Unexplainable things in scripture

[JohnsonJones]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

JJ, at the risk of getting too meta, you of course realize that falsely accusing me of bearing false witness against you is itself a false witness. Don't you?

I had no such haste.

I left that part out because it was not directly relevant. Rather than accusing the Church leaders of being in apostasy, you were merely hinting that such might be the case. I find such hints dangerous and counterproductive to the cause of the Saints. Of course men are imperfect, even those who lead the kingdom of God. But that is not relevant. Your poorly-thought-out examples of supposed mistakes by ancient leaders in God's kingdom do not make your point.

What in the WORLD are you talking about?

Are you so desperate to accuse others and find fault with others?

Seriously?

Quote

JJ, you are completely welcome to point out whatever I have written "FAR closer to apostasy". In fact, please do so. If I have in fact written things that border on apostasy, I want to know so that I can rethink that position and see where I stand on it. If no such things exist, then of course I'm sure you will quickly withdraw your false witness against me. Right?

A basic teaching of the Church is the plan of Salvation.  In that plan there are three degrees of Glory, the Telestial, the Terrestrial, and the Celestial.  Currently it is taught that there are ALSO several degrees within the Celestial Kingdom and in order to get the Highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, one needs to enter into the new and everlasting covenant.  You have stated in the past and taught against this VERY BASIC teaching.  Normally I try to find basic ground and build someone up and do not point out how one is deviating from ideas taught in the church, but it does NOT mean I do not notice when someone does so.  WE have one poster that does this often who is taken to task about it by others, but you seem to avoid such matters when you posts things that directly go against what the church teaches.

Quote

In the meantime, as long as you continue to make such blatantly false statements as that the ancient Nephite leaders did not even recognize Samuel as a true prophet or record his words until the Lord came in the flesh and told them to, I will continue to  point out that you are mistaken.

Have you read the Book of Mormon

Quote

6 And now it came to pass that when Jesus had said these words he said unto them again, after he had expounded all the scriptures unto them which they had received, he said unto them: Behold, other scriptures I would that ye should write, that ye have not.

7 And it came to pass that he said unto ^aNephi: Bring forth the record which ye have kept.

8 And when Nephi had brought forth the records, and laid them before him, he cast his eyes upon them and said:

9 Verily I say unto you, I commanded my servant ^aSamuel, the Lamanite, that he should testify unto this people, that at the day that the Father should glorify his name in me that there were ^bmany ^csaints who should ^darise from the dead, and should appear unto many, and should minister unto them. And he said unto them: Was it not so?

10 And his disciples answered him and said: Yea, Lord, Samuel did prophesy according to thy words, and they were all fulfilled.

11 And Jesus said unto them: How be it that ye have not ^awritten this thing, that many ^bsaints did arise and appear unto many and did minister unto them?

12 And it came to pass that Nephi remembered that this thing had not been written.

13 And it came to pass that Jesus commanded that it should be ^awritten; therefore it was written according as he commanded.

It may be open to interpretation, but at a minimum at least a little was not written.  A broader interpretation is that the words of Samuel needed to be written.

 

2 hours ago, Vort said:

You have represented yourself as a historian. Do you truly consider yourself to be a historian? If so, do you analyze historical documents with the same critical eye as you used to analyze the passages in 3 Nephi about Samuel the Lamanite? Because if so, your historical insights will be questionable indeed. On the other hand, if you use a higher standard for critical analysis of profane historical texts, you might consider giving the same effort to your understanding and analysis of scripture.

Let me make sure I understand you. It sounds as if you are stating that, when the Lord comes, he (the Lord) will need to receive keys of leadership that he now lacks from past and then-present Church presidents.

Do I understand you correctly?

If so, I assert that this is nonsense, and that you have badly misunderstood whatever teachings you apocryphally reference. Maybe you should tell us what quotations you're using to come to that determination, and we can discuss whether they mean what you claim they mean.

These are things that Joseph and Brigham and others have talked about, but in your usual manner to disregard whatever anyone says, even prophets, but yourself, you of course, know better than they do.

2 hours ago, Vort said:

I disbelieve your assertion. No one has "the ability to baptize himself". That is not how Priesthood ordinances work. Whatever Alma was doing in his self-dunking, I believe that it was not an ordinance of self-baptism.

Once again, do you read the Book of Mormon

Quote

12 And now it came to pass that Alma took Helam, he being one of the first, and went and stood forth in the water, and cried, saying: O Lord, pour out thy Spirit upon thy servant, that he may do this work with holiness of heart.

13 And when he had said these words, the ^aSpirit of the Lord was upon him, and he said: Helam, I baptize thee, having ^bauthority from the Almighty God, as a testimony that ye have entered into a ^ccovenant to serve him until you are dead as to the mortal body; and may the Spirit of the Lord be poured out upon you; and may he grant unto you eternal life, through the redemption of Christ, whom he has prepared from the ^dfoundation of the world.

