tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post4125835825936333537..comments2024-03-07T11:40:13.694-07:00Comments on To The Remnant: The End, Part 1: Without FoundationAdrian Larsenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17173995703995901609noreply@blogger.comBlogger114125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-23229938452555943572019-10-11T12:49:42.757-06:002019-10-11T12:49:42.757-06:00Someone sent me that picture on the evening of the...Someone sent me that picture on the evening of the 27th. I don't recall if I posted it that night or the next day. At any rate I do believe I posted it before learning of the lightning strike at Nauvoo.Adrian Larsenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17173995703995901609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-44310656489485328102019-10-11T12:47:18.403-06:002019-10-11T12:47:18.403-06:00I wonder if you noticed that the picture of lighte...I wonder if you noticed that the picture of lightening seems to be an unintentional prophecy considering the Nauvoo temple was struck by lightening the very next day. Was it there originally or did you add it after the fact?Aimee Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07844793503824194851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-42788822395142964652019-07-16T02:13:25.248-06:002019-07-16T02:13:25.248-06:00Wow. Thanks for the links, Adrian. Reminds me so...Wow. Thanks for the links, Adrian. Reminds me so much of the Savior's words written in the entire chapter of Matthew 23. All are noteworthy, but verse 13 is particularly telling: "But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in." Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-82131524940099081692019-07-14T15:40:33.852-06:002019-07-14T15:40:33.852-06:00R of J,
You said that I "think that it would...R of J,<br /><br />You said that I "think that it would be healthy to invite all types of critical divisive behavior into the church thinking that this type of restructuring would occur by the voice of the people?"<br /><br />What I do believe is that "legalizing freedom" of thought, as Ron Paul was fond of preaching, would be a good idea in the Church.<br /><br />Contrast the current oppressive 'thought control' culture in the Church with this fair and bold statement of Denver's:<br /><br />"Feel free to disagree, and make your contrary arguments. If you believe I err, then expose the error and denounce it."<br /><br />What is stunning to me in an almost surreal way, is that defending Joseph Smith with his own words and Emma's own words has become cause for excommunication.<br /><br />Daring to challenge what the institution says is true (like polygamy started with Brigham) is a "sin". Such historical views quickly becomes "speaking ill" of the leaders. And dictators don't allow criticism, do they?<br /><br />Censorship is a hallmark of tyranny.<br /><br />Do you hear the leaders saying, "Feel free to disagree, and make your contrary arguments. If you believe [we] err, then expose the error and denounce it"? No! They officially teach, (paraphrased) "Read only from Church-approved sources. Beware of other publications out of the mainstream."<br /><br />How do you justify the way the Brethren dominate those who express contrary ideas?<br /><br />The Church wasn't always so cowardly, beating up (ex'ing) members who ask inconvenient questions. It once gave stage to men of character who had this spirit and strength of character, "If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed." (J. Reuben Clark). <br /><br />This is spirit which Denver possesses now. He says: Bring it. If there's error, expose it. Harm it. Otherwise, FOLLOW the truth. Not me, but Christ who is officially speaking through me at times.<br /><br />Which sounds and feels like Christ? The certainty and boldness of Brothers Clark and Denver, or the pathetic, weak nature of those in hierarchical power who persecute those who challenge their ideas and official story line?Underdog2https://www.blogger.com/profile/11725899703711092900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-56929860462864082082019-07-14T13:00:18.762-06:002019-07-14T13:00:18.762-06:00Thanks so much for taking the time to provide link...Thanks so much for taking the time to provide links. I truly appreciate your help. This make a lot of sense. Lena Hansenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00951631698634313014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-31050889612775229792019-07-13T22:13:34.547-06:002019-07-13T22:13:34.547-06:00Yes, I understand how Bruce Porter presented it. I...Yes, I understand how Bruce Porter presented it. I think in his situation he has no choice. "Not prepared for release" is a fine enough excuse I suppose. Others who have seen the records tell a different story.<br /><br />The point is, if the church has the records, why do they not release them? Why withhold sacred scripture? Since they have the records, and they are prophets, seers, and revelators, it shouldn't be a problem to "prepare" them for publication.Adrian Larsenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17173995703995901609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-13106529341361244042019-07-13T16:05:06.642-06:002019-07-13T16:05:06.642-06:00Adrian, you allude to the Church withholding these...Adrian, you allude to the Church withholding these things for some conspiratorially reason. (Start at the 7:45 mark)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-76482349405853819262019-07-13T13:11:19.549-06:002019-07-13T13:11:19.549-06:00Hi Lena,
