Anddenex

This is a good description of the principle: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/continuing-revelation?lang=eng

“We all know that human judgment and logical thinking will not be enough to get answers to the questions that matter most in life. We need revelation from God. And we will need not just one revelation in a time of stress, but we need a constantly renewed stream. We need not just one flash of light and comfort, but we need the continuing blessing of communication with God.”

Continuing revelation can stop, as it did in the Great Apostasy, and it can be restored, as it is in the Restoration.

Jesus did not promise protection from willful error, and that is what crept into the Church to cause the Great Apostasy. Some, even many, teachings that were preserved in the early church were and still are right, but the most essential things, the keys, were lost. How do we know this? Faith and personal revelation, after hearing the correct word.

The following may help to clarify what we believe about the apostasy which happened after the resurrection of Christ & deaths of the apostles.  The second set, on dispensations helps to point out that this is a repeating pattern.
https://www.lds.org/topics/apostasy?lang=eng   and   https://www.lds.org/topics/church-organization/the-church-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng&old=true
https://www.lds.org/topics/dispensations?lang=eng   and   https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/dispensations

The simplest answer to this question is that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ appeared and spoke to Joseph Smith. In this vision Joseph Smith was told none of the existing churches had divine authority. 

Give yourself two or three more decades and your opinion on this will likely change.  (Yes, I know, you find that as unhelpful as @Vort's answer, and I'm perfectly OK with your finding.)
Vort shining a light into a corner you don't want to explore, isn't the same as not exploring.  I'm assuming you like better the corner @Anddenex lit up, and so recommend exploring that one for now.
PS: Welcome to the forums!

Why do we not hear about Mormon prophets today performing big miracles like prophets in old and new testament? 
1) I think if we are all genuine to ourselves we have probably asked this same question.
2) Miracles for one have been for "believers" and increase the faith of those that already believe. One example I find truly intriguing is Jesus's experience with Herod who desired to see a miracle. No miracle was performed. Why? 2 Nephi 10 may shed some light, "For should the mighty miracles be wrought among other nations they would repent, and know that he be their God."
3) Miracles do not convert the faithless, let me provide one example from a conversation with an ex-Mormon, now Atheist (at the time). His father shared with him how on his mission he, through Christ, was able to heal a clubbed foot. The son, now Atheist, merely said, "I believe my father miss diagnosed the clubbed foot and it would have healed on its own. Other Atheists I have spoken with, if you can't perform the same miracle on someone else, right then and there, in front of their eyes -- it never happened.
4) Miracles are sacred experiences, and are not to be cast before swine (hard term for others to hear -- you often get -- are you calling me "swine?"). I think someone already mentioned, people are learning to keep sacred experiences sacred unless inspired by the Spirit. I have never publicized any miracle to the public (at least details), only to members of the Church.
Noah constructed a great ark to be filled with a male and female from every living species on Earth....
These miracles are an exception, not the rule. We are talking about specific times, and some times which fulfilled prophecy. An example of this type of miracle though was seen in the beginning of the Church and which has been publicized (yet, why not national attention? Because they don't care and they don't believe because they did not see it with their own eyes). Early Church history talks about a storm during a conference and the storm parted leaving the conference without a rain drop. Miracle, yes. Also, think about the time before Christ comes again, and the two prophets, which will be publicized before all, and think of the miracles and God's power being manifest plainly, and yet the natural man still does not convert. There are times or certain miracles, and there are times when they are not.
Some say we don't need BIG miracles anymore because we no longer have such a need.  I would argue we need big miracles more than ever.  Do we not continue to have wars?  Do we not continue to have sick among us?   Others would say we do hear of many miracles today in the church, but on a much more subtle level.  The sick are sometimes healed when Priesthood blessings are administered to them.  But these events are never publicized nor do they attract the same national attention as did miracles found within the Bible.
I would disagree personally with the first sentence; however, some "BIG" miracles are for specific purposes like addressed in my previous paragraph. Sick are healed among us, and from friends I know who have been in war they speak openly, if inspired, about miracles they encountered with other members. I would love to hear about "BIG" miracles, and I have heard of some, one particularly in my stake, but these are sacred events and experiences, and are not my place to share in an open forum, nor nationally. Elder Neal A. Maxwell came to BYU while I was attending and shared a wonderful miracle that happened to his ancestor. At the end of the talk he asked that his talk would not be written because he shared a miracle that he never shared in a open forum like that before. I have looked for his talk again to be able to remember exact details (so my second hand experience is more correct), but I have never found it. A lovely pearl this miracle was.
Did Jesus not gain national attention even when trying to avoid it?
No, Jesus did not gain national attention and for good reason as shared previously and again, "For should the mighty miracles be wrought among other nations they would repent, and know that he be their God." If Jesus gained national attention he would have never been crucified, and also remember the natural man seeks to hide miracles with a different explanation of the results. Think about the Pharisees and how they wanted the record to be written regarding Christ's body no longer in the tomb. We have miracles publicized in our scriptures and think how intriguing it is that Atheism is on the rise among our younger generations.
We've had 16 modern-day prophets from 1830 to 2017, and yet none, to my knowledge, has performed a miracle that gained national attention as did many miracles we read of in the Bible.
1) Joseph Smith and others healing people with Malaria. This is published material and the world ignores such a miracle with -- never happened!
2) Wilford Woodruff, I would recommend reading his biography. In this book they talk about his mission experiences and how he performed mighty miracles in the east missions of the United States. This is published material and these aren't going national -- why -- because the natural man doesn't care about what they can not see, hear, feel, or touch themselves. Why perpetuate a lie -- in their eyes.
3) I know of a mighty miracle from Elder Holland in Russia. National attention, none.
4) President Monson shares an experience while he visited one of the Polynesian islands. I find it interesting that he doesn't give any insight to the end of the blessing, he merely says what was pronounced and that they went their separate ways.
The question is, with all the miracles that have been published and are published why have they not received national attention? Why aren't people lining up to be baptized with all the miracles that were performed and are publicized?
Does anyone know of a miracle performed by a modern-day prophet that gained national attention?  And no, I'm not looking for a sign, just a pattern between Mormon modern-day prophets and prophets of the Bible.
Yes (Edit: meaning they have been published for the whole world to read), I have shared at least one that is published. There are plenty more. In some ways, I feel the same, let the whole world know, but then again, I am glad that these are kept sacred this way the glory returns to God, and not to man. I think this is one of the main reasons we are counseled not to tell the whole world. All we do is to glorify God, and if you notice, people who perform miracles often become the center of focus -- not God, but within sacred circles and when shared by the spirit these events glorify God and increase the faith of those present.
I assume, which you already know, the question (especially for us as priesthood holders) is have we ourselves been an instrument for God in performing a miracle, if not, why not?
 

