In Defense of Ezra and Claudio

three separate and distinct churches

Advertisements

4 Responses to In Defense of Ezra and Claudio

  1. Crit-E-Col says:

    So, are you saying you agree or disagree with all of the bloggers that have been blogging about the false doctrine of follow the Prophet?

    What do the terms “Book of Commandments” and “Doctrine and Covenants” have to do with the rest of the chart?

  2. I agree that the doctrine of blindly “follow the prophet” has no place in the true and living church that preaches and practices the fulness of the gospel and that it constitutes a false doctrine in that setting.

    I am just not convinced that the above mentioned church is currently on the earch.

    The purpose of the above chart is to remind those of us, including myself, that perhaps we are expecting to much from the latter day corporate church.

    Perhaps we are expecting a higher standard than is reasonable.

    When I say “those of us”, I am putting myself at the top of the list since I have probably addressed this topic in my articles and have been critical towards the brethren as much as anyone I know.

    I am simply using this opportunity to point out that if in fact, the church was relegated to the Gospel of Abraham and a lesser law, then perhaps the doctrine of follow the prophet is appropriate and applicable in that context.

    I think the ancient children of Israel who refused the higher light and were clearly living a telestial law were basically told to follow the prophet.

    That law was applicable for them considering the amount of light they were comprehending.

    I realize there are those who don’t think there are differing gospel laws, however, section 76 and 88 would disagree with those learned folk.

    The two books of modern revelation are placed on the chart in reference to the statement made by Lyman Wight.

    He said the BofC represented celestial law and the D&C represented telestial law.

    I don’t think he was saying the D&C was evil or that it did not address celestial things. It obviously contains some of the most illuminating revelations.

    I think we was acknowledging that by the time the D&C was published, the saints had rejected the fulness of the gospel and that the D&C provided proof of that fact.

    My reason in part, is as follows-

    1- sections like 84, 104, 112 and 124 reveal that the saints were under condemnation, had cumulatively broken the law of consecration, had become corrupt and been rejected as a church.

    2- The paragraph containing the prophecy that the Lord may turn the Saints over to Satan was deleted from the section when published in the D&C not because of some sinister plot to cover up the truth but rather because the prophecy had been fulfilled and therefore would no longer be applicable as a future prophecy in the D&C from 1835 onward.

    3- Virtually every other significant change in wording between the B&C and the D&C makes total sense and was divinely justified in light of the fulness of the Gospel being rejected and the church living a lesser law.

  3. Crit-E-Col says:

    Are the three names of the church figurative to make a point?

  4. No.

    Those three different names are literally mentioned very specifically and deliberately in modern revelation to let us know what level of priesthood and gospel law the Saints were attempting to function in.

    If you will do key word searches you will find that during the designated time period in the graphic the Lord referred to the restored church as the Church of Christ.

    You will also find that when the greater light of the Melchizedek Priesthood began to shine forth in the next time frame referenced, the Lord began to refer to the church with the Melchizedek High Priests as the church of God.

    Finally, after the fulness of the gospel was rejected and the fulness of the priesthood was lost among the Saints, the Lord finally changed the name of the church for the third time to the Church of the Latter day Saints and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints.

%d bloggers like this: