Rebuttal to Passing the Heavenly Gift- Part Three

The Man Comes Around

I got a call from my son and he told me that reading my blog reminds him of this song by Johnny Cash . I ended up playing the song countless times in a row because it really grew on me and I found myself reading about the life of Johnny Cash. I was led to this article which I found interesting because I think many of us find ourselves in a Nickajack Cave when times get dark.

I guess I do get pretty  apocalyptic sometimes.

I suggest turning the lights off, turning the sound way up, and lighting a candle as you listen to this song right before reading this blog.

Denver’s Priesthood Talk

I noticed that Denver has posted his Orem talk on priesthood.

Several weeks ago, after I posted a rebuttal point documenting where and when the Melchizedek priesthood was first restored during Joseph’s ministry, one of his followers had inferred that Denver would probably be explaining himself  a little better about what he knew and believed about the fulness of the priesthood, and why he had never specifically mentioned the astounding event at the Morley Farm when the fulness of the priesthood was restored.

I am not aware that Denver has ever spoken about the true restoration of the Melchizedek priesthood at the Morley Farm. He has incorrectly referred to the appearance of Peter, James and John as being the restoration of the Melchizedek priesthood, but never, to my knowledge identified the special conference at the Morley farm as being associated with anything other than the bestowal of the office of high priest which he considered to be part of the priesthood restored by Peter, James and John.

Here is an excerpt from the Orem talk:

“On an earlier occasion there was a conferral of priesthood in June 1831. 

One of those upon whom it was conferred upon that day, by the voice of God out of heaven, was Ezra Booth. Brother Ezra Booth would later drift off to rebellion and doubt about Joseph Smith and the restoration. 

He wrote a series of nine letters which were published in a newspaper explaining why he rejected Mormonism. But he had the conferral by the voice of God in June 1831, yet we get down to January 1841 we learn the fullness had been taken away. (D&C 124: 28.)”

From the above comment, it sounds to me as if Denver is in full agreement, that the fulness was conferred by the voice of God out of the heavens at the Morley Farm, In June of 1831.

Denver even got the date correct this time.

I guess it just never occurred to him to mention this profoundly significant event over the years, in all of his previous blog posts, talks and books.

Very strange that such a foundational event could have been overlooked by someone that had been personally tutored by angels and Christ and given a commission by God to teach us about priesthood and Zion.

Nevertheless, even though his comment leads the reader to believe that Denver was previously aware of the event, as it relates to the delivering of the Melchizedek priesthood to many of the Elders according to the voice of God out of heaven, Denver continues to deny that the categorical declaration that the fulness had been lost, in section 124, applied to Joseph Smith himself.

“The fullness had been taken away at least as it pertained to the Church. I do not think the revelation given to the Church meant that Joseph had forfeited the fullness. After all the revelation discussing the loss was given to Joseph as God’s prophet.

Denver provides no credible documentation for the above theory that the fulness was taken from Hyrum, Sidney and everybody else in the entire church except Joseph.

There are several problems with Denver’s logic.

One is that Hyrum is given the same calling as Joseph during the same revelation and is given the calling of “priesthood” and is made a “patriarch” with the sealing powers. This patriarchal priesthood with sealing power is what Snuffer claims to be part of the highest priesthood. Therefore, according to Snuffers understanding of priesthood, Hyrum must have held the highest priesthood along with his brother Joseph despite the declaration of the Lord in section 124.

(Snuffer continues to argue that the patriarchal priesthood is higher than the Melchizedek priesthood! )

Another huge problem with Snuffer’s claim that Joseph is specifically excluded from the declaration that the fulness had been lost, is that the revelation is being addressed directly and specifically to Joseph Smith, even though it gives council, advice, and instructions to many people throughout the revelation:

“VERILY, thus saith the Lord unto YOU, my servant Joseph Smith..” (verse 1)

28 verses later, the revelation is still being addressed to Joseph Smith:

For there is not a place found on earth that he may come to and restore again that which was lost unto YOU, or which he hath taken away, even the fulness of the priesthood…” (verse 28)

There is no reason to suppose that “you” is referring to the church but not Joseph Smith.

One can easily justify the revelation speaking to Joseph as God’s mouthpiece and to ALL of the Saints (verse 31) but trying to suggest that verse 28 excludes Joseph is without merit.

Of course Denver has to take that stance, in order to provide a foundation for legitimizing everything Joseph would do during those last three years in Nauvoo, including the secret councils, secret ordinations, and secretly lived spiritual wife doctrine that would eventually become the main controversy at the time of the succession crisis.

All of this fits nicely into this next part of the series on PTHG where I will show some more of Denvers inaccuracies pertaining to the law of succession and what really took place in Nauvoo.

To view the updated pdf containing all fifteen rebuttal points to date, click on the link below.

A Controversy in Zion- Part One and Two and Three and Four Final 10

 

The Church was Rejected with their Dead

 For those who followed the exchange between Greg Smith and myself regarding the rejection of the church with their dead, and what section 124 was really speaking about, I have updated the following article with additional information from my comments section.

https://onewhoiswatching.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/the-nauvoo-house-of-god-vs3.pdf

In addition to the updates on the above article, here is a little more interesting trivia regarding the general issue of the temple that I find really quite interesting:

According to Margorie Hopkins Bennion in an article she wrote titled, “The Rediscovery of William Weeks’ Nauvoo Temple Drawings, “The basement walls were high enough for a cornershone-laying ceremony on 6 April 1841. Weeks was present and marched in the parade and then helped lower the first cornerstone into place.”

This verifies that the walls of the temple had begun being erected BEFORE the cornerstone ceremony, contrary to what Greg Smith contends in his arguments. This supports the literal interpretation of the declaration made by the First Presidency in the Times and Seasons that the erection of the temple had begun prior to January 15 1841.

Curiously, there is no mention of a baptismal font being put in the Nauvoo Temple until well after the erection  of the walls had begun, and after section 124 was given.

By July 1841, Weeks had drawn plans for the font in the basement, and by August President Smith had approved and accepted the design.

One has to wonder if the baptismal font was somewhat of an afterthought and perhaps was only meant to be put in the Nauvoo House because section 97 lists the purpose of the Nauvoo Temple for a) worship, b) seeing God and c) training for the ministry.

Nothing is mentioned about ordinance work in section 97.

Section 124 on the other hand, identifies the Nauvoo house as a place where ordinances will be revealed and performed.

Was Williams Weeks  Called to be the Architect by Revelation?

Architectural and construction plans for the Temple were solicited, and in competition with other drawings Weeks’ plans won immediate approval.”

There is reason to believe that Joseph chose Weeks for the project by revelation.

“F. M. Weeks, a nephew, recalled William telling him that when he went in and presented his plans, Joseph Smith grabbed and hugged him and said, ‘You are the man I want.'”

From  the beginning, Joseph was considered the chief architect, while Wiliam served as the general superintendent of the temple and oversaw its construction”

Joseph felt very strongly about the temple being built according to the “pattern” that had been shown to him by the Lord.

I wish you to carry out my designs. I have seen in vision the splendid appearance of that building illuminated, and will have it built according to the pattern shown me.”

Section 97 makes note of the fact that Joseph had been given the pattern:

“Verily I say unto you, that it is my will that a house should be built unto me in the land of Zion, like unto the pattern which I have given you.” (Section 97 :10)

In April 1843, Joseph Smith stated, “I gave a certificate to William Weeks to carry out my designs and the architecture of the Temple..”

Sadly, at the succession crisis, Brigham Young began presiding over the building committee and took control of the Temple project. He began overriding the decisions that Weeks had made in conformity to what Joseph had instructed him:

President Young often overshadowed Weeks in terms of making final architectural decisions. Strong personalities caused some contention among the temple planners. In late October 1844, “I [Brigham Young] attended a council with the brethren of the Twelve, the Trustees, the Temple Committee and Brother William Weeks at the Temple Office, settling the difference existing between the Temple committee and Bro. Weeks.”

Early in 1846 Brigham Young decided to release Weeks as the architect and call him to join the vanguard group of saints leaving Nauvoo. By doing so, Young could continue making modifications without any friction from Weeks.

He replaced Weeks with Truman O Angell.

In a written letter to Angell, Weeks said, “by the authority vest in me by Joseph Smith and his Councillors do appoint Truman Angel to be my successor as Superintendent over the finishing of the Temple & Nauvoo House in the City of Joseph according to the plans and design given by me to him. And no persons shall interfere with him in the carrying out of these plans and designs..

The above statement by Weeks shows his desire that nobody, including Brigham Young, would interfere with the revealed will of the Lord through Joseph Smith in the design of the temple. Weeks disregard for the supposed authority of Brigham Young would eventually result in his excommunication.

Brigham Young obviously believed that William Weeks was the most capable architect and even enticed him with an offer to oversee the new Utah Temple project but Weeks had had his fill of the leadership of Brigham Young soon after his arrival into the Salt Lake Valley:

“Despite the promises given in his blessing and Brigham Young’s intentions to have William design a Utah temple, the architect became openly discontent and disloyal to the Church during his first weeks in the valley. Causes of his alienation are not known, although his obituary stated,

“He was not a follower of Brigham Young and did not believe in polygamy but was a great admirer of Joseph Smith. When Brigham Young became the head of the Mormon church Mr. Weeks deserted them and went to Los Angeles.” Actually, in early 1848 William, Caroline, and their family returned to the Midwest, and in the October 1848 General Conference, they were excommunicated from the Church.