14 And after Alma had said these words, both Alma and Helam were ^aburied in the water; and they arose and came forth out of the water rejoicing, being filled with the Spirit.

15 And again, Alma took another, and went forth a second time into the water, and baptized him according to the first, only he did not bury ^ahimself again in the water.

16 And after this manner he did baptize every one that went forth to the place of Mormon; and they were in number about two hundred and four souls; yea, and they were ^abaptized in the waters of Mormon, and were filled with the ^bgrace of God.

It is NOT a mystery on this matter...

 

2 hours ago, Vort said:

However that may be, John did of course have authority to baptize, an ordinance to which Jesus submitted himself. But your earlier statement was that John (the Baptist) was "the REAL leader" of the religion/Church:

To assert that John, not the mortal Christ himself, was "the REAL leader" of the religion is simply false, and to assert that John was "the REAL leader" of the Church ignores what the Church was (namely, that it was founded by Christ, not by John the Baptist).

Do you not understand the difference between the mortal hierarchy of the church and that of the spiritual hierarchy? 

This, again shows that you may interpret how the keys of authority are held differently than I and many others.  To try to use that to call someone sinning or in apostasy, especially if there are writings of General Authorities to explain that John the Baptist had such authority...boggles the mind.

You seem DEAD SET on arguing against things that have been talked about previously or taught in lesson manuals and other items.

If you have problems, perhaps you should try to change the church instead of accusing me of ridiculous things.

 

2 hours ago, Vort said:

Yes, and...? What of it? How does this buttress your claims?

I think that Christ's apostles failed (through no fault of their own) to perpetuate the kingdom of God, resulting in their Church falling into apostasy. I think that our modern apostles will suffer no such fate, whatever their weaknesses and trials.

I never said anything of the sort.

What ARE you on?

The Lord's apostles did NOT fail to perpetuate the Kingdom, they died off and apostasy happened later.  If we look at the changing ideas and thoughts in history, we see that small things changed and small events occurred until those things came to a fore and made major changes.  Much of what were originally small changes and opinions became pretty massive when Constantine started to form councils to solidify opinions and thoughts in his day. 

That defined moment in time when the older ideas became persecuted and we can say the Church was absolutely at that time in apostasy was several hundred years AFTER the apostles (except for John) were DEAD.

2 hours ago, Vort said:

I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you claiming that the Lord will come again the second time, but not necessarily be known to all? Because if so, you are dangerously at odds with our own prophetic teachings. Or are you saying that Jesus may have appeared and may yet appear to individuals in mortality in private theophanies? This is surely true, but I don't understand what you're suggesting by it. You think that Christ may appear to some Church leaders, who then don't realize that it was Christ? And this is a major worry for you?

The post I responded to was not what I was actually responding to? I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Not at all.  I am not claiming anything of the sort and if that is what you are interpreting that I stated, you would be absolutely and completely wrong and off the mark.

Where in the world are you getting such a ridiculous notion!?

Your phrasing also is curious.  The Lord already visited more than two times (he came to the Nephites, he visited his apostles after his resurrection, he visited Joseph...etc).  If you are talking about the second coming, I am NOT talking about his second coming. 

I was referring to visitations that some say will come prior to the second coming. 

Not every visitation of his is probably made known to the apostles.  Many in the church have claimed to have seen the Lord, and even apostles and prophets have made a claim to see the Lord but it was not something made known to ALL  the General Authorities at the time, or made public to the church.  For example, Elder Haight had a vision of the Lord which he made known to friends and some others, but as far as I know it was never something that was made known as something in the general public or published to all who would hear. 

However, even there was not what I was referring to.  In some discussions there has been (non doctrinal) the idea passed on that the Lord will come visit the leaders of the Church.  In this will be offered a final sacrifice, and in addition it is there that supposedly according to some that the keys of this dispensation will be returned and that ALL the Keys will then be held as an offering to the Lord.  Some say this will happen prior to the second coming, some say it will happen after. 

In this, the only one that it would be necessary to even show up would probably be the Prophet himself (and similarly to the days of John the Baptist, who was the one who actually held the authority as opposed to those who were the Church leaders at the time in the mortal hierarchy).  We would hope others would be involved, but they may not even be told.  It would not be without precedence (there are times Joseph and even Brigham did things that the other church leaders were not made aware of until afterwards, sometimes a LONG time afterwards).

WE cannot tell what form or ideas will come out and be supported or opposed.

We also know that two prophets are supposed to be raised from the Jewish People to teach in Jerusalem.  We suppose that they will be General Authorites and perhaps even Apostles...but not very many of our current apostles are Jewish or raised from the Jewish People.  When they come, we do not know (as there is no solid doctrine on it) where they will arise from, but if they arise from the Lord and NOT our priesthood hierarchy (and that raises an INTERESTING question about keys), then the question is how we would react and will it be similar to how the people reacted in Jerusalem.  We know that the world will despise them, which should give us insight as to why not as many accepted the Lord at his mortal ministry despite all the signs being there that showed who he was.

anyways, I would appreciate you to stop making false accusations and trying to infer I am saying things I am not.

