"These things I declare to you with the conviction Peter called the “more sure word of prophecy"

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/04/lord-i-believe?lang=eng


The more sure word of prophecy is mentioned as part of the calling and election made sure.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/calling-and-election?lang=eng

"The more sure word of prophecy means knowing that one is sealed up unto eternal life:D&C 131:5–6; "

And is code for seeing Jesse.

Many of us who have received the Second Anointing/Made Sure our Calling and Election have been counselled to lie about this.

Unlike Jeff, I refuse to lie and mislead people as he is so willing to do.

I was told to say, if asked whether I had seen Christ, simply to say "The Brethren have counselled us not to discuss such sacred experiences". You let them believe you have.

Now I say a true apostle of Jesus Christ, who had received a visitation from Him, should declare it loud and clear. Isn't that what the original apostles supposedly did? Paul didn't even 'see' Him, just had a vision. Didn't Joseph Smith make outlandish claims about his visions of deity and angels, even Lucifer?

Why are the current 15 not being clear in their testimonies of seeing the Christ and being 'special witnesses'.

Oh, it's because they have received no such visitation. They are too embarrassed to admit it in case the game is up so they are prepared to 'lie' by letting TBMs think they have seen Him.

Liars who are prepared to perpetuate the lies of Joseph Smith rather than show integrity.

I think that last line sums up the answer to the age old question here: Do they know it's all a sham. Yes, I believe they do.

"Liars who are prepared to perpetuate the lies of Joseph Smith rather than show integrity."

You were actually told that?!

That really pisses me off. Who told you to say that, if you don't mind telling?

I HATE it when the apostles pull that bulls**t "too sacred to talk about" crap. Its so condescending and dishonest.

I thought the PURPOSE of the apostles were to WITNESS of Jesus Christ? Is that not one ways we can consider them true representatives of God?

Elder Harold G. Hillam, President of the Europe West Area at the time.

. . . what went on, experientally speaking, in the Salt Lake temple in June 1978, when it was supposedly "revealed" to Spencer W. Kimball (and shared with members of the Quorum of the 12 there at that time) that a change in Mormon Church doctrine and policy on priesthood and Blacks was now necessary.

My grandfather, Ezra Taft Benson, replied that it was one of the most spiritual experiences of his life and was too sacred to talk about.

End of story.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/13/2013 06:28AM by steve benson.

In September 1993, I held private conversations behind the closed Salt Lake City LDS Church office doors of Apostle Neal Maxwell, in which I asked both Maxwell and fellow apostle Dallin Oaks the following question:

"What personal spiritual experiences have you had which gave you your testimonies as special witness for Christ?"

In response, Oaks summoned up memories of his days as a college student at the University of Chicago. Back then, he said, he though he "knew a lot" about the gospel. He admitted, however, that he had "questions about the Church"--although he did not elaborate for us exactly what they might have been.

Oaks said a local LDS Institute teacher helped him work out the answers.

Maxwell hearkened back to his days as a boy, when he said he observed his father give a healing "priesthood blessing" to his sibling, whom Maxwell thought was dead.

This, was the sum total of their answers--answers that I did not need to travel 700 miles to Salt Lake to hear. I could have saved everyone a lot of time and trouble if I had just stayed home, gone to the next fast and testimony meeting at our local ward and listened to regular members bear personal witness to the same kind of experiences.

There was no testimony bearing from these modern-day Peters and Pauls of personal visits, in the Flesh, from the Father or the Son.

There was no telling of any "road to Damascus" story

There was no recounting of angelic visitations.

There was no description of rushing winds or flames of fire.

In short, there was "no there there."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/13/2013 06:39AM by steve benson.

Anointedone - yes that should be the role of an apostle. But now, they are special nitwitnesses of the NAME of Jesus. Hmm... What the hell is that?

I have a very dear friend who has his 2nd, and we joke about it. (he is apostate).

Your friend should join Tom Phillips's efforts to correct the Wikipedia page about the Second Anointing. The LDS Church keeps removing references to the ceremony being used in the present day on the grounds that there isn't any evidence. The word of just one person saying, "Yes, I went through that," is considered uncorroborated evidence. Two people saying, "Yes, I went through that," would be a different story.