 A Polished Stone

 Wiki informs us that “During an archaeological investigation of the [Nauvoo] temple site, two highly polished limestone blocks were discovered. Approximately twelve feet east of the entrance to the baptistry and ten feet from either the side of the support piers rested the blocks, roughly fourteen inches square, which projected seven inches (178 mm) above the brick floor. These objects are not mentioned in any account of the basement, and their purpose is unknown. They may have held some type of support columns, dividing the font from the entrance to the basement or they may have simply been a decorative element with a vase or something similar resting on them. They may have been part of a feature planned, but not used, in the final construction

Although it is unknown what the highly polished limestone blocks were to be used for, or to represent, it is interesting to note that the “..cornerstone of Zion”  was to be “..polished with the refinement which is after the similitude of a palace.” 🙂

The Death Warrant of Jesus Christ

In noticed that Section 124 was placed in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House which is no surprise. I have tried to find out what was placed in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo Temple but have not been able to find out that information.

Another thing that was placed in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House is “Whole No. 35 of the Times and Seasons otherwise known as Vol. 2 No. 23. which can be viewed Here

I have reviewed the contents thereof to see if there is anything specifically significant to the Nauvoo House with no avail, however, one thing of interest is the notification, that the death warrant of Jesus Christ had been found in 1820 and “the document was faithfully transcribed by the editor”

Sentence rendered by Pontius Pilate, acting Governor of Lower Galilee, stating that Jesus of Nazaret shall suffer death on the cross.

In the year seventeen of the empire Tiberius Cæsar and the 25th day of march, the city of the holy Jerusalem, Anna and Caiphas being priests, sacrificators of the people of God, Pontius Pilot [Pilate], Governor of Lower Galilee, sitting on the prsidentia [presidential]

(page 564)


chair of the Prætory, condemns Jesus of Nazareth to die on the cross between two thieves-the great and notorious evidence of the people saying:

1. Jesus is a seducer.

2. He is seditious.

3. He is an enemy of the law.

4. He calls himself falsely the Son of God.

5. He calls himself falsely the King of Israel.

6. He entered into the temple, followed by a multitude bearing palm branches in their hands.

Order the first centurion, Quillus Cornelius, to lead him to the place of execution.

Forbid to any person whomsoever, either poor or rich, to oppose the death of Jesus.

The witnesses who signed the condemnation of Jesus are, viz:-1. Daniel Robani; 2. Raphael Robani; 3 Capet, a citizen.

Jesus shall go out of the city of Jerusalem by the gate of Struenus.”

Advertisements

38 Responses to Rebuttal to Passing the Heavenly Gift- Part Three

  1. David says:

    As usual Watcher, you have established foundational truths with the Word of God, and I as I hope many many others are truly grateful for. The time and spirit of your efforts are truly unprecedented in terms of having all of the facts orderly presented in all of your presentations.

    Having been a sailor in the navy and having stood watch and the importance of those watching is the “structure in place” for the safe passage of the ship on its mission. “Watching is Discerning” and my belief is that the “Gift Of Discernment” precedes all other gifts.

    Upon my choosing to be a builder as my choice of profession I as able to incorporate my spiritual knowledge in the order of things that I have acquired through the Word(scriptures) to under-stand the importance of the need for a strong foundation. My love for the Constitution has also contributed, as the Founders of that sacred document pre-seeded the foundation of Gods law and will for His people revealed by a man who was imperfect yet Annointed of God, thus Joseph Smith was chosen by God to build the foundation of His latter day Kingdom by revelation.

    The Book of Mormon and The Book of Commandments evolved as the foundational scriptures that testify of the foundational scripture of the Bible. So the word Understand is synonymous with the word foundation as the earth understands the structure/foundation placed upon her, therefor having placed a foundation upon the earth one can now STAND UP-ON established principles of building in both the creation of the earth, the foundation for man to stand upon and the Gospel witch is built upon her to stand on its own directly through authority from God.

    I discovered your work in July of this year and to date I have read 90% of your work and continue to to do so as I felt your spirit of gaining the facts and organizing the facts to reveal profound truths. The most profound and amazing truth that has been revealed unto me directly from your tireless and relentless pursuit of the Word of God is the Atonement Statute/Scapegoat prophecy found in Leviticus 16.

    I, in all of my searching and learning was not prepared for the flood of the Holy Spirit of Truth and Promise as I read what you uncovered! It was direct revelation as to my seeking pertaining to the veil being lifted and further light revealed as we are coming out of a deep sleep and the deception and delusion prophesied!

    I have been fortunate in my journey as I received a testimony of Joseph Smith at 9 and the BoM at 16 as a convert to the church in ’68. Because of the truth of JS as seeing Eloheim and the truth of the BoM as containing the fulness of the Gospel through the HSoTaP, the foundation of His Kingdom was established in my heart and I was able to Discern that the church was in fact going to fall away as I proceeded on my journey here.

    Moving to Utah to raise my family was puposeful as I wanted to be an eye witness of a society and church that had the foundation but had almost zero authority in administering the Word of God and the building of Zion. I did not infect my fily with my precepts as I was admonished to allow them(1 wife, 7 chidren) to search and seek on their own accord. But my sailor survival instincts of Watching and my building talents of creating a solid Foundation were sprinkled in so that my family would have some red flags appear hopefully.

    The Gospel of Jesus Christ is gentle persuasion from the beginning, but because the offer to become equal with Eloheim through Christ by living the law has the penalties associated with those laws. Just as there are 3 distinct beings of Eloheim, there are 3 levels of “All Things” i.e. justice, mercy and grace. Faith, hope and charity, 3 degrees of glory and to Under-Stand, Foundation, Stand Upon as well as an infinite amount of others.

    My prayer has been to seek out the Servants from the 2nd watch who have arrived to “Set(1) His House(2) In Order(3)!” to embark upon the Marvelous Work and a Wonder of His Restoration/Reformation in establishing Zion! I received this truth back in the late 80’s as I was looking out over Adam-ondi

  2. Praise God.

    David

    I thank you for all that you wrote and of particular note, your validation of the atonement statute/ scapegoat prophecy. I count that doctrine as one of the most profound and sacred mysteries that the Lord has condescended to reveal in his scriptures.

    Few readers have acknowledged it, leaving me to ponder and mourn my inadequacies in articulating and documenting it. 😦

    https://onewhoiswatching.wordpress.com/2010/04/15/four-steps-in-losing-your-innocence-part-6-3/

  3. Questioning says:

    One who is Watching, I have loved you rebuttals on PTHG. I jumped on to ask you a question but when reading the comments above made by David, I wanted to say that I stand with him and his testimony. I am so grateful for all you do, your time, research, passion, and writings. I have been searching and questioning for ten years and when I found your blog and began studying the scriptures and the prophesies within, I finally began to feel the spiritual peace that I was looking for. The scripture references and documents from church history have been so valuable in my quest for truth. Thank you again!!!

    Quick question – At the beginning of your writings you mention a revelation published in the Times and Seasons that says Joseph will never have the keys to the kingdom taken from him. So were those keys related to the fullness of the gospel that was lost, and if he had those keys in Nauvoo, how could he be a fallen prophet? Also since Joseph made Hyrum the prophet why was Joseph out giving speeches like the King Follett Address?

  4. Thank you for those kind words Questioning

    The passage that states that Joseph will never have the keys taken from him while he is in this world or the world to come is in section 90 :3

    1 THUS saith the Lord, verily, verily I say unto you my son, thy sins are forgiven thee, according to thy petition, for thy prayers and the prayers of thy brethren have come up into my ears.
    2 Therefore, thou art blessed from henceforth that bear the keys of the kingdom given unto you; which kingdom is coming forth for the last time.
    3 Verily I say unto you, the keys of this kingdom shall never be taken from you, while thou art in the world, neither in the world to come;
    4 Nevertheless, through you shall the oracles be given to another, yea, even unto the church.

    It appears that the keys of the kingdom are contained in the patriarchal priesthood because the patriarchal priesthood has the ability to officiate in the first ordinances of salvation. These ordinances then unlock the door that leads to the Melchizedek Priesthood for those that received the spiritual rebirth.

    The scriptures indicate that a seer and revelator can have his eyes covered and his spiritual gift made dormant for a season and one can hold the keys of the kingdom while temporarily transgressing and loosing ones calling in the church which is what Joseph apparently did.

    The history of the church seems a bit chaotic and schizophrenic after Joseph announced that he would no longer prophesy for the church. In many of the historical documents it makes it clear that Hyrum was officiating and that Joseph was directing people to Hyrum as the officiator, yet, there are other situations that still make it look like Joseph was pulling the strings and giving sermons and expounding on doctrine etc.

    Some of the posts and resources that are helpful in understanding this amazing and somewhat complex set of circumstances would include the link I provided in the last comment about the atonement statute, the series on the succession issue and the footnotes in the part three of the Snuffer rebuttal.

