WHY DOES ORREN HATCH GO ALONG WITH ALL THE LIES OF THE GOVERMENT WHEN HE HAS A HIGHER KNOLOGE OF WHAT IS GOING ON, CAUSE HE IS LDS .
IF HE IS LDS AND DOES THIS, THEN IT IS HARD TO TRUST ANYONE. IS HE FOR THE WRONG CAUSE? AND KNOWS IT OR, WELL HELP ME OUT HERE I AM STUCK ON WHO TO TRUST
1. What specifically has he done or not done that is offensive to you. I'm sure the list is long, but I think it should be spelled out and presented to him so he can account for his actions or inactions.
2. Since when is being LDS synonomous with being honest?
3. I've gotten the e-mail addresses of my 3 congressmen, and I follow their voting record and other activities as best I can. I e-mail them with my comments on what they are doing and ask for explanations of actions I disagree with. And I share copies of all correspondence, including the e-mails to each congressman, with everybody in my addressfile who lives in their district, or Arizona, in my case. And I do complement them when I catch them doing something right.
Becoming only recently an inactive (NOT anti) Mormon, (got some real questions that haven't been answered yet), I have experience with the church's ideology.
Overall, I don't think you can find a better people in mainstream America today. High standards of morality, values and loyalty. The fact that you seem so torn that this "Mormon" could be compromising his values is a testimony of the average Mormon's integrity. But people are people. No one is beyond fault.
Although I do believe the church leaders in general have good intentions for the members, I've heard accusations of links to Armen Hamer (Soviet Spy) and other things that, to me, makes me wonder of the true direction the leaders are steering the church in.
Basically, I've come to believe that people in power get there for a reason. And I've come to realize that virtually (but not necessarily) ALL positions of power are paid for (either to attain them or keep them) in some way. Were it not so, the position of power would have little value and therefor wouldn't be sought after. With the rapid growth, global presence, and incredible resources of the LDS church, it just seems logical to me that it would attract those seeking such power, with the intent to abuse that power. Those of high moral character become easy targets of blackmailers when they "slip up". Like I said, people are people.
I really hate to sound so cynical, because I have great respect for the church, but it just seems to be the way things are when people get a taste of power. Again, I want to emphasize my belief that most members of the Mormon church have the highest standards and deserve the reputations as Christians to which they have rightly earned.
He has been in Washington too long. I agree he is now compromised. Too bad, used to be a good man.
Galations 1:7
Are you forgetting these verses?
Galatians 1
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
I've had bad feelings about Hatch for several years now.
We have been told that in the Last Days every one must stand on their own testimony. We can not nor should we expect to find anyone to follow but the Lord, Jesus Christ.
Didn't Satan tell the Lord Jesus Christ when taking Him up to a high mountain that all these kingdoms were his (Satans) to give to whomever he chose to, and offered them all to the Lord Jesus Christ if only He ( the Lord Jesus Christ) would bow down and worship him (Satan)? Luke 4:5-6
This world and its leaders are not on a course of rightousness. All world rulers are put into place by the devil himself. Don't expect any of them to facilitate anything for the Lord Jesus Christ. Its all moving towards a one world government and a one world religion that only benefits the anti-christ.
I think of Doctrine and Covenants #121:39-45 each time I think of Hatch.
"The Hatch Betrayal", from The New Ameerican, Vol. 17, No 18, 27 August, 2001
"I'm astounded, absolutely astounded," Gayle Ruzicka, president of the pro-life Utah Eagle Forum, was quoted as exclaiming in the July 2nd Deseret News. "I have always been a defender of Orrin Hatch on the life issue. And now he has betrayed us all." Ruzicka was referring to Senator Hatch's support for killing human embryos for the purpose of obtaining stem cells. This, however, was not the first time the Beehive State's senior solon has betrayed the pro-life cause. Indeed, anyone who is familiar with Hatch's incredibly sorry record over the years -- on pro-life issues as well as his support for the United Nations, welfare, federal child care, gun control, and many other positions that are anathema to genuine conservatives -- should not have been the least astounded by the senator's latest actions. (See "Liberal in Conservative Garb," The New American, October 9, 2000.) In addition to warmly endorsing and voting to confirm pro-abortion nominees Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer to the Supreme Court, Hatch has sided with his pro-death bosom buddy Senator Teddy Kennedy ("He's like a brother to me," Hatch said of Kennedy) on many occasions. In 1992, Hatch told a University of Utah audience he "wouldn't even touch" the Roe v. Wade decision that has led to the killing of over 40 million innocent victims in the womb.
Nevertheless, Senator Hatch's unearned reputation as a conservative and a pro-life champion has been used by the pro-death elite media to provide protective cover to others who would declare "open season" on the tiniest and most helpless Americans. The New York Times, for instance, declared in a July 15th editorial: "We suspect that most Americans would agree with Senator Orrin Hatch, a pro-life conservative, when he exclaimed that he could not equate an embryo in a freezer' with a child living in the womb, with moving toes and fingers and a beating heart.'"
Hatch is one of 61 senators who signed a letter to President Bush urging him to support federal funding for embryonic stem cell experimentation.
Liberal in Conservative Garb
by John F. McManus, 9 October 2000 issue of The New American
Although Utah Senator Orrin Hatch wears a cloak of conservatism, his true colors are shown when he consistently undermines the Constitution by championing liberal causes.
On May 6, 2000, the Utah Republican Party held its convention to nominate candidates for statewide and local offices. The gathering turned out to be anything but the usual political lovefest. Four-term Senator Orrin Hatch, thought by most outsiders to be the darling of Utahs GOPers, found himself greeted by a loud chorus of heckling from many among the 3,500 delegates and 1,500 observers. Governor Mike Leavitt, similarly viewed as a GOP favorite, fared even worse. Jeering directed at him became so loud that neither he nor the individuals nominating him could be heard. The convention ultimately denied Leavitt renomination, thereby forcing him into a primary (which he eventually won). Hatch narrowly escaped the same fate.
The distaste for Hatch focused on what many Utah residents see as his capitulation on abortion, gun ownership, and homosexuality. As they arrived at the convention, delegates were handed a letter documenting Hatchs softness on the all-important right-to-life issue. Some delegates were angered over his refusal to sign a pledge to veto judicial candidates who arent opposed to abortion. Upset supporters of the right to own a gun claimed that the Virginia-based Gun Owners of America had correctly blasted him for supporting several measures targeting private ownership of weapons, including a ban on an assortment of weapons in a huge crime bill, controls on sales at gun shows, and enforcement of trigger locks. Others recalled that, in 1990, the American Family Association publicly criticized Hatch for supporting the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and its "funding of pornography and anti-Christian art."
Early Years
Orrin Hatch was born in 1934 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Educated at Utahs Brigham Young University and the University of Pittsburgh Law School, he practiced law in Pennsylvania for several years and then settled in the Beehive State.
In 1976, in his first try at elective office, he upset three-term incumbent Democrat Frank Moss and went to Washington as a U.S. senator. From the very start, he promised to stand tall for conservative principles, a balanced federal budget, strong national defense, strong family values, and relief from the growing inroads of taxation and regulation.
While his early record lived up to many of his promises, there were signs even during his first years in office that the labels Hatch delighted in wearing didnt match his performance. One of his first votes in the Senate came when newly inaugurated President Carter submitted the name of radical civil rights agitator Andrew Young for the post of U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. During confirmation hearings, senators were reminded of Youngs undeniable leftist record, including his incredible televised statement of April 13, 1970 that "it may take the destruction of western civilization to allow the rest of the world to really emerge as a free and brotherly society...." Hatch, nevertheless, voted for confirmation.
What About the Constitution?
Hatch has always enjoyed being termed a "conservative," an increasingly meaningless categorization of politicians and their policies. But the standard by which elected officials and issues should be judged has never been unspecified conservatism. The standard for Americans, especially those honor bound to abide by its tenets, is the U.S. Constitution.
Nowhere in the venerable document, however, is there any authorization for such Hatch-supported federal programs as housing, education, welfare, agriculture subsidies, foreign aid, oil price controls, subsidized sales to Communist countries, needles for drug addicts, funding of pornographic art, federalization of local police, subsidies for unwed teenage mothers, loans for college students, television for rural residents, and day-care centers. Asked about these and similar programs, Hatch mentions his "sympathy for the downtrodden, those who get the short end of the stick."
In 1985, a Senate bill cited the section of the Constitution (Article III, Section 2) that authorizes Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and, by extension, all federal courts on any particular matter. A group of senators referenced this clause while attempting to bar all federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from having anything to say about prayer in the schools. Successful passage of their proposal in the full Congress would have restored voluntary prayer and Bible reading. Orrin Hatch would like to be known as a supporter of such practices, but he joined with the majority in a 62 to 36 vote that killed the measure. Then in 1988, during a similar attempt citing the same constitutional authority, Hatch actually made the motion that successfully torpedoed the effort.
An Internationalist
In 1986, Hatch backed the sanctions levied against U.S.-friendly South Africa. Those sanctions were a significant factor in the replacement of the government with the Marxist-Communist cadre that now controls South Africa. Move ahead a few years and consider Communist Chinas abominable human rights record that features forced abortion, a one child per family requirement, slave labor, religious persecution, and more. Add to this mix the Chinese governments labeling of the United States as its "number one enemy." With China an even worse abuser of human rights than South Africa was, and a sworn enemy of the U.S. besides, one might think that Orrin Hatch would be a stout-hearted opponent of pro-Chinese measures.
But Hatch supported Most Favored Nation status for the Beijing monsters as far back as 1980, and he did so again in 1991, 1992, 1994, and 1997. In 1999, he crowned such support by siding with President Clintons wish for China to receive U.S.-taxpayer subsidized trade under the new designation termed Normal Trade Relations.
The Gulf War is another example of Hatchs internationalism. The Constitution grants to Congress the power to declare war. In 1991 with congressional acquiescence, President George Bush performed an end run around the Constitution by pointing to authorization from the United Nations as he launched a war against Iraq. The major purposes behind this intervention, he proudly stated, were the building of "a reinvigorated United Nations" and the creation of "a new world order." A few days before unleashing the troops, Mr. Bush asked Congress, not for a declaration of war, but for its approval of his decision to use our nations military to implement UN resolutions. Fifty-two senators supported the Presidents request to circumvent the Constitution while 47 refused. Hatch was one of the ignominious 52.
In November 1993, President Clinton and Congress approved the largest transfer of U.S. sovereignty to an international agency since our nation joined the United Nations. By a vote of 61 to 38, the Senate approved NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. History shows that economic union (which is what NAFTA entails) is regularly followed by political union. And political union is a necessary step toward full world government. Hatch voted with the majority on this sovereignty-compromising measure.
A UN population conference meeting in Cairo in 1994 strongly advocated abortion and, for it, received wide condemnation from religious and family organizations in the United States. Yet, right on the heels of the Cairo gathering, Hatch and fellow Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) praised the UN for its Year of the Family proclamation and for the organizations overall "leadership" and efforts to "reconfirm the importance of the family."
With the Iraq precedent to back him up, President Clinton later committed U.S. military forces to a NATO/UN-directed war in the former Yugoslavia. On July 30, 1998, the Senate entertained a one-sentence amendment to a Defense Appropriations bill seeking to reaffirm the sole war-making power granted to Congress. The measure sought to prohibit the use of the militarys funds for "offensive military operations by the United States except in accordance with Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, which vests in Congress the power to declare war and take certain other related actions." The Senate tabled (killed) this easily understood amendment by a vote of 84 to 15. Hatch voted with the majority.
On May 25, 1999, the Senate considered an amendment to deny funds for the use of combat troops in an invasion of Yugoslavia, including Kosovo. The intent, once again, was to uphold the U.S. Constitution, which grants to Congress alone the power to declare war. But the amendment was tabled (killed) by a vote of 52 to 48, with Hatch voting with the majority. The very next day, the Senate considered a separate bill seeking to have the U.S. pull all our forces out of the former Yugoslavia by October 1, 1999. It was tabled (killed) by a vote of 77 to 21, with Hatch once again joining the interventionist majority.
Even the Press Begins to Wonder
Orrin Hatchs deviations from his professed "conservatism" havent gone unnoticed even by a generally favorable media. While making light of his turn to the left, Utahs Deseret News asked on March 26, 1989 how it could be that Utahs then-Representative Howard Nielson could urge fellow Republicans at a state convention to protest Hatchs support for federal child care. Reporter Lee Davidson also noted that 125 House members had also attacked Hatch for compromising with Democrats on that very issue.
In its March 2, 1990 edition, the New York Times featured a lengthy article bearing the telling title "Orrin Hatchs Journey: Strict Conservative To Compromise Seeker." Reporter Neil Lewis focused on Hatchs political alliance and friendship with Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), whose liberalism is legendary. Lewis quoted one Washington analyst as claiming that the unstated reason behind Hatchs support for so many liberal measures stems from "a cynical calculation to buy off opponents in the Senate" who might later be counted on to back "his burning desire to be on the Supreme Court." To all of the criticism he has received, Hatch replies that he has "matured" and is "seeking to have an effect on legislation through compromise."
In 1993, Hatch angered Massachusetts Republicans when he told the Deseret News that he wouldnt consider campaigning against Ted Kennedys re-election. Said Hatch: "Theres just too much of a personal friendship there.... I care a great deal for Ted Kennedy. Hes like a brother to me."
That brotherly relationship extends to politics to a much greater extent than most conservatives recognize. As Edwin Chen of the Los Angeles Times noted in his May 8, 1997 article, when Kennedy and Hatch team up they "produce solutions to real problems, whether the issue is AIDS, child care, summer jobs or crime." Their "solutions," of course, are not ones that any true conservative or constitutionalist would support.
Role on the Judiciary Committee
In 1992, Hatch gave up his leadership of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee to become the lead Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. While in that post, he supported Bill Clintons selection of Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the Supreme Court. He termed the choice of this veteran federal appeals court judge, who is pro-abortion and a member of the world-government-promoting Council on Foreign Relations, "good news for Republicans." He also predicted that this jurist would be "unlikely to be a liberal judicial activist." But her performance on the court has been as liberal as could be imagined.
By 1994, Hatch urged President Clinton to appoint another federal appeals court judge, Stephen Breyer, to the high court. Hatch said he told the President "he couldnt go wrong" by selecting Breyer, whom Hatch described as "more moderate" than Ruth Bader Ginsburg, his previously lauded selection for the Supreme Court. Mr. Clinton nominated Breyer, and his nomination was easily confirmed by the Senate. Breyer, like Ginsburg, is pro-abortion and a member of the CFR.
In August 2000, Thomas L. Jipping of Washingtons Free Congress Foundation issued a comprehensive report showing that Democrats are far more effective at backing judicial activists than Republicans are at backing judicially restrained justices. He indicted Republicans for "an accommodating approach that that virtually assured this result."
Jipping was especially critical of Orrin Hatch who, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee since 1995, has:
refused to implement any of the confirmation process reforms for federal judgeships approved by his own party in 1997;
altered his commitment to "weed out" judicial activist nominees and replaced it with simply asking for verbal guarantees that nominees will behave;
ignored the recommendations of a Senate task force he appointed to advise him on handling controversial nominations; and
amassed a record shared by only 12 other Republican senators of never having voted against a single Clinton nominee during the 105th Congress (1997-98).
Of course, this willingness to support Clinton nominees for the federal courts could be partially explained by his none-too-guarded desire to sit on the Supreme Court himself someday. Perhaps he hopes liberal Democrats will recall his support of their choices for the bench and return the favor. But if that were to happen, dont expect Hatch to uphold traditional values or sound constitutional principles. As he told a University of Utah audience in 1992, he "wouldnt even touch" the Roe v. Wade decision that has led to the killing of over 40 million innocent victims in the womb.
May I suggest that some of you Utah folk copy the above onto email and pass it around. Orrin Hatch has in the past solicited support including donations from LDS Church members in other states. Maybe someone could make a case for disfellowshipment. Our home is in Arizona, and we are living in Denmark for another year yet, so I cannot do much from here except warn the local members, many of whom think he is great simply because he is LDS.
Hi Joel I am from Australia and I was born and raised a mormon I was excommunicated because I said that the Lord appeared to me and told me the church is in apostacy the local leaders of the church in Sydney said I was possessed with the devil and plotted with my wife to put me in a mental asylm to cleanse me of the evil spirit. The leaders called the police and the came every hour to my house to see if I was going to bed or if I was up ready the scriptures the church told me I was not to read to much into the scriptures nor was I to pray for direction that if I had any questions ask the leaders and they shall direct me. They told me my problem was I was too zealous and too spiritual and had to take it easy because I would apostacise.Anyway the police in Sydney came into my house with a flash light to make sure I would not backslide.When I insisted to my wife that I had a vision and saw the Lord and told me the church was in apostacy the church decided the only way they could save my soul was commiting me in an mental instition again this it was without visitors for six weeks I suffered until finally I got out the doctors said to me on the condition of release that if I spoke about the church being in apostacy again or if I said I had a vision that they would commit me again. When I went back to church I opened up the D/C 132 and it said go now I make away for your escape as I have accepted the sacrifice of Issac. This scripture was an answer to prayer because the church had turned my whole family against me and I had no other choice other than to flee for my life so I went to the US and I met your father 1995 and when I told him some things he was angry with me. Anyway the church has made me suffer so much I was put into prison numerous times by the church but now I am free again I have been falsly accused of everything you can imagen I fleed the US and now live in Central America I now live in excile with the Mayans in the Chiapas. I wanted to talk with you some more theres alot I wanted to talk about I hope you return my email your brother in Christ Daniel Seppings
Hi Daniel,
Im one of Joels subscribers.
You wrote that in 1995 you met Joels father, who became angry with you. Im afraid you must be confusing Mr. Skousen with someone else. You see, Joels father, a truly great man, passed from this earth a few decades earlier than 1995 when you claim you met and spoke with him.
Hopefully 2004 will bring more peace into your life than you must have experienced in your somewhat rocky past. Good luck.
Steve
Hi Steve and Ralph Hughes thanks for correcting me yes it was his uncle the ex-fbi agent and mormon who lives in salt lake anyway he was angry because I said the fbi and cia are unconstitutional and took away the rights of not only americans but were working to take away the worlds for the neo-liberalists agenda.
Dear Ralph,
Thank you for your letter. I really appreciate your caring words and counsel. Thatfs one thing Ifve always loved about the priesthood in the LDS church: their sincerity in fellowshipping one-another.
In your letter, you gave examples of members who had fallen away from the church because, as you called it, they had false revelations. Your method for judging whether a revelation is false or not is by observing if it doesnft happen according to the revelation, then it is a false revelation. Like in the example you gave of the person who believed that he was to marry someone in particular and it didnft happen—she married someone else instead.
The only problem with this check and balances method of judging revelations is that you start to become like the Israelites that were sign seekers, who lacked the faith to ask God if it were true and depended on the arm of flesh to make their judgment.
Samuel the lamanite, who was not in the first presidency of the Nephite church, he was only a member, said how to discern between a false revelation and a true revelation. In Helaman 13:25-28, Samuel gives us the formula, he says if a man prophesies the destruction of your people because of corruption and secret combinations, you get angry with him and say his revelations are false because he testifies of your sins, but if a prophet shall say gI had a revelation last night and the angels told me that you are blessed and your family should not worry, they will all go to heaven, they are the righteous ones and all is well in Zionh then you will give him of your tithes and offerings and say he is a man of God, because he flatters you with what you desire to hear.
This is a typical example of how we develop selective hearing of revelations that can become a trap. The checks and balances type of judgment has many flaws because of biased interpretation. Sandra Tanner, for example, of the Lighthouse Ministries, is famous for her anti-Mormon literature, and she uses this method to judge Joseph Smith as a false prophet. She says that Joseph had many revelations that didnft come to pass, she added that Joseph gave revelations to men—he prophesied that they would come back from their missions, marry and have a big family, but shortly after the revelation, the person died, so this is Tannerfs tool for claiming Joseph Smith is a false prophet.
I have a strong testimony of Joseph Smith and I know without a shadow of a doubt that he is a true prophet and that the Book of Mormon is true because he interpreted the plates from an ancient language into our language, using the power and gifts of a seer. I know that Joseph Smith held these keys of gseer-shiph because his works of the Book of Mormon prove it. As it is written in Mosiah 8:13, a seer is greater than a prophet, a seer is a revelator and a prophet also, and a gift that is greater can no man have. A seer can know of things which are past and also of things which are to come, and by them, shall all things be revealed, or rather, shall secret things be made manifest and hidden things shall come to light. It is these verses that help my testimony to prove Joseph Smith is a true prophet, seer, and revelator.
Bruce R. McConkie said gour Lordfs true church is established and founded upon the rock of revelation. Itfs identity as a true church continues as long as revelation is received to direct its affairs. Without revelation, there would be no legal administrators to perform the ordinances of salvation, with binding effect on earth and in heaven. When there is presence of revelation in the church, itfs proof that it is the kingdom of God on earth. Christ said gby their works, you shall know themh, so we can safely say that Joseph Smith had works of a seer by the evidence of the Book of Mormon.
McConkie proclaimed that a prophet, seer and revelator has the gift of discernment. He has the power to discern all gifts and all spirits, least any come among the saints and practice deception. There is no perfect operation of the power of discernment without revelation. Thereby, even the thoughts and the intents of the heart are made known (Mormon Doctrine page 197).
In 1980, the prophet, seer and revelator was challenged of his ability to be a true seer. Mark Hofmann presented to Spencer W. Kimball and the first presidency, the forged Anthon transcript, which was supposed to contain characters that Joseph Smith had copied from the Gold Plates for the Book of Mormon. President Kimball was unable to translate the characters. Not only did he fail to provide a translation, but he was unable to detect that the church was being set up to be defrauded of a large amount of money and many historical items out of its archives. Moreover, he entirely failed to see the devastating and embarrassing effect this transaction (and others which followed) would have on the church. If ever revelation was needed, it was on that day, in 1980, when Mark Hofmann stood in the presence of President Kimball.
Why didnft Spencer W. Kimball discern the thoughts and intentions of the heart of Hofmann?? Is this a sign that Christ said gby their works, you shall know themh? Did Spencer W. Kimball show by his works to be a seer? Since Wilfred Woodruffsf manifesto, the philosophy of the churchfs doctrine of infallibility, the leaders will never lead the followers astray, holds much credibility among the saints today as being truth, how then could Spencer W. Kimball be so deceived?
I was also taught that the twelve apostles hold the keys of authority, as the apostles of old. The apostles of old were able to prove their authority through the signs of healing---they gave sight to the blind, they healed the sick, the crippled could walk, the deaf could hear. In the New Testament, Acts 3:1-13, Peter and John made their authority known with the miracle of lame man from birth, the famous words of Peter were gsilver and gold have I not, but such as I have, give I theecin the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk!h and as the lame man, who was healed, held Peter and John, all the people ran together unto him.
Christ said let your light so shine that the world can see. The apostles of old were famous for the power of healing, these signs and miracles let the world know they were true apostles.
I remember when Spencer W. Kimball came down with cancer in the throat. As a prophet, seer and revelator, this was tragic because he was the voice of the people and his voicebox was the most important part of his ability to testify to the world. When the twelve apostles administered to him, they blessed Spencer W. Kimball that his throat cancer would be healed. But again, we see by their fruits you shall know them, that their healing ability, unlike the apostles of old, wasnft there. Spencer W. Kimball jokingly said gI have an appointment with the throat cuttersh referring to the surgeons who had to try and cut out the cancer from his throat. This went contrary to what D&C 42:43-52 says.
I also remember when Doctor Russel M. Nelson, an apostle of the church, created an artificial heart: the Java 7. This heart made world headlines because it failed after 14 days. The human rights organizations came out against the operation and said if they had left the man, he may have lived for at least another five years. This highly controversial operation was compared to Hitlerfs eugenic experiments, it was not seen as a marvelous work or wonder. The question is, is that what Joseph Smith meant in D&C 42:43 about the hand of the enemy (meaning the surgeon)?
Moroni says c and the reason why he ceaseth to do miracles among the children of man is because they dwindle in unbelief and depart from the right way and know not the God in who they should trust. Mormon 9:20
The question is what gods did Spencer W. Kimball trust in to receive a throat operation? What gods did the apostle Russell M. Nelson trust in with his artificial heart?
If the leaders cannot discern false documents and deceivers, if the leaders cannot heal their own prophet, how can we trust them in leading us? How can we put our salvation in the hands of these men and believe they could never lead us astray when they have proven to us they have led themselves astray?
In the last days, the New Testament says cand it shall come to pass in the last days, sayeth the Lord, I will pour out of my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and daughters shall prophesy and your young men shall see visions and your old men shall dream dreams. Acts 2:17
Also in 3 Nephi 6:20, it saysc and there began to be men inspired from heaven and sent forth, standing among the people in all the land, preaching and testifying boldly of the sins and iniquities of the peoplec
What is interesting in verses 21-30, the leaders of the church, who were judges, lawyers and businessmen, were angry at those members of the church that testified that the leaders were leading astray the church. So the leaders entered into a secret combination to destroy the regulations of the government, taking away the freedom of speech and violating the laws of the land to silence anyone that revealed the conspiracy. See also 3 Nephi 7:6 and Helaman 6:38-39 and Helaman 7:4-5.
Now I will share with you what God revealed to me in Sydney, Australia. At the time I was married, in the temple, and had four children and another one on the way. I was working full time in the kitchen of the Sydney temple. I had witnessed the injustice and unrighteous dominion of the leaders for over a year. I saw cases of abuse of authority that did make me draw nearer to God for answers. In 1995, just after the Oklahoma bombing, a man came to visit me and share with me his testimony of the new names and changes of the temple ceremony. He testified that these alterations were signs of the abomination of desolation that Daniel the prophet prophesied of in Daniel 12:11-12. He said that Christ also prophesied that this would be a great sign that the church leaders have sinned against God, according to Matthew 24:15-22.
After pondering his words, I was standing in the living when the face of the Lord appeared to me. His glory was so beautiful, I marveled as he glowed, and then he spoke and said the church was in apostasy. Immediately after he said that, I fell to the floor crying, because his words had pierced my heart like a sword, and as I wept, I said gLord, forgive me, for I was deceivedh and I wept so loud then the Lord touched me and I felt an overwhelming love come over me, to comfort me. It was then that I saw in a vision Gordon B. Hinckley in a great and spacious building, which I would find out later was the church administration office. I saw him standing in a room with George Bush and General Brent Scowcroft. I then saw him shake his hands with them both in a very strange way. He made some kind of sign with his hand which they both returned to him. I then saw Hinckley agree to uphold the pact they had just made. I was then taken in the spirit to another place. I saw people in a prison, crying to be free. The prisons looked like the ones built today—they were modern buildings. I then saw the cells had no windows, just a small piece of glass that could not be opened. The doors were solid in each cell. I saw an air conditioner duct in each cell with one person in it, lying on a bed next to a steel toilet. I then was taken to the roof of the prison and saw men dressed in what looked like white NASA protective clothing, the type used in highly radioactive areas. They were holding a tool in their hands like a large spoon made of cast-iron. They began tipping the large tool and the liquid poured out into the air conditioner, I then saw the prisoners choking and coughing to death. After, the same men, with those special suits, carrying stretchers and entering into the cells, were taking away the dead prisoners, in order to refill them again with new prisoners.
After the vision, I asked the Lord the meaning of these things and the Lord said the pact that I saw between Hinckley, Bush and Scowcroft was the unholy alliance of church and state that would set up the abomination of desolation, prophesied to happen in Isaiah 28:15. Hinckley agreed to uphold the secret combinations to destroy the laws and regulations of the constitution of the U.S. and support the new international constitution, created to take away the freedom of all lands, countries and nations; called the New World Order. The Lord quoted the words found in Ether 8:23-25 and said gsoon all the world will be made to bow down to this unrighteous dominion.h
The Lord said to me that all those I saw in the prisons were all those who would not accept the mark of the beast, according to Revelation 13:15-18. And the beast was angry at those that testified boldy against the injustice of those corrupt lawyers who had amended the constitution to take away their freedom of speech and their unalienable equal rights. And the lord said soon all of this land, referring to the US, would become desolate by the overflowing scourge and judgment and then shall the Lamanites, or as the gentiles refer to them—the Latins—return with the northern tribes to reclaim their land, which is their inheritance, according to the prophecies found in 3 Nephi 16:10-16.
After the persecution that happened to me in Sydney (following sharing my testimony), and which resulted in fleeing to the US, I met up with Hugh Nibley and he sat down with me for nearly two hours. I shared with him my testimony of what happened in Sydney. He said of course the church is in apostasy, itfs been in apostasy since Brigham Young chose to receive money from the government at Council Bluffs and send the Mormon battalion to kill the descendents of Lehi on the border of Mexico, for Andrew Jacksonfs blasphemous Indian Removal Act, that Joseph Smith condemned. See D&C 123:6-10.
The manifested destiny was an abomination in the sight of God. Itfs unconstitutional and it was upheld and motivated by mystery Babylon, thatfs trying to take over the world according to Revelation 17:1-6.
Hugh Nibley said he had been dis-fellowshipped 11 times for writing the truth. He said the reason he wouldnft use a computer in his office at BYU and had his secretary type everything manually, is because the General Authorities came in a various times and stole his work. He gave me a copy of a talk he gave at the Marriot Center, with the apostles sitting behind him with their academic robes on. He said in his prayer, Lord, forgive these men who wear the robes of the false priesthood. Nibley said the academic black robes of the great and spacious building of academia were an abomination also in the sight of God, and was causing the corruption of the church, according to Mormon 8:28, 38.
I would challenger you, before you judge this vision, to first prove it by asking the Lord and as it is found in 1Thessalonians 5:20-21, you will know the truth. Whatfs promised in James 1:5-7 works as an excellent and perfect way to prove the validity of this vision.
Love from your brother in Christ,
Daniel Seppings