We Are In The Telestial Kingdom Now, Proof By Contradiction

[anatess2]

11 minutes ago, Fether said:

@anatess2

“What is the damnation of hell? To go with that society who have not obeyed His commands” - Joseph Smith

I assume the opposite is true. The celestial kingdom is for that society that chose to obey.

We also know that David fell from his exaltation. So that sure is possible.

From what I understand. The celestial kingdom is for the society of people that have decided to not just obey, but abide the celestial law willfully and joyfully.

It is more than just an arbitrary check list of good, bad, and ugly.

If Hitler and Stallin repented and became wonderful guys, fully accepting the gospel to the point where they would never turn back, then sure! Open those wide pearly gates to him. I’ll be the first to shake their hands.

I don’t feel like it is any more complicated than this.

granted if you want to dive into Justice, mercy, and the atonement of Christ then we ought to discuss the ins and outs more.

As the thread shows, Rob Osborn has a different understanding of this.  I was simply curious as to where the divergence begins.

[estradling75]

45 minutes ago, person0 said:

A few sincere questions for everyone:

Do most people believe that the lower kingdoms will actually be located on different planets other than this earth?  (I have generally thought this to be the case in the past)  If so, where will those planets come from? Mars?  If not, how would a telestial body be able to physically abide the presence of a celestial earth?  And how would the Kingdoms be organized all onto one planet?

I tend to think its less a question of location and more a question of State of Being..  The degree of Glory seem to be directly linked to the Resurrection.  Thus if I resurrect to a Celestial Glory then I am in the Celestial Kingdom no matter where I might be physically located.

We read scriptures and hear stories Translated Begins and the spirit world as being right here but out of touch to our limited senses.  So that is kind of how I envision the Kingdoms working.

 

[The Folk Prophet]

43 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Just wanting to understand Rob's point of view.  I can't get there by taking big giant chunks of stuff.  I have to take tiny miniscule steps to see the divergence because there are things I think to be true interspersed tightly with things that I think to be false so when it's all big chunks I find myself both in agreement and disagreement with him both at the same time and it's super confusing.

That's because he's got a lot of things he says that are right. Philosophies of men mingled with scripture IS confusing. That's why it's such a great tool of the deceiver.

[The Folk Prophet]

47 minutes ago, person0 said:

Interesting thought.  I simply had not considered anything else aside from a planet.  I seriously doubt that the earth will lose its form as a planet, though.  I suppose we just don't know.

plan·et

ˈplanət/

noun

 

1. a celestial body moving in an elliptical orbit around a star.

Wouldn't it make more sense that other things orbit the Celestial Kingdom -- that maybe it will become a sun/star? Maybe?

We really don't know.

[anatess2]

11 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

plan·et

ˈplanət/

noun

 

1. a celestial body moving in an elliptical orbit around a star.

Wouldn't it make more sense that other things orbit the Celestial Kingdom -- that maybe it will become a sun/star? Maybe?

We really don't know.

Well, that settles it.  Telestial, Terrestrial, and OD are not planets.  Because they're not celestial bodies.  Because... definition. 

 

[person0]

24 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Wouldn't it make more sense that other things orbit the Celestial Kingdom -- that maybe it will become a sun/star? Maybe?

We really don't know.

Perhaps it would make sense, but then, Kolob is a star, and Heavenly Father doesn't actually reside on Kolob.

On a side note, I also wonder if outer darkness is possibly located somewhere that is not actually in the universe.  Is either the 'outer' or the 'darkness' literal, or figurative?

Edited April 12, 2018 by person0

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Okay.  He repented so he's in the Celestial Kingdom, right?

So, another guy.  His name is Joseph Bishop.  Baptized.  Raped a girl.  Repented.  Celestial Kingdom?

Another guy.  His name is Joseph Stalin.  Baptized by proxy.  Caused the death of millions of kulaks.  Repented.  Celestial Kingdom?

All good questions. Thanks. One thing to remember is that Christ will only save those willing to repent and become saints. The further towards evil one becomes the harder it is to turn back as their desire will be more swayed towards evil having yielded themselves to become angels to the devil. I imagine we could bring up what we believe is the most wicked person who walked the earth, killed millions of people, etc, and assume they are capable of repentance. Sure, anything is possible but generally speaking, those who perform the most wicked vile acts on humanity will more than likely choose not to repent. But, those who may repent, and do repent, as long as it isnt an unpardonable sin, Christ will remember their sins no more and are just as capable of righteousness as the next guy who didnt sin so great.

In the parable of the master and the laboroers in his vineyard we must remember that the master is the Savior and that the laborers represent those who heed Christs call and come into his fold and perform the necessary ordinance work for their salvation. The wage they all received was the same. That wage is forgiveness and salvation. Christ is teaching that it doesnt matter at what point the sinner turns from his wickedness or the magnitude of his sins and chooses to repent and perform works of righteousness, the wage of forgiveness of all their sins is the same- they are all cleansed and pure in the end and Christ remembers their sins no more.

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, person0 said:

A few sincere questions for everyone:

Do most people believe that the lower kingdoms will actually be located on different planets other than this earth?  (I have generally thought this to be the case in the past)  If so, where will those planets come from? Mars?  If not, how would a telestial body be able to physically abide the presence of a celestial earth?  And how would the Kingdoms be organized all onto one planet?

The official position of the church is that there are three separate and distinct worlds for the saved to go. This one position is where I see the biggest problems. For instance- the twrrestrial heirs are resurrected and reign with Christ for the thousand years. We must remember that they have already accepted the gospel in the spirit world. So obviously then, they are building up the kingdom of God on earth during the millennium and being perfected to be presented at the end of the thousand years spotless before God. So then- why would or are they doing all of this alongside Christ, serving as priests and priestesses just to basically be removed from the earth to go live in a different kingdom at that point?

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

That's because he's got a lot of things he says that are right. Philosophies of men mingled with scripture IS confusing. That's why it's such a great tool of the deceiver.

And yet, I dont work the tools of the deceiver. I work to counter Satans work.

[Colirio]

11 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

The official position of the church is that there are three separate and distinct worlds for the saved to go. 

Source, please. 

[Rob Osborn]

44 minutes ago, Colirio said:

Source, please. 

Um...you didnt know this? This earth will become the celestial kingdom. There is also a terrestrial world and a telestial world as the scriptures teach.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

And yet, I dont work the tools of the deceiver. I work to counter Satans work.

"Some in their spiritual immaturity attempt to appear sophisticated and intellectual. Instead of accepting revelation, they want to dissect it and add dimensions and variations of meaning that distort its beautiful truths."

"Some who are not authorized want to speak for the Brethren and imply that their message contains the “meat” the Brethren would teach if they were not constrained to teach only the “milk.” Others want to counsel the Brethren and are critical of all teachings that do not comply with their version of what should be taught."

-Quentin L. Cook

"Beware of those who speak and publish in opposition to God’s true prophets and who actively proselyte others with reckless disregard for the eternal well-being of those whom they seduce."

-M. Russell Ballard

[Rob Osborn]

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

"Some in their spiritual immaturity attempt to appear sophisticated and intellectual. Instead of accepting revelation, they want to dissect it and add dimensions and variations of meaning that distort its beautiful truths."

"Some who are not authorized want to speak for the Brethren and imply that their message contains the “meat” the Brethren would teach if they were not constrained to teach only the “milk.” Others want to counsel the Brethren and are critical of all teachings that do not comply with their version of what should be taught."

-Quentin L. Cook

"Beware of those who speak and publish in opposition to God’s true prophets and who actively proselyte others with reckless disregard for the eternal well-being of those whom they seduce."

-M. Russell Ballard

Yeah, thats not me. You are preaching to the wrong guy. Is there someone else in here you are referring to?

[The Folk Prophet]

3 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Yeah, thats not me. You are preaching to the wrong guy. Is there someone else in here you are referring to?

I'm not preaching to you. You are a lost cause. I'm well aware you refuse to accept the teachings of the living prophets and apostles you do not agree with. But you are, most certainly, the "guy" who is preaching what you believe to be "the meat" of the kingdoms of glory that the apostles aren't smart enough or inspired enough to understand, and are thereby constrained. You are most certainly the "guy" who believe his own sophistry and  intellect gives us the true dimensions and variations to understand "the truth". You are so the "guy" who speaks in opposition to the teachings of God's living prophets and apostles and are actively, recklessly proselyting other's to your belief system. You are SO that "guy".