    If you read some of the footnotes in part three of the Snuffer rebuttal you will notice that Hyrum was leading a cleansing or reformation in the church, along with President Marks and Law, to stamp out polygamy shortly after he was called to his position. Yet, Brigham Young and Joseph were able to eventually entice Hyrum into accepting the doctrine of spiritual wifery, at which time, William Marks led a movement to get the church to reform and return to the simple gospel that was taught during the early Kirtland years.

    Interestingly, those passages in section 90 also fortell that the succession prophecy in section 43 is going to be fulfilled. In other words, something is going to happen to necessitate Joseph giving the stewardship of the oracles to another, namely his brother Hyrum, followed by Sidney, who would be rejected by the church.

    The fact that Joseph will hold the keys in this world and the world to come is one of many evidences showing that his ministry was not over with and that he would be returning to fulfill his assignment to gather Israel and redeem Zion.

    It is an amazing concept that God would use his prophet to deliver the saints over to Satan for a little season, by contradicting the scriptures about the nature of God, and contradicting the law of monogamy in the law of the gospel in section 42, and yet he will ultimately redeem his prophet and restore him to his office and calling.

    This is why so much of what has been written on this blog is so incredibly interconnected to the necessity of understanding the atonement statute prophecy.

  5. Fusion says:

    Watcher,

    I concur with my friends above- without doubt, the Atonement Statute and Leviticus 16 has been one of the greatest scriptural discoveries in my life, and the one that simply left my jaw on the ground the first time I read about it from you. I have read it more times than you could know. It COMLETELY changed everything.

    Can’t thank you enough for your passion and love for Jesus and His Gospel…

    Fusion

  6. Fusion

    Thank you for another validation may friend!

  7. JennyP1969 says:

    Dear Watcher……..

    Deep breath…… Another deep, cleansing breath……

    This is what comes to me after every reading, no matter how many times, of the posts you’ve written. I pour over scriptures with new eyes. I feel the awakening that has been a bumpy road finally becoming clear rather than confused, and enlightened rather than conflicted. Confusion and conflict that cannot be settled cause anxiety and chaos.

    But upon studying your studies with prayer and scriptures, deep breaths, peace, understanding and order. “But with all thy learning get understanding.”

    Is there anything greater than making sense of God?

    This is your gift. Whatever others you may have, this one — to seek, find, and teach us — is difficult to quantify. The years of disillusion, the anxiety, the feeling of being lost and wandering amid a Mormon crowd, of searching, but through dark glasses covering sleepy and scaled-over eyes…….is a crucible only God truly understands. Faith is so wonderful when it’s in God and when we learn to trust Him more than “worshipping” Joseph and every other leader who had become my idols. It was so easy….so very easy.

    I thank God for guiding me to Three Watches blog. I thank you again for sharing your knowledge. I am on my third round of study here, finding new jewels each time that build upon my own life studies and guide me to the greatest truths.

    Who can measure the value of truth, knowledge, and fruits of the Spirit??? For so long I felt a growing unease and awareness, but I felt there was something terribly wrong with me. This is Hell. Thank you for helping clear that mist of darkness as well.

    The Scapegoat Doctrine is profound. To me, it is scripture in that it is holy words. I do not idolize you, but I revere your studies as aids to my study of our canon. Nevertheless, someday I hope I may know who you and Mrs. Watcher are, and be able to thank you in person for your help that has brought so much good fruit to my soul. Please keep teaching.

  8. I am almost too embarrassed to post the comments you made JennyP1969

    I must admit that because of my prideful nature, it is comments like the ones you just made that keep me posting when I begin feeling like very few have any interest in reading these posts.

    Nobody knows better than me that it is not about me, it is about the majesty of God and the incredible awakening that makes his scriptures come alive.

    God is Good.

    God is so incredibly powerful that he can use an imbicile like me every once in a while to shine a light in some of his passages and some of the history of his restored church.

    Every once in a while someone will mention a blog post that I don’t remember writing. When I go to it and start reading it, I learn things I don’t remember ever knowing. It is perhaps during those experiences when I feel a sense of my nothingness in the most profound way.

    The only things I can take credit for that I write, are the things that are incorrect because I became presumptuous and decided to intermingle some of my speculations into the post.

    Thank you so much for your kind words and for your diligence in searching through the darkness to have a better understanding of God and his holy word.

  9. David says:

    Dear Watcher, thank you for tolerating my excess! I feel like I have dropped in to a new existence since the Holy Spirit of Truth and Promise nudged me to check out what was going on out there.

    I have always had the Internet but never was I prompted by the Holy Spirit to see where things are pertaining to the church and specifically its current state. I know why I was prompted to do so now!

    I had asked the God the Father to add upon my testimony of Joeseph Smith and the Book of Mormon because I have been watching and wondered about signs that follow those who are watching.

    Upon reading about the Atonement Statute and Scape Goat prophecy I had a manifestation of the Holy Spirit that was equal to when the Holy Spirit witnessed unto me that Joseph saw God the Father and Jesus Christ and upon witnessing the Book of Mormon being the Word of God back in ’75!

    What makes it so profound is that I have received supposedly the Melchizedek Preisthood, endowment, marriage and sealing, seven beautiful brilliant children and many other blessings! But I had not had a spiritual manifestation in those events that can compare to what I experienced this summer reading your enlightening work on the Atonement Statute Scapegoat prophecy!!!

    Be careful what you ask for! Because when you receive such a special sacred event recorded in the scriptures and have a confirmation from the Holy Spirit, praise God! It was truly one of the greatest experiences I have had the pleasure to experience!!!

    Do not question your abilities to articulate your findings! I love and appreciate your love for the Word of God and your ability to dedicate so much time into your searching of the scriptures and sharing with each of us! Thank you for sharing Chuck Missle with us! Wow! What a brilliant mind and spirit!

    I have been blessed beyond measure to have receive such wonderful gifts from you! I admonish those who have read your discovery of the Atonement Statute Scapegoat prophecy in Leviticus 16 to realize how big a deal that prophecy is!!! It is so so profound to understanding the character of God and His immense love for His children!!! It truly is one of the most profound prophecies when one meditates on the totality of all that it encompasses!!!

    I cannot put into words my feelings of gratitude for the Lord to have inspired you through the Holy Spirit and for tou to make it known to the world! I sincerely feel that if one takes the time to comprehend the magnitude of this prophecy one can gain more clarity on the Servants mission upon arriving here this year!!!

    Praise God! Just maybe the comet ISON is significant in its coming to the Servants coming!?!? I know that there is always something eventful happening in the heavens, especially in our times! But seriously the fact that this thing is coming from the realms of Jupiter and has a trajectory to the sun and the mystery of whether it can go around the sun and continue on its journey or . . .

  10. Praise be to God!

    Thank you David for sharing your testimony of reading about the Biblical profile of Joseph that explains the Atonement Statute prophecy, per Lev 16.

    I feel that understanding Joseph’s unique role is in some ways the glue that holds all of the other information in all of the other posts, together, because it explains how and why he temporarily transgressed and it explains all of the crazy contradictions that went on in Nauvoo.

    I realize it can be a tough pill to swallow for many people, but one must come to terms with it in order to make sense out of everything that happened, and to have faith that God has a remedy for what has happened.

    There is going to be a happy ending to this painful story having to do with the apostasy of Latter day Israel if one digs deep enough and is guided by the Holy Spirit.

    Praise be to God!

    (I must confess, I am a little hopeful about Ison being a significant as well 🙂 )

  11. JennyP1969 says:

    David, thanks for your comment above on three’s in so many concepts. Ive long noticed this, but not as succinctly –Under, stand, upon. That’s just profound. Your builder-mind adds sound concepts for us.

    Watcher: I think more and more people will be guided to this blog as they are ready. You mentioned the coming great conflict within the church. Did I understand this correctly? Any elaboration on this would be helpful. I’m concerned for my loved ones who are no where near ready to learn any of the things regarding church history. They are all deeply embedded in correlated paradigms. I don’t even know how prepared I am for a conflict. I’m not sure I even know what it entails. I want to be ready and be able to help my family. May I ask what you’ve done to prepare yourself and your loved ones? Can you tell us more about the conflict, itself, even if you can only speak in impressions. I just want you to know I’m not holding you to the fire nor expecting you to be a prophet. Just looking for help in understanding and preparing.

    Regarding Ison: smile…..waiting and watching, to be sure.

  12. JennyP1969

    I think you have hit on an issue that we are all very concerned with. How do we prepare for the coming crisis and how do we help to prepare our loved ones.

    I wish I was worthy of being a light to the world on these issues but alas, I am not. Clearly, we all need to be treasuring up the word of God and taking the Holy Spirit as our Guide. Although we need to do everything possible to be in tune with the spirit, I am of the opinion that taking the Holy Spirit as our guide is actually a literal future event having to do with ordinances not currently available. Nevertheless, there is much we can do to increase the spirit of Christ and the promptings of the spirit in our lives in preparation for that event.

    With regard to preparing our loved ones. Again, I am perhaps a very poor example. Aside from prayer and encouragement and setting an example, I am not sure what can be done. Those that will come out of Babylon at the appointed time, will come out. God is in charge and we must trust in him.

    I wish I had something profound to say in response to your questions beyond what has been covered in other posts.

