Recommended Posts

On 2/14/2018 at 12:10 AM, Project Doctrine of Christ said:

Horse is dead, yes. I don't know how else to say it. I will however say it one more time, "I have never studied his works or his teachings." I don't know anything about his excommunication other than what was reported in a Utah news report in 2017 SLTrib (I believe?). From what I remember, snuffer set himself up as a light to lead people away from the church and into unauthorized paths. That would priestcrafts (2 Nephi 26:29). I would support excommunication for priestcrafts if warranted. 

 

Actually, what Snuffer did was exactly what you are doing. EXACTLY. Well, okay...he published books instead of a website. So not "exactly" exactly. But exactly. He promoted the exact principles you are promoting. He focused on the importance of the second comforter. He promoted it in the same manner you are. He just happened to get a bunch of people to believe him. He continually, throughout the entire process, deferred credit, demanded that he was supportive of the church, the prophets, apostles, etc...    ...until he wasn't. Then...

The fact that his path, which is the same one you're on, led to his excommunication should be very telling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/10/2018 at 3:04 PM, Project Doctrine of Christ said:

THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST IS THE TRUTH, INVITATION AND MEANS WHEREBY ALL THAT ARE 'JUST AND TRUE' SONS OR DAUGHTERS OF JESUS CHRIST WILL LITERALLY RECEIVE HIM WHILE IN MORTALITY BY BEING A PERSONAL WITNESS OF THE MARKS OF HIS ATONEMENT, EXPERIENCE HIS GLORY, AND BE PERSONALLY TAUGHT BY HIM IN HIS PRESENCE RECEIVE EXALTATION BY OBEDIENCE TO THE PRINCIPLES AND ORDINANCES OF THE GOSPEL.

Fixed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Project Doctrine of Christ,

I think your statements and perspectives would be more well received if rather than linking to your own website, if all your quotes and passages linked to sources available via lds.org.  Even your website would be more well received if you directly linked all quotes and evidence of the principles to lds.org and quotes from prophets and apostles on that site.

As of right now, without doing that, you are likely to be interpreted by members of this forum as though you are like Zeezrom.  I say that because that is me giving you the benefit of the doubt.  If you do have a subversive intent, then you would be more like Korihor.  (Notice my use of links so that you can read the information and perspectives directly from an authorized source)

I have a question that perhaps will help shed some light on your perspective.  Why do you think that the website you have created is necessary?  Why have the leadership of the Church not created similar study guides with the same focus and intent?  If we uphold the prophet and apostles, would we not assume that Christ would lead them to invite us to focus on these principles in the way you have presented them if it were what He wanted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Actually, what Snuffer did was exactly what you are doing. EXACTLY. Well, okay...he published books instead of a website. So not "exactly" exactly. But exactly. He promoted the exact principles you are promoting. He focused on the importance of the second comforter. He promoted it in the same manner you are. He just happened to get a bunch of people to believe him. He continually, throughout the entire process, deferred credit, demanded that he was supportive of the church, the prophets, apostles, etc...    ...until he wasn't. Then...

The fact that his path, which is the same one you're on, led to his excommunication should be very telling.

Ok, all new to me. But I guess my question is did Snuffer get excommunicated for teaching false doctrine or for leading people away from the church? I only ask because the doctrine of the second comforter is in the scriptures, in the LDS Bible Dictionary and deeply explained by some LDS Church leaders since Joseph Smith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, person0 said:

@Project Doctrine of Christ,

I think your statements and perspectives would be more well received if rather than linking to your own website, if all your quotes and passages linked to sources available via lds.org.  Even your website would be more well received if you directly linked all quotes and evidence of the principles to lds.org and quotes from prophets and apostles on that site.

As of right now, without doing that, you are likely to be interpreted by members of this forum as though you are like Zeezrom.  I say that because that is me giving you the benefit of the doubt.  If you do have a subversive intent, then you would be more like Korihor.  (Notice my use of links so that you can read the information and perspectives directly from an authorized source)

I have a question that perhaps will help shed some light on your perspective.  Why do you think that the website you have created is necessary?  Why have the leadership of the Church not created similar study guides with the same focus and intent?  If we uphold the prophet and apostles, would we not assume that Christ would lead them to invite us to focus on these principles in the way you have presented them if it were what He wanted?

Not sure I understand. For clarification, the study guide is loaded with scriptures allowing people to read the Lord's own words in scriptures and receive a spiritual witness through personal revelation (truth through the power of the Holy Ghost) and I would be better off redirecting people to talks from Elder Christopherson because he is more credible?...and because of that i am like Zeezrom? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Project Doctrine of Christ said:

Ok, all new to me. But I guess my question is did Snuffer get excommunicated for teaching false doctrine or for leading people away from the church? 