If I am understanding you correctly, the hat string needs to be tied to the robe, it is part of putting the temple clothes on correctly. Some hat strings now have velcro, and you don't need to tie anything, just loop and press together. Everyone ties it down because this is how we are instructed when first going through and receiving endowment. If the string means nothing, and we can put it under our cap, why have it in the first place?
In light of this, does the string need to be tied in a bow, in a knot, etc... This is the mundane that doesn't really matter.
EDIT: Temple presidencies and patrons/matrons are able to answer these questions more thoroughly in the temple and they might be able to provide further insight in the proper place.

If I am understanding you correctly, the hat string needs to be tied to the robe, it is part of putting the temple clothes on correctly. Some hat strings now have velcro, and you don't need to tie anything, just loop and press together. Everyone ties it down because this is how we are instructed when first going through and receiving endowment. If the string means nothing, and we can put it under our cap, why have it in the first place?
In light of this, does the string need to be tied in a bow, in a knot, etc... This is the mundane that doesn't really matter.
EDIT: Temple presidencies and patrons/matrons are able to answer these questions more thoroughly in the temple and they might be able to provide further insight in the proper place.

If I am understanding you correctly, the hat string needs to be tied to the robe, it is part of putting the temple clothes on correctly. Some hat strings now have velcro, and you don't need to tie anything, just loop and press together. Everyone ties it down because this is how we are instructed when first going through and receiving endowment. If the string means nothing, and we can put it under our cap, why have it in the first place?
In light of this, does the string need to be tied in a bow, in a knot, etc... This is the mundane that doesn't really matter.
EDIT: Temple presidencies and patrons/matrons are able to answer these questions more thoroughly in the temple and they might be able to provide further insight in the proper place.