    May the Lord God lead us all in preparation for the approaching storm.

    Watcher

  13. JennyP1969 says:

    Thank you for that counsel, Watcher. This has been my humble plan, but I keep feeling an unsettled-ness that I’m missing something right in front of me. I think I almost might need to stop looking and then I’ll discern whatever it is. I was in a store last week looking for an item and was pressed for time. I came to the end of an isle and saw a clerk so I asked where I could find the item. She said it was on the very isle I had come from, so I said that I must have looked right at without seeing. Such was the case……and as I left the store that phrase echoed in my mind and many times since. Watching and looking are good. But seeing is far better. May God bless us all to see.

  14. Fusion says:

    Jenny and David-

    I have been saying exactly the same things as you since I found this blog immediately after immersing myself in desperate prayer a couple of years ago when I just instinctively woke up fron my slumber. From the day I read the glorious book of Mormon as a stubborn Catholic (Watcher I will eventually get around to telling you my conversion) I just never felt the lds church was part and parcel of the gospel of Jesus as contained in the book of Mormon. I reluctantly joined after a lot of pestering…and even served a mission after just a year. I simply could not get converted to lds culture. I even was UTTERLY horrified at the temple the first ( and subsequent) times, wanting to just run out of there and even suppressed myself from getting furiously angry. And yet I persisted in the church. And why? Because of my weaknesses. ..because of accepting the Gospel of justice and law instead of the Gospel of mercy and grace. The so called church got me because of my sins and weaknesses. ..so I gave in. However, I just could never feel that the programs and theology that just didn’t reconcile with the book of Mormon, was ever of Jesus. Period.

    When my eyes began to open I ignored the fear and BEGGED the Lord to lead me to truth for I began of myself knowing that the church was NOT what it says it is…i wanted the truth!!! No matter what, I knew that the same Heavenly Father who led me to peace and gratification for my soul by giving the book of Mormon and changing my filthy nature, would lead me to the truth wherein the book of Mormon would be exactly what He told me it was- TRUE. knowing the feelings and the tears I wept because of the joy from the book of Mormon and the effect it had on me, I just could not ever believe it is anything but of the Lord. ..it is breath taking, astonishing, magnificent beyond my expression.

    And thus, the Lord led me here. I don’t want a prophet. ..I’m willing in all my weaknesses become my own personal prophet for myself. And what my friend the Watcher has done in my eyes is truly inspired. I think it is essential that ANY lds person who is disaffected and disillusioned needs to study this blog. I mean it with all my heart. I find it hard saying stuff like this coz I don’t want to embarrass my friend who authors this stuff, and don’t care for him to hold my hand, but I must give credit where it is due. Despite what a commenter called Edmund once implied on a post here on denver snuffer, the people who read this stuff are not folks who look to the Watcher to be a rock star…or need a prophet or leaders…we are all way too dssperately holding on to the iron rod.

    Fusion

  15. Fusion

    I think you have hit on a huge distinction between those that are attracted to the posts on this blog as opposed to those that are loyal followers of people who claim to be prophets. The vast majority of people that frequent this blog are hugely independent thinkers that don’t take anything for granted and they don’t categorically believe anything and everything I say.

    Thank goodness for that!

    Most are critical thinkers and many don’t even warm up to the general message until they have read lots of posts and begin to see a pattern and connect the dots and have the spirit begin to show them things they have never seen before in the scriptures. Once the pattern begins to emerge and the lights begin to turn on, a reader will often feel a kinship with me and other commenters simply because they are beginning to see the same things in scripture that previously were hidden to them.

    The awakening comes from the Holy Ghost. That is true for everyone.

    The thing I hear over and over again from people is how the SCRIPTURES have opened up to them and they are reading them with a totally new perspective.

    I am reminded of the following observation Joseph Smith made after being baptised

    “Our minds being now enlightened, we began to have the scriptures laid open to our understandings, and the true meaning and intention of their more mysterious passages revealed unto us in a manner which we never could attain to previously, nor ever before had thought of…

    THEY ARE INTERPRETING SCRIPTURE FOR THEMSELVES, RELYING ON THE HOLY GHOST TO REVEAL THE MEANING, OR CONFIRM AN INTERPRETATION THAT IS OFFERED, NOT RELYING ON A “PROPHET” TO ANSWER DOCTRINAL QUESTIONS.

    That is what this is all about. The grace of God has His Holy Spirit has the ability to enlighten a persons mind and open their spiritual eyes. No mortal man can do that. That is what we are all desiring to experience because we all know that we cannot trust in the arm of flesh.

    Indeed, it is evident to readers of my blogs that have read my early posts five years ago, and then some of my recent ones, that I am on a learning curve like everyone else and there are lots of things I am still waiting for God to open my eyes about.

    People who read this blog do not become “my followers”. Their experience is with the word of God, not with a mortal person.

    Typically people that read these posts eventually move on, or, in some cases, they become close friends that communcate by email with me and end up teaching me new things they are discovering.

    I have a good friend named NEPT that came to this site about five years ago. He seldom makes comments on this blog anymore and yet we have had countless discussions via email. I HAVE LEARNED SO MUCH FROM HIM OVER THE YEARS! He has an incredible memory and always reminds me when I appear to have changed my views! LOL

    I sometimes run concepts past him to see if he agrees. The same is true with another commentor that lives in Denver and several others.

    While I appreciate your kind words, Fusion, I am particularly grateful for your declaration ” I don’t want a prophet. ..I’m willing in all my weaknesses become my own personal prophet for myself”.

    I believe that attitude is necessary for one to have in order to make it into the gate. PERSONAL REVELATION IS THE ROCK OF REVELATION THAT JESUS WAS SPEAKING ABOUT WHEN SPEAKING TO PETER. “Upon this rock…”

    I don’t want anyone to trust in anything I say. It must be ratified by God.

    I really appreciate all of the kind comments of appreciation and encouragment from readers but I am very much aware, as I know that they are also, that it is only the grace of God that enables any of us to gain a greater understanding of Gods Holy Word.

    Praise be to God

  16. Ryan says:

    Watcher,

    Can you help me?

    I read Wagoner’s “Making of a Mormon Myth” this morning and didn’t find the reference to “where I am not there is no first presidency over the Twelve.”

    I don’t have Rough Stone Rolling either to reference.

    When you have time can you point out where it is in Wagoner’s piece? I’ve also done a word search in the document to no avail.

    This quote has perplexed me for a while and I’d like to put it to bed.

    Also, on another thread I asked you about BY changing D&C 130:22. I have Robert Woodford’s D&C dissertation and he mentions that several verses where added to that section but v. 22 was not one of them.

    Can you point me to some source on where you found that?

    Thanks again!!

  17. Ryan

    Thank you so much for allowing me the opportunity to eat a little crow.

    I did not have the exact reference to document that issue while writing part three so I quickly googled it and found people referencing those two sources as containing the documentation.

    One of my friends that reviewed the latest installment, suggested that I provide the exact references to that claim or remove it. I did not take the time to find the references and did not take his advice.

    Shame on me.

    Because of your bringing this to my attention, I have now researched this and have found that at least one reference comes from Quinn.

    I am going to remove the current footnote and replace it with the reference to Quinns Statement. I will make the necessary changes in the PDF when the next installment comes out.

    I don’t have the time to research if Bushman and Van Wagoner addressed this issue so I will simply replace those assertions with the statement by Quinn that revealed the alteration in history of the church.

    Quinn makes this assertion on pages 160-161 of Origins of Power.

    I am going to provide a little more than his statement directly relating to the alteration to provide context for those that don’t have his book.

    Here is what he says:

    “Due to his position as the last remaining member of Joseph Smith’s First Presidency, Rigdon’s claims invoked precedents which were public and on the face seemed more straightforward. In 1834 Smith had established that his first counselor would preside in his absence. He had made no mention of his death. Still the logic of these instructions was that the first counselor would rightfully lead the church in the event of the church in the event of the church president’s permanent absence. Smith later expanded the role of a specially appointed Associate President and of the quorum of the Twelve Apostles. However, he never specifically denied the possibility of presidential succession by a surviving counselor in the First Presidency.
    The officially published History of the Church contains such a denial, but this was a retroactive change mandated by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles after Smith’s death.

    The published minutes of an 1836 meeting of the First Presidency and the quorum of the Twelve now read: “also the Twelve are not subject to any other than the first presidency, viz., ‘myself’, said the Prophet, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams, who are now my Counselors; and where I am not, there is not First Presdiency over the Twelve“.

    If Smith had actually said this, the statement would have removed the possibility that his senior counselor could succeed at the death of the president

    I think that Quinn’s assertion that the twelve altered the words of Joseph Smith after the fact is accurate and credible.

    I feel it is a significant key to understanding the succession claims of the modern church.

    Regarding your next question:

    “Also, on another thread I asked you about BY changing D&C 130:22. I have Robert Woodford’s D&C dissertation and he mentions that several verses where added to that section but v. 22 was not one of them.”

    Can you please provide the link to that post so that I can refresh my memory?

    I don’t remember saying that BY altered verse 22, if I did, I need to find my notes and make a correction if one is necessary.