[JohnsonJones]

3 hours ago, Vort said:

So you're suggesting that a true prophet of the Lord Jesus Christ, with divine authority to preach the gospel in Christ's name, might well arise OUTSIDE THE KINGDOM OF GOD? And that in turn, the leaders of God's kingdom MIGHT NOT RECOGNIZE HIM AS A TRUE PROPHET?

Do I have that right?

Amazing.

No, you do NOT have it right.  So not that amazing.

Why do you keep trying to make false accusations and try to tell me I'm saying things which I am not stating?

The CHURCH itself is NOT the entirety of the Kingdom of God.  The church is a part of the Kingdom, but it is not the WHOLE Kingdom.  Sort of like every human male is part of the human race, but not every human in the human race is male.

There have, at times, been multiple prophets called.  During Lehi's time there were at least two prophets running around at the same time.  They had different missions. 

During the time of Alma we had Abinadi and Mosiah at the same time, and later Alma and Mosiah as well.  Alma was given the leadership of the Church to organize.

We know at some point there will be two Prophets in Jerusalem.  We do not have doctrine on WHO they will be, but we suppose they will be General Authorities from the Church.  This may NOT necessarily be so, we need to have the spirit to recognize it if it turns out it is not. 

They will be sent to the Jews, which is a different mission from that of our current Leadership.

It may be that even if the Prophet recognizes them, many others in leadership positions may not.  It may be that situations of the day (as there will be a great war going on) that communications of the sort we have now are not able to be used and that the leaders that are available are not able to communicate these things.

There are SO MANY DIFFERENT scenarios that it is impossible to talk about them all or even come up with all of them in which such recognition may not be given.

Even in the Lord's time, JOHN recognized the Lord, but there were MANY who did not.  Peter identified the Lord, but the Pharisees and others who fancied themselves experts of religion, with all their knowledge and ability still needed a traitor to identify the Lord to themselves.  You assume that ALL church leaders will be perfect and able to do the right thing.  Even today, we have Church leaders (more normally local than in the highest hierarchies of the church) that do terrible sins and many other things.

Quote

JJ, I'm not sure what to say. If you truly believe this, you are so far off what I understand to be the true path that I see you as being in great spiritual jeopardy, and in danger of leading others away in a Snuffer-esque manner.

You know what, perhaps you should stop judging others and start looking at yourself.  How many righteous saints have you driven from these forums.  How many righteous individuals have you called a sinner and tried to convince to leave the church because you are so full of yourself?  You are rather arrogant and seem to love to try to find motes in others eyes (even if you have to make up these things like you have been doing with me and your false accusations tossed at me).  Maybe you should worry more about how YOU conduct yourself than making off the wall accusations.

I have NOTHING in common with Snuffer and, unlike you and your disagreement about the Basic plan of Salvation, support the teachings of our leaders today.

Quote

The Pharisees had no divine authority to instruct others on the true ways of God; they set themselves up as the wise. Christ repeatedly called them hypocrites, ultimately because of this very thing; they set themselves up as some kind of authority. To compare Church members today following their leaders with the Jews of old following the Pharisees is so badly off the mark that I can think of no response except to point out that it's a fallacious comparison.

You are using one small definition of faith—belief without full knowledge—to define the whole of faith and then claim that your unbelief is actually faithful.

You are mistaken. Faith is a multifaceted gem, and "belief without full knowledge" is but one facet of that gem. The word "faith" builds off of that small definition, but in its fullest sense it means a great deal more than just that. Or are you suggesting that the Lord, who is faithful, must therefore lack full knowledge?

Do you believe the Spirit is guiding you to hold back from believing and following the Church's leaders until such a time as you gain a testimony of their divine callings?

Once again, what are you talking about?

There were various church leaders at the time... and various parties. 

The Pharisees and Sadducees and others composed much of the thought process at the time and from these groups came the various leaders of the religious organizations in so far as legal and literal interpretation came.  The Priests still were the ones at the temple, but much of the aristocracy in regards to the leadership of the church came from these groups.  If we were a theocracy in the US, you could view it somewhat as the Republicans and Democrats in which the party themselves are not the leaders, but our leaders in many instances (though not all) in many matters come from these parties.

Thus, they were seen as the mortal hierarchy, or mortal leadership of the Church at the time.  However, it was JOHN who held the actual authority.  His Father was the High Priest prior to him, and the Bible does not say that others received this office legally after his death. 

You seem to confuse my statements regarding a mortal hierarchy vs. that of the spiritual hierarchy.  Perhaps this is where your miscasting my statements wrongly come from.  A MORTAL heriarchy is of MEN, NOT NECESSARILY that of the Lord.  They CAN and DO at times overlap, but not always.  For example, we have a spiritual hierarchy within the church which is dictated by revelation.  We also have a Mortal hierarchy that is composed of much the same network but also includes the bureaucracy of the church.  There is also a LARGE mortal hierarchy that is NOT included within our church that is composed of by other churches and their leaderships as well as temporal governments.