Here is an article by a BYU professor ab...Hi Lena,<br /><br />Here is an article by a BYU professor about the situation with the Book of Mormon at BYU:<br /><br />https://www.patheos.com/blogs/enigmaticmirror/2015/09/08/how-byu-destroyed-ancient-book-of-mormon-studies/<br /><br />And here is Bruce Porter talking about the Book of Joseph as well as the final chapter of the Book of Abraham (Start at 47:22):<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F19d5ClZMWo&t=340s<br />Adrian Larsenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17173995703995901609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-40492023681320296752019-07-13T11:12:01.999-06:002019-07-13T11:12:01.999-06:00Underdog2,
I find it ironic, that the church is &...Underdog2,<br /><br />I find it ironic, that the church is "Nehor" or as Adrian constantly tries to demonstrate how the church is the Church of the Devil and the very thing warned about in the Book of Mormon, yet, you are hurt by those who are excommunicated? You're offended that they no longer can attend such "increasingly disgusting spiritual" meetings with mindless zombies and think that it would be healthy to invite all types of critical divisive behavior into the church thinking that this type of restructuring would occur by the voice of the people? In essence you're proposing what you accuse Brigham and others of doing to gain and maintain control except you'd be in the same situation as the Remnant movement now, without any true leadership or direction, without the fruits you claim are missing anyway, and not preaching to the world, but instead destroying faith and fighting against the Saints. The great majority of the people that come across content like that on these blogs and other anti-material, don't end up joining with your movement, they lose their faith altogether. They've fallen into the pit digged to ensare the people of the Lord. Yet, somehow you think this is the right way. Remnant of Josephnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-629425911447226252019-07-13T05:46:57.897-06:002019-07-13T05:46:57.897-06:00Fascinating comment Adrian. I want to know more.
&...Fascinating comment Adrian. I want to know more.<br />"Or destroying the career of any BYU professor who asserts that the Book of Mormon is an actual, historical record, rather than a metaphorical 19th-century creation" <br />Please elaborate or do you have a source I could go to read? <br /><br />"withholding the rest of the Book of Abraham, as well as the Book of Joseph, which they still refuse to release." <br />Do you have a source, or how do you know this? <br />I look forward to your response. <br />Thanks,<br />Lena H Lena Hansenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00951631698634313014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-2369151791030177382019-07-12T10:00:18.455-06:002019-07-12T10:00:18.455-06:00And yet, the church still remains under condemnati...And yet, the church still remains under condemnation (and has been since 1832) for taking the Book of Mormon lightly. The wording and narrative about the book and about Joseph Smith has begun to change. Like saying "The Bible is the Word of God" first thing under the Bible topic, then saying, "Like the Bible, the Book of Mormon is scripture" under the Book of Mormon topic on their public-facing recruiting efforts. Or destroying the career of any BYU professor who asserts that the Book of Mormon is an actual, historical record, rather than a metaphorical 19th-century creation. Or pushing the narrative that the Book of Abraham has nothing to do with the Egyptian records in Joseph's possession, then withholding the rest of the Book of Abraham, as well as the Book of Joseph, which they still refuse to release. Or the massive decrease of mentions of Joseph Smith in General Conference. (I've documented many of the above in various blog posts.)<br /><br />Man, I could keep going, but this is getting tedious. Believe what you want. I've got evidence for all of the above and more. <br /><br />Yes, the LDS church still claims to preach the Book of Mormon, and yet misuses, ignores, and utterly fails to understand its message and purpose. It has become little more than a source of sound bites. My next post will detail more about this. <br /><br />Pretending the ship is not sinking is the most frequent, and most comfortable response. The alternative is terrifying. Adrian Larsenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17173995703995901609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-62661997024088662502019-07-12T09:42:53.648-06:002019-07-12T09:42:53.648-06:00It's not ok to worship the church. It's wr...It's not ok to worship the church. It's wrong to worship the leaders. If those are what you worship, you will come to disappointment. But it is possible to worship the Lord anywhere. <br /><br />"And Alma said unto them, Behold, ye have said that ye could not worship your God because ye are cast out of your synagogues. But behold, I say unto you, if ye suppose that ye cannot worship your God, ye do greatly err, and ye ought to search the scriptures; for if ye suppose that they have