Anyone ever tell a story where people, who were attending, were omitted out? I am really not sure why members are bothered by different events shared (just my opinion); I understand though why anti-Mormons love this as they are looking for anything like the Pharisees with Christ when he lived. The first in 1832 he shares the Lord visited him, is this true? Yes. Does this story negate the Father was there also? No.
If two people visited me, and one directed me to speak to the other, and I spoke with the other the majority of the time. I would say the same thing, I spoke with [insert name] and he told me this. I do not need to address that both were present for the event, experience, to be true. I only need to speak the truth of what did occur. Did Joseph Smith speak with the Lord? Yes, then the first version is true, it doesn't matter what was left out. The Church could be right, as at times, we all address God the Father as the Lord, or God, and they are interchanged quite a bit even in scripture.
What is interesting to me, and what the Spirit has testified to me is how I learned the whole conversion story of my Father through different stories.
First Version:
"I found the missionaries and I was baptized."
Second Version:
"I was in Utah, and I had been searching for a church to join, possibly the true church if there were any. I was introduced to the missionaries, and I discovered it was true for myself."
Third Version:
"In the army I had a friend who decided that there was one true church, not all could be correct. He searched for this truth. When my mother died I begin to think about death, and if my mother truly still lived after death. I remembered this friend and begin my own search. After a year of searching I had almost given up and decided there was no true church. I was living for a short time with my brother, and he could see I was frustrated. He asked about my frustration and I shared with him my story. He then introduced me to the missionaries (my uncle had joined the church a few years before my father)...." I am closing this version here so as not to make it longer.
I once spoke with an individual who pretended not to be anti-Mormon, and he had his beef with this and tried to send it home. I shared with him this example and asked him strait forward, "Did my father lie to me, and is he conning me?" He was quite, and then finally said, "Yes, your father lied." I then responded, "Have you ever shared a story where items were omitted also"? He share he had, and so I responded back with, "So then, you are a liar and a fraud also." He didn't respond back, and changed the subject.
Due to this example in my life, I have never been bothered by the different versions of his experience. My father wasn't lying. He shared with me what he felt was important to share at the time. As I aged, and matured, I received more, and the third version was while I was on my mission. It was wonderful to hear the full experience of my father's conversion to the Church.

The question is roughly equivalent to saying, "If the Lord commanded homosexual marriage, would you accept it?" I mean, on the one hand, we must submit to anything and everything that the Lord sees fit to inflict upon us. And we know that obedience to the Lord always brings blessings, blessings which we can gain in no other way, such that the "inflicted" trials themselves become blessings, or at least gateways to blessings.
On the other hand, such a thing would be explicitly contrary to previous instruction, scripturally and through modern prophets. I realize that plural marriage was an enormous trial for the Saints in the early and mid-nineteenth century, and that more than a few of our most stalwart brethren and sisters (e.g. David Whitmer) apostatized over the practice. But at least those early Saints had ancient historical records of divine sanction of the practice to fall back on. There is no such record sanctioning polyandry (or homosexuality).
Bottom line: If the Lord commanded it through his prophet and I received a witness that I was to obey, I would obey -- or at least if I disobeyed, I would do so with the open acknowledgement that I was transgressing the Lord's will because of my own weakness and squeamishness.

I would accept anything the Lord commanded.

The concept of "self-censorship" is an interesting concept, as it does base itself in a principle, by which we govern ourselves. The notion at BYU, doesn't seem to apply because it is BYU's honor that censors, not the individual. If BYU's honor code allowed "nude" models, would we see "nude" models at BYU. My personal opinion, yes we would, and this would be defended under the banner of self-censorship with the following paragraph, “A nude image in and of itself is not salacious or pornographic. Now some may choose to see it that way, but I think that is a limitation of their training or their background.” So is BYU really "self-censored"? No. BYU, as a whole, is censored by the honor code, not individuals. Within the honor code professors, students, and models can then determine their self-censorship.
The Church self censors our very own temple videos, as we don't see Adam or Eve naked. I have a friend who shared an experience of a friend being the home teacher of a man who did not self censor his wife. There was a picture, nude picture, of his wife in their living room for all to see.
The concept of self censor is also the reason why I had a BYU professor distinguish between pornography and sexual education videos. If the video was under the banner of education and the people in the video were naked (performing sexual acts on video) this was not pornography -- this was education. This is part of the reason why (I feel) if their was no honor code, professors, students, and models would not self-censor -- they would be nude.
In these situations, can we use the excuse of "self censorship" and be clean with God in watching these or even participating in such scenes? After all it is just cinematography, it's only evil if we see it as evil!... really???
I believe this principle is properly applied here, "Be careful that we do not call evil good and good evil." This strays very, very close to calling evil good.

The concept of "self-censorship" is an interesting concept, as it does base itself in a principle, by which we govern ourselves. The notion at BYU, doesn't seem to apply because it is BYU's honor that censors, not the individual. If BYU's honor code allowed "nude" models, would we see "nude" models at BYU. My personal opinion, yes we would, and this would be defended under the banner of self-censorship with the following paragraph, “A nude image in and of itself is not salacious or pornographic. Now some may choose to see it that way, but I think that is a limitation of their training or their background.” So is BYU really "self-censored"? No. BYU, as a whole, is censored by the honor code, not individuals. Within the honor code professors, students, and models can then determine their self-censorship.
The Church self censors our very own temple videos, as we don't see Adam or Eve naked. I have a friend who shared an experience of a friend being the home teacher of a man who did not self censor his wife. There was a picture, nude picture, of his wife in their living room for all to see.
The concept of self censor is also the reason why I had a BYU professor distinguish between pornography and sexual education videos. If the video was under the banner of education and the people in the video were naked (performing sexual acts on video) this was not pornography -- this was education. This is part of the reason why (I feel) if their was no honor code, professors, students, and models would not self-censor -- they would be nude.
In these situations, can we use the excuse of "self censorship" and be clean with God in watching these or even participating in such scenes? After all it is just cinematography, it's only evil if we see it as evil!... really???
I believe this principle is properly applied here, "Be careful that we do not call evil good and good evil." This strays very, very close to calling evil good.

I really don't like the way the article is phrased. To me, it sounded more like the author was arguing that church leaders are imperfect which I agree with. But I think its been pointed out in earlier posts that the Church is seperate and distinct from the people who run it. That means to me the saving ordinances, priesthood authority, scriptural accounts etc. Those are perfect so I'm content to continue saying the church is perfect even though the people aren't I think that's pretty clear.

It's purely a definitional matter, isn't it? What is "the Church"? What constitutes perfection?
Personally, I fall on the side of disagreeing with the article. I'm not so much hung up on the wording in this case; it's more like, I don't trust when people want to highlight Church imperfections or attempt to draw unnecessary distinctions between "the Church" and "the gospel".
Sure they are different things: The gospel is the good news of Christ's atonement and our salvation, while the Church is the vehicle for proclaiming the gospel and the earthly Zion for an abode for the Saints. But without the Church, the gospel is unavailable to mankind, just as surely as without the gospel, the Church is useless. In my experience, drawing a bright-line distinction between the two is generally unhelpful and is often a step in pulling away from the gospel.
I understand the author's point, and I concede there is some truth to what she says. But I dislike the way she says it, to the point that I think she should rewrite the article. In fact, the very 1984 talk she references was originally given in much the same way as her article, emphasizing the separation of and differences between the Church and the gospel. I remember it well; it was given at the first General Conference following my return from my mission, and I was surprised to hear a talk delivered at General Conference that emphasized separation rather than unity. Brother Poelman was reportedly quite unhappy with how his talk was received, and actually asked to re-record his General Conference talk to emphasize the connection between the Church and the gospel rather than the distinction between them. The archived talk is the updated version, not the original version presented at General Conference.

Well, I wasn't sure if it was just me or not, but @anatess2's response makes me think it wasn't just me, so...  To me, the author seems to be equating "the Church" with "the Church leadership" and/or "the Church membership".  I think they are three independent terms, and while it may be common in a given context to use "the Church" as shorthand when you mean "the Church leadership" or "the Church membership", that would / should only be done when context makes your usage clear, and that in fact, they are not synonymous.
Actually, it can't.  It's an organizational structure, a concept (or a building, depending on your use) (unless it's clearly used as shorthand, see above).  Leaders of the Church can make an error.  Members of the Church can make errors.  The organizational structure is a non-agent.  It is not sentient.  It cannot act, therefore, it cannot err.  The author makes a point of saying that the words we use are important, and I agree.  Making a statement like "The Church is not perfect" can lead readers to an inaccurate conclusion and can be used by enemies of the Church in ways we wouldn't want...
"The  Church is run by imperfect people." <> "The Church is not perfect."  (The two statements are not synonymous.)