On the rest of your statement there...I have no idea  what you are going on about.  I think you have made some sort of argument up to accuse me of and are addressing that rather than what I actually talked about.  As such, I really do not know what you are addressing there.

Edited March 4, 2019 by JohnsonJones

[Vort]

4 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

A basic teaching of the Church is the plan of Salvation.  In that plan there are three degrees of Glory, the Telestial, the Terrestrial, and the Celestial.  Currently it is taught that there are ALSO several degrees within the Celestial Kingdom and in order to get the Highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, one needs to enter into the new and everlasting covenant.  You have stated in the past and taught against this VERY BASIC teaching.

I do believe you're bearing false witness against me. Please substantiate this baseless allegation. When you can't, please withdraw your false witness.

5 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Quote

In the meantime, as long as you continue to make such blatantly false statements as that the ancient Nephite leaders did not even recognize Samuel as a true prophet or record his words until the Lord came in the flesh and told them to, I will continue to  point out that you are mistaken.

Have you read the Book of Mormon

Indeed I have. Let us examine your scriptural quotation.

6 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Quote

6 And now it came to pass that when Jesus had said these words he said unto them again, after he had expounded all the scriptures unto them which they had received, he said unto them: Behold, other scriptures I would that ye should write, that ye have not.

7 And it came to pass that he said unto ^aNephi: Bring forth the record which ye have kept.

8 And when Nephi had brought forth the records, and laid them before him, he cast his eyes upon them and said:

9 Verily I say unto you, I commanded my servant ^aSamuel, the Lamanite, that he should testify unto this people, that at the day that the Father should glorify his name in me that there were ^bmany ^csaints who should ^darise from the dead, and should appear unto many, and should minister unto them. And he said unto them: Was it not so?

10 And his disciples answered him and said: Yea, Lord, Samuel did prophesy according to thy words, and they were all fulfilled.

11 And Jesus said unto them: How be it that ye have not ^awritten this thing, that many ^bsaints did arise and appear unto many and did minister unto them?

12 And it came to pass that Nephi remembered that this thing had not been written.

13 And it came to pass that Jesus commanded that it should be ^awritten; therefore it was written according as he commanded.

 

Note the bolded parts above, JJ. Your conclusion that the Nephites had not written Samuel's prophecies is wrong. Rather, the Nephites had not yet recorded the fulfillment of Samuel's prophecy—specifically, "that many saints did arise [were resurrected] and appear unto many and did minister unto them". It was this fulfillment of Samuel's prophecy, not the prophecy itself, that the Lord commanded Nephi to record.

If your critical reading and interpretation skills are as sketchy in your historical interpretations as they are in this (rather obvious) scriptural matter, then you are not a reliable historian. On the other hand, if you avoid such obviously wrong interpretations in your professional life, you should consider applying the same stringent standards of interpretation to your scripture study. Honestly, this one is pretty obvious. You don't have to do any more than simply read and interpret what's written. There is literally nothing there about the Nephites not recording Samuel's prophecy.

I'm tempted to ask you your question to me: Have you read the Book of Mormon? I mean really read it, not just skimmed it and assigned your own viewpoints and prejudices to what you read. You are not the first to make this particular mistake regarding Samuel, of course. But as a self-proclaimed historian, your misreading of this obvious declaration of Nephi not writing the fulfillment of prophecy (rather than not writing the prophecy itself, as you misread it) is especially troubling.

17 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

It may be open to interpretation, but at a minimum at least a little was not written.  A broader interpretation is that the words of Samuel needed to be written.

Seriously, JJ, reread the passage. It's obvious. There is no indication at all that any part of Samuel's prophecy was not written. Not at all, JJ. Not even a little bit. It's the fulfillment of Samuel's prophecy, which had already been faithfully recorded almost thirty years previously, that was not written.

20 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

These are things that Joseph and Brigham and others have talked about, but in your usual manner to disregard whatever anyone says, even prophets, but yourself, you of course, know better than they do.

All you have to do is provide the citations. Not hard. I would think a historian like yourself would quickly do so.

21 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Quote

I disbelieve your assertion. No one has "the ability to baptize himself". That is not how Priesthood ordinances work. Whatever Alma was doing in his self-dunking, I believe that it was not an ordinance of self-baptism.

Once again, do you read the Book of Mormon

Once again, yes. And again, let's reread your scriptural citation.

21 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

  Quote

12 And now it came to pass that Alma took Helam, he being one of the first, and went and stood forth in the water, and cried, saying: O Lord, pour out thy Spirit upon thy servant, that he may do this work with holiness of heart.