taught you this, ye do not understand them. Do ye remember to have read what Zenos, the prophet of old, has said concerning prayer or worship? For he said, Thou art merciful, O God, for thou hast heard my prayer, even when I was in the wilderness. Yea, thou wast merciful when I prayed concerning those who were mine enemies, and thou didst turn them to me. Yea, O God, and thou wast merciful unto me when I did cry unto thee in my field, when I did cry unto thee in my prayer, and thou didst hear me. And again, O God, when I did turn to my house, thou didst hear me in my prayer. And when I did turn unto my closet, O Lord, and prayed unto thee, thou didst hear me. Yea, thou art merciful unto thy children when they cry unto thee to be heard of thee and not of men, and thou wilt hear them. Yea, O God, thou hast been merciful unto me and heard my cries in the midst of thy congregations. Yea, and thou hast also heard me when I have been cast out and have been despised by mine enemies; yea, thou didst hear my cries and wast angry with mine enemies, and thou didst visit them in thine anger, with speedy destruction. And thou didst hear me because of mine afflictions and my sincerity; and it is because of thy Son that thou hast been thus merciful unto me. Therefore, I will cry unto thee in all mine afflictions, for in thee is my joy; for thou hast turned thy judgments away from me because of thy Son." (Alma 16:31 RE)Adrian Larsenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17173995703995901609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-21011688692466496852019-07-12T09:29:46.138-06:002019-07-12T09:29:46.138-06:00Remnant of Joseph,
I hope that was cathartic for ...Remnant of Joseph,<br /><br />I hope that was cathartic for you. <br /><br />--AdrianAdrian Larsenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17173995703995901609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-1814373490990212532019-07-12T08:28:07.120-06:002019-07-12T08:28:07.120-06:00Adrian, This false narrative that the church is di...Adrian, This false narrative that the church is distancing itself from Joseph and the Book of Mormon is manipulative and deceitful and completely not true. I don't hear or see anyone else preaching and sharing the Book of Mormon or the message of Joseph more than the church. The missionaries share both with every investigator and still sing preach and teach it at church that I attend. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-68297736805169477012019-07-12T08:19:52.783-06:002019-07-12T08:19:52.783-06:00That's an interesting perspective. It's t...That's an interesting perspective. It's the church of the devil but its okay to worship there?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-48630303283123538852019-07-11T23:18:42.157-06:002019-07-11T23:18:42.157-06:00I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Lat...I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I'm not ignorant of the topics at hand nor many many other "controversial" topics that have and continue to derail the faith of so many at the hand of the adversary- all according to prophecy. <br /><br />I have some questions for you:<br /><br />1) If your message is so great, why don't you preach that message? What is the message? That God has a new "servant"? Great, why don't you preach that to the world? Or is the message only for the 16 million of us that are lost and not the 7.5 billion that are lost? You preach more against the LDS Church than you do at all of the wonderful message you seem to have.<br /><br />2) Is the LDS Church preaching to ALL the World?<br /><br />3) Why is your message not resonating with anyone outside of the disaffected members of the LDS Church?<br /><br />4) How are you playing into the hands of the adversary and fulfilling Book of Mormon prophecy?<br /><br />5) Why do your countenances witness against you? Just look at yourselves vs "pre-enlightenment" falling away photos, apart from age.<br /><br />6) If the LDS Church is the Church of the Devil, then who are referenced as "the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God, were also upon all the face of the earth;" that they're fighting against? (1 Nephi 14) <br /><br />7) Is the "Remnant" "Snuffer" movement upon all the face of the earth? Is the LDS Church?<br /><br />8) Are all the nations of the Gentiles fighting against the Remnant/Snuffer Movement? (obviously rhetorical) or do they often target the LDS Church? Do they even know anything about the "Remnant" or "Snuffer" groups? Do most of the members even know enough about the R&S groups to fight against it? (is there a difference in defending vs fighting against?)<br /><br />9) Does the R&S groups fight against the Saints that are upon all the face of the earth? Does this blog post (and blog) demonstrate that?<br /><br />10) Has the LDS Church written or spoken publicly to fight the R&S movements vs defend?<br /><br />11) which parties truly fill which prophetic roles according to the Book of Mormon?<br /><br />12) how can we tell if you are trustworthy? Is there a prophetic pattern we can use? <br /><br />"D&C 52: 16 He that speaketh, whose spirit is contrite, whose language is meek and edifieth, the same is of God if he obey mine ordinances.<br /><br />17 And again, he that trembleth under my power shall be made strong, and shall bring forth fruits of praise and wisdom, according to the revelations and truths which I have given you.