This is a poorly thought out article.
When we say The Church is perfect, we don't mean the individual person.  We mean the organization of this assembly of people.  The excommunication of the GA, for example, illustrates that an individual GA is in error.  It does not illustrate that the organization of General Authorities is in error.
How a Church can be in error - The Catholic Church proclaimed the authority of a Bishop as the Apostolic successor.  This Church is in error - and is, therefore, not perfect.  The LDS Church has no such errors (as we claim) and is, therefore, the most perfect organization on earth.
Writers tip:  Always be cognizant of word definitions and connotations.

Here are a number of miracles:
https://history.lds.org/article/hawns-mill-face-wheel?lang=eng
https://www.lds.org/ensign/2004/10/miracles?lang=eng
https://www.lds.org/children/resources/topics/priesthood-blessings?lang=eng&_r=1
i have had miracles occur in my life and I also know many people who have related miracles to me.
 

Daily conversations with my Heavenly Father. I find nothing strengthens my testimony more than really talking to God on a daily basis.

Why do we not hear about Mormon prophets today performing big miracles like prophets in old and new testament? 
1) I think if we are all genuine to ourselves we have probably asked this same question.
2) Miracles for one have been for "believers" and increase the faith of those that already believe. One example I find truly intriguing is Jesus's experience with Herod who desired to see a miracle. No miracle was performed. Why? 2 Nephi 10 may shed some light, "For should the mighty miracles be wrought among other nations they would repent, and know that he be their God."
3) Miracles do not convert the faithless, let me provide one example from a conversation with an ex-Mormon, now Atheist (at the time). His father shared with him how on his mission he, through Christ, was able to heal a clubbed foot. The son, now Atheist, merely said, "I believe my father miss diagnosed the clubbed foot and it would have healed on its own. Other Atheists I have spoken with, if you can't perform the same miracle on someone else, right then and there, in front of their eyes -- it never happened.
4) Miracles are sacred experiences, and are not to be cast before swine (hard term for others to hear -- you often get -- are you calling me "swine?"). I think someone already mentioned, people are learning to keep sacred experiences sacred unless inspired by the Spirit. I have never publicized any miracle to the public (at least details), only to members of the Church.
Noah constructed a great ark to be filled with a male and female from every living species on Earth....
These miracles are an exception, not the rule. We are talking about specific times, and some times which fulfilled prophecy. An example of this type of miracle though was seen in the beginning of the Church and which has been publicized (yet, why not national attention? Because they don't care and they don't believe because they did not see it with their own eyes). Early Church history talks about a storm during a conference and the storm parted leaving the conference without a rain drop. Miracle, yes. Also, think about the time before Christ comes again, and the two prophets, which will be publicized before all, and think of the miracles and God's power being manifest plainly, and yet the natural man still does not convert. There are times or certain miracles, and there are times when they are not.
Some say we don't need BIG miracles anymore because we no longer have such a need.  I would argue we need big miracles more than ever.  Do we not continue to have wars?  Do we not continue to have sick among us?   Others would say we do hear of many miracles today in the church, but on a much more subtle level.  The sick are sometimes healed when Priesthood blessings are administered to them.  But these events are never publicized nor do they attract the same national attention as did miracles found within the Bible.
I would disagree personally with the first sentence; however, some "BIG" miracles are for specific purposes like addressed in my previous paragraph. Sick are healed among us, and from friends I know who have been in war they speak openly, if inspired, about miracles they encountered with other members. I would love to hear about "BIG" miracles, and I have heard of some, one particularly in my stake, but these are sacred events and experiences, and are not my place to share in an open forum, nor nationally. Elder Neal A. Maxwell came to BYU while I was attending and shared a wonderful miracle that happened to his ancestor. At the end of the talk he asked that his talk would not be written because he shared a miracle that he never shared in a open forum like that before. I have looked for his talk again to be able to remember exact details (so my second hand experience is more correct), but I have never found it. A lovely pearl this miracle was.
Did Jesus not gain national attention even when trying to avoid it?
No, Jesus did not gain national attention and for good reason as shared previously and again, "For should the mighty miracles be wrought among other nations they would repent, and know that he be their God." If Jesus gained national attention he would have never been crucified, and also remember the natural man seeks to hide miracles with a different explanation of the results. Think about the Pharisees and how they wanted the record to be written regarding Christ's body no longer in the tomb. We have miracles publicized in our scriptures and think how intriguing it is that Atheism is on the rise among our younger generations.
We've had 16 modern-day prophets from 1830 to 2017, and yet none, to my knowledge, has performed a miracle that gained national attention as did many miracles we read of in the Bible.
1) Joseph Smith and others healing people with Malaria. This is published material and the world ignores such a miracle with -- never happened!
2) Wilford Woodruff, I would recommend reading his biography. In this book they talk about his mission experiences and how he performed mighty miracles in the east missions of the United States. This is published material and these aren't going national -- why -- because the natural man doesn't care about what they can not see, hear, feel, or touch themselves. Why perpetuate a lie -- in their eyes.
3) I know of a mighty miracle from Elder Holland in Russia. National attention, none.
4) President Monson shares an experience while he visited one of the Polynesian islands. I find it interesting that he doesn't give any insight to the end of the blessing, he merely says what was pronounced and that they went their separate ways.
The question is, with all the miracles that have been published and are published why have they not received national attention? Why aren't people lining up to be baptized with all the miracles that were performed and are publicized?
Does anyone know of a miracle performed by a modern-day prophet that gained national attention?  And no, I'm not looking for a sign, just a pattern between Mormon modern-day prophets and prophets of the Bible.
Yes (Edit: meaning they have been published for the whole world to read), I have shared at least one that is published. There are plenty more. In some ways, I feel the same, let the whole world know, but then again, I am glad that these are kept sacred this way the glory returns to God, and not to man. I think this is one of the main reasons we are counseled not to tell the whole world. All we do is to glorify God, and if you notice, people who perform miracles often become the center of focus -- not God, but within sacred circles and when shared by the spirit these events glorify God and increase the faith of those present.
I assume, which you already know, the question (especially for us as priesthood holders) is have we ourselves been an instrument for God in performing a miracle, if not, why not?
 