    My larger contention is that BY had no authorization from God to insert section 130 or ANY SECTION that he canonized after the death of Joseph Smith. (with the possible exception of the revelations that Joseph had already planned on adding to the D&C as outlined in part three of the current series.)

    My belief is that the scriptures, as they stood before section 130 was added, and the Lectures on Faith (which were sustained as scripture and were the “Doctrine” part of the “Doctrine and Covenants”, provide multiple testimony that contradicts the supposed instructions given by Joseph Smith in 1843, that Brigham Young decided to canonize.

    Whether or not Joseph actually made that statement is really not the point. The point is that when that statement is weighed in the balance, it is found wanting because it contradicts the word of God.

  18. Ryan says:

    Watcher,

    It’s never my intention to cause anyone to eat crow.

    However, you’re friend was right, your readers are more interested in sources than you gave them credit 🙂

    Here’s the link to the post that I referenced above:

    https://onewhoiswatching.wordpress.com/2010/12/05/is-god-a-who-or-a-what/

    This is what you wrote:

    “If you are a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints, you are probably feeling a little conflicted in your mind right now after reading the above descriptions of the Godhead.

    Why?

    Because you have been taught all your life that-

    “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s..”

    That passage from section 130 of the D&C has probably had a profound effect on your perspective of God.

    The above passage contradicts the testimony of Joseph, Sidney, Zebedee, Lectures on Faith and modern revelation.

    So how did this conflicting doctrine it get into the scriptures, when was it put there and who put it there?

    When was the D&C defiled with the above passage?

    The reminisced statements of Joseph Smith were put into the D&C in 1876 by Orson Pratt under the direction of Brigham Young.

    These statements were never considered to be a revelation before that.

    Those statements were taken from a journal entry. It was supposedly entered into the journal two days after the date that Joseph Smith gave some instructions at a friends house.

    The original entry is in the hand writing of Williard Richards who apparently was not even present when the remarks were given.”

    I had originally read it as BY adding v.22 but you never said that.

    You said that the section as a whole was added and never should have been because it wasn’t a revelation but instruction. I see that now and that’s also consistent with what you wrote above.

    On the note of God’s body I do have a question.

    The LoF state that God the Father is a personage of Spirit.

    Does Christ not have the same type of body of the Father?

    Does Christ for some reason not have the Fullness of the Father, even though it says he does, which doesn’t make him a personage of Spirit?

    One thing I have a hard time with is what JS taught leading up to his death. Did he have the Spirit with him or not? He quotes Christ in John 5:19 and says that Christ “can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doest the Son likewise.”

    Joseph Smith commenting on that verse said, “Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did and take it up again.” (TPJS p. 346).

    So does God the Father have a physical body?

  19. It’s never my intention to cause anyone to eat crow. However, you’re friend was right, your readers are more interested in sources than you gave them credit

    Yes, I can be very lazy and forgetful sometimes and it was sloppy journalism to do what I did. I apologize. Whew! I am sure glad that I never made the claim that my series was without error! LOL

    So far, I have not had anyone seriously challenge any of the 15 rebuttal points and very few of the documented footnotes have been challenged. Not bad for a poorly educated country boy don’t you think?

    I had originally read it as BY adding v.22 but you never said that.

    Thank you for clarifying that I did not say that… I thought I was going senile even faster than I actually am! 🙂

    I acknowledge that the mystery of Godliness is just that. A mystery. I don’t think any of us will comprehend God until we are allowed into his presence, and filled with the fulness of the Holy Ghost, and even then, we may not fully comprehend God.

    All I am doing, is the best I can to evaluate all of the authoritative and credible documentation on the topic in the word of God to try to understand who and what I am supposed to worship.

    Based on my research, from the four standard works and the Lectures on Faith, and a consistent testimony from someone who saw the FAther and the Son in the school of the prophets, I have come to the conclusion that the Father is a personage of spirit and the Son is a personage of tabernacle.

    There are two passages of scripture the specifically state the differentiation that the Father is a personage of spirit while the Son is a personage of tabernacle.

    If someone were to contend that the Father has a tabernacle, by dwelling in the Sons tabernacle, I would not object, because I believe they are one and they do dwell in each other, even though they have the ability to manifest themselves separately, however, section 130, the way I understand it, claims both personages have their own tabernacles independently. I find that to be unsublstantiated in the scriptures. It contradicts the word of God in my opinion. Furthermore, the characters that canonized the statement have a very low credibility rating with me. Brigham Young and/or a supposed statement by Joseph Smith that contradicts the Holy Word of God simply does not have the ability to overturn what God has said about himself with multiple witnesses.

    I don’t see why the Son cannot enjoy the fulness of the father even though he is a spirit clothed in a tabernacle.

    One thing we are informed of is that the Father creates all things through his Son.

    That might be a clue as to why the Father saw fit to create the Son and clothe him in a tabernacle, I don’t know.

    One thing I have a hard time with is what JS taught leading up to his death. Did he have the Spirit with him or not?”

    I would refer you to the post on the atonement statute that has been mentioned in previous comments. It is a tough pill to swallow if you are into prophet worship, but, once you put your faith in God instead of his messenger, and realize the God can and does use mortal messengers to test his people, by covering his seers, all of the parts of the puzzle will begin to fall into place.

  20. Ryan says:

    Thank you.

    I’ve looked for the scapegoat doctrine. I’ve read Lev 16 a few times since finding your blog, but never that post.

    Is it under a different name?

    I just read Isa. 43:27-28 today and can see how that relates to JS in the 2nd watch.

    I guess I’m very believing and don’t need to read it to figure things out based in what you’ve already taught in this blog and the three watches.

    However I would still like to read it.

    Thanks.

  21. Here it is

    https://onewhoiswatching.wordpress.com/2010/04/15/four-steps-in-losing-your-innocence-part-6-3/

    In my opinion, the passages of scriptures highlighted in the above document represent what might be the most significant, and prolific secret doctrine pertaining to the end times scenario.

    The pattern provided in that document explains the bizarre contradiction between the Nauvoo Era and the Kirtland era and all of the contradiction therein.

    It represents the true biblical profile of Gods primary, end times prophet.

    It shatters the “prophet worship” paradigm that Mormons have been immersed in and yet it shatters the opposite paradigm that Protestants have been immersed in, that teaches that prophets are not relevant anymore to the degree that they once were.

    The document almost appears to represent a paradox because part of the test has to do with being able to identify and obey the WORDS of God coming from the true prophet, and yet, God is a jealous God, and he will test the hearts of his people to see if they are worshiping his prophet instead of him.

    The prophet Joseph Smith said this.. and the prophet Joseph Smith said that….

    Yes, but which of that was inspired by God?

    Mormons are an idolatrous, prophet worshipping people.

    They worshipped Joseph Smith when he was full of the spirit of prophecy in the early Kirtland era (which was idolotry) and they continued to worship him after God began to withdraw his spirit from Joseph.

    Worse, they began worshipping Brigham Young and a long line of people who were not even prophets.

    The takeaway from all of this is that each of us need to be filled with the spirit of prophecy to be able to discern when a prophet is acting as a prophet.

    The relationship has to be with God, not God’s messenger.

    There is an interesting experience in the history of the church when Joseph and Hyrum were together during the Nauvoo period and Joseph made a declaration to the group of people.

    Joseph had finally fallen off of his pedestal in Hyrums paradigm for some reason and after Joseph made is proclamation Hyrum said something to the effect of,

    Is this a ‘thus sayeth the Lord’ declaration, or is this your opinion?” LOL

    I wish I could remember where that reference is, because there is a powerful lesson to be learned from it. I think it was Mrs Watcher that brought it to my attention.

    This is why Joseph Smith and the scriptures continually emphasized the need for personal revelation.

    We are all responsible to be prophets with a minor “p” so that we will know when the prophets with a capital “P” are truly inspired or if they are just blowing a bunch of the blue smoke in your face.

    I want to address a question that you asked that truly demonstrates the Mormon mentality that we have all partaken of:

    One thing I have a hard time with is what JS taught leading up to his death. Did he have the Spirit with him or not?”

    In my opinion, that is the wrong question.

    The question should have been,

    during which actions and declarations was he inspired and during which actions and declarations was he not inspired?”

    Did he have the spirit or not” is an all or nothing statement which reflects the belief that a person is always being inspired or is never being inspired.

    We need to shed that world view of how prophets and inspiration operates because it leads to prophet worship, infallibility and idolatry.

    We need to quit giving prophets cart blanche

    We should never mindlessly follow and obey a prophet just because he is the designated prophet.

    No mortal person is always inspired. If he was he would probably be translated and wafted away.

    Conversely, there is probably nobody that is 100% uninspired all of the time.

    During the height of Joseph’s revelatory experience in Kirtland he still gives a few opinions that were wrong and he made some decisions that were less than inspired.

    On the other hand, during his darkest days in Nauvoo, he would blurt out revelatory profundities that are mind-boggling.

    EVERY SINGLE UTTERANCE OF A PROPHET NEEDS TO BE TESTED AGAINST THE WORD OF GOD IN THE SCRIPTURES AND THE CONFIRMATION OF THE HOLY GHOST!!!

    THAT’S THE TEST!

