Hill-Billy Dave's second post; D&C 45:25-39

[pam]

No one commented on my new picture.

I'm still seeing your old picture. My end hasn't changed yet.

[Just_A_Guy]

Pres. Taylor said . . .

Not so fast. Lorin Woolley said--based on memories he'd forgotten but which were "miraculously" restored to him some thirty years after the alleged meeting--that President Taylor had said this. And there's no collaboration for this quote besides Woolley's say-so. Zero. Zilch. None.

You aren't following John Taylor. You're following Lorin Woolley.

Why?

Just a guy: Hmm. Does he still stand by the stuff he wrote before 1993? I have no idea what this means or why it was said.

Because he was excommunicated in 1993 for some of his more "out there" teachings. The fact that he was later re-baptized casts serious doubt on whether Gileadi himself would now agree with his pre-1993 writings--let alone any bastardized interpretations you may have applied to them.

Edited December 8, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[HiJolly]

Apostle John W. Taylor: My father received a [supposed] revelation which however was never presented to the Church, and I refer to this not because it was a [supposed] revelation to my father; I don’t think a revelation because it came through him was any greater than one received through any other president of the Church, but because it seems to pertain to this question. (comments in brackets supplied by HiJolly)

Apostle John W. Taylor was one of those unfortunate souls who was over-bearing in his 'righteousness'; who strained at a gnat and swallowed a camel; a man who bore false witness multiple times whilst speaking in General Conference; a man who was voted against in a Solemn Assembly of the Church, with both sisters and brethren standing against his sustaining in General Conference.

His fall came long before his excommunication. I could say more, but won't. It was a very sad story. I wouldn't really take his statements as being worth anything. Neither should any faithful LDS believe what Lorin C. Woolley had to say, sadly.

My bona fides are really irrelevant, though I will say that my great-grandfather was claimed by Br. Woolley to be one of the seven patriarchs holding the fullness of the Melchizedek Priesthood, after the second manifesto. FWIW.

HiJolly

Edited December 8, 2009 by HiJolly

[OneEternalSonata]

Truth #1: The Holy Ghost told me personally that the Priesthoods were restored to the earth.

Truth #2: The H.G. also confirmed that Thomas S. Monson holds all the priesthood keys.

Truth #3: The H.G. further confirms that my ordinations are official and sanctioned by my Heavenly Father.

Truth #4: The H.G. bore witness to me that the line of authority from Joseph to Thomas is unbroken.

Truth #5: This means that my priesthood line of authority is unbroken.

No questions in my book. Apparently, the Holy Ghost sanctions President Grant's administration. His approval is all I need.

[MarginOfError]

Truth #6: Hill-billy is a certified nut case.

[Maya]

Dear Hilly Billy (nice new pic) and others. UH... how many people are there that have been excommunicated or who have resighned the church for some difference of opininon in the scriptures or "doctorin" or doctorin. (Why twice... yeah think...). MANY!

I am a convert to the Church and I was converted because of the evangelium missionaries taught me. The evangelium did not really differ from the one I already knew, but the things around it had some new features for me, features one could call learning more. It is ok if someone dont want to learn more the can close their eyes and ears. I did not and I do not, as I want to know about God, I want to know about what He expects me to do here on earth. That is why I listened, not because of that I wanted to believe so or so...

If we should also study of all those men who become exmormons and why and... one lifetime would NOT be enough to do that!

Anyway I came in the church in 1981. Before me there had been many who resighned, who were excommunicated, but one thing I KNEW was that the profet we had that day WAS real Gods Profet (Kimball)! I knew it as strongly as I know today that Profet Monson IS Gods Profet. I knew and know it through the Holy Ghost.

If this Church would not be what it claims, it had died a long time ago or had just been a small communion like all those branches, that have come out of it who claim they are right and we are wrong.

All this talk about long dead leaders who tried to lead the Church an other way, or who said this or that and who we still think were for real.... it has NO value! We live today, what has been has been!

I dont say all the toughts someone resighned the Church for, are wrong, but they have been established in the wrong time and wrong spirit. Often people who do not get their words through and people to cheer for them feel hurt. Anyway I do... and I done so many times, but that is NOT the point. Point is that God knows WHEN is time and for what but we dont. If we did we would not need God to lead us, we would not need a Profet. I fear many Churches today feel God is too far to know what WE need and have taken the lead to themselves.

And yes, I have things I would like to see happening in the church, but I need to wait. I need to wait that the dear brothers reach ther too... It is no reason to make a big deal of it, even though I do burn for it/them (LDS schools as the educatrion in usual schools is not good enough and for sure dont teach kids the way of God, TRANSLATIONS to Finnish!). It is like a wall against me... but walls are known to tumble down when it is time (Berlin). One thing I wont give up is this internett cyber misionary work... even though I do get some weird looks every time I open my mouth about it. Luckily my dear Bishop knows me.. I am not trailing off. it is a way for me to discuss also in my own lanbguage.