The witness I have received from the Spirit, and the personal miracles in my life, is the reason I believe I will endure to the end.

The witness I have received from the Spirit, and the personal miracles in my life, is the reason I believe I will endure to the end.

"We do not know much about who will inherit two of the three degrees within the celestial kingdom. However, much has been said about the highest level in the celestial kingdom, or exaltation, because that is where the Father wants all of His children to live (see Moses 1:39)."
- Elder B. Renato Maldonado
He them goes on to say nothing more about the other degrees, but only talks about the highest degree.
That is essentially what you will find.
 

Here is a breakdown of the different Kingdoms of Glory per Preach My Gospel and scripture
https://www.lds.org/manual/preach-my-gospel-a-guide-to-missionary-service/lesson-2-the-plan-of-salvation?lang=eng
Celestial Kingdom
"During our mortal lives we make choices regarding good and evil. God rewards us according to our works and desires. Because God rewards everyone according to deeds done in the body, there are different kingdoms of glory to which we may be assigned after the Judgment.  Those who have repented of their sins and received the ordinances of the gospel and kept the associated covenants will be cleansed by the Atonement of Christ. They will receive exaltation in the highest kingdom, also known as the celestial kingdom. They will live in God’s presence, become like Him, and receive a fulness of joy. They will live together for eternity with those of their family who qualify. In the scriptures this kingdom is compared to the glory or brightness of the sun."
Terrestrial Kingdom
"People who do not accept the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ but live honorable lives will receive a place in the terrestrial kingdom. This kingdom is compared to the glory of the moon."  
Telestial Kingdom
"Those who continued in their sins and did not repent in this life will receive their reward in the lowest kingdom, which is called the telestial kingdom. This kingdom is compared to the glory of the stars." Doctrine and Covenants 76:103 further clarifies this to mean the "liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie."
Outer Darkness
Helaman 12:25-26. 25 And I would that all men might be saved. But we read that in the great and last day there are some who shall be cast out, yea, who shall be cast off from the presence of the Lord; 26 Yea, who shall be consigned to a state of endless misery