<br /><br />18 And again, he that is overcome and bringeth not forth fruits, even according to this pattern, is not of me.<br /><br />19 Wherefore, by this pattern ye shall know the spirits in all cases under the whole heavens."<br /><br />Again, if you have a message, let's hear it. The critical and divisive spirit seems to have taken over.<br />Remant of Josephnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-9455292829242898792019-07-09T22:30:04.078-06:002019-07-09T22:30:04.078-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Lynne McKinleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03214443750817421904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-19989564714294844792019-07-07T18:28:10.984-06:002019-07-07T18:28:10.984-06:00"Behold, I sent you out to testify and warn t..."Behold, I sent you out to testify and warn the people, and it becomes every man who has been warned to warn his neighbor. Therefore, they are left without excuse and their sins are upon their own heads. He that seeks me early shall find me, and shall not be forsaken."<br /><br />Classy.Adrian Larsenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17173995703995901609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-77300370904362153522019-07-07T15:48:47.733-06:002019-07-07T15:48:47.733-06:00@George Washington -
Adrian is really only intere...@George Washington -<br /><br />Adrian is really only interested in pushing his agenda, which is that the world should follow Denver Snuffer the latest of the Lord's "Prophets". Likewise, he's using the same threats the LDS Church uses to get people to comply. ("You are accountable and left without excuse. Don’t get it wrong.")<br /><br />Classy.<br /><br />Sadly, you're probably going to have to figure things out on your own, or with your own family because you probably won't find anything here other than more claims to follow a new prophet that the Lord has allegedly provided. Since the "false prophets" claim can be thrown to either side, I've just decided that I have to figure it out on my own.<br /><br />You're unlikely to find the fullness of truth HERE or in the LDS Church. <br /><br />And, yes, trust me, it sucks, but that seems to be life as it is at the time.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-37470272228277288132019-07-07T15:36:19.499-06:002019-07-07T15:36:19.499-06:00@LDS Watchman -
There is plenty of interesting co...@LDS Watchman -<br /><br />There is plenty of interesting conversation here, but you're unlikely to convert any of these folks to your way of thinking. While I agree that there are serious problems with the LDS Church (score a bucket for Satan there due to using the wrong name), I also think there are problems with the Denver Snuffer "cult". <br /><br />Most likely: you're going to have to figure things out using a variety of sources and rely on faith to get through the tough times ahead.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-22592990421692181792019-07-05T13:24:17.561-06:002019-07-05T13:24:17.561-06:00Part 3: All of that being said, I would not fault ...Part 3: All of that being said, I would not fault Watchman for considering the plausibility of views Denver himself outlined earlier to be helpful, but I would caution against settling on those views, believing in them, and allowing them to enter into our hearts. It cannot be proved that Denver held those views in his heart and believed in them. If anything, his writings show a decided preference for monogamy and a hope that Joseph Smith’s efforts were merely ceremonial and not sexual. What is at stake here is developing an adulterous and lying spirit. It has been demonstrably shown that even the narrow boundaries outlined for polygamy in PTHG are too weak to guard against succumbing to such a lying spirit in our hearts. It is one thing to study things out. It is another thing to base our faith on premature studies. I have not taken the best historical analysis to date (PTHG) as an unqualified guide for my faith. Only asking God, seeking, and knocking bring fruit worthy for faith, after study informs the quest. We often leap from study to unbelief and false practice without any long, ponderous, prayer to God on such matters to our peril.Brian Zang (The Zang Family)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08307604832271130264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-45554635952453060792019-07-05T13:24:09.478-06:002019-07-05T13:24:09.478-06:00Part 2: Denver does say, “Even though plural marri...Part 2: Denver does say, “Even though plural marriage was lived in secret, and denied publicly, as a subplot, it had significant effects on early Mormonism” (154), so he does concede to a public denial which infers deception. However, regarding what was done in private, Denver focuses on evidence that suggests that “it is also clear Joseph’s plural wives were contracted as part of a plan for eternity, and not as a sexual indulgence in this life. Indeed, it appears Joseph did not have marital relations with most of his plural wives” and he cites Rough Stone Rolling, pp. 439-442, leaving the thesis that some of the wives may have also been sexual consorts unchallenged. It wasn’t until after PTHG that publications began to synthesize the extent of Joseph’s public denials and scrutinize the alleged sexual