    GOD WANTS US TO FOCUS ON THE MESSAGE AND NOT WORSHIP THE MESSENGER. WE NEED TO LEARN HOW TO DISCERN WHEN A MESSSAGE IS INSPIRED BY GOD.

    Here are a few declarations from God that were intermingled in the revelations Joseph Received:

    … And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God

    Because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall

    As I recall, there are at least three or four similar statements that God makes, warning Joseph that if he is not careful, he will fall. Why do you suppose that God made Joseph publish those statements for all the saints to see?

    Was it to destroy the credibility of God’s prophet?

    No

    It was to provide a sobering warning to everyone that Joseph could transgress and loose the spirit or that Joseph’s eyes could be covered and God could withhold inspiration from him at any time.

    The burden is continually on the saints to prove all things and hold fast to that which is true.

  22. Ryan says:

    You are right and make a valid point that it’s not an either or.

    I’ve been indoctrinated with the Mormon dogma of black and white, right or wrong, all or nothing type of thinking.

    Thank you for pointing that out in my thinking.

  23. Thirsting for knowledge says:

    Watcher,
    What do you make of the conflicting stories that Joseph gave of the first vision? Is it possible that because of the complex nature of God he simply interpreted his vision differently at times?
    My current struggle is with the Doctrine and Covenants. A lot of the historical data points towards Joseph being pretty far in a state of decline before publishing this.
    David Whitmer wrote the following in his address to all believers in Christ:
    But the Latter Day Saints have another book of doctrine — the “Doctrine and Covenants” — in which are the doctrines that Christ never taught to the “twelve” at Jerusalem, nor to the “twelve” upon this continent. The Latter Day Saints believe these new doctrines, which do not agree with the teachings of Christ. Why do they believe them? Because they are putting too much trust in a man! This has been the mistake of God’s people in all ages past. Read the scriptures and observe how very soon the great majority of God’s people always fell into error by trusting in man. Men who were humble when God chose them, but afterward fell into error. If men do not live near enough to God to discern error when it comes — and it may appear as an angel of light — (for instance, polygamy) — God suffers them to be led into error because of their transgressions. See how many of the prophets whom God called afterward fell into error. Saul, David, Solomon, and many prophets in Israel.
    He basically held that the Book of Mormon was true, and Joseph was a Prophet, but that he fell. As you have mentioned before, D. Whitmer had a dislike for Sidney Rigdon and felt that he influenced Joseph causing him to be deceived in that some of these revelations came because of the desire of their hearts.
    He goes on to make the point of how the revelations were changed from the Book of Commandments to the Doctrine and Covenants. I have to say I share some of his views. Even if the Saints were in apostasy at this point and the revelations in the Book of Commandments were no longer valid, then why would the Lord not issue new revelations and commandments for Doctrine and Covenants instead of just having Joseph alter, add or omit certain things from previous revelations? Not only that, but there was a cover up that took place in order to hide the fact that these changes had been made.
    (You have changed the revelations from the way they were first given and as they are to-day in the Book of Commandments, to support the error of Brother Joseph in taking upon himself the office of Seer to the church. You have changed the revelations to support the error of high priests. You have changed the revelations to support the error of a President of the high priesthood, high counselors, etc. You have altered the revelations to support you in going beyond the plain teachings of Christ in the new covenant part of the Book of Mormon. You have changed and altered the revelations to support the error of publishing those revelations in a book: the errors you are in, revelations have been changed to support and uphold them. You who are now living did not change them, but you who strive to defend these things, are as guilty in the sight of God as those who did change them.)
    I find the Pamplet by David Whitmer a fascinating read. It is striking how many things he said that fall in line with the things you say on your blog. The major conflict really lies in when Joseph fully lost the spirit. He feels that it was about 1829 when half of the commandments recorded in the Book of Commandments had been given. You feel that it was much later. I am struggling with Doctrine and Covenants and whether I feel it is really coming from God.

  24. Thirsting for knowledge says:

    I meant to say the date D. Whitmer felt Joseph started to fall was around 1830/31.

  25. Thirsting: “What do you make of the conflicting stories that Joseph gave of the first vision? Is it possible that because of the complex nature of God he simply interpreted his vision differently at times?”

    Watcher: Yes that is an interesting way of putting it, but yes. The conflicting stories are differing viewpoints from which to give a narrative of the mystery of Godliness.

    I believe God very possibly manifested himself in the singular and then did so in the plural form to teach Joseph about the mysterious nature of Godliness. Obviously, that is a speculation.

    It is pretty interesting to me that you have the same dichotomy presented in the various first vision accounts regarding the nature and character of God that you have in the scriptures themselves. You can build a strong case that the Father and the Son are ONE and you can build a strong case for the fact that they are TWO separate and distinct beings, depending on which scriptures you choose as being the most literal and credible characterizations. While most people take sides, assuming the two views to be contradictions, I would suggest that they are not contradictions, they are both true and that God has a composite nature.

    It has to do with how God is perceived as well as how he chooses to manifest himself.

    The same is true of the two scenarios painted in the first vision narratives. There is no need to pick one as being more accurate than another, both are true. Depending on his audience and what the spirit was directing him to share, that is what determined how he decided to characterize the experience.

    Thirsting: “My current struggle is with the Doctrine and Covenants. A lot of the historical data points towards Joseph being pretty far in a state of decline before publishing this.
    David Whitmer wrote the following in his address to all believers in Christ:
    ‘But the Latter Day Saints have another book of doctrine — the “Doctrine and Covenants” — in which are the doctrines that Christ never taught to the “twelve” at Jerusalem, nor to the “twelve” upon this continent. The Latter Day Saints believe these new doctrines, which do not agree with the teachings of Christ. Why do they believe them? Because they are putting too much trust in a man! This has been the mistake of God’s people in all ages past. Read the scriptures and observe how very soon the great majority of God’s people always fell into error by trusting in man. Men who were humble when God chose them, but afterward fell into error. If men do not live near enough to God to discern error when it comes — and it may appear as an angel of light — (for instance, polygamy) — God suffers them to be led into error because of their transgressions. See how many of the prophets whom God called afterward fell into error. Saul, David, Solomon, and many prophets in Israel.’
    He basically held that the Book of Mormon was true, and Joseph was a Prophet, but that he fell. As you have mentioned before, D. Whitmer had a dislike for Sidney Rigdon and felt that he influenced Joseph causing him to be deceived in that some of these revelations came because of the desire of their hearts. He goes on to make the point of how the revelations were changed from the Book of Commandments to the Doctrine and Covenants. I have to say I share some of his views.”

    Watcher: These are interesting issues that lots of people struggle with Thirsting. I have covered them in past posts and I wish I could remember all of the posts that deal with it!

    I think I discussed Whitmer in this series

    https://onewhoiswatching.wordpress.com/2010/11/13/are-you-sure-you-are-a-gentile-part-two/
    https://onewhoiswatching.wordpress.com/2010/11/13/are-you-sure-you-are-a-gentile-part-three/
    https://onewhoiswatching.wordpress.com/2010/11/13/are-you-sure-you-are-a-gentile-part-four/

    David Whitmer and his “Address to Believers in the Book of Mormon” has had a huge impact on many people that become disenfranchised with the church.

    I love David Whitmer and I see much wisdom in much of what he has to say, and I believe he is going to be one of the 2nd watch gentiles that repents and returns in the 3rd watch, however, I believe he is a textbook example of the believing gentile that rejected that fulness as predicted by Christ in 3rd Nephi.

    David could not handle the greater light.

    You need to realize that he wrote that document many years after the Kirtland days. If I am correct, he did not write it until the late 1880, s, long after he tried and fail to establish his own church.

    The truth of the matter is that David Whitmer was one of the 23 that was given the Melchizedek priesthood at the Morley farm and was given the privilege of being called to be the president of the Church in Zion and then he, along with many others, began to doubt and to take things lightly, and become jealous of others that were getting the opening of the heavens that was promised.

    He was one of the ones that initially accepted the Doctrine and Covenants by common consent. It was not until many years later that he began to question almost everything that went on in the restored church.

    Whitmer ends up throwing out the baby with the bath water by denying virtually everything that Joseph Smith was called to do except for the translation of the Book of Mormon. After his falling out with Joseph Smith, and eventually, many years after the martyrdom, David Whitmer deduced that Joseph had been deceived and that he had never been commissioned to restore the church and priesthoods.

    Quote from Watchers blog “If you agree with him concerning his view that Joseph should not have restored the office of apostle to the earth, then you are on a slippery slope and ultimately, you may end up concluding that the other things he taught were true as well.

    He has rejected many of the most important revelations that Joseph Smith received.
    In fact, since virtually all of the canonized revelations have to do with the restored church, church protocol, gospel law, the establishment of Zion and priesthood keys, you would need to reject virtually all of the revelations in the D&C. Are you prepared to do that?”

    Thirsting: “Even if the Saints were in apostasy at this point and the revelations in the Book of Commandments were no longer valid, then why would the Lord not issue new revelations and commandments for Doctrine and Covenants instead of just having Joseph alter, add or omit certain things from previous revelations? Not only that, but there was a cover up that took place in order to hide the fact that these changes had been made.”

    Watcher: As I pointed out in this series, a careful look at history reveals that once the church rejected the fulness, the Lord took his name off of the church and it became the Church of the Latter day Saints. At that point in time, the Lord gave the condemned Church a different book of scripture.