[Rob Osborn]

7 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm not preaching to you. You are a lost cause. I'm well aware you refuse to accept the teachings of the living prophets and apostles you do not agree with. But you are, most certainly, the "guy" who is preaching what you believe to be "the meat" of the kingdoms of glory that the apostles aren't smart enough or inspired enough to understand, and are thereby constrained. You are most certainly the "guy" who believe his own sophistry and  intellect gives us the true dimensions and variations to understand "the truth". You are so the "guy" who speaks in opposition to the teachings of God's living prophets and apostles and are actively, recklessly proselyting other's to your belief system. You are SO that "guy".

You have no idea. Im just going to start calling you a liar.

[The Folk Prophet]

15 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

You have no idea. Im just going to start calling you a liar.

Right so here's how it goes concerning your view of the plan of salvation:

Rob: The apostles are wrong! I've figured this out with my intellect. I'm going to convince everyone I'm right.

TFP: You refuse the teachings of the living apostles because you've decided your intellect is superior and you are trying to convince everyone your view is right and their's is wrong.

Rob: Liar!

 

Sure. Everyone'll buy that.

Edited April 12, 2018 by The Folk Prophet

[Rob Osborn]

23 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Right so here's how it goes concerning your view of the plan of salvation:

Rob: The apostles are wrong! I've figured this out with my intellect. I'm going to convince everyone I'm right.

TFP: You refuse the teachings of the living apostles because you've decided your intellect is superior and you are trying to convince everyone your view is right and their's is wrong.

Rob: Liar!

 

Sure. Everyone'll buy that.

Liar.

[Rob Osborn]

This is how it really is-

Rob: The Book of Mormon teaching on the plan of salvation coupled with the D&C and temple language shows what appears to be a contradiction

TFP: theres no contradiction

Rob: I can show you

TFP: no you cant, what the current prophets say is absolute truth

Rob: Im not sure everything they say is truth, it may be doctrine but not exactly perfect truth

TFP: so you are better than the prophets eh?

Rob: i didnt say that

TFP: (quotes prophets then says) you are teaching according to the devil

Rob: liar

TFP: (repeats dialogue over and over again)

[Colirio]

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Um...you didnt know this? This earth will become the celestial kingdom. There is also a terrestrial world and a telestial world as the scriptures teach.

{Nevermind, it's not worth it...}

 

Good luck with that! 

Edited April 12, 2018 by Colirio

[Rob Osborn]

19 minutes ago, Colirio said:

{Nevermind, it's not worth it...}

 

Good luck with that! 

Good luck with what?

[The Folk Prophet]

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Rob: The Book of Mormon teaching on the plan of salvation coupled with the D&C and temple language shows what appears to be a contradiction

"Appears to be" if one is unwilling to consider plain explanations of how they aren't contradictory.

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

TFP: theres no contradiction

I agree that there appear to be some contradictions in some places actually. It doesn't take an extreme amount of effort to conservatively resolve most of these things. This has been explained to you, but you refuse to consider the explanations. Why is that I wonder?

You can say the same of me, of course...I refuse to consider your explanations... But that actually isn't true. I have considered your explanations. If this were a realm of pure reason and intelligence then some of your ideas would come across as good reasoning. You have made some good points. But they contradict our living prophets and apostles, whereas the explanations we've given you to consider do not. The only thing that makes your explanations of more worth than ours is your own stubborn determination that you've "figured this out". Beyond that, logically, both approaches hold water. You can't see it because you're so blinded by your own supposed prowess as a researcher of the meanings of words and scripture. Regardless, one approach aligns with the teachings of the living prophets and apostles, one does not. That's the deciding factor for me, and should be simply sufficient for pretty much everyone else. I'll accept the explanations that don't put me at odds with God's chosen vessels, thank you very much. And I will hold to the truth that putting oneself at odds with our living prophets and apostles is dangerous. Actively preaching that they are wrong is, as the prophets and apostles also teach, something to to beware of. Beware of Rob's false doctrine. It contradicts the prophets and apostles and he OPENLY preaches that they are wrong.