Good point. How about it Crathes?

The only NAME they care about is point to it and saying of course we're Christians- we have his NAME on ours.

Of course, when they claim to be witnesses of the NAME of Jesus Christ, it all unravels because it is generally accepted that his real name would have been more like Yeshua Ben-Josef, but these Special Witnesses never mention that at all.

Meanwhile, anyone else could claim they saw Jesus. What are the brethren to say? "Nuh-uh, no you didn't. Only we have. I mean, only we have had experiences too sacred and vague to talk about."

Didn't Denver Snuffer claim to see Jesus? You saw what happened to him.

I've often said that the organization which taught me honesty and integrity practices neither of those things.

Amen to this. I could take the weird doctrinal crap and the shady historical stuff but it was realizing that the church that demanded total and 100% honesty and integrity from me practiced neither put the stake through my heart.

Quite right. But those lessons are still valid.

When asked what there is good about the Mormon church, I reply, "They taught me to be honest and to work hard."

You're giving the church too much credit. The church pretends they are the only organization with "real" honesty and integrity, but that's a lie too.

You would have picked it up from somewhere else, like your parents, if they are honest people. Or in my case, because I didn't learn it at home or church, from people I admired. There are plenty honest non-mormons out there.

Very true, the American mythos covers all the values needed.

Anyone remember the Value Tales series of books?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ValueTales

I had a vision when I was 14 or under where I spoke directly with the Lord. He was not in bright white clothing. I know the exact place in the vision. I told Him I could not accept the call I was given. As a Mormon, I had no visions. The last vision I had was the day I was baptised - before it. That was on April 15, 1980. TSCC is not His church.

Reading through Hollands talk was an eye opening experience. He only talked of gaining a testimony of Christ through others experiences. Hollands experience with god is lacking any proof that he has apostolic revelations.

The absence of his communion with Jesus speaks volumes toward his hippocratic speech. A good Methodist preacher does a better job of witnessing of Christ than Mr. Holland.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/13/2013 12:16PM by oldklunker.

You make a great point. One thing that occurred to me many years ago while still very much a TBM was that the typical Mormon testimony of Christ, including and especially those testimonies like Holland's, are that they are testimonies of Joseph Smiths testimony.

It seems like every time somebody would testify of a sure knowledge of Christ, it was based on what the Prophet said he saw. Even their most sincere testimony of a personal conviction of Christ is evidence that Joseph Smith was a true prophet.

Wonderful insights Tom and Steve. Please never quit posting. Are you telling us that there is a church wide effort/fraud by the leadership to lead the rank and file to believe that they have seen Jesus when none of them have? If I am reading your posts accurately you have been instructed (at least in Tom's case) to obfuscate the truth by giving an untrue answer. If that it accurate, it is beyond evil. What amazes me is that the sheeple, in this day and age with easy access to the net, do not rise up in mass and confront the leadership about this sort of deceit. One further observation: in this day and age of ubiquitous video cameras, if Jesus were appearing on any sort of regular basis to the mormon leadership, the Pope, or anyone else, there would be a video posted on Utube. Seeing no such video leads me to conclude that Jesus really is camera shy. Imagine the impact he could have if he would allow one person to get a few minutes of video to post online. The result could be history altering.

Holland in my opinion is the most insidious of the 12.
BKP is too out of touch, and most member and non members just roll their eyes or ignore him, but Holland insinuates some really false and pervasive mormon myths for his own gain and the younger generation loves his soap opera scripts. He is one of the main proponents of lyings for The Lord.

Holland and Oaks are the real powers for the future. That's what makes Jeff so dangerous as a perverter of impressionable minds.

I outlined the possible projection in the thread http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,937689,937689#msg-937689

The OP read:-

On another thread http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,937395,937684#msg-937684 the OP wondered whether Uchtdorf will be next Prophet. Extremely unlikely unless they change the rules.

Most of those in the running are old and don't look too healthy - Packer, Perry, Nelson, Scott, Hales. The younger, healthier ones seem to be Oaks, Ballard and Holland (who is 8 years younger than the other 2). So, I think any prophets before Holland will be short term and hampered with health issues.

Here is my reply to the previous OP:-

Uchtdorf is a long way off unless they start dying like flies or they change the rules (quite possible).