I seen so many exmormons shouting for good things, but all too soon. If they had got their new ideas done then, when they told about them, they had been happy in Church, but like I said things dont go that way... there is order in Gods House! And God knows what is best for us all. Put your trust on His leadership!

[Maya]

Truth #6: Hill-billy is a certified nut case.

Laugh not awailable ... how ever I chalense it...

[Mahone]

I'm still seeing your old picture. My end hasn't changed yet.

Press CTRL + F5 together when a page with hillbillys post on is open.

[rameumptom]

1886 Revelation

Given to President John Taylor September 27, 1886

My son John, you have asked me concerning the New and Everlasting Covenant how far it is binding upon my people.

Thus saith the Lord: All commandments that I give must be obeyed by those calling themselves by my name unless they are revoked by me or by my authority, and how can I revoke an everlasting covenant, for I the Lord am everlasting and my everlasting covenants cannot be abrogated nor done away with, but they stand forever.

Have I not given my word in great plainness on this subject? Yet have not great numbers of my people been negligent in the observance of my law and the keeping of my commandments, and yet have I borne with them these many years; and this because of their weakness—because of the perilous times, and furthermore, it is more pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in regard to these matters. Nevertheless, I the Lord do not change and my word and my covenants and my law do not, and as I have heretofore said by my servant Joseph: All those who would enter into my glory must and shall obey my law. And have I not commanded men that if they were Abraham’s seed and would enter into my glory, they must do the works of Abraham. I HAVE NOT REVOKED THIS LAW, NOR WILL I, for it is everlasting, and those who will enter into my glory MUST obey the conditions thereof; even so, Amen.

The problem with this revelation is that it does not specifically mention plural marriage. Second, plural marriage in the eternities still goes on, as men today are married sequentially for eternity to more than one spouse. My step-grandfather had two spouses die before he married my grandmother for eternity. All three are sealed to him in the next life, though he was only allowed to marry one at a time here.

IOW, plural marriage still is a part and parcel of the Church. It just isn't practiced here in mortality. So, this revelation could still be correct, and Pres Woodruff's Manifesto can also be correct simultaneously.

[pam]

I know many take the words "The new and everlasting covenant" to mean marriage and plural marriage only. This covenant doesn't apply just to marriage. Baptism and ordination of the Priesthood is also considered a part of this new and everlasting covenant.

Edited December 8, 2009 by pam

[rameumptom]

OK Pam..

I am not sure what is your question and what is a comment.

Naturally the church wants to hide or not talk about these things. I understand that. So the only way we can read them or try to understand them is to look to the books I listed. Being that You or I will not agree on these points. I wrote these posts trying to get people to get out of he box and read some history of our church. This is not a court trial. We must read, gather the documents and then pray about it. How you and I interpret these things is up to our free agency.

I have studied Isaiah for many years; I have read it in Hebrew. There are three ways to read all scriptures, superficial reading of the print, next in regard to ourselves and in regard to priesthood, future events etc. etc. The study of Isaiah is complex, yet easy to understand if you understand the way the old Hebrews wrote prophesies. To help you understand Isaiah purchase and read all the books by Abraham Gileadi. (You may already have them, if so I apologize) I do not want to preach.

I decided to change my picture to something that fits my personality.

OK someone list (bullets) all your questions for me one by one and not to many, I will do my best to answer them.

So you are basically here proselyting for a fundamentalist group?

I've read Gileadi's books. They are good, but I do not agree with everything. Today, he admits he was wrong concerning the falling away of the church leadership in the latter-days.

The fact is, I have read for 30 years on many of these things, and I'm still convinced by the Spirit that the LDS Church has the authority. You are leaning on dead prophets, rather than trusting in the living prophets of God. There were people who believed Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet. These included David Whitmer. Why? Because Joseph's teachings changed over time, radically changing in the late Missouri/Nauvoo era.

If we are going to believe there are fallen prophets, why not just reject Joseph's later teachings, which include plural marriage? That's what the RLDS/Community of Christ does.

Why must we believe that John Taylor's prophecy must be binding, when it wasn't presented to the Church, wasn't signed by him or the 12 apostles (as Brigham Young has official statements done in his time), etc? It is way too convenient to be deceived by Woolley and others who were so focused on plural marriage that they looked beyond the mark.

[Hill-Billy]

BY said it somewhere in the journals. That the church would retain enough prieshood to carry it off triumphantly. I agree with that statement. The church belongs to our heavenly father and he will do with it as he pleases. We don't have to steady the Ark, if we do we will receive the same as those in bibilical time recieved, Father Killed them for interferring in his affairs.

And to rameumptom, NO I am not trying to get you goof balls to leave the church.

Gileadi. wanted to remain in the church so he sucked up.

My dear friend and brother Nibley found himself in the same spot, if you remember.

[Just_A_Guy]

Gileadi. wanted to remain in the church so he sucked up.

Woolley had a high libido, so he told fairy tales.