13 And when he had said these words, the ^aSpirit of the Lord was upon him, and he said: Helam, I baptize thee, having ^bauthority from the Almighty God, as a testimony that ye have entered into a ^ccovenant to serve him until you are dead as to the mortal body; and may the Spirit of the Lord be poured out upon you; and may he grant unto you eternal life, through the redemption of Christ, whom he has prepared from the ^dfoundation of the world.

14 And after Alma had said these words, both Alma and Helam were ^aburied in the water; and they arose and came forth out of the water rejoicing, being filled with the Spirit.

15 And again, Alma took another, and went forth a second time into the water, and baptized him according to the first, only he did not bury ^ahimself again in the water.

16 And after this manner he did baptize every one that went forth to the place of Mormon; and they were in number about two hundred and four souls; yea, and they were ^abaptized in the waters of Mormon, and were filled with the ^bgrace of God.

Please point out where the scripture above affirms that Alma performed a covenant baptism on himself. Alma's own words proclaim his covenant baptism of Helam, but nothing above confirms that Alma himself was the recipient of a covenant baptism. That is an inference on your part.

23 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

It is NOT a mystery on this matter...

Then you will be able to quickly point out where the covenant nature of Alma's self-baptism is mentioned.

24 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Do you not understand the difference between the mortal hierarchy of the church and that of the spiritual hierarchy?

I dispute that there is any such division, at least in the manner you appear to be implying.

25 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

This, again shows that you may interpret how the keys of authority are held differently than I and many others.  To try to use that to call someone sinning or in apostasy, especially if there are writings of General Authorities to explain that John the Baptist had such authority...boggles the mind.

Simple solution, JJ. Just show the "writings of General Authorities" that confirm that John the Baptist, not Jesus Christ, was the leading authority of the Jewish religion and/or the primitive Church. Your bare assertions count for little, but if you muster the support of the apostles and prophets, that's far more convincing.

26 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

You seem DEAD SET on arguing against things that have been talked about previously or taught in lesson manuals and other items.

JJ! LISTEN UP! JUST QUOTE THE AUTHORITIES!

Seriously, it's that simple. As a historian, surely you have extensive experience with providing first-hand or other authoritative sourcing for your claims. Just do that.

28 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

That defined moment in time when the older ideas became persecuted and we can say the Church was absolutely at that time in apostasy was several hundred years AFTER the apostles (except for John) were DEAD

As a historian, surely you have at least casually read up on the literature of around the first and second century AD. Do you really fail to see that the Lord's Church was in apostasy no later than the first half of the second century?

30 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

anyways, I would appreciate you to stop making false accusations and trying to infer I am saying things I am not.

So far as I am aware, I have made no false allegations of any sort. I have interpreted your writings as best I can and have responded to them. If I have misinterpreted you, you have only to point out the misinterpretation and correct it. (Of course, that might mean you have to clarify your own wording, if it was poor wording that led to my misinterpretations.)

[Vort]

12 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

No, you do NOT have it right.  So not that amazing.

Why do you keep trying to make false accusations and try to tell me I'm saying things which I am not stating?

I have made no false accusations that I'm aware of. I'm trying very hard to interpret what you're writing.

13 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

The CHURCH itself is NOT the entirety of the Kingdom of God.  The church is a part of the Kingdom, but it is not the WHOLE Kingdom.  Sort of like every human male is part of the human race, but not every human in the human race is male.

This is false.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is indeed THE kingdom of God on earth. There is no other. God's kingdom is not divided. There is no "other part of the kingdom of God" here on earth which somehow lies outside the Church.

Your three sentences above seem to explain very well why we are having the present misunderstanding. You believe a patently false thing—that the Lord's kingdom on earth lies at least partly outside the Restored Church.

15 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

There have, at times, been multiple prophets called.  During Lehi's time there were at least two prophets running around at the same time.  They had different missions.

"At times"? How about "almost always"? Even today, we have thousands, possibly millions, of prophets in the kingdom. Even outside General Authorities, every administrative Seventy, every mission and temple president, every stake president, every bishop, and every district and branch president is or should be a prophet. Every auxiliary president, male and female, is or should be a prophet (or prophetess). Every parent is or should be a prophet. Every ministering brother should be a prophet to those he serves, and every ministering sister a prophetess.

Note how every single one  of these many, many prophets/prophetesses exist within the context of the kingdom of God. People outside the Church may certainly be inspired by the Spirit, and thus in some limited sense may be "prophets" to themselves. Such people may even be inspired by God to do a work of benefit to their fellow men and women, and thus in some (again, very limited) sense be considered "prophets" in the work of God. But when we talk of the spiritual gift of prophecy, that lies wholly within God's kingdom. And here on planet Earth, in our day and age, God's kingdom is defined as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

22 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

You assume that ALL church leaders will be perfect and able to do the right thing.

You openly bear false witness, JJ. In this very conversation, I have stated the opposite. Shame on you.

23 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

You know what, perhaps you should stop judging others and start looking at yourself.  How many righteous saints have you driven from these forums.

I don't know. How many?

23 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

How many righteous individuals have you called a sinner and tried to convince to leave the church because you are so full of yourself?

Shame on you for your false witness. Never have I tried to convince anyone to leave the Church, even those openly working against it. You are lying.

Mods, I'm all for open conversation, and I'm a big boy and willing to accept pointed criticism. But this sort of thing, accusing me of "trying to convince [people] to leave the Church", strikes me as far beyond the pale.

26 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Once again, what are you talking about?

I'm talking about your claims, JJ. Try to keep up,

27 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

There were various church leaders at the time... and various parties.

You compared the ancient Jews following the Pharisees with modern Latter-day Saints following their leaders. Did you or did you not mean this comparison?

[pam]

I actually have to agree with Vort on a point.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints IS the Kingdom of God on this earth.  It is the only.  It is Christ's church and He is the one who is at the head and leads it.    

[Vort]

1 minute ago, pam said:

I actually have to agree with Vort on a point.

I admire your willingness to 'fess up to this.

[pam]

Just now, Vort said:

I admire your willingness to 'fess up to this.

I'm kind of hoping that many won't notice.    

[Guest MormonGator]

32 minutes ago, pam said:

I actually have to agree with Vort on a point. 

You broke my heart @pam. You broke my heart! 

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

  How many righteous saints have you driven from these forums?

At last count, 476. Just think about how many people left church after meeting him in real life. 

(Just playing @Vort.) 

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

At last count, 476.

Well, that's a relief. Fewer than I had feared.

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Vort said:

Well, that's a relief. Fewer than I had feared.

Just don't ask how many people dislike you. 

[JohnsonJones]

37 minutes ago, pam said:

I actually have to agree with Vort on a point.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints IS the Kingdom of God on this earth.  It is the only.  It is Christ's church and He is the one who is at the head and leads it.    

The Kingdom of God encompasses FAR more than just the Church.  WE do not have the Celestial, We do not have the Terrestrial, we do not have the Angels, we Do not have all those who have gone onto their Glory.  The Kingdom of God is Far more encompassing than just the church...but we can agree to disagree on this.

 

52 minutes ago, Vort said:

I have made no false accusations that I'm aware of. I'm trying very hard to interpret what you're writing.

This is false.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is indeed THE kingdom of God on earth. There is no other. God's kingdom is not divided. There is no "other part of the kingdom of God" here on earth which somehow lies outside the Church.

Your three sentences above seem to explain very well why we are having the present misunderstanding. You believe a patently false thing—that the Lord's kingdom on earth lies at least partly outside the Restored Church.

"At times"? How about "almost always"? Even today, we have thousands, possibly millions, of prophets in the kingdom. Even outside General Authorities, every administrative Seventy, every mission and temple president, every stake president, every bishop, and every district and branch president is or should be a prophet. Every auxiliary president, male and female, is or should be a prophet (or prophetess). Every parent is or should be a prophet. Every ministering brother should be a prophet to those he serves, and every ministering sister a prophetess.

Note how every single one  of these many, many prophets/prophetesses exist within the context of the kingdom of God. People outside the Church may certainly be inspired by the Spirit, and thus in some limited sense may be "prophets" to themselves. Such people may even be inspired by God to do a work of benefit to their fellow men and women, and thus in some (again, very limited) sense be considered "prophets" in the work of God. But when we talk of the spiritual gift of prophecy, that lies wholly within God's kingdom. And here on planet Earth, in our day and age, God's kingdom is defined as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

You openly bear false witness, JJ. In this very conversation, I have stated the opposite. Shame on you.

I don't know. How many?

Shame on you for your false witness. Never have I tried to convince anyone to leave the Church, even those openly working against it. You are lying.

Mods, I'm all for open conversation, and I'm a big boy and willing to accept pointed criticism. But this sort of thing, accusing me of "trying to convince [people] to leave the Church", strikes me as far beyond the pale.

I'm talking about your claims, JJ. Try to keep up,

You compared the ancient Jews following the Pharisees with modern Latter-day Saints following their leaders. Did you or did you not mean this comparison?

You really believe that KOLOB is this Earth.  OKAAAAAAAY.  The Kingdom of God is FAR more than just this church.  We in the church are part of his Kingdom, but his Kingdom FAR exceeds  ANYTHING we can even imagine.

Anyways...

I can tell that you attacked with a spirit of contention and I can tell that I am responding to the Devil's attacks here.  All it is doing is inspiring me to attack back with that same spirit of contention...

Which is par for the course for you..but that's how you drive people away...not just from the forums, but from the Church itself.

Good job.  The Devil has a GOOD servant in you.

Anyways, I know that the you are just going to promote this spirit of antagonism and contention.  It started with a false witness and accusation against me andI have NO doubt that you will continue this spirit of contention should I continue to respond to this thread.  In this it also promotes and drives that same spirit onto me...THUS, we have the spirit of the adversary in the conversation rather than the spirit of the Lord.

So, this should be as FAR as I go in this thread, or I'll be consumed with anger due to your false accusations just as you want me to be...

Sometimes the only way to win is to choose NOT to play.

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

  The Devil has a GOOD servant in you.

Totally out of line. @Vort is a great guy and no one should ever say that about him. 

Edited March 5, 2019 by MormonGator

[Vort]

18 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

You really believe that KOLOB is this Earth.

You are no historian, JJ, or else you're the least capable historian EVAR.

What I wrote:

1 hour ago, Vort said:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is indeed THE kingdom of God on earth. There is no other. God's kingdom is not divided. There is no "other part of the kingdom of God" here on earth which somehow lies outside the Church.

This was in response to your claim:

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

The CHURCH itself is NOT the entirety of the Kingdom of God.  The church is a part of the Kingdom, but it is not the WHOLE Kingdom.  Sort of like every human male is part of the human race, but not every human in the human race is male.

There have, at times, been multiple prophets called.  During Lehi's time there were at least two prophets running around at the same time.  They had different missions. 

During the time of Alma we had Abinadi and Mosiah at the same time, and later Alma and Mosiah as well.  Alma was given the leadership of the Church to organize.

We know at some point there will be two Prophets in Jerusalem.  We do not have doctrine on WHO they will be, but we suppose they will be General Authorities from the Church.  This may NOT necessarily be so, we need to have the spirit to recognize it if it turns out it is not. 

They will be sent to the Jews, which is a different mission from that of our current Leadership.

It may be that even if the Prophet recognizes them, many others in leadership positions may not.  It may be that situations of the day (as there will be a great war going on) that communications of the sort we have now are not able to be used and that the leaders that are available are not able to communicate these things.

There are SO MANY DIFFERENT scenarios that it is impossible to talk about them all or even come up with all of them in which such recognition may not be given.

So then, JJ, are we to understand that when you brought up the examples of multiple prophets in Lehi's time, and in Mosiah's, and in John the Baptist's time, that you were really just saying that Lehi, Mosiah, and John the Baptist were actually near Kolob around that time?

No?

Then you were not talking about Kolob, were you? You are again prevaricating. You were in very fact talking about the earth.

Right?

Yes?

Yes, you were talking about the earth. Not Kolob.

And THERE IS ONLY ONE ORGANIZATION REPRESENTING THE KINGDOM OF GOD ON EARTH.

Not on Kolob, @JohnsonJones. On earth. EARTH. THIS PLANET HERE.

Not Kolob.

Got it? Earth, not Kolob.

So are we on the same page? NOT KOLOB. Got it?

Okay, then. So your whole "Kolob" tangent was idiocy, intentionally ignoring that I had specified THE EARTH.

So are we clear now?

You are maintaining that the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH TODAY encompasses more than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Not on Kolob, @JohnsonJones. ON THE EARTH. TODAY.

And according to you, that kingdom ON THE EARTH TODAY does NOT comprise solely The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Right?

I have represented your attitude completely truthfully and accurately above. Right?

You believe that prophets commissioned by Jesus Christ to preach to the world can arise OUTSIDE THE CHURCH, and you are concerned that the leadership of the Church may be unable or unwilling to recognize such outside-the-Church prophets as legitimate prophets called of God.

Right?

Please tell me if I have in any way misrepresented you above. I'm pretty sure I have not.

So the above beliefs that I have attributed to you, and which I assume you agree are indeed a truthful reflection of your beliefs, are false. They are bunk. They are contrary to the revealed word of God.

Now, if you want to withdraw your false teachings that I have listed above, feel free to do so. If you want to double down on your false preaching, that's your prerogative, too.

But don't falsely accuse me any more of misrepresenting your teachings. I have not done so. If you think I have, now is your chance to clear up any lingering confusion and explain yourself more fully.

Edited March 5, 2019 by Vort

[Vort]

19 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

So, this should be as FAR as I go in this thread, or I'll be consumed with anger due to your false accusations just as you want me to be...

Sometimes the only way to win is to choose NOT to play.

Just answer my post above, truthfully. Then all will be cleared up. That simple, JJ.

[JohnsonJones]

6 minutes ago, Vort said:

You are no historian, JJ, or else you're the least capable historian EVAR.

What I wrote:

This was in response to your claim:

So then, JJ, are we to understand that when you brought up the examples of multiple prophets in Lehi's time, and in Mosiah's, and in John the Baptist's time, that you were really just saying that Lehi, Mosiah, and John the Baptist were actually near Kolob around that time?

No?

Then you were not talking about Kolob, were you? You are again prevaricating. You were in very fact talking about the earth.

Right?

Yes?

Yes, you were talking about the earth. Not Kolob.

And THERE IS ONLY ONE ORGANIZATION REPRESENTING THE KINGDOM OF GOD ON EARTH.

