a prominent person here. He was one of the first colonists to become fluent in Spanish and the first to graduate from UNAM in Mexico City!

 

Not that Edmund Richardson.  He never made it to Mexico.  He died in Utah.  He had only one son with Mary Ann who never married and never left Utah.  The two sons from Cox, though, used the name Richardsons and they both moved to Mexico.  Their names were Charles Edmund Richardson and Sullivan Calvin Richardson.

Edited to add: I just realized that Charles Edmund Richardson might be who you are talking about since he could have used the name "Edmund Richardson".  I know he was a self-taught doctor and lawyer but I don't know about UNAM.

Edited November 17, 2021 by webbles

[Olmec Donald]

9 hours ago, ProphetShiloh said:

I would be happy to answer this question in a new thread.  Please start it and let me know and I will participate.

Done.  Obviously you are busy as the one-legged man at the butt-kicking contest right now, but when you get a chance.

Edited November 17, 2021 by Olmec Donald

[The Nehor]

On 11/14/2021 at 10:01 PM, ProphetShiloh said:

I have mentioned the book sealed with seven seals, but I have not yet said very much about it.  I would like to open a thread where we can discuss it.

To preface things, I would like to explain that Joseph Smith, Jr., actually opened up this book and endeavored to establish the truths that flow out of it.  However, the paradigm shift that it conveys was too radically different for the people to embrace.  Therefore, because of unbelief on the part of the Gentiles, God had Joseph discontinue endeavoring to establish it at that time.  Because the gentiles rejected the fullness of the Gospel, God removed it from them.  (3 Nephi 16:10) However, now is the time that the Lord is setting his hand the second time to recover his people. (Jacob 6)  It is now my responsibility to teach this information for the benefit of the remnant of the House of Israel in order to gather them to Zion.

So, what is this book?  It is actually the entirety of holy writ.

What are the seven seals of this book?  They are the days of creation in Genesis 1 and 2:1-3.

If you take each day of the creation account as blueprint of the seven millennia of the creation, then you have the basis of it.

Day 1 = Division between light and dark.
Day 2 = Division of waters in the firmaments.
Day 3 = Division between seas and dry land.
Day 4 = Sun, moon, and stars.
Day 5 = Fishes and fowls.
Day 6 = Creatures on dry land and man.
Day 7 = Rest

Another interesting thing is that the cycles of creation overlap.  Day 1 of the new world starts in such a way that it is concurrent with day 7 of the old world.  So, we are actually on the cusp of day 1 of the new world.  This is why Joseph Smith, Jr., talks about laying the foundation.  We are actually in the preexistence relative to the new world right now.  The battle between Michael and the dragon is currently in full motion.  This is affirmed in the 1880 revelation of junior apostle Wilford Woodruff.

In order to get an idea of how the days of creation align with the last 6,000 years of world history, I will give some interpretive keys.

 

1st millennium:
This is the time of Adam (Man of Holiness) and Seth (Son of Man) who are ruling and reigning in victory.
This is also the time of Cain (Son of Perdition) who obtains supremacy over Satan and rules over darkness.

2nd Millennium:
This is the time of Noah when the firmaments of the waters are divided.

3rd Millennium:
This is the time of Abraham whose seed shall be as numerous as the "sands on the seashore".  You do not get sand on seashores unless the seas and dry land are divided.

4th Millennium:
This is the time when Jesus declared himself to be the "light and life of the world".

5th Millennium:
This is the time when Jesus commanded his disciples to go and be "fishers of men".
The Qur'an also declares that the people of Islam are "birds".

6th Millennium:
Early Christianity evolved to higher order life forms on dry land as the Protestants.
The new world was prepared for man (Adam and Eve) as the LDS Restoration.

7th Millennium:
God will leave the ground in the old world fallow and rest.  His attention and labors turn to the new world's day 1.

 

 

Some of these are ridiculous stretches.

3: The “sands on the seashore”? One metaphor is used in connection to one prophet and the metaphor is a symbol of an entire millenium? Not buying it.

5: If you are talking about the passage I think you are in the Qur’an than no. It is says that birds are in communities like birds. It is not a metaphor. Why not say the birds represent the peak of Roman power?

6: So the Catholics are water life forms?

[The Nehor]

22 hours 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?  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.

So polygamous marriage amplifies your consciousness to detect the foul odors of not liking polygamy?

Also they seem like a bunch of elitist jerks. “I say Father Abraham. It appears the riffraff have wandered in yet again. Look at that one. Oh, he has the scent of preference for monogamy all over him. I was assured this neighborhood would exclude such impoverished souls.”

[Olmec Donald]

7 hours ago, ProphetShiloh said:

A woman can only be sealed to one man as her eternal husband.

Have you specifically asked?

Edited November 17, 2021 by Olmec Donald

[ProphetShiloh]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Some of these are ridiculous stretches.

3: The “sands on the seashore”? One metaphor is used in connection to one prophet and the metaphor is a symbol of an entire millenium? Not buying it.

5: If you are talking about the passage I think you are in the Qur’an than no. It is says that birds are in communities like birds. It is not a metaphor. Why not say the birds represent the peak of Roman power?

6: So the Catholics are water life forms?

I am just giving very high-level summary points.

Abraham's time was in the 3rd millennium and day 3 of creation is when the seas and dry land were divided.  This is why God said that his seed would be as numerous as the grains of sand on the seashore.  God could have used any number of ways to indicate that he would have a numerous posterity.  But, he chose to use wording that offers a pearl, which is one pearl among many that form a pathway of pearls.  Feel free to stop looking at anytime if that is your inclination.

The passage in the Qur'an that I am referring to is here:

Surah 6
37 And they say: Why has not a sign been sent down to him from his Lord? Say: Surely Allah is able to send down a sign, but most of them do not know.
38 And there is no animal that walks upon the earth nor a bird that flies with its two wings but (they are) genera like yourselves; We have not neglected anything in the Book, then to their Lord shall they be gathered.
39 And they who reject Our communications are deaf and dumb, in utter darkness; whom Allah pleases He causes to err and whom He pleases He puts on the right way.

I hope you pay close attention to this passage because it is talking about the book sealed with seven seals here, as well as the degree of ignorance and blindness that people have to the paradigm that it fosters, which is that the cosmos of Elohim is a cosmos of human civilization as opposed to the actual physical cosmos.

On a trip I took about a year ago I had a special meeting with the head Imam of the Blue Mosque in Istanbul.  We studied together and he graciously listened to my message.  He received me with honor and privileged me as a special guest during one of their worship services.  It was a wonderful experience for my wife and I.  I specifically asked him to teach me what the people of Islam believe about "the Book" (Al Kitab).  He confirmed to me that many of Islam refer to "the Book" spoken of in the Qur'an as being something very special.  It isn't an earthy book.  They consider it the master book from which all scripture is drawn that is concealed in heaven.  Al Kitab is the Arabic term that they could only translate as "the Book".  There are references to the Torah and the New Testament in more specific terms so it isn't referring to either of those books.  He and I are good friends now and we keep in touch.  I helped him proofread a doctoral dissertation he is doing on the inimitability of the Qur'an.  He's a brilliant and humble man who I hope to continue to associate with.  He sends me things from time to time that he comes across that supports the paradigm shift that I introduced him to.  People are beginning to catch on.  At some point it will just "click" and people will be able to learn it much more quickly.  Collective consciousness works that way.

The reason the early Christians are likened to fish (creatures in the waters wherein dwells life) is because the waters represent the governance (and tyranny) of men.  The Roman Empire was the environment within which Christianity had its humble and painful beginnings.  The Christians were submersed under the tyranny of the Roman Empire.  It is thanks to the evolution of Christianity that it eventually brought about the "dry land" that is freed of tyranny.  Protestantism was extremely instrumental in bringing this about, which of course ultimately culminated in God bringing about "man" in the "new world".

[ProphetShiloh]

7 minutes ago, Olmec Donald said:

Have you specifically asked?

I believe I have been given sufficient to know how it works.  I also had about a 3-week period of time that I received intensive raw intelligence downloads, so to speak.  There are many things that I have the intelligence on that I cannot put to words yet.  I have to get the words by revelation.  I didn't see anything in my series of visions indicating that one woman could at the same time have more than one husband beyond her being sealed for eternity to one man and being a concubine for time with another man.  She wouldn't be sealed for eternity to more than one man at the same time.  That is out of order according to the celestial patriarchal order.