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Rob: I can show you

You've "shown" us ad nauseam. No one's convinced. If what's been "shown" is so plain and obvious, why is it not plain and obvious?

Because it's not obvious. You twist things to fit your own view, just as we twist things to fit our. The difference is, we understand that we're twisting things to fit with the teachings of our apostles. You twist things to support your own views.

And no, I'm not going to go through all your posts and show you where you've twisted things because I don't care. I know where I put my faith and trust. It is not in Rob Osborn and the church I'm sure he'll be starting someday when he actually takes all his research to the leaders and they tell him in no uncertain terms that he's mistaken.

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

TFP: no you cant, what the current prophets say is absolute truth

Yes, what the current prophets and apostles teach concerning the plan of salvation is absolute truth. It may not be complete truth. But it is is truth.

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Rob: Im not sure everything they say is truth, it may be doctrine but not exactly perfect truth

What you actually said was they were "wrong". Plain. Straightforward. Couldn't have been said more plainly. You literally said, as one example, "I love Elder Oaks but he is wrong on several points". You have repeatedly stated similar things.

This has been explained plainly as well. Sometimes prophets and apostles say wrong things. When they as a group are unified in their teaching, that same teaching is included in plain words in all approved and authorized manuals, books, speeches, etc., and such is commonly accepted as the plain doctrine of the church then claiming it is wrong is practically apostate.

There are, for example, inconsistencies in the way they have used the word "hell". The very idea that there's a doctrinal standard for a word that's straight up symbolism is kind of silly anyhow. But there is no alteration in their teaching of the degrees of Glory. None. It is as plain as can be, the view shared by every single one of them, in unison, proclaiming the truth of God.

Here's some more quotes I'm sure you'll hate:
“[We] should [bear] in mind that some of the General Authorities have had assigned to them a special calling; they possess a special gift; they are sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators, which gives them a special spiritual endowment in connection with their teaching of the people. They have the right, the power, and authority to declare the mind and will of God to his people, subject to the over-all power and authority of the President of the Church. Others of the General Authorities are not given this special spiritual endowment and authority covering their teaching; they have a resulting limitation, and the resulting limitation upon their power and authority in teaching applies to every other officer and member of the Church, for none of them is spiritually endowed as a prophet, seer, and revelator. Furthermore, as just indicated, the President of the Church has a further and special spiritual endowment in this respect, for he is the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator for the whole Church." - J. Reuben Clark Jr.

In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “we believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God” (Articles of Faith 1:9). This is to say that while there is much we do not yet know, the truths and doctrine we have received have come and will continue to come by divine revelation. In some faith traditions, theologians claim equal teaching authority with the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and doctrinal matters may become a contest of opinions between them. Some rely on the ecumenical councils of the Middle Ages and their creeds. Others place primary emphasis on the reasoning of post-apostolic theologians or on biblical hermeneutics and exegesis. We value scholarship that enhances understanding, but in the Church today, just as anciently, establishing the doctrine of Christ or correcting doctrinal deviations is a matter of divine revelation to those the Lord endows with apostolic authority.

The President of the Church may announce or interpret doctrines based on revelation to him (see, for example, D&C 138). Doctrinal exposition may also come through the combined council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (see, for example, Official Declaration 2). Council deliberations will often include a weighing of canonized scriptures, the teachings of Church leaders, and past practice. But in the end, just as in the New Testament Church, the objective is not simply consensus among council members but revelation from God. It is a process involving both reason and faith for obtaining the mind and will of the Lord.

At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. - D Todd Christofferson

I find it incredibly duplicitous of you to claim they are wrong so boldly and then claim faithful loyalty. The fact that you cannot see that this is problematic only goes to show how incredibly deep your blindness is.

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

TFP: so you are better than the prophets eh?

You yourself have declared that you have a gift that gives you greater understanding on this issue that our living prophets and apostles have.

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Rob: i didnt say that

Correct. You didn't say that. You said you understood this better than them and that they were wrong.

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

TFP: (quotes prophets

...which teach in exceedingly plain language that we should not listen to those who think they've figured out something the living prophets and apostles haven't.

