Wow Patrick! You blew my mind about the concept of Christ only administering to the House of Israel. Now I gotta re-examine the scriptures all over again. Good work, brother!
Thanks. I suspect it has something to do with God's "war" with the other gods in the divine council. God operates differently with Israel for sure. A lot of end time prophecies surrounding them. The Gentiles see themselves as superior, however they were only caretakers until Israel could get back on their feet. Once that happens then it is all Israel again.
@uncorrelatedmormonism The part about the gentile only being "caretakers" until Isreal gets back on their feet, then it's back to being all about them. The parable of the vineyard (Matthew 21) tells us that the tenets of vineyard (who is Isreal per Isaiah 5:7) killed the servants (prophets), killed the owners son (Jesus Christ). Then Jesus ask them (the Pharisees) 40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? 41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons. 42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? 43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. The jews were judged (by their destruction in 70 AD) It was the end of their priesthood line, and was given to another nation under Christ. Just as prophesied by Daniel. It's everlasting.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism why are my comments getting removed? I've add two comments related to this same topic and they'll appear then shortly disappear and never show back up. I hope you're not doing this.
I really appreciate this from a theological perspective of the book of Mormon and doctrine and covenants. You are bridging an unique gap between honest history and theology.
Long time listener First time commenter @UncorrelatedMormonism Patrick let me first say I always enjoy "figuring it out with you" as you like to say At around the 24 minute mark you state "as we have previously discussed Joseph was quite loose with Revelations and even admitted that some of the some of his Revelations were not from God" I'm not able to go back and re-watch the videos and/or check out those blog posts. Would you be able to please provide some references on how you came to this? Thanks!
Thanks for the question. I don't remember on which video, but someone else recently asked that question. What I specifically was meaning: 1. "Quite loose with revelations" - Joseph changed the Book of Mormon, changed the Zion revelations, and changed many other revelations like D&C 5. This wasn't just to add new things. In the case of D&C 5 and D&C 20 the changes were fundamental. Did God get it wrong the first time? I can understand "updates", however these should be new revelations. This is especially problematic when the updates are expedient based on the current circumstances like the Zion revelation updates. This seems strange to think that God got it wrong and it needed to be changed, based on no fault of the church or its members. 2. "admitted that some of the some of his Revelations were not from God" - I was referring to Joseph receiving a revelation to sell the copyright of the Book of Mormon. When that failed then Joseph supposedly asked of God and God told him that revelations were from God, man or the Devil. The copyright revelation was not from God so it had to be from man or the Devil. Other revelations not from God were establishing the Kirtland Safety Society and the Council of Fifty. Both of those had Joseph receiving very strong revelations and prophecies of extreme success. Both ended in failure. I don't think Joseph ever said X was not from God, but this is the only conclusion if God is coherent. The only other explanation would be symbolic one, where everything happens exactly as you want it to happen, but just in a different realm of logical thought. This is unfalsifiable so impossible to logically discuss. Today we like to think that "revelation" is a simple on/off switch and easy to tell. However, based on my dealings with God then "revelation" is not easy to tell at all. Satan can also easily deceive people and I think Joseph was deceived plenty. I am studying the Book of Abraham right now and I think that was a deception as a preparation for the Nauvoo false doctrines. We claim that Satan is powerful, however we really don't believe it. Satan is a god with immense unimaginable powers. If he wanted to deceive you or me then he absolutely could without breaking a sweat.
Joseph's history was revised.. On April 1, 1845, Brigham Young brazenly recorded the following: I commenced revising the history of Joseph Smith at Brother Richard’s office: Elder Heber C. Kimball and George A. Smith were with me.” -History of the Church 7:389 But because Oliver Cowdery was doing a lot of 'reprinting' of things and changing the dates... you cannot count on anything they say Joseph said or did.
This is a silly argument. You are basically saying that if you don't like something then you can just claim that Brigham changed it. Problem solved. So, you are saying Joseph did in fact publish the first vision account before 1842, and it did have a mention of two divine beings, but Brigham removed it? If it was published, then naturally it would cause a stir among those against the church. Did Brigham remove those as well? Naturally, if it was published and spoken about then members would write about it in their journals. Did Brigham remove those as well? I am honestly amazed at all the things people today say that Brigham did.
Your conclusions at the end say it all: Personal spiritual experiences are real, HOWEVER, they can take on a life of their own and end up becoming something they never were, while in the process, deceiving us into thinking they were the new version all along. Let's not follow that pattern of self-deception; let's seek and obtain deep spiritual connection to God, but cease from analyzing the ensuing spiritual experiences and interpreting them into something they never were. Truly, only God the Eternal Father can provide a correct interpretation (which doesn't always come right away) and even then, we cannot trust in our own flesh so much as to think we fully understand it clearly
Im not sure what joseph Smith saw, im only sure about what I've experienced. Im just not sure about his accounts. I've heard God's voice a couple times in visions, but never seen him. I've felt the holy ghost on many occassions, but only seen the personage of spirit once. However i have met the saviour on numerous occasions in 'out of body experiences' (which he pointed out to me). I have seen and met other beings too. I dont know how to express some of those experiences, i can just encourage people to seek an experience for themselves.
Yes angels certainly visit and we can have divine experiences. We can also have experiences from evil spirits. There is an entire spiritual realm that we often overlook.
Paul was the messenger who clarified that the gospel was for all. We are really not aware of the details of Jesus visit fully unless one accepts the NT as literal and unsullied by bias and error which....would be extremely unacademic and if one is able to accept the NT as the complete clear truth as originally delivered....one can easily accept the issues with the mainstream Mormon history also as the issues are similar. I am a believer and accept what inspirations dictates to me at the time which changes according to my growth and development. Literal actual plain facts regarding history is unfortunately not how spirituality unfolds. Truth seeking however certainly contributes and for that reason I value this creator's efforts. The points he brings up are valuable. I recently had a disagreement with him regarding the polygamy of JS , its substance which there is very little doubt there are many problems with. To come to the conclusion that JS was marrying in the understanding that we have of marriage today...ie physical intimacy, commitment to the one married etc of many women is very propogandous imo but not that this creator is a propogander but that story line doesn't work. One only need to ask oneself.....if the presenter believes the church alters history and is wrong about so much, why do they all of a sudden accept the churches conclusions regarding JS polygamy.....Peace.
Is it so interesting that you bring polygamy into something that is completely unrelated. Why? It is also interesting that you speak of a search for truth and then expect it to follow along simple ideological boundaries. This is silly. Of course there are some things that the LDS church has correct and other things that they don't. This is how the real world works.
“A natural response to this would be to assert that a large number of people in the scriptures have seen Christ, and I would agree. However, they were all Jews, or before the House of Israel was even established. In the scriptures, there is not a single appearance of Christ to someone outside the Tribes of Israel.” That’s what you said, and it is false if taken literally. What did you mean by it?
I probably will do a video comparing them all. It is possible that they just all happened to have similar visions, or Joseph used them as inspiration for the description of his vision. In any case, Joseph's vision is not as 'unique' as people claim it is.
First off, one does not need the priesthood to hear or see God the Father or Christ. It is by faith that happens. As for Joseph Smith, was it a vision, or was it a visitation? And did it happen? Either you're going to believe it or not. For me, it doesn't matter. I personally have had a few experiences that only one other person knew about for the longest time. Til years later, when I told a few more people. And to this day, it still hasn't been written down. And for those who do know, they have forgotten most of it. So, as to the written account of the first vision, I don't put much stock in it. The gospel isn't based on the first vision or visitation. The restored gospel is based on the Book of Mormon and the plates. It comes down to either you believe or you don't. Do you believe the testimony of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon or you don't. Either you're a Peter or you're a Thomas? Do you have faith and believe the Book of Mormon is true and that the gospel was restored without having to see the plates. Or are you like doubting Thomas and won't except or believe it til you see the plates or proof. It's Thomas's who have the weakest faith and testimonies and are the ones who usually fall away. As for the gathering of Israel and the righteous, this can and only be done by Christ. No man has that power or authority to gather on either side. For Christ is the only one who knows one's true intent and the pure in heart. As for the scriptures, they have been transfigured and misinterpreted. This is why the Lord sends another servant to take back His vineyard and bring forth the rest of the plates. This servant is not only sent to take back the vineyard and usher in the second coming of Christ, but he is to restore the gospel back to its original form. Now for preaching and teaching of the gospel to the gentiles, that was to come through a remnant of Israel. It was to come through Ephraim and not the Jews. Actually, the fullness of the gentiles was fulfilled in 1967, when Israel took Jerusalem. When it comes to the Jews and Christ, everyone has it wrong. The Jews were chosen not because they were righteous. They were chosen because they were the most wicked and would put Christ to death. That hasn't changed. The Jews will be the one's who will have the two witnesses put to death as they did Christ. That's why most of them will be destroyed once again. As for the two witnesses, they are John the revelator and Moroni. Both are the last record keepers. John is of the stick of Judah, and Moroni is of the stick of Joseph. They are the two candle sticks that come together. Not the Bible and Book of Mormon, as everyone thinks. If people and members have a hard time with the first vision, they're going to have a really hard and difficult time when the Lord exposes His enemies and takes back His vineyard (church).
Yes I agree. The First Vision doesn't really matter. It was not important for the early church and is not really important for the church today. I think Joseph brought forth the Book of Mormon and then started embellishing a lot of things like the First Vision. However it doesn't really matter.
I don't think the fulness of the Gentiles is come in just yet. The gospel is still going to the Gentiles. 1st Nephi 14:7 marks what is required before the fulness comes in. Also, the Book of Mormon says many times that the Jews won't be gathered back until they believe in Christ, and the servant gathers them back there. Even Orthodox Jews disagree with the current establishment of Israel and how it came about. They know that a servant of God is supposed to establish them their, not the Zionist movement led by the Rothschild's, Vatican, Hitler, and whoever else was involved.
Well, i told MY family and friends and even church members I'd seen Jesus and not a single member asked any follow up questions, my family hasnt asked about it. I guarantee they havent written about it in their journals, and given the chance none of them, i dont even think my wife , would be able to accurately describe my experience or vision. -im not sure I even wrote it down anywhere-i just remember it in my mind and heart. That said, if it wasnt for the Book of Mormon then i never would have had that experience. The most important purpose of The Book of Mormon is to show how ANYONE can know for themselves that Jesus is THEIR PERSONAL SAVIOR.-by a personal manifestation from HIM!! (thus the reason it is demonstrated over and over and over in it; Literally and symbolically (tree of life, 3 nephi 11 etc.) The other reason i believe J. SMITH is that the FATHER is included in His account. How would he know to include this aspect and then later translate in an almost hidden doctrine that when the Book of Mormon would come forth it would signal the FATHER'S (not the Son's) work among the house of Isreal had begun(3 nephi 13-24+/-) He did this without ever even identifying it specifically. Yet there it is 200yrs later for only the REAL students of the Book of Mormon to pick up on.
I believe the separation of the Father and the Son is actually a false doctrine. Jesus is the Father. Jesus is God. If you believe though that the separation is a "hidden doctrine" then you may be surprised to learn that most of the "other visions" I reference actually have appearances of the Father and the Son. Therefore it wasn't very hidden. For instance: 1786: Cathrine Hummer testified she saw the Father and the Son 1813: Benjamin Abbott testified he saw the Father and the Son 1814: Lorenzo Dow testified he saw the Father and the Son 1815: Norris Stearns testified he saw the Father and the Son 1825: Billy Hibbard testified he saw the Father and the Son 1838: James G. Marsh testified he saw the Father and the Son Doesn't seem very hidden to me. You should watch my video "God Himself Shall Come Down". The Book of Mormon teaches that Jesus is the Father and the Son.
Yeah because they probably think you’re a little crazy and delusional. This is so sad to see the effects the church is having on people after so many years of manipulation and mind control. It’s so blatantly obvious to everyone outside of the church or those that were in and have work up. More and more are waking up now though so I have some hope.
Yes ! The first vision did happen. How many Gods are there? Three. The Father, the Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. The world knows more or less about the first two, but very little about the third one.The Book of Mormon promises personal knowledge about it from God ( Moroni 10:3-5), delivered by the Holy Ghost.I have personally received that. So the Book of Mormon is the word of God. From that follows that Josph Smith was ( and is) a prophet of God. So, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the true Church on the earth. Restored through him. No need to complicate that.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism You find what you desire to find. I know without a shadow of a doubt, not only did the event happen...But the purpose beyond choosing a Prophet, and opening this last dispensation. Joseph was a boy when this momentous event took place. I would bet if you had been in his shoes, finding words to describe such an event would be very difficult. The answer of the truth will be found when you seek it as you should...In sincerity and humility before God. He does not hide the truth from those who are sincere.
![Jonathan Cahn SHOCKING VISION 🚨 [Signs You Can't Ignore] SOMETHING TERRIBLE IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN!](/img/n.gif)
Wow Patrick! You blew my mind about the concept of Christ only administering to the House of Israel. Now I gotta re-examine the scriptures all over again. Good work, brother!
Thanks. I suspect it has something to do with God's "war" with the other gods in the divine council. God operates differently with Israel for sure. A lot of end time prophecies surrounding them.
The Gentiles see themselves as superior, however they were only caretakers until Israel could get back on their feet. Once that happens then it is all Israel again.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism
Ummm... no. That's a terrible take and clearly not biblical.
Where do you get that idea from?
@@DangerMountain What specifically?
@uncorrelatedmormonism
The part about the gentile only being "caretakers" until Isreal gets back on their feet, then it's back to being all about them.
The parable of the vineyard (Matthew 21) tells us that the tenets of vineyard (who is Isreal per Isaiah 5:7) killed the servants (prophets), killed the owners son (Jesus Christ).
Then Jesus ask them (the Pharisees)
40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? 41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons. 42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? 43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
The jews were judged (by their destruction in 70 AD) It was the end of their priesthood line, and was given to another nation under Christ. Just as prophesied by Daniel. It's everlasting.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism
why are my comments getting removed? I've add two comments related to this same topic and they'll appear then shortly disappear and never show back up.
I hope you're not doing this.
I really appreciate this from a theological perspective of the book of Mormon and doctrine and covenants.
You are bridging an unique gap between honest history and theology.
Thank you.
Long time listener First time commenter @UncorrelatedMormonism Patrick let me first say I always enjoy "figuring it out with you" as you like to say At around the 24 minute mark you state "as we have previously discussed Joseph was quite loose with Revelations and even admitted that some of the some of his Revelations were not from God" I'm not able to go back and re-watch the videos and/or check out those blog posts. Would you be able to please provide some references on how you came to this? Thanks!
Thanks for the question.
I don't remember on which video, but someone else recently asked that question. What I specifically was meaning:
1. "Quite loose with revelations" - Joseph changed the Book of Mormon, changed the Zion revelations, and changed many other revelations like D&C 5. This wasn't just to add new things. In the case of D&C 5 and D&C 20 the changes were fundamental. Did God get it wrong the first time? I can understand "updates", however these should be new revelations. This is especially problematic when the updates are expedient based on the current circumstances like the Zion revelation updates. This seems strange to think that God got it wrong and it needed to be changed, based on no fault of the church or its members.
2. "admitted that some of the some of his Revelations were not from God" - I was referring to Joseph receiving a revelation to sell the copyright of the Book of Mormon. When that failed then Joseph supposedly asked of God and God told him that revelations were from God, man or the Devil. The copyright revelation was not from God so it had to be from man or the Devil. Other revelations not from God were establishing the Kirtland Safety Society and the Council of Fifty. Both of those had Joseph receiving very strong revelations and prophecies of extreme success. Both ended in failure. I don't think Joseph ever said X was not from God, but this is the only conclusion if God is coherent. The only other explanation would be symbolic one, where everything happens exactly as you want it to happen, but just in a different realm of logical thought. This is unfalsifiable so impossible to logically discuss.
Today we like to think that "revelation" is a simple on/off switch and easy to tell. However, based on my dealings with God then "revelation" is not easy to tell at all. Satan can also easily deceive people and I think Joseph was deceived plenty. I am studying the Book of Abraham right now and I think that was a deception as a preparation for the Nauvoo false doctrines. We claim that Satan is powerful, however we really don't believe it. Satan is a god with immense unimaginable powers. If he wanted to deceive you or me then he absolutely could without breaking a sweat.
Joseph's history was revised.. On April 1, 1845, Brigham Young brazenly recorded the following:
I commenced revising the history of Joseph Smith at Brother Richard’s office: Elder Heber
C. Kimball and George A. Smith were with me.” -History of the Church 7:389
But because Oliver Cowdery was doing a lot of 'reprinting' of things and changing the dates... you cannot count on anything they say Joseph said or did.
This is a silly argument. You are basically saying that if you don't like something then you can just claim that Brigham changed it. Problem solved.
So, you are saying Joseph did in fact publish the first vision account before 1842, and it did have a mention of two divine beings, but Brigham removed it? If it was published, then naturally it would cause a stir among those against the church. Did Brigham remove those as well? Naturally, if it was published and spoken about then members would write about it in their journals. Did Brigham remove those as well?
I am honestly amazed at all the things people today say that Brigham did.
Keep up the research. The truth with stand on its own with scrutiny for those with eyes to see. Good work.
Thanks.
Your conclusions at the end say it all:
Personal spiritual experiences are real, HOWEVER, they can take on a life of their own and end up becoming something they never were, while in the process, deceiving us into thinking they were the new version all along.
Let's not follow that pattern of self-deception; let's seek and obtain deep spiritual connection to God, but cease from analyzing the ensuing spiritual experiences and interpreting them into something they never were.
Truly, only God the Eternal Father can provide a correct interpretation (which doesn't always come right away) and even then, we cannot trust in our own flesh so much as to think we fully understand it clearly
Im not sure what joseph Smith saw, im only sure about what I've experienced. Im just not sure about his accounts.
I've heard God's voice a couple times in visions, but never seen him.
I've felt the holy ghost on many occassions, but only seen the personage of spirit once.
However i have met the saviour on numerous occasions in 'out of body experiences' (which he pointed out to me).
I have seen and met other beings too.
I dont know how to express some of those experiences, i can just encourage people to seek an experience for themselves.
Yes angels certainly visit and we can have divine experiences. We can also have experiences from evil spirits. There is an entire spiritual realm that we often overlook.
Paul was the messenger who clarified that the gospel was for all. We are really not aware of the details of Jesus visit fully unless one accepts the NT as literal and unsullied by bias and error which....would be extremely unacademic and if one is able to accept the NT as the complete clear truth as originally delivered....one can easily accept the issues with the mainstream Mormon history also as the issues are similar. I am a believer and accept what inspirations dictates to me at the time which changes according to my growth and development. Literal actual plain facts regarding history is unfortunately not how spirituality unfolds. Truth seeking however certainly contributes and for that reason I value this creator's efforts. The points he brings up are valuable. I recently had a disagreement with him regarding the polygamy of JS , its substance which there is very little doubt there are many problems with. To come to the conclusion that JS was marrying in the understanding that we have of marriage today...ie physical intimacy, commitment to the one married etc of many women is very propogandous imo but not that this creator is a propogander but that story line doesn't work. One only need to ask oneself.....if the presenter believes the church alters history and is wrong about so much, why do they all of a sudden accept the churches conclusions regarding JS polygamy.....Peace.
Is it so interesting that you bring polygamy into something that is completely unrelated. Why?
It is also interesting that you speak of a search for truth and then expect it to follow along simple ideological boundaries. This is silly. Of course there are some things that the LDS church has correct and other things that they don't. This is how the real world works.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism lol keep up the research. love your work.
Pontius Pilate saw Jesus and heard his voice, and Pilate explicitly said he himself was not a Jew.
Tons of people saw Jesus during his mortal ministry. This is not what I said though.
@@wmjas I am saying that if 3 Nephi 15 is true, then Jesus is personally saying that he won't show himself to the Gentiles.
“A natural response to this would be to assert that a large number of people in the scriptures have seen Christ, and I would agree. However, they were all Jews, or before the House of Israel was even established. In the scriptures, there is not a single appearance of Christ to someone outside the Tribes of Israel.”
That’s what you said, and it is false if taken literally. What did you mean by it?
But many gentiles did see him. He lived his entire life among a mixed population of Jews and gentiles.
@@wmjas After resurrection.
Norris Sterns was devastatingly similar.
I probably will do a video comparing them all. It is possible that they just all happened to have similar visions, or Joseph used them as inspiration for the description of his vision.
In any case, Joseph's vision is not as 'unique' as people claim it is.
Bro needs to read the book of Roman’s
Vague things like this are not helpful to anyone, including yourself. If I am incorrect then please show me how and we can discuss it.
First off, one does not need the priesthood to hear or see God the Father or Christ. It is by faith that happens.
As for Joseph Smith, was it a vision, or was it a visitation? And did it happen?
Either you're going to believe it or not. For me, it doesn't matter.
I personally have had a few experiences that only one other person knew about for the longest time. Til years later, when I told a few more people. And to this day, it still hasn't been written down. And for those who do know, they have forgotten most of it.
So, as to the written account of the first vision, I don't put much stock in it.
The gospel isn't based on the first vision or visitation. The restored gospel is based on the Book of Mormon and the plates. It comes down to either you believe or you don't.
Do you believe the testimony of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon or you don't.
Either you're a Peter or you're a Thomas?
Do you have faith and believe the Book of Mormon is true and that the gospel was restored without having to see the plates.
Or are you like doubting Thomas and won't except or believe it til you see the plates or proof.
It's Thomas's who have the weakest faith and testimonies and are the ones who usually fall away.
As for the gathering of Israel and the righteous, this can and only be done by Christ. No man has that power or authority to gather on either side. For Christ is the only one who knows one's true intent and the pure in heart.
As for the scriptures, they have been transfigured and misinterpreted. This is why the Lord sends another servant to take back His vineyard and bring forth the rest of the plates.
This servant is not only sent to take back the vineyard and usher in the second coming of Christ, but he is to restore the gospel back to its original form.
Now for preaching and teaching of the gospel to the gentiles, that was to come through a remnant of Israel. It was to come through Ephraim and not the Jews.
Actually, the fullness of the gentiles was fulfilled in 1967, when Israel took Jerusalem.
When it comes to the Jews and Christ, everyone has it wrong. The Jews were chosen not because they were righteous. They were chosen because they were the most wicked and would put Christ to death. That hasn't changed.
The Jews will be the one's who will have the two witnesses put to death as they did Christ. That's why most of them will be destroyed once again.
As for the two witnesses, they are John the revelator and Moroni. Both are the last record keepers. John is of the stick of Judah, and Moroni is of the stick of Joseph. They are the two candle sticks that come together. Not the Bible and Book of Mormon, as everyone thinks.
If people and members have a hard time with the first vision, they're going to have a really hard and difficult time when the Lord exposes His enemies and takes back His vineyard (church).
Yes I agree. The First Vision doesn't really matter. It was not important for the early church and is not really important for the church today.
I think Joseph brought forth the Book of Mormon and then started embellishing a lot of things like the First Vision. However it doesn't really matter.
I don't think the fulness of the Gentiles is come in just yet. The gospel is still going to the Gentiles. 1st Nephi 14:7 marks what is required before the fulness comes in. Also, the Book of Mormon says many times that the Jews won't be gathered back until they believe in Christ, and the servant gathers them back there.
Even Orthodox Jews disagree with the current establishment of Israel and how it came about. They know that a servant of God is supposed to establish them their, not the Zionist movement led by the Rothschild's, Vatican, Hitler, and whoever else was involved.
Well, i told MY family and friends and even church members I'd seen Jesus and not a single member asked any follow up questions, my family hasnt asked about it. I guarantee they havent written about it in their journals, and given the chance none of them, i dont even think my wife , would be able to accurately describe my experience or vision. -im not sure I even wrote it down anywhere-i just remember it in my mind and heart.
That said, if it wasnt for the Book of Mormon then i never would have had that experience. The most important purpose of The Book of Mormon is to show how ANYONE can know for themselves that Jesus is THEIR PERSONAL SAVIOR.-by a personal manifestation from HIM!! (thus the reason it is demonstrated over and over and over in it; Literally and symbolically (tree of life, 3 nephi 11 etc.)
The other reason i believe J. SMITH is that the FATHER is included in His account. How would he know to include this aspect and then later translate in an almost hidden doctrine that when the Book of Mormon would come forth it would signal the FATHER'S (not the Son's) work among the house of Isreal had begun(3 nephi 13-24+/-) He did this without ever even identifying it specifically. Yet there it is 200yrs later for only the REAL students of the Book of Mormon to pick up on.
I believe the separation of the Father and the Son is actually a false doctrine. Jesus is the Father. Jesus is God.
If you believe though that the separation is a "hidden doctrine" then you may be surprised to learn that most of the "other visions" I reference actually have appearances of the Father and the Son. Therefore it wasn't very hidden.
For instance:
1786: Cathrine Hummer testified she saw the Father and the Son
1813: Benjamin Abbott testified he saw the Father and the Son
1814: Lorenzo Dow testified he saw the Father and the Son
1815: Norris Stearns testified he saw the Father and the Son
1825: Billy Hibbard testified he saw the Father and the Son
1838: James G. Marsh testified he saw the Father and the Son
Doesn't seem very hidden to me.
You should watch my video "God Himself Shall Come Down". The Book of Mormon teaches that Jesus is the Father and the Son.
Yeah because they probably think you’re a little crazy and delusional. This is so sad to see the effects the church is having on people after so many years of manipulation and mind control. It’s so blatantly obvious to everyone outside of the church or those that were in and have work up. More and more are waking up now though so I have some hope.
Yes ! The first vision did happen. How many Gods are there? Three. The Father, the Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. The world knows more or less about the first two, but very little about the third one.The Book of Mormon promises personal knowledge about it from God ( Moroni 10:3-5), delivered by the Holy Ghost.I have personally received that. So the Book of Mormon is the word of God. From that follows that Josph Smith was ( and is) a prophet of God. So, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the true Church on the earth. Restored through him. No need to complicate that.
The Book of Mormon disagrees with you about the number of Gods.
Now Zeezrom said, “Is there more than one God?” And he answered, “No.”
@@uncorrelatedmormonism So do the Lectures on Faith
Yes, It really happened.
Why do you think there are so many discrepancies with the account?
@@uncorrelatedmormonism You find what you desire to find. I know without a shadow of a doubt, not only did the event happen...But the purpose beyond choosing a Prophet, and opening this last dispensation. Joseph was a boy when this momentous event took place. I would bet if you had been in his shoes, finding words to describe such an event would be very difficult. The answer of the truth will be found when you seek it as you should...In sincerity and humility before God. He does not hide the truth from those who are sincere.
@@karlshaner2453 On my mission for the LDS church I would testify very similar to what you did. However, the truth is vastly more nuanced than that.