My dear friend and brother Nibley found himself in the same spot, if you remember.

No, I don't remember. And I can't help but wonder whether you met Nibley while you were getting all those federal cases ready for trial.

Edited December 8, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

My dear friend and brother Nibley found himself in the same spot, if you remember.

Here is what I remember about your "dear friend and brother" Hugh Nibley:

He never once spoke against the Church or its leaders. Not a single time. No matter that he was twice as smart as many of them (and pretty much everyone else); he knew their station, and he knew his own place. He looked up to them as the Brethren and followed what they had to say. And when he had a disagreement with them in policy or in doctrinal interpretation, he kept his mouth shut.

Of course, if you're talking about Fred Nibley down the street, then that may be different.

[NeuroTypical]

Naturally the church wants to hide or not talk about these things.

I'd like to copy and paste LDS.net Site rule #1:

1. Do not post, upload, or otherwise submit anything to the site that is derogatory towards The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its teachers, or its leaders. Anti-LDS Propaganda will not be tolerated anywhere.

Your accusation that the church wants to hide truth, is a clear violation. I'd love you to be around in a year or two, so I can take you to task about your end-times prediction, but beware the moderator hammer, Hill-Billy.

LM

[FunkyTown]

I'd like to copy and paste LDS.net Site rule #1:

1. Do not post, upload, or otherwise submit anything to the site that is derogatory towards The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its teachers, or its leaders. Anti-LDS Propaganda will not be tolerated anywhere.

Your accusation that the church wants to hide truth, is a clear violation. I'd love you to be around in a year or two, so I can take you to task about your end-times prediction, but beware the moderator hammer, Hill-Billy.

LM

The fact that you remember when people make predictions for specific dates makes me cheer, LM.

I sincerely hope HB is here in a year as well as you taking someone to task for specific predictions is something I secretly am gleeful for.

[pam]

LM is referring to the prediction made in this thread. That we have a year to get out of the cities or perish.

[Wingnut]

LM is referring to the prediction made in this thread. That we have a year to get out of the cities or perish.

Well, I live in Cleveland, so I'm not too worried. My city was pretty much destroyed 40 years ago.

[FunkyTown]

Well, I live in Cleveland, so I'm not too worried. My city was pretty much destroyed 40 years ago.

I always thought Cleveland Rocks!

[Wingnut]

I always thought Cleveland Rocks!

Have you ever actually been here?

Actually, I find it interesting that anytime I've ever seen a movie or TV show that takes place in (or has any scene that takes place in) Cleveland completely makes fun of it.

I don't mind it so much. I've been here about two-and-a-half years, so not long.

(My 40 years ago comment referred to the most recent fire on the Cuyahoga River.)

[Guest]

Lived in Mentor, Ohio, Northeast of Cleveland for a while. Yeah. I love Cleveland except when the snow starts to fall...

[Snow]

Here is what I remember about your "dear friend and brother" Hugh Nibley:

He never once spoke against the Church or its leaders. Not a single time. No matter that he was twice as smart as many of them (and pretty much everyone else); he knew their station, and he knew his own place. He looked up to them as the Brethren and followed what they had to say. And when he had a disagreement with them in policy or in doctrinal interpretation, he kept his mouth shut.

I don't think that is true.

1. you wouldn't really have any idea if "He never once spoke against the Church or its leaders." At best you could say only as far as you know.

2. I can think of one critical thing off the top of my head: Leaders and Managers, The Fatal Shift. It was actually a follow-up to some original criticism years early when he was much dismayed by the "hypocrisy" and "fakery" in BYU curriculum. He was highly critical in his personal letter, "Dear Brother Bergen." I don't know if Earnest Wilkinson was a General Authority but responsibility for the school was certainly under the Brethren purview.

[Hemidakota]

I can agree with Snow.

He was outspoken at times over various topics....one I can clearly remember was his thought who created chaos. This did not stand well with the brethren who heard this but I totally agree with his comment 100-percent.

I am also critcial at times with some of the leadership, when GOD reveals personal requested revelation, three of which was a trueism in the Mormon Doctrine only to see a prophet said otherwise.

Even in the Celestial Kingdom, we will have disagreements.

[rameumptom]

Gileadi. wanted to remain in the church so he sucked up.

My dear friend and brother Nibley found himself in the same spot, if you remember.

No, Gileadi had a testimony of the gospel, and chose to follow the Brethren. He had been warned about not publicly teaching things contrary to the doctrine of the Church, and he did it anyway. However, I am not certain that is what he was excommunicated for, as that was kept quiet.

As for Hugh Nibley, he was outspoken on issues, but not necessarily directed at the Brethren. He did not like Wilkinson at BYU, but then Pres Hugh B Brown didn't like Wilkinson, either. And criticizing Wilkinson was very different from criticizing the Brethren. These were not doctrinal issues, but policy issues. Gileadi was pointedly going against doctrine, and has since reversed himself - not to "suck up", but to be obedient.