Both; he taught demonstrably false doctrines about the Church and its history.  His excommunication had nothing to do with his claim to have received the Second Comforter; except insofar as he has used his claims to goose public interest in what would otherwise be some pretty run-of-the mill second-rate scriptural exegesis and third-rate historical analysis. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Project Doctrine of Christ said:

Not sure I understand. . . I would be better off redirecting people to talks from Elder Christofferson because he is more credible?

Yes, Elder Christofferson's authority as an apostle of the Lord is more credible than anything you or I might teach or interpret or piece together, even through what we might claim to be a personal revelation or witness from the Lord.  Once you accept that he is an apostle, you accept that this is true and applicable to any time he is acting in his prophetic calling.  To reject this is to also invalidate the 'words of Christ' to which you refer, as those words were written or translated by individuals with the same purported authority and calling.  You may accept or reject modern prophets, but since you have claimed to accept them and sustain them, their words are more authoritative than yours on any point of doctrine.  More importantly, please specifically address the following questions you did not address:

1) Why do you think that the website you have created is necessary?  2) Why do you think the leadership of the Church have not created similar study guides with the same focus and intent?  3) If we sustain the modern prophet and apostles, would we not assume that Christ would lead them to invite us to focus on these principles in the way you have presented them if it were what He wanted?

Edited by person0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Both; he taught demonstrably false doctrines about the Church and its history.  His excommunication had nothing to do with his claim to have received the Second Comforter; except insofar as he has used his claims to goose public interest in what would otherwise be some pretty run-of-the mill second-rate scriptural exegesis and third-rate historical analysis. 

That is good to know. So the doctrine of second comforter is not a false doctrine?...He was just spreading false doctrine about the church and its history directly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Project Doctrine of Christ said:

That is good to know. So the doctrine of second comforter is not a false doctrine?...He was just spreading false doctrine about the church and its history directly.

Of course the Second Comforter/Calling and Election is a true doctrine.  I wouldn’t phrase everything about it the way you have, and if pushed I’d probably say that you’re misapplying a few of the scriptures you cite.  But fundamentally the basics are correct, they’re doctrinal, and IIRC the Topical Guide published with the LDS scriptures even has entries on the topic.

I do get concerned when I see many vocal proponents of the topic bombastically positing their exegesis of an ambiguous scripture passage as being the only rational reading, or making uncharitable assumptions about those who disagree with some of their views, or treating the Church as superfluous.  One of the great tragedies of this beautiful doctrine is that it has been so poorly represented by so many of those who seek to promulgate it.  I’m not one to confront a person who claims to have seen a heavenly being and start insisting that the person didn’t really see what they think they saw.  But I would expect a person who had received the Second Comforter to be more Christlike than your average denizen of the interwebs; and of the half-dozen internet folks I’m familiar with (prior to you, of course) who claim to have had such an experience, I don’t know that I could say *any* of them really fit that bill.

The above isn’t meant to imply anything about you specifically.  Rather, it’s intended as an explanation for some of the suspicion and pushback you may have seen in this thread.  Unfortunately, sad experience had taught me to look with trepidation on those who spend a inordinate amount of time on the topic.  That certainly isn’t fair to you; but as random internet strangers it’s just one of those things we have to work through with time and patience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 6:48 PM, Project Doctrine of Christ said:

. . . why we are not discussing it more than we are. Why are people not sharing their experiences. . .

Because we have been instructed by the Lord's anointed not to share deeply sacred private experiences except in rare circumstances.  Receiving the second comforter is most certainly aat the top of the list of possible experiences that fall into that category.

Quote

I have learned that strong, impressive spiritual experiences do not come to us very frequently. And when they do, they are generally for our own edification, instruction, or correction. …

I have come to believe also that it is not wise to continually talk of unusual spiritual experiences. They are to be guarded with care and shared only when the Spirit itself prompts you to use them to the blessing of others. …

We are, I believe, to keep these things and ponder them in our hearts.

- Elder Boyd K. Packer

(When is it not appropriate to share spiritual experiences?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, person0 said:

Yes, Elder Christopherson's authority as an apostle of the Lord is more credible than anything you or I might teach or interpret or piece together, even through what we might claim to be a personal revelation or witness from the Lord.  Once you accept that he is an apostle, you accept that this is true and applicable to any time he is acting in his prophetic calling.  To reject this is to also invalidate the 'words of Christ' to which you refer, as those words were written or translated by individuals with the same purported authority and calling.  You may accept or reject modern prophets, but since you have claimed to accept them and sustain them, their words are more authoritative than yours on any point of doctrine.  More importantly, please specifically address the following questions you did not address:

1) Why do you think that the website you have created is necessary?  2) Why do you think the leadership of the Church have not created similar study guides with the same focus and intent?  3) If we sustain the modern prophet and apostles, would we not assume that Christ would lead them to invite us to focus on these principles in the way you have presented them if it were what He wanted?