consummation of sealings and reject that idea as untenable (like Jeremy Hoop’s analysis). <br /><br />Also, Denver is drawn to evidence that suggests Joseph used plurality of wives to test the faithful without requiring it to be lived. “If they agreed to give their wife to Joseph, they passed the test. Then Joseph rejoiced at their faithfulness, sealed the faithful husband to his wife in an eternal covenant, and explained it had only been a test of their willingness to obey God” (159). Even that evidence, I believe, being anecdotal and possibly years after the fact or doctored into William Clayton’s journal (I don’t remember which source that incident is from), has since been called into question. However, one might guess Joseph would wish in retrospect to have used a different subject than plurality of wives to test the faithful with (if the incident even occurred). <br /><br />In the conclusion, Denver summarizes what PTHG is intended to do: “Now that we have reached the end of this account of Mormonism, I offer it as the story of how a believer in Mormonism reconciles the problems with the traditional explanation of our history. It is, to the best of my ability to explain it, how Mormonism was originally established, then changed in phases until today it has assumed a form almost completely different from the original” (496). Obviously, despite using the Book of Mormon as a prophetic lens in which to view the history of the LDS, that history is still presented through an imperfect historical analysis as a best attempt and offer to be helpful. We now have Denver’s decided beliefs stated emphatically that the records are clear enough to show that the prior analysis was based on faulty understandings, and that Joseph was not polygamous, nor a liar. But Denver’s early attempt to explain things in PTHG tellingly show that <br /><br />1. Denver’s biases towards one man and one wife eternal marriage were long-standing, <br />2. A suspicion that Joseph was doing something ceremonial and not sexual was present in PTHG, and <br />3. Any number of historical possibilities narrating what might have happened with polygamy amongst early Mormons still clearly shows Denver’s main point that there were largescale changes between first phase (Joseph Smith) and second phase (Brigham Young) Mormonism’s treatment of the subject.<br />Brian Zang (The Zang Family)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08307604832271130264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-2265501198607931052019-07-05T13:23:38.660-06:002019-07-05T13:23:38.660-06:00Part 1: I know the thread has been closed, and don...Part 1: I know the thread has been closed, and don’t intend to open up that can of worms again, but I thought it useful to have some more context to Denver’s writings on polygamy.<br /><br />The case with Denver’s position on D&C 132 has a history including him saying he didn’t think through the issue of polygamy much before (reference needed…someone can look it up, I just remember from being there online when he said it). And understanding D&C 132 is treated as a problematic issue with Denver giving one possible reconciliation with the church’s position in his blog posts (see D&C 132 posts for the tone of writing).<br /><br />It is one thing to offer an apologetic explanation to try and be useful than it is to state belief in a position and have faith in it. When more evidence came out, or when it seems Denver looked into the historical record more deeply, Denver’s tone switched from imperfect scholarly analysis to stated belief in Joseph Smith not being a deceiver and not being a polygamist. The arc from analysis to conviction is palpably obvious in Denver’s writings and presentations. <br /><br />Saying something is the most accurate history of the LDS religion is to include all the caveats that imperfect historical analysis has, even if the Book of Mormon is used as a prophetic tool to inform that history. In PTHG, Denver uses the historical approach but adds one prophetic tool to the analysis. The Book of Mormon speaks only briefly on polygamy. In the polygamy chapter (chapter 6), Denver uses mainly D&C 132 with an imperfect historical analysis approach of the then-current evidence. <br /><br />Before the provenance of D&C 132 was called into question, it is interesting to note how Denver handled the resources then available. First, in the beginning of the chapter, he immediately prefaces everything he says with “The entire discussion within the revelation about ‘obeying the law once it is revealed’ is referring only of marriage between a man and one woman” (147). Then, the analysis proceeds on the assumption that D&C 132 and other later anecdotal evidence is accurate. It is not necessary to question them for Denver’s stated purposes for the text. With those assumptions, Denver proceeds to build a case for his only main point with the chapter: “Brigham Young would later conflate [the concepts of eternal marriage and the idea of plural wives], making plural marriage a required part of eternal marriage itself. In the first phase of Mormonism, this practice was secret, closely guarded, and involved only a handful of the trusted inner circle. No public teaching, or general practice of plural marriage was begun. Things changed dramatically in the second phase” (160).