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

then says) you are teaching according to the devil

Actually mostly what I've done lately is quote apostles and prophets. They speak for themselves right well.

But you are, obviously, teaching people that the doctrine being taught by our living prophets and apostles are wrong. Call me a liar all you want. That is what you are doing. And that, certainly, has the devil laughing with glee. Whether you realize it or not, whether you name call or not, whether you throw tizzy fits and open "poor picked on me" threads or not, it remains the reality. You are consciously, purposefully trying to sway people into believing that the prophets and apostles are wrong. There's no getting around it. It is plain to everyone.

And...where does it end. Why is your view that the prophets and apostles are wrong valid but all the millions of other intelligent people out there who intellectually challenge truth invalid?

If you successful convince anyone that their own intellect, or some other unauthorized person's intellect, is key, then what argument do you have against their going with what they've reasoned out that is contrary to an understanding you have. You have your mortal intelligence pitted against theirs. Are you smarter than EVERYBODY?

There are some incredibly smart, incredibly wicked people out there with some incredibly persuasive arguments that are the devil's, and they use the same tactic you do. They've reasoned it out.

Your reasoning is MEANINGLESS.

Frankly, I haven't even bothered to truly engage you intellectually. It wouldn't do any good for the reason's stated. It wouldn't sway you. You wouldn't sway me. So I've mostly ignored that approach. I could break down all the comments you've made, point out where you've twisted logic, show the faux pas I see in the thinking, back up everything with solid research and logic, etc.. But none of that matters. (Not to mention that I don't actually have THAT much time.) What matters is that God reveals His gospel plan and it's doctrines to certain people and those people do not include you. That's the end of it. Period. I follow and believe and trust the living prophets and apostles. I do not follow, believe or trust you, and I pray that no one else does either.

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Rob: liar

Sticks and stones...

[Rob Osborn]

50 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

"Appears to be" if one is unwilling to consider plain explanations of how they aren't contradictory.

I agree that there appear to be some contradictions in some places actually. It doesn't take an extreme amount of effort to conservatively resolve most of these things. This has been explained to you, but you refuse to consider the explanations. Why is that I wonder?

You can say the same of me, of course...I refuse to consider your explanations... But that actually isn't true. I have considered your explanations. If this were a realm of pure reason and intelligence then some of your ideas would come across as good reasoning. You have made some good points. But they contradict our living prophets and apostles, whereas the explanations we've given you to consider do not. The only thing that makes your explanations of more worth than ours is your own stubborn determination that you've "figured this out". Beyond that, logically, both approaches hold water. You can't see it because you're so blinded by your own supposed prowess as a researcher of the meanings of words and scripture. Regardless, one approach aligns with the teachings of the living prophets and apostles, one does not. That's the deciding factor for me, and should be simply sufficient for pretty much everyone else. I'll accept the explanations that don't put me at odds with God's chosen vessels, thank you very much. And I will hold to the truth that putting oneself at odds with our living prophets and apostles is dangerous. Actively preaching that they are wrong is, as the prophets and apostles also teach, something to to beware of. Beware of Rob's false doctrine. It contradicts the prophets and apostles and he OPENLY preaches that they are wrong.

You've "shown" us ad nauseam. No one's convinced. If what's been "shown" is so plain and obvious, why is it not plain and obvious?

Because it's not obvious. You twist things to fit your own view, just as we twist things to fit our. The difference is, we understand that we're twisting things to fit with the teachings of our apostles. You twist things to support your own views.

And no, I'm not going to go through all your posts and show you where you've twisted things because I don't care. I know where I put my faith and trust. It is not in Rob Osborn and the church I'm sure he'll be starting someday when he actually takes all his research to the leaders and they tell him in no uncertain terms that he's mistaken.

Yes, what the current prophets and apostles teach concerning the plan of salvation is absolute truth. It may not be complete truth. But it is is truth.

What you actually said was they were "wrong". Plain. Straightforward. Couldn't have been said more plainly. You literally said, as one example, "I love Elder Oaks but he is wrong on several points". You have repeatedly stated similar things.