Wow! Not sure what church you belong to but the scriptures are the word of God. Elder Christopherson does not have more credibility than the scriptures. I was not saying in any way that my thoughts carry more weight than Elder Christopherson's. My point was that the study guide has many scriptures. A person reads the scriptures. A person can ask for the power of the Holy Ghost to reveal God's truth. This is called personal revelation. It is how each of us receives truth and light from God. It is one of many different ways to develop a relationship with God. The scriptures therefore are a means of learning and then allowing the voice of the Lord to teach.

I do accept that Elder Christopherson has been called of God. I sustain him in his current calling and roles. I also believe the scriptures when it says that God is no respecter of persons. God equally loves me, you and any church leader the same. God offers a unique journey to each person. God offers the same truth or witness to me, you and any church leader. As much as I love and sustain Elder Christopherson, he is also arm of flesh. There are many quotes from church leaders about not depending on the arm of flesh and not depending on church leaders because they will fail you. If you want me to paste the quotes in, just say so. The only one that will not fail you is the Lord because he is the source of all truth. Thus pointing people to the scriptures to sponsor personal study, pondering and receiving light and truth from the Lord because he is full of truth.

Answering your questions:

1) Because it increases awareness of the promise given to Adam and Eve in the garden (Moses 5:1-15). It is as if we have forgotten the promise given to them. More in depth reasoning for the study guide is laid out in the first section (pages 9-17).

2) Because the leaders of the church are speaking to such a broad audience (15+ Million members) across a spectrum diverse spiritual levels. Thus they speak to the lowest common denominator for the most part. That is not a bad thing it is just a function of practicality. Do the church leaders not tell us to have personal scripture study, "feast on them", "search" them, "learn of Christ", "pray", seek for personal revelation and truth, and more?

3) See #2

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Of course the Second Comforter/Calling and Election is a true doctrine.  I wouldn’t phrase everything about it the way you have, and if pushed I’d probably say that you’re misapplying a few of the scriptures you cite.  But fundamentally the basics are correct, they’re doctrinal, and IIRC the Topical Guide published with the LDS scriptures even has entries on the topic.

I do get concerned when I see many vocal proponents of the topic bombastically positing their exegesis of an ambiguous scripture passage as being the only rational reading, or making uncharitable assumptions about those who disagree with some of their views, or treating the Church as superfluous.  One of the great tragedies of this beautiful doctrine is that it has been so poorly represented by so many of those who seek to promulgate it.  I’m not one to confront a person who claims to have seen a heavenly being and start insisting that the person didn’t really see what they think they saw.  But I would expect a person who had received the Second Comforter to be more Christlike than your average denizen of the interwebs; and of the half-dozen internet folks I’m familiar with (prior to you, of course) who claim to have had such an experience, I don’t know that I could say *any* of them really fit that bill.

The above isn’t meant to imply anything about you specifically.  Rather, it’s intended as an explanation for some of the suspicion and pushback you may have seen in this thread.  Unfortunately, sad experience had taught me to look with trepidation on those who spend a inordinate amount of time on the topic.  That certainly isn’t fair to you; but as random internet strangers it’s just one of those things we have to work through with time and patience.

Great observations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Project Doctrine of Christ said:

Elder Christofferson does not have more credibility than the scriptures.

You are wrong about that.  Elder Christofferson has equal authority with the scriptures.  Or did you forget that the individuals who wrote the scriptures were just mortal men who held the authority of God, just as Elder Christofferson does?  Given that Elder Christofferson , or as a further example, President Nelson, is a living prophet of God, then by default, if we accept him as a true prophet, his words are of higher value than the words of a dead prophet.  Especially because dead prophets are not alive to be able to clarify and interpret their own words for us.

Quote

The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works.
(Ezra Taft Benson)
'compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.’ That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation; ‘Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.’
(Brigham Young and Joseph Smith as quoted by Ezra Taft Benson)

18 minutes ago, Project Doctrine of Christ said:

God offers the same truth or witness to me, you and any church leader.

This is true, but He will not give us something different or opposed to His prophet.  Also, He will not call us to reveal or preach truth outside of the context of what His prophets are called to reveal.

18 minutes ago, Project Doctrine of Christ said:

Do the church leaders not tell us to have personal scripture study, "feast on them", "search" them, "learn of Christ", "pray", seek for personal revelation and truth, and more?

Yes, so since they already tell us to do that, a righteous individual who does this would have no need for your study guide.  They would be able to receive the Lord and the 2nd comforter  without ever needing to focus on trying to achieve that goal specifically.  Personally, I believe and am confident that focusing on that as a goal is not the way to achieve that as a goal.

Edited by person0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, person0 said:

You are wrong about that.  Elder Christofferson has equal authority with the scriptures.  Or did you forget that the individuals who wrote the scriptures were just mortal men who held the authority of God, just as Elder Christofferson does?  Given that Elder Christofferson , or as a further example, President Nelson, is a living prophet of God, then by default, if we accept him as a true prophet, his words are of higher value than the words of a dead prophet.  Especially because dead prophets are not alive to be able to clarify and interpret their own words for us.

This is true, but He will not give us something different or opposed to His prophet.  Also, He will not call us to reveal or preach truth outside of the context of what His prophets are called to reveal.

Yes, so since they already tell us to do that, a righteous individual who does this would have no need for your study guide.  They would be able to receive the Lord and the 2nd comforter  without ever needing to focus on trying to achieve that goal specifically.  Personally, I believe and am confident that focusing on that as a goal is not the way to achieve that as a goal.

I appreciate your passion. I respect your opinion. 

I will just leave it with these comments from some of our favorite church leaders telling us to avoid this excessive dependence upon leaders in the latter and modern day:

Joseph Smith: “Because of...the apparent imperfections of men on whom God confers authority, the question is sometimes asked,—to what extent is obedience to those who hold the priesthood required? This is a very important question, and one which should be understood by all Saints. In attempting to answer this question, we would repeat, in short, what we have already written, that willing obedience to the laws of God, administered by the Priesthood, is indispensable to salvation; but we would further add, that a proper conservative to this power exists for the benefit of all, and none are required to tamely and blindly submit to a man because he has a portion of the Priesthood. We have heard men who hold the Priesthood remark, that they would do any thing they were told to do by those who presided over them, if they knew it was wrong: but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself, should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God, who seeks for the redemption of his fellows, would despise the idea of seeing another become his slave, who had an equal right with himself to the favour of God; he would rather see him stand by his side, a sworn enemy to wrong, so long as there was place found for it among men. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty (!) authority, have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the Saints were told to do by their Presidents, they should do it without asking any questions.

“When the Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience, as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong themselves, and wish to pave the way to accomplish that wrong; or else because they have done wrong, and wish to use the cloak of their authority to cover it with, lest it should be discovered by their superiors, who would require an atonement at their hands.” [Priesthood," Millennial Star 14/38 (13 November 1852)]

“The obligation of revelation for the individual is often referred to as an “ascent vision experience.” It remains of paramount importance to all believers to seek the Lord’s face. Brigham Young said, “What a pity it would be if we were led by one man [or men – the arm of flesh] to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire of themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path that the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, pps. 149-50).

President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., warned that “the ravening wolves are amongst us from our own membership and they, more than any others, are clothed in sheep’s clothing, because they wear the habiliments of the Priesthood. … We should be careful of them.” (The Improvement Era, May 1949, p. 268.)

Ezra Taft Benson: “The world largely ignores the first and great commandment–to love God–but talks a lot about loving their brother. They worship at the altar of man. Would Nephi have slain Laban if he had put the love of neighbor above the love of God? Would Abraham have taken Isaac up for a sacrifice if he had put the second commandment first? "It is from within the Church that the greatest hindrance comes. Six of the original Twelve Apostles selected by Joseph Smith were excommunicated. The Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon left the Church. Three of Joseph Smith’s Counselors fell - one even helped plot his death. A natural question that might arise would be, that if the Lord knew in advance that these men would fall, as he undoubtedly did, why did he have his Prophet call them to such high office? The answer is: to fill the Lord’s purposes. For even the Master followed the will the will of the Father by selecting Judas.

“Perhaps it is His own design that faults and weaknesses should appear in high places in order that His Saints may learn to trust in Him and not in any man or men. And this would parallel Lehi’s warning; put not your “. . . trust in the arm of flesh. . . .” (2 Nephi 4:34). What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire of themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders."

SOURCE: Be Not Deceived, Elder Ezra Taft Benson Of the Council of the Twelve Apostles, Ezra Taft Benson, Conference Report, October 1963, p. 15-19, http://scriptures.byu.edu/gettalk.php?ID=1286

“Precepts of men or principles of God: Yes, it is the precepts of men versus the principles of God. The more we follow the word of God, the less we are deceived, while those who follow the wisdom of men are deceived the most. Increasingly the Latter-day Saints must choose between the reasoning of men and the revelations of God. This is a crucial choice, for we have those within the Church today who, with their worldly wisdom, are leading some of our members astray. President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., warned that "the ravening wolves are amongst us from our own membership and they, more than any others, are clothed in sheep's clothing, because they wear the habiliments of the Priesthood . . . We should be careful of them." (The Improvement Era, May 1949, p. 268.)

“The Lord does not always give reasons for each commandment. Sometimes faithful members, like Adam of old, are called upon to obey an injunction of the Lord even though they do not know the reason why it was given. Those who trust in God will obey him, knowing full well that time will provide the reasons and vindicate their obedience.

“The arm of flesh may not approve nor understand why God has not bestowed the priesthood on women or the seed of Cain, but God's ways are not man's ways (Isa. 55:8-9). God does not have to justify all his ways for the puny mind of man. If a man gets in tune with the Lord, he will know that God's course of action is right, even though he may not know all the reasons why.

“The Prophet Joseph Smith understood this principle when he said, ". . . the curse is not yet taken off from the sons of Canaan, neither will be until it is affected by as great a power as caused it to come; and the people who interfere the least with the purposes of God in this matter, will come under the least condemnation before Him; and those who are determined to pursue a course, which shows an opposition, and a feverish restlessness against the decrees of the Lord, will learn, when perhaps it is too late for their own good, that God can do His own work, without the aid of those who are not dictated by His counsel." (Documentary History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 438.)

President George Q. Cannon once taught, “Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a Bishop, an apostle or a president; if you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support will be gone; but if we lean on God, He will NEVER fail us. When men and women depend upon GOD ALONE and trust in HIM ALONE, their faith will not be shaken if the highest in the Church should step aside.” (DW 43:322 [Mar 7, 1891]).

James E. Talmage: “The same principle applies to persons and to the Church as a whole today. God has not established His Church to make of its members irresponsible automatons, nor to exact from them blind obedience. Albeit, blessed is the man who, while unable to fathom or comprehend in full the Divine purpose underlying commandment and law, has such faith as to obey. So did Adam in offering sacrifice, yet, when questioned as to the significance of his service, he answered with faith and assurance worthy the patriarch of the race: "I know not, save the Lord commanded me." [James E. Talmage, The Vitality of Mormonism, p. 42.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Project Doctrine of Christ said:

I will just leave it with these comments from some of our favorite church leaders telling us to avoid this excessive dependence upon leaders in the latter and modern day:  . . .

Okay, so I read all that.  I appreciate your diligence, but I fail to see the relevance.  Rather than address the specific things I brought up, you have taken each of these passages in a way that I believe is out of context and are trying to apply them to something to which they are not relevant.  Most of those passages apply to having our own witness by the power of the Holy Ghost, rather than suggesting we need to attain and receive all of the knowledge from scratch from the Lord as if we didn't have his servants, the prophets to guide us.

I certainly understand that leaders in the Church are mortal, fallible, men.  However, so were the ones who wrote the words we now have as scriptures.  Absolutely ZERO difference.  Also, the mortality, fallibility, and frailty of our leaders has ZERO bearing on our ability to rely on their knowledge and understanding of scripture and of what is pertinent to our time.  Why/How?  Because they are united.  The doctrines and focuses of the Church are established by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  One or many apostles and leaders may fail us, and the Lord, but the doctrines as outlined by the combined leadership remains.

Anyway, its pretty simple, either you accept that the words of the Living prophet are more important and more valuable and more authoritative than a dead prophet, or you don't.  And if you don't then I see no reason to continue this discussion, as I would believe your perspective to be inherently flawed and contrary to the established doctrine of the Church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Project Doctrine of Christ said:

So Adam and Moses (just to name a few) had it all wrong then (Moses 5:1-15Moses 6:59-62Moses 6:64-68)?

No. But you have it wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I would have used a lighter editorial touch by simply substitution “may” for “will”.

That would still be deceptive, imo. The doctrine of Christ "is" about our exaltation. Implying it is about any other thing as the core focus, even with the word "may" in there still subtly deceives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Project Doctrine of Christ said:

That is good to know. So the doctrine of second comforter is not a false doctrine?...He was just spreading false doctrine about the church and its history directly.

The doctrine of the second comforter is not false doctrine. The idea that we must seek a physical manifestation of Christ in mortality as our primary focus is THE doctrine of Christ is. And more importantly, the means of doings so presented contains false doctrines and principles craftily designed to lead people away from the church, specifically the don't trust in the prophets stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now