tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5948352943362975805.post6181144236850925776..comments2023-11-02T03:08:07.417-07:00Comments on NephiCode: More Comments from Readers – Part IIIDelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08982095508142923740noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5948352943362975805.post-27272518305154557892016-05-29T16:07:52.199-07:002016-05-29T16:07:52.199-07:00Scott, one reason why I trust what Ira said and do...Scott, one reason why I trust what Ira said and do not trust what you say is because the church for a long time puts up the idea that God guarantees that the church President will never be allowed to lead it astray, and thus completely rejects anyone who claims a controversy over the church President based on D&C 107:81-84 and JST Mark 9:40-48. The church leaders are not superiors to the non-leaders, they are equals. D&C 38:25-26 The non-leaders have the same responsibility and rights to bear off the kingdom as the leaders do. The leaders are called as SERVANTS to use the authority that is given to the entire Priesthood body. If they fail, another faithful members can replace them. Sustaining is not so the non-leaders can prove their allegiance to the leaders, but it is the way the non-leaders can deal with problems that come up among the leaders. Everything you say about how certain the Lord will never allow the leaders to fail is always based on hearsay. What I am saying is based on scripture. Should we hold to the rod, or to the hearsay? I am on this blog because I believe the scriptures always trump the ideas of men that contradict the scriptures. Here is an evidence that what I say about the church leaders seeking to place themselves above the law is correct: http://2bc.info/pdf/pbfraud.pdferichardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12279217537472159142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5948352943362975805.post-87926264183858828742016-05-29T08:52:23.110-07:002016-05-29T08:52:23.110-07:00iterry, while I do believe that the curse of Cain ...iterry, while I do believe that the curse of Cain was dark skin and that that is why african americans have been denied the priesthood in the past, there is never any evidence that the curse was permanent. This is the dispensation of the fullness of times in which all things were to be restored. The priesthood is removed from people who have lost it due to curse at times, but in the end is to be restored to all. First it was forbidden to the race of Cain. Then it was taken from all save the descendants of Abraham. Then, God had to remove it from all save the select few prophets and the descendants of Levi who were given the Aaronic Priesthood. Christ came with the restoration of the priesthood to all worthy Jews, and eventually to all worthy Gentiles. God has set up his prophet and will not suffer the head of the church to lead the church astray. (Amos 3:7,D&C 28:7, Official Declaration 1, 2 Nephi 26:33) If Spencer Kimball had revealed what you claimed to be a phony revelation he would have been removed from office. Even Balaam, despite disobeying God and going with the king of Moab, could not Curse Israel as God would not let him. Yes he led the Israelites to sin with the midianitish woman, but he was not acting as prophet at the time, while Kimball was definitely acting as the prophet when he announced this. Yes african-americans had been cursed as to the priesthood but that curse has been removed, just as the curse upon the promised land in which all things became slippery was removed when the Nephites took over residence from the Jaredites, or whenever either party repented. Does Saul and Uzziah being chastised because they were not entitle to either priesthood mean that we should keep it solely to the Levites (1 Samuel 13, 2 Chronicles 26). Do not be like the Jews of the early christian church who refused to accept the Gentiles as fully accepted of God. To continue to disavow a revelation from a man who held all the proper keys and authority, as well as the entire quorum of the twelve who agreed with him, is apologetic denial and apostasy, even if a Patriarch didn't agree with him (after all, Oliver Cowdry, second elder in the church, was still wrong when he left the church). I testify that I know that African Americans hold the priesthood and have seen them administer in such offices and know them to have literally healed the sick through the power of the Melchezedick power. Not to mention the fact that Joseph Smith ordained several African Americans to the Melchezedick Priesthood long before Brigham Young was instructed to do otherwise. Once again I state that yes the had the curse of cain and were denied the priesthood but the curse has been removed by a prophet of the most high, who, if he had led the church astray would have been removed from office. Don't let the curse of Cain become your version of the Jews' Circumcision. If you have any doubts about this, do what God has instructed. Study out official declaration 2 in your mind, keep your opinion or form a new one, and ask God whether or not your opinion is right. If you do not get the peace promised but merely wish to come back and argue with me about this, then I think you know your answer whether or not you want to admit it.<br />Above all else don't end up like Miriam (Numbers 12, paying especial attention to 6-8). In short, leaders acting on their own can lead a few astray, a la the golden calf or the Kirtland safety society crisis, the but church leadership acting for the whole church will not lead the saints astray in official policy and doctrine. Thank you for reading through this rabble, assuming you bothered to suffer through my bad writing to reach this point.<br />scott BrueningAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02696658657721294612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5948352943362975805.post-57561511694468952012016-05-25T20:31:14.064-07:002016-05-25T20:31:14.064-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.erichardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12279217537472159142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5948352943362975805.post-9173063405090932922016-05-25T09:07:32.360-07:002016-05-25T09:07:32.360-07:00Well, I know that my views are not held by the Chu...Well, I know that my views are not held by the Church today, but I'm going to say it anyway. The Lamanites are of the House of Israel and will be gathered to the New Jerusalem in the last days. The Blacks on the other hand are a cursed race as it says in Abraham 1:24 "...FROM HAM,sprang that race which preserved THE CURSE in the land. Also Abraham 1:27 Now, Pharaoh being of that LINEAGE (HAM) by which he COULD NOT have right of Priesthood. Sorry folks, but because the government leaned on the Church in 1978 the prohibition against Blacks holding the priesthood was changed. That's a fact. EG Smith was kicked out of his office of patriarch to the Church because he opposed the phony revelation. You can wiggle and flap in the wind on this issue all you want to but the truth is clear from the scriptures. The blacks are a cursed race and have no right to the priesthood. That black skin came as a result of the murder of Cain. This is very clear in the scriptures and you are reinterpreting the scriptures because of the position of the Church on this issue. I don't blame you, even Hugh Nibley changed his views after the so-called revelation (read phony). <br /><br />That isn't true of the Lamanites because they are of the House of Israel and that curse is temporary and will be lifted at some point as it says in the scriptures. That isn't true of the blacks however. Political correctness has taken over parts of the Church. Sorry to be so blunt but that's the facts. If you want more facts from the scriptures about this I would be happy to accommodate. Ira iterryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14836783863542965577noreply@blogger.com