    It is not fair to say there was a cover up. The changes were known by the brethren, although many did not understand why the changes were made.

    If Joseph was trying to cover up the changes, he would have continued to call the next 1835 publication, the Book of Commandments, to represent the fact that it was the same canon of scripture that was simply being updated. But by calling it a completely new name and by clearly stating on it that it was for the “Church of the Latter day Saints” as opposed to the “Church of Christ” which the Book of Commandments had been written for, he was actually being quite forthright about what he was doing, although some of the Saints did not pay attention and realized what he was doing.
    Lyman Wight observed that the BofC represented celestial law and the D&C represented telestial law. That is how obvious it was to Wight that the BofC represented “commandments” for establishing Zion and the D&C represented the Doctrines and the Covenants necessary in redeeming the condemned church.

    Continued Quote by David Whitmer: “You have changed the revelations from the way they were first given and as they are today in the Book of Commandments, to support the error of Brother Joseph in taking upon himself the office of Seer to the church. You have changed the revelations to support the error of high priests. You have changed the revelations to support the error of a President of the high priesthood, high counselors, etc. You have altered the revelations to support you in going beyond the plain teachings of Christ in the new covenant part of the Book of Mormon. You have changed and altered the revelations to support the error of publishing those revelations in a book: the errors you are in, revelations have been changed to support and uphold them. You who are now living did not change them, but you who strive to defend these things, are as guilty in the sight of God as those who did change them.)’

    I find the Pamphlet by David Whitmer a fascinating read. It is striking how many things he said that fall in line with the things you say on your blog. The major conflict really lies in when Joseph fully lost the spirit. He feels that it was about 1829 when half of the commandments recorded in the Book of Commandments had been given. You feel that it was much later. I am struggling with Doctrine and Covenants and whether I feel it is really coming from God.”

    Watcher: Yes, that is a correct observation. Whitmer and I disagree on timing. I believe that the rejection was complete by about the year 1834 and that it included David Whitmer and the collective church as rejecting the fulness.

    On the other hand, Whitmer simply sees Joseph Smith as being a fallen prophet almost from the minute the Book of Mormon is published and therefore postulates that Joseph was deceived about everything including the doctrine of gathering, the establishment of Zion, the building of temples, the restoration of priesthood and virtually everything exepts the BofM.

    That really doesn’t make any sense. If the Book of Mormon was able to bring about God’s purposes by itself, then God’s purposes should have been accomplished by now.

    I would encourage you to study the following issues and modern revelation that Whitmer has rejected:

    • The truth about the restoration of the Melchizedek priesthood for the first time in 1831
    • The fact that the office of high priest did not end in the New Testament like Whitmer claims and that in fact there are to be 144,000 high priests called in the last days
    • The fact that Joseph was a prophet seer and revelator, even after translating the BofM
    • The fact that sections like 29, (the gathering) 38, (warning about the secret combination) 42 (law of the gospel), 43, (succession prophecy) 45 (one of the most profound and prophetic end times scriptures) 65 (prophetic prayer describing how the kingdom of God will go forth) 76 ( the great last testimony of the Father and Son by Joseph and Sidney) 84 (oath and covenant of the priesthood) 88 (how the servants are to return, etc.) 93 (revelation on LIGHT) and on and on and on and on….

    Whitmer had his eyes covered BEFORE Joseph did, the evidence is overwhelming.

    Joseph had a visitation along with Oliver in section 110 (1836 and was still recieving valid revelation up to 1841 long after Whitmer took has marbles and went home.

    Read the D&C and get a testimony of modern revelation. The D&C if filled with light and knowledge and revelation.

    Even if you believe the BoC, remember, Whitmer ultimately rejected the BofC

    I know you have struggled with these two posts below, that explain the difference between the BofC and the D&C but please read them again. I think you have missed some of the significant evidence in them 🙂

    https://onewhoiswatching.wordpress.com/2011/12/11/commandments-doctrine-covenants/

    https://onewhoiswatching.wordpress.com/2012/07/02/commandments-doctrine-covenants-part-two/

  26. Thirsting for knowledge says:

    Watcher,
    I am still in the infancy of my eyes being opened. Having said that my opinion is continuing to evolve the more I learn.

    Watcher: “It is not fair to say there was a cover up. The changes were known by the brethren, although many did not understand why the changes were made.”
    The reason I said this is due to the following statement:
    …to make a bad matter worse, they reprinted the first fourteen numbers of the Evening and Morning Star at Kirtland in 1835, where they changed every revelation printed therein, which had harmonized with the Book of Commandments, so that they would be in agreement with the altered and mutilated versions as they appeared in the Doctrine and Covenants. (The Book of Commandments Controversy Reviewed, by Clarence L. Wheaton and Angela Wheaton, Independence, Mo., 1950, page 67)

    Watcher: “The truth of the matter is that David Whitmer was one of the 23 that was given the Melchizedek priesthood at the Morley farm and was given the privilege of being called to be the president of the Church in Zion and then he, along with many others, began to doubt and to take things lightly, and become jealous of others that were getting the opening of the heavens that was promised.”
    Minutes from the conference at the Morley farm list David Whitmer as being there, but not recieving the ordination at that time. He claims he wasn’t there and he for sure was not one of the 23 high priest ordained that day. He was ordained at a conference held on October 25th 1831.

    Watcher: “On the other hand, Whitmer simply sees Joseph Smith as being a fallen prophet almost from the minute the Book of Mormon is published and therefore postulates that Joseph was deceived about everything including the doctrine of gathering, the establishment of Zion, the building of temples, the restoration of priesthood and virtually everything exepts the BofM.
    That really doesn’t make any sense. If the Book of Mormon was able to bring about God’s purposes by itself, then God’s purposes should have been accomplished by now.”
    In Whitmer’s address he never claims that the BoM is all that is needed to bring about Gods purpose. As a matter of fact he specifically says that it is a foundation for that work. He says that there is still yet a great and marvelous work yet to happen and that more of Christ’s doctrine will come by way of translation of the sealed part of the plates. He also goes on to give reason’s why he feels that Joseph was not the choice seer spoken of in the scriptures that will carry out this work.

    Watcher: “If Joseph was trying to cover up the changes, he would have continued to call the next 1835 publication, the Book of Commandments, to represent the fact that it was the same canon of scripture that was simply being updated. But by calling it a completely new name and by clearly stating on it that it was for the “Church of the Latter day Saints” as opposed to the “Church of Christ” which the Book of Commandments had been written for, he was actually being quite forthright about what he was doing, although some of the Saints did not pay attention and realized what he was doing.
    Lyman Wight observed that the BofC represented celestial law and the D&C represented telestial law. That is how obvious it was to Wight that the BofC represented “commandments” for establishing Zion and the D&C represented the Doctrines and the Covenants necessary in redeeming the condemned church.”
    I fully understand what you are trying to say here, and it makes sense. However it doesn’t fit with how I feel God would handle the situation. Like I said before, It doesn’t make sense to have Joseph modify old revelations to fit the new condition of the Church instead of just giving the Church new revelations. When I look at the changes made what I see supports more of a modification of revelation to justify what was being done. Looking at the modifications that D. Whitmer pointed out, it seems clear that it was an act of justification for actions past and present. The changes that were made just don’t fit with the explanation that you have given for the changes (in my personal opinion).

    Watcher:”Even if you believe the BoC, remember, Whitmer ultimately rejected the BofC”
    D. Whitmer never rejected the revelations given in the Book of Commandments. He gave a firm testimony that those revelations that came through the seer stone were true. He rejected the fact that the revelations were compiled into a book and published. Something that the revelations them self said not to do.

    I recall in your series about the conference at the Morley farm a mention of the prophecy that Lyman White gave after his ordination to High Priest. I don’t remember it being addressed in the series of why this prophecy never came true. All who were there have died and the second coming of Jesus Christ has still not happened.

    Sorry for the long winded post. This is just something that has become a serious stumbling block for me. As with other questions I have had, I feel you insight will be a big help to me.

  27. I had remembered David Whitmer as being one of the original.. My bad.

    I do remember now, the discrepancy about one account saying he was there and he himself denying being there. Thank you for reminding me of that.

    He was nevertheless ordained a high priest shortly after the special conference and obviously bought into the calling and associated priesthood while a member of the church, somewhere around 1838. I have no idea exactly when he decided to reject of of the things mentioned in his address.

    If in fact he wasn’t there at the special conference, (and I can’t imagine why he would lie about that), it is very interesting that two of the three witnesses of the Book of Mormon missed such an important event! Particularly the two primary witnesses commissioned to choose and ordain the 12 apostles!! (Although they had both been ordained High Priests by the time they fulfilled that commandment)

    Beyond the things I have pointed out, I don’t know that I really have any more to say on this topic at this time. I really don’t want to try to convince you of something you don’t feel good about or believe, beyond pointing a few things out to consider. My purpose is to direct people to the scriptures and the history of the church. How they process and interpret what they read is not a responsibility that I want to have…

    I totally understand the logic of why you feel the way you do. I think you are wrong, but I understand.