Edit:  Though I will say that there could be some kind of a circumstance where a woman could have foreordained status with more than one man, such as the woman at the well who had at least 5 marriages behind her when she encountered the Messiah.  If in each cycle there is a woman foreordained to play that part in the script, then she would be sealed to more than one man, but it would only play out as a serial series of relationships.

Edited November 17, 2021 by ProphetShiloh

[ProphetShiloh]

38 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So polygamous marriage amplifies your consciousness to detect the foul odors of not liking polygamy?

Also they seem like a bunch of elitist jerks. “I say Father Abraham. It appears the riffraff have wandered in yet again. Look at that one. Oh, he has the scent of preference for monogamy all over him. I was assured this neighborhood would exclude such impoverished souls.”

You are quite the character....  LOL

The preference for monogamy is not the least bit problematic.

It would only be actual contempt for polygamy that would be foul.

It isn't polygamist marriage only that amplifies consciousness.  Monogamy also has this benefit.  All instances where humanity joins together in a body results in a higher power of consciousness.  There is power when multiple people unite their focus upon a specific objective.  This is why it says that one man would be able to put 1,000 to flight and two men would be able to put 10,000 to flight.  That union of the two men of God results in a tenfold increase in their power.  Where the 1,000 comes from for the one man is this man has the fullness of the indwelling of the Godhead, which is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.  Each indwelling affords him a tenfold increase in his individual power of consciousness.  The three personages of the Godhead magnify him up to 10 to the 3rd power, which is 1,000.  So a patriarch composed of a man and 3 wives who are all joint heirs with Christ having the indwelling of the fullness of the Godhead achieve a megaplex of spiritual power.

Edit:  Personal note.  This post was my 111th post on this board.

Edited November 17, 2021 by ProphetShiloh

[ProphetShiloh]

1 hour ago, longview said:

Revelation chapter 5 explains who it is that can open the book with seven seals.  You are NOT it.

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

[ProphetShiloh]

2 hours ago, Olmec Donald said:

We both agree that God is good, God is fair, and God is no respecter of persons, don't we?

Men and women are alike in that both should be treated fairly, not the one being favored over the other.  Not the man gets to enjoy the companionship and love of all (or at least many) of the women he loves, and while woman does not get to reciprocally enjoy the companionship and love of all (or many) of the men she loves.  There is nothing "alike" in that.  And if you think a woman has less capacity to love multiple people with all her heart, you need to have a conversation with a mother.  

So if we don't want the word of God to conflict with itself, then the correct reconciliation of D&C 132:41 with those other scriptures is that women are not going to be cheated in comparison with men.

There is nothing in the passage I quoted to even hint that the woman is a widow.   Here it is again:

"If a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery..."

Repeating just in case anyone didn't read my preceding posts:  The implication here is that IF that second intimate relationship had "been appointed unto her by the holy anointing", THEN it would not be adultery.  It would be a marriage.  The "new and everlasting covenant of marriage" is not about relationships that are anything less than a full-on marriage.  It is not a woman becoming "merely a concubine".

Thank you for posting this, webbles!

So IF the Lord is "no respecter of persons", THEN Mary Ann Darrow did not get special treatment that no other woman can expect. 

In my opinion.

I agree that this passage means something special, but the Lord didn't spell out specifically what it pertains to.  The Lord has spelled out concubinage, which encompasses many variations of situations, many of which also require revelation from God to be entered into.  I agree that a woman can bear seed with a man who is not her actual husband.  One such case is the instance where the mother of Jesus Christ was not impregnated by her betrothed husband Joseph.  Surely whatever happened in this instance would qualify to be deemed the result of a holy anointing to bring forth the royal seed of Jehovah.

However, though I do not deny that even before recent times women have ended up sealed to more than one man, it is most definitely exceptional, and it will impose some severe awkwardness in the world to come for it to play out.

Your attempt to say that woman have as much right and privilege to multiple husbands as men do to have wives is most definitely out of order. 

[Olmec Donald]

47 minutes ago, ProphetShiloh said:

I believe I have been given sufficient to know how it works.  I also had about a 3-week period of time that I received intensive raw intelligence downloads, so to speak.  There are many things that I have the intelligence on that I cannot put to words yet.  I have to get the words by revelation.  I didn't see anything in my series of visions indicating that one woman could at the same time have more than one husband beyond her being sealed for eternity to one man and being a concubine for time with another man.  She wouldn't be sealed for eternity to more than one man at the same time.  That is out of order according to the celestial patriarchal order.

Edit:  Though I will say that there could be some kind of a circumstance where a woman could have foreordained status with more than one man, such as the woman at the well who had at least 5 marriages behind her when she encountered the Messiah.  If in each cycle there is a woman foreordained to play that part in the script, then she would be sealed to more than one man, but it would only play out as a serial series of relationships.

I don't fully agree of course, but I can respect this.

22 minutes ago, ProphetShiloh said:

Your attempt to say that woman have as much right and privilege to multiple husbands as men do to have wives is most definitely out of order. 

Why?

Edited November 17, 2021 by Olmec Donald

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, Stargazer said:

"Apostasy" is a perfectly valid word; it's supposed "ugliness" is very subjective. It comes from the Greek ἀποστασία [apostasía], meaning "a defection or revolt". If that doesn't perfectly describe @ProphetShiloh's self-reported activity or status, I don't know what does.

Some people prefer to say "passed away" instead of "died". Others might find yet another euphemism for the fact of ceasing to live.

So what is your preferred euphemism for "apostate"? What word would you prefer? 

 

I did not say it was not a valid word.

If you read my other comments here it is not so much the word that is problematic. Its the baggage that comes with it from LDS culture and spin.  it is a nasty word with nasty connotations for active LDS persons and LDS culture.

 

Personally I don't feel like I apostatized from truth . I feel I was enlightened and led to be free from falsehoods. If to be an apostate means that I will happily own it.

[longview]

9 hours ago, ProphetShiloh said:

11 hours ago, longview said:

Revelation chapter 5 explains who it is that can open the book with seven seals.  You are NOT it.

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

So no assessment of the truths in Rev 5 from you?  Beware of twisting the Word of God.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I did not say it was not a valid word.

True. 

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

If you read my other comments here it is not so much the word that is problematic. Its the baggage that comes with it from LDS culture and spin.  it is a nasty word with nasty connotations for active LDS persons and LDS culture.

It does come across as an insult, which should limit its usage to a one-time declaration of fact. If it needs to be said at all. To the best of my remembrance, I've never actually referred to anyone as an apostate before now. I don't even think of you as an apostate, in fact. You remind me more of someone like Alma the Younger than Nehor. Alma was just a rebel, and was an active disbeliever, but Nehor was trying to suborn the church with his own doctrine and leadership, out looking for followers. This ProphetShiloh comes across to me as a Nehor. 

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Personally I don't feel like I apostatized from truth . I feel I was enlightened and led to be free from falsehoods. If to be an apostate means that I will happily own it.

I will of course disagree about your enlightened apostasy, but I know exactly what you mean.

A Catholic who has joined the "Mormon" church has apostatized.  A "Mormon" who has joined the Catholic church has likewise apostatized. 

I never belonged to any church before I became LDS. So it wouldn't fit to call me an apostate, unless one said I apostatized from being vaguely theist who considered himself a Christian. And that would really be stretching the point.

[Teancum]

4 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

True. 

It does come across as an insult, which should limit its usage to a one-time declaration of fact. If it needs to be said at all. To the best of my remembrance, I've never actually referred to anyone as an apostate before now. I don't even think of you as an apostate, in fact. You remind me more of someone like Alma the Younger than Nehor. Alma was just a rebel, and was an active disbeliever, but Nehor was trying to suborn the church with his own doctrine and leadership, out looking for followers. This ProphetShiloh comes across to me as a Nehor. 

I will of course disagree about your enlightened apostasy, but I know exactly what you mean.

A Catholic who has joined the "Mormon" church has apostatized.  A "Mormon" who has joined the Catholic church has likewise apostatized. 

I never belonged to any church before I became LDS. So it wouldn't fit to call me an apostate, unless one said I apostatized from being vaguely theist who considered himself a Christian. And that would really be stretching the point.

Well said and I do not disagree.