Without a change of rules, my money is on Jeff Holland being the next prophet to make any significant contribution. There may be others before him, but they will be short term 'lame ducks' IMO except Oaks or Ballard.

Holland has now been an apostle for 19 years. When he was first called the buzz was he would likely be a Prophet due to his relative 'youth' (he was only 54 and a rising dynamo). This was also said of Oaks.

Holland now has clout. He is the chief proponent of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, is central to repositioning the church vis a vis the 13 articles to be published and the 'John Dehlin/NOM/Faith Crisis type movement. He was also prominent on the recent worldwide broadcast of an important announcement (damp squid).

Anyway, here are the ages and speculations where his name comes up consistently whether they live to 85 or 100.

Apostles Seniority

after Packer the seniority is

L. Tom Perry ordained an apostle April 11, 1974 born 1922
Russell M. Nelson ordained an apostle April 12, 1984 b. 1924
Dallin H. Oaks ordained apostle on May 3, 1984 b. 1932
M. Russell Ballard ordained an apostle Oct. 10, 1985 b.1928
Richard G. Scott ordained an apostle Oct. 6, 1988 b.1928
Robert D. Hales ordained an apostle April 7, 1994 b.1932
Jeffrey R. Holland ordained an apostle June 23, 1994 b.1940

Therefore if we assume death by age 93 JRH becomes prophet at age 85 and lasts 8 years after 8 years as President of 12

Prophets since David O. McKay - name, age at call and age at death

Joseph Fielding Smith 94 96 after 19 years as Pres of 12
Harold B. Lee 73 74
Spencer W. Kimball 78 90
Ezra Taft Benson 86 95
Howard W. Hunter 86 87
Gordon B. Hinckley 84 97
Thomas S. Monson 80 ?

So, only 3 long term Presidents Kimball, Benson and Hinckley. Monson is already seen as a 'lame duck' despite relative youth. Hinckley was the longest serving and in best health.

Only 3 lived beyond age 90 - Joseph Fielding Smith (less than 2 years) Benson (senile in later years) and Hinckley

If we assume death by age 90 JRH becomes prophet at age 82 and lasts 8 years after 8 years as President of 12

Oaks and Ballard are only ones ahead of Holland in seemingly good health and they are 8 and 12 years older than Holland who seems to be in good health apart from being over weight.

On similar criteria Oaks become president at age 85 (assuming 93 cut off) or 82 (assuming 90 cut off) - same as Holland but less time as Pres of 12

If they all live until 100 (including Monson and Packer) we get

Monson until 2027
Oaks at age 95 for 5 years
Holland at age 92 for 8 years

So, there you have it, Oaks and Holland as favourites with Holland serving for longer.

If they were to die aged 85 (existing older ones in next 3 years) picture would be Oaks briefly (1 year) then Holland for 8 years.

The money must be on Jeff.

That is my prophesy in the name of Jesus Smith. If it happens, you will have further evidence that I am a prophet. If it doesn't it is because I am speaking as a man or God has changed His mind again.

Tom Phillips

A rational (yes that's a joke) quorum of apostles would look at your projections and realize the best thing they could do would be to capitalize on the popularity of Holland or Uchdorf and let one of them jump the line while he could still do some good (another joke obviously).

If they did change the rules, I would love to be a fly on the wall to witness the holy expressions on the faces of those with seniority who got passed over. THAT would be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth for sure.

The first significant cracks in my belief came as a result of A Holland visit to my mission. Holland came to my mission (Brazil, Joao Pessoa) his visit was super-hyped and a result of our ridiculously high baptism rate. The whole mission traveled to the stake house, a 2-day trip for myself. Holland walked to the stand and spoke to us in heavily accented Spansih for an hour. The audience of PORTUGUESE speaking missionaries just sat there and ate it up, nobody dared correct him or let him know the gift of tongues was malfunctioning. There were even numerous stories of how extra spirtual the message was because none of us could understand it.
After his Spanish talk he took questions through a translator, in response to a direct question he said flat out that he has seen Jesus with his own eyes.

They should learn from the immediate past pope. Resign when it is too much. Further, don't follow the tradition of seniority. Hopefully they won't up on this or TSCC would survive longer.