This has been explained plainly as well. Sometimes prophets and apostles say wrong things. When they as a group are unified in their teaching, that same teaching is included in plain words in all approved and authorized manuals, books, speeches, etc., and such is commonly accepted as the plain doctrine of the church then claiming it is wrong is practically apostate.

There are, for example, inconsistencies in the way they have used the word "hell". The very idea that there's a doctrinal standard for a word that's straight up symbolism is kind of silly anyhow. But there is no alteration in their teaching of the degrees of Glory. None. It is as plain as can be, the view shared by every single one of them, in unison, proclaiming the truth of God.

Here's some more quotes I'm sure you'll hate:
“[We] should [bear] in mind that some of the General Authorities have had assigned to them a special calling; they possess a special gift; they are sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators, which gives them a special spiritual endowment in connection with their teaching of the people. They have the right, the power, and authority to declare the mind and will of God to his people, subject to the over-all power and authority of the President of the Church. Others of the General Authorities are not given this special spiritual endowment and authority covering their teaching; they have a resulting limitation, and the resulting limitation upon their power and authority in teaching applies to every other officer and member of the Church, for none of them is spiritually endowed as a prophet, seer, and revelator. Furthermore, as just indicated, the President of the Church has a further and special spiritual endowment in this respect, for he is the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator for the whole Church." - J. Reuben Clark Jr.

In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “we believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God” (Articles of Faith 1:9). This is to say that while there is much we do not yet know, the truths and doctrine we have received have come and will continue to come by divine revelation. In some faith traditions, theologians claim equal teaching authority with the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and doctrinal matters may become a contest of opinions between them. Some rely on the ecumenical councils of the Middle Ages and their creeds. Others place primary emphasis on the reasoning of post-apostolic theologians or on biblical hermeneutics and exegesis. We value scholarship that enhances understanding, but in the Church today, just as anciently, establishing the doctrine of Christ or correcting doctrinal deviations is a matter of divine revelation to those the Lord endows with apostolic authority.

The President of the Church may announce or interpret doctrines based on revelation to him (see, for example, D&C 138). Doctrinal exposition may also come through the combined council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (see, for example, Official Declaration 2). Council deliberations will often include a weighing of canonized scriptures, the teachings of Church leaders, and past practice. But in the end, just as in the New Testament Church, the objective is not simply consensus among council members but revelation from God. It is a process involving both reason and faith for obtaining the mind and will of the Lord.

At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. - D Todd Christofferson

I find it incredibly duplicitous of you to claim they are wrong so boldly and then claim faithful loyalty. The fact that you cannot see that this is problematic only goes to show how incredibly deep your blindness is.

You yourself have declared that you have a gift that gives you greater understanding on this issue that our living prophets and apostles have.

Correct. You didn't say that. You said you understood this better than them and that they were wrong.

...which teach in exceedingly plain language that we should not listen to those who think they've figured out something the living prophets and apostles haven't.

Actually mostly what I've done lately is quote apostles and prophets. They speak for themselves right well.

But you are, obviously, teaching people that the doctrine being taught by our living prophets and apostles are wrong. Call me a liar all you want. That is what you are doing. And that, certainly, has the devil laughing with glee. Whether you realize it or not, whether you name call or not, whether you throw tizzy fits and open "poor picked on me" threads or not, it remains the reality. You are consciously, purposefully trying to sway people into believing that the prophets and apostles are wrong. There's no getting around it. It is plain to everyone.

And...where does it end. Why is your view that the prophets and apostles are wrong valid but all the millions of other intelligent people out there who intellectually challenge truth invalid?

If you successful convince anyone that their own intellect, or some other unauthorized person's intellect, is key, then what argument do you have against their going with what they've reasoned out that is contrary to an understanding you have. You have your mortal intelligence pitted against theirs. Are you smarter than EVERYBODY?

There are some incredibly smart, incredibly wicked people out there with some incredibly persuasive arguments that are the devil's, and they use the same tactic you do. They've reasoned it out.

Your reasoning is MEANINGLESS.

