I have been trying to get the word out about Ron Wyatt for over a decade now. Though this guy is Seventh Day Adventist, it would be arrogant to assume that he is wrong or that this ground-breaking news must come through LDS channels. I have had the Spirit confirm what is presented here is correct. The ark would be necessary to have when the Third Temple is built. I have conjectured that the Rod of Aaron or some other artifact would be used to keep the armies of God and Magog at bay for the 3.5 years. That would take a mighty act of Priesthood Power - possibly, it will be as in days of old, where an artifact of this significance is once again brought to bear against the enemies of Israel.
I would be interested in contrarian opinions as I have an open mind - other than the commenter on the obvious contrarian Priesthood doctrine in the end of the video.
It will be worth your time to watch the entire thing. The clencher is near the end about the blood on Mercy Seat, and bears sweet witness that the Gospel is simple and pure and sweet to the taste when all things come full circle in God's perfect time and in His perfect way:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=pyxYSme52t4
Enjoy!
What about this though...I was always taught that the Ark of the Covenant was taken back by the Lord and dwells with him. By reading Revelations 11:19, it would appear that John the Revelator saw the same thing as well. Read the following from LDS.org
ReplyDeleteArk of the Covenant--description.
Also known as the Ark of Jehovah and the Ark of the Testimony; an oblong chest of acacia or shittim wood overlaid with gold, 2½ cubits long, 1½ broad and high, made by Moses at God’s command (Ex. 25). It was the oldest and most sacred of the religious symbols of the Israelites, and the Mercy Seat which formed its covering was regarded as the earthly dwelling place of Jehovah (Ex. 25:22). (See Mercy Seat.) The Ark was fitted with rings and staves, by which it was carried. Prayers were recited before it moved or rested (Num. 10:35–36), and during its progress it was treated with the greatest reverence. According to 1 Kgs. 8:9 it contained only the Tables of the Law, but in Heb. 9:4 it is said to have contained the “pot of manna” and “Aaron’s rod that budded,” which had been ordered to be kept “before the Testimony” (Ex. 16:32–34; 25:16; 40:20; Num. 17:10). The usual resting place of the Ark was in the Holy of Holies (see Tabernacle). It led the way at the passage of the Jordan (Josh. 3:3–13); it was present at the capture of Jericho (Josh. 6); and during the conquest of Canaan it seems to have been kept at Gilgal (9:6; 10:43). It was present at the solemn service held at Ebal (8:30–33). Later on it was removed to Shiloh (18:1; 1 Sam. 3:3). In the days of Eli it was captured by the Philistines (1 Sam. 4–7), who sent it back to Beth-shemesh (6:11–20), whence it was taken to Kirjath-jearim or Baale of Judah (6:21–7:2). Thence it was brought by David to Jerusalem, the journey being interrupted at Perezuzzah (2 Sam. 6; 1 Chr. 13:11). In Jerusalem it was placed in a separate tent, which David pitched for it (2 Sam. 7:2; 1 Chr. 16:1). It accompanied the army in the war against Ammon (2 Sam. 11:11), but David refused to take it with him in his campaign against Absalom (2 Sam. 15:24–25). On the completion of Solomon’s temple it was placed in the Holy of Holies (1 Kgs. 8:1–8). Apparently it was removed by Manasseh and reinstated by Josiah (2 Chr. 33; 35:3). In 2 Maccabees 2:4 there is an untrustworthy tradition of its preservation by Jeremiah at the destruction of the temple. It had certainly disappeared before the building of the second temple. It was seen by John in his vision of heaven (Rev. 11:19).
Revelations 11:19 says that the Ark of the Covenant is indeed in Heaven with the Lord.
19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.
Just another thought and perspective to think about. I can't dispute the rest, for I know that at that appointed time there will be a restitution of ALL things, and all things both old and new have there place and time and purpose and season.
So much to learn about and contemplate. I am glad that there will come a time when the Lord himself will teach us all the things we have not known. I look forward to that day!
Kim.
At the end of the video, the statement the narrator said about many breaking the law of sabbath by thinking that it is Sunday, is incorrect. Here is why I feel his statement is incorrect. A revelation was given to Joseph Smith while in Zion, Jackson County, Missouri on August 7, 1831 and it stated, "And that thou mayest more fully keep thyself unspotted from the world, thou shalt go to the house of prayer and offer up thy sacraments upon my holy day. For verily this is a day appointed unto you to rest from your labors, and to pay your devotions unto the Most High; Nevertheless thy vows shall be offered up in righteousness on all days and at all times; But, remember that on this, the Lord's day, thou shalt offer thin oblations and thy sacraments unto the Most High, confessing thy sins unto thy brethern, and before the Lord. (D&C 59:9-12).
ReplyDeleteFrom the revelation we learn that the Lord designates "the Lord's day" as "my holy day."
Since Jesus came to fulfill the law, why should some still want to retain it. Why should they not prefer to accept that which Jesus brought to take the place of the law, which includes the new Sabbath, the first day of the week, or the Lord's day, the day on which the Lord arose from the tomb? The Lord's day is the day he directed his saints in this dispensation to worship him (D&C 59:12).
John the Beloved while banished on the Isle of Patmos wrote "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day and heard behind me a great voice as of a trumpet" (Revelation 1:10) Why should this be called "The Lord's Day" if it were not a sacred day? Remember, the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.
For a broader perspective and additional references read Chapter 23 of a Marvelous Work and a Wonder by LeGrand Richards. It is a good book.
As for the rest of the video, the end was as you said, quite interesting and worth contemplation and thought.
Kim.
Now, here is something I found that I thought was quite, well something, but, I am not sure I have words to describe it, and goes along with the end of this video presentation you linked to. I happened to find it on line yesterday when I was doing some reading/researching and all I could do was just shake my head. Here it is:
ReplyDeleteAddressing the Pope.
During a formal introduction, the Pope should be introduced as “His Holiness, Pope (Name).” He should be directly addressed as “Your Holiness” or “Holy Father” – or, on paper, as “His Holiness, Pope (Name)” or “The Sovereign Pontiff, His Holiness (Name).” Note that men should wear a dark suit and tie and remove their hats in his presence, while women should wear black dresses and have their heads and arms covered. (White for women is a privilege reserved to Catholic queens and a select few royals.) Stand when he enters a room (until he invites you to sit) and again when he leaves it. When introduced, kneel on your left knee and kiss his ring; repeat before he leaves.
REALLY??????
Here is the link to see the actual article.
http://www.wikihow.com/Address-Catholic-Clergy
Please mind you now, I am not trying to condemn or criticize another man's belief or faith, for all may believe as they choose, and heaven knows I don't want others to criticize mine, but, again, all I can say is that this left me shaking my head.
Kim
Kim you are awesome! *high five*
ReplyDelete