Countdown to the Kingdom

You have pretty much fleshed-out my own personal take/experiences with this site and it’s members. Thanks for taking the time to write this.

 

I wonder if it’s not a case of how different people look at the world. Some step back and see the entire “neighborhood”, in a sense, and make that guide their judgements as to what is inside. It’s a very useful method. Others go right to individual “houses”, of sorts, and are drawn to taking-in it’s value apart from what is around it. It may be a gem of a place with a solid foundation, but the circumstances around it do serve to bring down its value. I hope this made some sense.

 

Too hard on Mark Mallett and his wife? Perhaps. If so, I apologize to him and to all here. I'm not trying to destroy or humiliate him, but what he is doing is not right in my book, and merits an airing. I do not think the oil business should be closely tied to the prophetic mission that CTTK says it has.

The Mallett's website claims to be a source for "the 'elixir of life'; God's amazing essential oils...a trusted source for both top quality products and information..." Is it?

Yesterday I posted a link to a New Yorker article on the business they are associated with, Young Living. After I found and read that article, I would not buy any products from that company, either through the CTTK website or anywhere else.

First, Young Living is the company that supplies Lea Mallett's oils and its materials are on her website--which is directly linked to Countdown to the Kingdom. You read Luz de Maria's messages--or Mark Mallett's endorsements of oils--on CTTK, follow the links to Lea Mallett's business, and end up buying material from Young Living. This is a chain, prophetic messages>to>oil sales.

Second, Young Living is a suspect business. It is currently the focus of a California class-action lawsuit for its business practices. Many people, apparently, lost money investing in it. The way the business is structured, arguably, makes it difficult to succeed financially as a distributor. According to the New Yorker, "more than ninety-four per cent of Young Living’s two million active members made less than a dollar in 2016." It's been compared to a pyramid scheme.

Young Living's founder, Gary Young, has engaged in the illegal practice of medicine. Let me quote the New Yorker:

Young’s recovery spurred his immersion in alternative medicine. In 1982, he opened a health center in Spokane, Washington, that included birthing services. One of the babies he attempted to deliver, his own daughter, died after spending an hour underwater in a whirlpool bath. The death was ruled an accident, but the county coroner said that the baby would likely have lived if she had been delivered under conventional conditions. The following year, Young said in the presence of undercover detectives that he could detect cancer with a blood test; he was arrested for practicing medicine without a license and, according to the Spokane Spokesman-Review, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge. Around the same time, Young opened a clinic in Tijuana. John Hurst, a reporter for the Los Angeles Times, submitted a blood sample, posing as a patient, and was told that it showed signs of aggressive cancer and liver dysfunction. A “health educator” suggested that Hurst undergo the clinic’s two-thousand-dollar-a-week detox program. When Hurst revealed that the blood sample had come from a cat—“a healthy 7-year-old, 20-pound tabby cat named Boomer”—she replied that the cat was “not healthy” and “probably has leukemia.” (It did not.)

The New Yorker article has more about Young's alleged practice of medicine, including lawsuits over deaths in Young's clinics, and allegations that Young performed unlicensed surgery and intravenous infusions of essential oils at a Young Living clinic in Ecuador. It is frightening.

Young Living encourages dangerous practices. In addition, the New Yorker said, "Both doTerra and Young Living encourage consumers to drink certain oils, a position that’s controversial even among alternative-health practitioners. Holmes said that, while he is unaware of the practices of specific companies, “You hear about completely untrained housewives telling people to ingest up to fifty drops. That is sheer insanity. That is medically dangerous. It’s a crazy situation.”

Young Living's adherents are also associated with New Age beliefs. The New Yorker: “At Young Living, we sold to a lot of Reiki masters,” Emily Wright, Mary Young’s former personal assistant, said." Claims of spiritual benefits go well beyond any purported medically valid health studies. "David Stewart, an aromatherapist affiliated with Young Living, writes that essential oils have a divine intelligence and discernment that allows them to heal without harming, to provide our cells with exactly what we need and nothing we don’t. “The molecules of a therapeutic grade essential oil form a harmonious, coherent, functional family designed and intended to serve us and heal us according to the highest will of their creator and our creator who is one and the same—God,” Stewart writes."

The oils themselves come from suspect sources, and their purity has been questioned. For example, "Young Living recently pleaded guilty to illegally trafficking in rosewood oil from Peru, which considers rosewood trees a threatened species." Also from the New Yorker, "Last year, a former Young Living distributor named Miles Jordens crowdsourced the funds to have several companies’ oils analyzed by an independent lab. He found that two of Young Living’s oils contained synthetic adulterants. “When you start to see the amount of plant material required to produce oils, and when you have millions of people ordering—I just question how the demand can be met without possibly cutting corners,” Jordens told me."

There is more about the company online.

Does this information make any difference in people's perception of Countdown to the Kingdom's value or authenticity?
.

 

I rejected Charlie before he was formally discredited on his predictions. Yes, if what the alleged proohets are revealing to happen do not take place I will give in. But, unless and until then I will not work against my God and whom I believe are his messengers.

 

Fatima,
What about red flags? Why do you choose not to acknowledge them as per Father Rodrigue? Do you dismiss them because he is a priest and you would not want to have criticized the words of one? I am asking honestly because I’d like to understand your reasoning and not in animus.

 

Thank you for writing this, Christy.

 

Seems to me that Father Rodrigue, who has taken a beating on the MoG forum, has been vindicated by today's announcement of Pope Francis advocating for legalized Gay marriage! Father Michel said, " something great will come in October"! This is quite GREAT! The head of God's one, holy, Catholic apostolic church comes out publicly and universally supporting legalized Sodomy!!!!! God blew up Sodom and Gomorrah for doing as much. What say the naysayers about this?

 

I see no "red flags" that others want to see. I see allot of half truths and slander towards God's prophet, Father Michel. Is there a prophet throughout history that has not been treated the same by the people of their time?

 

Oh please, this isn't new at all - he's supported this in the past - and it is in a film documentary which doesn't carry any magisterial weight whatsoever. Keep trying to find something though.

 

I feel like the news today of Pope Francis support of same sex unions adds to the red flags in regard to Father M. I don’t remember Father M’s exact words but I know that in one of the videos he gave the impression that Pope Francis is a good man just misguided.

 

I agree with Frodo. Surprised you think the news is 'Great.'

 

Suprised that you don't think it is great that a sitting pope comes out bold support of those living in Sodomy to form a civil union. But I guess I shouldn't be.

 

If you mean major, it is news released by a film maker, not a statement from the Vatican. There have been many reports similar to this in the past. Great or major news would be an action by the pope, which has not happened. Nothing is definitive at the moment.

 

Not only that but supporting homosexual male 'partners' who are raising children and urged them to participate in parish life.

Scandalous.

Every child deserves a mother and father.

 

Really?!

What the heck is that supposed to mean "But I guess I shouldn't be"? Complete lack of charity to your fellow forum member. You owe her an apology.

 

Then that explains why you choose not to see what you do not want to see. ANYONE(!) who doesn’t want to see what you want to see is deemed, dare I say it again, a “naysayer”—a hater of prophecy that YOU believe in. That is very wrong.

Also, the major news networks put this out about Pope Francis using old news (see other thread) in a new way to fit their agenda. Nothing new for them and definitely not a new revelation.

 

It is a new revelation -- a development on what he said before -- he supports homosexuals raising children -- made is a new documentary --

"Homosexual people have a right to be in a family. They are children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out or be made miserable over it," Francis said in a new documentary "Francesco" by Oscar-nominated director Evgeny Afineevsky.

The pope, who early in his papacy made the now-famous "Who am I to judge?" remark about homosexuals trying to live a Christian life, spoke in a section of the film about Andrea Rubera, a gay man who with his partner adopted three children.

Mr Rubera said in the film that he went to a morning mass the pope said in his Vatican residence and gave him a letter explaining his situation.

He told Francis that he and his partner wanted to bring the children up as Catholics in the local parish but did not want to cause any trauma for the children. It was not clear in which country Mr Rubera lives.

He said the pope telephoned him several days later, telling him he thought the letter was "beautiful" and urging the couple to introduce their children to the parish but to be ready for opposition.

"His message and his advice was really useful because we did exactly what he told us. It's the third year that they (the children) are on a spiritual path in the parish," Mr Rubera said in the film.

"He didn't mention what was his opinion about my family so (I think) he is following the doctrine on this point but the attitude towards people has massively changed," Mr Rubera added.



The documentary premiered at the Rome Film Festival today.

 

So the movie does not have a film clip of the Pope saying these words directly, but a second-hand report by an interested party saying that is what the Pope told him? I'd like to be clear.
.

 

Is it possible that the conception and subsequent production of this documentary coincided with the original captured statements of Pope Francis which were actually some time ago, and that they are perceived as being “fresh” statements for today due to its new release?