<br />Brian Zang (The Zang Family)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08307604832271130264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-38400055329765207912019-07-04T22:15:01.942-06:002019-07-04T22:15:01.942-06:00Hey, while we're enjoying the entertainment of...Hey, while we're enjoying the entertainment of watching Orson kiss Brigham's backside, let's continue with the same talk:<br /><br />On the 6th day of April following, at our Annual Conference, held in the Log Tabernacle at Kanesville, the propriety of choosing a man to preside over the Church was investigated. In a very few minutes it was agreed to, and Brigham Young was chosen to fill that place without a dissenting voice, the people not knowing that there had been any revelation touching the matter. They ignorantly seconded the voice of the Lord from on high in his appointment. (Voice from the stand: "That is Vox Dei, vox populi.") Yes, the voice of God was the voice of the people. Brigham went right ahead, silently, to do the work of the Lord, and to feed his sheep, and take care of them like a faithful shepherd, leaving all vain aspirants to quarrel and contend about lineal descent, right, power, and authority.<br /><br />Some persons say that Brigham does not give revelations as did Joseph Smith. But let me tell you, that Brigham's voice has been the voice of God from the time he was chosen to preside, and even before. Who that has heard him speak, or that has read his testimonies, or that is acquainted with his instructions, does not know that God is with him? Who does not know, Jew or Gentile, that has come in contact with his policy, that he possesses a power with which they are unable to compete. He possesses skill, wisdom, and power that trouble wise men and rulers. God will make him a greater terror to nations than he ever has been.Adrian Larsenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17173995703995901609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-29351723655434978102019-07-04T22:08:47.476-06:002019-07-04T22:08:47.476-06:00Hello Fake George Washington,
Interesting that yo...Hello Fake George Washington,<br /><br />Interesting that you would choose Orson Hyde for the oracle test. He is known to be tremendously unreliable, given to embellishment, and at times, a bald-faced liar.<br /><br />For example, he wrote two elaborate personal reminiscences of the transfiguration of Brigham Young, appearing as Joseph Smith in Nauvoo on August 8, 1844. But he was not in Nauvoo on the 8th, and in fact did not arrive there until the 13th of that month. The stories he told about witnessing Brigham’s transfiguration were complete fabrications, told decades after the fact.<br /><br />He is also known for manufacturing other spurious historical recollections, like, “Joseph the Prophet … said, 'Brethren, remember that the majority of this people will never go astray; and as long as you keep with the majority you are sure to enter the celestial kingdom.’” This statement is unscriptural and cannot be attributed to Joseph at all. He “quoted” Joseph Smith word for word 26 years after Joseph died, without any written record, which is absurd on its face.<br /><br />Orson Hyde was twice removed from the Quorum of the Twelve and once excommunicated while Joseph Smith was alive. He also signed the affidavit against Joseph Smith that resulted in Joseph’s imprisonment in Liberty Jail and contributed to the Mormon War of 1838. He bore false witness against Joseph.<br /><br />Regarding the statement you brought up, though Hyde was “proud” to have the town named after him, his recollection has not been corroborated by any other source or apostle who was present at the time. You also left out the part of the story where the ground shook and people came running in fear because all the houses shook at God’s voice, and everyone wondered what happened. But the poor, confused masses were calmed by Brigham Young who told them not to fear, it was just the voice of God whispering to his chosen leaders. (Incidentally, the apostles didn't feel the shaking. Only the unwashed masses felt that.)<br /><br />Great story and all. It was investigated by Tullidge, who asked both Wilford Woodruff and Orson Pratt, after finding no such story in Woodruff’s extensive journal. They both denied the event ever happened. Further, Woodruff’s journal showed Brigham Young had already had himself voted president of the church in 1847, prior to this alleged event.<br /><br />After Hyde made up this story, Brigham Young repeated and embellished it further. But no other apostle ever verified it. When it was published that Woodruff and Pratt both denied it, neither of them made any opposition to the publication of their denial.<br /><br />Anyway…I’ll leave the rest of the homework to you. I’ll simply close with an examination of the statement itself: God supposedly offered Brigham the full “power” of the “presiding priesthood” in his “church and kingdom.” There are a number of doctrinal problems with these statements. Whoever said it obviously did not know what the kingdom of God is, and equated it with the church, while equating "priesthood" with power to “preside.” Sorry, but God didn’t say those things. Hyde made them up, as he made up other “faith promoting” events and quotes to bolster Brigham Young’s position. <br />Adrian Larsenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17173995703995901609noreply@blogger.com