Not on Kolob, @JohnsonJones. On earth. EARTH. THIS PLANET HERE.

Not Kolob.

Got it? Earth, not Kolob.

So are we on the same page? NOT KOLOB. Got it?

Okay, then. So your whole "Kolob" tangent was idiocy, intentionally ignoring that I had specified THE EARTH.

So are we clear now?

You are maintaining that the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH TODAY encompasses more than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Not on Kolob, @JohnsonJones. ON THE EARTH. TODAY.

And according to you, that kingdom does NOT comprise solely The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Right?

I have represented your attitude completely truthfully and accurately above. Right?

You believe that prophets commissioned by Jesus Christ to preach to the world can arise OUTSIDE THE CHURCH, and you are concerned that the leadership of the Church may be unable or unwilling to recognize such outside-the-Church prophets as legitimate prophets called of God.

Right?

Please tell me if I have in any way misrepresented you above. I'm pretty sure I have not.

So the above beliefs that I have attributed to you, and which I assume you agree are indeed a truthful reflection of your beliefs, are false. They are bunk. They are contrary to the revealed word of God.

Now, if you want to withdraw your false teachings that I have listed above, feel free to do so. If you want to double down on your false preaching, that's your prerogative, too.

But don't falsely accuse me any more of misrepresenting your teachings. I have not done so. If you think I have, now is your chance to clear up any lingering confusion and explain yourself more fully.

You are correct and I misunderstood what you wrote...PROBABLY because what you wrote had NOTHING to do with what I WROTE.

I did not write that it was the Kingdom of God on this EARTH, I wrote the Kingdom of God...as in ALL things that are part of the Kingdom.

This talking past each other has caused enough contention...but that's what you do...isn't it.  Bring contention to the thread.

Sorry to reinterject...I'll leave the thread alone now...as I said, the only way to win is to NOT to play.

Your game is just one of contention and we KNOW what is the cause of that.  Opening with a false accusation against someone tends to bring out that spirit of contention pretty quickly.  All it is going to do is make me upset and angry.

Good job at bringing the Spirit of Contention so quickly.

I really need to get off this thread...

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

Just answer my post above, truthfully. Then all will be cleared up. That simple, JJ.

Already did, but you continued with verbatim attacks and false accusations.  If it were that simple it would have ended after my first response to you. Instead you make up things and then use your made up items to attack and say false items.  When you do that it actually MAKES people angry...imagine that.

Which is why the spirit of contention is here between us right now in the thread.

Edited March 5, 2019 by JohnsonJones

[pam]

27 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

The Kingdom of God encompasses FAR more than just the Church.  WE do not have the Celestial, We do not have the Terrestrial, we do not have the Angels, we Do not have all those who have gone onto their Glory.  The Kingdom of God is Far more encompassing than just the church...but we can agree to disagree on this.

Hmmmm let's see what it says on lds.org.  

The kingdom of God on earth is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (D&C 65). The purpose of the Church is to prepare its members to live forever in the celestial kingdom or kingdom of heaven. However, the scriptures sometimes call the Church the kingdom of heaven, meaning that the Church is the kingdom of heaven on earth.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/kingdom-of-god-or-kingdom-of-heaven?lang=eng

 

If you are going to continue to say it far much more than the Church...I would have to disagree as it states right on the official Church website that it is the Church.  

[Vort]

5 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

You are correct and I misunderstood what you wrote...PROBABLY because what you wrote had NOTHING to do with what I WROTE.

Translation: "I messed up, but IT'S YOUR FAULT!"

5 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I did not write that it was the Kingdom of God on this EARTH, I wrote the Kingdom of God...as in ALL things that are part of the Kingdom.

Yet you were talking VERY SPECIFICALLY ABOUT PROPHETS ON THIS EARTH. Whether you used the words"the earth" or not, that was undoubtedly the context of your statement.

You claimed that there could arise prophets ON THIS EARTH IN THESE DAYS that were true, legitimate prophets of Jesus Christ sent to testify to the world, but that would be OUTSIDE the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That is, they would be true prophets to the world and a part of the kingdom of God—YET NOT A PART OF THE CHURCH. And you were concerned that such true prophets to the world might not be recognized or acknowledged by the leaders of the Church.

Right?

Just acknowledge your own meaning, JJ. That's all.

Because the above is simply false. If you believe it to be true, that's fine, but TAKE OWNERSHIP OF IT. Don't make the claim above and then try to hide from it when I say it's wrong.

10 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Opening with a false accusation against someone tends to bring out that spirit of contention pretty quickly...Instead you make up things and then use your made up items to attack and say false items.

What "false allegations", JJ? What "ma[d]e-up things"? What "false items"?

I deny all your accusations. It's extremely simple for you to prove yourself right and me wrong. Just show the goods. You have leveled your accusations, JJ. Let's see your evidence.

[classylady]

3 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Just don't ask how many people dislike you. 

I like Vort.