Frankly, I haven't even bothered to truly engage you intellectually. It wouldn't do any good for the reason's stated. It wouldn't sway you. You wouldn't sway me. So I've mostly ignored that approach. I could break down all the comments you've made, point out where you've twisted logic, show the faux pas I see in the thinking, back up everything with solid research and logic, etc.. But none of that matters. (Not to mention that I don't actually have THAT much time.) What matters is that God reveals His gospel plan and it's doctrines to certain people and those people do not include you. That's the end of it. Period. I follow and believe and trust the living prophets and apostles. I do not follow, believe or trust you, and I pray that no one else does either.

Sticks and stones...

To each their own. You can believe what you want about me but just because I disagree with a certain doctrine doesnt make me apostate. I have way more in agreement with the plan of salvation than you realize. There really are only two parts that I believe are fuzzy. The first one is the belief or teaching that man can be saved from hell in the end without repentance and baptism and other saving ordinances of the temple. That certainly isnt an apostate belief. The other issue I think is fuzzy is there being three separate worlds for the saved to go to after judgment. I dont think thats apostate either to think theres sone problems. On the rest I agree with. I believe in the plan of salvation as taught in the scriptures. I further believe this earth is the telestial kingdom. That cant be apostate as a prophet of God even stated such in general conference and it plainly teaches that in the temple. Is the temple and a prophet apostate? 

I back up all my points with scripture. The scriptures arent apostate either. I find it interesting that I can make a claim that there is possibly error in our doctrine and you think Im apostate. Thats not apostate. Like I said before, for me, it doesnt matter if its you or my neighbor, or a prophet, if they say something that doesnt jive with whats already been revealed tgen Im gonna say "hey, we got an issue that doesnt make sense". Thats not apostate.

[The Folk Prophet]

9 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

To each their own. You can believe what you want about me but just because I disagree with a certain doctrine doesnt make me apostate. I have way more in agreement with the plan of salvation than you realize. There really are only two parts that I believe are fuzzy. The first one is the belief or teaching that man can be saved from hell in the end without repentance and baptism and other saving ordinances of the temple. That certainly isnt an apostate belief. The other issue I think is fuzzy is there being three separate worlds for the saved to go to after judgment. I dont think thats apostate either to think theres sone problems. On the rest I agree with. I believe in the plan of salvation as taught in the scriptures. I further believe this earth is the telestial kingdom. That cant be apostate as a prophet of God even stated such in general conference and it plainly teaches that in the temple. Is the temple and a prophet apostate? 

I back up all my points with scripture. The scriptures arent apostate either. I find it interesting that I can make a claim that there is possibly error in our doctrine and you think Im apostate. Thats not apostate. Like I said before, for me, it doesnt matter if its you or my neighbor, or a prophet, if they say something that doesnt jive with whats already been revealed tgen Im gonna say "hey, we got an issue that doesnt make sense". Thats not apostate.

Denver Snuffer believes he can't be apostate either because everything he teaches is from the scriptures. And his views makes way more sense than yours. They still excommunicated him. What for? Claiming the living prophets and apostles were wrong. The only difference, really, was he published a book on it. Why don't you publish a book on your views and see what happens.

I'm not sure how anyone can believe that what is or is not apostate stems from their thinking the scriptures support their view.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Denver Snuffer believes he can't be apostate either because everything he teaches is from the scriptures. And his views makes way more sense than yours. They still excommunicated him. What for? Claiming the living prophets and apostles were wrong. The only difference, really, was he published a book on it. Why don't you publish a book on your views and see what happens.

I'm not sure how anyone can believe that what is or is not apostate stems from their thinking the scriptures support their view.

Me and Denver snuffer are at opposite ends. If you think we are similar it just shows to me how dillusional your mind is. Completely ridiculous. I dont claim to have any revelation like he claims. I fully support the prophets. For you to make such a claim proves to me you are either blindly ignorant or an outright liar. Im guessing the former. Get informed.

[The Folk Prophet]

37 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Me and Denver snuffer are at opposite ends. If you think we are similar it just shows to me how dillusional your mind is. Completely ridiculous. I dont claim to have any revelation like he claims. I fully support the prophets. For you to make such a claim proves to me you are either blindly ignorant or an outright liar. Im guessing the former. Get informed.

Publish a book on your beliefs. Try it out. See what happens.

Until then...going into ignore mode. Good bye.

Edited April 13, 2018 by The Folk Prophet