    I think the direction your conclusions will take you if you stick with them is not a good direction and will ultimately cause you to reject the full calling of God’s anointed servant and the fulness he briefly ushered in during the second watch. That may reduce the chances that you will recognize and accept the fulness when it is ushered in for the last time if you can’t accept it for what it was the last time it was ushered in..

    I will say this however, and please don’t take offense. Your following statement “it doesn’t fit with how I feel God would handle the situation.” is, in my opinion, the real stumbling block here, because the natural man is an enemy to God and does not comprehend God and his ways.

    Unless you can honestly say that you have received the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, your natural thinking processes can be a stumbling block without the necessary faith in God’s word.

    If the Book of Commandments represents God’s word, it is not a good thing to reject it. The same would be true of the D&C. Have you read Lectures on Faith and prayed about it? Have you not received a witness of the truthfulness of the revelations I previously pointed out?

    Again, I believe David Whitmer is coming back, and after he repents of having rejected the fulness, he will complete his mission.

    All of us will have the same opportunity to repent during the last call, when the fulness is once again upon the earth. But the sooner we can get on the right path, the better off we will be and the more likely we will be to perceive the truth.

    One of the things I have come to realize in my study over the years is that when the Lord said “my ways are not your ways neither are my thoughts your thoughts” (or something to that effect) he was not kidding. The mortal mind, in its natural state, has a tendency to be judgmental of how God does things. The mortal mind does not operate the same way Gods does. Being indoctrinated on how to think and on how God thinks by the modern church is of no additional value. (See D&C 1:16)

    Ultimately, we each need to study things out and consider the issues prayerfully, with a great deal of humility.

    If you honestly think the Holy Spirit is telling you that David Whitmer was correct in his accusations, and that Joseph fell as a prophet as soon as he published the Book of Mormon, and that the work Joseph was involved in after that was all a sham, I guess that is the bed you will need to lay in. You may want to read the entire D&C again very carefully and prayerfully before tossing it out as being false.

    May the Lord bless you in your quest for truth

    Watcher

  28. Fusion says:

    Here’s a very interesting post from Denver today (sounds like a breakfast tv show ‘Denver Today’…I like it!):

    http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/nephi.html

    This is something that has niggled at me for a few years…

    Fusion

  29. Yes that is interesting

    I remember when I came across use of Nephi instead of Moroni years ago in a document and how strange it seemed.

    It is going to cost a bloody fortune to replace all of the angel Moroni’s with Nephi’s on top of Mormon temples! LOL

  30. Fusion says:

    Well if any one has the money to do it, LDS Inc does…that would be typical use of the money all have to pay if they wanna worship. ..especially the widows and orphans who, as I have mentioned in one of my other comments on your blog, are putting the elite and elect members (only) thru BYU according to General Authorities…

    Did you ever mentioned this nephi-becomes-moroni classic in one of your post? For some reason I recall reading this about a year ago…

  31. JennyP1969 says:

    I read of this 4 years ago and thought it a very curious situation.

    Snuffer points out our doctrinal belief that Moroni would not have been resurrected yet because he lived after Christ’s resurrection. Yet I’ve heard several people in the church speak of how Joseph Smith is already in the celestial kingdom. If that is true, how do they know? Did someone receive revelation on that or something? If Joseph is resurrected, then why not Moroni?

    Was it the glow of the person that indicates he was resurrected? What about a translated being? Could this personage have been such?

    At any rate, it seems so unlikely to me that Joseph would not have caught the “clerical error.” I’m not sure it matters much in the scheme of things who appeared to him, but I just think it rather odd that such a big error in identification could happen so many times.

    Sorry, one more question. I ask in true desire to learn and understand. Is having a statue of Moroni (Nephi?-smile) on the top of our temples a graven image? I’ve been pondering the statues built in ancient times that were considered idols. Was this because they worshipped them as gods that they were condemned? I’ve had people ask me why we put an angel on God’s holy temple rather than God, Himself? I’ve given my well-articulated answer that now I think was a bunch of bull. Would appreciate your thoughts, Watcher…..and all who care to chime in. Thanks.

  32. Fusion

    I can’t remember if I have mentioned it in a post, probably not. I tend to agree with Jenny that it is a minor issue, although I have been pondering how amazing it is that we get so many historical and scriptural things wrong.

    124 is not about the NT like we teach, 97 is not about the Jackson County Temple like we teach, the parable in 101 is not about Jackson like we teach, 84:4-5 is not about JC temple like we teach, the list goes on and on.

    It is like a comedy of errors.

    My father used to tell a joke about how information gets distorted as it is passed from one person from another, it was about two old friends that had not see each other for a long time and the one guy is recounting to his friend what he had heard from others about his long lost friend. Finally his friend replies back,

    well, essentially those things you heard about me are true, except I did not make a million dollars, I lost a million dollars, and it was not from investing in a gold mine, it was from investing in a coal mine, and I have not been in traveling abroad for two years, I have been in prison for two years, but other than those minor details, the things you have heard about me are pretty much accurate

    Is there anything the modern church teaches correctly? How can such basic things be forgotten, distorted, misunderstood? It reminds me of how the BofM warns that God takes away knowledge that is previously had, when apostasy takes place. Our minds become darkened.

    It is interesting how many critics of the church add things to their list of failed prophecies simply because Mormons cannot even interpret our own scriptures properly and cannot get historical issues correct. There is an interesting article at the interpreter about how the first vision is intentionally left out of historical accounts in the early period… and how curious it is… and how Joseph was 17, not 14, when he began to question things and have visionary experiences,(which makes a lot more sense to me) and how some accounts seem to merge the account of angelic visitations with the story of the first vision, etc. God has truly darkened the minds of the LDS people about their own history and doctrine.

    I am getting ready to publish the last part of the Snuffer critique that proves categorically that section 110 is true and the interesting thing is, that again, it is simply an issue of us Mormons not reading and believing something in the scriptures that has been there right in front of us for generations..

    ..Hence our understanding of things becomes distorted, etc. Our minds have been darkened. The fact that a well read person like Denver can actually begin to question the historicity of one of the most important events (and get a crowd of other people agreeing with him) that literally becomes the glue that holds all of the other events together, and represents one of the most profound fulfillments of ancient prophecy, is a real sad commentary about how darkened our collective minds have become about loosing the knowledge that was once delivered.

    Jenny, in my humble opinion, the Statue of Moroni is clearly a graven image as is the statue of Christ at temple square and the countless statues all over the various church sites everywhere. I suspect that all of the pictures of Christ in meeting houses are inappropriate. The actual commandment in the OT is really quite broad and quite facinating… images of things in heaven on earth, As I recall, etc.

    I have often wondered why God has not reiterated that particular commandment in modern revelation. Of course our money has graven images on it and that is an abomination.

    We have a little silver tucked away which I keep wanting to sell and Mrs Watcher won’t let me because she says we need to take it to Zion for the temple as an offering per 124:26..

    I keep reminding her that God will not allow silver coins with an imprint of the whore of Babylon on them to enter into his holy place… He would probably destroy us for bringing such an abomination into his holy land…LOL

  33. Fusion says:

    Good points.

    While it may be a minor issue, it is definitely one more reason for those who may be interested in checking out the Book of Mormon for the first time, or those who have come to some crisis in faith, to question the absurdity of these details.

    I had a car with an old school carburettor- it was a very complex piece of machinery but worked at its most efficient when one minor item, the smallest, was adjusted finely- a tiny screw. The same screw also was responsible for holding the whole thing together, and in place.

    I strong feel the same about those graven images- they are all unnecessary, period. The Lord’s image is graven on our countenances, when we get things right, as per Alma 5:14:

    http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/5.14?lang=eng#13

    The video of the sculpture of Thomas Monson being made to sit in the conference centre, depicts a smugness that is unparalled by a person who is supposed to be the Lord’s mouthpiece and knows and speaks His will. I doubt Monson even reads the scriptures…his buddies too- imagine a gospel debate with a Chuck Missler, for example, oh my…

    If you really wanna get the heebies:

    Don’t tell me I didn’t warn you.

    Fusion

  34. Fusion says:

    In classic LDS procedure, when something spiritual doesn’t happen anymore, simply make up a tangible alternative and market it…

    – no real endowment as in Genesis JST 14:25-40?! Who cares…make one up!! And so we have the Nauvoo/Brigham endowment with plenty of action

    -No ministering angels anymore? ! Who gives a…who even dare question it! Lets give them something they can see and take pictures of and be in such wonder at:

    http://m.deseretnews.com/top/2075/0/20-little-known-facts-about-the-Mormon-Angel-Moroni-statue-.html

  35. A friend just informed me that I keep calling Jenny, Penny. My wife tells me old age is not for sissies!

    I am so sorry Jenny, I have a business associate named Penny and that is the only excuse beside senility that I can think of !

  36. Questioning says:

    This scripture,D&C 124:1-2, was read in church on Sunday, and my first thought was, if the Lord is pleased with Joseph’s offerings, how does that fit in with the fact that the Lord took the fullness from them, they weren’t doing what the Lord wanted, and they had already been turned over to Satan? Any thoughts?

  37. Yes I think the Lord is referring to Joseph’s atonement offering that had previously been offered up. I will be touching in that in this current series

%d bloggers like this: