This is a state church

[Artaxerxes]

Corporations are discussed in the D&C. Was God for or against?

God is not D&C.

*(D&C 84:22) Stumbling blocks between God & man, suggesting one cannot see God without it, yet JS did in his 1st vision.

*(D&C 104:55, 105:30, 111:4, 117:16) Justifying greed & “avenging me of mine enemies” & hoarding “secret parts” & “overthrow the moneychangers” by claiming to be God?

*(D&C 132:54,56, 64) Pretending God demand marital behavior of his wife, or else she will be destroyed.

*Supporting slavery: D&C 134:12

Ah, of course. You know better than God. Good luck with that.

You’re creating a new easier argument, then winning at your own made up argument (Strawman logical fallacy). Just because I’m stating that D & C is NOT God, does not mean I am pretending I’m omniscient.

Let’s get back to basics…



Who/what is God?
Intelligent Design, the kingdom of God within, TRUTH, love…

God is NOT D&C, nor even the OT or NT - which are all writings of fallible human becomings.

You are making a god of your own. You've decided what God would and would not say, instead of looking to accept whatever God says.

[InfoWarrior82]

You are being silly. The government already has a black eye from the extermination days. I figured you to be the last person that would say the church is not actually the Church of Jesus Christ and so has no protection.

That's quite the change in arguments you've got there. You position was that the government doesn't go after churches anymore. That's false. You can try to save face all you want, but your post just wasn't true

So what? Do you think it is more than God can handle?

You keep making these straw men because your position has been proven false.

We are to "be subject to the powers that be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign, and subdues all enemies under his feet." When we are wronged, we are to "importune for redress, and redemption, by the hands of those who are placed as rulers and are in authority over you according to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles."

So we should keep the law and seek redress and protect of the laws of the land.

This is wonderful.... until it no longer applies.

I think you would agree that this direction only goes so far, right? Would it still apply in the case of outright tyranny? Where is the line? Is there one?

Context is key. At the time of this writing, the saints were still working to redress the grievances they had. Ultimately, the Saints were condemned by the Lord because of their own sins and then had to be literally driven out of the country to set up and try again... where they (lol) went right back to the vomit which was the tyrannical U.S. government to become just another state controlled church.

[Artaxerxes]

That's quite the change in arguments you've got there. You position was that the government doesn't go after churches anymore. That's false. You can try to save face all you want, but your post just wasn't true

So what? Do you think it is more than God can handle?

You keep making these straw men because your position has been proven false.

We are to "be subject to the powers that be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign, and subdues all enemies under his feet." When we are wronged, we are to "importune for redress, and redemption, by the hands of those who are placed as rulers and are in authority over you according to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles."

So we should keep the law and seek redress and protect of the laws of the land.

This is wonderful.... until it no longer applies.

I think you would agree that this direction only goes so far, right? Would it still apply in the case of outright tyranny? Where is the line? Is there one?

Context is key. At the time of this writing, the saints were still working to redress the grievances they had. Ultimately, the Saints were condemned by the Lord because of their own sins and then had to be literally driven out of the country to set up and try again... where they (lol) went right back to the vomit which was the tyrannical U.S. government to become just another state controlled church.

You're right that there is limit to everything. But what I'm hearing people saying is a guilt by association type argument that we shouldn't have anything to do with the government (including registering as a 501(c)(3)) because the government is bad. I don't buy that. The government in the 1840s was doing an awful lot of bad stuff. There was still no direction to abandon the government; quite the opposite.

I also don't buy the idea that we would be doing more politically if we weren't a 502(c)(3). We could be doing WAY more politically under the IRS regs if we wanted to. But we don't. If we were close to the line, that would be one thing. But it's clear that we just don't want to be political.

[Fred]

One thing is for sure. If the Q15 was to run Christ's Church the way He did, things would be considerably different. He is the example they refuse to follow.

[InfoWarrior82]

So what? Do you think it is more than God can handle?

You keep making these straw men because your position has been proven false.

We are to "be subject to the powers that be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign, and subdues all enemies under his feet." When we are wronged, we are to "importune for redress, and redemption, by the hands of those who are placed as rulers and are in authority over you according to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles."

So we should keep the law and seek redress and protect of the laws of the land.

This is wonderful.... until it no longer applies.

I think you would agree that this direction only goes so far, right? Would it still apply in the case of outright tyranny? Where is the line? Is there one?

Context is key. At the time of this writing, the saints were still working to redress the grievances they had. Ultimately, the Saints were condemned by the Lord because of their own sins and then had to be literally driven out of the country to set up and try again... where they (lol) went right back to the vomit which was the tyrannical U.S. government to become just another state controlled church.

You're right that there is limit to everything. But what I'm hearing people saying is a guilt by association type argument that we shouldn't have anything to do with the government (including registering as a 501(c)(3)) because the government is bad. I don't buy that. The government in the 1840s was doing an awful lot of bad stuff. There was still no direction to abandon the government; quite the opposite.

I also don't buy the idea that we would be doing more politically if we weren't a 502(c)(3). We could be doing WAY more politically under the IRS regs if we wanted to. But we don't. If we were close to the line, that would be one thing. But it's clear that we just don't want to be political.

I think people don't like 501c3 because it's just a trap. Not because all governments are all bad all the time. There was probably still hope for our government in the 1840's. And yes, we certainly could be doing a lot more politically. But we disagree as to the reason why. You believe the Lord speaks to these men and commands them not to. On the other hand, I believe that the Lord has not spoken to the presidents of the church for a long time when it comes to directing the church. If He has spoken to them, they're certainly guilty of hiding their counsels from Him.

[Chris]

One thing is for sure. If the Q15 was to run Christ's Church the way He did, things would be considerably different. He is the example they refuse to follow.

Just what exactly would be different? Tell me one thing that would be different?

Would jesus have enough money to extinguish homelessness, hunger? If so why didnt he do it while he was on earth? We see in new testament many people had the same problems they do here. Did he lack the power of couse not, or maybe thats not gods plan to solve all the worlds problems..... if so he eould have done it. So did the lord run his church poorly?

I think the church runs things as well as they can be expected too. Debt free, spend millions in relief yearly, own land and farms and good stewards in every way. While still being very charitable.

I am sure you will say they should give it all away and have nothing left. If that was the case, they could give it all away and it wouldnt really make a difference. Even if they gave it all to just utah problems. The next day there would still be homeless people downtown, crackheads needing help and little children and families hungry and struggling only this time their would be no church to help. No farms to feed them and no council to give. The world would be a lot worse.

They are very good stewards of the lords resources.

[Fred]

One thing is for sure. If the Q15 was to run Christ's Church the way He did, things would be considerably different. He is the example they refuse to follow.

Just what exactly would be different? Tell me one thing that would be different?

Would jesus have enough money to extinguish homelessness, hunger? If so why didnt he do it while he was on earth? We see in new testament many people had the same problems they do here. Did he lack the power of couse not, or maybe thats not gods plan to solve all the worlds problems..... if so he eould have done it. So did the lord run his church poorly?

I think the church runs things as well as they can be expected too. Debt free, spend millions in relief yearly, own land and farms and good stewards in every way. While still being very charitable.

I am sure you will say they should give it all away and have nothing left. If that was the case, they could give it all away and it wouldnt really make a difference. Even if they gave it all to just utah problems. The next day there would still be homeless people downtown, crackheads needing help and little children and families hungry and struggling only this time their would be no church to help. No farms to feed them and no council to give. The world would be a lot worse.

They are very good stewards of the lords resources.

Oh, gee, where to start?

Jesus would not have joined the secret clergy response team or the UN or the WEF. Jesus would not have urged people to get the clot shot or call it a godsend. Jesus would not have dopes for Apostles that contribute millions to burn down Wendys and promote violence as in the BLM. Jesus would not be okay with Uchtdorf financing multiple abortions. Jesus would not hold fag parades.

I bet some other people can help out and suggest several things also.

[Shawn Henry]

God is NOT D&C, nor even the OT or NT - which are all writings of fallible human becomings.

The D&C is unique though, in that there are certain portions of certain revelations that are directly the words of Christ. It is Christ himself speaking. It is my opinion that these revelations are our surest foundation specifically because there are no human errors in them.

[AZRob]

You're right that there is limit to everything. But what I'm hearing people saying is a guilt by association type argument that we shouldn't have anything to do with the government (including registering as a 501(c)(3)) because the government is bad. I don't buy that. The government in the 1840s was doing an awful lot of bad stuff. There was still no direction to abandon the government; quite the opposite.

This here is a foolish statement. I don't recall the church registering in Mexico when the leaders moved to the Salt Lake valley. Maybe there was no direction to abandon the government, but the church did precisely that - abandoned and fled to Mexico, and by 1847 had a new home in Salt Lake City, Mexico. If they did it before, they can certainly do it again. Or perhaps you're waiting until they can get a global registration number? A single global number would be handy in cutting out the red tape...

[Dusty Wanderer]

God is NOT D&C, nor even the OT or NT - which are all writings of fallible human becomings.

The D&C is unique though, in that there are certain portions of certain revelations that are directly the words of Christ. It is Christ himself speaking. It is my opinion that these revelations are our surest foundation specifically because there are no human errors in them.

Which version of the D&C are you referring to? Or do you just take a more nuanced approach to all versions of the D&C? Are there any sections where it’s “thus saith the Lord”, but due to handling over the years, you may take a more apocryphal approach to them? Are there some where you look at their contents as unreliable or perhaps ignore completely? I only ask because I sometimes struggle with these same questions.

[Artaxerxes]

You're right that there is limit to everything. But what I'm hearing people saying is a guilt by association type argument that we shouldn't have anything to do with the government (including registering as a 501(c)(3)) because the government is bad. I don't buy that. The government in the 1840s was doing an awful lot of bad stuff. There was still no direction to abandon the government; quite the opposite.

This here is a foolish statement. I don't recall the church registering in Mexico when the leaders moved to the Salt Lake valley. Maybe there was no direction to abandon the government, but the church did precisely that - abandoned and fled to Mexico, and by 1847 had a new home in Salt Lake City, Mexico. If they did it before, they can certainly do it again. Or perhaps you're waiting until they can get a global registration number? A single global number would be handy in cutting out the red tape...

I don't understand the argument. We abandoned the government before when they were okay with killing us, therefore what? The government might do something bad in the future and therefore shouldn't register as a 501(c)(3) now?

[AZRob]

You're right that there is limit to everything. But what I'm hearing people saying is a guilt by association type argument that we shouldn't have anything to do with the government (including registering as a 501(c)(3)) because the government is bad. I don't buy that. The government in the 1840s was doing an awful lot of bad stuff. There was still no direction to abandon the government; quite the opposite.

This here is a foolish statement. I don't recall the church registering in Mexico when the leaders moved to the Salt Lake valley. Maybe there was no direction to abandon the government, but the church did precisely that - abandoned and fled to Mexico, and by 1847 had a new home in Salt Lake City, Mexico. If they did it before, they can certainly do it again. Or perhaps you're waiting until they can get a global registration number? A single global number would be handy in cutting out the red tape...

I don't understand the argument. We abandoned the government before when they were okay with killing us, therefore what? The government might do something bad in the future and therefore shouldn't register as a 501(c)(3) now?

Yes, your understanding isn't half bad! Except now there are many more options available. Any time there's trouble, the church could leave the US and incorporate in the Pacific or the Caymans or anywhere convenient. The church could also use its treasure chest for lobbying and buy half of Congress, similar to the ADL. In the end, the "government" is merely a collection of officials who have been voted, selected or hired, who fill seats at any given time. It would be nice to see the church hold fast to principles instead of sway with the wind and kowtow to whomever keeps the bureaucratic seat warm. The 1st amendment is crystal clear, and only a lawyer could muck it up.

[silverado]

One thing is for sure. If the Q15 was to run Christ's Church the way He did, things would be considerably different. He is the example they refuse to follow.

Just what exactly would be different? Tell me one thing that would be different?

Would jesus have enough money to extinguish homelessness, hunger? If so why didnt he do it while he was on earth? We see in new testament many people had the same problems they do here. Did he lack the power of couse not, or maybe thats not gods plan to solve all the worlds problems..... if so he eould have done it. So did the lord run his church poorly?

I think the church runs things as well as they can be expected too. Debt free, spend millions in relief yearly, own land and farms and good stewards in every way. While still being very charitable.

I am sure you will say they should give it all away and have nothing left. If that was the case, they could give it all away and it wouldnt really make a difference. Even if they gave it all to just utah problems. The next day there would still be homeless people downtown, crackheads needing help and little children and families hungry and struggling only this time their would be no church to help. No farms to feed them and no council to give. The world would be a lot worse.

They are very good stewards of the lords resources.

Oh, gee, where to start?

Jesus would not have joined the secret clergy response team or the UN or the WEF. Jesus would not have urged people to get the clot shot or call it a godsend. Jesus would not have dopes for Apostles that contribute millions to burn down Wendys and promote violence as in the BLM. Jesus would not be okay with Uchtdorf financing multiple abortions. Jesus would not hold fag parades.

I bet some other people can help out and suggest several things also.

Jesus would not donate millions of $$$ to Bill Gates organization for questionable vaccines.

[Niemand]

God is NOT D&C, nor even the OT or NT - which are all writings of fallible human becomings.

The D&C is unique though, in that there are certain portions of certain revelations that are directly the words of Christ. It is Christ himself speaking. It is my opinion that these revelations are our surest foundation specifically because there are no human errors in them.

Hasn't some of the wording been changed in some of these?

[Shawn Henry]

Which version of the D&C are you referring to? Or do you just take a more nuanced approach to all versions of the D&C? Are there any sections where it’s “thus saith the Lord”, but due to handling over the years, you may take a more apocryphal approach to them? Are there some where you look at their contents as unreliable or perhaps ignore completely? I only ask because I sometimes struggle with these same questions.

It is my belief, though not shared by most here, that the original Book of Commandments was specifically for the Church of Christ and that the first D&C was for the Church of the Latter Day Saints renamed so in 1834. Once the saints had failed to build Zion and suffered Christ removing his name from the church, some of the revelations and promises and the wording thereof were changed to match their new circumstances. The revelations had jointly by Joseph and Sidney are solid simply because that was the pattern the Lord intended. The Seer was to receive the word and the Spokesman was to declare the word and thus fulfill the law of witnesses.

[Shawn Henry]

Hasn't some of the wording been changed in some of these?

Yes, but even therein I see learning opportunities when we study and ponder why the changes may have been made. The quantity of revelation definitely lessened after we failed to build Zion, I think some of the quality may have as well. It's a lot easier when you have two Seers receiving revelation jointly in Kirtland and then transition to only one Seer in Nauvoo. Why the change? Are the consequences for failing to build Zion that severe? I think revelation is on a continuum rather than black and white.

[Subcomandante]

You're right that there is limit to everything. But what I'm hearing people saying is a guilt by association type argument that we shouldn't have anything to do with the government (including registering as a 501(c)(3)) because the government is bad. I don't buy that. The government in the 1840s was doing an awful lot of bad stuff. There was still no direction to abandon the government; quite the opposite.

This here is a foolish statement. I don't recall the church registering in Mexico when the leaders moved to the Salt Lake valley. Maybe there was no direction to abandon the government, but the church did precisely that - abandoned and fled to Mexico, and by 1847 had a new home in Salt Lake City, Mexico. If they did it before, they can certainly do it again. Or perhaps you're waiting until they can get a global registration number? A single global number would be handy in cutting out the red tape...

The Church did not register in Mexico in 1847 because:

1. The Mexican Constitution of 1824 prohibited any religion that was not the Roman Catholic religion, and that would be the case until 1857 with the Laws of Reform and the establishment of the Liberal Constitution guaranteeing freedom of religion.

Later, the Church would get itself registered in Mexico and permission was granted to form the colonies that are very well known today in Chihuahua state. Today it is registered as a Religious Association under the name La Iglesia de Jesucristo de los Santos de los Ultimos Dias en Mexico A.R.

2. When Brigham Young arrived in the Salt Lake Valley, the area was already occupied by the Americans, clear down to Arizona and San Diego (where the Mormon Batallion had arrived previously). As the territory of Utah was organized it became necessary to incorporate the Church and that's what happened in the 1850s. Literally EVERYWHERE where the Church goes, it has to get registered with the national and local government authorities, without which, it would see its mission in each and every country as being severely hampered.

[Dusty Wanderer]

Hasn't some of the wording been changed in some of these?

Yes, but even therein I see learning opportunities when we study and ponder why the changes may have been made. The quantity of revelation definitely lessened after we failed to build Zion, I think some of the quality may have as well. It's a lot easier when you have two Seers receiving revelation jointly in Kirtland and then transition to only one Seer in Nauvoo. Why the change? Are the consequences for failing to build Zion that severe? I think revelation is on a continuum rather than black and white.

Sometimes I’m troubled by this thought. Perhaps the lessening quantity of revelation at the time created a vacuum. And being accustomed to receive a certain volume of revelation, presumed the revelations would always flow, unaware (or in denial) of their condition. Therefore, they willingly embraced particular precepts and aggrandizing speculation, as if it were revelation. After all, the new doctrine was still coming from the same individual(s) they had originally placed so much trust in.

[Shawn Henry]

Sometimes I’m troubled by this thought. Perhaps the lessening quantity of revelation at the time created a vacuum. And being accustomed to receive a certain volume of revelation, presumed the revelations would always flow, unaware (or in denial) of their condition. Therefore, they willingly embraced particular precepts and aggrandizing speculation, as if it were revelation. After all, the new doctrine was still coming from the same individual(s) they had originally placed so much trust in.

Yes, I agree and if God honors our agency to get things wrong, shouldn't his prophet do the same? The false doctrine of never being led astray has really corrupted our thinking.

[Thinker]

God is not D&C.

*(D&C 84:22) Stumbling blocks between God & man, suggesting one cannot see God without it, yet JS did in his 1st vision.

*(D&C 104:55, 105:30, 111:4, 117:16) Justifying greed & “avenging me of mine enemies” & hoarding “secret parts” & “overthrow the moneychangers” by claiming to be God?

*(D&C 132:54,56, 64) Pretending God demand marital behavior of his wife, or else she will be destroyed.

*Supporting slavery: D&C 134:12

Ah, of course. You know better than God. Good luck with that.

You’re creating a new easier argument, then winning at your own made up argument (Strawman logical fallacy). Just because I’m stating that D & C is NOT God, does not mean I am pretending I’m omniscient.

Let’s get back to basics…



Who/what is God?
Intelligent Design, the kingdom of God within, TRUTH, love…

God is NOT D&C, nor even the OT or NT - which are all writings of fallible human becomings.

You are making a god of your own. You've decided what God would and would not say, instead of looking to accept whatever God says.

I’ll try to be more clear:
What you write is NOT God.
What Joseph Smith (& editors) wrote was NOT God.

Maybe we all have moments when God communicates with us, but we are not God nor are our fallible words and ideas. In fact, Artaexerxes, we are SUPPOSED to actively wrestle with old traditions of seeing God in dysfunctional ways, as Jacob did - & his name was changed to mean “he who wrestles with God.”

[Thinker]

God is NOT D&C, nor even the OT or NT - which are all writings of fallible human becomings.

The D&C is unique though, in that there are certain portions of certain revelations that are directly the words of Christ. It is Christ himself speaking. It is my opinion that these revelations are our surest foundation specifically because there are no human errors in them.

We each may worship how we may - at least in some countries.

As I just explained in a previous post, we are meant to “wrestle” with incorrect ideas of God, as Jacob did.

Christ is also another idea or form of Divinity that most people get completely wrong, partly because Christianity, including Mormonism, is based on corruption. Eg., Eusebius, father of Christian history & LIES…

“The Fifty Bibles of Constantine were Bibles in the original Greek language commissioned in 331 by Constantine I and prepared by Eusebius of Caesarea.They were made for the use of the Bishop of Constantinople in the growing number of churches in that very new city. Eusebius quoted the letter of commission in his Life of Constantine...”

Eusebius was Constantine’s trusted advisor, Father of church history, Catholic Bishop from 260-339 & had great influence in establishing the Bible - and admitted to lying and deception when it came to doctrine...

Eusebius said:
“It is an act of virtue to deceive & lie, when by such means the interest of the church might be promoted.”
&
“It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment.”

Follow Christ - not if he’s up in a pedestal a mile high…
https://youtu.be/-IejKIjC6hw

[TwochurchesOnly]

God is NOT D&C, nor even the OT or NT - which are all writings of fallible human becomings.

The D&C is unique though, in that there are certain portions of certain revelations that are directly the words of Christ. It is Christ himself speaking. It is my opinion that these revelations are our surest foundation specifically because there are no human errors in them.

We each may worship how we may - at least in some countries.

As I just explained in a previous post, we are meant to “wrestle” with incorrect ideas of God, as Jacob did.

Christ is also another idea or form of Divinity that most people get completely wrong, partly because Christianity, including Mormonism, is based on corruption. Eg., Eusebius, father of Christian history & LIES…

“The Fifty Bibles of Constantine were Bibles in the original Greek language commissioned in 331 by Constantine I and prepared by Eusebius of Caesarea.They were made for the use of the Bishop of Constantinople in the growing number of churches in that very new city. Eusebius quoted the letter of commission in his Life of Constantine...”

Eusebius was Constantine’s trusted advisor, Father of church history, Catholic Bishop from 260-339 & had great influence in establishing the Bible - and admitted to lying and deception when it came to doctrine...

Eusebius said:
“It is an act of virtue to deceive & lie, when by such means the interest of the church might be promoted.”
&
“It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment.”

Follow Christ - not if he’s up in a pedestal a mile high…
https://youtu.be/-IejKIjC6hw

"... act of virtue to deceive & lie.. when... interest of the church might be promoted ..."
Whoa-
That sounds like the church of what's happen'in
now

[gruden2.0]

Pretty much every religious organization that exists today has to be registered with national and local government officials. Without those registrations, the Church would not be able to fulfill its mission.

It's been registered since 06 April 1830 with Joseph Smith doing the registration with the state of New York.

No, they don't. They CHOOSE to because of the tax exempt status offered. That's the carrot dangled in front of them, as documented in the video. Constitutionally, freedom of religion is guaranteed. You've completely accepted the false premise.

Brigham Young incorporated the church, what Joseph had done before was simply set it up as a religious community. Brigham turned it into a corporate entity, which allowed the government to unincorporate it. Did the church suddenly cease to exist because of that? No.

Who is more powerful, Caesar or God? When you make statements like "the church would not be able to fulfill its mission" tells me you believe Caesar is more powerful and the Lord is unable to deliver. De-program yourself and have some faith. Jesus is mighty to save.

[Subcomandante]

Pretty much every religious organization that exists today has to be registered with national and local government officials. Without those registrations, the Church would not be able to fulfill its mission.

It's been registered since 06 April 1830 with Joseph Smith doing the registration with the state of New York.

No, they don't. They CHOOSE to because of the tax exempt status offered. That's the carrot dangled in front of them, as documented in the video. Constitutionally, freedom of religion is guaranteed. You've completely accepted the false premise.

Brigham Young incorporated the church, what Joseph had done before was simply set it up as a religious community. Brigham turned it into a corporate entity, which allowed the government to unincorporate it. Did the church suddenly cease to exist because of that? No.

Who is more powerful, Caesar or God? When you make statements like "the church would not be able to fulfill its mission" tells me you believe Caesar is more powerful and the Lord is unable to deliver. De-program yourself and have some faith. Jesus is mighty to save.

The Church follows the laws wherever it is planted. That includes those laws concerning religious associations in the various countries of the world.

Each one is different in scope.

[Thinker]

We each may worship how we may - at least in some countries.

As I just explained in a previous post, we are meant to “wrestle” with incorrect ideas of God, as Jacob did.

Christ is also another idea or form of Divinity that most people get completely wrong, partly because Christianity, including Mormonism, is based on corruption. Eg., Eusebius, father of Christian history & LIES…

“The Fifty Bibles of Constantine were Bibles in the original Greek language commissioned in 331 by Constantine I and prepared by Eusebius of Caesarea.They were made for the use of the Bishop of Constantinople in the growing number of churches in that very new city. Eusebius quoted the letter of commission in his Life of Constantine...”

Eusebius was Constantine’s trusted advisor, Father of church history, Catholic Bishop from 260-339 & had great influence in establishing the Bible - and admitted to lying and deception when it came to doctrine...

Eusebius said:
“It is an act of virtue to deceive & lie, when by such means the interest of the church might be promoted.”
&
“It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment.”

Follow Christ - not if he’s up in a pedestal a mile high…
https://youtu.be/-IejKIjC6hw

"... act of virtue to deceive & lie.. when... interest of the church might be promoted ..."
Whoa-
That sounds like the church of what's happen'in
now

It does!
I wouldn’t doubt that religion has been used for manipulating minds for a very long time.